Sorry I don't want to comment further on designs of altcoin.
"Talk is cheap, show me the code" - Linus Torvalds.
If there are no further challenges to my upthread points, I will exit now. Thanks to all for the challenges, that is what I needed in order to verify my thought process.
Topic: Cracking the Code - page 4. (Read 7687 times)
I still can't decide whether Anonymint is a very successful troll at winding people up, or he really is that incapable of understanding how the mining process and nodes actually work. If the former, congratulations. If the latter, I feel sorry for his lack of understanding. There's no point repeating what others have said as they've already explained the reasons why Anonymints argument makes no logical sense,so there's really nothing more to add.
I'm calling paid troll. Gotta be.
I can guarantee you that is not the case. No one is paying me a dime. I was offered to partner with investors in the $millions range and I declined in order to retain my independence.
I firmly believe in the logic I have presented, and I am truly frightened by the coming events I believe are underway.
And I am working to prevent those bad outcomes all by myself. Although I have shared some of my algorithms with others just in case something happens to me.
I do hope to be paying myself though. Meaning there is one or more altcoins coming from my efforts.
Essentially a devcoin with 100% to miners? I prefer the idea of allocating coins minted to work or growth it wont change the long term incentive to mine especially if merge mined so that you leverage btc network strength for now.... I think we already have what we need just work to make the ones we have work. no need to make more.
I still can't decide whether Anonymint is a very successful troll at winding people up, or he really is that incapable of understanding how the mining process and nodes actually work. If the former, congratulations. If the latter, I feel sorry for his lack of understanding. There's no point repeating what others have said as they've already explained the reasons why Anonymints argument makes no logical sense,so there's really nothing more to add.
I'm calling paid troll. Gotta be.
I can guarantee you that is not the case. No one is paying me a dime.
I firmly believe in the logic I have presented, and I am truly frightened by the coming events I believe are underway.
And I am working to prevent those bad outcomes all by myself. Although I have shared some of my algorithms with others just in case something happens to me.
I do hope to be paying myself though. Meaning there is one or more altcoins coming from my efforts.
Ahh, pumping your own coin, that old trick. Thought you was up to something.
So what's it gonna to be? Premined? Perminted? Instamined? Or good old fashioned closed source? Maybe a hybrid of all of them.
please provide logic on how tx fees can sustain mining? I always hated static tx fees and scaling fees may cause other issues?
Everything possible to make sure you won't mine it. You will eat humble pie.
I still can't decide whether Anonymint is a very successful troll at winding people up, or he really is that incapable of understanding how the mining process and nodes actually work. If the former, congratulations. If the latter, I feel sorry for his lack of understanding. There's no point repeating what others have said as they've already explained the reasons why Anonymints argument makes no logical sense,so there's really nothing more to add.
I'm calling paid troll. Gotta be.
I can guarantee you that is not the case. No one is paying me a dime.
I firmly believe in the logic I have presented, and I am truly frightened by the coming events I believe are underway.
And I am working to prevent those bad outcomes all by myself. Although I have shared some of my algorithms with others just in case something happens to me.
I do hope to be paying myself though. Meaning there is one or more altcoins coming from my efforts.
Ahh, pumping your own coin, that old trick. Thought you was up to something.
So what's it gonna to be? Premined? Preminted? Instamined? Or good old fashioned closed source? Maybe a hybrid of all of them.
Who decides which open source projects are funded?
If it is the miners, they can find ways to pay it to themselves.
If it is the coin foundation, they can similarly game it, just as our politics is gamed by vested interests.
If it is the miners, they can find ways to pay it to themselves.
If it is the coin foundation, they can similarly game it, just as our politics is gamed by vested interests.
Besides the point we speaking about economic ramifications... Im sure it can evolve to be democratic in decisions.. If it doesnt Ill just make my own that works democraticaly through an electoral process so even I need to fight to keep leader position etc.
Actually anyone can suggest bounties but we vote for which ones are important... Ideally this will evolve to something more efficient but its the idea that counts. miners are paying via electricity. Later a bounty exchange can be created to match vendors with developers like workforcrypto.com
Democracy always fails:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3761567
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3762047
So what your saying is because a human factor that the distribution of mining wealth cant be distributed efficiently to the benefit of all? Its sure a smaller problem than losing the incentive to mine :p
I think cycles like the kress cycle are based on phscycology more than political structure but hey noone knows for sure. Thats why I like the idea of stable known growth because surprises are the worsed things to imsert into the herd.
I still can't decide whether Anonymint is a very successful troll at winding people up, or he really is that incapable of understanding how the mining process and nodes actually work. If the former, congratulations. If the latter, I feel sorry for his lack of understanding. There's no point repeating what others have said as they've already explained the reasons why Anonymints argument makes no logical sense,so there's really nothing more to add.
I'm calling paid troll. Gotta be.
I can guarantee you that is not the case. No one is paying me a dime. I was offered to partner with investors in the $millions range and I declined in order to retain my independence.
I firmly believe in the logic I have presented, and I am truly frightened by the coming events I believe are underway.
And I am working to prevent those bad outcomes all by myself. Although I have shared some of my algorithms with others just in case something happens to me.
I do hope to be paying myself though. Meaning I hope there is one or more altcoins coming, perhaps influenced by my efforts.
I still can't decide whether Anonymint is a very successful troll at winding people up, or he really is that incapable of understanding how the mining process and nodes actually work. If the former, congratulations. If the latter, I feel sorry for his lack of understanding. There's no point repeating what others have said as they've already explained the reasons why Anonymints argument makes no logical sense,so there's really nothing more to add.
I'm calling paid troll. Gotta be.
Who decides which open source projects are funded?
If it is the miners, they can find ways to pay it to themselves.
If it is the coin foundation, they can similarly game it, just as our politics is gamed by vested interests.
If it is the miners, they can find ways to pay it to themselves.
If it is the coin foundation, they can similarly game it, just as our politics is gamed by vested interests.
Besides the point we speaking about economic ramifications... Im sure it can evolve to be democratic in decisions.. If it doesnt Ill just make my own that works democraticaly through an electoral process so even I need to fight to keep leader position etc.
Actually anyone can suggest bounties but we vote for which ones are important... Ideally this will evolve to something more efficient but its the idea that counts. miners are paying via electricity. Later a bounty exchange can be created to match vendors with developers like workforcrypto.com
Democracy always fails:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3761567
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3762047
It is all we have, then it is stable for about 78 years per collapse cycle. I am hoping for something better.
I still can't decide whether Anonymint is a very successful troll at winding people up, or he really is that incapable of understanding how the mining process and nodes actually work. If the former, congratulations. If the latter, I feel sorry for his lack of understanding. There's no point repeating what others have said as they've already explained the reasons why Anonymints argument makes no logical sense,so there's really nothing more to add.
I have refuted their arguments upthread. If you can't understand, all I can say is that to a lower IQ person such as apparently yourself (or maybe you are just too lazy to really try to understand), intelligence appears to be noise or incorrect. In short, you don't understand my rebuttal (until you convince me otherwise).
It wouldn't help for me to explain in more detail my thesis than I already have. I covered all the points upthread.
Re-read these two posts:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3754669
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3755466
(skip to the "Basically what it has boiled down ...")
Those are my rebuttals. They have not been refuted.
Can you guarantee that you know what source code every open source client in the world is running in 2040? Nonsense. Can you guarantee how they will react to an inconsistent rule choice in the block chain? How can you make such a guarantee? I suppose you think Gavin Andresen is a God.
Logic.
I still can't decide whether Anonymint is a very successful troll at winding people up, or he really is that incapable of understanding how the mining process and nodes actually work. If the former, congratulations. If the latter, I feel sorry for his lack of understanding. There's no point repeating what others have said as they've already explained the reasons why Anonymints argument makes no logical sense,so there's really nothing more to add.
Who decides which open source projects are funded?
If it is the miners, they can find ways to pay it to themselves.
If it is the coin foundation, they can similarly game it, just as our politics is gamed by vested interests.
If it is the miners, they can find ways to pay it to themselves.
If it is the coin foundation, they can similarly game it, just as our politics is gamed by vested interests.
Besides the point we speaking about economic ramifications... Im sure it can evolve to be democratic in decisions.. If it doesnt Ill just make my own that works democraticaly through an electoral process so even I need to fight to keep leader position etc.
Actually anyone can suggest bounties but we vote for which ones are important... Ideally this will evolve to something more efficient but its the idea that counts. miners are paying via electricity. Later a bounty exchange can be created to match vendors with developers like workforcrypto.com
Who decides which open source projects are funded?
If it is the miners, they can find ways to pay it to themselves.
If it is the coin foundation, they can similarly game it, just as our politics is gamed by vested interests.
If it is the miners, they can find ways to pay it to themselves.
If it is the coin foundation, they can similarly game it, just as our politics is gamed by vested interests.
Then why not tend towards something like devcoin where coins are unlimited and you will have hash go nonstop especially as its merge mined so when 2140 hits people can switch to devcoin to mine and people can use it as it will be safe from 51% attacks from merged mine pools. Brilliant!
If you reread my long post above, I am asserting if we wait, it will be too late. Once the $trillions ponzi-bubble collapses (2015-2016 is my guesstimate based on the 12X per annum increase in market cap), the government takes over moving the world into a morphed Bitcoin protocol electronic currency. Then there won't be any way to transfer wealth into another altcoin.
I have not studied Devcoin nor merge mining in depth, but my thought is devcoin being merged-mined with Bitcoin is vulnerable when Bitcoin is.
And giving away the funding that should be for miners to secure the network is going to make it more vulnerable if ever it is independent of Bitcoin.
For me it is a hair-brained economic concept. Sorry to criticize another altcoin and I do love open source, but I think this is wrong and harmful.
Since money supply doesnt scale at 50k per block indefinetily but miners getting 5k per block 45k going to paying for work (isnt this the point of a medium of exchange?),
Giving away for free what isn't free, hasn't ever not created failure.
Coin rewards should go to miners to secure the network. How does creating open source benefit the security of the Devcoin chain? And who gets to choose which open source projects are funded? That is antithesis of decentralization.
A semi deflationary mechanism that keeps a network secure while providing a way for work to be paid by community donation (mining) may be better than something freicoin?
I think so.
Other alts what about ppc?
I have some recent discussion on Peercoin:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3753624
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3761408
Yes but it is a static reward and scales with the price so mining incentive is still there I mean you can also actually do some work to recieve coins like its designed for. Didnt adam smith say you win as a team not individual? Apply it here.
Population growing demand grows supply remain static thats all the deflation we need. i know what you mean that if we wait they will essentially milk the system by transfering trillions over to their new system like qe where they essentially writeoff their own debt by calling qe when usd is high buy low sell high.
Just disregard the fact that a small pct is given to miners because that doesnt really affect the incentive long run.. I think it actually makes sense because your allocating resources to get work done ala resource based economy.. Your generating wealth via a miner efficiency cycle. This allocation may make sense as you would want to get some actual work for all that used power kind of like PoS PoW... But in a totally subtle way.
Devcoin is simple 20% miners 80% workers bounties are created and givin coins once people do them as writers are also paid for writing etc
Suply increases staticically which would avoid panic.. Anytime you dont know supply demand or it shifts you will have panic and therein incentive to skew demand supply essentially breaking a dynamic block reward.
Then why not tend towards something like devcoin where coins are unlimited and you will have hash go nonstop especially as its merge mined so when 2140 hits people can switch to devcoin to mine and people can use it as it will be safe from 51% attacks from merged mine pools. Brilliant!
If you reread my long post above, I am asserting if we wait, it will be too late. Once the $trillions ponzi-bubble collapses (2015-2016 is my guesstimate based on the 12X per annum increase in market cap), the government takes over moving the world into a morphed Bitcoin protocol electronic currency. Then there won't be any way to transfer wealth into another altcoin.
I have not studied Devcoin nor merge mining in depth, but my thought is devcoin being merged-mined with Bitcoin is vulnerable when Bitcoin is.
And giving away the funding that should be for miners to secure the network is going to make it more vulnerable if ever it is independent of Bitcoin.
For me it is a hair-brained economic concept. Sorry to criticize another altcoin and I do love open source, but I think this is wrong and harmful.
Since money supply doesnt scale at 50k per block indefinetily but miners getting 5k per block 45k going to paying for work (isnt this the point of a medium of exchange?),
Giving away for free what isn't free, hasn't ever not created failure.
Coin rewards should go to miners to secure the network. How does creating open source benefit the security of the Devcoin chain? And who gets to choose which open source projects are funded? That is antithesis of decentralization.
A semi deflationary mechanism that keeps a network secure while providing a way for work to be paid by community donation (mining) may be better than something freicoin?
I think so.
Other alts what about ppc?
I have some recent discussion on Peercoin:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3753624
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3761408
Then why not tend towards something like devcoin where coins are unlimited and you will have hash go nonstop especially as its merge mined so when 2140 hits people can switch to devcoin to mine and people can use it as it will be safe from 51% attacks from merged mine pools. Brilliant!
Since money supply doesnt scale at 50k per block indefinetily but miners getting 5k per block 45k going to paying for work (isnt this the point of a medium of exchange?), You may see an initial inflationary spiral in price as you see today it flopped down under pressure...however the silver lining is that it would just prove tobe a great opportunity as math would tellus its actually very deflationary by design without losing incentive to mine!
Think about it as userbase grows and the growth of supply year over year shrinks ie amount of coins vs total supply gets less and less the coin becomes deflationary as population grows.. At some point saturation sets in and gdp will drive price. A semi deflationary mechanism that keeps a network secure while providing a way for work to be paid by community donation (mining) may be better than something freicoin?
Other alts what about ppc? Based on drmand supply but with static tx fees you may have an issue once they get so high in terms of price of goods that people may stop transacting based on a high tx fee.. Raising ming rewards? Maybe good? I still like the idea of a known static growth since we all know that herd mentality sets in on surprises... Dynamic block rewards creates incentivd to hack the system to raise rewards and the. Hoarding coins...
Sorry I tried to put this in lehmans terms without the technical jargon I would love for everyone to get in on this discussion... You dont have to be a visionary.
Since money supply doesnt scale at 50k per block indefinetily but miners getting 5k per block 45k going to paying for work (isnt this the point of a medium of exchange?), You may see an initial inflationary spiral in price as you see today it flopped down under pressure...however the silver lining is that it would just prove tobe a great opportunity as math would tellus its actually very deflationary by design without losing incentive to mine!
Think about it as userbase grows and the growth of supply year over year shrinks ie amount of coins vs total supply gets less and less the coin becomes deflationary as population grows.. At some point saturation sets in and gdp will drive price. A semi deflationary mechanism that keeps a network secure while providing a way for work to be paid by community donation (mining) may be better than something freicoin?
Other alts what about ppc? Based on drmand supply but with static tx fees you may have an issue once they get so high in terms of price of goods that people may stop transacting based on a high tx fee.. Raising ming rewards? Maybe good? I still like the idea of a known static growth since we all know that herd mentality sets in on surprises... Dynamic block rewards creates incentivd to hack the system to raise rewards and the. Hoarding coins...
Sorry I tried to put this in lehmans terms without the technical jargon I would love for everyone to get in on this discussion... You dont have to be a visionary.
So perhaps you are the 63rd Bitard who clicked out of 10,000 users on the forum. And so statistically that means what exactly?
Only ignores by members above a certain level count
I was just trying to inject some humor into the conversation. No one is on my ignore list. Although, I do not consider all opinions to be valid, I do consider them to be interesting. It is important to be aware of other people's misconceptions. Besides, you never know when they may have a valid point.
My apologies then. That you for the clarification. Peace be with us.
When the coin rewards decline to near 0 roughly 2040ish, then my discovery is that the transaction fees rewards can not scale as a percentage of the commerce, because the transaction fee in comparative dollars would be much higher than fiat alternatives.
Either this is a typo, or you beleive there will still be debt-based government backed currencies in 2040.If we don't replace Bitcoin (which I do believe we will, I'm encouraged to see Litecoin's price rising to $36 with $1.2 billion mcap, although Litecoin has probably all the same vulnerabilities), then I do very much think there will be an electronic currency that was morphed from a failure of Bitcoin and is tied in with a government fiat system. The powers-that-be have already announced their plans. And it is very clear to me that Bitcoin has been planted with certain key design flaws that enables the takeover.
Here are the links about the plans of the powers-that-be on enforcing negative interest rates on money by locking everyone into an electronic currency and eliminating cash. You must read all the links to gain a big picture understanding and you see there was a grand plan for many years as it all fits together:
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/17/negative-interest-rates-eliminating-cash-the-summers-solution/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/18/15800/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/19/congressional-hearings-on-bitcoin/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/20/the-bitcoin-hearing/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/20/hyperinflation-all-just-hype/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/21/negative-interest-rates-coming-soon-to-a-bank-near-you/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/20/the-tree-has-been-cut-electronic-money-will-force-an-underground-economy-based-on-barter/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/27/downs-of-negative-rates-the-fed/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/22/land-of-confusion-negative-rates-may-cause-the-phase-transition-in-equites/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/24/confidence-in-the-economy-is-changing-from-public-to-private/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/27/the-2-3-trillion-nobody-mentions-about-quantitative-easing/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/23/china-the-dollar/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/15/chinas-reform-push-for-2020/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/15/china-a-new-era/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/25/can-states-go-bankrupt-are-there-exceptions-to-the-unfunded-pensions/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/25/unfunded-pensions-are-our-doom/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/15/muni-implosion/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/23/tax-revolts-and-that-309-year-cycle/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/23/real-estate-3/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/22/real-estate-collapse-or-liquidity-crisis-2015-75-2020-05/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/23/real-estate-outside-usa/
www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/11/21/heres-why-the-philippines-economic-miracle-is-really-a-bubble-in-disguise/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/23/capital-flows-currency-flows/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/21/capital-flows-the-key-to-everything/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/21/death-always-creeps-in-from-the-periphery-of-an-organism/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/15/expect-riots-rise-of-nationalism-after-2015-75-to-pick-up-steam/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/15/rise-of-dictatorship-in-germany/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/14/merkel-rejects-referendums-in-germany/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/13/euro-germany-trade/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/14/france-economic-numbers-show-decline-3rd-quarter/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/15/us-will-pass-russia-by-2015-as-top-oil-producer/
My intuition that Bitcoin was a Trojan planted (probably by the NSA at the behest of some powers-that-be) started when I noticed in Satoshi's whitepaper that he was pitching it as a better gold, because gold coin rewards continue forever. Gold's above ground supply has always increased throughout the history of man. Immediately I smelled a scam, where he was going to induce all those liberty lovers (many of whom where already looking for alternatives to fiat, such as gold and silver) to become euphoric and illogical. It was very clever marketing, because it is obvious that he realized their suspicion and better judgment would be clouded and they would not notice the vulnerabilities caused by that decision to set a hard limit of 21 million coins. The ponzi result is the most glaring result of that design decision. Then other vulnerabilities also derive from that design decision as explained below. It is so ironic that what the investors love most about Bitcoin, is precisely why it is evil. Also couple this with most of you don't understand monetary economics well. And you think that debasement is bad or somehow connected to expansive Keynesian government spending. You don't realize that the government exists to stop the hoarding of the 3% because otherwise the economy would go into gridlock (the gridlock you will see as Bitcoin reaches the tip of its ponzi bubble). Either we debase decentrally or the government does it. And when the government does it, it becomes Keynesian:
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/22/gold-can-still-be-fiat/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/21/war-on-gold/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/21/gold-to-be-or-not-to-be/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/21/hyperinflation-definition/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/21/will-electronic-money-be-deflationary/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/13/medicare-is-seizing-estates-of-anyone-over-55/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/11/crabs-in-a-bucket/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/11/keynesianism-monetarism/
But I also think Satoshi was smarter than his handlers. He hid the decentralized solution inside of a Trojan. All we have to do is change a few of the design parameters, then we eliminate the main reason government exists; we eliminate the power vacuum. And we the people win. I have a historic example of the scientists lying through their teeth to DARPA, otherwise we would not have the internet today:
World Without Web.
Satoshi appears to have done the same outsmarted his handlers at the NSA, giving us the key insights and market excitement to do the correct design.
Bitcoin vulnerabilities:
a. Massive $trillions mcap Ponzi market failure, world's governments will be forced to clawback for "public good". Because the design of the coin is to not distribute to spenders, rather to create an asset bubble with no intrinsic value because it is impossible to distribute to spenders and become a currency. The math/logic for this is in the November archive of my posts in other threads.
b. Not anonymous, very easy to identify all the users in order to tax and clawback. People are ignorant of the vulnerabilites of Tor, VPNs. Mixers are nonsense without widespread strong IP anonymity and some way to be sure spenders aren't revealing their identities to vendors, because they can be honeypotted and over time you are discovered probabilistically as the others in the mixers screw up and revealed their identities in the downstream chains of the coins. The problem of taint is huge, because if the government knows the identity of just one person in the chain of the coin's history, it can compel that person to be responsible for all activity on the coin backwards and forwards in all time, until that person reveals the identities and transactions from whom the coin was purchased and spent to.
c. Dominated by ASICs means if the world's governments (or even a few large corporations) put their combined resources into sequestering all ASIC production and ramping it up, they can easily obtain > 50% of the mining hash rate at any time. Dominated by ASICs is much more vulnerable than dominated by PCs (CPUs) if care is taken to eliminate botnets.
d. As a backup plan if the above three doesn't make it a reality sooner, the design of Bitcoin is a dearth of funding for mining as coin rewards decline. Thus either facilitating a 50 - 95% attack or if transaction fees are significant, then a Transactions Withholding Attack takeover by cartels, especially with legal force of governments to help the cartels take form. Orthogonal to that catch-22 dilemma, my logic is that Bitcoin's fees will spiral up thus enabling the Transactions Withholding Attack while also demotivating transactions.
e. On top of this, Bitcoin has nothing in its design which motivates pools to be small. And I recently refuted gmaxell's claim (from the 50% attack thread in 2012) that P2Pool can't be attacked.
AnonyMint, the first 3 times you think you understand Bitcoin you are wrong. Lots of us have been there. It is a harsh, but amazing trip.
I don't know why you think I don't understand Bitcoin. I did not lose the argument upthread.
I am going to destroy BitCON (there is no light, it is fatally doomed as it lacks distribution) and you will buy from me.
LOL
Can't resist bringing this up now and again.
I am going to enjoy very much. You will eat humble pie.
AnonyMint, the first 3 times you think you understand Bitcoin you are wrong. Lots of us have been there. It is a harsh, but amazing trip.
Jump to: