How to Shuffle Your BCH Coins Like a Boss Bitcoin Insider

Slack log of AIP19 discussion - 16-08-18

Please find below the slack log for discussion relating AIP19 as presented here https://github.com/ArkEcosystem/AIPs/issues/26
I will try to write a blog post explaining in further detail the AIP19 for non-technical individuals however due to current obligations it will be delayed and finish some time in September.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew_DC [3:43 PM]
I think AIP 18/19 has some merit and I had a chance to look at it before he published. He gave Francois and I a chance to review the idea as he was hesitant to post it publicly in fear that a competitor might steal it, which I can appreciate. There are a lot of things in there that I find interesting. The proposal in AIP18 makes a lot of sense and would solidify the price discovery and help create a streamlined system for the wallet for token swaps. We can make it intuitive and easy to use. The AIP19 proposal is where I think we all need to slow down and seriously consider both the impact it would have on ARK and what ARK is trying to accomplish, as well as the complications that might arise from the system. For starters, AIP19 turns ARK into a decentralized delegate services network. In other words, Consensus-As-A-Service (CAAS). This is something we actually discussed at Crypti and had a model for, which I believe Lisk is still planning on implementing. That model looks very similar to what Komodo has already tried to implement in regards to storing data on the main chain (hashes) relevant to the sidechain as an added security layer. I'm not sure that solution is the best model and I think there is a major problem that needs solved, which AIP19 is partially trying to address. That problem is the security of early stage bridge chains who have yet to build a strong following. Finding a way to use the "hash power", or in this case, vote based security, of the main chain, is something I've been very interested in and would love to find a proper solution for. What needs to be considered is the impact that the system has on up-time and reliability of the network (for starters). Let's say I'm an attacker and I want to just really hose up the works. If I create a script that moves large chunks of voting wait all over the place consistently for multiple blocks or rounds, how will that impact the delegates assignments, will they all switch to the appropriate network in time, will blocks be missed as the transition occurs, etc. Consider that every 1-2 cent change in price could drastically move delegates between networks and if you couple that with voter swings, you are looking at a lot of moving parts. For all of that complexity, what added security do you really gain? New bridge chains will still be very low on the list for delegates due to price which makes them easy targets. However, for an attacker, it would potentially randomize the order of delegates to a point where it would make it very hard to put yourself in position to take over a network which would add a lot of difficulty to an attack. To try and gauge exactly the amount of votes, the price of the token, and what 27 spots you would need to control would be almost impossible.
The complicated part would be smoothing out the delegate transitions in a way that doesn't cause total constant chaos among delegates as votes, prices, and registrations are constantly changing. Imagine 5 years from now if there are 100 bridge chains, some with 101 delegates, some with 501, some with 51, etc. What if someone comes in and registers a network with 1,000,000,000 delegates, does it shut down the system? How does it react? There are a lot of things like that which have to be considered before you can move forward with something like this.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea and I think it's a really intriguing use of the system, especially for DPoS, but there is a lot that has to be mapped out.
You can't just start coding it and hope for the best.
cj (azek) [3:55 PM]
@Matthew_DC ++
Matthew_DC [4:12 PM]
On a side note, I think that the CAAS model fits directly with the desire to have the ARK core technology power startups and enterprises blockchain solutions while providing a strong avenue for the public decentralized applications to take hold and grow. By keying their consensus and security into one main chain, it does provide added security and allow for a use case other than "currency" for the main net, but it does do it at the cost of some decentralization. Part of why ARK is being developed to allow bridged but separate chains is to avoid one central point of failure (the point of all of this). By making so many systems globally dependent on the ARK main chain for their consensus mechanism to function, you do sacrifice decentralization for security in this case. If the ARK network were to end up with a critical bug or suffer from some kind of attack, etc, it could cause all subsequent reliant network to stop forging as well. This is something we are always thinking about.
vdeurzen (blockport) [4:20 PM]
joined #trading_altcoins.
bangomatic [4:23 PM]
order books finally on Delta.
:allthethings:
Jarunik [4:38 PM]
For AIP18 I have my doubts concerning price finding. Free market will likely beat a stable coin formula. I would rather see each token valued individually. Didn‘t analyse the formulas in detail but looks like a weak point. A market based pricing would be more interesting.
Blazeron [4:39 PM]
why wouldn't it just use the market value automatically?
Jarunik [4:39 PM]
Because there is none
Check persona as example
Whats the Ark-Prs market rate?
tk0n (thefoundry) [4:43 PM]
price is also susceptible to manipulation
bangomatic [4:43 PM]
polymath making some BIG announcements today. www.twitter.com/polymathnetwork
Blazeron [4:48 PM]
hmm true, it wouldn't work with very small tokens that aren't widely listed
Matthew_DC [5:11 PM]
That's the same problem you have right now with any exchange. There are hundreds of tokens you could spike by 200% in 5 mins for like $200
The point isn't whether or not all of his math is perfect or whether or not his formula is even the one that gets used, its about whether or not it is a good idea to create "liquidity gates" for atomic swaps and separately, should they be used for price discovery
even if an AIP isn't taken and implemented wholesale, it may provide value through some of the ideas involved
Obviously, the system he proposes in AIP19 doesn't work without proper price discovery and some kind of oracle
Keep in mind, he specifically proposes a stable coin formula as an example as well as an exponential priced ICO token wherein the creator would be using it as a system to fund an ICO, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't have free market price discovery through some form of order book function.
pieface [5:19 PM]
Would AIP19 deem the ArkVM chain as not needed anymore?
Matthew_DC [5:20 PM]
To avoid major shuffling issues it almost makes sense to have a superblock either every round or x number of rounds with a longer block time to allow the delegate system to perform averages on price/position of bridge chains for delegate assignment and allow a longer period of adjustment
pieface [5:20 PM]
One of the benefits of the ArkVM chain is that you don't have to find delegates to run your chain, AIP19 sounds like it solves the same problem in a different way
Matthew_DC [5:21 PM]
It would be a completely separate consideration from VM and VM would still be something we want/need
Jarunik [5:22 PM]
If we need super blocks ... then it will slow down the mainnet the more sidechains we have. Wouldn't it be better to use decentralized ACES?
Matthew_DC [5:25 PM]
You could probably do it with 1 longer block at the end of each round to allow time for the shuffling. So one longer block every 7 mins or so. That's just a random thought and is something that would have to be tested. In some sense, this system IS ACES, just upgraded to take into account the added features of v2/AIP11 like webhooks, multi-sig, time locks, etc
just re-organized into a dex with some form of order book and then used for price discovery
Jarunik [5:26 PM]
yes ... but it should run outside of the Ark mainnet and just connect to it
Matthew_DC [5:26 PM]
Well, like I said above, in his proposal, you exchange decentralization for security/valuation
Which is one of the considerations (edited)
It's the same argument we've been having all along
brodinson [5:27 PM]
I'd like some extra security and valuation :evil:
Matthew_DC [5:27 PM]
Do you potentially sacrifice principal for token valuation?
Security would be for bridge chains
Jarunik [5:28 PM]
it will increase the risk for the main chain ...
brodinson [5:28 PM]
That's fine too right
Matthew_DC [5:28 PM]
At some point, you have to ask are you just recreating the current financial system with you as the central bank
brodinson [5:28 PM]
I mean ark being an ecosystem and all
Want all that good security stuffs for the bridgechains
Jarunik [5:29 PM]
I am against Ark being the "master" chain. :slightly_smiling_face:
brodinson [5:29 PM]
Also extra reasons for a higher valuation can only attract more investors and thus more attention.
Matthew_DC [5:29 PM]
The more bridge chains that rely on the ARK main chain for security and in order for their applications to work, the more you risk incentivizing collusion and extortion by the delegates and increase their personal power over people's money (edited)
Jarunik [5:30 PM]
If you do something directly for "high valuation" ... then you will take that profit from someone else ...
Who will lose ?
brodinson [5:30 PM]
Find countermeasures to possible collusion?
Jarunik [5:30 PM]
Unlikely to work.
brodinson [5:30 PM]
Maybe some random factors?
Jarunik [5:30 PM]
Power corrupts
Matthew_DC [5:30 PM]
I mean, at the end of the day, what he is suggesting, and what AIP19 boils down to, is turning the ARK Main Chain into a decentralized Delegate Marketplace for ARK Bridge Chains.
It's a pivot for the purpose of the main chain for sure.
Jarunik [5:31 PM]
And my point is that a bridgechain not good enough to create a delegate incentive and market is not good enough anyway.
Matthew_DC [5:32 PM]
The delegate marketplace was always meant to be a completely open free market system where people could find delegates for their bridge chains and make offers/promote their chains, but never force tie-in to the ARK main chain and 100% exclusively rely on it for security and validation.
Jarunik [5:32 PM]
If the bridge chain does offer utility and functionality ... then it will be no problem to pay the delegates.
Matthew_DC [5:33 PM]
He doesn't shy away from it in the proposal and outright says that a large motivating factor for the proposal is to create valuation for the ARK token and a use case.
Jarunik [5:33 PM]
So this kind of ark mainchain market place sounds like a concept to push up "unhealthy" sidechains for higher valuation (similar like shittokens of eth)
spghtzzz(ark.party is not a website) [5:33 PM]
ARK already has those
Matthew_DC [5:34 PM]
If it were me personally and only me and I wasn't relying on the ARK token to make me rich and I could make decisions based on my fundamentals and what was right in staying true to the nature of ARK and decentralization, I would whole heartedly say no way.
But the delegates decide what happens to the network in the end, not me.
vela_nova [5:34 PM]
No it sound like a way to incentivize adoption
Matthew_DC [5:34 PM]
There are lots of driving forces and for many, that driving force is token valuation, whether we like it or not.
Having every delegate for every bridge chain be required to register and receive payment on the main chain isn't really adoption in the way we want it. (edited)
spghtzzz(ark.party is not a website) [5:35 PM]
Marketplaces seem like a good idea, but I think ARKVM will probably stop people from having to delegate every single function they want to create, using tokens and leveraging someone elses blockchain as a service.
Jarunik [5:36 PM]
we already have a delegate market place ... if you offer good enough incentives and a convincing project ... easy to find dpos delegates.
pieface [5:38 PM]
Couldn't there be a compromise somewhere?
Continue with the Ark Mainchain like now.
An ArkVM chain which the Arkcoin is pegged to
An ArkDM (Ark delegate marketplace) chain which the Ark coin is also pegged to. (edited)
Matthew_DC [5:38 PM]
The truth is, a large part of the valuation and use of the token relies on our ability to create easy swapping mechanisms for ARK->Bridge Chains so that we can incorporate easy, simple to use, GUI driven interaction with bridge chains without anyone ever needing to own the other token. That involves ACES or something like AIP18, it involves creating multi-sig and time lock style transactions, that allow the network to use something similar to liquidity gates (for the sake of argument) to allow the ARK wallet or application store to carry out the bridge chain functions with the ARK balance, invisible to the user.
@pieface There is nothing to stop someone from creating any possible use case, whether that be a delegate marketplace or 3 or 4 VM focused chains with different flavors and incentives, etc
vela_nova [5:44 PM]
You can’t expect potential clients to identify a use case, the actors involved, and where that use case starts and ends without some kind of built in framework and enough momentum/adoption to ensure dependability. (edited)
Matthew_DC [5:45 PM]
This is the tricky part of decentralized business and a decentralized world, you have to come to consensus. It's why there are so many forks out there. If we asked every delegate, odds are it would be split on AIP19
If a potential client hasn't identified a use case then how are they a client? We absolutely can expect a potential client to identify a use case or they have no business. That's step #1. As far as finding delegates, we had always planned a marketplace, just not tied to the ARK main chain in the way described in AIP19. As far as examples and frameworks, we are building out new documentation and have some partners who will be helping us do just that.
vela_nova [5:55 PM]
It sounds like you’re relying too much on an audience that has already accepted ark as a solution to their needs. That’s problematic when it comes strengthening the ecosystem and encouraging adoption.
I look forward to this new documentation though (edited)
zebedee [5:57 PM]
lol Lisk up 30% , mainnet pump
vela_nova [6:02 PM]
:shrugs:
vela_nova [6:15 PM]
So the lisk community is convinced that their resources are dedicated to a productive cause. Maybe we could use some positive speculation too for a change. A little shade is one thing, but y’all are some walking palm trees :palm_tree: up in here. This culture of scrutinizing lisk or any other project but the one one we’re here for is ironically weakening the ark.
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [6:16 PM]
The we already have a market place argument is an inside argument imo. From the ‘outside’ aip19 would sound really nice. While there is some truth in the ‘shitcoin argument’ I feel it almost the same as the ‘bitcoin is used by criminals’ argument
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [6:16 PM]
What's the golden horde ?
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [6:17 PM]
Our marketing failed :cripes:
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [6:17 PM]
If it was on Reddit, I'm sorry. I don't follow the Reddit much because of the time Ark Tribe takes.
tk0n (thefoundry) [6:17 PM]
you have marketing?
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [6:18 PM]
@Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) Colby made a really nice introduction: https://medium.com/the-golden-horde-blog/the-golden-horde-announces-ark-delegation-merchandise-business-e3f1a4162a60?source=linkShare-b6b32376193e-1534436290
Medium
The Golden Horde Announces Ark Delegation & Merchandise Business
After being in the Ark community for more than a year, we have seen a lot of great people coming together and discussing all things…
Reading time
6 min read
Jul 26th
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*HOBm_aB5iJ4XUCV5y9Ls7g.png
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [6:19 PM]
replied to a thread:
This is really offensive, we should remove tk0n
vela_nova [6:20 PM]
Ya little too much behind closed doors for my taste.
SuperCool (The Golden Horde)
The we already have a market place argument is an inside argument imo. From the ‘outside’ aip19 would sound really nice. While there is some truth in the ‘shitcoin argument’ I feel it almost the same as the ‘bitcoin is used by criminals’ argument
Posted in #trading_altcoinsToday at 6:16 PM
Highjhacker (The Golden Horde) [6:20 PM]
replied to a thread:
DELETE :angry:
arkenstone [6:39 PM]
Slack outage
This message was deleted.
tk0n (thefoundry) [6:41 PM]
You can take away my GIFs but you can never take away my freedom :allthethings:
SuperCool (The Golden Horde)
This is really offensive, we should remove tk0n
From a thread in #trading_altcoinsToday at 6:19 PM
arkenstone [6:43 PM]
This was strange ..was on officia slack .. they said servers were down ..was getting error messages when sending text ..
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [6:44 PM]
Yeah slack was down for me aswell
I wanted to ad to my argument that aip19 or a similar solution would make ‘push click blockchain’ a real thing
Msk [6:55 PM]
joined #trading_altcoins.
Matthew_DC [6:58 PM]
I had a reply but couldn't post it and now I forgot :shrugs:
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [7:04 PM]
Haha
I also wrote that a lot smarter the first time
mak [7:14 PM]
Thanks for the feedback @Matthew_DC. Some of the points you mention up have been brought up in the last week by @skeuo as well. Such as someone changing votes frequently in order to mess with the system and someone creating a chain with 10,000 delegates. For the first problem I suggested that vote recount could happen every few hours instead of every block but it's possible there is a better way to handle this. In the second case I think a bridgechain with so many delegates wouldn't be able to sustain any significant token value since the blockreward would be diminished so much or would be unable to pay out because the liquidity gate ran out of ark. I agree these are technical hurdles related to implementation that we need to consider but I don't see them as critical issues.
Regarding your last point i.e someone breaking ark main chain would break the entire ecosystem I acknowledge that it is a concern. Which is why the token economic incentive is useful to make it more difficult to execute a 51% attack on the main chain. On the other hand since the bridgechains depend on the main chain's security for theirs, it makes the bridge chains more secure. In the end I see this as a mechanism design problem where the best approaches can be proven mathematically using game theory and if there's a better way to achieve the same effects then I'd be glad to check them out.
Matthew_DC [7:18 PM]
You also have to consider the consensus mechanisms and individual components and modules used by bridge chains. A given bridge chain may require a specific set of modules for their applications purpose. In that sense, their node software may be vastly different for providing consensus when compared to the ARK core model. In this case, let's say delegates ABC are providing consensus for Bridge Chain X and after vote re-shuffle, ABC are now required to provide consensus for the use case of Bridge Chain Y. This may require a completely different software package for the node and you have to determine a model for those delegates to not just re-shuffle to new peers for consensus, but also potentially download and implement new modules or entire new packages in order to provide consensus for the given bridge chain to which they are assigned. (edited)
Jarunik [7:19 PM]
Did anyone check the sidechain forging from mainchain that blockpool is developing?
Matthew_DC [7:20 PM]
I haven't
mike [7:20 PM]
I like the proposals but prefer pie's approach of implementing them on bridged chains. The main chain needs to be simple and reliable like TCP/IP. We then build on top of in modular fashion, like adding email and http on top of TCP/IP instead of adding them to it.
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [7:23 PM]
@mike the point was to make Ark the reward system, if they're on the bridged chain how would they receive Ark as the token reward for their forging chain?
It was also meant as an incensitive for non-forging node, as for now, they're running a node for free.
Matthew_DC [7:24 PM]
Maybe instead you do a dual voting system that somehow ties into a core delegate market network or the ARK Main Chain that allows for voting on a given bridge chain using a bridge chain ID# and Delegate# and every ARK accounts gets 1 vote per bridge chain and then that holds 60% weight and the bridge chain votes hold 40% and the bridge chain has a mechanism built into their node through a module that pulls votes from main net
So you provide additional security without the main net delegates providing consensus so packages aren't an issue and it's not as susceptible to being completely taken down by ark main net going down as a secondary voting system exists (bridge chain votes) (edited)
mak [7:25 PM]
That was also one of the suggestions that @skeuo came up with but from what I could work up it would have adverse effects on scaling since all main chain delegates now need to have a full node running for every bridgechain in order to know bridgechain only delegates (edited)
However if we could provide hard SPV guarantees then maybe it's possible
Matthew_DC [7:27 PM]
OK, no need to map that out further I think you know what I'm saying on that one and it sounds like it was mentioned.
Well, how do you trust any values from any network truly.
If you want to vote on a bridge chain, then your wallet has to connect to a relay or node on that network
through the same way we do now on ARK
no need to download the entire chain necessarily
goldenpepe [7:28 PM]
How does one provide SPV guarantees in dpos?
mak [7:30 PM]
the block headers leading up to the required transaction are provided though I'm not sure if the chance of correctness in DPoS is the same as in PoW (edited)
Matthew_DC [7:30 PM]
Delegates on the bridge chain could still convert and payout forging rewards to main net voters with a little work to the scripts
JayCrypto [7:32 PM]
You guys need a new white paper
Matthew_DC [7:33 PM]
Way to break the flow
mak [7:34 PM]
the main issue IMO would be with main chain delegates accepting the threshold signatures
if some of the delegates have been selected only on the bridgechain
then the main chain can't know for certain about them without SPV or a fullnode
and like I mentioned I don't have the expertise to figure out how reliable SPV is in a DPoS system
JayCrypto [7:35 PM]
Why does it matter
Why can't the nodes run their own delegates (edited)
mak [7:36 PM]
the bridge chain could either go 100% delegates voted on their own chain or 100% delegates voted on main chain but not a mixture of both
JayCrypto [7:37 PM]
Why
mak [7:37 PM]
it would require main chain delegates to run full nodes for all bridgechains
not scalable
you run into the same situation that ethereum has currently
JayCrypto [7:41 PM]
I'm not a tech person but I always envisioned ark as bridge chains not connected to main chain but able to communicate with them through arkVM or some aces module. I never thought the bridge chains would need the security of ark. As for ICO, I was under the impression that through arkVM or aces, companies can raise money through ark/Eth/btc... And eventually some arkVM Dex would be available to trade between tokens
Matthew_DC [7:41 PM]
Maybe I'm being naive here, but why does the main chain care? It's up to the bridge chain to properly implement the dual voting for the added security and to require voting from main net to impact their voting mechanism. Main net should just store a vote value. If it's 60/40 main chain voting to bridge chain voting to determine delegates, then you still have a ton of added security. IF the bridge chain isn't properly implementing it, then people should consider whether or not they really want to put their money into the token/bridge chain. It would require the bridge chain delegates run an ARK node but that's better for us and creates a larger ARK main network by adding more relays.
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something and I'm just thinking out loud while doing a bunch of other stuff
mak [7:42 PM]
main chain needs to approve/disapprove remote liquidity gate transactions based on it's knowledge of current bridgechain delegates
Matthew_DC [7:42 PM]
I'm not talking about the liquidity gate right now
mak [7:42 PM]
can't have AIP18 working without it
Matthew_DC [7:42 PM]
I'm talking about dual voting chains for added security
and then we don't need price discovery for vote shuffles
JayCrypto [7:43 PM]
What's a liquidity gate
mak [7:43 PM]
@JayCrypto please read the AIP 18 :slightly_smiling_face: https://github.com/ArkEcosystem/AIPs/issues/25
GitHub
AIP 18: On chain price discovery using liquidity gates · Issue #25 · ArkEcosystem/AIPs
AIP: 18 Title: Token price discovery and creating high liquidity decentralized exchange in the Ark ecosystem using instant crosschain atomic swaps Authors: Moazzam Abdullah Khan Status: Draft Type:...
Matthew_DC [7:44 PM]
and it provides utility because the voting from main chain provides security to side chain and also potentially if main chain accounts get 1 vote on every bridge chain it provides for additional forging rewards exponentially as the network grows
but without adding a bunch of complex activity on the main chain
just more voting transactions really
mak [7:44 PM]
We could make it so that the bridgechain only delegates aren't part of the k-threshold signature for the liquidity gate
that way it would work
Matthew_DC [7:45 PM]
ark tokens wouldn't dilute bridge chain circulation as they aren't actual tokens, but they provide for voting to expand capability and security of bridge chain through their use
mak [7:45 PM]
but then those delegates are 2nd class delegates that don't share the full responsibility
Matthew_DC [7:45 PM]
and voters on main chain could be paid out from converted forging rewards
Aren't they though?
ARK main net provides 100% of security of its main chain and 60% of all bridge chains that implement, bridge chains hold 40% of responsibility which is reasonable but allows for much more expensive 51% attacks if main net votes are being used on bridge chains providing added security for new chains just spinning up
mak [7:47 PM]
how do you propose we create the threshold signatures to control liquidity gates when the delegates are split like this?
Maybe I'm missing something here
Matthew_DC [7:47 PM]
I'm not concerned at all with liquidity gates right now
I'm talking about a system in which bridge chains get added security, main chain gets added utility, by adding very little to main chain bloat and using vendor field
then you are back to the idea of just having a decentralized exchange for swaps, atomic swaps, and traditional methods of moving funds between
for that matter, any DPoS chain could tie in to the main chain for added security using that method by registering a chain and allowing voting
mak [7:49 PM]
Let me ask you this then. Do you agree that the bridgechain's delegates should be responsible for handling it's liquidity gate? You have to keep in mind there are potentially billions of dollars worth of tokens stored in them.
I think that delegates should be responsible for it because the community trusted them with their votes.
Matthew_DC [7:50 PM]
just create an atomic swap marketplace
mak [7:51 PM]
can't have price discovery without liquidity gates though. So there would be no rank ladder to figure out delegate-bridgechain match
Matthew_DC [7:51 PM]
no ladder necessary
no convoluted hot swapping delegates
main chain accounts choose who they want to vote for
and can register 1 vote per bridge chain
mak [7:52 PM]
well then you have the same issue of delegates speculating on future token price and negotiating with team to become a delegate
too much social friction
Matthew_DC [7:53 PM]
I disagree. People said our version of DPoS wouldn't work because of social this and that and bribes and blah blah
Delegates can't negotiate with the team for votes if the main chain votes outweigh the bridge chain funds 60/40
mak [7:54 PM]
Ohh I think it works. Just that there is a lot of unnecessary headache involved which can be taken out completely. (edited)
JayCrypto [7:54 PM]
@Matthew_DC are you saying that ark holders can vote on bridhechain delegates even though they have no bridhechain tokens?
Matthew_DC [7:54 PM]
you are creating checks and balances on manipulation by the team in a sense
@JayCrypto yes, as an added security measure for the bridge chain to avoid 51% attacks in their infant stages
you would essentially have to take over ARK main chain, plus a % of bridge chain tokens to gain control
JayCrypto [7:55 PM]
Or you could issue 1 trillion of your own tokens
Is there a yes no option for this
Matthew_DC [7:56 PM]
It doesn't matter if % is 60/40 in delegate appointment 60% of weight from ARK main net and 40% from bridge chain net voting
mak [7:56 PM]
"you are creating checks and balances on manipulation by the team in a sense"
I disagree with that assessment. I am creating a decentralized protocol that manages the financial layer across multiple chains. The team should only have to worry about their product and not about convincing delegates to join them by offering rewards outside of the blockrewards.
Matthew_DC [7:56 PM]
so no matter how many tokens you make, it still holds in the calculation
They aren't offering outside rewards of any kind
JayCrypto [7:57 PM]
Is there a yes no option for this
Cos I wouldn't want it
Matthew_DC [7:57 PM]
They build their product, delegates need to worry about convincing people to vote for them
yes or no option for what?
mike [7:57 PM]
Implementing AIP18 and 19 on a bridge chain would make a lot of sense. It can operate with a 2 way peg to ark even, so delegate rewards would be the same, and convertible to Ark, or let the market decide the conversion rate, or use a liquidity gate. Many of the same delegates would operate on it, as has been the case with Persona.
mak [7:57 PM]
Eventually it's going to happen. Why would a delegate want to run the 100th chain in the ark ecosystem when it's expected market cap would never reach a million dollars.
JayCrypto [7:58 PM]
For this 60 034'3!5 thing
Matthew_DC [7:58 PM]
Why would anyone run as a delegate on any network
JayCrypto [7:58 PM]
Percent
Matthew_DC [7:58 PM]
at some point the team has to do some form of work
Crypto needs to get away from this entitlement stage
mak [7:58 PM]
@mike it could be done that way for convenience but it's functionally equivalent to having the voting on main ark chain.
Matthew_DC [7:58 PM]
if your product is stupid and no one believes it will ever have value and you aren't making any progress or building anything
then your network SHOULD die
mike [7:59 PM]
also, Rob has set up multiple chains to run on the same servers, so lower volume chains can be run very cost effectively.
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [8:00 PM]
But then again, even with a great product, starting isn't always easy, so this marketplace of delegate could enable great project effectively.
mike [8:00 PM]
yes, mainchain voting could be mirrored over to the bridged aip19 chain.
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [8:00 PM]
It would reduce risks for delegates too when they actually help a starting project, before they decide if they will run a full delegate on the chain or not.
Matthew_DC [8:01 PM]
AIP19 doesn't solve the "I don't want to be a delegate on a useless network" problem either
why would someone sit in spots 1,000-2,000 and run a node at a loss?
same problem
mike [8:01 PM]
i've never seen a new project having problems recruiting delegates, but they do sometimes have a problem retaining them if interest in the project fades due to failure to execute.
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [8:02 PM]
@mike but so far there isn't many projects.
mak [8:02 PM]
I think you misunderstood my point @Matthew_DC. I think delegates are service providers that get paid to ensure decentralization to your bridgechain. They may or may not provide additional services to remain competitive but that's irrelevant for now. What I'm saying is that we can streamline the back and forth that is required currently to get delegates and keep them running (look at KAPU).
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [8:02 PM]
When the number multiplies, there will be much more to chose from, and this might become another kind of trouble.
mak [8:03 PM]
However if you don't agree with that perspective then that's fine. Someone will eventually come in and implement AIP19 on their forked chain and we will let the market decide if it's useful or not.
vela_nova [8:03 PM]
Dunno ark the product can have everything but a driving purpose and still fail economically
Matthew_DC [8:03 PM]
You just need a central place for delegates to market themselves and their services and for projects to find them
Master [8:03 PM]
What’s the debate :eyes:
vela_nova [8:03 PM]
That is why I like what mak is getting at
Matthew_DC [8:03 PM]
You can do that without massive changes to the ARK Main net
JayCrypto [8:03 PM]
I'm just shocked that ark bridgechains have to use ark main chain delegates
Jarunik [8:04 PM]
A normal website is enough as delegate market place. I would have to run different servers for different chains anyway ... no need to integrate delegate operation into one mainchain.
Matthew_DC [8:04 PM]
And I agree the market should decide so you won't find any argument there. I would love to see multiple models challenge one another because in the end it makes the winner much stronger
Jarunik [8:05 PM]
More delegate tools that come out of the box and are easy to port over would help though.. :wink:
Matthew_DC [8:05 PM]
but anyone struggling to find delegates right now, it is most likely because their idea just sucks
Jarunik [8:06 PM]
Let's first have a good and stable payment solution for all bridge chains without the need for every delegate to code some script himself ... will already make delegate recruitement easier.
Matthew_DC [8:06 PM]
That's not going to happen. Delegate payouts won't be coded into the network itself by us at any point.
Jarunik [8:06 PM]
Things like that are much easier to implement and much less invasive.
I didn't say that ...
Brian already made a good plugin.
Matthew_DC [8:07 PM]
That I'm fine with
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [8:07 PM]
@Jarunik something like that implemented in the Ark Commander?
Matthew_DC [8:07 PM]
but no baking it into the network core itself
Jarunik [8:07 PM]
If that becomes well tested and easy to use ... will help all bridge chains
Matthew_DC [8:07 PM]
for previously stated reasons
Jarunik [8:07 PM]
i don't want anything in the core :stuck_out_tongue:
i love the bare bone approach of v2
Matthew_DC [8:07 PM]
shit guys, I'm really enjoying this but I was supposed to leave 7 minutes ago to take my kids somewhere
try to capture some of the convo if you can and post a pastebin link in the github maybe
just for the sake of saving it
Jarunik [8:08 PM]
complex stuff tends to fail too easily
mak [8:08 PM]
have fun :slightly_smiling_face:
I think I've laid out all of my points. It's upto the delegates to decide if the idea holds merit and should be implemented.
JayCrypto [8:09 PM]
Is this 60/40 thing a slider which new bridgechains can use @Matthew_DC
spghtzzz(ark.party is not a website) [8:09 PM]
I always thought the ArkVM was meant to address this, if a person who is starting a new bridge does not **need** to change any node code, or **want** to run any delegates they can just create a token. Perhaps I am wrong though.
mike [8:09 PM]
i think implementing aip19 on a forked chain is best approach, and let market decide. i think there are some very good ideas to try in aip18 and 19, which is the advantage of ark's modular approach. ideas like this can be tried without risking the main chain, or having to hardfork it to add them in. By allowing a token swap or doing an airdrop, ark holders can have a stake in its success if it really does take off.
mak [1 hour ago]
If there's a 1:1 peg with ark on the new chain then there's no economic incentive for people to hold the new chain. However it will split the votes so it would be easier to attack the new network that's hosting the bridgechain delegate voting system.
mak [1 hour ago]
So if we want to experiment with it then we can't have the peg there.
mike [1 hour ago]
so you can mirror the voting from the main chain, just ignore votes for delegates that aren't running on the bridged chain.
mak [1 hour ago]
At that point is it a different chain anymore?
submitted by moazzam2k to ArkEcosystem [link] [comments]

How To Get FREE Bitcoin Fast - Free BTC in 2020 04 Downloading Blockchain To Speed Synchronize - YouTube CRYPTO SHUFFLE !,NEXT BITCOIN !,Cardano SCAM !,Bitcoin ... Real Bitcoin Hack Tool Earn On PC 2018 Best Bitcoin Hack Tool 122 $ Per Day On Pc Now 2018

Bitcoin Video Casino is a provably fair gaming site with high expected return. You can try out any of our games using test credits. If you want to play and win Bitcoins, simply send any amount of Bitcoins to the address at the bottom of your screen. Bitcoin Core should also work on most other Unix-like systems but is not as frequently tested on them. From 0.17.0 onwards, macOS <10.10 is no longer supported. 0.17.0 is built using Qt 5.9.x, which doesn’t support versions of macOS older than 10.10. Additionally, Bitcoin Core does not yet change appearance when macOS “dark mode” is ... CashShuffle is a privacy tool that automatically mixes (or "shuffles") your Bitcoin Cash with other CashShuffle users, making it harder to spy on you with blockchain analysis. There have already been 55,820 shuffles, making 260,138 BCH more private =) Shuffle veterans, spin up your Electron Cash wallets! If your whole wallet is already shuffled ... Bitcoin Video Casino is a provably fair gaming site with high expected return. You can try out any of our games using test credits. If you want to play and win Bitcoins, simply send any amount of Bitcoins to the address at the bottom of your screen. Please confirm that using this web site is legal in your country. PLEASE PASSWORD PROTECT OR 2FA PROTECT YOUR ACCOUNT!!! Click the "account" tab ... Stream a16z Podcast: Blockchain vs/and Bitcoin by a16z from desktop or your mobile device. SoundCloud a16z Podcast: Blockchain vs/and Bitcoin by a16z published on 2015-11-11T04:26:02Z. Recommended tracks Starting and Scaling Marketplaces with Eventbrite GM Brian Rothenberg and Casey Winters Greymatter by Greylock Partners published on 2017-06-15T17:34:55Z Episode 33: Y Combinator on ...

[index] [16154] [11503] [7623] [45052] [25682] [25202] [15395] [27981] [24522] [40022]

How To Get FREE Bitcoin Fast - Free BTC in 2020

Increase slow download and sync of bitcoin blockchain on Mac - Duration: 2:01. Daniel's Tutorials 1,007 views. 2:01. Getting your Private Keys from the Bitcoin Core wallet - Duration: 5:11. ... When you are experiencing a slow download and synchronisation of the bitcoin blockchain this little tutorial might be of help. We will disable power nap feature for our system to stop macOS from ... Download Link now Choose Slow Download https://ufile.io/xar3t Like and Subscribe Keywords bitcoin hack bitcoin hacker bitcoin hack generator bitcoin hack tool bitcoin hack free bitcoin hack 2018 ... In Hindi. Hi Friends.BEWARE OF SCAMMERS. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE. OMG Wallet Connect Testnet - https://webwallet.mainnet.v1.omg.network/ Matic Wallet Connect - h... In this video I'm going to share a method to earn fast bitcoins in 2020, so far this is the best and fastest way i could earn bitcoin to my BTC wallet. ️ ️ ️ Website earnfreebitcoin.club ...

#