DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 17.

alkan

full member

Activity: 149

Merit: 103

Quote from: iamnotback on November 21, 2016, 05:35:03 PM

Quote from: alkan on November 21, 2016, 05:09:47 PM

How did you solve this issue in your version of unprofitable PoW?

I discarded proof-of-work and formulated a consensus ordering design concept different than just proof-of-stake, DPoS, or a DAG.

Yes, I see. You discarded your original plan of using unprofitable PoW, but this is not exactly what I asked. I imply that you don't want to tell us more about your discarded unprofitable PoW scheme, even though it might offer further insights why current systems (that you are critizising so vehemently) are flawed.

Quote from: iamnotback on November 22, 2016, 06:15:15 PM

Other than rented hashrate double-spend attacks for the PoW coins that don't use ASICs, as I point out in detail in my white paper, the main concern is the 51% attack is not for issuing double-spends (which I agree they won't do) but the majority hashrate can have a monopoly on all the mining rewards in the system by orphaning the other blocks in the system (and in a decentralized minority case, this attack isn't even detectable!). That is an attack and it is insidious (harmless) enough that users of transactions probably won't care, especially given the "benefit" that 1 confirmation becomes a guarantee and can't be orphaned (because the network becomes controlled by a deterministic mining cartel).

This is an interesting attack vector but I don't see how it is applicable to unprofitable PoW schemes like the second one I suggested. If the mining reward is limited to preventing a loss of stake or decreasing the tx fees (which cannot go below 0 %), there's no incentive for 51% miners to orphane other blocks. Such a behaviour would inevitably deter honest stakeholders/miners from using the currency, so that the coin would eventually depreciate and hurt the attacker.

Also, in case of negative interest rates applied to the stake, the power law distribution is counteracted by the fact that small stakeholders could use the idle power of their devices while large stakeholder would need to buy or rent extra hashpower to preserve their stake.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: pereira4 on November 23, 2016, 03:25:30 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on November 23, 2016, 02:49:22 PM

Quote from: dwgscale11 on November 23, 2016, 02:41:57 PM

is there another thread for the vaporcoin iamnotback is working on?

Not yet.

There are old threads which aren't so relevant.

It is not yet time to make a thread for that. There needs to be an actual implementation first.

We are just talking about the theory and the design for now. Mostly I am just revealing the flaws I see in PoW and (D)PoS, because I can't share my exact improvement details until I have an implementation on testnet[1], so that I can launch the open source development phase of it.

[1] Because I refuse to ICO vaporware. And I need to ICO and be near to first beta launch, before letting all the competitors make copies of my technology. I might possibly not ICO and just launch instead, perhaps if I can get enough angel investment behind the scenes once the testnet is ready. Note the vast majority of the money supply will be distributed to users, not premined. But there is a twist that I think will make it very enticing for speculators who want to get in early. I much prefer to deal with only non-USA residents/expats and USA residents/expats who are "qualified investors", so that I don't run afoul of the SEC given I am a USA citizen expat. That is unless I can find a proxy to handle any ICO for me who isn't liable to the SEC. I am only looking to raise ~$1 - 2 million in funding. Only enough to hire best s/w engineers. I am not trying to get rich off an ICO. I will get rich off the appreciation of my tokens. I believe in the fundamental long-term value of this project.

How will your currency behavein terms of coin emission? like is there going to be a curve similar to bitcoin? what is the inflation rate algorithm like at least in term of the time/coins-introduced-into-the-economy? how many coins will ever exist?

This sounds interesting but I am extremely skeptical of any so called "bitcoin killer". For me it would take an alien or a time traveller to solve the problem of massive onchain scaling while maintaining nodes decentralized while maintaining mining decentralized while maintaining bitcoin's robust security... that is the holy grail and right now the best we have is still bitcoin + second layer solutions like LN and hoping mining starts getting increasingly decentralized overtime after we have hit a limit with current ASIC technology... solving this all at once at protocol level seems impossible to me.

You'll get all the answers when it is actually time to make a decision about investing. If I state any more now, I am hyping and also giving my competitors ideas.

But I am not ignoring you. I just have a lot of work to do first.

You should be skeptical. And you'll need to read the final white paper and consult with the experts and everyone will decide whether I actually invented a solution or not.

pereira4

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1183

Quote from: iamnotback on November 23, 2016, 02:49:22 PM

Quote from: dwgscale11 on November 23, 2016, 02:41:57 PM

is there another thread for the vaporcoin iamnotback is working on?

Not yet.

There are old threads which aren't so relevant.

It is not yet time to make a thread for that. There needs to be an actual implementation first.

We are just talking about the theory and the design for now. Mostly I am just revealing the flaws I see in PoW and (D)PoS, because I can't share my exact improvement details until I have an implementation on testnet[1], so that I can launch the open source development phase of it.

[1] Because I refuse to ICO vaporware. And I need to ICO and be near to first beta launch, before letting all the competitors make copies of my technology. I might possibly not ICO and just launch instead, perhaps if I can get enough angel investment behind the scenes once the testnet is ready. Note the vast majority of the money supply will be distributed to users, not premined. But there is a twist that I think will make it very enticing for speculators who want to get in early. I much prefer to deal with only non-USA residents/expats and USA residents/expats who are "qualified investors", so that I don't run afoul of the SEC given I am a USA citizen expat. That is unless I can find a proxy to handle any ICO for me who isn't liable to the SEC. I am only looking to raise ~$1 - 2 million in funding. Only enough to hire best s/w engineers. I am not trying to get rich off an ICO. I will get rich off the appreciation of my tokens. I believe in the fundamental long-term value of this project.

How will your currency behavein terms of coin emission? like is there going to be a curve similar to bitcoin? what is the inflation rate algorithm like at least in term of the time/coins-introduced-into-the-economy? how many coins will ever exist?

This sounds interesting but I am extremely skeptical of any so called "bitcoin killer". For me it would take an alien or a time traveller to solve the problem of massive onchain scaling while maintaining nodes decentralized while maintaining mining decentralized while maintaining bitcoin's robust security... that is the holy grail and right now the best we have is still bitcoin + second layer solutions like LN and hoping mining starts getting increasingly decentralized overtime after we have hit a limit with current ASIC technology... solving this all at once at protocol level seems impossible to me.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

I expounded a bit on the prior post's [1] footnote. I don't want to repeat that again, because I don't want to be attacked for hyping something. Right now I am just writing about the (economics and technological) theory.

dwgscale11

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: iamnotback on November 23, 2016, 02:49:22 PM

Quote from: dwgscale11 on November 23, 2016, 02:41:57 PM

is there another thread for the vaporcoin iamnotback is working on?

Not yet.

There are old threads which aren't so relevant.

It is not yet time to make a thread for that. There needs to be an actual implementation first.

We are just talking about the theory and the design for now. Mostly I am just revealing the flaws I see in PoW and (D)PoS, because I can't share my exact improvement details until I have an implementation on testnet[1], so that I can launch the open source development phase of it.

[1] Because I refuse to ICO vaporware. And I need to ICO and be near to first beta launch, before letting all the competitors make copies of my technology.

Got it, thanks.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: dwgscale11 on November 23, 2016, 02:41:57 PM

is there another thread for the vaporcoin iamnotback is working on?

Not yet.

There are old threads which aren't so relevant.

It is not yet time to make a thread for that. There needs to be an actual implementation first.

We are just talking about the theory and the design for now. Mostly I am just revealing the flaws I see in PoW and (D)PoS, because I can't share my exact improvement details until I have an implementation on testnet[1], so that I can launch the open source development phase of it.

[1] Because I refuse to ICO vaporware. And I need to ICO and be near to first beta launch, before letting all the competitors make copies of my technology. I might possibly not ICO and just launch instead, perhaps if I can get enough angel investment behind the scenes once the testnet is ready. Note the vast majority of the money supply will be distributed to users, not premined. But there is a twist that I think will make it very enticing for speculators who want to get in early. I much prefer to deal with only non-USA residents/expats and USA residents/expats who are "qualified investors", so that I don't run afoul of the SEC given I am a USA citizen expat. That is unless I can find a proxy to handle any ICO for me who isn't liable to the SEC. I am only looking to raise ~$1 - 2 million in funding. Only enough to hire best s/w engineers. I am not trying to get rich off an ICO. I will get rich off the appreciation of my tokens. I believe in the fundamental long-term value of this project.

dwgscale11

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

is there another thread for the vaporcoin iamnotback is working on?

whale_shark

member

Activity: 79

Merit: 10

1st true Decentralised market will be out of beta soon from Bitbay! Which is why price is rising and will continue to rise

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: r0ach on November 23, 2016, 12:54:17 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on November 23, 2016, 08:00:50 AM

r0ach, thanks. The most salient threat isn't double-spending and direct theft. Rather it is the insidious debasement tax taken in the form of a winner-takes-all monopoly on transaction fees for PoW and for DPoS that is the level of funding whales vote for themselves for running witnesses.

Both PoW and (D)PoS systems are just central bank printing machines in an obfuscated form.

I will offer a new design. Let's see what y'all think when the juicy part of the white paper with the new design is published.

I get the point, but I don't think I would call that debasement, more like rent seeking behavior. And yea, if anyone actually can form a cartel or monopoly in crypto, you do have a mirror of the rent seeking behavior central bankers use to extract wealth, or essentially skim off the top until they own it all. This is why they hate serfs using gold and silver, because it's difficult to skim off someone physically holding the currency in their hand and defending it with an AR15.

"Debasing" was more concise and clear than "Leeching". "Renting seeking" is definitely more general. I do state that in the text. I'll try to improve the wording.

I am not against gold and silver, because I do realize they have the quality of being entirely decentralized, but the problem is that no one wants to accept or use them as currency any more. And the people won't be going back because efficient money is preferred by the economy (nature will always choose the system that has more degrees-of-freedom, i.e. higher entropy future[1]). Either things don't get bad enough to require them to, or they get so MadMax that people won't accept anything that can't be traded for food.[2]

But I have a new design to offer that isn't PoW and isn't exactly DPoS.

My design is more like a hybrid of several different things. And in that way, it has new attributes, because the power of each is broken up into separations-of-concerns. Thus each part functions more freely but with less holistic power to do harm.

I am excited to see what the community thinks of my new technology.

My design depends on open source behavior (not referring to the source code of the software). But open source has the opposite property from politics, in that politics requires all the people to be coordinated. Open source requires only that "given enough eyeballs, all flaws are revealed".

In my design, not everyone has to be coordinated on the same choices. The degrees-of-freedom are unbounded.

There are actual clever technological innovations in my design. It isn't just social engineering. The double-spend security does not depend on open source behavior (economically not any more than PoW does, i.e. that all miners have to validate that which they mine on, lest they may lose their block reward, which really isn't open source behavior because it requires the majority hashrate is monolithically coordinated on validation).

[1]: https://gist.github.com/shelby3/67111f328822a36beb4cad1a5220eb33 <---- Section 5.1 Dictatorship

[2]: Shelby Moore III. Value of currency has historically been public confidence in it as a reliable unit-of-exchange. Bitcointalk.org, “Precious metals are not useful in a collapse scenario!” thread, post #62, Nov 2, 2016

r0ach

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on November 23, 2016, 08:00:50 AM

r0ach, thanks. The most salient threat isn't double-spending and direct theft. Rather it is the insidious debasement tax taken in the form of a winner-takes-all monopoly on transaction fees for PoW and for DPoS that is the level of funding whales vote for themselves for running witnesses.

Both PoW and (D)PoS systems are just central bank printing machines in an obfuscated form.

I will offer a new design. Let's see what y'all think when the juicy part of the white paper with the new design is published.

I get the point, but I don't think I would call that debasement, more like rent seeking behavior. And yea, if anyone actually can form a cartel or monopoly in crypto, you do have a mirror of the rent seeking behavior central bankers use to extract wealth, or essentially skim off the top until they own it all. This is why they hate serfs using gold and silver, because it's difficult to skim off someone physically holding the currency in their hand and defending it with an AR15.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

r0ach, thanks. The most salient threat isn't double-spending and direct theft. Rather it is the insidious debasement tax taken in the form of a winner-takes-all monopoly on transaction fees for PoW and for DPoS that is the level of funding whales vote for themselves for running witnesses.

Both PoW and (D)PoS systems are just central bank printing machines in an obfuscated form.

I will offer a new design. Let's see what y'all think when the juicy part of the white paper with the new design is published.

r0ach

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iamnotback on November 22, 2016, 08:40:39 PM

Here is the rough draft from my white paper about invisible majority hashrate attacks on proof-of-work blockchains:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e90a45604969f1ed64395b0b72a56487

Very provocative!

Pretty good stuff. As we discussed in the past, political voting based on external reputation keeps surfacing in these systems like DPoS and PoW as a crutch to allow them to exist in some type of state at all. We all know that PoW has become entirely centralized, and now the system consists of Chinamen obfuscating who and how many owners of the system there are by strategically allocating hash power in front group pools.

Smaller entrants to the system are presented with the equivalent of a banana republic election where you can vote on what pool to send your hash rate to, but it's all the same guy or cartel running it anyway. The reputation system is the crutch to obfuscate or make believe the system isn't currently or temporarily in a state of centralization or monopoly.

That is, UNLESS you acknowledge the fact that confirmations are completely arbitrary in the first place and have no upper limit, and a suggested 6 confirmations might be orders of magnitude wrong for delivering some type of eventual consistency. Stretch that time limit out to dinosaur age levels of confirmation times and you eventually thermodynamically secure the chain against monopolies from having any effect at all. Entropy doesn't allow permanent monopolies. This means you *may* be able to ignore short term actors and just let them obfuscate away their monopolies since they're economically incentivized not to do harm anyway, but the possibility of a long con is obviously always there.

It's a hard idea for the common man (people not on this forum) to wrap their brain around who aren't familiar with Bitcoin and used to instant binary outcomes with their bank account balance. Soooo, if we ignore things like rough consensus attacks, security all comes down to how short of confirmation time are you willing to risk for forming eventual consistency. But, ignoring rough consensus attacks are a big fucking "if"! It's Bitcoin's largest weakness. The system is far more likely to disperse into a million different forks rather than be brute forced out of existence by one party.

Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 17. (Read 91087 times)