Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 38. (Read 91144 times)

No worries - let this become an IOTA fan topic then - I'll just unwatch and get on with other things.

anonymint/TPTB_need_war explicitly refers to IOTA on line 4 of his OP

Why should it not be allowed to talk about Iota anymore?
Looks like the most "advanced" DAG-based coin until now, therefore referring to it is perfectly adequate.

So let's get back on topic on not talk about IOTA but instead the fact that a "small POW" doesn't work!

The reason being that it is easily defeated by a large set of dedicated servers (read @monsterer's topic for more on this).

Whatever...let's not derail the thread but i wrote "Judging by IOTA" because i used it as a reference point and though that would be worth pointing out. Was I supposed to write "Judging by the one existing example I'm not allowed to name" ? 

I thought the point of this topic was to discuss potential technical solutions rather than actual "coins" (which basically comes across as shilling whether you mean it to or not).

Why not just talk about the technical methods and not even mention the coin's name then?

(and as @monsterer points out a small POW won't work so that idea is a failure but because you introduced a "name" we will now waste time with having to read rubbish posts defending an alt rather than with anything useful)

The problem with this is spam. IMO you cannot make the PoW easy enough for IoT devices while preventing desktop PCs from spamming the network; see this topic for more discussion on the subject:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/free-transactions-spam-block-reward-and-confirmation-times-1331522

I don't know how my post could possibly be misinterpreted as shilling but let me just say that I chose IOTA because it is the only project I know of that uses a system that is at least remotely similar to the one that TBTB seems to be proposing (i.e. unprofitable mining and every user does the "mining").

LOL, you made my day. patmast3r shilling for Iota is a very funny thing.

If your purpose is to shill for IOTA then I guess we have nothing more to discuss (it's unfortunate that it is simply impossible to create a topic on this forum about tech without shills for some alt coming along and trying to hijack it - maybe the OP should consider a self-moderated topic next time).

Judging by how IOTA seems to be doing it it's not a big hassle, just a "small" PoW that a client has to attach to it's tx. Afaik the network will be depended on a constant stream of "honest" txs yes.

Provided that the "proof" is not going to be a big hassle then that makes sense, however, having a very "cheap proof" will make it much easier to mount a Sybil attack.

The way I am approaching this problem is seemingly quite different to the other ways I've been reading in this topic (but as I haven't finished development yet I won't say more about it for now).

From what i can gather it's even simpler than that. They'll need to contribute to securing the network in order to send a transaction.

I think you are very incorrect with this thinking - currently people spend "hours every day" creating content on Facebook or other such things for *zero profit*. Why on earth would they do that?

If you can simply get those people to run a (presumably low-power requirement) node then you will be able to secure a blockchain without needing block rewards at all (effectively it is your cost to be a part of a social network).

If you think anybody will be willing to secure the network without direct incentive especially after Bitcoin introduced mining incentive, you are in delusion.

A large amount of hashrate which is critical for Bitcoin network is only here for profits

I think he means something else, and I think the answer will reveal who he is so I expect we won't get an explaination

I think he really means securing (confirming) the transactions by getting
them in blockchain.

Transaction validation has a very low cost associated with it compared to finding a hash; regular nodes also do transaction and block validation, and this is designed to be trivial, so I'm still not sure what you mean by making transaction validation profitable?

The word mining in Bitcoin mixes to issues: validation of transactions and creation of money. Also the word miners isn't compatible with a true Peer-to-Peer system. In any case, the important part is that doing the verification is profitable. Another word for the work these nodes do is auditing. It's the computer analog of a person checking the accounting statements in double entry book-keeping system. The blockchain is similar to the invention of double entry book-keeping by Luca Pacioli in 15th century Italy, and the use of clay tablets in Ancient Babylon to preserve contracts. Imagine a world without paper, how do you know that two people agreed on something ex-post? The invention of the blockchain allows for the first time in history to store completely immutable data. However when Bitcoin developers claim signatures can be stored independently of the blockchain, it might be that the Bitcoin blockchain is not that immutable after all. Overall the goal is to preserve some record which is completely indestructible, such that the record of ownership is completely secure. With fiat money not only are the ledgers in the hand of the nation state, but those ledgers are very hard to audit. Most people use fiat money every day, but the number of people who check the books of their central bank is small indeed. If one understands these things, it is clear that it is a certainty that in the future these public ledgers will be widely used.

What do you mean by 'transaction verification'?

Yes exactly, transaction verification has to be profitable, and the reward prevents double spends. Mining in Bitcoin is not profitable on average, but there is a competition. However the unsolved problem: how to create a system where supply (blocksize more or less) adapts to demand? It makes sense to have a fee market, but nobody really proposed something which explains how this might work, in my opinion. A system doesn't need 5000 nodes. 50-100 nodes have enough reliability. In Bitcoin what matters anyway is the hashpower, not number of nodes. Most of these things can be much better understood from the perspective of 2008, not 2010+. Satoshi wanted the system to be as open as possible to maximise chance of success. In 2016 it is much more clear where the problems are.