v0.10.15.x Testing

[Dr.Crypto]

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.

 

[Dr.Crypto]

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.

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.

 

[moli]

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.

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

 

[Dr.Crypto]

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

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.

 

[moli]

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.

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...

 

[bertlebbert]

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.

Yeah I think Dr.Crypto is saying we have to be wary of the public's perception

 

[Dr.Crypto]

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...

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.

 

[TsuyokuNaritai]

FFS can we at least not call them ubernodes! They need to sound as insignificant, non-threatening and non-central-powerish as possible, not like Death Stars orbiting a giant Eye of Sauron.

 

[moli]

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.

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.

 

[oblox]

FFS can we at least not call them ubernodes! They need to sound as insignificant, non-threatening and non-central-powerish as possible, not like Death Stars orbiting a giant Eye of Sauron.

Reference nodes.

 

[Stealth923]

+1 Reference nodes from here on out

 

[TsuyokuNaritai]

Reference nodes.

Better if it was something that screams the reasons why it's not really centralization, that it only affects masternode payments and is in no way in possession of special powers that control the user's transactions themselves.

 

[thelonecrouton]

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.

I'm with Cofresi on this, I'm not understanding what the difference is. Fundamentally it's the same thing as far as I can see.

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.

I'm not following you here. There have been several suggestions for getting even MN payments that don't involve static reference nodes. It boils down to maintaining a distributed list across as many nodes as is deemed necessary. If the entire network is too unwieldy to achieve perfect consensus every block, pick a smaller number and have them do it. LIke, well, reference nodes, just different ones each time.

 

[oblox]

Better if it was something that screams the reasons why it's not really centralization, that it only affects masternode payments and is in no way in possession of special powers that control the user's transactions themselves.

NINCALSP's

"Node Is Not Centralized And Lacks Special Powers"

;-)

 

[eduffield]

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.

Here's the gist:

1.) InstantX - A set of deterministic masternodes sign a message, they broadcast a message, which locks a transaction. A miner mines a block, which is a single entity and respects that transaction lock.
2.) Masternode Payments - A set of deterministic masternodes sign a message, they broadcast a message, which locks a block to a specific payee. In this case the whole network must have 1 specific payee, otherwise there is a blockchain fork. If half the network thinks the payee is one masternode and half thinks it's the other, there's a real problem. Blocks will be rejected by half the network and they'll start working on their own chain.

TLDR; One relies on mining in the end, one doesn't.

 

[eduffield]

Reference nodes.

+1 Changed the announcement

 

[oblox]

Sweet, pen'd onyx and reference nodes. I need to name some more shit.

 

[thelonecrouton]

Damn, so I'm too late with Nice Innocent Peripheral Protocol Layer Extremely Safe?

 

[oblox]

Damn, so I'm too late with Nice Innocent Peripheral Protocol Layer Extremely Safe?

No one is ever late with nipples.

 

[Cofresí]

Here's the gist:

1.) InstantX - A set of deterministic masternodes sign a message, they broadcast a message, which locks a transaction. A miner mines a block, which is a single entity and respects that transaction lock.
2.) Masternode Payments - A set of deterministic masternodes sign a message, they broadcast a message, which locks a block to a specific payee. In this case the whole network must have 1 specific payee, otherwise there is a blockchain fork. If half the network thinks the payee is one masternode and half thinks it's the other, there's a real problem. Blocks will be rejected by half the network and they'll start working on their own chain.

Ok, thanks for trying to explain. So if I understand correctly the difference is that in 1.) only a single entity need to respect it, while in 2.) the whole network needs a consensus and we have a byzantine generals problem all over again. Still can't follow you completely. Would need to study the code.

Fair enough. But why the heck do the reference nodes need to be static? What would be so bad if the reference nodes were dynamic like the last 10 winning masternodes?

 

[eduffield]

Ok, thanks for trying to explain. So if I understand correctly the difference is that in 1.) only a single entity need to respect it, while in 2.) the whole network needs a consensus and we have a byzantine generals problem all over again. Still can't follow you completely. Would need to study the code.

Fair enough. But why the heck do the reference nodes need to be static? What would be so bad if the reference nodes were dynamic like the last 10 winning masternodes?

Dynamic reference nodes could attack the network by delayed the message till the last millisecond it would be accepted. Then half the network is correct and half is set on the wrong node. Fork.

We'll fix it later. I'm all about incremental improvements. This is a decent improve upon the existing system, but it doesn't fix everything.

 

[thelonecrouton]

Onwards then! We can't stop here. This is bat country.

 

[HinnomTX]

Dynamic reference nodes could attack the network by delayed the message till the last millisecond it would be accepted. Then half the network is correct and half is set on the wrong node. Fork.

We'll fix it later. I'm all about incremental improvements. This is a decent improve upon the existing system, but it doesn't fix everything.

Engage, Numba One!

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

Hi guys and gals! I have created "TAO'S MASTERNODE GUIDE FOR DUMMIES" a fully step by step, funny, informative Masternode Set-up guide. Check it out here when you get a chance, and spread the word! We have 2,000 Masternodes to create, and this is just the place to send peeps:

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/taos-masternode-setup-guide-for-dummies.2680/

Cheers!

EDIT: Can someone who knows how to do so move this thread to the "Guides" section? I messed up and put it under General Support!

 

[pinestabe]

<yesterday>
after 1 DS round, my clients get stuck in state 7, so doautomaticdenominate aborts. in CDarkSendPool::Check() where it's supposed to reset after 10 seconds, the state check passes, but not enough time has passed. This check seems to be done only once, so the reset doesn't happen. this could be due to my odd configuration: I have a masternode and 3 clients that I'm forcing to connect to my masternode, all on the same machine. If i restart the clients they work again for 1 round, also works if I just put a sleep for 10sec after checking only for state and not time.

I also get stuck in state 7 if "no matching denomiations" happens. to fix it, in the check "CDarkSendPool::CheckTimeout() -- Session timed out (30s).." I had to chage the
UpdateState(POOL_STATUS_ERROR) line to
if(fMasterNode) UpdateState(POOL_STATUS_ERROR)
in order to get the timeout to kick in and put the clients back in state 3.
I'm not really sure what I'm doing, I just played around a bit till things started working!

 

[coingun]

Reference nodes.

I logged in just to like this.

 

[Dr.Crypto]

Hey everyone,
Short question: are the new binaries on GitHub (https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin-binaries/) for mainnet? They're referenced as Onyx release and were pushed 8 hours ago. I wanted to download the 10.14.1 release with the masternode security update, but it has apparently been replaced.
Or maybe is everything already ready and we're just waiting for the official announcement from Evan?

 

[oblox]

The latest is Onyx.

 

[coingun]

Hey everyone,
Short question: are the new binaries on GitHub (https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin-binaries/) for mainnet? They're referenced as Onyx release and were pushed 8 hours ago. I wanted to download the 10.14.1 release with the masternode security update, but it has apparently been replaced.
Or maybe is everything already ready and we're just waiting for the official announcement from Evan?

15.13 is the latest. Please update to that.

 

[Dr.Crypto]

15.13 is the latest. Please update to that.

So... it's now running on mainnet, right? (I know it's the testing subforum, but as these binaries replaced the mainnet's masternode security release...)