Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 24. (Read 91087 times)

Up until a few weeks ago, I still had some doubts about my design, but now I realized how to make sure it remains decentralized. I see no hope for Bitcoin remaining decentralized.

I will try to make stronger claims in a white paper at the opportune time in the future.


The criminals can find a way to be anonymous if they are very, very careful about all their meta data and they only do this one shot, not on a regular basis.

Your typical user can't remain anonymous with Bitcoin. Meta data leaks all over the place. Even just using the same computer for activities and the browser fingerprint, etc, etc, etc..

Remember TPTB want a monopoly on crime, thus they want that anonymity is available to them, but not to us.

Question 1, Are you of the opinion that it isn't possible for bitcoin crypto currencies to not be centralized and they inevitably become control systems?

Question 2. There have been many many hacks of bitcoin and many attempts to track these coins. Have the hackers been successful in covering their tracks?

Yes, right, and let's make it open source so that it can be cloned and potentially improved upon to the point where our original plan fails.


Cash and fiat is not intrinsically oppressive+totalitarian, it depends on who/what controls the issuance. What would stop us from simply decentralizing away from "BitCON" if it becomes centralized and controllable like you are saying was the plan all along?

Define "fail"?

If you define fail as the coin stops functioning or double-spending is so pervasive via 51% attack that no one will accept it, then I agree it is a ludicrous proposition that isn't very likely to happen.

Rather the designed failure of Bitcoin is to become centralized so that the elite are able to control who can transact (which is another symptom of a 51% attack) so they can implement capital controls, expropriation, and taxation, while also tracking every transaction we make so we are 666 slaves.

Bitcoin is not failing but it is failing to scale to mass adoption, and BitCON (the Trojan Horse) is failing in that it will be more oppressive+totalitarian than cash and fiat were. Why do you people have such a difficult time to understand this distinction, even I have repeated it so many times.

Misc thoughts i had after catching up a bit here.

I have a hard time choking back the assertion Bitcoin was designed to fail at a certain point.
I just can't wrap my head around that concept..

I don't deny a Chinese conspiracy because who knows there may be one.

But driven by the Chinese government top down to the Chinese people ?
Hmm.. i dunno  
Because i think well what would be the difference between the people of the USA then ?
People over here.. and people over there (different groups)
Who ALL want to make money and dominate and WIN !
Conspiracy or Hidden Agenda ? ..or just common sense and the way of life?

Know what springs to mind about Chinese dominance in Bitcoin mining ?
For one thing i am surprised people are not screaming racism (i don't think it is)

What strikes me is this..
What if Chinese dominance is simply an issue of capability.
Take two groups for example both started out equally..
But in time one group demonstrated a higher level of skill & resources and took the lead.
Do you then claim the winning team as evil conspiracy laden manipulators etc ?
Like didn't the USA or any other group have the same ability at Bitcoins launch ?

Lastly,
i thing BitcoinNational saying every guy will have their own currency is silly nonsense !
Even if that DID happen it would be something else ..NOT a "currency" then.
But i sure as hell don't see that happening.

Look up the meaning of "Currency" guys.. currency does not mean "Bank"
In order for something to be considered a currency it must be used as such as per definition.
No more nor less.. that is just reality vs. Altcoin delusional fantasy pipe dreams LOL

That is what they all thought at the peak in 1929.

It is not dumb that n00bs don't know the technology and game theory economics. What is dumb is when n00bs (such as the Bitcoin maximalist comments in this thread) think they know something about an issue that is far too complex for them to be comprehend without deep research that they are unwilling or incapable of doing. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

So many dumb comments in this thread by Bitcoin maximalists who will invent any excuse possible to remain in denial of the fact that highly centralized systems fall into the abyss of turf battles morass and BitCON is becoming the TrojanHorse coin with centralized mining control enabling the coming capital controls and expropriation of wealth by the G20:

@sockpuppet1

hitting some solid points;

The solution are the ALT coins;

1. ultimately it will all boil down to ... $cost/$transaction (+min. Liquidity) ... and that can be broken down into strata ... obviously B E & L are the top tier ... but $cost/$trans has thus been ignored ... smart money will find the cheapest channels to move in.

2. everyone is going to have their own alt coin, much like 'the banked' all have credit scores and hence trade stock ... no one mentions this fact in the real world of money/banking  it ain't gonna be any diff. here in crypt0.  avatars will issue bonds.  and crypto banks will buy them.

The first to go bankrupt are the marginal miners, not the ones with the lowest electricity costs and the highest efficiencies due to very large economies-of-scale in mining farms.

The halving will INCREASE the centralization of Bitcoin's hashrate (to China's mining farms), not decrease it.

Satoshi designed the distribution curve this way. Who is your hero, who is your daddy who sold you to the banksters?

---

Too bad you didn't learn that the universe is composed of partial orders and not a total order. Then you'd understand why every consensus system will become centralized and thus a defacto a fiat.

1. I agree doing nothing is not a solution. I am trying to do something, but my design requires that there be very significant transactions since the unprofitable proof-of-work share (not a block solution!) is sent with each transaction. So if I launch the thing with nearly no adoption and just HODLers, then it can be easily attacked by botnets. Thus before I can make the CC, I need to first create something that could drive a lot of demand for the use of the CC. That is why I conceived JAMBOX. But then I realized that the concept of JAMBOX (which basically means replacing the web browser with a mobile app browser) is actually a better career choice for me to work on than a CC. It also enables me to work on creating a new programming language, which will bring me great respect+admiration amongst my peers and will also secure my finances at the tail end of my career (which I desperately need is some stability in my life at 51 and trying to recover from a 10 year illness which REKTed my life/career, 4 years acute and as well I need to pay back my meager angel investors with some gains for them if I don't create a CC or let them take investment share in JAMBOX corporation). Btw, @keean who I met recently at the Rust forum (and is now in my contacts list at my LinkedIn, so you can view his CV) is discussing with me in private collaborating on a new programming language. He has published research papers with the famous FP guru Oleg. He already has a prototype of a language he had designed and maybe we could reuse some of that for the 10 programming language features I have concisely enumerated as crucial for the next popular programming language that will eat all the others to a great extent in terms of popularity. That is an amazing accomplishment for me that a person as accomplished and well connected (in the UK!) has agreed with me that the features I listed are very much needed and not offered by any other programming language on earth. He also approves of my recent invention to solve the major computer science problem known as the Expression Problem. We agreed the best strategy is open source it and hope others will join to help us, which we think is likely given his pedigree and also the features we are targeting. So I am on a major positive upswing in my career (and also apparently/hopefully health), but this is still far away from implementing JAMBOX and then after that a CC.

2. The reason I don't want to accelerate by jumping straight to the implementation of a CC, is because:

• I'm hedging my bets in terms of where I place my effort and thus my risks of failure.
• We have time, the collapse in earnest is not until 2018. Bitcoin will continue to function and not likely be regulated with capital controls before that, although 2018 will come very fast if measured in programmer man-hours needed to complete such ambitious projects.
• I don't want to put myself in a desperate position where I need to P&D in order to be financially stable.
• The LOC required will be immense over time, and I don't want to code it all the crappy languages we have now. It is like I am restarting or resetting my career, so it is time to do it right and with the right programming language.
• If I do a CC, I want it to be something truly different and adopted by millions and hopefully a billion users. My ambitions are very high. To match those ambitions, I need to do this development in a very high quality way and draw in these extremely smart people who are outside of CC.
• Smooth can't help me as much as someone who has a high, visible pedigree because he is anonymous (note I have my eye on Paul Phillips whom I have exchange some cordial messages on mailing lists in the past and because he wants to create the "perfect" programming language and he has the kind of extrovert personality that I love, as well as probably being raw IQ smarter than myself!). Also because he will consume most of the funding because his rate is very high. it doesn't help as much to raise more money in a crowdfund if the co-developer is anonymous. And fluffypony et al are already consumed/committed to their projects. There are so many talented developers out there, but most of them see no point in working in CC; whereas, with my programming language and app browser initiatives I may be able to pull in top developers from outside of CC. The @keean result is my first confirmation of my strategy. He also a very amicable person, as well as being extremely knowledgeable about programming, design patterns, and PL design.

3. About monsterer's criticisms of my unprofitable proof-of-work design, the salient refutations are there in the last few pages of the decentralization thread where I specifically rebutted him on his point about there being no proper incentives. I am too rushed (overloaded with tasks) to go dig up the link, you all can find it if you are really interested. Essentially monsterer's argument was that the profit from mining has to be greater than the potential profit from double-spending with a 51% attack. My refutation was that a) there is no level of maximum profit from double-spending attack, because there is no limit to the value that can be transacted in a block; and b) that motivation to supply the honest proof-of-work isn't driven by profit in my design but rather because it is mandatory. And btw, did monsterer disappear? The possible weakness in my design is that the spender will merely offload the computation of the proof-of-work to a server and thus the mining hashrate becomes concentrated. But even so there is a major distinction in the control and economics of that, which I will detail in a white paper. The problem with IOTA is not that the PoW is unprofitable, but rather that the structure of a DAG does not enable a single longest chain of truth, thus afaics the only way to force convergence to consensus is to use centralized servers and checkpoints. I will explain better the mathematical criticism of Iota in the future. I don't have time for the meticulous diversions right now.

The decentralization is destroyed because Satoshi designed it to do that failure, but the functionality/operation of the coin is not (yet) destroyed.

Please understand carefully the distinction.

Yes Bitcoin IS basically ALIVE if you are referring to the functioning of the coin. But the control of the block chain is becoming ever more centralized and controlled by a small group of mining farm owners. And with this control, they have already started to do their 51% attacks on Bitcoin in order to control the block size and drive transaction fees sky high.

But don't worry that they are raping us and will be raping us more in the future. We love when the banks rape us by getting QE from Bernanke. We love the miners to do the same thing to Bitcoin. We love to bend over and take it in our ass. That is why we are Bit(ret)ards.

Bitcoin is largest of the scams. It is pulling $1 million a day out of pockets and handing it to some corruption in China.


I destroyed this logic fail from smooth in the past. Did you miss it?

Electricity is nearly an order-of-magnitude less efficient way to create heat. No one is going to compete with nearly free electricity in China (due to corruption) by paying more to heat their homes.

Even if Chinese mining farms were not getting political favors in exchange for promising to follow the government's edicts on regulation of mining (which of course they will do as any rational person will do because if they don't someone else will avail of the offer from the government and of course the government of China wants to control Bitcoin, duh!), it would still be the case that Chinese mining farms will always have greater economies-of-scale which will make it impossible to compete with them by getting part of the electricity for heating your home for free, because again you could heat your home in much more efficient ways especially factoring in the capital cost of the latest generation competitive ASIC mining equipment, as compared to for example adding better insulation to your walls or double paned windows, etc..


100%. We are headed into a top-down managed world. Take off your rosy spectacles and study the history of mankind and what happens at junctures like the one we are in now.


14nm fabs are only owned by Intel, Samsung, and TMSC. Intel will probably be the first to 10nm, perhaps up to a year ahead of the others. It takes years to ramp up production to meaningful volumes. Commodization doesn't mean that consumers can get the most efficient hardware at reasonable prices. The cutting edge will always belong to the mining farm which places large guaranteed orders years in advance.

I hope you join in hacking once I create an open beta release for my project

Well, you covered yourself in denial of service attack rhetoric, that's quite difficult to combat. But if your code is better than that of your enemies, you get ahead in the rat race. Internet is just an open organism. I wish you spent as much time in coding as you do here in forums.

Incorrect.

Inconsistency could be solved by progressive grouping and neutral "centralizing" algorithms

Well if his claim ends up occurring and his mining farm has a lower cost than the 28.75% of the most marginal miners (and assuming no miners mine unprofitably), then simple algebra says China's share of mining will increase to 98.75% from currently estimated 70%.

Btw, I did that in my head in 30 seconds or less, including reasoning out the impact on mining difficulty. Please check my calculation. (note I assumed 30% share is 1200 coins pre-halving)

Anyone ASIC mining Bitcoin now should sell their ASICs while they still can.