RaiBlocks: A Feeless Distributed Cryptocurrency Network [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: RaiBlocks: A Feeless Distributed Cryptocurrency Network [pdf]

#41

Post by XR0CSWV3h3kZWg » Wed, Jan 03, 2018, 10:11 PM UTC

pgt wrote: post #31

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that I don't get is what is the incentive to vote on tx?

As I see it, if you don't vote the wrong president might win. Dirty txes jeopardise the asset value and you could be left with a tyrant in your chain who has even more voting stake. It's self-regulating in that way. But there may be another consistency issue I'm not aware of.

So there is a conflicting tx, your software is going to vote on it automatically. How do you pick which tx is the 'clean' one and which one is the 'dirty' one?

Re: RaiBlocks: A Feeless Distributed Cryptocurrency Network [pdf]

#42

Post by rapsey » Fri, Jan 05, 2018, 9:44 AM UTC

sova wrote: post #35

rapsey wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems like a glorified eventually consistent database synchronization algorithm. It is a form of eventually consistent databases. One that also solves the problem of nefarious actors trying to cheat.

It's more like a tsunami of Running Balances vying for event horizon. I'm not sure how this is ever supposed to be "consistent" unless you're talking about full historical nodes, in which case yes definitely, but non historical nodes are able to prune transactions after a while. Still a lot to dig out of this gem of a paper, any error in interpretation is my own.

You are using the wrong unit. In a database a unit is a key. In a blockchain a unit is an address. It is entirely consistent from this point of view.

Re: RaiBlocks: A Feeless Distributed Cryptocurrency Network [pdf]

#43

Post by pgt » Fri, Jan 05, 2018, 9:58 AM UTC

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg wrote: post #41

pgt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I see it, if you don't vote the wrong president might win. Dirty txes jeopardise the asset value and you could be left with a tyrant in your chain who has even more voting stake. It's self-regulating in that way. But there may be another consistency issue I'm not aware of.

So there is a conflicting tx, your software is going to vote on it automatically. How do you pick which tx is the 'clean' one and which one is the 'dirty' one?

When your node encounters a conflict (a fork), where two signed blocks have the same parent (double spend attempt), it creates a vote referencing the block and broadcasts it to the network.

The nodes vote and the weighted majority (>51%) is taken as the real fork. The weight of a node's vote is the sum of the balances all accounts that have named that node as its representative.

The key thing here is that when a fork or missing block occurs, only the accounts referenced in the transaction are affected. The rest of the network proceeds with processing transactions for other accounts.

The voting mechanism is to wait for 4 voting periods (1 minute total) and keep a cumulative tally of incoming votes from the other representatives. The most popular block wins majority and is kept. The other block is discarded.

Refer to page 4 (bottom right) of the whitepaper: https://raiblocks.net/media/RaiBlocks_Whitepaper__English.pd...

As far as I am concerned, this is a great design (if you buy into proof-of-stake, which I do).

Re: RaiBlocks: A Feeless Distributed Cryptocurrency Network [pdf]

#44

Post by pramttl » Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 10:12 AM UTC

touchofevil wrote: post #10

Mizza wrote: post #9

So - the currency is entirely "mined" and distributed already? And that period is over? So is a small handful of a few developers/early-adopters that are trying to sell off a currency that they already own in its entirety? Okay.

RaiBlocks was distributed using a captcha faucet. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1381323.msg14252334#...

The only people who would have solved the captcha faucet to get coins at virtually next to nothing value at that time would be the ones who believed in the project right from the start which to me is a fair distribution scheme. ICO based distribution is usually more greed driven. In this case the developers and team were more motivated in building a new innovative blockchain protocol as opposed to raising money by simply issuing ERC20 tokens. Speaks a lot about the project in itself. And the team has even succeeded in building a beautiful, disruptive scalable protocol and currency with no transaction fee. I've tried RaiBlocks and so far have been impressed.