Topic: Bitcoin: The Digital Kill Switch - page 16. (Read 55246 times)

Good idea to start the coding. The goals you have outlined are very important.   I wish you well and hope you will enable interested parties to contribute whatever possible.  To that end, perhaps you can check your pm every now and then. 
As Obi said, May the Force be with you. 

It is time for me to STFU and code.

If there are no more very important questions, I will exit stage left for perhaps days or ...

Bitcoin adoption is accelerating. A competitor needs to come fast else the opportunity may slip away:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1705988

Not just lessening, in theory eliminating.

Hard-disks is something all of us have and need.

And there is another angle to this... I am hoping we can store the cloud in our cloud!

I want to eliminate Google and facebook.

I am also working on a distributed social network and cloud storage.

No more data jails and government invasion of our privacy. We will own our data!

I have big ideas, but those can't build, talk. So I will need to stop talking soon.

What I am saying is that I want to create jobs for the world. I want to fix this mess we are in. Not just me of course, I mean just providing a few key innovations, and then world of all of you will do it.

Figured this part here about Avalon (I quoted the kid above) is also relevant:


So batch 1 of 300 Avalon boxes, spits out roughly 18 terahash per second.

And the ENTIRE bitcoin network, spits out roughly 23 terahash per second.

So if we compare bitcoin to gold in terms of "rushes", it's like everyone has had pickaxes up until now, but some people have gotten sluice equipment and huge swaths of placer and lode claims equal to thousands of acres of Federal land.

How can one 49'er with a pickaxe, compare to a cartel that has acres of lode and placer claims, and tons of sluice and dredge equipment?

AnonyMint, I think I am contributing to your point, correct me if I am wrong, but your theorized enhancement involves lessening the effect of the ASIC devices, is that right?

Please consider a differentiation between Java the libraries and Java the virtual machine. The virtual machine is solid. I need that virtual machine, because the higher-level languages such as Scala run on it.

http://www.scala-lang.org/node/104 (Tour of Scala)

I hate writing code that obfuscates what the code is doing. Scala if used carefully to avoid it's ability to make unreadible code, can produce code that 3 times more compact than Java, and perhaps 5 - 10 times more compact than C++. In many ways, it looks very similar to Java and C++. It is not so foreign if avoid a few gotchas.

The Java VM is open source, e.g. Android's Dalvik.

This decision can produce much more robust code that is easier to maintain and easier to understand and easier to find bugs and security flaws.

Python is I guess another possibility, but it really isn't the optimum performance, although Big O trumps:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4861

I wrote CoolPage and Art-O-Matric (coolpage.com) in C++. I know C++. I hate it.

Here is why:

http://copute.com/edu/Intro%20to%20Computers.html#Declarative (written by me)

Watch this video (very good if you are a programmer):

http://java.dzone.com/articles/lessons-jug-talk-eric-esr  (video is very humorous and entertaining even if you are not a programmer)

He also thinks there is a limit to Moore's Law, I guess he hasn't heard of multi-core.

You make a further good point, that indeed, "robots" will manage the GPUs.

But then you say that "humans" or "we", will have more robots, than "them"...  And yet I would counter with this point:  We humans do not control the prisons or the courts or the legal system.  Only anti-human types, becomes lawyers, and those who destroy their humanity even further, can then become judges or legislators or worse, politicians.

However, we are not arguing, because I am agreeing with you, and we differ only as to the "hope" quotient and/or what form that "hope" will take.

And yes, the points about your design are quite good, you are correct that having the users of bitcoins also be the miners, is great.  I am sure many people reading this are interested to hear more from you.

However, Java is a joke, it has been destroyed by Oracle, and has more virus vectors and 0-day exploits than ever.  So if you propose a client that becomes as ubiquitous as say Skype, well, that client will become the #1 virus vector.  Skype of course has sealed code, nobody knows who has backdoors into it.  So I see some pitfalls along the road as you will have to have the hardness of the client, as the cornerstone of your code.  And if the code shall be open, then I suppose these same users would have to learn how to compile code?

As mentioned, most developers are clueless as to virus vectors, and programming with security hardness in mind, is akin to the earlier analogy I used about the space shuttle.  If the security guy is listened to, in the IT/DEV meetings (I have sat through many of these), well, code will take 100x longer to write, and that's a fact.  It is always the case, the some dumbass DEV manager, who got promoted for his stupidity and not his sense, will tell the security guy to STFU so we "can get something produced!"  ...See?  So you are making noble steps on a very creaky bridge, but I like your goals.  Yes, when these issues converge, then something better will evolve.

Good start tho!  Just out of curiosity, if we assume you will have the "rights" to your idea, what kind of remuneration or profit, or pay, would be acceptable to you, if your idea was to be realized?  I mean, your suggestion is that Satoshi knew he was building a "Madoff" type scheme which would crash or become the end of the world tool.  So, assuming your ethos is superior to his, what would you want, for compensation?

One key aspect of my proposed hard-disk Proof-of-Work scheme (if it works as I expect it to), it that then every user of Bitcoin can also be a miner, simply by downloading the client. Nothing to buy. Batteries included (because the design uses very little electricity as I explained in a prior post).

Therefor, the attacker would be trying to match the resources of humanity. Good luck suckers!  

They may not need people to manage their hard-disk server farm, but humanity will also have robots too. What ever they have, we have more of it. Because there are 6 billion of us.

Maybe that is why the Georgia Guidestones (from CNN founder Ted Turner apparently) say to reduce human population to 500 million. They are hoping they won't need us once we have robots.

The key is to make mining something that all users can do. This is actually the key design flaw in Bitcoin and Litecoin and Bytecoin and all of them, although Litecoin's scrypt Proof-of-Work claims to improve the balance (but I don't know to what extent, I think my design is orders-of-magnitude better in this balance).

Is that not a theoretical slamdunk for my design? (in theory not yet proven to work properly)



I just told you above.

I thought this article was interesting for a couple reasons, I have bolded the key comments.

[NOTE: It seems to be a clever way to deflect news freshness to remove the date of the interview.  This vice.com website should put the date up, I couldn't find it.]


Notice how "humans" are equated with "institutions" by this super-smart ignorant kid here?

Notice how he says "once we eliminate the bad institutions like banks, humans and the Federal Reserve, then things will run smoothly."  HEY YOU, HUMAN, do you see yourself as the same ilk as the bamks, and the Federal Reserve?  What sort of thinking is represented here, by this young "genius"?

The road to hell.  Paved with bodies and good intentions.  This guy sounds like most of the developers I have supported.  Total pie in the sky dumbasses, paving the way to tyranny.  Nice guy tho, no doubt.

Also notice how he has no real knowledge or answers about FINCEN?  He says there may be licensing fees.  Does he realize thats how the tyranny controls the common people?  How much does an FCC license cost, for example?  Also, what happened to UHF and VHF airwaves in America?  His answer to this last question displays a complete lack of any deep knowledge, people like this should be kept away from technology, but instead, this kid represents the next modern army, indeed if he is this smart+stupid at 25 years old (let's say, not sure his real age), then isn't it better to mine the schools for 13 year olds to replace him when he finally wakes up?

Notice his next comment:  "Ask for forgiveness not permission." becomes simply "Act, and [then] defend your position"   ...Do you think this will resonate nicely or poorly, with the control structures of Earth's nations?  Obviously acting without permission, is not what the authority will allow.  FURTHERMORE once young men like this are jailed, and put to work for the authority, what kind of menace shall they become, due to the threats upon their life?  How hard is it to send a honeypot jailbait spear into this dude's world, and then blackmail him?  He admits regulations (and code and statues) may continue to affect the world, but he doesn't see them applying to him.  Dissonate much?

It is hilarious to consider the inconsistencies of this young man.  What is there to say?  As I have said, this wave will envelop all of humanity.

You have not read this thread. We already discussed this. I will not re-explain it again (not because I am angry but just because it becomes noisy if I say the same thing over and over), and I am tiring of going back to find the posts for readers (I have limited time). Please just read the entire thread, then you will get it.

In short, the monopolist can use transfer pricing to subsidize and win. Bitcoin would not be destroyed, it would be their main tool for control and taking all the profits from mankind.

What do you not understand? You mean everything about bitcoin and P2P currencies and how they work, etc? This is not the thread for that discussion please. For that go to:

http://weusecoins.com

If you don't understand the threat I alleged that exists due to a design flaw in Bitcoin, then I can try to explain again if you first tell me your level of understanding up to now?

I still don't understand about bitcoin

Btw, I am writing about  Bytecoin here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1705547

Now...


Good point and I am aware of that. I think I had written that bad money would drive more store-of-value into Bitcoin and less relative circulation compared to the bad money that is debased more, i.e. there is a free market effect.

Please refer to my prior post on the prior page of this thread, wherein I pondered about the true value of unit-of-exchange. A unit-of-exchange doesn't really care about debasement, as long as it is not hyper-inflation and can't be gamed by one group. And obviously more debasement is going to chase away those who want a store-of-value.

But this is in degrees, because some people only need a store-of-value over a shorter period of time, and then a unit-of-exchange. Thus small debasement is good, because it keeps the mining ecosystem healthy and it discourages capital that is 1000 years old from thinking it has the same relative value as capital created yesterday. Because prosperity is more about innovation (we live better than kings of yore due to technological advance) and less about savings. Savings is important, but not 1000 years of savings, that is laziness and slavery. Lets debase those Old World Europe bankers who own half of the world, and innovate away from them leaving them behind.

"If an attacker can muster 51% of the Proof-of-Work capacity of a P2P system, the attacker can take over the system. There are differences of opinion as to the degree of malicious behavior an attacker could do. However, one unarguable mathematical conclusion is that an attacker that had for example 60 to 90% of the Proof-of-Work capacity could process 60 to 90% of the transactions. If this attacker did not do any thing noticably malicious and did not charge a transaction fee, then virtually all customers would not find it necessary to offer a transaction fee, because over just 3 blocks of waiting time the 60 to 90% becomes 94 to 99.9% of all transactions.* If this was sustained for sufficient months or years when the production of new coins had ended (or declined significantly), then all the other miners would go bankrupt because their costs are not subsidized. Such attacker would then control virtually 100% of all transactions processed. Note this 60 - 90% could be built up over time, because offering free transactions to a percent of the market (when no new coins are being minted), drives some percent of the other miners bankrupt thus increasing the percent the attacker has— it is a snowball effect."

But what would it cost to offer free transaction processing to 60% to 90% of all transactions for months or years? And at the end of it, what would the attacker actually have achieved except to destroy BTC, which would seem like rather a pyrrhic victory !

"Also Gresham's Law dictates that coins will [sic] higher issuance will drive coins with less issuance out-of-circulation towards a higher store-of-value."

This is not quite correct. Gresham's law provides that "Bad money drives out good if their exchange rate is set by law"

Historical examples tended to involve bimetallic monetary systems in which one of gold or silver was officially over-valued in relation to the other.

It has no application to BTC or indeed to any free-floating currency because their relative values are set by markets, not by law.

Why is this relevant to P2P currencies?

Please read the following linked post (JustSaying is me), it is very brief:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4867&cpage=1#comment-397396

I am trying to create a computer language that would enable open source to delivered in mix-n-mash modules. Here is some info about that:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4824&cpage=1#comment-396626

That is great in of itself. But the further implication is that the modules become money. Knowledge becomes money. Bingo! You remove the ability for idiots to debase simply by "who they know", "how they can manipulate the ignorance of the masses", or any other form of action which lowers collective knowledge.

Why? Because everything in the future is software. We even can print new hip joints with your own body cells using a 3D printer. We can print a plastic car that is stronger than steel. Etc.. This is causing technological unemployment, until the youth adapt. The boomers mostly can't adapt. They will try to hold on to the political control and destroy the world into war with their selfishness and myopia. But we will just route around their failure mode of political control, by using technology which can't be controlled by politics. In my view, government is very good at making legislation to "fix" that which is unfixable, thus the motivation I have is to create projects which decrease failure modes so the government becomes more irrelevant and not needed. One day I hope the government becomes totally ignored, like babbling idiots talking to themselves and nobody cares.

What are P2P currencies backed with? Knowledge and need for diverse options against a dangerous future. So if you want to create an alternative P2P currency, you need to innovate. See my prior post for background on importance of diversity relative to no known ONE FUTURE:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1703553

More on this in future, first we need to release someone similar to my design for an alternative Bitcoin. This would not be modified to make software modules money-- it is an orthogonal project. Also, this will not destroy Bitcoin.

Thanks AnonyMint as I see you here have quoted Martin Armstrong and clarified his lack of knowledge about bitcoin.  Your thread here has accomplished a lot toward your goal of saving humanity I bet.  Nice work.

I have bolded your points as to the short term survivability of the hash based crypto currencies.  As mentioned, I think your point about "government amasses significant mining share" is the key waypoint ahead.   ...I think this point could be made further by theorizing as to a couple key questions:

1: How cheap are GPUs, for the US government and/or NATO and/or BRICs nations?

2: How many humans does it take, to babysit and/or administrate a bunch of mining units?  Assuming you have 1 million prisoners who can each babysit/administrate a cluster of 1000 GPUs (feasible, with hierarchical top-down oversight), that'd be 1 billion GPUs.   So how many terahashes is 1 billion GPUs?  Would it be enough to take 51% of the blockchain?

3: For the governments (NATO and/or BRICS), electricity costs nothing, because they can fob the cost onto taxpayers.  As your posted video from Catherine Fitts explains, black pools of funds controlled by invisible silent interlocked corporate cartels, mean that taxpayers will fund the electrical costs, and never even know.  +1 to the bad guys.  ...Further, in full on Marxist countries, they could just build another dam like three gorges, and provide tons of free electricity --for themselves and their GPUs, not for the people (common miners).

4: Having explained the above situation, which makes your point, the further question would be, what forces could defeat such tyranny?  We could maybe hope to get all the "gangs" on our side (the side of the bitcoiners and commoners) but on the issues of drugs and hookers, it is unlikely (as I explained) that the common people will be able to ditch their own religiousness and hypocrisy, and their root desire to adhere to the government as daddy.  It is more likely that the gangs and commoners and all pro-drug freethinkers, will be far outnumbered by the State powers of BRIC and NATO, who are essentially religious organizations at their core.  Jingoism among the plebes will be surprisingly powerful to the regular bitcoiners, as bitcoin itself is smeared and made to be synonymous with pedophilia and meth and heroin.  Words, can be altered and used as weapons.  Pedophilia, a greek term, means "to love children", for example, yet the term is used to describe the opposite; "to destroy children". So words can be used as weapons, and to imply the opposite.  "Bitcoin" is also a new term (may as well be greek) such that the sheer mention of it in the future above, will be enough to bring very large pogroms to the neighborhood.  Soon, just the mention of the word "bitcoin" will cause a pavlovian reaction in the Nationalists, such that it won't be hard to imagine large drugs-and-hooker-hating mobs hauling bitcoin miners out into the street, and burning them alive, in such scenarios. 

..Indeed, the root of my posts to you on your very fine thread here, is that a prison-based society, needs prisoners, to be cheap, very cheap workers, who are as cheap and obedient, as say Indians or Chinese people.  I think you are right, the alliances of BRIC and/or NATO, can use prisoners of war, or prisoners of municipal code, as a sufficiently cheap labor force to babysit/administrate thousands of GPUs, bought cheaply by taxpayers without their knowledge, and run cheaply on taxpayer funded electrical projects, like for example, a hydroelectric dam, which is easy to sell to the public who are jobless, whose sole goal is to work and get a wage, but who would be building an electrical source for the GPUs run by their own sons, who would be imprisoned once the dam is completed.

Hey, I hope it doesn't go this way, but you make some good points, and I do enjoy reading Martin Armstrong's work.  I am just waiting for all the intellectuals to drop the bullshit and get to the real nightmarish scenarios.  Perhaps Edward Bernays and Leo Strauss are right, and humans are just herd animals, who treasure their own hypocrisies.  However, I feel that you and I agree, that these two men are wrong to underestimate humanity.  Let's hope they are wrong, and that humans will be ready, as bitcoin is even at this very moment, shaking the Earth to its very core.

..