Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) - page 7. (Read 91083 times)

That was my take away from that github link you posted, anyways take it as you may, im sure everyone else feels the same around here... but the world is full of inept retards like us right? lol!

Now I know exactly what you are thinking. Something along the lines of, "they don't get it, they are too dumb", or "I will show them, my whitepaper will refute the building blocks of the system in which they based their initial assumptions on", while I suggest you work on getting that out to the public, have cryptographers peer review it and pass it off as solid work before you self-proclaim yourself as a genius and start throwing every other project under the bus because "your" design has the perfect game theoretical assumptions for a system to work on large scale, yet you don't let others critic it like someone like yourself would because its private.

Release it to the hounds and then talk.

You may be more experienced than me in blockchain design and game theory but this is what I have observed from you, it will only help. I do actual work while you mull around picking designs apart without releasing anything of substance. I want to see something tangible because you might actually be of help to the community but its hard to take you serious when all you do is laud in your ability to create a perfect design without actually having a design know what I'm saying?

Is http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Uploads/TransactionsAsProofOfStake10.pdf relevant?

That is not strictly true though in TaPoS. Then it is not purely self-referential due to the external thermodynamics of users and their private keys.

Another way to think about why PoS isn't as secure as PoW in general:

PoS does not reinforce historical consensus. Every subsequent block in a PoW chain makes the history below it more secure because the cost of reversing it is superlinear in the number of blocks built on top. In PoS, this is not the case, the cost of producing a block is a constant, therefore the cost of reversing history is a constant.

Rewarding retards and failure is how you end up defeated.

Work with the best and be very friendly with those who excel.

I speak frankly and fairly (and even respectfully to those who earn it and are mutually respectful, i.e. not flippant), But arguing about tone is a waste of my time. You Millennials are the most emotionally sensitive that has ever been seen.

Guys, you really must check Nexus project as they are working on "decentralizing the decentralization":
https://medium.com/@colincantrell/block-chain-decentralize-decentralization-318bbf355fa0#.eb0e3emz1

Anonymint you suck at dealing with people lol

Rehashing what was already discussed upthread:

This is my contribution of how to achieve decentralization (and objectivity) without Proof-of-Work:
https://medium.com/@cv.alkan/decentralized-objective-consensus-without-proof-of-work-a983a0489f0a#.erem149vu






Any thoughts or criticism?

CoinCube says the monetary systems can't bifurcate:


On what rational grounds?

How is the usurious system placing any limits on growth of the Knowledge Age? Sorry I don't see it. I see it accelerating everyday.

Humans are not driven primarily by money but by their passions. That is why the monetary systems can diverge. The usurious system provides their tangible needs. The knowledge age feeds their passions.

I think you aren't aware of the revolution that 160 IQ genius Eric Raymond wrote about, helped drive, and well underway?

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron.html

Familiarize yourself with a gift culture and how it is orthogonal to physical needs.

Also the knowledge age is global and instantaneous already, but the usurious financial systems can't provide all functionality required. So this can be another reason for bifurcation. The Knowledge Age is already under way and can't wait for the decades it will take for a world government and some world currency unit that has a central bank controlling it so can be fractionally reserve debased (necessary for usury).

Its based on the fact that to this point ppl download much more than upload.. interactivity needs to be pushed by end users requesting it.. once market demands for such services it will happen as we switch over to fiber networks

Interactivity of the Internet had great potential but it has been stifled by The Establishment. Asymmetric internet service, with upload speeds much slower than download speeds, precludes a truly interactive internet. It keeps end-users firmly locked into the role of consumers instead of allowing true peer-to-peer creation and interaction. We need to break this stranglehold before the Internet's full potential can be unleashed.

Ah, I saw the monetary creation from a PoW point of view, while you see it from a PoS point of view.  But this is somewhat strange, and at first sight, I wonder if such a system doesn't beg the question.

If I understand your premise, it goes as follows: given a crypto currency with a coin X, and we want to peg coin X's value to, say the dollar (let us assume for a moment that the dollar is a stable unit of value - which it more or less is in the short term), then if ever market forces push X over $1,- then enough new coins are minted such that its inflationary pressure lowers X back to $1,-.  If ever X gets below $1,-, then enough coins are burned so that the scarcity of X makes X back to $1,-.  

Your comments seem to point that these new coins, or those burned coins, are distributed according to stake.   Let us suppose that at a certain point, Joe has 20 X in his account, and Jack has 30 X in his account.  Suppose now that X rises in price, and the amount of X has to triple.  In perfect PoS distribution, this means that Joe now has 60 X in his account, and Jack has 90 X in his account.  The next day, X crashes on the market, and the number of X has to be divided by 5 and burned to maintain the price.  Joe now has 12 X in his account, and Jack has 18 X in his account.

All the time, X is near $1,- but Joe first had $20, then it rose to $60, and then it fell to $12.

In what way is this different from not changing the amount of X at all ?

Suppose that Jack had to pay Joe something that was worth $10.  Each time, Jack will have to pay Joe 10 X.  
If this happened first, then Joe would end up with 30 X and Jack with 20 X.    This would then rise to 90 X resp. 60 X, to fall back to 18 X resp 12 X.  If it happened second, Joe would have 70 X and Jack would have 80 X, to fall back to 14 X and 16 X respectively.  And if it happened at the end, Joe would have 22 X and Jack 8 X.

So depending on where it happened, at the end of the day, Joe would hold ($18 resp. $14, resp. $22), and Jack would hold ($12 resp $16 resp $8).

Consider now a coin, Y, that is like X, but doesn't do this adjustment.  Initially, Joe has 20 Y and Jack has 30 Y.  At first, Y is at $1, then it rises to $3, and then it falls to $0.6.
This means that Joe initially had $20, then he had $60 and in the end he had $12 worth in his account: EXACTLY as with X.

Suppose now that Jack has to pay Joe something worth $10.  If it happens first, Joe will get 10 Y from Jack, and he will  have hence 30 Y and Jack will have 20 Y.  At the end of the day, Joe will have then $18, and Jack $12.

If the payment happens second, Jack will have to pay Joe 3.33Y ($10 at $3 per Y).  Joe will now hold 23.33Y and Jack will hold 26.66Y.  At the end of the day, Joe will have $14 (23.33 Y at $0.6), and Jack will have $16 (26.66 at $0.6).  If the payment happened at the end, Jack will have to pay Joe 16.66Y so Joe would hold 36.66 Y and Jack would hold 13.33 Y, so Joe has $22 worth of Y, and Jack, $8.

As we see, the value that people hold is exactly the same for coin X, and coin Y.  There's no point in doing this inflation and deflation: a coin that doesn't do it, has exactly the same effect.

What one actually does, with this inflationary game, is simply to change the measurement unit.  But there's no stability at all in held sums.  If you have an account containing a value of $200, initially, this fluctuates just as much in X than in Y.   There's no monetary point in trying to peg the unit.

I was suffering a very bad GI infection when I wrote my prior posts, so I wasn't able to think or articulate well.

I think mass adoption is about enabling more software developers and users to find new ways of earning money and increasing their collective knowledge/experience (trading) that can't be done with the existing paradigms of payment systems and centralized databases.

The paradigm/system must be an open ecosystem and decentralized, analogous to the Internet itself.

And combining that with an onboarding mechanism that symbiotically drives it.

The blockchain technology must have certain performance and decentralization attributes in order to make this plausible. For example, we need sub-second transactions (both monetary and other blockchain events) and unbounded scalability.

Steem(it) had some of my ideas incorporated and I also gained some insight/ideas from that experiment. But I think some of the details of Steem are lacking.

Essentially I don't see crypto-currency's killer feature to replace what we already do with fiat paradigms. I rather see it opening up new capabilities that we can't do with existing fiat based, centralized systems. However, I am not intending to disparage any other project's differing strategy or perspective. Decentralized experimentation is good, per the Apache versus Spanish story I linked above.

We all know that essentially the only way to monetize these days is advertising. But advertising is only worth about at best $1 per CPM, thus less than $0.001 per page view.

An economy is about trade. There are billions of creative people out there who would feel a lot better about themselves if they were trading instead of being Facebook zombies (see quote below). The transition from the one-way media of TV to interactive media of the Internet was more engaging, decentralized, and thus more valuable to the viewers/users. But still the users are basically powerless in the economic system and configurations of the Internet, i.e. the economic system and configurations of the Internet is up to now still more of a one-way action analogous to the TV era. Let's disrupt that and create another revolution.

Essentially Google's business model has to die. And they know it. They are trying to diversify into products, but that is not the solution. The solution is disrupt Google.

More details about what I have in mind should hopefully be forthcoming. As much as possible I want the project to be adaptable to decentralized improvements, analogous to how HTTP sits on top of TCP/IP. I am designing a base protocol and the world has to innovate on top of it if I am correct. Also I need to adjust to feedback and learn as I proceed.

We need an initial kickstart feature to drive it.

dinofelis's posts are very articulate.  I don't think I could have stated it that well myself. Although I disagree with the effects of his idea to not adjust difficulty (which he also seems to allude to).

hv_ I think your point has merit and I relate to the Q factor and quiescence in dynamic systems.

Fuserleer there is no action of top-down interference with the bottom-up free market which doesn't have some unintended impacts. I wonder what those impacts would be for trying to smooth out volatility?

Let China and the IRS suffer the same fate as the Spanish did if they try to play Whack-A-Mole against a decentralized phenomenon:

It constantly boggles my mind why people never grasp the basic understanding of the 2 levers of value:  price and quantity.  

If I have a quantity 10 of something that is worth $1 then my total portfolio = $10.  

If I still have 10 of them and they are now worth $2/ea my portfolio = $20.  

Wouldn't it be the same situation if I had 20 of them still worth $1?  Isn't the ROI the same, but now has the added benefit of their utility being easier (psychologically) to spend since I'm not worried about the cost of my dinner doubling before the dessert arrives?

Nope.  They are using a "Visa" branded card.  See their current card fee structure per their website.  

Fees                           USD card        EUR card
Issuing a card                $ 15.00          € 15.00
Monthly fee                   $  1.00          €  1.00
Card loading                     1%               1%
Foreign currency conversion      3%               3%
Domestic ATM withdrawals      $  2.50          €  2.25
International ATM withdrawals $  3.50          €  2.75

See my tagline below for the only one capable of such a solution.

Thank you for all your inputs.  These are the differing ideas that I wanted to hear(who is correct only the future will tell).  Some very good points were brought up, my Idea of "mass adoption" equated to "mass use"...which was faulty.  I now have a better understanding of what crypto might achieve,

peace,
D

Indeed, and even if you *say* that you have no belief or confidence in the fiat systems, in fact that is not true, if you introspect sufficiently.  What you do here, is taking an intellectual stance, and because you see a dissonance between what is publicly told what are the principles of the fiat system, and what you think/know is really behind it, you find that it is a system that doesn't deserve your confidence or belief.  But that is from an abstract point of view, when you analyse the system intellectually.   But this is *not* the kind of belief that we are talking about.  In reality, you *do* believe in the fiat system in the following sense: I'm pretty sure that you believe that if one way or another, you've got a suitcase full of (real) 100-dollar bills, that a lot of people are going to do a lot of stuff for you to obtain them.  In other words, the "belief in the system" doesn't matter, the belief in other people's acceptance of that stuff against goods and services matters.
And, unless you are totally deluded, which I'm sure you aren't, you will agree with me that a lot of people would be willing to *accept* a suitcase of dollar bills against things that have quite some value.  As long as many people think the same, the monetary belief system remains in place, no matter what you might "intellectually" think of the failure of the system at hand.


In fact, there's a quite easy way to do so.  If you start from bitcoin, you simply don't adapt the difficulty as a function of the time it takes to make a block, but simply to a kind of long-term Moore's law estimation.  As such, the higher the bitcoin market price goes, the more interesting it is to mine, and as the difficulty doesn't get adapted, you mine more and more coins in a given time unit.  The inflationary pressure will then lower the price of a coin to where the mining costs of a coin (which are now fixed) coincide with the market price of a coin.  
The problem here would be unexpected technological advances in mining, which make it cheaper faster than Moore's law.  The other problem is that making the currency is as profitable as obtaining it through selling goods and services, so in the end, there's no incentive to use it as a currency...

The problem is that such a perfect currency would never catch on, because 95% of crypto is about speculation for "moon".  If you build a system that doesn't allow to dream about the moon, but is simply a good stable currency, nobody's going to "invest" in it, and it wouldn't take off.