Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

About This Club

Adults only. It's like a library, except with some talking (none of it about price).

  1. What's new in this club
  2. NightJanitor

    Neat, huh?

  3. NightJanitor

    How It Works: Consent & Validity (working title)

    "Validators" = "Sequencers" That takes care of like nine of those first-order terminology confusions/questions, above - not to mention making all that time I spent listening to the below music worth it. God bless the Musicians and the Dreamers of the Dream... (Not least for not making me feel so damned old!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZfi6G7vOuE&list=PLNu6lp2KBC7KKu5bumjj7ANFPrfx9CTFL&index=10 Good change!
  4. NightJanitor

    Pseudorandom Insight

    Discovered by accident (and much to my chagrin): Writing things in cursive script apparently an effective form of encryption against large percentage of those under ~30yrs old.
  5. http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/pdf/McCloskey_HowGrowthHappens.pdf Deirdre McCloskey at the The Heritage Foundation (a little bit on 'containerization'):
  6. NightJanitor

    Pseudorandom Insight

    "On a long enough timeline, cryptography is steganography." / "All cryptography is (can be seen as) (ultimately (temporally)) steganography." This little insight might be nothing --- but there are instances when/where "momentary" (divide time as needed) "security" has "applications". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horner%27s_method#History ("It all seemed to me to be obvious, you know, in hindsight.")
  7. NightJanitor

    How It Works: Consent & Validity (working title)

    Thanks for translating my braindump. Yes, "spirit of inquiry" is exactly the thing. I can't follow some of this stuff - or at the least, I'm not certain I follow some of it - and that's partially a function of the complexity of it, but it's also a function of its opacity. I think what I want is more plain language; here, for example, is a pull request by NikB (seems to be a great guy; I don't know him, other than through his code/comments): https://github.com/ripple/rippled/pull/2811#issuecomment-448441917 There's a very interesting, almost magically clarifying, thing that happens when Schurr steps into the conversation to do a "Wait, wait! Let's translate!" - need more of that... Now, I'm an idiot, so, who cares if I understand what's going on here, but I do see a rational incentive to want as many people developing on the ledger as possible and that "spark" of curiosity can only be turned into a flame if some of this stuff is translated out into plain language. The fact that this little act of translation works for developers seems to indicate to me that it could also be helpful for the community, at large, not only in correcting/defending understandings that already exist, but also building more.
  8. WrathofKahneman

    How It Works: Consent & Validity (working title)

    I think we need/want a precise, granular account of what constitutes voting - timelines, credentials, propagation, how are they timed, what happens in the interstices of acceptance even if all these things are perpetual, etc. Eventually someone on the internet will scheme about convincing as many nodes as possible to do something self-serving that is unethical. The downside of consensus is that no one vote can stop something malicious from happening, either. (Or can it? Is there one, last vote that tips the %80 needed? When? Where?) I'm sure Ripple, given their team, has thought through this and more but I would like to understand, too. I'm not a computer scientist, though. Hope this post in the spirit of the thread
  9. NightJanitor

    How It Works: Consent & Validity (working title)

    I'm not exactly sure what either the general or the specific Q "is" (or ought to be), yet... So, pasting in the conversational genesis of this little tangent - and will try to work it back around to questions. ------------------------------------------ Kpuff: I brought up the amendment rule in which the 55 or so billion can be taken out of their hands if we feel they are not handling it well. They kept bringing up the centralized argument so yeah I went there. If I stated any wrong information please correct me thanks. NightJanitor: Cool. Go ahead and post the name of your validator node that'll be proposing that amendment so that all the sane validators can permanently remove it from their UNL's. The amendments people try to propose will be very revealing about the values of those proposing them. (I'd imagine a lot of people will flame out in public doing that stuff!) "Amendment 99: Bob said or did something that I don't like and I'm so mad that I want a majority to censor Bob's transactions on the XRPL. Who's with me? ---Signed, Alice" Watching the trust graph adjust would be rather interesting. This is what all the people who understand "slippery slope" love about the decentralized allocation of UNL trust. Even in the case where, say, a nation-state actor was running a validator, there's still some rather robust resiliency, in that any entity can be a validator and trust is adjustable. Lucky: And by the way, there is no reason to remove a validator from the UNL because you don't agree with it's vote. The amendment will only pass with 80% support, no UNL's need to be edited in the voting process. From a decentralization perspective, it's recommended to include a broad diversity of voices in your network, and accept that fact that you won't reach 100% agreement on everything. NightJanitor: NO reason? Are you sure? I'm not. How's that 80% calculated? (Another approach: How's the 100%, of which the 80% is a subset, calculated?) I have gedankens around this - and we should probably break this into another thread - but it's almost dawn and I need sleep - I'll let you explain. Lucky: Yes I am sure. https://developers.ripple.com/amendments.html The reason you explicitly trust validators is that you trust that they will apply the network rules of the current version. The 80% threshold for applying new features is also a network rule of the current version, so a trustworthy node will conform to the outcome of the vote, whether it agrees to the amendment itself or not. NightJanitor: Sure --- but let's define our terms, for clarity. Correct or not correct: The 80% threshold for an amendment to pass - in your local reality - is for it to sustain 80% YES support of the validator nodes which are in your UNL and which you trust. Is that statemet true or false? If not, why not? If so, what follows? Lucky: Well yes, you have a point there, and it also goes the other way: the 20% that disagree with an amendment could continue with their own UNL. But they don't even need the amendment voting process for that: anyone can fire up a new network today, with whatever network rules and whatever software version they please. Yet the power of the amendment process is that it enables coming to an agreement about new features, while keeping everyone on board. Instead of fragmenting into smaller and smaller fractions of people that 100% agree with each other, but can't transact with other fractions because of compatibility issues. As we now see in the Bitcoin network. But for this to work, voting should really reflect the diversity of opinions in the ecosystem. And that means participants of the network should not tamper with the voting process by silencing opinions by removing validators that have expressed an unfavorable opinion. That's like blocking people on twitter that express opinions you don't agree with. You end up in a bubble where everybody agrees with you, but that is alienated from the reality outside your bubble. In a sound democracy, you keep dissonant voices on board, to make sure that whatever you decide upon, has the maximum community support. Maximum community support is of course ultra important for a global payment system, where you want to be able to transact with the maximum number of people. I believe they've really hit the ball with the amendment process, which allows smooth upgrades without drama. The planned Cobalt upgrade makes this process even more robust. -------------------------- The bolded parts are the jumping off point for me... You'll pardon me (and I'll pardon all, from tolerating me) while I do some more thinking (and celebrate Christmas). -------------------------- Some of the questions I've seen at confs/social/etc lately are of the plain language forms: How is the 100% of "voters" determined? Are all votes "equal"? Is there a weighted distribution based upon nodes who trust certain validator(s)? Who counts the votes? When do the polls close, exactly? Is anyone "checking ID" / "who can vote"? Does changing your UNL during a vote have any effect upon the calculations of the "results"? What is a "trusted validator"? How does one become "trusted"" (et cetera - and it may be of use to compile these types of questions, if only to distill them... though a completely new batch of commonly asked questions which need readymade answers will arrive, as soon as Cobalt does..... Speaking of which, here's Cobalt, which lucky mentioned as making the amendment process "more robust": https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07240.pdf And here's an excerpt: "The UNLs give structure to the network and allow a layered notion of trust, where a node that is present in more UNLs is implicitly considered more trustworthy and is more influential." This is what I had in mind, maybe - though it was more of a picture - when saying I'd be super quick to cut any validator supporting a "bad" amendment from my validator node's UNL - I believe I am dancing around the difference between the "quorum" method (which is now live) and then Cobalt's "subset" method, which is not now live... And, additionally, global vs local concerns.... I am not sure what my questions are, yet - but I do, in fact, believe there would - under Cobalt - be "a reason to actively distrust a validator by removing it from my UNL" *for supporting* an amendment with which I disagreed (to deprive it of "influence" - and this would be almost an abstracted form of voting, in itself - since "influence" is all that seems to "count"?) --- and... I can see strengths and weaknesses for this that I suppose depend upon how it gets implemented. It is quite possible that I am just visualizing/understanding Cobalt ("again, for the first time!") - and have somehow managed to confuse myself, again. but, I don't know... Has any of the peer review for Cobalt come in, yet? That might be helpful.. Or... like... a version of "Cobalt Written In Something More Closely Resembling Plain English"? I'd like to have more eyes on it - preferably, from a variety of backgrounds besides just computer science. Anyway, I'll marinate on this stuff a bit... while waiting on Santa.
  10. LordVetinari

    How It Works: Consent & Validity (working title)

    @NightJanitor I believe the thread you referenced is already a little here and there. There are questions about specific escrow, entities, etc. I think it would be better to remove the specific instances and just generalize the discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You want to understand how an individual who runs a validator could propose an amendment that could change an escrow?
  11. NightJanitor

    How It Works: Consent & Validity (working title)

    https://www.distributedagreement.com/2018/06/19/censorship-and-censorship-resistance/ Included by reference, D. Schwartz on Censorship Resistance at a ledger/transaction level, but not necessarily (?) with respect to amendments/validators/voting. Teach me, please, anyone who knows. Assume I'm an idiot, but also that I'm "willing to learn!" "If you can't explain it to an idiot, I can't be sure you understand it." -D. Feynman (may have said it)
  12. This is - as one of my old friends is fond of saying, "the good talk, that I love" - and needs some discourse, explanation, and translation to various dialects/fields, plus more input. [To do: Fetch posts from Lucky and myself, in this thread concerning amendments, validators, and voting. If you know how to do it, please do...] [Sincere thanks to Kpuff for starting this off by "going there" and bringing up one of the issues that a lot of people say is kept swept under a rug.] ["Open, Sesame!"]
  13. NightJanitor

    Neat, huh?

    https://coil.com/
  14. NightJanitor

    Be nice...

  15. NightJanitor

    Censorship (Detect and Resist)

    https://github.com/ripple/rippled/commit/945493d9cfebadc77974889925eaa053f369a184 In memoriam of this little milestone, Ray Bradbury’s Coda: About two years ago, a letter arrived from a solemn young Vassar lady telling me how much she enjoyed reading my experiment in space mythology, The Martian Chronicles. But, she added, wouldn’t it be a good idea, this late in time, to rewrite the book inserting more women’s characters and roles? A few years before that I got a certain amount of mail concerning the same Martian book complaining that the blacks in the book were Uncle Toms and why didn’t I “do them over”? Along about then came a note from a Southern white suggesting that I was prejudiced in favor of the blacks and the entire story should be dropped. Two weeks ago my mountain of mail delivered forth a pipsqueak mouse of a letter from a well-known publishing house that wanted to reprint my story “The Fog Horn” in a high school reader. In my story, I had described a lighthouse as hav­ing, late at night, an illumination coming from it that was a “God-Light.” Looking up at it from the view-point of any sea-creature one would have felt that one was in “the Presence.” The editors had deleted “God-Light” and “in the Presence.” Some five years back, the editors of yet another anthology for school readers put together a volume with some 400 (count ‘em) short stories in it. How do you cram 400 short stories by Twain, Irving, Poe, Maupassant and Bierce into one book? Simplicity itself. Skin, debone, demarrow, scarify, melt, render down and destroy. Every adjective that counted, every verb that moved, every metaphor that weighed more than a mosquito—out! Every simile that would have made a sub-moron’s mouth twitch—gone! Any aside that explained the two-bit philosophy of a first-rate writer—lost! Every story, slenderized, starved, bluepenciled, leeched and bled white, resembled every other story. Twain read like Poe read like Shakespeare read like Dostoevsky read like—in the finale—Edgar Guest. Every word of more than three syllables had been ra­zored. Every image that demanded so much as one instant’s attention—shot dead. Do you begin to get the damned and incredible picture? How did I react to all of the above? By “firing” the whole lot. By sending rejection slips to each and every one. By ticketing the assembly of idiots to the far reaches of hell. The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people run­ning about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist, Zionist / Seventh-day Adventist, Women’s Lib / Republican, Mattachine/ Four Square Gospel feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme. Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by minori­ties, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever. “Shut the door, they’re coming through the win­dow, shut the window, they’re coming through the door,” are the words to an old song. They fit my life-style with newly arriving butcher/censors every month. Only six weeks ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubby-hole editors at Ballantine Books, fearful of contaminating the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel. Students, reading the novel which, after all, deals with censorship and book-burning in the fu­ture, wrote to tell me of this exquisite irony. Judy-Lynn Del Rey, one of the new Ballantine editors, is having the entire book reset and republished this summer with all the damns and hells back in place. A final test for old Job II here: I sent a play, Leviathan 99, off to a university theater a month ago. My play is based on the “Moby ****” mythology, dedi­cated to Melville, and concerns a rocket crew and a blind space captain who venture forth to encounter a Great White Comet and destroy the destroyer. My drama premieres as an opera in Paris this autumn. But, for now, the university wrote back that they hardly dared do my play—it had no women in it! And the ERA ladies on campus would descend with ball-bats if the drama department even tried! Grinding my bicuspids into powder, I suggested that would mean, from now on, no more productions of Boys in the Band (no women), or The Women (no men). Or, counting heads, male and female, a good lot of Shakespeare that would never be seen again, especially if you count lines and find that all the good stuff went to the males! I wrote back maybe they should do my play one week, and The Women the next. They probably thought I was joking, and I’m not sure that I wasn’t. For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangu­tan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversation­ist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the tip of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights end and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mor­mons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent type-writers. If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmilk teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture. If the Chicano intel­lectuals wish to re-cut my “Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” so it shapes “Zoot,” may the belt unravel and the pants fall. For, let’s face it, digression is the soul of wit. Take philosophic asides away from Dante, Milton or Hamlet’s father’s ghost and what stays is dry bones. Laur­ence Sterne said it once: Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine, the life, the soul of reading! Take them out and one cold eternal winter would reign in every page. Restore them to the writer—he steps forth like a bridegroom, bids them all-hail, brings in variety and forbids the appetite to fail. In sum, do not insult me with the beheadings, finger-choppings or the lung-deflations you plan for my works. I need my head to shake or nod, my hand to wave or make into a fist, my lungs to shout or whis­per with. I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book. All you umpires, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It’s my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I’ve won or lost. At sunrise, I’m out again, giving it the old try. And no one can help me. Not even you.
  16.  
×