Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 22. (Read 91159 times)

This thread is about decentralization.

Also I have no obligation to have an off-topic discussion with you about cryptographic public-key signature systems, especially not about secret details of my work and especially not with someone who is disrespecting me.

Btw, I wrote about MSS today in the Bitcoin Development & Technical Discussion forum. Btw, CMSS isn't the only variant. There are a range of tradeoffs.

Here is one on topic of this thread.. can you explain why or why not mss should be substituted instead of ecdsa in your upcoming project.. im looking at ccsma20.. signs in 4ms compared to 100ms ecdsa.. this is just a building block of achieving security from nsa which i assume is your goal so im eagerly waiting for your reply

Noise? Like the noise you post everyday and battles between untold number of people probably much smarter than you? But they all must be wrong right.

I meant what is your production in this thread today?

Filling my thread up with off-topic noise and being a jealous retard telling me to not share my technical thoughts, is not a form of production.

Any more excuses and refusing to admit your malfeasance today?

Noone said i was jealous except anonymint. I dont follow him i had an interest in armstrong followed him and realized his short term predictions are bs.. i continue to tell ppl dont rely on his short term forcasts they are random and this dude loves to chime in with his 2 cents every time... anyways he had me on ignore so i dont know why his panties are in a bunch there was no issue.. you can lookup my github and see my production if you like.

Enlighten me. Where is your production?

Being a jealous retard doesn't qualify as production.

atleast im doing some productive here

Nobody gives a fuck about your idiotic jealousy. Don't delude yourself so much. People are concerned here with serious, simplifying solutions to clusterfucks such as LN and SegWit.

You seem to have no comprehension about how most of software development is written words, and I am not referring to the source code.

Maybe you aren't aware of my action.

And really dude, I don't give a fuck about what you have to say. In what way could anything you say change or help me go faster as I already have my effort dialed up to absolute maximum, working typically 16 - 18 hours daily, 7 days a week. The issue is not the time commitment nor the effort put forth, but a combination of a health ailment and shit load of work that is more than one man can do in a very short period of time, not to mention a man who is handicapped by a health issue.

Can't you find something more productive to do with your miserable life than stalk me in various threads? So you don't like Martin Armstrong. You think my theories in the Economic Devastation aren't worthy. You are just a jealous mofo, who lives in his delusional world of self-importance attacking anyone anything that makes himself feel more important.

Yeah I know you think you are shining a light on BS. This is your purpose in life. Well stay tuned for your facepalm mofo (and that includes your pathetic BS retorts of Armstrong).

Here you go again, inciting noise in a serious technical thread. Filling up another god-damn thread with useless verbiage to deal with your pathetic ego.

Less talk more action get better than talk dont yap if you cant walk the walk... come back 100% since you never take any information from anybody here anyway

Probably not until after my medical trip in January to Singapore to try to fix this chronic liver and digestive (4+ year) chronic illness that severely reduces my productivity to about 1/5 of normal. I always (wavering but at least) some level of persistent delirium (due to toxicity of my health issue), so I struggle. Imagine trying to work with a persistent migraine headache. Roughly analogous to that. I have my moments, but software development is intense and requires a lot of long hours and most importantly it requires continuity of energy and thoughts (where you go to sleep thinking about what you jump on the keyboard as soon as you roll out of bed).


I don't see any chance of Bitcoin ever implementing this because it eliminates miners. So it will never happen as a fork of Bitcoin. So a BIP is useless.

Also my angel investors wouldn't allow me to give it away for free.

Yeah it will be a new coin and a new social network rivaling Steem but fixing Steem's flaws.

There might be a small ICO on launch (~1000 - 2000 BTC more or less), not on vaporware, to accelerate ecosystem developing funding (did you see I am creating a new programming language ... these things require lots of resources), with the majority of the tokens going towards onboarding millions of users into crypto (where the value proposition to existing token holders is non-dilutive).

It is possible I'll go fully with angel (private placement) investment and no public ICO, which is probably my preference for legal reasons. If I do an ICO, it will need to be SEC compliant since I am a USA citizen, so that means only high networth individuals if they are USA citizens or residents.


Quoted for future facepalm. Ridicule me while I am ill. You are going to get payback when I am not ill.

When are we going to get anything functional? Because until then Bitcoin is king and no killer is around.

Also would it be a new coin or would it be a BIP?

You wont

I have been reading your posts from time to time for years now, it sounds interesting and it seems you are a smart guy but im yet to see any software.

When are we going to get anything functional? Because until then Bitcoin is king and no killer is around.

Also would it be a new coin or would it be a BIP?

Although I won't reveal my proposed improvement in detail now, I will reveal that the solution involves objective "eventual consistency". Satoshi's design suffers from fact that blocks compete with each other instead of being complementary (additive and subtractive in the notion of sets of events). Satoshi's design is analogous to the aliasing error of point samples in a continuous space. I have a radical improvement which is going to entirely change the way everyone thinks about blockchains. This is the Bitcoin killer.

This is the Bitcoin killer.

Congrats. You are repeating what I wrote about on Nov 7, which is something I've been writing about since 2013 with proof as linked in the following self-quote:

Abstract: Centralization in Satoshi's proof-of-work is due to economies-of-scale, which impart some power which the decentralized participants are unable to diminish.

My design for a consensus ordering system eliminates these economies-of-scale and enables the decentralized partipants to effectively as a collective force diminish any power which is objectively deleterious to the collective collaborative good will of the system. This forms a Nash equilibrium on adherence to the one collaborative game theory strategy envisioned by the protocol.

Consensus of Ordering

Any system of consensus on the ordering of some observed events (e.g. ordering of transactions) will either require empowering an entity to make that decision (perhaps periodically in blocks of time, round-robin scheduling a list of delegates such as in Delegated Proof-of-Stake), or accepting as the total order, the partial order with the greatest consumption of some resource. Satoshi's design consumes electricity (and hardware amortization) in a randomized proof-of-work puzzle because:

• it eliminates any requirement for trusting a reputation, and;
• it's a decentralized means to objectively distribute the minted tokens remuneration without exchanging (i.e. selling) them, and;
• it provides security regardless of the transaction rate.

Satoshi's Proof-of-Work

Centralization in Satoshi's proof-of-work is due to economies-of-scale, which impart some power which the decentralized participants are unable to diminish. Examples include the selfish mining attack¹ and propagation delays which accrue more than proportional rewards (thus accumulating ever more hashrate) to those with more hashrate due to wasted mining of the others.

Yet in Satoshi's design there is no objective metric to differentiate malfeasance from good will, i.e. there can't exist an objective perspective in the Byzantine Generals Problem² (without a total perspective which would otherwise not be a Byzantine Generals Problem), and political reaction to malfeasance requires a (manipulatable and otherwise unlikely) monolithic political hardfork action (with entire loss of security to change the proof-of-work algorithm to prevent the existing miners from controlling the decision) instead of as enabled by my design, an avalanche of decentralized, free market individual snowballing remedial proactions.

Delegated Proof-of-Stake

Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS) is effectively a permissioned, centralized system, because the (votes of the) whales are in control. If we just wanted a centralized, persmissioned system, then we don't need blockchains. We could do that more efficiently without a blockchain. We have it already, it is named Paypal, Visa, or Mastercard. The only way you scale this globally, is if nobody owns it. This is why Paypal can't disrupt the existing financial structure of the world. Too many vested interests fighting turf battles.

DPOS has the most essential flaw that delegates are either disallowed from refusing to include a block containing a double-spend, or a total order is not assured because delegates can diverge into partial orders forks.  Only full nodes which validate all transactions can objectively determine which delegates and partial orders are erroneous, but lite clients are only supposed to trust delegates. Even if the lite client is provided a fraud proof based on ordered Merkel hash trees a la Segregated Witness, then lite clients then must become distrusting of any transaction in any block until all delegates have been visited (under the presumption that not all delegates can be colluding), because it is not knowable how many colluding blocks will be in succession. This could impact negatively the high transaction throughput and low transaction confirmation latency claims. Delegates can ignore some or many transactions, causing poor performance, and which is not objectively provable thus might be difficult to mount a political vote to remediate.

Also it is probable a majority (or significant enough minority combined with voter apathy and/or collusion with some whales) of the voting power is held by the exchanges, which could collude to elect delegates that are complicit in some malfeasance for profit, such as shorting the token and/or achieving a double-spend. The nothing-at-stake issue remains in that no resource is consumed by voting. Voting is a power vacuum³ and objectivity of [redacted] is impossible when obscured manipulative deals are possible behind-the-scenes⁴ while profit due to such malfeasance is not effectively limited.

Although DPOS scales transaction throughput significantly more than Satoshi's design, it doesn't enable resiliency through parallelization of event ordering across multiple simultaneous delegates, thus reducing the performance and resiliency of the system to the weakest delegates; which will make free market decentralization and/or instantaneous transactions more restricted as the transaction load rises by orders-of-magnitude. Since every delegate has to validate every transaction in the blocks of all the other delegates, colluding delegates can overload other delegates with transaction spam attacks in any DPOS system which has no transaction fees or which pays the fees to the processing delegate. The supply and demand for delegates in DPOS isn't determined by the free market. It is not possible to spontaneously migrate away from an existing delegate nor for a new delegate spontaneously to meet demand— not just load demand, but also demand for other attributes such as geographical location, perceived need for additional check on malfeasance, etc.. And the objective metrics of collusion and malfeasance are insufficient being at best mostly retrospective after the damage is done, and not proactive.

Proposed Improvement Overview

My design accepts as the total order, the partial order [redacted]. The Nash equilibrium incentive to converge on this total order is achieved through the objective [redacted] combined with objective limitation of potential profit due to malfeasance otherwise derived from [redacted].

...



¹ https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0243
² https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13823607
³ http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984
⁴ https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12376416

Also found this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjT7wQNg_s4

The innovation claimed is that everyone can agree on 11 of 12 centralized supernodes to order the transactions, thus we wouldn't need PoW nor blocks if this claim were true and desirable.

If that claim were true, then we wouldn't have Visa and Mastercard dominant today.

Since people can't agree, this is why the governance of society is a power vacuum. The most ruthless and powerful are sucked into the vacuum to provide the top-down organization (discipline) that society requires to function. So it will be no different outcome in this case, where the 12 supernodes will be controlled by one entity (even pretending to be 12 entities via a Sybil attack). Because the users will never be able to agree on any evolution away from the 12 by forming a consensus on an exact 12, since they are only allowed a mutation of 1 at a time. And any higher rate of mutation would make it implausible to define a total order.

I am sorry he has failed. And every possible¹ DAG design will fail.

Tangentially (off-topic for technical discussion) although the creator appears to have good intentions, I argue his distribution method is highly flawed. Giving away coins for free means most will dump them on the market, thus collapsing the price. Well maybe that is by design, so someone can scoop them up cheap and then later after price hits rock bottom, then that group can pump & dump it making the usual fortune by mining the n00b speculators.

¹ I am referring to the concept of a DAG where branches are undifferentiated. And I have something more specific to say about this, but not ready to publish yet.

Reviewing the video I had done for this thread back in February where I critiqued some aspect of Casper:


At the end of that rambling video, I finally got to the point. But amazingly I didn't come to the very obvious conclusion on how to fix the problem that computation on a blockchain faces. I basically stated it in the last part of that video, but I failed to connect the dots.

Now I see the solution. It was right there in front of our face all along. Why has no one seen it 

(Of course I am not going to tell you. You tell me. I want to see if anyone else can figure it out)