Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 14. (Read 91086 times)

  See your way-back machine is working. So what coin are you working on now? I'm working on CK, and it's pretty awesome.

r0ach I cited you as a Reference where I explain my solution to eliminate the ability of exchanges to control the private keys of our tokens.

https://steemit.com/news/@r0achtheunsavory/bitfinex-is-lying-about-the-hack-and-i-can-tell-you-exactly-what-likely-happened

I am going to put an end to the mess with exchanges. Stay tuned...

I'm not playing fact finding missions with you--i have better things to do, but any pm's are too many. I told people to collect on steemit (not invest), and take the free money (show me how that is terrible advice?), but as far as playing devil's advocate to your assumptions about its failure or success, get over it, dude--you still can't claim it's a failure anymore than i can claim it's a success.

I have only sent you 4 private messages (below) since I created this iamnotback account.

I hadn't sent you a private message since Nov. 14.


Such as that inaccurate appraisal you were spouting about Steemit and whose appraisal ended up being correct?

---

Here is the chart from my white paper:

Less talk more action... we want to see something tangible not forum ego.. finish your paper and leave the negative nancies to themselves

Dude, your use of an oak that never reaches the moon (stars, whatever) precludes my interpretation of your metaphor as a computer tree, unless you think no coin can get into orbit--in which case, "Why are you here, dude?"

PS: I'm better at language than you are at math. Deal with it. I should be better than this, but you keep poking the bear. I was more than happy to leave it alone, but you kept sending stuff to my PM and got my attention. Was perfectly happy to play a video game and let your dim appraisals go unabashed, but you claim my tepid vouching of steem is proof of my inability to look at systems, so...you got a fight...my guess is you owe me copyright infringement dues for the use of inkblot logic (or are you claiming you created that term? You're certainly using it enough).

You are a jealous motherfucker (in the Chinese tall poppy syndrome way of nobody allowed to rise their head above the poppy tops, unless of course it is a project you are invested in) who afaics accomplishes nothing but write some useless shit in these forums. I am confident you've convinced (deluded) yourself that your contribution has been useful.

We will soon see who is "metaphorically challenged". Lol.

Since your dumb ass didn't understand the metaphors I employed, I will spell it out more clearly for you. Little two bit shit ain't having no impact whatsoever in the larger scheme of things. Bitcon and Moaner are playing in a tiny sandbox of tinfoil hat speculators. As for your beloved Crypto Kongdung, it is playing in an even smaller fishbowl of Risto ass lickers.

Modules and trees are your little fantasy world of poetic Communism of how this is going to play out.

It is a winner-take-all game in terms of any impact outside the small sandbox of speculators. That small sandbox is enough to motivate us to work on projects, but let's not delude ourselves as to the absolute non-impact of proof-of-work ecosystems which are going to be entirely owned by the Chinese mining farms. You won't get any significant network effects when the investors can't rely on a level-playing field going forward.

generalizethis, the fundamental problem is that you should not be conversing with me. I am a programmer, engineer, and a marketer. You have absolutely nothing to say to me that is relevant. And I have nothing to say to you about poetry. Please recognize that we have no common interests. I don't give a shit about your silly ass theories. I have made million user s/w products more than once in my career. I don't see any relevance whatsoever to anything I have ever read from you. Sorry.


And I think this thread is overcooked. There is nothing more that needs to be said here. The next step is to release a white paper and an implementation.

Feel free to rebut with some more words which I think are irrelevant and I will let you have the last word in this thread for the time being. I don't have time to waste on this nonsense.


P.S. A tree in computer science has nothing to do with exponential growth and decay. It is a data structure. So "modules and trees" means something different to a computer science person than your intended metaphor. I understood very well your metphor about modules and an ecosystem of R&D. But apparently you didn't understand mine. Your fantasy of how markets and monetary systems (power vacuums) work is incorrect.

You are metaphorically challenged. We are talking modules, not trees. BTC is fine for what it is and XMR is fine for what is. If you have something better, build it, but don't expect it to be more than part of the cc whole.

They are rotting and decaying. They both reached the pinnacle of their sapling growth spurt and are now locked into their inertial morasses.

Saplings grow to oak trees, but oak trees don't grow to the moon. Most saplings don't even grow to oak trees.

Each project gets one chance to be a sapling. Each project defines its ultimate potential (the DNA) very early on.

Let me ask you a rhetorical riddle. Does the proper functioning of some open source software require every user of that software to review every line of code. Linus' law is the only known positive scaling law of software engineering.


You are entirely conceptualizing everything incorrectly. And I mean everything. You are so fundamentally off course, it is ridiculous.

Your error begins with not understanding that the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that entropy is always trending to maximum. Technology increases the degrees-of-freedom, thus is congruent with the inexorable Second Law. Consuming resources is merely the restructuring of matter in greater degrees-of-freedom.

I have written extensively about this in my discussions with CoinCube. Remember iron used to be a precious metal.

I don't have time to argue this with you, but I am warning you r0ach that if you stay in this tinfoil hat delusion, you are going to miss the big enchilada investments.

I suggest you move this debate to the Economic Devastation thread where it belongs. It is really off-topic for this thread.

Working as in they are still being developed and expanded on--but if you are after a one-stage rocket to overtake the current model, sure everything is a failure.

Define "working".

I see them as dismal failures both technologically and (mass) marketing wise.

Cryptocurrency is essentially just a video game where the player is effectively AFK but still playing by a static input (mining at a fixed rate by having a rock on the keyboard).  I don't think you will ever get any type of decentralization out of that model.  To create a real decentralized currency would probably require active participation from miners or senders of transactions (solving a captcha or whatever) instead of pretending you can have decentralization by having all input variables on cruise control.

Instead of stake holders or other participants having to constantly manually interact with the system (such as Vitalik seems to be trying), the only way that really makes sense is having senders of transactions require manual, human based PoW.


That statement is nonsensical referring to people who know that increasing technology requires an exponential resource commitment curve, increasing vertical integration and loss of freedom as "Malthusians".  Kaczynski is correct and increasing complexity always results in loss of freedom.

"Progress" doesn't exist.  The further you go the more it's going to be a tyranny run by technocrats where humans mirror the social structure of ants in complete collectivism and every centimeter of our closed ecosystem is micromanaged with no escape.  

The technocrats at the top never have to actually meet any type of merits for their position (unlike real ants that have to do stuff like lay eggs), so it always turns into just a plain old 3rd world, rent seeking, banana republic tyranny.  It then either collapses under it's own weight or people tear it down since it doesn't serve them and enter a new dark ages in a cyclical nature.

Those models worked (BTC, XMR) and are working, so your estimate based on typical wall street derived structures misses my point entirely. Think of your coin as a module, and if it's successful and resilient, it pools the next group of contenders. [skip]

Saw edit 2, have you looked at CK's design? Barring any strange hybrid ruling on game laws, does it stand a chance, not arguing about landing spot--Faulkner had these wise, and enigmatic as hell (he's oddly buried by a grave marked ET, yes, weird shit) words, "Mr. Khrushchev says that Communism, the police state, will bury the free ones. He is a smart gentleman, he knows that this is nonsense since freedom, man's dim concept of and belief in the human spirit is the cause of all his troubles in his own country. But if he means that Communism will bury capitalism, he is correct. That funeral will occur about ten minutes after the police bury gambling. Because simple man, the human race, will bury both of them. That will be when we have expended the last grain, dram, and iota of our natural resources. But man himself will not be in that grave. The last sound on the worthless earth will be two human beings trying to launch a homemade spaceship and already quarreling about where they are going next."

By that definition, proof-of-work is also not objective, because you don't know which hidden chains are the longest chain. You are trusting that the sources who send you chains are omniscient.

Vitalik's entire premise was undecidable and irrelevant.

The point is that proof-of-work is no matter how you organize it, a transfer of wealth out of the ecosystem to pay for security. And worse is that unless your coin is the "one chain to rule all the others" then your coin is always vulnerable to rented double-spend attacks, because even if your proof-of-work algorithm has been implemented on an ASIC and has great investment in mining farms which do not wish to destroy their investment by renting out hashrate to attackers, the problem is they effectively control the coin (even in your negative interest rate design) because they can decide to move their hashrate to the coin which they feel has better attributes or is a new pump&dump speculation (moving on from one to the next).

Thus your undesirable negative interest rate on savers is an insecurity. It creates a power vacuum for the miners to move their hashrate to a coin that doesn't have that weakness and to 51% attack and short your coin on the way out the door.

Proof-of-work is a winner-take-all, "the one chain to rule them all" phenomenon. Slice and dice it as you wish, that won't change.

I'd open source all of it immediately now because it could potentially accelerate the implementation, except it would defeat two important aspects:

1. It would create many competitor copycats, so more difficult to get clarity on which one the community should focus on as the likely winner.

2. It would likely defeat my opportunity to end up with say 1% of the tokens (medium-term, e.g. after a few years) so that I would be rewarded for my 3+ years (enjoyable, intellectually stimulating) "sacrifice" to spend all my UNPAID time working on crypto-currency. And to motivate me to dedicate the remainder of my career to the ecosystem ongoing (given my project is going to be a social network in addition to the consensus ordering algorithm claimed innovation we are discussing, so I see opportunities to replace the browser, invent a better JavaScript, etc). It would also cheat my angel investors accordingly.

Thus my best option is to make it to rudimentary implementation, then open source it with a lead on any copy cats. That will maximize value for the community as well. But the big question mark, is can I get that done quickly enough. If I was 100% health, I would be extremely confident. All I can say, is I am busting my ass on hard athletics trying to counteract the effects of the liver+digestive toxins and headed to Singapore Jan 12 for an expert diagnosis and hopefully treatment, if I can afford the treatment with my 9.5 BTC in funding. If I can make it to testnet before that (not likely!) then I could have more funding for treatment if I need it. I think originally there was a chronic, latent HPV viral infection involved as I had symptoms since 2006, but I think perhaps the viral aspect is eradicated from all the various experimental treatments I did over the past 3 years, such as AHCC, high-dose curcumin, sublingual and enteric oregano oil, etc.. So I am hopeful that only the (likely mechanical and/or microflora dysbiosis) liver+digestive problem remains to fix.

I relaxed most of the past 2 days to recharge my battery. Also because my 20 year old son arrived (without prior warning!) from the USA and first time I've seen him in 4 years. So a lot of catching up to do and also I am having to manage now the fallout of telling my gf all about my past life and kids. So Sunday, I brought her to an upscale beach resort with live band and fine dining yesterday to try to soothe this.

The story of my life is the chaos comes all at once.

Telling my life story to my gf was incredibly depressing. It was basically a "How to Waste for Twenty Years, Your Talent and Life for Dummies" book. I got home, went to bed, and locked the bedroom door. Depressing. But I feel better this morning. I was also feeling ill last night from the fried foods we ate at the resort. Okay this morning.




Edit: it added insult to injury to learn that my son has been earning up to $500 a day on tips working at the casino in Washington State, while I've been earning $0. He hasn't even started college yet is earning more than I have been earning for the past 4 years. Yet doesn't have any savings at all to show for it. He showed up without even a pair of basketball shoes. (I had an extra pair in my inventory so gifted it to him)


Edit#2: it is not ideal that my design is bottle-necked on my productivity until I can reach testnet! This is pushing me and stressing me, but I am probably not of the health where being pushed is ideal. I end up pushing too hard and get less done because of being zombifried. I don't have a good answer to this. Push on I guess.

I've read Dan's paper and the thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/transactions-as-proof-of-stake-white-paper-354573, but I'm a bit confused as there seems to exist several versions or understanding of TaPoS. In principle (as explained in the great BitFury paper), TaPoS is nothing more than having a block reference in every transaction to prevent them from being included in multiple blocks/chain forks. On the other hand, Dan's paper is describing a consensus mechanism that is based on coin-days-destroyed, with no PoW involved at all. According to the conversion you had with him, he replaced PoW all together in favor of transaction fees to regulate block production. Vitalik in his blog is talking about yet another (simplified) model where transactions are chained together directly (without any blocks). Can you please enlighten me what TaPoS is actually all about?

Now, coming back to your new concept...


Okay, but does it also provide objective consensus in the strict sense of the following definition (personally, I'm sharing Vitalik's opinion that weak subjectivity is sufficient)?




Based on your earlier statement, I would assume that by "Eventual consistency" you meant that the transactions would eventually become probabilistically consistent (as in Bitcoin), rather than (provably) immutable like in Swirlds (which in its current form cannot effectively deal with node churn and thus relies on PoW or PoS for Sybil defence).


But you are critisizing Satoshi's PoW for ...

... which makes me think that your model does provide provable consensus.



So, your strategy appears to make use of latent social information present in the graph determined by the past transactions (does that correspond to your notion of "inertia"?). This is a very interesting aspect indeed.  

Social graphs and their mixing times are a well-known subject of anonymity literature by the way (though I'm sure you already know that):
http://www.cs.unibo.it/~babaoglu/courses/cas05-06/papers/sybildht.pdf
https://www.princeton.edu/~pmittal/publications/pisces-ndss13.pdf
https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~hopper/sybil_asiaccs.pdf

I'm not sure how that's related to the idea of Economic Clustering as discussed here:
https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/economic-clustering/?PHPSESSID=mlinoglt5ii5d6mjeeka013l03
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pos-economic-clustering-622440