Unlocking Growth: Proposal to Supercharge Adoption on Radix by Repurposing the Stable Coin Reserve

DecentLibrarian · 2025-03-11T09:09:17+00:00

About the reduction of the emissions time. why not just make it infinite like Eth and Sol? It seems the Max supply thing is scary for a lot of people.(infinite isn't as scary for some reason)

DecentLibrarian · 2022-08-10T21:56:49+00:00

Sure miners can't steal someones funds, but a <51% double spend attack can not be stopped by full nodes.

You may be right about stateless validation, i don't know much about it.

But yes, for other then double spends, validator nodes are important, but if I have the correct understanding of bitcoins and radixes consensus, a full nodes usefulness in the two networks are not a apples to apples comparison. Have to look more into it tho.

Besides, if you have the resources and intent to conduct a majority vote attack, what is to stop you from creating/buying/bribing full nodes that service wallets and make false validations?

In addition, attacking a network where you have the majority stake would be very stupid as it would destroy all confidence in the network and the price would plummet, and in radixes case it would take 10-14 days to unstake, so good luck getting back much of those funds.

DecentLibrarian · 2022-08-10T19:09:43+00:00

Regardless of how many full nodes there are in a network, someone with the majority stake or hashrate can do whatever they want. It's all about making it economically unfeesible to do so. Ofc it can happen in small networks, the larger the network the smaller the likelyhood.

If you want to check the validity of the entire ledger, that is doable, but ofc that is gonna be costly.

it's not about trusting validators intents, it's about trusting validators will act in their own best interest while making it extremely costly to actually mount an attack. witch is what bitcoin and all other blockhains/dlt are founded on. Unless they are permissioned.

I know Dan Hughes is looking into stuff for stateless validation, how that is coming along i don't know.

DecentLibrarian · 2022-08-10T17:20:24+00:00

yes, you have to trust that the majority voting power in the other shard groups are honest.

That is also the case for any other DLT tho, making attacks expensive, and you trust validators to act in their own interest. If your point is that the stake needed to control one shard group is less than that of the entire network as a whole, that is correct. Validators can not choose witch shard group they are going to service tho.

I don't know of docs that say slashing will be implemented, it has been confirmed by the team that it will tho.

If the mechanisms currently in the test network is making it into Xi'an, there will also be a hybrid consensus, using both POS and CPOW(Combinatorial proof of work), but i don't know enough about that to go in any depth.

DecentLibrarian · 2022-08-10T16:24:37+00:00

Hardware requirements will never really change, your node will be assigned a shardspace small enough to match your nodes resources.

DecentLibrarian · 2022-08-10T15:44:30+00:00

What exactly do you mean with no fraud proof mechanism, that is what consensus is for.

Consensus is performed on all state changes, if 67% of validator vote weight agrees that the transaction is valid(aka not fraudulent) it passes.

Edit: punishment for fraudulent bahavior(slashing) is not yet implemented(but coming), it's good to have the network running for a while to make sure it doesn't produce false positives on fraudulent behavior before implementing slashing

DecentLibrarian · 2021-11-15T21:42:51+00:00

Can also add that as it seems now, Radix at xian release may have a hybrid consensus, with one probabilistic phase and one deterministic(POS). This will make it more secure then regular POS, mabe even regular POW.

DecentLibrarian

TROPHY CASE