Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 3. (Read 91159 times)

Yes they still have to check validity in between, the checkpoint is just to rule  out the 0.01% proba that could happen with collision or when nodes could think they are on the same chain but are not because of a weird low probability thing, it's just to push this probability few zero down.

But the core of the idea is not dPoW or only this, this is just additional measure to push probability of erroneous consensus few zero down

I still think you miss the gist of the idea lol

More on that...


@dinofelis, how many times do I have to repeat to you that voting is not free.

Ethereum's Casper shit is more of the same proof-of-stake (nothing-at-stake or centralization by economic weight, e.g. DPoS) nonsense. The betting stuff enables what Vitalik refers to as "dark uncles" or "dunkles", which Vitalik incorrectly thinks will solve the nothing-at-stake problem. Also Casper has the problem that all deterministic finality PoS and Byzatine agreement systems have, which is a 33% liveness threshold which if that many validators balk or stop processing, then the chain can't move forward without a hard fork.

The only way to replace PoW is with an Inverse Commons consensus protocol, which is my new invention.

---

I invented that already in collaboration with @jl777 for Komodo in 2016. It is named dPoW (delayed proof-of-work).

CounterParty does something somewhat analogous as well.

And really it isn't a secure and sound solution, but more of a gimick. Because the local consensus still have to decide what to submit for checkpoints because the PoW system isn't validating every thing and can't resolve conflicting double-spending orderings that occurred between checkpoints.

@Anonymint

Care to comment on this? I'm not sure if you can without releasing proprietary information...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-maintain-consensus-without-the-use-of-inflation-1858954

Who else is tired of this shit?

Noone said we have perfect money.. that is impossible

I think we still do not have the perfect money, and maybe after decades we still have not achieved such a thing. But what matters to me is that what we have at the moment is much better than fiat currencies, and it's good to know that there are people working to make these technologies better and better.

@dinofelis hates mankind. The banksters have eaten his soul. He loves robots more than humans. Very sad and entirely incorrect conceptualization. You are correct @iadix.


As if the banksters' debt based, overly leveraged fungible finance driven corruption is a reflection of humankind.

That is first of all only true as long as economic activity is not resource limited ; and secondly, this is mostly also the case because the concentrated areas (the city) are applying extortion on the less dense areas (the countryside), that is, there is a structural flux of wealth from less dense areas to provide dense areas with the stolen wealth ; mainly because the top layers of hierarchy are in the denser areas.

On the other hand, you are right, that structural investments are much more efficient in *sufficiently* dense areas (a road is optimally efficient for a given traffic ; too much traffic jams it, but too low a traffic makes it too expensive per amount of traffic), and costs that scale with distance are also lower in denser areas.

However, I wasn't talking about "putting a human every 20 km" or something like that.  You can very well have a few cities with 70 million people. But now we have very, very high environmental costs that orient a huge amount of our production value into being energy efficient, low-polution etc...  In fact, we can't sustain that, which is why we have to have most of our industrial production in India and China where the environmental costs are still lower.  This is a cost that is entirely gone when we divide humanity by 100.  We can drive cars that consume 50 l / 100 km, without a problem, and we have petrol for the coming 500 years or more.  We don't have to get nervous about climate change.  We can have large forests and still have all the (mechanised) agriculture we'd like.

Our economy is being hurt by resource limits since about 20-30 years and it won't improve.   South America and Africa are being urbanized at the cost of huge parts of nature, in a totally non-sustainable way.  Until not so long ago, labour was a resource and the more people there were, the more labour offer there was ; it is fading away. 

We are now hitting a resource limitation which is strangling us in the same way bitcoin's 1MB block size is strangling it.  This has never happened before, because when it happened in western countries, we could colonize, and afterwards, we could delocalize industrial production.  We can't any more. 

This is normal.  Every population is limited by resources if it grows.  We could push limits some time.  We still can a bit.

Great post! Back to health?
 

ladixDev, this is for you. I hope you understand how we will win. Let's get busy coding and stop bloviating.  Make sure you deeply understand everything I have written in that thread for the past 2 days.

Understand everything about money and why OpenShare will win.

And so now I have finally butted heads with the richest whale in Bitcoin.

ladixDev, your heart wants a meritocracy. So let's go make one. Being angry or upset is not a plan. We have a plan.

Understand how everything is changing because we are leaving the fixed capital industrial age. You are still fighting the last war. Let's go fight the current war and we have the power. Coding is power. Use your power now to create meritocracy.


And it is not incongruent with unselfish behavior when we remove the Prisoner's dilemma of fungible money, which I think is roughly what Nash was trying to say.

Well it's where the concept of selfness can become confusing with empathy. With the simple definition, people who act with empathy are not selfish.

I dont think torturing people, even "enmies" really bring much pleasure to anyone. Only need to see what remain of vets after few years like this. They dont look very happy.

Haaaa the great pleasure to torture your enmy in the name of freedom



Sight  

This is entierely false. Level of life and energy available /  head grow exponentially with global population growth, steady. Place with high density of population always have more manufactured ressource at there disposal.

If you are better on your own without anyone else,  you dont need currency or economy.

That's called immutability.

That is empathy, which is a phenomenon like "liking chocolate milk, and feeling pain when you hit my toe with a hammer".  Empathy is just a positive (or negative!) correlation coefficient between your own happiness and suffering, and the image you have of a specific other being being happy or suffering.  If the coefficient is positive, it is called love and friendship ; if the coefficient is negative, it is called hate and jealousy.  Point is, empathy usually only matters for a FEW others (family, friends, and a few hated enemies). 

In as much as pleasing friends is done to augment your own happiness, that's still nothing else but selfish behaviour !  You use the other one to increase your own good.  In as much as torturing an enemy (even if you have to sacrifice things for that) provides you with pleasure, this is the same: you use the enemy to provide you with pleasure, and is of exactly the same selfish nature than making sacrifice and pleasing a lover or a friend to get the "empathy reward".


Well, my idea is that if 99% of humanity could drop dead by tomorrow, except my friends and family, and those that do useful things for me, that would be a positive thing for me, because the 70 million people remaining would have much more resources at their disposal than the 7 billion idiots running around on this earth.

Life on earth would be a dream again, with 70 million of us.

I think this quite apply to the crypto currency problem

There are two arguments for continuing jobless benefits, a moral argument and an economic argument. The moral argument is easy to make, and can be stated as a Moses-like 11th Commandment.

Thou shalt not fuck other humans up the ass against their wishes, even when they are strangers to you.

I note only in passing that the Earth would be a far more pleasant place to live if all humans everywhere adhered to this new Commandment.


The point of course is that bad things happen when you fuck a stranger in the ass (FSITA). Yet humans fuck strangers in the ass all the time. They are strangers because they are not in some person's in-groups.

In the years preceding the financial meltdown, a considerable number of people in the housing industry—the realtors, the mortgage lenders, the finance people who "securitized" those mortgages into bundles which they sold to "investors", etc.—fucked a considerable number of strangers in the ass, including millions of American homebuyers who were trying to make a buck off rising house prices. Those naive people were told that home prices would rise forever, Those people believed that nonsense!  As a result, many bad things happened, and there was a lot of collateral damage, as with The Dude's car.

When an a multinational corporation moves manufacturing or services offshore, leaving the workers of some American town or city high and dry, that's the owners of that corporation fucking a bunch of strangers in the ass. In fact, FSITA is ubiquitous in large, liberalized market economies, and especially in the United States, a large, diverse "melting pot" whose  economy is based on "free" markets. Lots of strangers there!

I am talking about this rarely-reflected-upon phenomemon in crude terms in the slim hope that you might become sensitized to what goes on every day here in the United States. FSITA is so common that all but a few people have become desensitized to it, especially when it a happens to strangers. If you're the one taking it up the tail pipe, of course, it's a different story.