Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 41. (Read 91113 times)

May I request that if you want to have a discussion about theory behind graph models for transaction state, that you create a new thread and we will discuss it there. Then after we reach mutual understanding, we will post the summary back in this thread. I don't want to make this thread unnecessarily noisy.

I don't think trees will work and that is why I think we will end up writing a long discussion. And this thread is already getting difficult to follow, being too long to digest holistically in a reader's mind.

Don't you understand that "fundamentally broken" means they don't work for the features they claim that are an improvement over Bitcoin.

The link I provided to you for Ethereum explains that afaik they never solved the primary economic issue facing scaling programmable block chains, which is that every full node has to verify the block chain, thus every full node has to run the programmable script. But the problem is who to pay the gas (ether) to so that all full nodes are paid for verification? This has DDoS implications as well. In short, they never solved the core economic problem and thus Ethereum is just a fucking toy that can't actually work.

Ditto Monero as explained below (the arguments were in the links I provided to you before but again I am always forced to repeat myself because readers are so clueless about technology that they can't even understand what I write).


You are a n00b and you don't do enough research to know what you are writing about. Why should anyone believe you?

Monero is not anonymous when your metadata can be correlated. One example of metadata which unmasks your anonymity is your IP address. And no, Tor and I2P mixnets do not hide your IP address from the government, in fact they are thought to be Sybil attacked honeypots that not only tell the government your IP address but also alert the NSA et al that you should come under extra scrutiny.

And IP address is not the only metadata that can destroy your anonymity in ring signatures. Other examples can include cookies in your browser and other activity you did on the web. Other examples also include telephone calls and other activity you did around that time, which have statistical significance.

I wrote about that in the link in the post I made upthread which is quoted below.


Ring signatures do not obscure everything. Only Zerocash can obscure everything so that then metadata is no longer a problem. I see Vitalik @ Ethereum has been reading my Bitcointalk posts, because now he has written a blog post to copy most of the points I have been making for the past months.

Additionally I have been making the point since the BCX incident that ring signatures can theoretically be unmasked by combinatorial analysis of the block chain. In the recent debate I had with Monero's cryptographer Shen-noether at Reddit about his white papers, I pointed out that his proposed solution to combinatorial unmasking was flawed. He and smooth did the usual ad hominem attack on my person, and then I rebutted them with logical facts and they were forced to finally put their tail between their legs.

Bullshit. So much bullshit in these discussions of cryptocurrency technology. Especially coming from all the Monero pumpers who haven't done their homework, because they are retarded, closed-minded, and boastfully so.


Just a (arguably plagiarized) copy of Cryptonote technology, so same conclusions as for Monero.

https://z.cash/ is the only potential solution for making metadata correlation irrelevant, but all I know about it is here:

http://zerocash-project.org/

Seems the project died or stalled? Afaik they've been quiet past months or most of 2015?

Also scaling issues will probably still apply thus it is possible that Zerocash doesn't scale to world wide use, or other problems such as DDoS. I won't know until I dig deeper into it. Perhaps they discovered such issues and stopped working on it.

Anonymity is very difficult to achieve. I would guess maybe impossible once all the technical factors are considered. But I am still willing to try. I personally will come back to Zerocash's technology later, after I finish fixing block chain scaling and decentralization (which is more important priority and more realistic).

Were you talking specifically about DAGs and Iota, or in general?

The way out of this dilemma is to allow users set
their own limits on the blocksizes they're willing to accept.

The reasons Mike Hearn got out is that Bitcoin has just been 51% attacked. As I explained upthread. That is not a minor event. It is the first 51% attack on Bitcoin, and thus likely a death spiral for Bitcoin.



Why do you scream when you've been incessantly warned that storing your crypto currency with any third party is inherently unsafe and can never be safe.

That is why we need decentralized exchanges, but these have technical challenges that have yet to be overcome.


Btw, his mannerism and face/facial expressions remind me so much of another alleged scammer Evan @ Dash in the recent Evolution videos.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough - I was not referring to any DAG design at all, not related to Iota. The design I had in mind is a tree, but for all intents and purposes, it might as well be linear.

Daniel Larimer @ Bitshares is now stating our point that PoS is a one time resource cost:


But then he goes loony creating futures contracts so that mining can be centralized to whom ever can effectively lend long-term and borrow short-term:


He is essentially trying to create a coin with 0 liquidity.

And his points about voting and politics seem to be unaware of the design I am proposing in this thread. Appears he had discovered that politics and centralization are negatives in his DPOS design, so now he reaches into his closet-Keynesian Bag-O-Tricks for another sloppy slurp.

I believe it can be shown to be a insoluble mathematical fact that the distribution of profitability of mining will not be uniform and will be more Gaussian-shaped distributed. Thus the more decentralized the miners (in a mining for profit design such as Satoshi's design), the greater the need for the additional profitability of less variance of rewards.

Well, I don't have numbers on profitability of mining, will stop this dispute.

As I explained upthread, moving between pools doesn't necessarily enable decentralization, because marginal cost of mining will dictate that miners MUST seek out a pool with significant portion of the system PoW hashrate, otherwise the miner will be unprofitable. For the professional miners not at the margins of profitability, they are already centralization.

Even the Chinese claim their mining is highly concentrated by pools not by each miner, and observe how the Chinese government was able to force those pools to adopt a policy of not supporting a block chain increase.

I recall those days when GHash.io was controlling 51% and people were saying that it's not decentralization, because miners will leave the pool should it abuse its power. Are you sure it's few miners making decisions, not few pool operators?

If what you wrote were logical, then decentralization would always be the same as centralization.

Decentralization is where the decision making power is spread out to as many actors as possible. A few miners in China making the decisions for all the users of Bitcoin, is not decentralization. You are conceptually conflating the sham of representative democracy (or in this case taxation without representation because we don't even get the illusion of voting) with decentralization.

China controlling Bitcoin mining is not an argument. China is 20% of the population, not surprising that China outnumbers here. One could claim that Bitcoin is completely centralized because Earth controls 100% of its hashing power.

I am not appealing to his authority and I in fact criticized him by quoting the part about he is working for/with 42 big banks, which says something about his motives and biases.

However it is a fact that what he says about China controlling Bitcoin mining and this having potentially very negative impacts. Whether you want the block size to increase or stay the same, you can't argue that is decentralization when miners in China will decide for the rest of the world.

And the "fundamentals are broken" in numerous ways.

It will get very interesting when the block reward halves this year. If the price doesn't move up, the Chinese miners might start extracting high transaction fees. By constraining the protocol block size (by refusing to adopt large block sizes and controlling 51% of the PoW), they can do this without causing the market to think Bitcoin has fallen to an attack. Otherwise they'd need to do an active 51% attack on the longest chain to enforce higher transaction fees. But really it is no distinction and Bitcoin has already fallen to a 51% attack.  

Edit: what Hearn has discovered is what the upthread discussion between CoinCube and I concluded. That is the world government and he and his bankster buddies want can't be obtained with centralization of mining. They will be forced to admit to decentralization, else everything fails (Dark Age).

Argumentum ad verecundiam (Hearn) is not a kind of an argument we expect in such thread.

Centralization is killing Bitcoin, just as I was warning in 2013 and everyone said I was crazy.


http://www.coindesk.com/scalability-debate-bitcoin-xt-proposal-stalls/


https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mike-hearn-says-bitcoin-has-failed-and-sees-a-price-plunge-in-the-future/

Again per the upthread discussion, I allege this is only true if all participants are using the same probabilistic selection algorithms for paying and acceptance. I actually believe the natural state of the system is to devolve into chaos. I will in the future (perhaps) endeavor to show this mathematically (if it can be so reduced).

If you keep using "orphaned" talking about DAG you'll never get the core idea of this new concept. Even those transactions that reference "double-spends" are useful, because they also reference legit transactions. I'll repeat again, if you send a normal payment and a double-spending then you increase security of the system. Validation of transactions is similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billet_reading, you mess with very young transactions but secure elder ones.