Topic: Decrits: The 99%+ attack-proof coin - page 9. (Read 45353 times)

back to the topic - i'm at page 9 - looks like we don’t have something i can download yet - my advice is - make it and let it fail - then look at why it did - if it does let AnonyMint say it was the 78 year cycle - and keep studying -

unless of course you fundamentally feel Etlas that you have a flawed design - if you more than 50% believe you do not have a flawed design , then put it into action

i have not finished reading the topic , so i missed the part where you said :  "oh shit sorry guys everything i said was wrong"

so if you didn't say that - make it - or ask people for money to help put towards what is relatively the little that will be needed to make a mockup design.   

you need to understand where you are Etlas - a lot of you guys have that human flaw - you are chatting on BITCOINtalk.org.

?

no?

If Asia is the new center of the economic universe, that is quite obese for a 5' woman with small bone structure.

Ok i'll be very careful , and i don't mean to be arrogant - I’m saying to you did it predict the effect of those particulars vectors on human information and how we process it, and the answer is of course not - because it would have to accurately predict to future to a point where it should be able to tell you , say a SHA256 hash before it was invented and not only decrypt it but describe it.

what i'm saying to you is , what is happening is actually brand new to humans -  nothing new under the sun? - humans want to be social and interact but they have never been able to do this on a mass basis , like right here , with all the key words on this forum , plus half the members , i was confident enough to ask for council from the head of the CIA, imagine how many different countries are reading what you and i write right here - then imagine if someone is interested in the subject - how many millions could read this Anon? - how long will this stay a part of the human record ? , how many seconds would it take .....:



For 30 million people to read this

What about 3 billion ?

do you see ?

I am growing tired of your inability to use the QUOTE button and bolding everything you quote. Nobody wants a thread of all bolded words.


Do you have selective reading comprehension? How did you manage to ignore the bolded phrase in the quote of myself above?

Let's look at how the current global crisis will be resolved with a global currency unit-of-account and the regional blocs (Asian Union, NAU, etc) or individual countries's currencies floating against this unit-of-account:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/armstrongeconomics-the-assent-of-china-the-new-face-of-china-1-25-2011.pdf#page=5


You are referring to the Roman empire and now that we have 100+ nation-states. You are conflating two separate simultaneous phenomenon. On the one hand, tribes have become more organized into nation-states and challenged the top-down control that was present in Rome. This was the great gift of capitalism, that Armstrong elaborates on in the document at the link above. On the other hand, fungible money is a consensus and must be accounted for with consensus agreement. See my essay:

No Money Exists Without the Majority

Individuals are becoming more free, as fungible money drives the maximum division-of-labor that for example makes slavery uneconomic (see the penal labor uneconomic example in my writings some where). Yet money is become ever more centralized and controlled. Are you not reading how the G20 plans to hunt down everyone for a wealth tax to bail-in the bankrupt socialism? Are you not reading about how the NSA is saving every communication every human in the West does in order to hunt down wealth for the coming global private wealth confiscation. There are details on this at the link above.


Indeed technology is giving rise to individual freedom, but not in money. You are getting closer to some truth now. If you go read my writings, you will realize this is my thesis too.

preferably under 59 kg. {in the new world government talk !}

We probably should step away from this idea that humans want money , they don't. {they are just so very ignorant of what actually money is}

they want wealth - they want it easier than they have it - they want to be the best , they want to be better than the other human.

but they want to be social and interact as well, in almost = and proportional amounts , to the wealth aspect.

is it monetarily beneficial to go onto facebook and write your feelings to a crowd of your peers? {i think we don't have to answer that}

So simplifying humans to just these simple control vectors is both not actuate and simplistic.

I can make a flawed - backward Cryptocurrency ,{but still basically hold up the basic fundamental requirements of the Cryptocommunity}  but if i had privy to a couple of people on some information control vectors , say the owner of FB and some winks and nods from TV networks, I’d have a more "successful" Cryptocurrenncy than Bitcoin, { because it only had a few of those things , not much FB , but a few other friends hey ; 0 }

any of that scare you ?

forget "World Government" you government is the information control.

I am weary of wading through the incessant volumes of low IQ noise, such as the following. I continue to do so because there are a few posters who offer salient and useful discussion. Thus I will start to more forcefully embarrass those who continue to post nonsense. Ukigo's utter incoherence in on ignore.


Then both of you don't understand economics. Along with your content-free sentence above, you also bold the entire quote of Etlase2 to spam the thread. Bold should be conserved for emphasis on key words or phases. Perhaps you don't know how to click the quote button to form a quote, yet the italics you also added would have sufficed in that case.

Analysis of Quote of Etlase's OP follows:

Nonsense. Any money that has value can be fractionally debased by a bank which offers loans denominated in that currency.

Neither of you apparently understand the difference between the fundamental macro-economic terms M0 and M1/M2.


Random distribution of currency can't replace deterministic borrowing. If I need money within a certain timeframe, I don't wait in Decrits to have some awards trickle to me by random giveaways, rather I go to the bank and borrow what I need.


Nonsense. Individual human action is selfish, not socialist (politics is socialist). We create money when the profit we can make on mining it is greater than the cost to mine it.


Yes if the Decrits you earn from mining is worth more than your cost.


Yeah it is called gold mining. The difference is that an individual can not mine as efficiently as big corporation because gold is extracted most efficiently with huge economies-of-scale.

So with digital currencies, we might be able to level the playing field, but this is not yet certain.

Note that with digital currencies, mining also can generate currency that escapes the id checks of anti-money laundering laws.


Incorrect. Human opportunity cost is not group-wise. The market is made from individualized opportunity costs. We can't influence the choice between increased economic activity (thus velocity of money) and hoarding with the characteristics of how money is created and distributed. Velocity of money contracts when interest rates are negative, because private capital goes into hoarding, speculation, or export to emerging markets that offer higher interest rates.

http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/Passing%20the%20Torch%20to%20Asia%2004-28-2011.pdf#page=6

The discussion in the prior day or two was Etlase2 trying to find a solution to the 51% attack that you and I explained. But any signing of TBs will require a deterministic order as explained below. Thus that discussion does not escape from the insoluble problem below.

What part of the UNARGUABLE logic did you not comprehend? Let me try to summarize it again, and then you may tell me which part(s) you need more elaboration on.

1. For a SH peer to sign a TB and have it accepted by the consensus, there must be a determined order for signing. Without a deterministic order, which SH would go first or next? Obviously there must be an order.

2. This order needs to be randomized, otherwise it is possible to game the system.

3. The only way to randomize this order, is for the prospective SH peers to sign a CB, then all those who sign are eligible to be selected to sign TBs in the next CB period. The order of those selected is determined from the entropy of all those signatures on the CB. The first N closest hash keys are selected in a determined order, where N is the number of SHs peers that sign TBs per CB.

All of the above was already presented in upthread discussion between myself and Etlase2.

Now I discovered an insoluble problem.

4. There is no way to generate the signed CB. I quote what I wrote upthread:


If you can find any holes in the above logic, please tell me.

You are all welcome !
Decrits needs alpha/beta-testers
maybe you'll even be paid for testing.

Ignorance for free. Wow, you are so generous.


Yes like moving forward from the failure as efficiently as possible, to the new ideas of how we can improve on Bitcoin, as I have done immediately upthread.


Any more content-free statements to clutter this thread?


That accomplishes nothing. I have provided UNARGUABLE logic justifying my assertion that Proof-of-Consensus can not work. Now you just need to understand the logic that has been presented. See my next post.

Hey "birdbrain" (your avatar and your Dunning–Kruger effect behavior), click on the link in the quote below and read the details to correct your ignorance:



http://www.mpettis.com/2012/06/11/what-is-globalization/#comment-18964


There is a transfer of wealth from people don't work (Western debt-funded consumption) to those who do work (the poor in the developing world who are slaving away). However this transfer is done in the context of debt funding for fixed capital (real estate & infrastructure) investment in the  developing world, as the developing world is massively short the dollar with dollars bond issues and dollar loans soaking up a lot of the QE from the west, since interest rates are negative in the west. Thus the bankers manage and own the transfer in the macro perspective.


It sure did predict the technological revolutions that cause the massive unemployment, which cause the socialism to sustain a generation who can't make the shift to the new skills. See my link in the quote of myself above for the proof.

Be careful. I know more than you think I do. It will be revealed in onion layers as you make a public display of your arrogant ignorance, as I have done to numerous others in these threads.

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.


page 5 - well you did study some economics - , now you have credibility in my view . {likely women will throw themselves at you}

i'm on page 3 and have a +1 for "Decrits" - its getting exciting , don't ruin it for me. if you are an angry BTC ASIC pre-order victim don't even comment.

Now you came up with another argument, one which is completely unrelated with what was discussed yesterday I must add, and pretend that you've closed the question. You argument includes no details, just a keyword. That doesn't work that way, you didn't convince me of anything - I didn't follow the entropy talk of the last month. As I said, either an attack is spelled out, in whatever form, or it doesn't exits.

It's ok for me if you don't want to continue the discussion, you don't have to. The final answer should come out of an implementation anyway, not from the arguments.

"So we are done. End of story. STOP."

i'll also tell you something else about humans for free -

any human that says "no" to a new idea , has usually a primary motive , because even if a failure is a failure , often new ideas sprout from that ,as the effect of that information spreads .

so you give yourself away every time , to me , but not to others.

But that's human life hey ?  

For example the – “ create it an I’ll hack it or attack it “ is a much more positive comment.

2034 when the 78 cycle predicts this current global crisis to bottom.

ha ha ha .

just forget that -

And this "Crisis" is not Global its "Western" , its just that the West expanded to touch a lot of the globe with a debt money system, that worked by expansion of effective "capital" based on a singluar directional information system(s). 

Why i pull up your factually inccorrect comment , and why it is important to correct you , is becasue many nations are going to walk away with a lot of the GPD of the world in an effective "transfer of wealth", the same could be said for Cryptocurrency -

that is not to say i'm saying;  "The West , give up on it" , that's not what i'm saying , i'm saying a 78 Cycle can't predict the Internet multidimensional effect on information and it didn't predict the Television.

Did you miss the point that the spender puts up a forfeitable escrow to guarantee he won't send a double-spend, thus the recipient decides to accept the funds immediately, thus the delay is ALWAYS eliminated when the two-parties make this agreement.

Note the escrow must be sent into the blockchain say 10 minutes before the actual spend, otherwise the escrow could be double-spent. Thus this requires a spender to keep escrows around waiting for when spender needs to use them. Does require some pre-planning on the part of the spender, but at least frees the recipient from waiting.


Both of these points have been thoroughly rebutted in my comments in my thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-the-digital-kill-switch-160612

The summary is that small debasement is more fair and society will demand it and get it any way. Even gold is debased annually.

Also some currency is lost over time, so we need debasement to offset it. Moderate debasement is synonymous with renewal, anti-stagnation, and innovation for many reasons such as discussed in my other thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/no-money-exists-without-the-majority-226033

And minting does not require including transactions, so still need tx fees.

And minting is necessary to provide a way to obtain currency without passing through anti-money laundering id checks (per the March 18 FinCen guideline). Did you see that now even mailing cash is becoming illegal:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/11/mailing-cash-is-prohibited-in-usa-france-bars-even-gold/


Hmmm...(I had been thinking about this point already)

However perhaps we can shift the balance in favor of rewarding large quantity of RAM, so general purpose computers are on a more level playing field. If we can shift the time component to the performance of RAM and away from the CPU, then perhaps we defeat ASICs economically.

I just don't know yet if it is possible to make the random lookup the largest time component of the calculation. I will study more.

May want to stay within the CPUs local cache since it is highest-speed, or a combination of local cache and large RAM bound. Need to look at details of the economics.


Agreed I think there is too much similarity between classes of possible Proof-of-Work.


Not entirely what we need apparently. I think we will need a Bitcoin replacement to get the anonymity just right. I am open to be refuted by details.

I'm fairly sure you wouldn't be able to eliminate it entirely. But I would expect once the network hash rate grows past some point we'll see an increase in block generation rate (and a reduction in block rewards to match) and also an increase in number of transactions per second.

I believe that making it non-deflationary isn't an improvement that anyone will want... that's bitcoins primary strength. If we eliminate that we no longer need to mess with tx fees.

Changing the proof of work to be asic hostile should be a non-starter, it's doomed to failure by it's very design. Nobody can design any digital process that cannot be accelerated by application specific processes. If you fix the proof of work process then someone is able to design an fpga or asic to follow that process. It might be possible to design some sort of rotating proof of work system that cycles through creating variants of different types of proof of work in an attempt to delay the development of specific hardware. But then again it probably wouldn't be cost effective... as adoption grew the people wishing to profit from creating such hardware would rapidly outpace whatever development work you could afford to do on the proof of work.

There are ways to improve anonymity working on and off the blockchain currently.

Better POC than most alt's observed
Will look into this

Per my prior post, Proof-of-Consensus is a dead-end.

We could still look to improve critical flaws in Bitcoin while employing a Proof-of-Work system:

• Eliminate the 10 min delay by offering the option for spender to place some funds in escrow as a guarantee against double-spend, and escrowed money is forfeited to the ether if there is a double-spend.
• Eliminate Bitcoin's declining debasement schedule so there is funding from minting forever
• Add tx fees to incentivize peers to include more transactions in their TBs
• Consider a Litecoin-like Proof-of-Work that disfavors ASICs
• Improve anonymity as we discussed in this thread

I am liking my domain name autonomoney.com because the greatest thing about decentralized currency is that no centralized authority controls who can become a spender and a merchant and there is instant signup with no approvals needed.

We need minting so any one can go earn some coins with capital while sidestepping anti-money laundering laws. We need that minting to not stop in 2034 when the 78 cycle predicts this current global crisis to bottom.