October 2015 Budget Proposal
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
It's not about 50 usd, it's about how we use budgets to fix problems. That one is a waste of money in its best case and doing damage in its worst case imo. Please read points #1 and #2 again, I'll try to rephrase:
1) paying people without having any way to prove they have done their work is a bad practice.
2) bloating blockchain for everyone because of providers inter-mixing while trying to help few single users to mix some is a bad solution. I guess there will be a lot of situations when user will have to wait for free space in queue because once providers done inter-mixing for one round there will be no one to mix with again for another "15 x liquidityprovider" blocks (liquidityprovider is 1-100). User will have to wait to get his chance to enter queue and it's a matter of luck again, there is no guarantee that mixing session will include any user inputs and not only provider inputs.
CoinJoin-like mixing really is a chicken-egg problem: the more users the better it works but to get it work well you need more users. Providers are "fake" users and they doesn't really help, they are just taking space of regular users in mixing sessions.
Jeztah
Active member
The providers should be recognized members of the community. Not rockstars, just known members..... trust/community and all that good stuff. Maybe screenshots or something sent to yikadee would suffice?
I agree. $300 doesn't really require insane levels of verification IMO.
Sub-Ether
Well-known member
Darksend is a key feature of Dash, in effect its relatively useless unless people want to wait 12 hours, this is only a temporary fix and also it could be a chicken and egg effect, as in the more people are using it , the more the liquidity providers are not needed.
The anonymizing could even be improved by having more coin mixing users, even though it would appear to be (slightly) centralized and less anon, it would not be the case as long as the general users outnumbered the liquidity providers.
I trust Evan's judgement on this and go with him on it.
The anonymizing could even be improved by having more coin mixing users, even though it would appear to be (slightly) centralized and less anon, it would not be the case as long as the general users outnumbered the liquidity providers.
I trust Evan's judgement on this and go with him on it.
What's this twelve hours you speak of? Eight rounds on 50 DASH took my client a week to complete!!!
jpr
Well-known member
The Hashes you quoted are wrong?
Foundation is d06d273364938cd2083d6f46264c05d38ff7b96c5705604e709f2b4a0e26e0e3
Electrum is 244bd3d4a71fa44d76d1299d6d9c45512cd9807f5a1387ca77f13025bf2a8dd6
In all respect and deference to you as a master programmer and someone who really knows the "under the hood" workings of dash... I have a response to your two points.
1. You say there isn't ANY way to monitor the LP. - if it is a small group and Yidakee is managing, then the Dash addresses could be shared with him weekly? Daily? He should be able to see some regular mixing starting with those addresses. Not efficient, but it is a way to provide some oversight. For other MN owners we cannot closely monitor the work being done on all the budget items... there is some level of trust required. A spot check is worthwhile.
2. It seems to me that the LP's would not be causing any more detrimental effects than 5 people mixing (@ level 16). Surely the overall architecture can handle this without serious long term damage (bloat)? I think everyone would like to see faster mixing even if it was short term (1 or 2 months). Maybe even worth it to have 10 LPs just to see what it feels like for mixers.
I do trust that you know more than others regarding the effects of this proposal... but would it really hurt to do a test run on the main net?
Respectfully, <- I mean it!
-PT
1) This will completely deanonymize users to anyone verifying providers work: knowing all of the addresses of providers it's trivial to find a trace of a real user. I would recommend to stop mixing at all in such periods of "providers collaboration" if you care about privacy. (yes, I know I'm paranoid sometimes :tongue
2) Sure, not that much harm and we can definitely handle it but it will be useless bloating almost all of the time imo.
To make it clear: I'm just pointing out some weakness of this proposal which seems obvious for me but it's completely fine if you find these arguments weak and want to try it. That's what this system was build for anyway - debates, voting and moving forward in either way mn owners choose to move :smile:
qwizzie
Well-known member
With regards to the New Proposal Item "Liquidity Providers - $300"
I raised a topic on this a few months ago on both the Bitcointalk forum and the Dashtalk forum
and got some good feedback about this back then (also from Evan on the Bitcointalk forum) so i'm not totally
surprised to see this budget proposal announced as even back then more people were playing
with the idea of setting this up through a budget proposal somehow and doing some testing of it.
Links :
https://dashtalk.org/threads/incentivizing-liquidity-providers.5752/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg11973594#msg11973594
I'm not sure if Evan is still testing the waters with regards to this specific proposal as i'm not seeing an actual Liquidity Providers
budget proposal yet to vote on but i would definetely support it.
I raised a topic on this a few months ago on both the Bitcointalk forum and the Dashtalk forum
and got some good feedback about this back then (also from Evan on the Bitcointalk forum) so i'm not totally
surprised to see this budget proposal announced as even back then more people were playing
with the idea of setting this up through a budget proposal somehow and doing some testing of it.
Links :
https://dashtalk.org/threads/incentivizing-liquidity-providers.5752/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg11973594#msg11973594
I'm not sure if Evan is still testing the waters with regards to this specific proposal as i'm not seeing an actual Liquidity Providers
budget proposal yet to vote on but i would definetely support it.
Is there a simple way to have the LP wallet to broadcast a message saying "I'm a LP, if you are a LP don't mix with me"?
if user_type = "regular_joe" then 0
else if user_type = "LP" then 1
Last edited by a moderator:
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
This is only a temporary stopgap measure, as per Evan. It would be nice to have more mixers, but it's not going to be an issue long enough for us to worry about it too much, IMO.
1) I guess this can be done potentially but will require a proto bump and ....
2) This will deanonymize regular users not just to "verifier" but to every LP (and basically to everyone else). The reason why mixing works is because coins/clients are indistinguishable. The reason why we use many rounds/mns is because single MN can say who participated and where coins went but it's highly unlikely to have many attacker's MNs mixing coins of the same user many rounds in a row (when number of MNs is pretty high). Marking LP is almost like sharing this info with everyone else on the network.
moli
Well-known member
You can mix your wallets now, then when the LPs start mixing their wallets, just stop until they are done, prob. a month later. :grin::grin::grin::grin:
alex-ru shared with me his idea of incentivizing mixing but he is too shy to present it in English (and I'm not) :grin:
Here's a general idea, feel free to rip it apart:
We can have a faucet-like script that will look for mixing txes and choose a winner address for example every 24 blocks (~1 hour) based on the block hash. Then it just should pay the winner some small amount. Like a normal wallet it can be refiled at any time to make it work (and potentially speed up mixing).
Pros:
- everyone who is mixing funds can get reward, not only the "chosen ones" (aka LP)
- no damage for anonymity
- it's verifiable: all info is in blockchain, script should be open sourced
Cons:
- too many people mixing in order to get reward, this could bloat blockchain (this issue can be mitigated by winner payment being automatically adjusted based on number of mixing txes/inputs).
I have to admit I really like that "lottery" way... Can't find big issues with it so far though I'm not quite sure about unlinkability of winners' rewards.
Pinging anonymity guru Aswan and script gurus moocowmoo and elbereth to join discussion of this idea :wink:
Here's a general idea, feel free to rip it apart:
We can have a faucet-like script that will look for mixing txes and choose a winner address for example every 24 blocks (~1 hour) based on the block hash. Then it just should pay the winner some small amount. Like a normal wallet it can be refiled at any time to make it work (and potentially speed up mixing).
Pros:
- everyone who is mixing funds can get reward, not only the "chosen ones" (aka LP)
- no damage for anonymity
- it's verifiable: all info is in blockchain, script should be open sourced
Cons:
- too many people mixing in order to get reward, this could bloat blockchain (this issue can be mitigated by winner payment being automatically adjusted based on number of mixing txes/inputs).
I have to admit I really like that "lottery" way... Can't find big issues with it so far though I'm not quite sure about unlinkability of winners' rewards.
Pinging anonymity guru Aswan and script gurus moocowmoo and elbereth to join discussion of this idea :wink:
I think this is a huge con.
If the system were to deterministically select one of the previous n-blocks of mixing transactions for payment, chances are high people would try to game the choice by mixing with multiple wallets to create more 'tickets'. I don't see how this could be detected using the blockchain alone.
And I'm not following you on 'adjusted based on number of txs/inputs' -- Don't all wallets DS the same?
But, if we overlook this, sure it would be pretty straightforward to script.
---
DS has a different issue right now, coinmine.pl (or another pool) is not including ds denominations into blocks. They, or them, are running an older version of the daemon without the priority patch. Today one of my DS denoms took five hours to make it's way into a block. :/
M
MangledBlue
Guest
I'm gonna let you all vet this.... - watching on the side-lines -
node
this is all good stuff....
From time to time - Evan makes a statement and gets kicked in the dick for it - I think this might be the 3rd time, not really keeping track but it feels like 3....
I understand every bodies point - I do -
but
Is there an under-lying premise to the LP servers??
Is Evan testing something that nobody knows about??
...who knows??
I personally don't see where a single month of LP services can hurt.....
1 - It'll give us some vague numbers to work with - kinda reference node like - but a reference node(s) for MIXING.... [I get it]?? U?
2 - It's 1 month and approx. $300.00 in DASH that would have other-wise been burnt - I understand this is the LAST thing anybody wants, >>> want not waste - I get it - lame
3 - little buzzed right now....REALLY, I had more ideas - lol - just can't type that fast to keep up with my brain...
4- - > 53 needs to be fixed and this will give ME something to do be-sides >> get to the back of the line when my MN is dying every 1.5 - 2 days - ugh
right then....
Karie on...
node
this is all good stuff....
From time to time - Evan makes a statement and gets kicked in the dick for it - I think this might be the 3rd time, not really keeping track but it feels like 3....
I understand every bodies point - I do -
but
Is there an under-lying premise to the LP servers??
Is Evan testing something that nobody knows about??
...who knows??
I personally don't see where a single month of LP services can hurt.....
1 - It'll give us some vague numbers to work with - kinda reference node like - but a reference node(s) for MIXING.... [I get it]?? U?
2 - It's 1 month and approx. $300.00 in DASH that would have other-wise been burnt - I understand this is the LAST thing anybody wants, >>> want not waste - I get it - lame
3 - little buzzed right now....REALLY, I had more ideas - lol - just can't type that fast to keep up with my brain...
4- - > 53 needs to be fixed and this will give ME something to do be-sides >> get to the back of the line when my MN is dying every 1.5 - 2 days - ugh
right then....
Karie on...
By "number of mixing txes/inputs" I meant "sum of number of mixing txes/inputs in the last 24 blocks". So the more mixing txes happen (or the larger they are) the less is reward i.e. it should balance itself more "tickets" -> more collaterals to pay but smaller reward. Does it make sense?
moli
Well-known member
I'm lost. How do you reward someone for mixing? Where does the reward money come from? Might as well get rid some of the fees, esp. the collateral fees and that would be our reward?