MasterNode Scaling...
- Thread starter camosoul
- Start date
Arthyron
Active member
Probably not, but we are uniquely poised to be able to be the first to secure this technology for a public ledger system, and it would probably allow us to avoid having to change or upgrade our hardware for much longer since it would drastically reduce the amount of information we have to move while exponentially increasing our speed. It would go from making us a decent decentralized payment system to objectively better than extant payment systems in one fell swoop. Hashgraph is just objectively better than blockchain, I'm not really seeing a downside aside from the core devs having to do a lot of extra work, but I'm sure it's worthwhile work to be doing.
Dandy
Active member
I did some research on that Hashgraph technology and I must say I find it impressive. But I see a few issues with integrating it in Dash.
First, it's not open source (at least currently) and Dash is committed to being open source.
Second, it's not yet tested in really big networks, so I'm not certain if all potential vectors of attack are yet known.
Third, I don't see how it can be integrated into Dash structure, as it would require no miners and no masternodes.
First, it's not open source (at least currently) and Dash is committed to being open source.
Second, it's not yet tested in really big networks, so I'm not certain if all potential vectors of attack are yet known.
Third, I don't see how it can be integrated into Dash structure, as it would require no miners and no masternodes.
Arthyron
Active member
1. You're correct there. It's not Open Source, but the SDK is available for download: https://hashgraph.com/#sdk
2. It was recently integrated in to CULedger servicing the majority of the US Credit Unions beating out IBM's ledger technology, which is damned impressive considering they were less than a dozen people at the time. It's immune to the standard attack vectors cryptos commonly face that one can be immune to, and is so far the only asynchronous byzantine fault tolerant algorithm out there.
3. It doesn't *require* miners, but mining could be instituted for whatever reason if you wanted. Baird mentions mining or other intensive activities as being something that is incentivized as a barrier to entry in a public ledger system (in this video specifically:
I could be wrong, though, I'm not a software developer, just trying to piece together how the technologies could be integrated from what I've read. I really hope Dash could be the first, because whoever *does* successfully integrate it first is going to be a serious contender in the crypto space. I'm not sure blockchain-based technologies can really even compete with that...
billyjoeallen
Member
The primary function of mining is NOT to slow down the blockchain but to ensure SCARCITY and decentralized coin distribution. Speed is worthless if we get the economics wrong.
demo
Well-known member
Dash is not committed of being open source, because Evolution is (until now) closed source.
Furthermore there is a difference between the opensource and the free software. The free opensource software can be used by everyone, for commercial, for military or for any good or destructive purpose. While the restrictive opensource may be freely available for everyone, but for commercial or military purposes (or any other restriciton the author imposes) you may have to pay or get a license. The companies, the army, the government e.t.c. advertise and fund all these free opensource communities, which are full of spies. And the stupid brainwashed free_opensource developer slaves keep offering their job without restrictions, for the benefit of the evil.
Last edited:
Dandy
Active member
Dash Evolution will be open source once it's finished and operational and will not require licensing.
But we should seriously consider this Hashgraph or some similar technology. We should open another thread dedicated to discussing the Hashgraph. I must admit that now I want to learn as much as possible about it.
But we should seriously consider this Hashgraph or some similar technology. We should open another thread dedicated to discussing the Hashgraph. I must admit that now I want to learn as much as possible about it.
demo
Well-known member
Dash Evolution is not open source, because the definition of opensource requires this to be open from the very early stages.
demo
Well-known member
The first linux kernel was restrictive opensource (free for non commercial uses) and not free opensource. Then the agents contacted Linus.
But Linux was opensource for sure, because Linus gave the code at the very early stages. April 1991 Linus started working ALONE, August 1991 he gave the source to the opensource community. In the case of Dash evolution is not the same. Evolution is developed by a group of persons and not by a single developer, and it is still closed, although at least 1 year passed.
Last edited:
From what I have been able to determine, Hashgraph is not resistant to adversarial nodes, or to Sybil attacks. There's a reason it's only been implemented in closed applications so far, and there is no discussion of having an open or public version of it yet (or at all.)
If you are curious if masternodes can scale to data-center proportions, while still being supported by income from transactions, the answer is yes, even assuming we are stuck at today's hardware and we never get price or performance improvements while needing to cover the whole world's transnational capacity.
This was proven (with supporting evidence) by one of the folks in the BCH community.
http://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/17/terabyte-blocks-for-bitcoin-cash.html
If you are curious if masternodes can scale to data-center proportions, while still being supported by income from transactions, the answer is yes, even assuming we are stuck at today's hardware and we never get price or performance improvements while needing to cover the whole world's transnational capacity.
This was proven (with supporting evidence) by one of the folks in the BCH community.
http://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/17/terabyte-blocks-for-bitcoin-cash.html
bhkien
Well-known member
Very interesting. I think hashgraph can be used with masternode consensus mechanism.
Arthyron
Active member
...and how does it "get the economics right" and control the coin supply? By delaying the confirmation of blocks to the speed of a fraction of the total computing power and potential of the chain so that you don't have massive forking everywhere:
"as of October 2016 the Bitcoin network was running 1,900,000,000,000,000,000 — 1.9×1018, or 1.9 quintillion — hashes per second, or 1.14 x 1021 — 1.14 sextillion — per ten minutes. The difficulty is adjusted every two weeks — 2016 blocks — to keep the rate of solved blocks around one every ten minutes. The 1.14 sextillion calculations are thrown away,"
That's of course BTC rather than Dash, but that's generally how blockchains work. That's not how hashgraphs work, no wasted calculation, the network's speed and power is not reduced to make up for lossy algorithms.
Hashgraph is just a consensus/trust algorithm. Sybil attacks aren't really relevant to the Hashgraph in particular but to *all* ledger systems. Baird does describe various ways a ledger implementing the Hashgraph could foil Sybil attacks, though: http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/Swirlds-and-Sybil-Attacks.pdf
As for masternode hardware scaling...yeesh...even if it's plausible that's still such an absurd and unnecessary expenditure of energy and wasted computational power. Why not just implement a better algorithm and avoid all of that entirely? It makes no sense to continue that way other than "people are already invested in it."
I don't actually have a problem with changing the algorithm; but I won't hold my breath for Hashgraph specifically until I see them with a public release.
There are always trade-offs, and I don't see how you can make the barrier to entry for changing a ledger so much lower (i.e. more efficient) without simultaneously lowering it's resistance to having the ledger changed by an attacking party.
If it can be done, and it truly is a revolutionary new way of getting around the byzantine general's problem, then by all means research it; but like I said, I won't hold my breath.
Arthyron
Active member
Certainly it can be said that it's untested in a public ledger setting, but from a theoretical perspective, it's no *more* vulnerable than extant systems. The "barrier for entry" for changing the ledger is not lower, it's just tabulated differently, and there isn't wasted, unnecessary computation.
Arthyron
Active member
@Plateglassarmour -- They finally released their public ledger/cryptocurrency system: http://www.hederahashgraph.com They've got quite a lot of great features, technology, partners, integrations, and use cases already. Thankfully they're not gunning for the payment sector exclusively (the payment/currency aspect is moreso to secure the network and fuel Dapp operations), but it's pretty impressive.
billyjoeallen
Member
Masternode Hosting benefits from economies of scale. That's why services such as Splawik's host two thirds of the MNs already. This is a dangerous situation perilously close to being a single point of failure. With drastically greater hardware requirements, this problem will only get worse as the network grows.
I don't quite see how that data suggests that masternode sharing services host 2/3 of the Masternodes. Illuminate me.
thanks,