The TBs are being propagated to all the mining peers, so the system is working. If it wasn't being propagated, the mining peers would leave the pool(s). The selfish economic incentive to cooperate (on propagation) has motivated them to aggregate for efficiency reasons, but hasn't eliminated their veto on non-propagation.
You still are not getting the point. Bitcoin, and anything that does not reasonably incentivize propagation, will result in a narrowing group of peers that maintain the full network state. This is a centralizing, attackable mechanic unless it is fixed.
You are still not getting the point. If such attacks come, the mining peers can leave the pools or consider decentralized pools.
Why do I have to say this 3 or 4 times over and over? It doesn't do any good to repeat your illogic if you have not shown why the mining peers have lost their freedom to leave centralized pools at-will.
Some programmers from Microsoft even wrote some complex scheme for incentivizing the propagation nodes in a whitepaper. There are many people who believe that this is a very real attack vector on the bitcoin network, and it has been reasonably addressed with decrits.
Irrelevant pontification because the peers are free to leave the pools any way.
I agree with your orthogonal complaint about there not being a good incentive to include transactions in Bitcoin, but that has nothing to do with the centralization of propagation.
That wasn't my complaint, though it is another. Centralization of the network is incentivized in bitcoin as a cost-saving measure and as a factor of the "luck" bitcoin requires for security. You were complaining you did not understand the purpose of CNPs, I have shown you why they are critical as a whole, but useless as an attack vector for a highly decentralized system, while also increasing anonymity. These are several significant and incentivized benefits to using the network.
Benefits are not additive in the design of complex systems. As the private msg poster explained (and I think other posters have mentioned too), complexity breeds fragility.
K.I.S.S.
Bitcoin is elegant on this issue. It needs to say nothing about propagation as the correct economic incentive is built in. We need to be as elegant, while achieving other
significant improvements that really make huge difference and wildly embraced by the capitalistic free markets:
* 99+% vs. 51% attack vector
* no 10 min delays for transactions
* incentivize transactions to be included (and/or let anyone easily be their own transaction processing peer and get a turn often)
* any one can easily & realistically mint and earn currency (no ASICs or GPUs required) without passing through anti-money laundering laws id checks
* allow more inclusive minting so currency is more widely distributed (but not stealing+destroying capital as a mean of widely distributing)
* don't end the minting and debasement in 2034
The key about decentralized propagation is not whether peers get together for efficiency, but whether they've lost the veto power against attacks that disrupt propagation. Don't conflate decentralization with inefficiency. Decentralization can exist in a veto power, and thus not required to be an inefficient physical architecture.
Efficiency does matter if inefficiency (decentralization) is not rewarded as it must be for a very robust system.
You conflated again. Inefficiency is not always required for a robust system. See my retort above.
Indeed, but peers have a veto over the risk vs. reward. If DoS hurts their ROI relative to their other options (mine independently, other pool, or decentralized pool), they will leave the (centralized) pool(s).
But you are still presuming that some option other than a centralized pool will exist.
Mining peers can mine independently (outside a pool) at any time if they wish to.
Are you asserting that pools are refusing to propagate to independent mining peers who don't have enough processing power to generate a solution often?
Using any form of hardware to distribute power will result in efficiency gains via wasted resources directed at centralizing the network to where it can no longer be profitably decentralized.
Please justify this nearly unintelligible, all encompassing generalization; how does hardware proof-of-work always result in irreversible centralization of
propagation?
I do agree that in Bitcoin that capital can be wasted to drive the difficulty to unprofitable levels to bankrupt the other peers. But this is an orthogonal issue to propagation.
But your argument against that is "hard drives are decentralized". Yet you have not shown any mechanic that actually keeps this decentralization viable, I have with regards to using currency instead.
W.r.t to propagation, what ever you have is what I could use with proof-of-hard drive. But I don't yet understand what you are proposing, as I have said, I don't know the details of how you achieve propagation and whether I agree it is as good as Bitcoin's economic incentive for propagation.
W.r.t. to driving peers bankrupt or 99+% attack (2 separate items), at a last resort (as I mentioned in a prior post so I am getting tired of repeating myself), both of our proposals give very transaction peer a turn in reasonable period of time. Thus as a last resort, a sender of a transaction can run his/her own transaction peer. So we have an advantage over Bitcoin.
Granted the inner-most onion does not know it is the inner-most, unless there is a distinction between bridge relays and clients. If we don't connect to dedicated bridge relays, but instead every peer in the Tor network agrees to be a relay, then inner-most hops can not be easily identified. This is the same idea we are both proposing (see below). So we are both on the right track for solving anonymity of injection.
We are both on the right track?
I have been on the right track and you will adopt any idea that you begin to understand the reasoning behind. Unless it gets in your way, of course.
Your ego is amazingly inflated. I proposed that form of anonymity in my thread before coming to this thread.
This issue is making sure everyone can mine at the start.
I thought the issue was making sure everyone can *always* mine?
Logic 101 fail.
The above two sentences are not mutually exclusive.
The Bitcoin early adopters deserve what they got because they believed when no one else did. They invested their capital. This is capitalism.
Wow. Total, manipulative monetary control over the currency is what they deserve?
Yes because the market likes it. You may not like it, but unless you make something better that wins market share from Bitcoin and do it quickly, then you are a loser.
Now everyone will want to be an early adopter due to the proven success of Bitcoin, but the problem is that an ASICs proof-of-work requirement would make it less accessible. The hard disk proof would make it accessible to everyone, just download the client and run.
Except everyone can not be an early adopter. This is silliness. Sure early adopters should be well rewarded, but it cannot be some pyramidal distribution scheme that affords millions of percent ROIs.
An equal distribution is death and static. Nothing can change. If every color was the same, we would see no shapes.
You socialists are so detached from reality.
Not everyone can be first, but many many people can be in early if they choose to be.
A few earliest adopters won't be able to amass even 10% of the long-term money supply, probably not even 1%.
Why are you so jealous if someone gets a million pennies after investing a penny? That is nothing like having 20% of the world's money supply.
People will say fuck off and create a clone. Where is your disincentive for making a clone and rendering your currency obsolete?
No they won't because of installed mass and inertia and the fact that they can not do any better.
Your socialist system can not do any better, because it will flop in the market. Capital will run away from your socialist money system.
Allowing everyone to use their existing capital to mine maximizes capitalistic distribution.
Stealing capital as your propose, destroys capitalization and thus minimizing capitalistic distribution.
Oh, you haven't one. You presume the idea that taking value off the backs of others is the way forward.
Off the backs? Cripes you really suffer the socialist disease. Read my rebuttal of Ukigo in the prior post.
Never attempt to design something that will make the masses perfect, as this is inherently a failed design because the center and lower-half of the bell curve are failure.
Instead design something that appeases the masses, while giving the highly motivated capitalists and freedom-lovers the opportunity to escape from the socialism of the masses. It is these technologies that enable individual productivity that cause the major wins for mankind throughout history.
The masses' socialism will leave us 0.1% alone, so we can continue to innovate and improve the world, while they continue their lives as well-fed cows.
:rofl: Decrits is intended to create a dynamic between the rich and the middle/poor where the rich can not exert nearly as much control over the masses as is possible under the fiat system, the bitcoin system, and presumably your system as well. I apparently have a much higher opinion of what humanity can accomplish when it is not being oppressed. I am not trying to change human nature, I am trying to give it an opportunity.
Read my rebuttal of Ukigo in the prior post.
Study the linked blog posts.
Learn that the masses demand what they have, because of the power vacuum.
You can't eliminate the power vacuum at the level of money, because that is not where it derives. It derives in the ability of the government to project force over individual rights. Only technology which makes it impossible for the government to control individual rights is able to eliminate the power vacuum. Read my linked blog posts to come to speed on understanding.
This is another line of questioning you ignore. Cryptocurrency is in the wild. Consolidating power will incentivize clones that are easy to adapt to with existing infrastructure. You must encourage the widest array of people to use the currency, or they will end up using something else that does not ignore them. Unless you have come up with some incentive system better than the wheel-a-clones that bitcoin has come up with? Value has to enter the system some how. What is your proposition?
I am don't want to create "SocialistCoin". I don't care if most people never use my coin, as long as those of us who need freedom from the socialism can use it.
Well great then. You and your 0.1% buddies can pay to mow each others' lawns while the rest of us do something productive. I can't believe how you have totally spiraled outside of logic and reason in this corner of the debate.
To the ignorant, logic may appear to be illogical. The references have been provided for you if you want to learn.
