Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 12. (Read 91086 times)

If the database is to be publicized then it can't be obfuscated. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Hide private organization?

Where does a "safe" DB and quality API figure into the tool set?

Secondary question: What if all things are merging towards a chaos point, and ideas are the only things that have enough velocity to survive an event horizon--they get to us scrambled, but through some time-saving schizoanalysis, we can reconfigure the ideas through multiple languages? And then it becomes a question of who's interpretation is correct, and the circle of life can renew then only quest it ever knew--survival

Agreed.


You might even argue that in my design of burning transaction fees that since the attacker could recover the 99+% of the money supply that had been burned, he could definitely entice current stake holders to take a bribe.

But you are arguing that the attacker doesn't need a majority of the historic private keys (to overcome TaPoS), so therefor the number of attackers are unbounded. Thus there is no objectivity between unbounded forks. Thus of course the current stake holders must refuse, lest their entire stake be worthless.

Yet the attacker who controlled the private keys for the only quantity of historic stake larger than all the historic stake burned (when that uniqueness scenario presented itself) could do a long-range chain attack by double-spending more than all burned historic stake, because there would only be one attack which could objectively burn more transaction fees than the honest chain. Yet not only is this event going to have to be an extremely long-range attack which makes it a rare possible event, but makes it entirely implausible that the community will accept it because it would crash the value of the tokens. How does the ecosystem want a bribe that destroys the ecosystem? Not all of those bribed can short simultaneously. It is implausible to attack an ecosystem in a public manner like this. It is analogous to saying the Federal Reserve could print money and bribe every dollar holder to accept a bribe denominated in dollars that would destroy the dollar. It is an attack that can't be hidden, because some participants will squeal.


Agreed. That is why TaPoS is a viable security mechanism against long-range attacks. Statistically the current stake holders will choose the most objectively correct one, not the attacker's long-range attack chain.


If fees are a percentage and the tokens are infinitely divisible, then the money supply will never be exactly 0.

I am doing something somewhat analogous to the following for storing token amounts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_summation_algorithm

Broad is a set of tools for others to create software with, not a specific implementation of software. For example a widely popular protocol or programming language.

A useful metric is probably the number of software developers investing in your toolchain.

And we want to broaden that to include knowledge creation of every form, not just software.

Narrow focus? So a continual fire of deployment mechanisms, won't interfere with every market? He made an actual use case with MK as to it being a viable db for from-the-ground-up organizations--that's crazy, and that was the first one out.

SEMI-CORRECTION: PGC was the first corporation out, so if we are talking strictly portals (and not distinguishing political organizations), then that would be the first.

Absolutely no way that Risto can build a software ecosystem. It isn't within his set of skills.

The world will choose the software ecosystem that is the most widely used.

Economies-of-scale are needed which we can't get by focusing so narrowly as CK is.

Game on

That may be true that smart people will figure out how to store value in game assets, perhaps with complex derivative/gambling schemes.

But my point is that Crypto Kingdom will just become another game in the ecosystem I want to create.

My point is that my (or similar) project(s) subsumes Crypto Kingdom.

Or you might argue that CK will exist on multiple such platform ecosystems. I will retort that CK will be only one of a plurality of game offerings.

Anyone who builds a successful improvement on the Steem concept has to be somehow enabling people to more efficiently create knowledge and receive a reputation boost. That is really more important than the monetary side of it.

The enticement has to be that people are becoming more efficient at knowledge creation, not just bribing them with get rich quick.

The part of Steem that was so intriguing to people was that maybe they could afford to quit their boring jobs and do knowledge creation that inspires them. Now if someone can actually make that viable, then they've got a Bitcoin killer.

I got where you got in 2013 with just some CAN and a Faulkner quotation.

Jking aside, once people gather that abstract value, is well, abstract, then they move headlong into the waters of a healthy understanding that authority is the dude at the end of the rainbow.

If those google employees who can't work near their headquarters (1.4-6? million average home estimate), start using game worlds to store virtual assets, then you know you're wrong.

There's the bet. How much you in for? I've got everything riding on it

You are just repeating what I wrote in 2013, wherein I explained that finance can't own Knowledge:


Indeed we can transfer our knowledge out of the broken monetary+political system. But that is not a fungible unit-of-value which can be gambled on with such fungible units of stored capital.

But I wrote the prior post referring specifically to "stored monetary capital". In that respect, my prior post is correct.


I am trying to create a fungible outlet for Knowledge to escape through, because non-fungible systems are very inefficient. And that is (one reason) why Dark Ages are so devastating.

Maybe eventually we reach such a surplus that we no longer need fungible capital (we compete on Knowledge creation and reputation), but getting from here to there may be more quickly attained if the process of change is efficient...

...is the most efficient to burn fungible capital to the ground with no alternative? I.e. is a Dark Age the most efficient interlude?

No. As long as you can show work, you can create an honest value assessment. You're arguing too many things at once--stick with understanding how value escapes, then focus on how that value is reconfigured for the knowledge age. Value is an abstract beholden by real work, the signifier will carry it to the exit point and what reemerges is just a virtualization that escapes traditional banking controls.

Or at least that is the bet--the very fact that you are arguing its worth should tell you something though.

And you may be right about 600 years, but we get back to it, and I'm betting the other way--because who wants to live with people who want to live in the dark?

And my answer, still relevant:


Technologies evolve, and a lot of technologies die along the way, my point is the human desire to exit the current system is the thing that keeps decentralization going--systems reach critical mass points and KABOOM! We're left realigning the jenga pieces of value scattered on the floor of civilization. But if you had gotten this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17013410 (don't worry; I bolded the point), we could go back to creating exit points for wealth acquired through wealth--once we stop being able to do that, we are indeed something other than human.

Copying this from r0ach's thread, because very relevant here:


If all the altcoins are just the same power vacuum failure, then no diversification is attained.

Heaven....
Heaven is a place
A place where nothing ....
Nothing ever happens.
- David Byrne

I can attest to that last sentence and add that entire cities mock corporations in an organic pattern that in which they are born they depress they innovate or die... the recessions are required for innovation.. this is why qe wont work and why any form of central bank targeting has been can kicking experiment because its still not ideal money as framed by late dr nash

I just posted a proposal to decouple mining profit and control over the transactions in order to decentralize the power over the block chain:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proposal-decoupling-mining-profit-and-control-over-the-transactions-1702796

I'm not sure if the outlined models are flawed or not (they probably are).

Oh jeez Louise, can a r0ach at least have a session guarantee?

The best 20 second case study on causality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ThPAW5sd0

Why does the world have a prime mover if nobody is running the thing?  Can I please speak to who's in charge around here?

Agreed.



What do you mean by "where propagation makes a difference in terms of which transactions are confirmed"? Ordering by the time when the nodes receive (or hear of) the transactions?

I'm not sure if I understand this. How can the burned fees approach 100% of the stake? Without new money supply, the money would finally disappear if all the fees are burned. Or are you rather referring to some sort of statistical detection as quoted below?

That sounds interesting even though I haven't really grasped all the details of your design yet.

That's certainly true.