Sr.Mojón
(burbuja member):
And now this blog, which briefly explains more about MaidSafe: Consensus Without a Blockchain | MaidSafe And where, in the comments, Vitalik Buterin (ethereum developer ) throws volleys of hits at D. Irvine:
Vitalik Buterin:
Thanks for the explanation, I’ve been looking for a clear description of Maidsafe consensus for a while and this answers it nicely So, two questions That Were not answered here: 1. What incentivizes nodes to Participate honestly? 2. What is the backup / failsafe procedure in the event of a successful collusion on to safecoin? Particularly, if 28 of 32 nodes collude in order to sign off on an infinite number of double Spends, Then What stops the hyperinflation from getting out of hand before it can somehow be detected and stopped? The particularly nasty attack vector here Is That Evil Malicious Mallory writes a patch Which, During every round consensus, (i) broadcasts a message to the other co-participants in the consensus group Stating "hey, I am evil. What about you? “, And (ii) if it finds 27 other” evil "participants, colludes to hyperinflate the safecoin or do whatever nasty consensus-breaking mechanism. Mallory Then pays $ 5 for every farmer to download this patch. What is the incentive not to individually download the patch? Alternatively, We Could Have the evil behavior be Refusing to sign off on transactions, in Which case a mere 13% non-altruists can lead to a halt of the network. Or are you okay Assuming a large proportion of altruism and bribe aversion as a security assumption? (note that “bribes” in cryptoeconomics do not have to corresponden a literal bribes in the real world; They Could be an instance of the government Applying regulatory pressure to coerce large farms to act in Certain ways, or Applying pressure to force software developers to add bugs, etc. Given Maidsafe’s emphasis on privacy and freedom, Such possibilities are probably something You should care about).
Buterin gives direct hit to the jaw. Irvine blanket tied to the head jumps into the ring. My comments are in this format(Sr.Majon:):
Nodes are programmed to carry out very simply predefined and measurable tasks deterministically. Not complex languages or the like, in many of the This Way attack vectors are confined to what can happen in That realm. So for instance a node need not act With any ‘feeling’ altruistic or not, it need only behave as expected or be NOTED of-ranked and removed. The key is a very limited set of specific and measurable rules That must be Followed. There is no notion of honesty in These nodes only logic. This is like the ant analogy I use a lot, complex systems of Decentralised Control WHO follow very simply rules can create extremely sophisticated Communities, but the rules must be simple and measurable.
(Sr.Majon: Here we are again with whores ants. This fallacy is the worst of all. An ant is not a separate node following a few simple to cooperate with the colony instructions. This is a lie. a central node, the queen, has spent an enormous amount of energy creating each of these ants, also they are unable to behave themselves another way indicating that it is in DNA. Ants can not decide to behave dishonestly because it is not written in their DNA and neither do they perform a proof of work to prove to their peers who are honest. They simply recognize each other because they share DNA)
Then These can evolve over time, but truly Decentralised will mean a minimal very set of rules and extremely core algorithms and data types with a genus that is clear and concise. in the collusion attack you mention the would nodes 1: Have to Understand Mallories request (we will not be Implementing code to answer Mallory :-)) 2: not report her to her close group "Or are you okay Assuming a large proportion of altruism and bribe as a security aversion assumption ? " No! but neither would any system. If Mallory sent emails to all bitcoin miners Then yes it is a problem for bitcoin.
(Sr.Majon: This is false. You can not send emails to miners in Bitcoin because during the publication of the proof of work, that is, the new mined block the nodes of the network do not know which node has mined. so who are you going to send the email? To the node that has retransmitted you the block? to tell you that you can create 100BTC from nothing , when he actually did spend thousands of dollars in hardware? Here we have the importance of proof of work)
Here she will not know the Participants. In fact MOST users will not even know the address of Their vault or care about it. They will care Their wallet address is logged locally With the vault to make payments to.
Hope That Helps a bit Vitalik, it’s a pretty huge subject and , Although the rules are simply the number of people is large and each have Their own very confined measurable and Decentralised cryptographically secured via a PKI system type as to identification identify them properly. So its a decent amount to get though.
So Vitalik Buterin gets his checkmate:
Thanks for the reply, David.
So, in a decentralized system nodes are controlled by someone, and That someone has the Ability to download a patch Which Changes the node’s behavior. So I do agree that software defaults can place a moderately strong pressure in behalf of Certain behaviors, but ultimately from software is just there to do what the user wants and if the user really wants to perform a different behavior for Their own benefit Then They can download and install a software patch to do so.
The cryptoeconomic philosophy That I generally follow is a bit more restrictive: complex systems of decentralized monitoring can Certainly produces very outcomes beautiful, but They are only truly stable if the rules are self-enforcing - ie. . if the rules Themselves specify incentives That make it in a user’s interests to act honestly and cooperatively.
If you do not Have Such incentives, Then your only alternative is to probably go the ripple / stellar route (or something similar like http://128.199.188.22:1337/consensus.pdf ) and rely Primarily on reputation.
To which babbles Irvine:
No worries. Thanks for the response, it’s not straight forward and none of us will know the outcomes, like Steve Jobs Said you can join the dots looking backwards not forwards
(Sr.Majon: quotes him to look cool and something about fallacy of authority, as if Jobs could be regarded the authority of something) ,
I try not to spray dDT on mossies :-). In any case the nodes May be owned by somebody but not controlled .
(Sr.Majon: Lie, as Buterin already explained )
Their action are Directly managed by the network, so bad Behaviour is spotted by the WHO group manage the node and outbound requests are accumulated and deterministic signature checked. So changing the vault code will simply mean you will Have a defunct vault as it is de-ranked.
(Sr.Majon: As if he cares a **** what you just said Buterin, he continues with the same song that the network will be responsible for preventing behaviors you specified. The problem is that he never says how. Let me know you how the hell it will prevent one of the nodes convincing the remaining 31 which is connected to act maliciously , and not have a penny in hardware / safecoins invested in the system and still generate huge amounts of safecoins.)
I know your philosophy Regarding incentives and hear it a lot from others, but I disagree with it on a couple of levels (not all ). I think this is fine as I am not a game theory follower ( 
) and Certainly not bought into any Nash equilibrium theories as you seem to be (closer to)
(Sr.Majon: That of game theory should be things of evil and selfish capitalists LOL. What this guy ignores is that a system of this type is only reliable if, indeed, it is based on selfishness of its actors)
and that’s Past fine. I believe you can Have a complex system That has inherent incentives as in nature
(Sr.Majon: again with whores ants)
why does the ant pick up the huge leaf, she let others Could do it and just munch away. The discussion Could take years and I still say vim emacs is better than kinda thing. Anyway the ant does it Because it knows if everyone does Their job They thrive, not through altruism but inbuilt logic .
(Sr.Majon: Bullshit The ant is nothing more than a simple tentacle of the true and important node: The Queen, Few things are more centralized. in nature that an anthill. there is no need for consensus or anything).
in Decentralised systems there are a huge number of indirect incentives : such as caching data, performing a transaction for Apparently no cost and there are Also a huge number of ways to Ensure correctness, if a node says 1 + 1 = 3 then others can tell it is rubbish (or SENDS wrong message to wrong node)
(Sr.Majon: False and more than already discussed. in open networks, where the network topology is unknown, as well as the lag in communications, reach this consensus is much more complex. Synchronizing and checkpoints are also necessary)
, if it signs Then it can be this Reported to the nodes close to it proof with or bad performance. They will de-rank As They want to survive and the node Loses out. To survive the node will not want to make mistakes and will act Such responsibly or kicked out. There are a miriad of These rules and checks happening in real time. So incentives need not always be direct and measurable Certainly not always Directly. So you May say why cache you get nothing, then a look much deeper and you whos get a lot From this apparent act of selflessness (it is whos selfish to do what is Asked of you in the network, we spend a huge time making sure of that) but it’s not Immediately Measured and the user is not Directly incentivized to do so.
(Sr.Majon: that is , altruism LOL. How many systems we know that work based on altruism?)
Then why report bad Behaviour, there is no payment and again look much deeper , the payment is survival of the species (or version of the code :-))
(Sr.Majon: again, altruism)
there are enormous going very deep into threads much of this on maidsafe.org and some papers
(Sr.Majon: run, go and look for them)
on the site etc. so you can dive very deep into the network. I recommend Eric’s lectures on the network as there are things not xor Immediately obvious in space and networks in particular. It Keeps our uni people happy writing papers on it all and the security Have we managed to Achieve it though. So please feel free to dive in, it’s hugely interesting, but very different for sure.
(Sr.Majon: Yes, and hopefully you get lost and stop asking “uncomfortable questions”)
Remonster
(in response to digipl):
Besides the type of verbiage used, I do not see what can be difficult about reading those papers. Maybe for you … We’ve taken a look above and read them, to me does not have to lack in detail to smell the stench they give off. The first is a cluster of generalities and the second is a project that is a mental straw that neither the author is sure that it can be made to work. Just read this for example:
The initial response to the findings of this system are varied and range from impossible all the way to this is amazing. A point to note is That the systems Represented by this paper are at present very computationally intensive in areas, require significant bandwidth and May Appear to be unsustainable, however initial testing proves this not to be the case substantively, Although It Should Also be NOTED we are in a state of Moore’s Law growth in CPU and possibly faster than this with broadband bandwidth and hard drive Capacities. This area of growth has - been exponential over the last decade and the author is very aware That the further down a period of exponential growth then a each passing day Brings means cantly more CPU, bandwidth and disk space than the previous day did. As we are nearing the end (if there can be one) of These special exponential growth curves the daily Increase Tends towards infinity. Asked recently as part of a paper submission if the maidsafe network was sentient, That author replied, it self heals, grows , can segment, Calculates what to do at any point in time in any area by the actions of many nodes current status and is capable of Protecting itself, this is a question for the reader to decides upon.
It is clear that the paper does not describe how the problem of generals Nakamoto resolved, and contains many disturbing things. First, why is not there a brief paper describing the protocol simple and self - contained way? Second, why such a fundamental contribution is not published in one of the best computer magazines?
Other things that draw attention, apart from the “pirao” style of the author, is to put your references (pretty little academic) at the end of the article. I’ve never seen it in any serious article. Other things is that in the “more technical” item were sold the bike at the end with all possible applications …
Go … you will think that we are ignorant, but I think you’re a bit naive to put money in something like that. …
stupidcache:
The IPO was totally outrageous Forbes Welcome
Then I watched as they redesign the site when there was much overdue work and to top it off they had removed the roadmap to put one “better”.
Here I complain about this Roadmap explanation - beginners - SAFE Network Forum
Immediately after the subject of the roadmap I began to investigate and came to the same conclusion that mr.mojon (not agree on virtually nothing remonster the contrary). The conclusion is that they were not in the right condition to go to the ipo if the answers given just a year ago.
And add more, they were not able to go to promise the network output for December 2014 Keiser report, and even so they still did. They are not serious. I have disinvested. PS: using as MaidSafeCoin initials MSC mastercoin reminds me, if those were his initials. You call them otherwise.
TheRedHawk
(burbuja member):
Lads, I have to say that I have convinced. I have been a fan MaidSafe for two weeks, but the last comment by Sr. Mojon, with comments in red, has caught me completely. Let us be objective: the elusive developer response to technical challenge which you are asking. Conclusion: He has no ****** idea how to solve it . This is something you see in any job, any job that someone does not know how to solve internally, but when asked about it gives long answers. Talking much but saying little. Smoke and more smoke. Really, I think you are right to oppose MaidSafe. I join in your stance. Regards, TRH
stupidcache:
Not to mention his other “accident” would not have to smoke all mastercoins. Extra MAID generated from the crowdsale - safecoin - SAFE Network Forum They generated more maidsafecoines violating the terms of the IPO. Only at my request and they showed that several more have moved but never dared to violate the terms of the IPO x2