Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 11. (Read 91086 times)

Afaics, side-chains have a fundamental security flaw and they can't ever work― not for Bitcoin's PoW nor for Cosmos's PoS BFT:

https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/47
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/46

Kaboom to all the known decentralized attempts at scaling. That includes SegWit and LN which I wrote about before:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c786018a8bb2d8d837abce3a4cf4e799#541-segregated-witness

And again note that without decentralization, you don't have scaling (i.e. "centralized scaling" is an oxymoronic phrase):

---

Well, never ever in the last few thousand years... But we have also been buying into lies about our real history, which goes much further back than the idea of Sumer and Egypt... And even if it really were "never, ever", there's always a first... Though a shift of such magnitude in the nature of energy tokens exchange would probably be preceeded by resistant decentralized cryptotoken systems serving as transitory devices to move away from ever-consolidating central hierarchical control. It is always only the beginning.

The paper "On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward" http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf is definitely worth reading. Thanks for the link.

One last farting shot...


Has anyone told you that Side-chains are incentives incompatible and thus hopelessly, insolubly broken?

The reason is because:

http://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-reward/
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16861492

Why is Blockstream not telling you this? Or have they?

Now it is your homework assignment to figure out why. Until you can answer this question, get off my lawn script kiddies.



You Think?



(I will back eventually to...show you how we did it in the 1980s)

You are in for a rude awakening to reality soon son.

Maybe you will learn to stop disrespecting people you don't know. And instead do a little research on their actual past accomplishments.

Edit: as my high-IQ younger sister would say in defiantly condescending tone, "You think?". That is what she always said to people who were incorrect but not aware of their errors. She was more succinct than me. I should learn to adopt her style.


You Think?

Sweet god, how delusional are you?

Difficult to find historic post by AnonyMint on the equation for the orphan rate in Satohi's proof-of-work:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5157380

It was also stated much earlier by Meni Rosenfeld (which was also very difficult to find again even though I remember finding it in 2014!) in a mathematically equivalent form given that Euler's constant e is the limit of (1 + 1/n)ⁿ as n approaches infinity:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/4953/how-will-a-massive-increase-in-hashpower-affect-orphan-rates/4958#answer-4958

A comparable derivation and equation is here:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/deb1/c04f3584a59b489e9582b244c10c7f9b20cf.pdf#page=7

And some related math here:

https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf#page=11

Another unrelated decentralization post I dug up:

I am fine with this. Thanks for the interesting and stimulating discussions

I used to sort of support that argument, but I no longer do. But I will not argue it (now).

Any way, I am not vying to attack Monero and I think it is probably still undervalued.

I am sure we can agree that the best use of my time is to STFU and actually code something. It is really annoying to have someone who hasn't produced anything tangible talking incessantly from his theory soapbox.

Thanks for the discussion.

The key here is first Fungibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility, then Privacy and only last Anonymity. One does not need to consider a war zone to understand the value of fungibility; however it is important in that scenario also. Monero delivers fungibility, Bitcoin for example does not thanks to the likes of https://www.chainalysis.com/

The intended effect is that it will be impractical to use gold as form of tax avoiding cash. You can bury gold in the ground and never use it, because that it no threat at all to the government's desire to tax everything that moves. Have fun eating your gold or watching it sit there useless in the ground while the economic opportunities move on without you.

The elite are moving the tangible economy to electronic currency that is tracked for taxes.

They will use the poor as a weapon against the middle class. The poor will avidly support increased taxation because the government will promise them free things. In India, the government is recently offering a basic level of free food and medical care system support to the indigent. This is a big deal because in the past 1/3 of Indians only ate once a day.

The poor see these increased taxation as ending corruption and funding the support for the poor. They don't realize it is the laying the seeds for tax slavery.

But we in the crypto-currency currency arena can offer the poor a better deal than what the government can give them. We can offer them a job in the virtual economy where they can become independently a middle class person. And then they will hate taxes.

I am working on this now. Steem(it) was the first (failed) example. We can onboard the billions into crypto-currency by giving them currency when they do work on a social network. We can change the economy of the world.

Tinfoil hats are doing nothing. They are stuck in an unimaginative old world fight over tangible resources. Iron used to be a precious metal. Everyone needs to understand we live in an age of surplus and we are moving to a Knowledge Age:

My quoted logic had nothing to do with the "state".


I think microtransactions are the big enchilada. And not just monetary microtransactions.

Anonymity is so incredibly unrealistic and it is fighting against the socialism. Please see my prior post which was a refutation of the tinfoil hats. I have more debate with them at the following thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/precious-metals-are-not-useful-in-a-collapse-scenario-1665943

Although I originally was a tinfoil hat and originally touted the importance of anonymity, I am now coming to the realization that we don't win by hiding from society. We win by changing the economy of society.

I posted at this other thread with enthusiasm for the BTC price based on recent news, but I disputed this claim about it:

The really strange aspect of my design is that the coin eventually becomes highly deflationary, so it should suck up investors away from Bitcoin and every other coin which doesn't pay a huge interest rate just for buying and holding.

Yet normally hoarding a token should drive it out of circulation (since the burning of fees is a discouragement to transacting versus holding), yet I argue my design will be the first that break Gresham's law. Because the loss due to transacting will be insignificant so when you need to transact you do. This doesn't preclude you holding a lot more tokens than you spend. In other words, I added degrees-of-freedom so you can both hold and spend from the same token without suffering the dilemma of Gresham's law. I think it is also known the Gresham's law only applies where there is legal tender dictated by a political force the provides the public confidence for the currency of mass circulation:


The level of deflation automatically is adjusted by the free market in that the less who transact, the less deflation but the more incentive to transact (lower opportunity cost to not transacting) and vice versa.

I think perhaps this aspect might even be more clever and important than the way I solved the power vacuum dilemma. However, per the above quote, the decentralization is also critically needed to side-step Gresham's law.

And then there are the sub-second instant "confirmations" and the asynchronous resiliency and scaling.

Yeah so far I am proud of this design. But let's see what happens with peer review and also implementation...

CK is in the open, that's my point, it latches onto the best anon available as a means of flowing through endless piping of executable commands and coins. You'd have to bill sony, blizzard and Microsoft for their side-gaming revenues, which you could do, but the threat of decentralization keeps Chinese control systems on blast, while you let Westerners gamble their hard earned virtual capitol.

But my point ever since the start of our debate has been that databases (and thus currencies) have to be globally public for them to have mass effects.

The Internet is a massive public database protocol.

Those who put it behind obfuscated paywalls reduce its beneficial network effects.

The Db setup is a back-up of all the market events in the game, so it's more of a score keeper than anything, since it's only game money, it only counts when you leave the virtual deck