3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        It’s the politics. If the core team decided to change the parameters of bitcoin at worst everyone would fall in line and at best it’d fork and you’d lose a whole lot of value.
        keymone 7y ago
        It’d be a fork either way and that’s the point. Still no trust involved.
noxer 7y ago
Trust can not be removed it can only be spread. If you use BTC you also have to trust that most miners/pools act honest. You can't even choose which miners you think are trust able. You have to just hope (trust) that at least 50% are honest an cant be compromised at the same time. How is that any better than (optional, yes completely optional) choosing trusted Nodes? You can very reliably define the "majority of validators" its defined as 80% it doesn't matter if or how many validators colluded. If Tx X was actually first but Tx Y reaches majority this simply means that either Tx X was not relayed fast enough to all the nodes OR it could mean that a lot colluded nodes voted for Tx Y. Either way the consensus can "fail" because of technical reasons (slow relaying) or "fail" trough colluded nodes both "fails" do not lead to changed rules. No invalid Tx can happen this way. No Tx can be reversed this way. The whole situation can only ever happen if 2 Tx are valid signed but try to send the same funds (double spend attempt) and are inserted into the network nearly at the same time. Only one Tx will be processed. Enough colluded validators could effect which one but its completely irrelevant. Who cares which Tx of a double spend attempt is processed? If you try to pay 2 persons with 100 bucks each by placing just one 100 dollar bill on the table in front of them, you don't know which one is gonna pick it up but clearly you have not fooled anyone into thinking you payed both. >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. You completely misunderstood, you don't have to choose "correct" validators to make it work correctly it can only work correctly! Bad validators don't "hurt" they just don't contribute. Assuming 50% of all validators are bad and suddenly start censoring Txs or reordering non final Txs that would have the same effect as if these validators would just shut down. It does NOT produce a wrong output. Worst case is that the network halts and that is wanted because if 50% go offline at the same time there is probably something seriously wrong like a global internet collapse. Something humans have to fix first before resuming. >i want universally objective measure by which i can compare competing chains. By "universally objective measure" you mean you choose the longer chain? Fully aware that this can later change? Whats point? Having just one chain that is final doesn't need "universally objective measure" doesn't need comparing and makes final a binary option instead of "final" but better wait some more blocks to be sure.
- keymone 7y ago

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.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      It’s the politics. If the core team decided to change the parameters of bitcoin at worst everyone would fall in line and at best it’d fork and you’d lose a whole lot of value.
      - keymone 7y ago
        It’d be a fork either way and that’s the point. Still no trust involved.

noxer 7y ago

Trust can not be removed it can only be spread. If you use BTC you also have to trust that most miners/pools act honest. You can't even choose which miners you think are trust able. You have to just hope (trust) that at least 50% are honest an cant be compromised at the same time. How is that any better than (optional, yes completely optional) choosing trusted Nodes? You can very reliably define the "majority of validators" its defined as 80% it doesn't matter if or how many validators colluded. If Tx X was actually first but Tx Y reaches majority this simply means that either Tx X was not relayed fast enough to all the nodes OR it could mean that a lot colluded nodes voted for Tx Y. Either way the consensus can "fail" because of technical reasons (slow relaying) or "fail" trough colluded nodes both "fails" do not lead to changed rules. No invalid Tx can happen this way. No Tx can be reversed this way. The whole situation can only ever happen if 2 Tx are valid signed but try to send the same funds (double spend attempt) and are inserted into the network nearly at the same time. Only one Tx will be processed. Enough colluded validators could effect which one but its completely irrelevant. Who cares which Tx of a double spend attempt is processed? If you try to pay 2 persons with 100 bucks each by placing just one 100 dollar bill on the table in front of them, you don't know which one is gonna pick it up but clearly you have not fooled anyone into thinking you payed both. >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. You completely misunderstood, you don't have to choose "correct" validators to make it work correctly it can only work correctly! Bad validators don't "hurt" they just don't contribute. Assuming 50% of all validators are bad and suddenly start censoring Txs or reordering non final Txs that would have the same effect as if these validators would just shut down. It does NOT produce a wrong output. Worst case is that the network halts and that is wanted because if 50% go offline at the same time there is probably something seriously wrong like a global internet collapse. Something humans have to fix first before resuming. >i want universally objective measure by which i can compare competing chains. By "universally objective measure" you mean you choose the longer chain? Fully aware that this can later change? Whats point? Having just one chain that is final doesn't need "universally objective measure" doesn't need comparing and makes final a binary option instead of "final" but better wait some more blocks to be sure.

keymone 7y ago