Tip selections and acceptance
If I select any two tips randomly, without a full knowledge of the tangle, will it change the probability that my transaction will be selected by other transactions?
tip-selection
add a comment |
If I select any two tips randomly, without a full knowledge of the tangle, will it change the probability that my transaction will be selected by other transactions?
tip-selection
Please don't modify completely your question after answers are posted.
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:04
@ben75 What you edited is the essential assumption of the current system and I want it to be clear that it is also the assumption used in this question. I'm not trying to confuse you. In the current system and whitepaper, all nodes follow the same rule and the system is created also so that all participants have the same chances of peering through mutual tethering. Naturally, any answers must account for the same behaviors imposed as the current system does.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:35
Your original question is about selecting 2 completely random tips in a Tangle where majority follow the recommended MCMC algo. (I just rollbacl your question to it's original form)
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:52
That's still the assumption. It just might not be obvious that to the reader that those rules are assumed in the current system.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:59
add a comment |
If I select any two tips randomly, without a full knowledge of the tangle, will it change the probability that my transaction will be selected by other transactions?
tip-selection
If I select any two tips randomly, without a full knowledge of the tangle, will it change the probability that my transaction will be selected by other transactions?
tip-selection
tip-selection
edited Dec 19 '18 at 14:03
ben75
5,061529
5,061529
asked Dec 9 '18 at 9:57
The Coordinator
174126
174126
Please don't modify completely your question after answers are posted.
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:04
@ben75 What you edited is the essential assumption of the current system and I want it to be clear that it is also the assumption used in this question. I'm not trying to confuse you. In the current system and whitepaper, all nodes follow the same rule and the system is created also so that all participants have the same chances of peering through mutual tethering. Naturally, any answers must account for the same behaviors imposed as the current system does.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:35
Your original question is about selecting 2 completely random tips in a Tangle where majority follow the recommended MCMC algo. (I just rollbacl your question to it's original form)
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:52
That's still the assumption. It just might not be obvious that to the reader that those rules are assumed in the current system.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:59
add a comment |
Please don't modify completely your question after answers are posted.
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:04
@ben75 What you edited is the essential assumption of the current system and I want it to be clear that it is also the assumption used in this question. I'm not trying to confuse you. In the current system and whitepaper, all nodes follow the same rule and the system is created also so that all participants have the same chances of peering through mutual tethering. Naturally, any answers must account for the same behaviors imposed as the current system does.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:35
Your original question is about selecting 2 completely random tips in a Tangle where majority follow the recommended MCMC algo. (I just rollbacl your question to it's original form)
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:52
That's still the assumption. It just might not be obvious that to the reader that those rules are assumed in the current system.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:59
Please don't modify completely your question after answers are posted.
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:04
Please don't modify completely your question after answers are posted.
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:04
@ben75 What you edited is the essential assumption of the current system and I want it to be clear that it is also the assumption used in this question. I'm not trying to confuse you. In the current system and whitepaper, all nodes follow the same rule and the system is created also so that all participants have the same chances of peering through mutual tethering. Naturally, any answers must account for the same behaviors imposed as the current system does.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:35
@ben75 What you edited is the essential assumption of the current system and I want it to be clear that it is also the assumption used in this question. I'm not trying to confuse you. In the current system and whitepaper, all nodes follow the same rule and the system is created also so that all participants have the same chances of peering through mutual tethering. Naturally, any answers must account for the same behaviors imposed as the current system does.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:35
Your original question is about selecting 2 completely random tips in a Tangle where majority follow the recommended MCMC algo. (I just rollbacl your question to it's original form)
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:52
Your original question is about selecting 2 completely random tips in a Tangle where majority follow the recommended MCMC algo. (I just rollbacl your question to it's original form)
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:52
That's still the assumption. It just might not be obvious that to the reader that those rules are assumed in the current system.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:59
That's still the assumption. It just might not be obvious that to the reader that those rules are assumed in the current system.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:59
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Selecting 2 random tips will impact negatively the probability for your transaction to be confirmed by others. There are multiple reasons for that:
There is a chance that 2 randomly selected tips are inconsistent. (i.e. your transaction would approve a double spend and will never be selected by any other transactions selected by the recommended GTTA algorithm). This situation is impossible with the recommended GTTA.
There is a chance that one of the randomly selected tip is not solid and will never be solid because one of it's branch or trunk simply don't exists. Therefore your transaction will never be solid and will never be approved by anyone else. This situation is impossible with the recommended GTTA.
Most importantly, the recommended GTTA algorithm is more likely to select tips to approve in the main tangle branch. If you select 2 tips completely randomly: the probability that they are in the main branch is lower than with the recommended GTTA algorithm. As a direct consequence : the probability for your transaction to be approved by others decrease.
I think those 3 points are relatively simple to understand and should give you the intuition that selecting 2 tips completely randomly will never increase your probability to be confirmed.
How much does it decrease is a more complex problem and the most efficient way to estimate this is probably by running simulations/real world measurement.
As a side note researchers from the IF already run tangle simulations and published the results, not directly answering your question, but at least giving you an idea of how the random walk parameters impact the probability to be confirmed.
Related links :
Alpha: playing with randomness (for an explanation of the random walk and how it can be fine tuned)
Confirmation rates in the Tangle (presenting the results of various simulations)
What if the two tips are solid?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 11:01
If the 2 tips are solid : reason 2 disappear, but 1 and 3 remains
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 11:03
What if the others all follow the same rule - so that they also just select two random tips?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:06
It sounds like your #1 and #2 (and maybe #3) relies on Milestones. The IOTA Spec allows for partitioning of the tangle, no? As per github.com/iotaledger/iri/issues/890
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:11
If all nodes select tips randomly (it means all nodes use alpha=0) and assuming that the nodes do at least their job of checking consistency and solidity: then the probability to get your transaction confirmed increase, but the time to get it confirmed increase accordingly : it will produce a very wide tangle.
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 13:38
|
show 5 more comments
The Tangle is a DAG and the issues inherent in it are independent of the tip selection and MCMC walk methods selected.
As such, whether the tip selection is random or constrained, given that all nodes follow the same protocol, the chances of any transaction getting included in any transaction is the same.
Even if the most stringent criteria is used to restrict tip selection, the fundamental nature of a DAG and an asynchronous network means:
- Nodes will never have a complete view of the entire network or of all issued transactions at the same time.
I would also like to note here that the current GTTA breaks essential Tangle functionality of allowing for Tangle partitioning and offline Tangles. It is detrimental and ultimately goes against one of the main advantages of Tangle.
Although adopted since v 1.5, this restriction to depth of a certain Milestone, and the presence of a Coordinator, explains why certain situations are impossible with the current software.
If Solidity means that all a transactions parents are known, then the DAG will grow wider as more old transactions will get built upon than new transactions. If random new tips are selected, then there will be more Blowballs and a greater chance of creating a partitioned DAG.
I argue, in the absence of the Milestones, it will be impossible to create a tip selection restriction that is liberal enough to include a high percent of new network transactions and simultaneously restricted enough to constrain the width of the Tangle DAG.
As a result, the DAG will grow wider and the confirmation time will grow unreasonably long as the software in each node will be required to evaluate the entire path of every transaction path.
So, my answer is that, whether the two tips are randomly selected or not, ultimately makes no difference in the absence of the Coordinator.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "684"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fiota.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2260%2ftip-selections-and-acceptance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Selecting 2 random tips will impact negatively the probability for your transaction to be confirmed by others. There are multiple reasons for that:
There is a chance that 2 randomly selected tips are inconsistent. (i.e. your transaction would approve a double spend and will never be selected by any other transactions selected by the recommended GTTA algorithm). This situation is impossible with the recommended GTTA.
There is a chance that one of the randomly selected tip is not solid and will never be solid because one of it's branch or trunk simply don't exists. Therefore your transaction will never be solid and will never be approved by anyone else. This situation is impossible with the recommended GTTA.
Most importantly, the recommended GTTA algorithm is more likely to select tips to approve in the main tangle branch. If you select 2 tips completely randomly: the probability that they are in the main branch is lower than with the recommended GTTA algorithm. As a direct consequence : the probability for your transaction to be approved by others decrease.
I think those 3 points are relatively simple to understand and should give you the intuition that selecting 2 tips completely randomly will never increase your probability to be confirmed.
How much does it decrease is a more complex problem and the most efficient way to estimate this is probably by running simulations/real world measurement.
As a side note researchers from the IF already run tangle simulations and published the results, not directly answering your question, but at least giving you an idea of how the random walk parameters impact the probability to be confirmed.
Related links :
Alpha: playing with randomness (for an explanation of the random walk and how it can be fine tuned)
Confirmation rates in the Tangle (presenting the results of various simulations)
What if the two tips are solid?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 11:01
If the 2 tips are solid : reason 2 disappear, but 1 and 3 remains
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 11:03
What if the others all follow the same rule - so that they also just select two random tips?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:06
It sounds like your #1 and #2 (and maybe #3) relies on Milestones. The IOTA Spec allows for partitioning of the tangle, no? As per github.com/iotaledger/iri/issues/890
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:11
If all nodes select tips randomly (it means all nodes use alpha=0) and assuming that the nodes do at least their job of checking consistency and solidity: then the probability to get your transaction confirmed increase, but the time to get it confirmed increase accordingly : it will produce a very wide tangle.
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 13:38
|
show 5 more comments
Selecting 2 random tips will impact negatively the probability for your transaction to be confirmed by others. There are multiple reasons for that:
There is a chance that 2 randomly selected tips are inconsistent. (i.e. your transaction would approve a double spend and will never be selected by any other transactions selected by the recommended GTTA algorithm). This situation is impossible with the recommended GTTA.
There is a chance that one of the randomly selected tip is not solid and will never be solid because one of it's branch or trunk simply don't exists. Therefore your transaction will never be solid and will never be approved by anyone else. This situation is impossible with the recommended GTTA.
Most importantly, the recommended GTTA algorithm is more likely to select tips to approve in the main tangle branch. If you select 2 tips completely randomly: the probability that they are in the main branch is lower than with the recommended GTTA algorithm. As a direct consequence : the probability for your transaction to be approved by others decrease.
I think those 3 points are relatively simple to understand and should give you the intuition that selecting 2 tips completely randomly will never increase your probability to be confirmed.
How much does it decrease is a more complex problem and the most efficient way to estimate this is probably by running simulations/real world measurement.
As a side note researchers from the IF already run tangle simulations and published the results, not directly answering your question, but at least giving you an idea of how the random walk parameters impact the probability to be confirmed.
Related links :
Alpha: playing with randomness (for an explanation of the random walk and how it can be fine tuned)
Confirmation rates in the Tangle (presenting the results of various simulations)
What if the two tips are solid?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 11:01
If the 2 tips are solid : reason 2 disappear, but 1 and 3 remains
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 11:03
What if the others all follow the same rule - so that they also just select two random tips?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:06
It sounds like your #1 and #2 (and maybe #3) relies on Milestones. The IOTA Spec allows for partitioning of the tangle, no? As per github.com/iotaledger/iri/issues/890
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:11
If all nodes select tips randomly (it means all nodes use alpha=0) and assuming that the nodes do at least their job of checking consistency and solidity: then the probability to get your transaction confirmed increase, but the time to get it confirmed increase accordingly : it will produce a very wide tangle.
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 13:38
|
show 5 more comments
Selecting 2 random tips will impact negatively the probability for your transaction to be confirmed by others. There are multiple reasons for that:
There is a chance that 2 randomly selected tips are inconsistent. (i.e. your transaction would approve a double spend and will never be selected by any other transactions selected by the recommended GTTA algorithm). This situation is impossible with the recommended GTTA.
There is a chance that one of the randomly selected tip is not solid and will never be solid because one of it's branch or trunk simply don't exists. Therefore your transaction will never be solid and will never be approved by anyone else. This situation is impossible with the recommended GTTA.
Most importantly, the recommended GTTA algorithm is more likely to select tips to approve in the main tangle branch. If you select 2 tips completely randomly: the probability that they are in the main branch is lower than with the recommended GTTA algorithm. As a direct consequence : the probability for your transaction to be approved by others decrease.
I think those 3 points are relatively simple to understand and should give you the intuition that selecting 2 tips completely randomly will never increase your probability to be confirmed.
How much does it decrease is a more complex problem and the most efficient way to estimate this is probably by running simulations/real world measurement.
As a side note researchers from the IF already run tangle simulations and published the results, not directly answering your question, but at least giving you an idea of how the random walk parameters impact the probability to be confirmed.
Related links :
Alpha: playing with randomness (for an explanation of the random walk and how it can be fine tuned)
Confirmation rates in the Tangle (presenting the results of various simulations)
Selecting 2 random tips will impact negatively the probability for your transaction to be confirmed by others. There are multiple reasons for that:
There is a chance that 2 randomly selected tips are inconsistent. (i.e. your transaction would approve a double spend and will never be selected by any other transactions selected by the recommended GTTA algorithm). This situation is impossible with the recommended GTTA.
There is a chance that one of the randomly selected tip is not solid and will never be solid because one of it's branch or trunk simply don't exists. Therefore your transaction will never be solid and will never be approved by anyone else. This situation is impossible with the recommended GTTA.
Most importantly, the recommended GTTA algorithm is more likely to select tips to approve in the main tangle branch. If you select 2 tips completely randomly: the probability that they are in the main branch is lower than with the recommended GTTA algorithm. As a direct consequence : the probability for your transaction to be approved by others decrease.
I think those 3 points are relatively simple to understand and should give you the intuition that selecting 2 tips completely randomly will never increase your probability to be confirmed.
How much does it decrease is a more complex problem and the most efficient way to estimate this is probably by running simulations/real world measurement.
As a side note researchers from the IF already run tangle simulations and published the results, not directly answering your question, but at least giving you an idea of how the random walk parameters impact the probability to be confirmed.
Related links :
Alpha: playing with randomness (for an explanation of the random walk and how it can be fine tuned)
Confirmation rates in the Tangle (presenting the results of various simulations)
answered Dec 9 '18 at 10:56
ben75
5,061529
5,061529
What if the two tips are solid?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 11:01
If the 2 tips are solid : reason 2 disappear, but 1 and 3 remains
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 11:03
What if the others all follow the same rule - so that they also just select two random tips?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:06
It sounds like your #1 and #2 (and maybe #3) relies on Milestones. The IOTA Spec allows for partitioning of the tangle, no? As per github.com/iotaledger/iri/issues/890
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:11
If all nodes select tips randomly (it means all nodes use alpha=0) and assuming that the nodes do at least their job of checking consistency and solidity: then the probability to get your transaction confirmed increase, but the time to get it confirmed increase accordingly : it will produce a very wide tangle.
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 13:38
|
show 5 more comments
What if the two tips are solid?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 11:01
If the 2 tips are solid : reason 2 disappear, but 1 and 3 remains
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 11:03
What if the others all follow the same rule - so that they also just select two random tips?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:06
It sounds like your #1 and #2 (and maybe #3) relies on Milestones. The IOTA Spec allows for partitioning of the tangle, no? As per github.com/iotaledger/iri/issues/890
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:11
If all nodes select tips randomly (it means all nodes use alpha=0) and assuming that the nodes do at least their job of checking consistency and solidity: then the probability to get your transaction confirmed increase, but the time to get it confirmed increase accordingly : it will produce a very wide tangle.
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 13:38
What if the two tips are solid?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 11:01
What if the two tips are solid?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 11:01
If the 2 tips are solid : reason 2 disappear, but 1 and 3 remains
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 11:03
If the 2 tips are solid : reason 2 disappear, but 1 and 3 remains
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 11:03
What if the others all follow the same rule - so that they also just select two random tips?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:06
What if the others all follow the same rule - so that they also just select two random tips?
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:06
It sounds like your #1 and #2 (and maybe #3) relies on Milestones. The IOTA Spec allows for partitioning of the tangle, no? As per github.com/iotaledger/iri/issues/890
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:11
It sounds like your #1 and #2 (and maybe #3) relies on Milestones. The IOTA Spec allows for partitioning of the tangle, no? As per github.com/iotaledger/iri/issues/890
– The Coordinator
Dec 9 '18 at 13:11
If all nodes select tips randomly (it means all nodes use alpha=0) and assuming that the nodes do at least their job of checking consistency and solidity: then the probability to get your transaction confirmed increase, but the time to get it confirmed increase accordingly : it will produce a very wide tangle.
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 13:38
If all nodes select tips randomly (it means all nodes use alpha=0) and assuming that the nodes do at least their job of checking consistency and solidity: then the probability to get your transaction confirmed increase, but the time to get it confirmed increase accordingly : it will produce a very wide tangle.
– ben75
Dec 9 '18 at 13:38
|
show 5 more comments
The Tangle is a DAG and the issues inherent in it are independent of the tip selection and MCMC walk methods selected.
As such, whether the tip selection is random or constrained, given that all nodes follow the same protocol, the chances of any transaction getting included in any transaction is the same.
Even if the most stringent criteria is used to restrict tip selection, the fundamental nature of a DAG and an asynchronous network means:
- Nodes will never have a complete view of the entire network or of all issued transactions at the same time.
I would also like to note here that the current GTTA breaks essential Tangle functionality of allowing for Tangle partitioning and offline Tangles. It is detrimental and ultimately goes against one of the main advantages of Tangle.
Although adopted since v 1.5, this restriction to depth of a certain Milestone, and the presence of a Coordinator, explains why certain situations are impossible with the current software.
If Solidity means that all a transactions parents are known, then the DAG will grow wider as more old transactions will get built upon than new transactions. If random new tips are selected, then there will be more Blowballs and a greater chance of creating a partitioned DAG.
I argue, in the absence of the Milestones, it will be impossible to create a tip selection restriction that is liberal enough to include a high percent of new network transactions and simultaneously restricted enough to constrain the width of the Tangle DAG.
As a result, the DAG will grow wider and the confirmation time will grow unreasonably long as the software in each node will be required to evaluate the entire path of every transaction path.
So, my answer is that, whether the two tips are randomly selected or not, ultimately makes no difference in the absence of the Coordinator.
add a comment |
The Tangle is a DAG and the issues inherent in it are independent of the tip selection and MCMC walk methods selected.
As such, whether the tip selection is random or constrained, given that all nodes follow the same protocol, the chances of any transaction getting included in any transaction is the same.
Even if the most stringent criteria is used to restrict tip selection, the fundamental nature of a DAG and an asynchronous network means:
- Nodes will never have a complete view of the entire network or of all issued transactions at the same time.
I would also like to note here that the current GTTA breaks essential Tangle functionality of allowing for Tangle partitioning and offline Tangles. It is detrimental and ultimately goes against one of the main advantages of Tangle.
Although adopted since v 1.5, this restriction to depth of a certain Milestone, and the presence of a Coordinator, explains why certain situations are impossible with the current software.
If Solidity means that all a transactions parents are known, then the DAG will grow wider as more old transactions will get built upon than new transactions. If random new tips are selected, then there will be more Blowballs and a greater chance of creating a partitioned DAG.
I argue, in the absence of the Milestones, it will be impossible to create a tip selection restriction that is liberal enough to include a high percent of new network transactions and simultaneously restricted enough to constrain the width of the Tangle DAG.
As a result, the DAG will grow wider and the confirmation time will grow unreasonably long as the software in each node will be required to evaluate the entire path of every transaction path.
So, my answer is that, whether the two tips are randomly selected or not, ultimately makes no difference in the absence of the Coordinator.
add a comment |
The Tangle is a DAG and the issues inherent in it are independent of the tip selection and MCMC walk methods selected.
As such, whether the tip selection is random or constrained, given that all nodes follow the same protocol, the chances of any transaction getting included in any transaction is the same.
Even if the most stringent criteria is used to restrict tip selection, the fundamental nature of a DAG and an asynchronous network means:
- Nodes will never have a complete view of the entire network or of all issued transactions at the same time.
I would also like to note here that the current GTTA breaks essential Tangle functionality of allowing for Tangle partitioning and offline Tangles. It is detrimental and ultimately goes against one of the main advantages of Tangle.
Although adopted since v 1.5, this restriction to depth of a certain Milestone, and the presence of a Coordinator, explains why certain situations are impossible with the current software.
If Solidity means that all a transactions parents are known, then the DAG will grow wider as more old transactions will get built upon than new transactions. If random new tips are selected, then there will be more Blowballs and a greater chance of creating a partitioned DAG.
I argue, in the absence of the Milestones, it will be impossible to create a tip selection restriction that is liberal enough to include a high percent of new network transactions and simultaneously restricted enough to constrain the width of the Tangle DAG.
As a result, the DAG will grow wider and the confirmation time will grow unreasonably long as the software in each node will be required to evaluate the entire path of every transaction path.
So, my answer is that, whether the two tips are randomly selected or not, ultimately makes no difference in the absence of the Coordinator.
The Tangle is a DAG and the issues inherent in it are independent of the tip selection and MCMC walk methods selected.
As such, whether the tip selection is random or constrained, given that all nodes follow the same protocol, the chances of any transaction getting included in any transaction is the same.
Even if the most stringent criteria is used to restrict tip selection, the fundamental nature of a DAG and an asynchronous network means:
- Nodes will never have a complete view of the entire network or of all issued transactions at the same time.
I would also like to note here that the current GTTA breaks essential Tangle functionality of allowing for Tangle partitioning and offline Tangles. It is detrimental and ultimately goes against one of the main advantages of Tangle.
Although adopted since v 1.5, this restriction to depth of a certain Milestone, and the presence of a Coordinator, explains why certain situations are impossible with the current software.
If Solidity means that all a transactions parents are known, then the DAG will grow wider as more old transactions will get built upon than new transactions. If random new tips are selected, then there will be more Blowballs and a greater chance of creating a partitioned DAG.
I argue, in the absence of the Milestones, it will be impossible to create a tip selection restriction that is liberal enough to include a high percent of new network transactions and simultaneously restricted enough to constrain the width of the Tangle DAG.
As a result, the DAG will grow wider and the confirmation time will grow unreasonably long as the software in each node will be required to evaluate the entire path of every transaction path.
So, my answer is that, whether the two tips are randomly selected or not, ultimately makes no difference in the absence of the Coordinator.
edited Dec 10 '18 at 14:15
answered Dec 10 '18 at 14:09
The Coordinator
174126
174126
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Iota Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fiota.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2260%2ftip-selections-and-acceptance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Please don't modify completely your question after answers are posted.
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:04
@ben75 What you edited is the essential assumption of the current system and I want it to be clear that it is also the assumption used in this question. I'm not trying to confuse you. In the current system and whitepaper, all nodes follow the same rule and the system is created also so that all participants have the same chances of peering through mutual tethering. Naturally, any answers must account for the same behaviors imposed as the current system does.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:35
Your original question is about selecting 2 completely random tips in a Tangle where majority follow the recommended MCMC algo. (I just rollbacl your question to it's original form)
– ben75
Dec 19 '18 at 14:52
That's still the assumption. It just might not be obvious that to the reader that those rules are assumed in the current system.
– The Coordinator
Dec 19 '18 at 14:59