Advanced Checkpointing released
-
[quote name=“Justabitoftime” post=“26604” timestamp=“1377789081”]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26600#msg26600 date=1377788896]
[b]QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?[/b]
[/quote]http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6263/feathercoin-interview-with-peter-bushnell/
“This is not mandatory as clients can opt-out. If the feed goes down, the network carries on as normal and when the feed comes back it starts checkpointing from the end of the network blockchain.”
I have to get ready for work, good debating with you.
[/quote]Firstly, I wouldn’t call it a debate, but a discussion.
Secondly, having a system that can go down when the network “needs” it is pointless. What is the point of a system that isn’t in place 24/7? This would be a window of opportunity for an attacker to attack the network no?
I understand that people can opt out, but what does that really accomplish? The centralization still exists on Peter’s end. If he so chose he could set the checkpointing depth = 0. Then what?
-
[quote name=“Smoothie” post=“26606” timestamp=“1377789262”]
[quote author=Justabitoftime link=topic=3438.msg26604#msg26604 date=1377789081]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26600#msg26600 date=1377788896]
[b]QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?[/b]
[/quote]http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6263/feathercoin-interview-with-peter-bushnell/
“This is not mandatory as clients can opt-out. If the feed goes down, the network carries on as normal and when the feed comes back it starts checkpointing from the end of the network blockchain.”
I have to get ready for work, good debating with you.
[/quote]Firstly, I wouldn’t call it a debate, but a discussion.
[/quote]
*slaps head* Ok … well, good ‘talking’ to you then. There’s been a lot of debate about the checkpointing prior to implementation, it’s always nice to hear different points of view.
-
To be completely fair I suggest that Peter have the new portion of the code reviewed by other coin developers just to get input from a technical perspective.
Perhaps Peter already did this as I have not been watching this that closely.
-
[quote name=“Justabitoftime” post=“26607” timestamp=“1377789363”]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26606#msg26606 date=1377789262]
[quote author=Justabitoftime link=topic=3438.msg26604#msg26604 date=1377789081]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26600#msg26600 date=1377788896]
[b]QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?[/b]
[/quote]http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6263/feathercoin-interview-with-peter-bushnell/
“This is not mandatory as clients can opt-out. If the feed goes down, the network carries on as normal and when the feed comes back it starts checkpointing from the end of the network blockchain.”
I have to get ready for work, good debating with you.
[/quote]Firstly, I wouldn’t call it a debate, but a discussion.
[/quote]
*slaps head* Ok … well, good ‘talking’ to you then. There’s been a lot of debate about the checkpointing prior to implementation, it’s always nice to hear different points of view.
[/quote]I realize you have to go to work. Commendable.
But perhaps you would like to address the second portion of my response that you did not address. :)
-
Smoothie, enlighten us what happened when ACP was initiated at ppcoin?
Even though I can see it (ACP) is an extra attack vector, it is also extra work for an attacker to do. As we are already being attacked, I prefer Peter to go down fighting than do nothing.
It is the attackers who are forcing “centralisation” of the currency, just as they forced the original centralised checkpointing in Bitcoin…
-
[quote name=“Smoothie” post=“26611” timestamp=“1377789786”]
[quote author=Justabitoftime link=topic=3438.msg26607#msg26607 date=1377789363]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26606#msg26606 date=1377789262]
[quote author=Justabitoftime link=topic=3438.msg26604#msg26604 date=1377789081]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26600#msg26600 date=1377788896]
[b]QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?[/b]
[/quote]http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6263/feathercoin-interview-with-peter-bushnell/
“This is not mandatory as clients can opt-out. If the feed goes down, the network carries on as normal and when the feed comes back it starts checkpointing from the end of the network blockchain.”
I have to get ready for work, good debating with you.
[/quote]Firstly, I wouldn’t call it a debate, but a discussion.
[/quote]
*slaps head* Ok … well, good ‘talking’ to you then. There’s been a lot of debate about the checkpointing prior to implementation, it’s always nice to hear different points of view.
[/quote]I realize you have to go to work. Commendable.
But perhaps you would like to address the second portion of my response that you did not address. :)
[/quote]This has nothing to do with me. You asked about if the checkpoint went down, I took time out of my schedule to hunt down the quote from Bush in the Bitcoin Magazine article and moved on. I’m sure others will be more than willing to keep the discussion moving. Good information, nice to see you around again.
-
[quote name=“Justabitoftime” post=“26634” timestamp=“1377798576”]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26611#msg26611 date=1377789786]
[quote author=Justabitoftime link=topic=3438.msg26607#msg26607 date=1377789363]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26606#msg26606 date=1377789262]
[quote author=Justabitoftime link=topic=3438.msg26604#msg26604 date=1377789081]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26600#msg26600 date=1377788896]
[b]QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?[/b]
[/quote]http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6263/feathercoin-interview-with-peter-bushnell/
“This is not mandatory as clients can opt-out. If the feed goes down, the network carries on as normal and when the feed comes back it starts checkpointing from the end of the network blockchain.”
I have to get ready for work, good debating with you.
[/quote]Firstly, I wouldn’t call it a debate, but a discussion.
[/quote]
*slaps head* Ok … well, good ‘talking’ to you then. There’s been a lot of debate about the checkpointing prior to implementation, it’s always nice to hear different points of view.
[/quote]I realize you have to go to work. Commendable.
But perhaps you would like to address the second portion of my response that you did not address. :)
[/quote]This has nothing to do with me. You asked about if the checkpoint went down, I took time out of my schedule to hunt down the quote from Bush in the Bitcoin Magazine article and moved on. I’m sure others will be more than willing to keep the discussion moving. Good information, nice to see you around again.
[/quote]Just figured you would want to respond based on responding previously:
[quote author=Justabitoftime link=topic=3438.msg26598#msg26598 date=1377788725]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26595#msg26595 date=1377788197]
I didn’t realize how centralized this system would be…sorry I’ve been so busy to keep up with this development…[u][i]“This is a form of centralisation as the checkpoint master node is deployed and maintained by the lead developer Peter Bushnell. Currently no other person has access to this system but it is planned to make the checkpointing system distributed over time. Distributing this system would allow several stakeholders like mining pools to have a vote on which block gets checkpointed. The controls in the system are very limited and only allow the developer to change the depth at which the blocks are checkpointed. This is an automated process and there is no facility to pick and choose which blocks get checkpointed.”[/i][/u]
Because of this I have to say I completely disagree with this model of protection. When Sunny King did this initially for PPC I was 100% against it, sounds the same.
Centralization of a cryptocurrency network in any form or fashion contradicts the original purpose for the cryprocurrency.
Allowing mining pools to vote based on their hash power is also flawed as it is just another form of centralization. This reminds me of the “Electoral Vote” which in my view is a BS system of determining results of an election. Same applies here.
[/quote]I respect the opinion, but completely disagree. Cryptocurrency can evolve into whatever direction a community wants to take it. You have a Bitcoin Foundation talking to Washington on behalf of a LOT people, that’s a form of centralization. In fact, I’d argue what they are doing is far more centralized than ACP. I really do respect the purists, however, in the real world, *** I *** feel compromises need to be met.
Again, I want to avoid as much centralization as possible, however, I feel this was the right move with the direction we’re heading. Just my 2 cents.
[/quote]P.S. I never left. ;D
-
[quote name=“wesphily” post=“26670” timestamp=“1377824479”]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26608#msg26608 date=1377789408]
To be completely fair I suggest that Peter have the new portion of the code reviewed by other coin developers just to get input from a technical perspective.Perhaps Peter already did this as I have not been watching this that closely.
[/quote]Everybody that has the knowledge required and is willing to put in the time required has already reviewed the code. What I mean by this statement is that most people who have the experience do not have the time or refuse to put in the time required. Most people who have the time and/or willing to put in the time don’t have the experience required. Hard to meet both requirements without $$ involved.
[/quote]It would be money well spent in believe.
-
[quote name=“wesphily” post=“26684” timestamp=“1377827939”]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26677#msg26677 date=1377825873]
[quote author=wesphily link=topic=3438.msg26670#msg26670 date=1377824479]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26608#msg26608 date=1377789408]
To be completely fair I suggest that Peter have the new portion of the code reviewed by other coin developers just to get input from a technical perspective.Perhaps Peter already did this as I have not been watching this that closely.
[/quote]Everybody that has the knowledge required and is willing to put in the time required has already reviewed the code. What I mean by this statement is that most people who have the experience do not have the time or refuse to put in the time required. Most people who have the time and/or willing to put in the time don’t have the experience required. Hard to meet both requirements without $$ involved.
[/quote]It would be money well spent in believe.
[/quote]You have money to spend?
[/quote]Although I have “development” as a part of my avatar (for what reason I don’t know) I am not officially part of the FTC development team.
I’ve already donated to giveaways.
My comments on these changes is to bring to light the previous community mindset to such centralized changes.
Does not the FTC development team have its own funds?
-
I suspect consulting Coblee or any of the Bitcoin dev team over skype/email would be a good start.
-
[quote name=“Smoothie” post=“26686” timestamp=“1377828497”]
I suspect consulting Coblee or any of the Bitcoin dev team over skype/email would be a good start.
[/quote]I suspect they have absolutely no intention of helping Feathercoin so far and so forth.
-
[quote name=“wesphily” post=“26670” timestamp=“1377824479”]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26608#msg26608 date=1377789408]
To be completely fair I suggest that Peter have the new portion of the code reviewed by other coin developers just to get input from a technical perspective.Perhaps Peter already did this as I have not been watching this that closely.
[/quote][size=12pt][b]Everybody[/b][/size] that has the knowledge required and is willing to put in the time required has already reviewed the code. What I mean by this statement is that most people who have the experience do not have the time or refuse to put in the time required. Most people who have the time and/or willing to put in the time don’t have the experience required. Hard to meet both requirements without $$ involved.
[/quote]This is a very absolute statement you made there. I honestly doubt that to be the case but that is just my opinion.
-
Good morning. Sorry I was out of the loop yesterday, my youngest son had climbed into my eldest son’s bed during the night which is six foot off the ground and then fell out during the night crashing into and smashing a rigid plastic bin. He was cut up and very shaken and I spent yesterday nursing him.
Smoothie, this is pretty much the same system that PPCoin had in place. It is basically centralised security for the blockchain. After getting feedback from several technical users it would seem sensible to leave the depth at five to allow natural reorgs. The depth is how far back the node will checkpoint blocks. If the checkpointing node goes down then the network works as normal. To perform a 51% attack the attacker first has to take down the checkpointing node.
There were discussions started in the community about how to handle 51% attacks, I found an early version of this solution from Sunny King and put it forward on the forum discussions. I do not think anyone was uber happy with the idea but this was considered the lesser of two evils and would have to do until we found a decentralised solution. The attacks we suffered were very impressive and shows the need to evolve, in my mind it was either find protection for 51% attacks or give up and I am not leaving Feathercoin. My sole purpose is to see Feathercoin survive.
By the way we should all be nice to Sunny King, he implemented Proof-of-Stake and has now created a coin for finding Prime numbers. My money is on Sunny for being the real Satoshi :)
As for Bitcoin and Litecoin. I sent a message to Coblee about making a large contribution to his Litecoin development fund raiser. I got an upsetting and surprising response from him saying that Litecoin should be the only Scrypt coin and that Feathercoin is a scam, I find this surprising coming from the chap who sold his coins to Koolio when I gave all my coins away in a bounties and bought back in. I am now glad that I did not make a large donation as I have it from several sources that the Litecoin upgrade to 0.8 was to appease Gox. I guess when Gox let the news out that they almost listed Litecoin when the massive drop happened that some people started making trouble for them. You may have noticed that NMC came to life at the same time as Litecoin. Bitcoin developers are not going to be interested in us and generally see alts in a dim light even though alts are where the innovation can happen now. If I was a Bitcoin dev I would have got board and started working with alts by now. When I started Feathercoin Coblee was nowhere to be found and Bitcoin was untouchable, that is the reason that I started Feathercoin. I want to have an active alt with an approachable dev and community.
Back to ACP, when there is an algorithmic solution to 51% attacks in the protocol then we will jump at it and leave ACP behind.
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“26709” timestamp=“1377856508”]
I am now glad that I did not make a large donation as I have it from several sources that the Litecoin upgrade to 0.8 was to appease Gox. I guess when Gox let the news out that they almost listed Litecoin when the massive drop happened that some people started making trouble for them. You may have noticed that NMC came to life at the same time as Litecoin.
[/quote]Interesting. Can you expand on it a bit? I know, I know, its going off topic.
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“26709” timestamp=“1377856508”]
By the way we should all be nice to Sunny King, he implemented Proof-of-Stake and has now created a coin for finding Prime numbers. My money is on Sunny for being the real Satoshi :)
[/quote]Agreed! ;)
[quote author=Bushstar link=topic=3438.msg26709#msg26709 date=1377856508]
As for Bitcoin and Litecoin. I sent a message to Coblee about making a large contribution to his Litecoin development fund raiser. I got an upsetting and surprising response from him saying that Litecoin should be the only Scrypt coin and that Feathercoin is a scam
[/quote]Wow. Coblee always reminded me of this character from Role Models …
[img]http://iratedb.com/images/items/2011/9/f13518c3-fd1b-404f-a58d-21d1721928b1.jpg[/img]
… apparently that assessment was correct.
-
[quote name=“Magic8Ball” post=“26711” timestamp=“1377857890”]
Interesting. Can you expand on it a bit? I know, I know, its going off topic.
[/quote]It is off topic but I am finding it impossible not to respond, I got into crypto because it is a revolution and the biggest thing since the Internet, but also because of the constant drama :)
I got this news from two different sources and it made some sense to me. I figured after Mark Karpeles let slip about their intention to add Litecoin the week Bitcoin crashed, that MtGox would get some serious resistance to Litecoin support at that point. Especially as people were blaming MtGox for the huge Bitcoin crash due to the extreme lag in trading on Gox, some one and a half hours to process a transaction. If that is what lag does imagine what Litecoin could do. I imagined that Mark was going to experience some serious pressure not to support Litecoin for all the wrong reasons. So when I heard that Litecoin was asked to upgrade to 0.8 by Gox it made a lot of sense to me. This would be one way to get some of the people resisting Litecoin on Gox to be quiet perhaps by invalidating their arguments.
As I have nothing to back this up with and I am not going to drop names then we have to consider this gossip.
-
[quote name=“wesphily” post=“26718” timestamp=“1377869210”]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26697#msg26697 date=1377839165]
[quote author=wesphily link=topic=3438.msg26670#msg26670 date=1377824479]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26608#msg26608 date=1377789408]
To be completely fair I suggest that Peter have the new portion of the code reviewed by other coin developers just to get input from a technical perspective.Perhaps Peter already did this as I have not been watching this that closely.
[/quote][size=12pt][b]Everybody[/b][/size] that has the knowledge required and is willing to put in the time required has already reviewed the code. What I mean by this statement is that most people who have the experience do not have the time or refuse to put in the time required. Most people who have the time and/or willing to put in the time don’t have the experience required. Hard to meet both requirements without $$ involved.
[/quote]This is a very absolute statement you made there. I honestly doubt that to be the case but that is just my opinion.
[/quote]Absolutes can be right until proven wrong. Prove it wrong.
[/quote]Two things, Wes, do not use words like everybody and nobody as you will irk those who like to be literal. Smoothie, do not get caught up arguing over small details of loosely spoken words, stay focused on the issues at hand :)
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“26709” timestamp=“1377856508”]
Good morning. Sorry I was out of the loop yesterday, my youngest son had climbed into my eldest son’s bed during the night which is six foot off the ground and then fell out during the night crashing into and smashing a rigid plastic bin. He was cut up and very shaken and I spent yesterday nursing him.
[/quote]This is why my wife dont want doubledecker bed. You just went all through her nightmare…
-
[quote name=“wesphily” post=“26718” timestamp=“1377869210”]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26697#msg26697 date=1377839165]
[quote author=wesphily link=topic=3438.msg26670#msg26670 date=1377824479]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26608#msg26608 date=1377789408]
To be completely fair I suggest that Peter have the new portion of the code reviewed by other coin developers just to get input from a technical perspective.Perhaps Peter already did this as I have not been watching this that closely.
[/quote][size=12pt][b]Everybody[/b][/size] that has the knowledge required and is willing to put in the time required has already reviewed the code. What I mean by this statement is that most people who have the experience do not have the time or refuse to put in the time required. Most people who have the time and/or willing to put in the time don’t have the experience required. Hard to meet both requirements without $$ involved.
[/quote]This is a very absolute statement you made there. I honestly doubt that to be the case but that is just my opinion.
[/quote]Absolutes can be right until proven wrong. Prove it wrong.
[/quote]I don’t have the burden of proof as I did not make the statement. Nice try. ;D
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“26725” timestamp=“1377872857”]
[quote author=wesphily link=topic=3438.msg26718#msg26718 date=1377869210]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26697#msg26697 date=1377839165]
[quote author=wesphily link=topic=3438.msg26670#msg26670 date=1377824479]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26608#msg26608 date=1377789408]
To be completely fair I suggest that Peter have the new portion of the code reviewed by other coin developers just to get input from a technical perspective.Perhaps Peter already did this as I have not been watching this that closely.
[/quote][size=12pt][b]Everybody[/b][/size] that has the knowledge required and is willing to put in the time required has already reviewed the code. What I mean by this statement is that most people who have the experience do not have the time or refuse to put in the time required. Most people who have the time and/or willing to put in the time don’t have the experience required. Hard to meet both requirements without $$ involved.
[/quote]This is a very absolute statement you made there. I honestly doubt that to be the case but that is just my opinion.
[/quote]Absolutes can be right until proven wrong. Prove it wrong.
[/quote]Two things, Wes, do not use words like everybody and nobody as you will irk those who like to be literal. Smoothie, do not get caught up arguing over small details of loosely spoken words, stay focused on the issues at hand :)
[/quote]Well then again it is the small details that make up the bigger ones right?
I’ve voiced my opinion and views. Obviously most appear to disagree. That is okay with me.
To be honest I could be completely wrong, but I would not be honest with myself if I did not voice what I thought was the best course of action.
Even when Sunny King used his centralized checkpointing much of the community was opposed to it. The reason he had the checkpointing (if you read into the history) was because there existed an exploit he did not tell anyone about until Jutarul exposed it.
Price plumetted, and community support for PPC fell quite quickly.
I wouldn’t call a 51% attack an “exploit” but rather a feature that exists in a non-perfect system that Satoshi built.
I’m not exactly sure what your take is on changing the difficulty adjustment algorithm, but I sure hope it doesn’t change soon. Current events form future trends. Likely changing the diff algo twice can turn into more than that.
In any case. I’ve said my peace.
Aloha
