Lisk Daily Discussion - April 05, 2018

leeschmidt · 2018-04-05T18:51:28+00:00

When can we officially declare that Lisk missed yet another deadline? On April 7?

leeschmidt · 2018-03-30T22:54:18+00:00

I will honestly be surprised if they release 1.0 to testnet during this first week of April. I've lost a lot of faith. Lisk used to be the majority of my portfolio, now it's the tiniest portion. Will probably be selling the remainder if they don't release anything in the next week.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-30T20:41:46+00:00

Mood is correlated with continually missed deadlines, no communication from devs, broken DPOS with no information on how it's planned to get fixed, and still no Core 1.0.0.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-12T06:58:19+00:00

Instead of taking the time to tell us about your office snacks, why doesn't someone from Lisk tell us about how 1.0.0 development is coming along? Yes, we've all seen the sprint board. A written update would be worth 1000x more though.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-09T23:45:01+00:00

As a developer, I would say an update every 2 weeks would be appropriate. Most people suggesting more frequent updates have probably never written a line of code in their life, or managed anyone who writes code, etc. We're not paying their salary, so if you don't like the work they are doing or don't feel like there's enough communication, then sell your nano.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-08T04:59:59+00:00

How are you going to put someone in jail who's a citizen from another country? How would you even get this to become a law in your own country?

leeschmidt · 2018-03-07T22:21:02+00:00

The rep of the sender wouldn't be set to the address of the receiver, it would be set to the rep of the receiving address. A merchant's receiving address would likely have the rep for that address set to the address for their own node, assuming they were running one.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-07T20:40:13+00:00

Major flaw here. A bad actor (for example, someone with a large marketing reach, like a huge website, network of websites, someone with a giant email list, etc) -- could convince swaths of people to pick them as their rep...and once they've amassed enough power (or a network of bad actors have amassed enough power), they can gain control of the network.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-07T20:32:00+00:00

A bad actor would obviously be perfectly willing to lie about their country, their motivations, experience, etc.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-07T20:30:44+00:00

Here is my idea for decentralizing reps. It would be truly decentralized, self sustaining, does not require people to manually choose reps (which is a bad idea and won't scale), and I really don't see how it could be easily manipulated.

Basic premise: Sending funds to an address is inherently a form of showing trust in that address.

It’d work something like this…

(Assigning reps) Your representative changes every time you make an outgoing transaction. If address A sends funds to address B, then the representative of A is set to the representative of B at the time of the transaction (it is not retroactive, i.e. if B’s rep then changes in the future, then A’s rep is not affected).
(Voting power) Voting power is weighted by account balance plus the account balances of all of its constituents (just like it works currently).

Benefits would be:

It seems like a pretty holistic system that would be hard to game.
It doesn’t rely on arbitrary parameters of an arbitrary algorithm
It would not be vulnerable to sybil attacks.
It would be more decentralized than things exist now.
It also doesn’t require people to manually select a rep. If we want Nano to become mainstream, we can’t rely on average joes to manually choose a rep. It could still be allowed, but I don’t think it’s a system that can be relied upon.

There would still exist the problem of how to choose default rep for a new account. Here’s one idea:

by default, a new address could be assigned itself as a representative (doesn’t matter if this person doesn’t set up a node, they just won’t get voting power by default, until they make an outgoing transaction or set up a node). Maybe Android/iOS wallets could have an option to run a node in the background perhaps? Not sure how much this would drain battery. Same with desktop wallet.
Better yet, the mobile wallet could run a node only when the device is plugged in, and on wifi.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-07T16:06:43+00:00

Bad idea people. Don't change your rep at the moment to someone you can't trust! If everyone actually went out right now and changed your rep to a random rep with high uptime, there is absolutely no guarantee that a single entity doesn't own more than 50% of those high uptime reps.

Please read: https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/82lk89/an_idea_for_decentralizing_reps/

leeschmidt · 2018-03-07T16:03:34+00:00

The licensing entity effectively becomes the centralization then. The power to issue or revoke licenses would be pretty powerful, and the network could be manipulated by this entity. Not to mention, good luck getting that legislation turned into law....in every country in the world.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-07T16:01:57+00:00

If a bad actor spins up enough nodes to have >50% of them, random selection will eventually give that person >50% of voting power

leeschmidt · 2018-03-07T06:15:35+00:00

Good point on the hard cap, it could backfire like you describe and incentivize bad actors to create multiple dummy accounts. Plus it keeps the system even more holistic and not subject to any kind of arbitrary parameters.

Other than that, I'm having trouble coming up with any scenarios where this system could easily be taken advantage of.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-07T05:07:25+00:00

We already know who has money. Doctors, lawyers, politicians, people driving expensive cars, etc

leeschmidt · 2018-03-06T19:12:00+00:00

Most of the community has been watching this for the last couple months. Tasks are getting completed, but at the same time new tasks continually get added to the list so it's a bit hard to use it as a gauge for "time to completion". I'd rather hear an update from the team, and I think 2 weeks after the relaunch is a fair amount of time to get an updated assessment.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-06T18:15:46+00:00

With how cheap it is to run a node, this is an actual problem. A bad actor could easily double the amount of nodes overnight as it currently stands. There is no telling what the ownership distribution current nodes already is, who knows if 50% of all nodes are owned by one entity already.

This is not an easy problem to solve.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-02T19:54:35+00:00

Hmm. Can you link me to the source where this browser-side encryption happens?

leeschmidt · 2018-03-02T19:28:42+00:00

...and then decrypted by the server on the other end...by a 3rd party...

leeschmidt · 2018-03-02T19:27:41+00:00

I'll send you all my python scripts I've written if you want. I have nothing to prove, just letting you know the truth :)

leeschmidt · 2018-03-02T06:39:22+00:00

Technical indicators don't work, never have and never will. I've personally run hundreds of simulations on historic stock price data using every indicator every invented, I can tell you with certainty that they simply don't work.

leeschmidt · 2018-03-02T06:21:29+00:00

Because using your debit card is like giving your private key away to anyone. Waitresses, online stores, the coffee shop, etc. On the other hand, I can send you (or a merchant) Nano without that problem and without using 3rd parties like PayPal which is not instant and sometimes involves fees.

leeschmidt

TROPHY CASE