New write-up on Meta-Decentralized Crypto-Currencies: http://fare.tunes.org/computing/mdcc2018.html … Fast operations by centralized notaries, secure arbitration by decentralized consensus.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Ngnghm
Interesting but questions remain concerning the notary bond system. A successful notary will always have transactions in its system. Is the bond's size/duration related to the transactions the notary has to manage? By what metric? Solvency ratios jump to mind.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jabial
A good policy is to trust a notary's underwritings up to half the bond he posted. So a notary with a $2M bond can probably be trusted for up to $1M in transactions not yet confirmed by the consensus. And this information is verifiable shared knowledge.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The 2/1 ratio is based on the fact that if the notary is in collusion with whoever wins the next block, he could make up as "reward" half of what he loses from his double-spending being denounced. Bigger rewards imply bigger ratios; smaller rewards smaller ratios.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ngnghm
Yes, but a successful notary will manage not one but a large number of concurrent transactions. Can't he just cheat several people?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jabial
He can't cheat more than one person if the merchant software is careful to partake in the broadcast chat network that generates shared information about ongoing transactions: the moment a conflicting promise is found, everyone knows he's a cheat and his bond is doomed.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
That's the beauty of Slasher-style accountability, as adopted by Ethereum 2 or Tezos: trying to cheat people is not free, as it is with more primitive protocols. You *will* be caught, and you will lose all your assets, that include at least the bond.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Read my blog!