v0.10.15.x Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.
qwizzie said:
Good enough for me... i think we should just proceed with bringing v0.15 to mainnet,
including the implementation of those few ubernodes that make the MN payments more reliable
and brainstorm about how we can make this all better in a seperate post here on darkcointalk

edit : assuming we consider v0.15 bugfree at the moment .. was my latest debug.log / wallet any help Evan?
there were some 0.1 fees in there although that specific client was acting a bit weird from the start.
Click to expand...

Yeah, looks bug free. You were the only one charged and your client froze up but was still in the process of anonymizing. I'm OK with users getting hit with collateral changes rarely, they can actually get them back if they wanted to. Plus they're only 0.1DRK. If you can anonymize 10000DRK and get hit with one, you paid about 50 cents for the whole process, which is more than fair.
 
eduffield said:
Yeah, looks bug free. You were the only one charged and your client froze up but was still in the process of anonymizing. I'm OK with users getting hit with collateral changes rarely, they can actually get them back if they wanted to. Plus they're only 0.1DRK. If you can anonymize 10000DRK and get hit with one, you paid about 50 cents for the whole process, which is more than fair.
Click to expand...
Is this collateral fee in place more likely to protect Darksend from being DoSed?
 
eduffield said:
Yeah, looks bug free. You were the only one charged and your client froze up but was still in the process of anonymizing. I'm OK with users getting hit with collateral changes rarely, they can actually get them back if they wanted to. Plus they're only 0.1DRK. If you can anonymize 10000DRK and get hit with one, you paid about 50 cents for the whole process, which is more than fair.
Click to expand...
This is great now that 1DRK is $2.10, but what is going to happen when 1DRK is $100.00? $1,000? A person or business that wants to anonymize small amounts and gets hit with a $100.00 collateral charge is not going to be happy... :sad: I'm sure you will revisit those fees as DRK increases in value.:grin:
 
TaoOfSatoshi said:
This is great now that 1DRK is $2.10, but what is going to happen when 1DRK is $100.00? $1,000? A person or business that wants to anonymize small amounts and gets hit with a $100.00 collateral charge is not going to be happy... :sad: I'm sure you will revisit those fees as DRK increases in value.:grin:
Click to expand...
Yes, i think he will... for now we need to get the system hardened and secure :)
 
eduffield, The problem is that we need a List that is accessible to all Node and that is tampered proof.

We already have that "list" its the blockchain!

What can't we "mine" the data we need from the blockchain?

1) get all MN address, total number "N" and time "active minutes" (not sure where that info is stored ).
2) compare all addresses to the "N" of last paid MN (blockchain info).
3) payment:

MN is not on that list and "active minutes" > 12 hours (or less??).

I'm not a programmer, just brain storming.
 
eduffield said:
Uber nodes run the exact same software with a special private key that enables them to sign messages that tell the network who to pay. Without the central authority, miners can pay whoever they want as the payee. The masternodes can't function as the authority, because they could exploit the code and fork the network.

It doesn't have to be this way forever, it's just a good solution to support the growth of the network. I think the best overall solution is the voting mechanism that was blockchain based (RC3). To fix that system requires that we update all miners software (CPU, GPU, etc), all stratum pools and all daemons. But it would be completely decentralized and pretty much perfect.
Click to expand...
I have few questions:
1. Is that "special private key" shared by uber nodes or is it generated for each one independently like "masternode genkey"?
2. Where is that functionality in code, can your give a code line link pls?
 
eduffield said:
Uber nodes run the exact same software with a special private key that enables them to sign messages that tell the network who to pay. Without the central authority, miners can pay whoever they want as the payee. The masternodes can't function as the authority, because they could exploit the code and fork the network.
Click to expand...

Evan, please forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand how you can expect a subset of masternodes can function as an authority in the case of InstantX when at the same time you say that they cannot be trusted in case of signing messages for masternode payments. Instead in the latter case we have to trust a few (fixed?? centralized???) uber nodes? Santissima, maybe I'm missing something, but at this stage I have to say, come on and don't rush this. You can do better than that.
 
DrkMiner said:
eduffield, The problem is that we need a List that is accessible to all Node and that is tampered proof.

We already have that "list" its the blockchain!

What can't we "mine" the data we need from the blockchain?

1) get all MN address, total number "N" and time "active minutes" (not sure where that info is stored ).
2) compare all addresses to the "N" of last paid MN (blockchain info).
3) payment:

MN is not on that list and "active minutes" > 12 hours (or less??).

I'm not a programmer, just brain storming.
Click to expand...

The masternode list isn't always in perfect sync across the network. So if a node is on one clients list and not on another, the network would fork.
 
Hi everyone,

As other people pointed out, the inclusion of 'ubernodes' creates a new argument for trolls that that already attack DRK regarding centralisation. I agree however that this argument can be mitigated by thoroughly explaining that it doesn't endanger the network's security at all.

Nevertheless, I'd like to point out another recurrent attack on DRK that we also need to prepare against, that is besides centralisation, that DRK was pre-mined and essentially benefited its creator. Now, I know this 'pre-mined' attack is stupid, but I think it will be encouraged by the addition of these 'ubernodes', just like the 'centralisation' argument. The problem is: who is to decide the 'trusted members of the community' that get to run the ubernodes? I'm sure you're one of them Evan, and I won't argue against it, but we need to see that trolls will probably claim that it gives you even greater power and possibilities to fool the system in your advantage. Now, this is wrong in the sense that everybody would be able to detect your treachery, but still, although I trust you with all my heart, I shouldn't need to trust you to use Darkcoin.

More generally, what would happen if something happened to the trusted members of the community or if they simply decided to stop with darkcoin and go raise sheeps in Wales?

tl;dr: The solution with ubernodes isn't viable indefinitely, hence it is of vital importance to state in the public release that this is a temporary method and will become fully decentralised in the future.
 
Cofresí said:
Evan, please forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand how you can expect a subset of masternodes can function as an authority in the case of InstantX when at the same time you say that they cannot be trusted in case of signing messages for masternode payments. Instead in the latter case we have to trust a few (fixed?? centralized???) uber nodes? Santissima, maybe I'm missing something, but at this stage I have to say, come on and don't rush this. You can do better than that.
Click to expand...
I'm obviously not Evan, but I think the point is that InstantX can perfectly rely on a randomly subset of RANDOMLY selected masternodes, while being extremely expensive to compromise just like Darksend.

On the other hand, the point of relying on ubernodes would be to actually fight that randomness and get deterministic masternode payments. Which has nothing to do with the network's security.
 
Dr.Crypto said:
Hi everyone,

As other people pointed out, the inclusion of 'ubernodes' creates a new argument for trolls that that already attack DRK regarding centralisation. I agree however that this argument can be mitigated by thoroughly explaining that it doesn't endanger the network's security at all.

Nevertheless, I'd like to point out another recurrent attack on DRK that we also need to prepare against, that is besides centralisation, that DRK was pre-mined and essentially benefited its creator. Now, I know this 'pre-mined' attack is stupid, but I think it will be encouraged by the addition of these 'ubernodes', just like the 'centralisation' argument. The problem is: who is to decide the 'trusted members of the community' that get to run the ubernodes? I'm sure you're one of them Evan, and I won't argue against it, but we need to see that trolls will probably claim that it gives you even greater power and possibilities to fool the system in your advantage. Now, this is wrong in the sense that everybody would be able to detect your treachery, but still, although I trust you with all my heart, I shouldn't need to trust you to use Darkcoin.

More generally, what would happen if something happened to the trusted members of the community or if they simply decided to stop with darkcoin and go raise sheeps in Wales?

tl;dr: The solution with ubernodes isn't viable indefinitely, hence it is of vital importance to state in the public release that this is a temporary method and will become fully decentralised in the future.
Click to expand...
Bitcoin was pre-mined, Darkcoin was insta-mined. I think if Evan wanted just profits for himself he wouldn't have stayed on this project this long. Maybe he's crazy for an idealism of helping people to have freedom and privacy, who knows :grin:
 
moli said:
Bitcoin was pre-mined, Darkcoin was insta-mined. I think if Evan wanted just profits for himself he wouldn't have stayed on this project this long. Maybe he's crazy for an idealism of helping people to have freedom and privacy, who knows :grin:
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that, and as I said, I fully trust Evan's skills and honesty.
The point is that trolls gotta troll, and we've got to be prepared because ubernodes gives them new arguments.
 
Dr.Crypto said:
I'm not arguing that, and as I said, I fully trust Evan's skills and honesty.
The point is that trolls gotta troll, and we've got to be prepared because ubernodes gives them new arguments.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think Dr.Crypto is saying we have to be wary of the public's perception
 
moli said:
Evan said it won't be this way forever: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/v0-15-testing.2611/page-28#post-25405
I think he needs to buy time to get to the next step...
Click to expand...
I know, I've read that :)
All I was saying in my initial post is that there is a conceptual difference between what is planned to be done, and how it is actually perceived by external observers (including trolls).
As the next release is to come very soon, I thought it wasn't too early to talk about PR.
 
Dr.Crypto said:
I know, I've read that :)
All I was saying in my initial post is that there is a conceptual difference between what is planned to be done, and how it is actually perceived by external observers (including trolls).
As the next release is to come very soon, I thought it wasn't too early to talk about PR.
Click to expand...
Yes, I totally agree with you and understand your concern. What I don't understand is I've seen so many people want their crypto to be perfectly trustless, yet want their MN payment to be like banking savings interest... I think it takes more than just "income" incentive, more like "idealism" incentive, to be a MN owner, someone who understands if you want this system to be trustless, you gotta give up the banking idea in mind... I don't know.. Just what I've seen.... And then there're exploiters, hackers, crackers... and we have to secure the system... I'm sure Evan will come up with the perfect decentralized system somehow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top