Quote from: dzimbeck on March 13, 2016, 06:47:13 AM

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lisk

Okay this isn't fud but Lisk means groin? Cheesy

I really like the ideas for the project but this thing here...

Was this name choice deliberate? Why was this name chosen? What is a lisk?

Check out this ( https://www.reddit.com/r/Lisk/comments/477728/did_anyone_actually_bother_to_google_lisk_it/ ) and my top comment.

Quote from: MalReynolds on March 13, 2016, 10:57:28 AM

@Max: I recommend you subscribe on this. Splurge for the "Advanced" package; I think you have the funds available for it. Wink

http://www.alexa.com/plans?ax_atid=c151db38-75b9-4c2c-8fa9-83ca6589ee4a

We are on Google Analytics. No need to pay for this.

1. US
2. Germany
3. UK
4. Netherlands
5. Russia
6. Brazil
7. Indonesia

Quote from: cryptoboy.architect on March 13, 2016, 11:48:52 AM

Silly technical question. If there is no "gas" as in ETH, how does LISK deals with code that runs forever, or worse locks up in some infinite loop?

There are no silly questions.

Every transaction which involves a blockchain WRITE needs fees, else you can't prevent spam. This is something the dapp dev has to take care of.

If it is in an infinite loop it will simply crash, like any regular apps. The loop can't be blockchain based, due to the fees. But it can be in the front end for example. It's a regular bug and needs to be fixed with an update.

Quote from: Bubba-Gump on March 13, 2016, 02:23:45 AM

This is a story about an exchange

It has 33% of all lisk. It has 101 votes. It votes for 101 of it's 1 lisk wallets.

You assume that the first 51 delegates have less than 33% of all votes. Where you got that number?

Quote from: Bubba-Gump on March 13, 2016, 02:30:35 AM

The exchange would have enough of the money supply to control all the delegates. They wouldn't need votes from the people.

If they control delegates proportional to their holdings, that's one thing. But with delegates, they don't even need a majority if the rest of the vote is split.

There is nothing in the protocol to prevent full control by a minority holder. No other blockchain security system has this sort of weakness.

Yes, people don't need the majority of coins, but only the majority of votes to have temporary control. This is due to the fact that all Lisk users elect the delegates.

It's not true that you state that no other blockchain system has this weakness. ALL others have this as well, but just in a different aspect.

In the case of Proof of Stake coins, the attacks obviously come back to the amount of coins you own. Therefore you can either take the total of coins you need as an argument and the centrality of the pools.

Nxt: There are currently only 411M NXT forging in "forging pools". 11 of the biggest pools have over 50% of all forging power. Due to only 411M NXT forging, you only need to have a bit over 20.55% of all NXT (411/1000*0,5=0,2055). That means NXT is attackable to 20.55% attacks as far as I see it.

In the case of Proof of Work coins, you can only use the pools hash rate as an argument.

Bitcoin: Individual mining is irrelevant. Pools are the only option. There are currently only a handful of pools with a hash rate worth mentioning. Already the top 2 pools have over 50% of all mining power.

What does that mean? It means that crypto-currencies are more centralized than commonly believed.

But! These numbers are all temporary. Same as with Lisk.

In the case of Nxt, the users can
- remove the NXT lease from the forging pools.
- forge on their own to make the total of all NXT forging going to near 100%.
- withdraw their NXT from exchanges who are exploiting their big stake.

In the case of Bitcoin, the users can
- switch pools
- use P2Pools
- Mine on their own again (questionable)

What does it mean for security? In my opinion Proof of Stake is more secure, due to the financial incentive. Why should anyone attack NXT with his own 20% of coins, for which he paid a big amount of money. Of course this argument is more philosophical than mathematical. In terms of pool power Nxt is more decentralized than Bitcoin. In Lisk case the number of "pools" = delegates are even higher.

Let's get back to Lisk. If an exchange owns so many LISK, the users can at least see and countercheck easily if the exchange is voting with these LISK. It's all visible with this API call:

Code:

/api/accounts/delegates/?address=address

If you don't know the delegate address of an exchange, only the address of the regular exchange account, then this API call helps you out:

Code:

/api/delegates/voters?publicKey=publicKey

For example on our test network for the delegate 'genesisDelegate52':

Code:

https://login.lisk.io/api/delegates/voters?publicKey=07868b5b97233eb5ce301edfd16601e1ecf2661481b39a0bdea59391104dc42c

Results in:

Code:

{"success":true,"accounts":[{"address":"17649443584386761059L","balance":0},{"address":"12475940823804898745L","balance":2010000700},{"address":"10264531957766216184L","balance":8870000000},{"address":"14219782977503476609L","balance":54650000000},{"address":"9564105524193969327L","balance":79200000000},{"address":"14351749629158385068L","balance":79240000000},{"address":"800918319007426191L","balance":79690000000},{"address":"11339622397070425761L","balance":79790000000},{"address":"10552444389043734240L","balance":79900000000},{"address":"4838376936255854793L","balance":79980000000},{"address":"9363468559265530069L","balance":79990000000},{"address":"13496593907171241705L","balance":80300000000},{"address":"7797118170050130947L","balance":88490000000},{"address":"13278231667654341222L","balance":89100000000},{"address":"13667581226236683784L","balance":89580000000},{"address":"14968906762435933462L","balance":89700000000},{"address":"2970227194578908531L","balance":89700000000},{"address":"13921127593811670351L","balance":89800000000},{"address":"14636091225572299068L","balance":89800000000},{"address":"16075773430694729476L","balance":89800000000},{"address":"2465376505472839010L","balance":89800000000},{"address":"8797390455410370280L","balance":89800000000},{"address":"10589996627203409984L","balance":89900000000},{"address":"13006468928470284770L","balance":89900000000},{"address":"14080308827940367132L","balance":89900000000},{"address":"12248536304420527538L","balance":99800000000},{"address":"14624302329273634583L","balance":99900000000},{"address":"15806643322935220312L","balance":179500000000},{"address":"930710356977214870L","balance":477570000000},{"address":"40565469756652219L","balance":1048000000000},{"address":"13929185126330236760L","balance":1076470000000},{"address":"12771083228258353736L","balance":10074300000000},{"address":"2686619600065520376L","balance":9599849950000000}]}

If an exchange is abusing his power, people can see it and act. In this case they can withdraw the LISK from this exchange (decreasing the voting power of the exchange) and voting with the withdrawn LISK for other delegates (increasing the difference to the exchange even further).

Quote from: Bubba-Gump on March 13, 2016, 03:15:40 AM

Also, it's not a 51% attack. It is a 100% attack by a minority holder. A minority holder can control 100% of the security mechanism. That can't be said of Bitcoin or any PoS system.

A "51% attack" is just the laymen term. It's in fact a ">50% attack" and every ">50% attack" automatically is a "100% attack" as well, at least practically. If you own the majority of a system, the system is yours.

You are again wrong that this can't be said about other systems.

- At Bitcoin someone who owns 0 BTC can have the most mining power and control the whole system. (It's possible, but unlikely)
- At Nxt someone who owns 0 NXT, but received over 20% of all NXT as leased NXT can control the whole system. (Extremely unlikely)

- However, at Lisk someone with 0 LISK will have it EXTREMELY difficult to find the trust of the community to get enough votes for 51 delegates. That means he needs more votes (LISK amount*10^8) than the 51th delegate received in total from the whole network.

This is the networks responsibility to vote accordingly and get the best security out of the DPoS system.

Quote from: Bubba-Gump on March 13, 2016, 04:41:30 AM

I'll accept that this is a reasonable system if a balance vote is split among the 101 delegates. For example if a wallet has 101 LISK and votes for 101 delegates, each would get 1 LISK worth of vote.

This won't work. Everyone would only vote for himself and everyone who owns more than 1% LISK could run at least 1 delegate forever. This is unfair, because nobody else could prevent him from doing so.

How we get more people voting:

We will introduce a "Forging Pool" in the future (as a dapp). Delegates can run them on their nodes and register their delegate account on the sidechain. With this pool the delegates can then distribute a part of their earnings to the voters automatically every X days.

This will create an incentive for users to withdraw funds from the exchanges and vote for trusted individuals. In order to confirm trusted individuals, we will introduce an "Identity Dapp" in the future, in which people can associate their account with an username, real name, social media profiles, photo, and much more.

More information about all this will follow before we launch.