Quote from: iamnotback on March 08, 2017, 06:57:13 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on March 07, 2017, 07:41:10 PM

Quote from: Spratan on March 06, 2017, 07:57:57 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on February 27, 2017, 10:32:29 PM

Quote from: Arvydas77 on February 27, 2017, 09:51:19 AM

I also invested in RaiBlocks.

If you only understood how horrendously flawed that design is.

I am interested to invest in raiblocks. How flawed is it ?
The dev is very active, so is there any chance of upgrade ?

I don't have access to my unpublished whitepaper at the moment wherein I summarized Raiblocks, and I am not sure I want to release that summary (yet) as I contrasted it against my design.

Suffice it to say that Raiblocks is insecure nonsense. You can locate TPTB_need_war's old debates with the creator (it used to be named block lattice). @monsterer also pointed out the flaws (note @monsterer seems to be gone now)

Here is the part I am willing to publish now (some of it is redacted):

Quote from: AnonyMint's OpenShare whitepaper draft

RaiBlocks had a separate partition (blockchain) for each user balance. Each user balance partition was an eligible witness voter for each transaction event. Consensus voting was required for transfers between partitions to prevent double-spends. The consensus ordering delegate set was the quorum on each epoch of voting, which was claimed to be final. There were alleged security flaws in this design^{[^RaiBlocks-divergence]}, which is obvious given its consensus ordering set is unbounded and has nothing-at-stake, which cant be secure per the generalized theory...

^{[^RaiBlocks-divergence]} Shelby Moore III. RaiBlocks divergence. Bitcointalk.org, Block lattice thread, post #4, Oct 24, 2015.

Thanks for your valuable feedback. I will invest in Rai only for obvious speculative potential short term and wait and see.