Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 62. (Read 91118 times)

And unfortunately afaics Iota forsaking blocks introduces another flaw which is consensus is not forced, thus there can be (at least in theory and probably not an observed effect until it becomes a phenomenon if ever) divergence of DAG chains.


Well I have proposed submitting PoW with each transaction, but I haven't yet detailed how I envision doing the temporal intrablock partitioning. Let me go think more on all that has been enumerated in this thread to see if I have an obvious flaw. And I will also think about when I want to discuss those remaining details of my proposed design. I expect to find a flaw in my design. I think it is impossible to fix the CAP theorem.

Yes, something else - I was referring to a POW system with one transaction per block, minable only by the sender of the transaction. I guess Iota is an example of such a system, but it doesn't have to be the only one.


I guess this is the plain 51% attack? Again, I'd love to hear the key details to any system which claims to address this, which doesn't create much bigger problems than it solves.

Video has a lot of redundant data because of high frame rates and many objects are static or just displaced with rotation, which can perhaps be modeled in 3D.

But even if we can compress the block chain to nothing, that doesn't really solve the fundamental problems such as:

• economics of mining
• economics of blocks

You don't seem to understand the economic reason that pools are required. See my prior reply to monsterer.

As I understand Iota, each transaction includes some PoW because it wants to contribute to being on the longest chain which thus has the most veracity. But no mining rewards are paid. Iota incentivizes mining without paying rewards. But I conjecture this has problems which I mentioned already upthread. As for all these details, bear in mind that when we are writing posts rapid fire like this, we may miss key details. I will go offline soon and think about all this in detail again (rehash in my mind).

I thought you were referring to an impossible "bearer coin" type of design where PoW wasn't needed when you wrote that 'if only you can mine your own transactions'. Now I understand you meant something else but it doesn't make sense to say that submitting a PoW solution in Bitcoin (or any other Satoshi PoW coin such as Monero) can be done by users without pools because of the great variance on mining (for technophobes this means that a small miner may win a block solution every 100 years or something like that, thus without a pool they can't pay for their mining electricity). That is why I proposed a solution. You are really driving at is if Satoshi's design was End-to-End Principled, but it is not. The only incentive to mine in Satoshi's design is to generate BTC from mining, thus economically pools can't be eliminated.

Several of your posts have been misinterpreted by both myself and CfB. Maybe your terse writing style. I even noticed I had to intervene in a developing argument between you and Illodin in my thread last month to iron out the misunderstanding between you two. It may be that you are deep in coding and don't have a lot of time to be verbal.


You forget I pointed out to smooth (in our discussion about Proof-of-Stake versus Proof-of-Work in my vaporcoin's thread last month) that assumption fails when the government + oligarchy is the one taking control, because they can charge the cost to the collective. Thus Proof-of-Work devolves to Proof-of-Stake in a society-wide holistic basis (in the sense that the ongoing cost is no longer shouldered by the attacker when the attacker is top-down controlled society itself). My proposal aims to improve the situation by forcing that society-wide funnel to dictate to every user what they must include in their PoW share (which is much much more difficult to control and was the original idealism of Bitcoin!) which in my proposal is no longer sent to a pool because mining is made unprofitable. Iota accomplished a similar feat (because there is no mining reward and each user submits some PoW with his transaction), but albeit with the flaws I conjectured already in this thread. Whereas, Satoshi's design naturally leads to top-down centralization without having to control what every user mines. You see I place very high technical economics high IQ goals on my efforts. I am very hard on myself. I don't want to work on bullshit.

If I am correct on my design, then my design is the one we need to kill Bitcoin. But I need to go spend some more time thinking about flaws. In my haste of writing these voluminous online messages, I have probably forgotten some key detail that is a flaw. I will spend some time on this after we conclude these rapid fire discussions.

I think you mean 'post' partition event? But yes, I agree this is a bit brutal. However, on the limit where each partition spends the same outputs as the other, this would be the net result anyway. I guess any new design ought to be able to merge partitions which were completely unrelated, which is what, I agree, longest chain does not.

opposed to individual PoW per tx, why not just design to randomly pick tx's out of the pool to include and forego the extra computation and verification completely?

I think you missed my point in the beginning of that sentence: 'if only you can mine your own transactions'. That changes quite a lot of things; eradicating pools for one.

POW is permissionless even if mining is centralising. Example: turn all mining equipment in the world into a unicorn - will the chain recover? The answer is yes, because regular non professional miners will take over again; granted it will take a long time to produce a block, but eventually it will recover.

Please read my upthread post and the post immediately prior to yours.

If all we accomplish is fooling ourselves in a "mining the investor" paradigm without enabling a real grassroots e-currency, then we are just furthering the collapse of the world into totalitarian China/Russia model hell. And we won't on average generate any increase in capital for ourselves (some may win and most will lose in this zero-sum greater fool game of mining each other).

We need a true paradigm breakthrough (mostly technical challenges) that changes the internet and the world. Illusions/delusions won't suffice because they DO NOT SCALE GRASSROOTS ADOPTION.

The End-to-End Principle is fundamental property of the  internet which enabled it to scale so fast (but is being removed by Net Neutrality, China/Russia/Obama/FCC/UK model of internet top-down control). It means that the individuals have all the control and freedom. In the End-to-End Principle, the network is just a dumb replicator of what ever it is asked to do and can't apply any control (because the protocol doesn't allow it, e.g. with TCP/IP we can route our packets around any malfeasance unless of course ALL GOVERNMENTS COOPERATE TO DESTROY the End-to-End Principle which appears to be what is happening now). Without this property, there isn't internet wildfire scaling and the avenues for increasing production will wither and everyone will be forced to waste their capital on delusion (e.g. putting a gas station every 200 meters in Davao because there are not enough entrepreneurial opportunities and the world has been pumped full of funny money debt).

This is fundamental. If you are just here to pump some altcoin and try to mine the other fools out of their money, then carry on (generally any business model that caters to fools is not successful one overall ... although some few might make out like bandits some of the time, it doesn't have good odds of being a positive outcome for anyone involved). I am too old to waste my remaining production on that. I was rich before. I'd like to be have money again, but if that is not my destiny then I have to accept it. More important to me is to work on something that I believe in (and which can provide enough savings so I can eat as I get older without relying on the government because I hate social welfare conceptually as it leads this oligarchy crap I am writing about that we all end up suffering in).

TPTB,

Fundamentally, currency is about trust and consensus: A sufficient amount of people perceive value by proxy in a token.

Regardless of how truth is constructed and protected, it's the consensus part that matters. While the implementation may or may not be decentralised, it's the decentralisation of POWER that's interesting.

As you say, it may very well be a delusion. All currencies are delusions. It's just that we all agree on the value of the collective delusion.

Please see my other thread on DECENTRALIZATION. For example, study carefully my point that Bitcoin mining drives the price down.

I think without microtransactions and instant transactions, then there is no hope of getting widespread adoption. Bitcoin's mining design can't do those features, not even with hard forks. It is fundamentally incorrectly designed. Some are hoping Lightning Networks can provide this functionality, but even if the block size is increased enough to accommodate LN's transient spike requirements on block size load (which will centralize Bitcoin mining further thus making it more prone to oligarchy control/regulation), LN is a paradigm which hands transaction processing control to large corporations. Thus the oligarchies will continue to close down opportunities for individual entreprenurialism thus erasing any motivation for widespread network efforts adoption. Refer to the following quotes where I allude to how the world is collapsing in oligarchies with a China/Russia model for our global future:



Edit: Bitcoin can attain adoption as pushed by the media and serving the interests of the bankster oligarchies and minions such as Peter Thiel, Larry Summers, George Soros, Bill Gates, etc... but this will just be more of the same crap of funneling the world towards top down China/Russia model of economics. I am talking about features that could ignite a grassroots wildfire that changes the world for the better. This would scale adoption much faster than Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is transitioning into a top-down oligarchy (even venture capital dominated) funnel which is not grassroots enabling. I have detailed the reasons in other posts.

CfB please don't feed the troll because he wants to fill up this thread with spam.

benthach, I tried to make this thread unmoderated because I expect you to be a mature person and not post "every altcoin is a scam" in every thread. That point is off topic. Please read the title of the thread. There are other threads for discussing whether altcoins are scams. If you post again offtopic, I will start to flag your posts to the moderator. Please try to control yourself and post relevant text. If you have any technical information to add to the point of this thread, please do contribute. If you continue to post offtopic spam in this thread, I will urge every reader to click the link on your posts to flag your posts as spam, so the moderator can deal with you.

I am trying to have a very serious technical discussion here. And many readers appreciate this effort from me, because they won't get this from anyone else. Please respect that many readers want this information and do not want to have to wade through your offtopic crap.

now you're talking about my iq.
ah, you also talking about integrity which you disgraced human scammers got none.
same ol' craps which getting repeats again and again, no reason to waste much time in one subject.

Your integrity amazes me. Usually, inability to critically analyze your own point of view is a sign of very low IQ. Obviusly it's not your case, because with such low IQ you wouldn't be able to write such long posts. Might be an unknown mutation...

your scam ioata is worth nothing in my book, useless like other scams. just some coding and idea in fantasy land, like hardwares or master jedi attacking each others which translate into endless bitcoins depositing into your pocket. it's not cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency = simple internet money/currency. good job in scamming the dumb morons.

Refer to https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/images/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg and rewrite your post to conform to the rules of a civil conversation, please.

PS: Even your sig is full of fallacies...

Temporary partitions can be merged if they don't contain conflicting double-spends. The advantage of creating temporary partitions in this context (what I contemplated in my design) is it afaics can both enable a form of instant transactions and also it can radically reduce the data that must be propagated as a transient spike on block announcement, thus solving the propagation delay which drives orphan rate which is one of the main issues with increasing the block size in Bitcoin and other Satoshi coins such as Monero. Note I didn't write that the temporary partitions have to use PoW or PoS; only the global resolution mechanism does.

As for your (and Iota's) idea of using a different global resolution method, I maintain that no design will be sound if it doesn't use blocks with PoW (or the inferior PoS). The reason is because there is no way to gain Byzantine consistency on double-spends. I have thought about this in great detail for months and years. I will be very stunned if you or anyone else has found an exception to this rule. It seems to be fundamental to the Byzantine Generals Problem. As I explained upthread my understanding for Iota is that if competing cliques with less than 50% of the total hash rate each, for what ever reason decide not to confirm each other's chains, then there is no mechanism in Iota's DAG without blocks to force a consensus and thus the user of the currency has to contend with forks and multiple spends on multiple partitions. Although this may not occur in the early stages for Iota, if it really gains any significant value (not just insiders buying from themselves to pump the illusion of a large market cap and trade volume) that is when it will be tested conceptually. Satoshi's PoW design in Bitcoin (Monero, etc) has already passed this crucial test but PoS and other block chain consensus designs not yet. I suspect for eMunie what you are attempting to design is some resolution based on propagation and different powers for different types of nodes in the network, and I am confident I will be able to point out to you how this is unsound once you release the details. If you want to waste your effort in this direction, who am I to discourage you. I personally don't want to waste any more effort on pie-in-the-sky failure delusion. I can't really nail down with 100% certainty if your design is a delusion until I see all the details, but I strongly suspect it is. I don't say this to be unfriendly with you. I am concerned that we are wasting a lot of effort and resources. I am trying to be very frank with myself as well.

Apologies for misspelling your username upthread.

---

I have never seen you display in any of your posts (that I've read) any technical knowledge and thus apparently you are not able to comment with any level of sufficient technical understanding. Thus your comments are a total waste of time for readers who are technically capable. So please don't spam this thread. You seem to want to spam every thread I write for some personal reasons. If you want to try to display some technical knowledge, then go ahead and make my day.

In this thread, we have already started documenting why Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed:


The post linked in the above quote, explains that Bitcoin (and any other coin that uses Satoshi's PoW design) is also a "mining the investors" paradigm. In future posts, I will elaborate on the following quote from the OP:


Note I have proposed that including PoW with each transaction may be a solution to the flaws in Satoshi's design which causes it to drive centralization, government takeover, and oligarchy. But I need to spend some more time going over the details of that idea. Note apparently Iota may be implementing some variant of that idea, but as I explained upthread, I don't think it can be Byzantine fault tolerant on Consistency without blocks.

..shall be served to you soon sir!