Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 64. (Read 91118 times)

Do you mean any kind of contact or only direct one?

I feel completely relaxed about leaving out partition tolerance in consensus design; it is trivially obvious that there can be no consensus between parties that never have contact with each other.

Relaxed requirement for "P" part of CAP.



Without violating CAP? How?



Incentives (e.g. economic ones) outside of the model.

I did forget to mention on the DAG post, that PoW can be aggregated along with each transaction so that the chain of the DAG with the longest PoW is the unambiguous consensus authority (probably what you mean by "energy" in quoted post below). Then it is a variant of what I proposed as an idea of improving on Satoshi's PoW scheme.

Nevertheless I can't see that this variant has any advantages over the one I am contemplating that uses blocks. For example, you I think wrote before that Iota can't expand the money supply thus the supply of coins will shrink to zero as users lose passwords over time (apparently Bitcoin and all Proof-of-Stake coins have this same flaw, but not all PoW coins have this flaw). And this will become a serious problem with microtransaction coins because many users will be frivolous. Intense deflation is very destructive to currency.

Also as I had mentioned to you in the past in one of the other threads, there is no force driving consensus. It is possible for cliques to decide it is in their advantage to race each other rather than provide clarity by referencing each other (say for example each clique controls roughly the same amount of hashrate). Whereas, blocks force that there can be only one global partition. And I don't see what advantage getting rid of the blocks provides? There are ways to achieve instant transactions and scaling with blocks. With blocks the calculation of irreversibility is more concrete than with DAG. DAG can't guarantee it will always converge quickly thus it doesn't really guarantee instant transactions, yet once it converges then it might be able to "confirm" a transaction faster than blocks (but I not sure about that since Bitcoin's block period could be reduced if not so much data needs to be sent on block announcement so that orphan rate won't be a concern).

I don't see the advantage since full nodes in Iota will still need to watch all the global transactions if they wish to converge on a single longest chain. And if not then chaos and double-spends on multiple partitions.

What am I missing?

My upthread argument is that if Bitcoin loses DECENTRALIZATION then it no longer has the autonomous property of cash. Thus it loses much of its advantages as compared to fiat currency.

Also realize that DECENTRALIZATION is a key aspect to gaining adoption, because no one is going to trust it (e.g. have a self life / store-of-value function) if they think some group can take control of the coin. This is why I think Proof-of-Stake coins can never gain wide adoption.

Proof-of-work has a better chance because it requires 50% control to fail (or as low as 25 - 35% with selfish mining). But as I explained upthread, Proof-of-work is also failing economically because it costs $16 per transaction in electricity to mine it and mining is becoming ever more and more centralized over time. I have proposed some ideas to improve these problems (potentially fix them).

Please let's not enter a God discussion in this thread. My fault for writing "666" but that is just a short-hand for what I am trying to convey, not necessarily meaning I subscribe to a a divine outcome. I just see the world creeping towards what is described in Revelation, but that doesn't mean I need to add religion. I'd prefer to leave all the religion aside. I am just trying to figure out what is technically possible and thus where we are headed as a world. Trying my best to find my role in all of this. Please again, do not consume my scarce time with the God stuff. Thanks. Bitcoin was created by God, lol.

Please no wild theories stuff in this thread about unicorns, UFOs, Petrodollars, etc.. This is altcoin discussion. Okay my fault for claiming Bitcoin is a Trojan Horse, but I am not tying that into God, Petrodollars, etc.. I am just stating that technically Bitcoin can't be totally centralized and controlled without global coordinated control over the internet, yet simultaneously Bitcoin threatens the nation-state fiats and traditional banking sector thus apparently forcing those sectors to look to world governance as a solution to maintain their hegemony. Thus Bitcoin looks like a Trojan Horse to me. But that is a wild theory and thus my fault for inciting the tangential discussion.

Dear TPTB

Sent you MESSAGE and link to source ...may shed some light.

GOLD/SILIVER    vs PETRO DOLLAR
GOLD/SILVER    VS FIAT CURRENCIES
GOLD/SILVER      VS BITCOIN


History says....GOLD/SILVER  (Not paperstuff) will prevail.

99% is fine, I thought you had been sure on 100%, this is why I made the post.

Problem with BitCoin ~~> just like paper silver/gold ....someone can dilute...someone got that source code

Whilst I am no expert in bitcoin,  (ACTUALLY THIS IS MY FIRST WEEK ON THIS FORUM) and have never ever in my life seen a BITCOIN and all I know is that its this electronic currency thingy.

 I pose this question as a means to find more.

CURRENT KNOWN GOOD Money or MONEY AS known to mankind from history
 has the following properties, does bitcoin also have these properties?

1) It is in abundance in the market place?
Bitcoin: Yes,  millions/billions in existence and more are being created each day.

2) Is it recognized and accepted by merchants?
Bitcoin: Yes, there are an increasing number of market participants and merchants accepting bitcoin.

3) Is it divisible?
Bitcion: Yes, it is divisible down to 8 decimal places.

4) Does it have a self life?
Bitcoin: Yes bitcoins can be stored indefinitely without affecting their value.

5) Was it created by GOD?  (Example Silver / Gold )

Bitcoin: Well this is were I need advice. Gold and silver are considered GOOD money because it can be argued that they were made by the creator and have intrinsic value, unlike paper money which has a value assigned by man, not the creator.
I mean GOLD/SILVER have been in play since maybe after the Stone Age Era or something when we got a little more civil.


Can one ascribe creation to the prime numbers that bitcoins are based on? Is the prime number 11 any more real than a larger prime number such as 99194853094755497, both can be written in physical form, have always existed and are unique.

Feel free to point me to any publication that will explain to me another way of doing it. Since you are about to launch, I assume these details have already been sorted out and thus you should have no trouble providing the details.

I will certain mea culpa if you have found a solution. But I am 99% sure you have not. Once you provide the detailed publication, I can zero in on detailing to you what is your flaw. Or mea culpa if you've discovered something I didn't anticipate.

Note the above quote is a simplified way of stating the many possible ways I've analyzed how a DAG might work, so even if you are doing something slightly different from your pespective, I think I will have already considered what you are doing (I didn't want to write a book here).

This looks bold to me.

I am still searching for the flaws in another idea I have for an improvement to Proof-of-Work. I had mentioned this is in a prior discussion with monsterer in my thread.

The idea is every transaction must include a PoW share.

There are many details to getting this correct and I believe it ties in with enabling instant transactions as well. But I need to write this all down and make sure there isn't a flaw.

My helicopter perspective thoughts are that it can force the difficulty high enough that mining becomes unprofitable (assuming debasement is a small fixed percentage say 1%). This will drive away the professional miners and thus stop the dumping of coins which drives the price down. It will also limit the electricity cost per transaction to some minuscule amount and not Bitcoin's $16 per transaction electricity cost. I see now my 2013 thread Spiraling Transaction Fees concept is finally getting serious attention.

Thus hopefully it can make it much more difficult for the government to regulate mining.

This is probably my last attempt at a solution. Seems I was thinking about this in the past and I thought it was flawed because servers have to aggregate data for transaction signers and I thought these could be targeted by the government or otherwise centralized. But what remains true is that if the transaction signers have more PoW hashrate than any miners the government can regulate/control, then the permissionless principle seems to hold.

Since mining becomes unprofitable then selfish mining attacks don't matter.

I think this is the most promising direction that still remains for me. Everything else looks like a waste of time.

Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch


Yea but that's the plan, bitcoin was made by the goverment LOL, IMA BE RICH BOIIIIII

What I have discovered with all my years of attempting crypto designs, is that adding complexity just obscures the fact that there is a flaw in the design.

Until you provide more detail of your eMunie design, it is impossible to identify the flaw, but I am quite confident that you can not have consensus without Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake. There has to be some resource applied and 50% (or less in some attack scenarios) control of that resource will determine the unambiguous consensus.

Either you are relying on propagation to resolve consensus, which monsterer and I already discussed in my thread (and other threads) as being fundamentally unsound, or you are relying on PoW/PoS to elect signatories. Yes it is possible to change the signatories on a clock (and that clock can be ticked by PoW or PoS), but the problem is that signatories can be lie and be Sybil attack and again the only way to resolve that is with PoW/PoS (which are also centralizing). It always comes back to the same conclusion.

You must use PoW or PoS and thus the problems of centralization and government control are the end result of all of what we are doing here. And helping to force a world government cooperation of regulating the internet, encryption, and Bitcoin mining. Bitcoin is a Trojan Horse that weakens the nation-states and traditional banks, which must fight back by cooperating with a world governance regulation of the internet and Bitcoin mining.

Remember I predicted this when I first joined this forum in March 2013. I tried for the past years to develop a solution and it is quite frustrating to realize the 666 system can't be stopped.

Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch

You forget one critical thing which everyone forgets as soon as they read my consensus document.

The chosen nodes are ever changing in very short time windows (minutes) and are not static.  The fluidity of those nodes is critical to preventing exactly the problem that you are highlighting.

Furthermore the IP addresses of the chosen nodes are never known to the network so malicious agents, government or otherwise, are going to have a real hard time keeping abreast of not only who the next signatories are to resolve consensus issues, but also where to point their attack.

On top of that after a number of growth years there may be 100s or 1000s of signatories voting on consensus, and an attacker would have to take out at least 50% of them to cause even mild disruption. The worst case is transaction processing halts for a few minutes until the next set of nodes are eligible and the network continues operating.  In the mean time an attacker has to identify who the next m voters are, locate n of them and take them out....rinse, repeat a few minutes later.