Topic: Decrits: The 99%+ attack-proof coin - page 27. (Read 45353 times)

Bet accepted. Although it will be awhile before you'll have the opportunity. But where do you see a central authority lurking in the OP? If you think what I propose can't be accomplished, quote a sentence that claims something and ask me how it will be accomplished.

a) where does my money go?
b) can i buy more then one share? can i buy a majority anonymously?
c) who is the first SH?

I dont understand the need for absolute stability and in fact the notion of trying to enforce it probably brings more issues than it solves.

All you need to know about decentralized cryptocoins is that they are deflationary by nature. Over the LONG TERM, they will go up in value.

It might take months or years for it to go up from where it is now or recover from a downswing, but by its nature the value will hold or go higher.

If businesses want to accept bitcoins they dont need to hold them. This is a crucial point in the crypto-economy.

Businesses can accept cryptos like BTC and have them immediately and automatically converted into fiat, so there is no risk to them.

If the business decides it wants to invest in the currency long term, they can hold them, but holding them is NOT required for accepting them.

Holding coins is for people or businesses that understand the long term deflationary value of a decentralized cryptocurrency.

The only people who are hurt by short term volatility are short term speculators and day traders. I think we can all agree that isnt a major problem.

5 btc.

if i can find a central authority or are able to cheat the system, i win.

How much BTC are you willing to wager?

come up with a implementation and i will hack it.

Poppycock. I didn't leave "truly decentralized - except for this one, huge, major thing" out of the title on accident. It's not there because it's not true.

To start, SHs don't "buy their way into the CB", anything that is network data is added to the CB by consensus. Someone who has enough Decrits to buy a share and wants to buy a share can buy a share by creating a valid share buying transaction. The share money will be removed from the initiating account, and after consensus is reached that person will be assigned to create a Transaction Block in the next CB along with other SHs. At this point, no one can deny that the share buyer is a share holder. I have edited the original post to make it clear that this is a special transaction, and cited this post. You are not sending money to some guy you don't know on the internet, the transaction is managed by the network itself.

Now, you could make the argument that SHs have an incentive to drop share buying transactions because it means they will receive a smaller percentage of the transaction fees. However, this is already addressed in section 2.D. Share purchases fall under the "important transactions" category. Honest CNPs have an incentive to see as many SHs as possible because it is better for decentralized network security, and their "take" from the transaction fees will be unchanged. Although this brings up something I hadn't yet considered--CNPs are not incentivized at all to propagate special transactions that are buying into the CN. This can easily be addressed by offering a small, short-term incentive that some will be willing to take (by adding in the CNP identification code to receive credit), so everyone may as well attempt it because it will eventually find a SH. Additionally, SPs would transfer these transactions around too (presumably smart SHs will be active as SPs), as it is in their best interest to have more CNPs--again in the name of a robust and decentralized network.



Ukigo, your post drives at the very heart of the network security. I will answer it in some detail later. But I must have gone through a hundred different ways this could work from the first time I decided to separate mining from security, and I found 99 ways to make it fail or show that it was horribly inefficient. This one is highly efficient and it will not fail. It is even remotely possible that governments could collaborate to make it fail, so I have written ideas down regarding how the network could adapt to operating within a meshnet-like infrastructure that must be presumed to be in place to protect against this remote possibility.

100% consensus of Shareholders is a myth.
There will be majority and minorities.
Maybe at every CB.
Of course you can have 100% agreement,
 but only after disagreeing minorities got
 decimated by some mechanism

Have you read this ? :
http://www.usenix.org/events/nsdi09/tech/full_papers/clement/clement.pdf

I doubt that further discussion will
be helpful for this proposal.
Just code prototype of it in a modular
 (and not Satoshi-style) way.
Like the wall of many breaks.
After testing you can redesign it,
and with semi-working proto/concept you'll
get more feedback from the community
(and from coders too).

Or if you can not do it yourself,
hire someone who has the skills needed.

the way SHs can buy their way into CB is fishy. it does either depend on a central authority or is not safe. 

Testing Etlase2....
...
...
Testing Etlase2....
...
...

Please test me.

no, this will not work. the post is just a bunch of buzz words.

This was referenced in another thread and I was curious about it. I like it, although the implementation could be a bit complex. As for the complaints that this document is too technical and requires a TLDR... This is pretty high level. This IS the tldr. It could be generalized more, but we'd lose information.

interesting.

Wikipedia can explain these things better than I:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_tree

"In cryptography and computer science a hash tree or Merkle tree is a tree in which every non-leaf node is labelled with the hash of the labels of its children nodes. Hash trees are useful because they allow efficient and secure verification of the contents of larger data structures."



I can't teach crypto 101 and bitcoin 101 while also teaching decrits 101 in the same post. It is off-topic for the OP. I am willing to explain any of these things further in depth if the questions are asked (preferably nicely).

There you go! Sentence 1, and you are already using words I cannot understand. What is a merkle-root hash?

Once again, you've listed and detailed the many mechanisms of your currency, but you haven't explained what each thing does. For example: you've explained that Shadow Peers help prevent DDoS attacks. That's good, now add in explanations like that for the other mechanisms.

Any TL;DR version? Or something long but for humans with IQ<160?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2030308

A recap on some deeper reasoning behind the ideas of Decrits:

1) Decrits is intended to be a "trickle-in" type currency, where most new currency enters the economy in a random way. The randomness ensures that those with lots of decrits can't control new money, and they can't make credit/fractional reserve/debt money more appealing than "real" decrits. When demand for new currency arises, the people are intended to make it and distribute it, so there is little incentive whatsoever to accept a bank's credit.
2) An expanding economy is indicated by those willing to waste resources in creating new currency to facilitate trade. If decrits could be compared to a metal that does not have much utility other than in trade, then it would be a metal commonly distributed throughout the Earth that only requires you to invest tools and time.
3) Most of the time, enough of the currency will be in circulation so that it is not necessary to waste the effort and doing something actually productive will be much more lucrative--like a job. But if money for basic human needs is hard to come by, people will waste effort in making currency. This is the threat that all people should be able to have over the wealthy.
4) This further encourages increasing the velocity of money because money will then be given away freely. It discourages using money--a tool, no more--as a way to control or disrupt society.
5) If changing something as irrelevant as a hashing algorithm is what it takes to restore the balance, then the protocol must facilitate this in every way possible. Via section 4, a new currency can be created where the old currency can be accepted at a 1:1 value, while new currency can be created again by whatever means is easily available to the population.

If EvilMegaCorp owns the hardware, a large chunk of the shares, and a large chunk of the peers, it must still sanction the new currency or everyone will know it is a fraud (and the new currency will continue to operate), so it is in EvilMegaCorp's best interest to never attempt this control in the first place because it will lose all shares in the new currency. In completely different scenarios, currencies with different ideals could simply compete, or if developing countries have different needs they could have regional currencies, or if the network becomes too large for individual nodes to handle it could split into shards. These are the types of things that are necessary to account for if a currency is intended to replace fiat. It must be easy enough to foster these types of things to truly separate the people from goverbankwealthy controlled money.

If there is not consensus, the Decrits proof-of-consensus design allows both ideals to separate peacefully. Again, if peace is not desired, those who don't desire peace just look like bullies (or a huge takeover attempt) and accomplish little.

A bar-napkin type goal would be to have around 0.25-0.5% of all decrits tied up in the network's security. EvilCorp who is strong in fiat but weak in decrits can't do much at all here. It must accept decrits and the properties of decrits. Create specialized hardware to make a lot of decrits? Heavily limited by the restrictions in place. Lots of money distributed randomly to everyone but you. This is protection in the early years. EvilCorp can waste fiat effort to upset the system, but all it really accomplishes is adding power and value to Decrits. Value away from the powerful and to the people. Worst case scenario near-unanimous vote to change the algorithm and change difficulty. Money supply won't get too upset if the difficulty is off because difficulty and coin award is adjusted after each mint block.

There are massive consequences in value in trying to take control. And the people can wrest it back. It is an undefeatable system. I would imagine that those who become very wealthy under this system would be those that truly innovated and moved society forward. Putting the people of the world on level ground in regards to currency means that manipulating developing countries would be much more difficult--innovation by subjugation is much less profitable. Bank/government manipulations of credit and the money supply is an afterthought of a time past.

Everything I think real libertarians hope a currency can be, rather than wallstreet 2.0. Imagine the scenario leading up to the housing crisis. Banks give away subprime mortgages but then start running out of money, so interest rates increase, encouraging the production of new money, giving money freely away and making it easier for those to afford housing payments, allowing housing market value to be transferred into Decrits in the form of the people owning more of their property so that new people may also afford property. The end results is banks are a mildly profitable business in the business of helping people store wealth in property, breaking the system of never-ending debt.

Anyone interested in helping?

Reserved for more explanation of sections 3 & 4.

5/4/13: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2031259

Reserved for more explanation of sections 1 & 2.

4/29/13: Details on how Decrits is 99% attack resistant.