3 ms·

Why exactly aren't you fine with that? You run a node and you decide which nodes you want to connect your node to. If such a node gets a Tx it will be relayed t

by noxer 7y ago

Why exactly aren't you fine with that? You run a node and you decide which nodes you want to connect your node to. If such a node gets a Tx it will be relayed to your node and the other way around. It's not like your node would copy their validation and just agree with what they agree. Every node always enforces all the rules. So your node checks if a Tx is valid anyway and if you get invalid Tx from a node you trust it wont make your node accept that Tx. But it should make you overthink whether that node is trustable. Trusting nodes is a "reliability rating thing" it doesn't really affect the consensus decisions because Tx are either valid or aren't. The consensus that must be found is only about the order of Tx. If the majority of the validators say Tx X was first and therefore Tx Y is invalid (attempt to double spend) but your node got Tx Y first then its totally fine to flip the order of these two since both are valid just not at the same time. "Voting" which nodes you trust means you trust them to be reliable/fast and not controlled by a single entity or controllable by a single entity (gov.) So with a clever trust list you help decentralize the network and help that the network runs on the most reliable nodes. You don't change the rules or allow other to change the rules. You can even make mistakes. You can choose some nodes that turn out to be not reliable/fast or even actively malicious. It has no fatal effect and can be corrected as soon as it is detected. Only if everyone would select over 20% "bad" nodes it could halt the consensus. Still would not allow a single false Tx or a single Tx reverse. It would just stop until some nodes remove the bad actors form their trust list. As your quotes says "...run by different parties who are expected to behave honestly most of the time." The "trust" you give them is very very very limited.

keymone 7y ago
> Why exactly aren't you fine with that? because i don't want to trust anyone. XRP is not trustless or decentralized enough. > Every node always enforces all the rules. So your node checks if a Tx is valid anyway and if you get invalid Tx from a node you trust it wont make your node accept that Tx. as i said - validity is trivial. i asked you to not bring it up but you did anyway. > majority of the validators say Tx X was first "majority of validators" is not something you can reliably even define for yourself because you don't know which parties have colluded with each other. this consensus model fails on every layer. > Only if everyone would select over 20% "bad" nodes it could halt the consensus. i don't care how small you think this problem is. i want to never rely on having to select "correct" validators to ensure my financial future isn't at risk. i want universally objective measure by which i can compare competing chains. if your protocol doesn't provide it without having to trust third parties - it's a failure.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > because i don't want to trust anyone. XRP is not trustless or decentralized enough. And yet you trust the Internet to get packets to HN. You trust the government to administer the roads, the schools, the army, the police, the firefighters, and so on for days. The FDA to verify your drugs, Agriculture to verify your food. You trust so many people every single day to make it through from breakfast to dinner, and yet this is where you draw the line for some reason you can't really quantify.
  - keymone 7y ago
    What you’re saying is basically “things are horrible so why don’t you just bend over and let somebody fuck you in this other aspect as well”. Yes, that’s where I draw the line today. Governments used to challenge our right to free speech and even right to live free - we don’t accept that anymore. In my opinion it’s time to untangle governments and money. You’re free to disagree of course and you’re free to entrust all sorts of strangers to make all sorts of decisions in your life, just don’t expect others to do the same.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      > You’re free to disagree of course and you’re free to entrust all sorts of strangers to make all sorts of decisions in your life, just don’t expect others to do the same. You already do though. You're just entrusting a different set of un-elected un-accountable strangers with no economics degrees with your monetary policy -- the Bitcoin Core team. And the PRC where over 50% of the hash power is located. They could change the number of Bitcoin on issue, the rate, the block reward rate, anything, with zero recourse on your part. Your government is accountable to you, the core team, to themselves. If you tell me they wont then you're trusting them not to unless you can point to a math equation preventing them, I guess. You're describing a libertarian pipedream that can't exist.
      - keymone 7y ago
        > You're just entrusting a different set of un-elected un-accountable strangers with no economics degrees with your monetary policy -- the Bitcoin Core team no i don't. they just happen to maintain the reference implementation. > And the PRC where over 50% of the hash power is located no trust involved here either. > They could change the number of Bitcoin on issue, the rate, the block reward rate, anything, with zero recourse on your part. no they can't and the fact that you think this means you have zero understanding of how bitcoin works. > If you tell me they wont i'm telling you they can't. bitcoin is defined by consensus rules and releasing a binary that breaks those rules or mining blocks that break those rules doesn't change bitcoin.

by noxer 7y ago

keymone 7y ago

> Why exactly aren't you fine with that? because i don't want to trust anyone. XRP is not trustless or decentralized enough. > Every node always enforces all the rules. So your node checks if a Tx is valid anyway and if you get invalid Tx from a node you trust it wont make your node accept that Tx. as i said - validity is trivial. i asked you to not bring it up but you did anyway. > majority of the validators say Tx X was first "majority of validators" is not something you can reliably even define for yourself because you don't know which parties have colluded with each other. this consensus model fails on every layer. > Only if everyone would select over 20% "bad" nodes it could halt the consensus. i don't care how small you think this problem is. i want to never rely on having to select "correct" validators to ensure my financial future isn't at risk. i want universally objective measure by which i can compare competing chains. if your protocol doesn't provide it without having to trust third parties - it's a failure.

arcticbull 7y ago
> because i don't want to trust anyone. XRP is not trustless or decentralized enough. And yet you trust the Internet to get packets to HN. You trust the government to administer the roads, the schools, the army, the police, the firefighters, and so on for days. The FDA to verify your drugs, Agriculture to verify your food. You trust so many people every single day to make it through from breakfast to dinner, and yet this is where you draw the line for some reason you can't really quantify.
- keymone 7y ago
  What you’re saying is basically “things are horrible so why don’t you just bend over and let somebody fuck you in this other aspect as well”. Yes, that’s where I draw the line today. Governments used to challenge our right to free speech and even right to live free - we don’t accept that anymore. In my opinion it’s time to untangle governments and money. You’re free to disagree of course and you’re free to entrust all sorts of strangers to make all sorts of decisions in your life, just don’t expect others to do the same.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > You’re free to disagree of course and you’re free to entrust all sorts of strangers to make all sorts of decisions in your life, just don’t expect others to do the same. You already do though. You're just entrusting a different set of un-elected un-accountable strangers with no economics degrees with your monetary policy -- the Bitcoin Core team. And the PRC where over 50% of the hash power is located. They could change the number of Bitcoin on issue, the rate, the block reward rate, anything, with zero recourse on your part. Your government is accountable to you, the core team, to themselves. If you tell me they wont then you're trusting them not to unless you can point to a math equation preventing them, I guess. You're describing a libertarian pipedream that can't exist.
    - keymone 7y ago
      > You're just entrusting a different set of un-elected un-accountable strangers with no economics degrees with your monetary policy -- the Bitcoin Core team no i don't. they just happen to maintain the reference implementation. > And the PRC where over 50% of the hash power is located no trust involved here either. > They could change the number of Bitcoin on issue, the rate, the block reward rate, anything, with zero recourse on your part. no they can't and the fact that you think this means you have zero understanding of how bitcoin works. > If you tell me they wont i'm telling you they can't. bitcoin is defined by consensus rules and releasing a binary that breaks those rules or mining blocks that break those rules doesn't change bitcoin.