Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 2. (Read 91083 times)

Nope - your PoS moguls are the Middle Men - forever -

Get your time frame and all risks  right and you'll understand it.

What you 'try' to do with your 'right' PoS is just to create this complex firewall ONCE - no other external work is spend to this after - good luck investing in such a Proof of Shit.

Man  , you are a crybaby.  

Control of PoW always centralizes to the rich.
Or would you like to share the location and number of warehouses you personally own that mine your bitcoin cash.
Those Chinese miners can block your transactions any time they like for an indefinite period. (That is centralization!)

PoW is a dying system that is doomed to run off a cliff, keep putting your money into it.  

In regards to your attempt about PoS externals.
Only badly designed PoS with high inflation can you maintain permanent high % by staking only and never selling your principle.

However take for instant zeitcoin, it runs on Proof of Stake and it makes less than 500 coins per day.
In their coin PoS is used as a consensus method and not as an insane free coin generator.

You have to sell your principle amount to earn any fiat , therefore lowering your future staking %.
So in other words, when you sell some of it you change your staking % or you have to buy more to have a higher staking %.

The other PoS advantage of energy efficiently will in the end , kill off all PoW coins,
unless they follow Eth and switch to a PoS consensus that is sustainable.

FYI:
That line under your avatar is ironic.
Remove The Middlemen
Sadly you fail to grasp the ASIC Miners are the middlemen and they determine if your transactions make it into a block or not.
Since no one can maintain over 51% control over a PoS network for an indefinite amount of time like one can with a PoW network,
your transactions on a well designed PoS network can never be denied for long.  

if you once sit on your 51% Pos of Shit - there are no externalities (operational risks) that will change this in any future and you will be king for ever. This centralization is than for EVER.

In a PoW system you have by far moar skin in the game and that makes a PoW moar secure by far - since you have a latent / permanent decentralization pressure (by far higher than in a PoS by the in PoS absent op risks) at work ALL THE TIME

Have you ever heard about entropy and energy?


Simple example:  PoS is like buying ONCE a cool firewall system - and than never care about it later / ever ...

PoS does not reinforce historical consensus. Every subsequent block in a PoW chain makes the history below it more secure because the cost of reversing it is superlinear in the number of blocks built on top. In PoS, this is not the case, the cost of producing a block is a constant, therefore the cost of reversing history is a constant

Crypto currencies, blockchain system, intelligent contract development, decentralized currencies do not lie. Block chain technology emerged as a response to world economic crises.

PoS does not reinforce historical consensus. Every subsequent block in a PoW chain makes the history below it more secure because the cost of reversing it is superlinear in the number of blocks built on top. In PoS, this is not the case, the cost of producing a block is a constant, therefore the cost of reversing history is a constant

Upthread in my discussion with monsterer, I mentioned that I thought I could solve the problems Satoshi's Proof-of-Work by crediting all block solutions instead of the just the first one that arrives. When I went quiet on Jan 3, it was because I realized my design was faulty because there would still be an ambiguity around when the block solutions to be credited were propagated. I was trying to rush out a first iteration when while programming, I realized the detail that wasn't clear to me before.

I went off on several days of just thinking all day. I contemplated all the possible designs (including Iota's DAG, Lightning Networks, DPOS, Proof-of-Stake, Masternodes, Raiblocks/Blocklattice, etc), and I can't think of any design that uses a block chain or a DAG (or any other form of determining the longest chain of truth) which doesn't either centralize (factoring in society's ability to regulate the consistent partition) or diverge into inconsistent truths. Due to the CAP theorem it is fundamentally impossible for there to exist any block chain or consistent DAG design that won't centralize (even without regulation once you require scaling). Worse yet, it is impossible to attain any sort of end-to-end principled, decentralized scaling of transaction processing, because consistency is lost without centralization (even Proof-of-Work centralizes economically due to the Power Law distribution of capital).

The CAP theorem is fundamental. There will be no way to solve it. You all can spend the next 1000 years fooling yourself will all sorts of designs, but they will also end up either inconsistent or centralized or unable to scale. PERIOD. PERIOD.

I realized that Bitcoin and everything else so far is destined for failure. We are only mining each other here. We are not producing any fundamental breakthrough on the problem of decentralized electronic money. I do not like to work on things that I feel are misdirected and destined for failure in the end. I don't want to get rich by fooling other people (or fooling myself). All of you including the core Bitcoin developers are fooling themselves. I've been through all the designs. It is fundamental. There won't be any solution in any of the directions being pursued by any of the current and upcoming crypto projects. It is all delusional bullshit.

I felt rather hopeless about this, and so spent a few days thinking about other potential directions for my life, work, etc..

After all that, I decided the only way to get a breakthrough on electronic money is to admit the CAP theorem and decide which of the three, Consistency, Access, Partitioning to forsake in a design. Bitcoin can't tolerate any Partitioning, thus Access is and will be centrally controlled. Iota allows Partitioning and thus forsakes Consistency (watch it blow up).

Specifically Iota forsakes Consistency in a very chaotic way, where there can be multiple Partitions of truths and so no one will know which truth is valid. Or they will have to centralize to force a consistent truth.

[...]

The truth of each channel still has to be a consensus. It doesn't change the fundamental issues of how to prove consensus about double-spends within the partition. Even there are chosen nodes who are signatories for determining the truth of the channel, this then not permissionless because the government can attack those specific nodes.

Detail your design and I will rip it to shreds.

Not intending to be unfriendly, but I am tired of bullshit (especially bullshitting myself because I don't want to waste any programming effort). I have done all these designs in my head.

If there is a design that can improve upon Bitcoin, then I want to work on programming it. If not, then I want to not waste effort. It would be better for me to make some fast transaction addon for Bitcoin than to waste effort on designs that won't improve upon what is.