I'm not quite sure if I'm right about it, but I can't then realize what they're running witnesses for if it's that disadvantageous? I can't believe in they're just bunch of altruists, aren't they? How many witnesses have been replaced with new ones that way since the project got started, btw?
Regarding to the witnesses, I'm not going to argue... For now, I'm still have my own opinion about the risks. I agree that community can hard-fork etc, but they, unfortunately, won't turn the transactions back if that collapse had suddenly happened. I also agree that new witnesses have to grow 1 by 1. But I disagree to the point that old witnesses have to approve new ones to add... and that personal identity thing really has to play any significant role in consensus. I will learn more about it.
Thanks a lot, anyway.
Obviously, one shows interest to become a Order Provider when they are interested that the network keeps running (transactions become stable). They have also pledged that if they lose interest then they let the community know, so they could be replaced without downtime. So far, none of the new Order Providers have been replaced, but each new Order Provider has been replacing the old founder's address with the new Order Provider's address.
Order Providers that are being used by users in almost real-time, can be seen from there
https://stats.obyte.org/witnesses.phpCandidate interviews and poll result can be seen from there
https://medium.com/obyte/decentralization/homeNot all candidates had polls, some earlier candidates were only chosen when stats.obyte.org showed support for new candidate, but even with polls, Order Providers replaced their witnesses when users replaced theirs in the app.
What transactions need to be turned back? Order Providers ARE NOT gatekeepers who mark one transaction valid or other invalid - all full nodes do that and they all follow the same rules in the code (if you change the rules, you hard-fork). It does not matter whose transactions they choose parent because it will cause all the other transactions below it to become stable eventually too.
There is no re-orgs or rollbacks, once certain part of the DAG is stable then all those transactions are confirmed, but it's not because somebody marked them confirmed - they are confirmed because order of transactions in that part of the DAG cannot change anymore (majority of Order Providers have posted and cannot have best parent in that part of DAG).
None of these rules have picked randomly, they are there for reason:
* fixed number of Order Providers - whether it's 6, 12, 24 or 100, it would be so much more difficult if each user could have variable number of Order Providers and it would have 0 benefits.
* 12 Order Providers - that's a number big enough to avoid failures, but small enough so users could remember those entitites. there can be unlimited amount of Order Providers on the network because each user can change one in their list if the 11 other stay the same as others.
* publicly known entities for Order Providers - if they are not identified, then attacker could spawn hundreds of Order Providers and announce hundreds of candidates. if majority of even 200 total Order Providers are by single attacker, you have Sybil attack.
* if there is Sybil attack or majority of different Order Providers collude then they can either do a invalid transaction, which will stop the network (unless there is hard-fork to change that rule) or just stop running the nodes (no more stable part of DAG) or not replacing Order Providers based on how users signal them.
In a way, it has similar balance like there is between Bitcoin full nodes and Bitcoin miners. Both have to run the same software, because if they don't then once produces blocks to full nodes, which nobody else but them run, but at the same time full nodes with different software doesn't get any blocks because nobody runs miner for that fork.
On Obyte, there is no middlemen who control what can go to block, but Order Providers and have the same relationship with users, one can't be without the other. Neither of them have the absolute control.
They have also pledged that if they lose interest then they let the community know
That's all they have given as a pledge? Why they have to be interested in witnessing? What are their independent benefits from that?
Neither of them have the absolute control.
They are called Order Providers, right? They're designed to keep an order. Disorder means devastating for the network stability the utilizing which is impossible without. For that reason they must be independent but they aren't by now, right? They might will have got independent in unknown time in the future... Their amount is 13 and 6 of them represent Tony personally, right?
So, I'm not going to rant any more. Sorry, if I bothered you.
You guys have done a great work, but seems like there is a fundamental mistake in those rules. I'm not going neither to strict them nor to teach you. You know better about true decentralization.
