Topic: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? - page 12. (Read 79954 times)

I asked you to please:


And you still wrote another wall of text:

For example, I have no idea why you are serializing to JSON textual format in your C code and not just passing (little or big endian) binary data that is compatible with C structs. And please don't write another long explanation that I can't really understand your descriptions well. You try to say too many things at the same time, and it is ends up not being that comprehensible.

There is two format for the "json data".

There is the "text form" , coming from json/RPC (from javascript app)

And there is the "binary form", a tree of referenced objects, constructed from a text json, or manually with the API. ( or eventually from a script)

The idea is to allow to completely abstract function calling and parameters passing using a format that can be converted to/from json transparently, automatically, with object reference counting, and stored internally as binary data aligned on 128 bits for fast SIMD operations.

There is reference counting, thread safety for arrays manipulation, etc, Internally , it use native C type to store/read the data, keyname hash, and the tree structure itself (list of named/typed children references etc) , direct memory pointers, etc.

The memory holding the native C type, and direct pointer to it is never accessed from the application directly. ( or it can be explicitly if you want raw pointer to the binary data, equivalent of rust unsafe code).


When a C function make the call

the caller create the tree manually in the binary form, from the binary data, instead of using a structure . ( it can be transformed to/from textual json with a generic function for the json/rpc interface ).

it pass a C pointer to the reference of this object stored in binary form to the callee function. (And another C pointer to an object reference for the output result if needed.)

The function can access all the tree, add or remove element to it, add an array to it, add element in a child array, copy object reference in local permanent internal list, etc

On return either if the function is just supposed to modify content of the passed object, or add/remove element to/from it, all can be tested and accessed via the tree interface from the caller ( and it just passed a C pointer, with total binary compatibility, useful also for logging or many things instead of vargs / stdio).

If the function return something to the caller ( eg from http/json/rpc request), then this result can be converted to textual json automatically and sent back to the javascript caller from the http server.


The same function prototype in C can be used to declare different functions with different input parameters.

Like a generic function type who can be implemented with different type of data format for arguments, and to define the json/rpc API from the C side.

And in the same time, it's also the C internal API , used by C programs like a regular dll API, but using the json binary form representation of the arguments, instead of C style argument passing ( the C style argument passing are only used for simple native C type and pointers).


It can be confusing from your perspective, because it's made in sort that high level concept are manipulated and implemented from the C language, and can use all the C language on local C variable with the native C type ( int , pointer, etc) , and also in the same time to manipulate high level object.

But i already have a full API, and i did not make this framework for blockchain specially, even if for application yes i have blockchain ecosystem in mind specifically, but the frame work can handle all kind of things ( ray tracing, manipulation of graphic object, manipulation of blockchain objects, private key, signature, in browser staking etc.

All the API is documented in the white papper , and in other places. All the code source is on the git. There are working example running.

You have all the low level code and explanation in the PMs.

Now if you can't understand my grammar, don't have time to read my code, and your idea is to start to program a blockchain and api for distributed application alone from scratch including high level OO interfacing, good luck with that I'll see where you get lol

If you are not interested to work on collaboration again ok, i can have idea how to handle most of the issue you rise on the git discussion, with local stack frame, circular references, multi threading, no mem leak, and simple expression evaluator, cross language interface and object definition compatible with json/rpc and javascript, etc.

I don't really know what you have in mind either

But i already have, API, interface, documentation, code, working example, test net, demo app in html5 for the raytracer in webGL. Etc

I already have this.

If you are not interested to look at it, or read the code, or read my answer, i don't know what to say to you. I have read most of the thing on the git discussion, and i think i solved those problem, and posted all the code, and explanation to you in private messages.

If you want to go alone from scratch developping an high level language to make blockchain node, and cross language interface, with portable code, and high level API for web application, go ahead. I already have this.

Otherwise you're just talking in the wind.

The thing is the way i see, you have good expertise in at least two area :

High level scripting language.

Blockchain economics.


And i can very easily see how the two can connect. Aka having blockchain protocol and node wrote in high level language allowing for easy interfacing with javascript or rpc/json.




The big down side is see making it with node.js, is that first it doesn't look all that stable, not sure how it can be easily packaged in single file easy to run on any computer. (again the UI side can be made in a separate app in a js browser). And if you really want to do multi layered design, it's hell. I can show you many way in which code in javascript is very hard to debug, if you start to play with multi layered OO hierarchy, asynch call back handling, it can quickly become a big mess as there is not way to check or force typing anywhere, and it's impossible to even have any global analysis or checking of the code at all.

I can see where you want to get with the typescript, but if it's to make a js like language with asynch event handling, json object, garbage collector, object list processing, i think i really have all the base bricks to do this quickly.

[---8<--- snipped]

Because the way i see where our path can cross is this :

You want to make a blockchain node / protocol with high level language who support asynch io, green threading, json object, json rpc, and friendly ness with javascript and webapp.



I want to make a high level language to program easily nodes for different blockchain, with the http/rpc/json interface, and being able to kick start node based on custom blockchain protocol, which involve ideally an high level script language, which can also be used either as middle ware or full stack to develop distributed graphic application, using potentially openGL, c++ UI, or html5/js/webgl for front end.



If you want to really work on high level language with the feature you want, and i can update my framework too if you see things that are not really ok and there are good technical/economic reason for it, i have no pb with it, but to me it already does what it has to do ok, but i can start developping the basics of js like script engine quickly, and it would be very friendly to make js app out of this, with standalone executable include full node, wallet, block explorer, and script engine.

Szabo also wrote about that (@anonymous there is myself).

Disagree.

Szabo is referring to redundancies that reduce the need for transport between every pair of nodes in the network and thus reducing the exponent to lower than four, but he is still relying on transport costs being the value limitation in the network. He is not recognizing that value is relativistic and the transport costs may not be a significant factor at all in some cases as I pointed out.


I don't disagree that money is relating to fungible transfer of utility. The point I am making is that fungible transfer of utility can occur by transferring a fungible intermediate good (i.e. money) or by adding knowledge to an Inverse Commons. The fungible transfer of utility within the Inverse Commons is a shared rise in utility for all participants of the Inverse Commons, i.e. although each unit of knowledge added to the Inverse Commons might be of a different kind (thus non-fungible if were applied to a barter trade between parties), the units of knowledge don't have to be matched to another same kinded unit of knowledge in order to transfer the utility within an Inverse Commons. Given my explanation of how the Internet has raised the degrees-of-freedom of (the nodes which are the individuals in) humanity's access to a plurality of Inverse Commons, there is magnificent increase in the (knowledge) value (and thus utility) that can be fungibly transferred without money (i.e. without a fungible traded intermediate good). Nobody owns the Inverse Commons, because it is open for everyone to see. It gains value the more people contribute to it and the marginal utility of adding more participants doesn't decline precipitously as in other forms of knowledge exchange because it due to the decentralized access control (i.e. everyone can see and fork it without any top-down permission required) there is not the top-down management coordination problem known as the Mythical Man Month. We see that the more degrees-of-freedom an Inverse Commons has for the participants to harmonize their contributions yet not be bound to coordination gridlock, the faster the value grows and the less slowly the marginal utility declines.

Inverse Commons are usually specialized so that only those interested or expert in the subject matter of that particular case of an Inverse Commons, are gaining value from contributing to it, because only they can understand or utilize the increase in shared knowledge in it. Because of this maximum division-of-labor, Inverse Commons can't be entirely captured by finance. Because participants can transact directly and instead via Firms (thus bypassing the Theory of the Firm), it becomes less plausible for finance to gain the economies-of-scale to consolidate everything in corporations and the winner-take-all weakness of fungible finance that I explained upthread is (I posit) ameliorated.


What I want you to see that we don't have to actually individually (selfishly) own the medium where the transfer of fungible value takes place, which is the case with money. This is why the Inverse Commons is new form of fungible utility transfer which ameliorates the monopoly formerly held by money. But the fungibility is not in the form of a barter trade between two owners of the good. If knowledge units were to be traded as barter, they would be non-fungible and thus can't be modeled (nor financed) with the concept of money.


There is no such thing as a grand objective truth. We live in a relativistic universe. There is unbounded diversity of perspectives that can be formed. Humans will tend to cluster around specialties. Within those Inverse Commons of specialized interests and expertise, there will exist fungible value transfer, but there is no overall fungibility. And even within an Inverse Commons, the value that each participant gains from portions of the Inverse Commons will vary.

The idea that there could be one fungible money that accurately reflected all that complexity of value transfer is preposterous. I think this is why Nash was speaking of asymptotic approximation where there would be many stable currencies, but again I have shown upthread that is impossible. I know you will reply and claim I have not, but I simply won't reply any more. I have more important work to do than argue with you about the preposterous notion that there could exist any stable fungible good or goods which could be an accurate value or utility transfer system for all the complexity in nature. Fungible money was something man used which was the best fit for the technology available at the time. We have the Internet now. We are leaving the fungible money era.

What ?

Okay you just proved you are incompetent. When x = 100, then that entity is the only miner and transactor, which is the ultimate outcome of the math. Thus an infinite relative profit (x / (100 - x)%) is correct, because there is no other entity at that point.

The math is stating that the entity with the largest x, will be more profitable than all others and thus his x always grows faster than any other entity.

As for the term "power broker", use any term you prefer such as 'whales' or any term which describes those who issue the transactions which pay the highest fees and thus can fit into the small blocks (because small blocks limit transactions to those with the highest fees).

Yup. That's the plan.

I'm not joking. I know their weakness.

My significant limitation right now is health. More so than anything else. My liver pain and delirium returns when I slack off my exercise, because I was overworking nonstop past week or two (lost track of days and night and day). Just finished a hard run and sprinting. My liver was really bad past two days. I am still on these toxic meds for another 14 weeks (but 2 drugs instead of 4 kinds, i.e. half the dose of before).

The main problem with this health condition is I am often just feeling like shit which makes it difficult to get into the focus of mind to code. I guess I am going to try to restart the barbell workouts and see if that might raise my level of health. Very frustrating to have 14 more weeks of meds to go. I need my excellent health immediately.

I am a voracious coder if healthy.

The reason for the small blocks becomes much clearer.

The power brokers want to keep the general public out of Bitcoin in the future. One of the reasons is so that future regulations of blockchain currencies will not apply to Bitcoin blockchain transactions, because none of us will be able to afford Bitcoin blockchain transactions.

The power brokers are never regulated because they capture the regulators.

The masses will be taxed and regulated on Lightning Networks, other blockchains, and/or systems like SEPA.

Remember government exists to keep the masses under control.

The power brokers need a base financial system in which they can't corrupt it, thus not infighting between themselves. This is the way to organize themselves so they are united so they stop fighting each other via nation-state enclaves.

Upthread I wrote about another reason the power brokers need small blocks in order to remain in control of the blockchain. Read that post for background details on what I will write below.

But there is always an inviolable flaw with fungible money. And it always finds its way into any fungible money system in some form.

That is that any design for a fungible money system will always be a winner-take-all power vacuum. Bitcoin is no exception. And this is the flaw that @traincarswreck didn't know about.

In Bitcoin's case, I see numerous ways that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

As the small block size becomes dominated by power broker transactions, which ever broker pays x% of the fees, they earn x / (100 - x)% more profit per unit of hashrate than other miners (presuming electricity cost is equal), because the power broker can make sure he only sends his transactions to a miner who refunds his fees (or the power broker can run his own mining operation). Thus the power brokers become the miners, but since the one with more percentage will accumulate more percentage faster than the rest, then Bitcoin is a winner-take-all system. Tack on selfish-mining once one entity has 33% and the eventual 51% victory becomes even more accelerated.

If the power brokers had to complete against all the transactions made by the masses, then it would be more difficult for them to accumulate 51%. They would need to somehow be able to manipulate the masses. My project is an attempt to take advantage of this insight. Note PoW can't do it, because unlimited blocksize has no stable fee market security equilibrium. But my project is more than that, because it also will enable widescale knowledge trading (the killer app of blockchains) so while the fungible money aspect will grow, it will grow less than the non-fungible component, thus making humanity immune to the evil of fungible money.

Note that MPEx's system only settled daily and ditto LN's will have long settlement periods, thus my above math works.

Note that in high finance such as MPEx (which was able to accumulate a million Bitcoins), the one with more reserves accumulates more as compared to one with smaller reserves. This is a mathematical fact of finance. And this is another reason that all the Bitcoin will become owned by one entity eventually. This is why Nash's concept was flawed and not objective.

This is why Bitcoin is the system that will bring about 666 and the Revelation. All the fungible money wealth will become concentrated in one whale over time.

The problem is fungible money. It is evil. We must get rid of it. I'll show you how we do this and humankind will become very wealthy. We can defeat the idiocy of the elite. Of course the elite want a winner-take-all. They think the survival-of-the-fittest. What they don't seem to care about is that it means total destruction of humankind. But they apparently don't care about that. They think it is destined and they think there is no more objective system possible. But I think there is a more objective system, not based on fungible money.

---

Edit: I want to add that the above logic explains why the power brokers of Bitcoin don't want large blocks, but it doesn't necessary follow that they don't want SegWit and hence LN. However, note that given any finite blocksize chosen (which can't later be increased because protocol changes are a political clusterfuck as I explained upthread), then LN will be forced to large centralized hubs which aggregate settlement back to the blockchain because the blocksize will not be able to accommodate minnows settling on the blockchain. Thus, the centralized hubs will become private fractional reserve banks, and the settlement back to the LN blockchain will become purely symbolic. These centralized hubs would keep their reserves in BTC in any case (because it is the dominant chain) and do their meaningful settlement on the Bitcoin blockchain. In other words, LTC will be only a transactional unit-of-exchange, not a unit-of-account for reserves (a mirror of the situation between gold and silver when they used to be money).

Thus I think the power brokers of Bitcoin will not allow SegWit to activate on Bitcoin because they would not want that transactional settlement noise and the potential bugs it could cause to risk the dominant chains status as the most reliable and dominant chain.

Thus not only do I think Bitcoin will never get larger blocks, I also think Bitcoin will never get SegWit.

I already explained the critical flaw in his thesis. The long-term failure mode is all the Bitcoin wealth will become concentrated in one whale. This is an inviolable law of finance if it is true that only Bitcoin is non-manipulated. I am not going to repeat all of the logic I expressed already about that. If you can't assimilate information from multiple posts, then you need to go back to high school.

I've already explained it (several times in fact). You guys are really dumb.

There is no need for me to repeat myself again.

I know what I know. And I know I will kill Bitcoin and PoW. You watch and observe as idiots who are looking at "magic" that they can't understand.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke


The Bible speaks about honest weights and measures. Does that mean there is dishonesty and manipulation in units-of-measure. Duh.

All units-of-measure are relative. The government can tax your electricity, so a kilowatt then costs 1.5 kilowatts.

Ditto a whale who controls a majority of the Bitcoins can do what ever he wants to do with finance, if indeed Bitcoin is the most trusted and accurate measure of reserves.

That absolute power can be used at the End Times, to complete the fate we've been promised in Revelation.

An absolutely non-manipulable fungible finance reserves is absolute destruction. Nash was one crazy lunatic.

Of course though there isn't such an absolute. And if the elite succeed in fooling the world into believing Bitcoin is such an absolute stable reserve, then they will enslave fungible finance. But they can't enslave knowledge trading in an Inverse Commons, because the monetary component of that is very small compared to the value of the knowledge traded. And I posit the non-fungible trading of knowledge will far exceed the value of fungible finance. Because fungible finance is only applicable to fungible investments such as factories, laborers, real estate, and tangible things. Laborers are replaceable meaning that laborers are fungible with each other. Individualized knowledge and creativity are not replaceable meaning that each individual has a unique perspective that is not fungible with others. "God" (nature) made it this way. The bastard elite who are pulling this Bitcoin wool over your eyes, will not succeed in destroying all of humanity with their diabolical deceit. But those of you who fall into the trap may perish. But this will take some time so the End Times for finance may or may not come in your lifetime. Yet the knowledge age will not perish. Fungible money will perish. You will throw your useless gold and silver into the street.

If you don't understand these concepts by now, there is nothing more I can say to you. You will just have to watch and observe the magic.

@dinofelis, I realized that no PoW blockchain can have a viable changeable blockchain size solution. Every possible solution is centralization (large blocks, small blocks, unlimited blocks), including Monero's automatic adjustment algorithm.

Even LN on Litecoin will eventually fail as a political clusterfuck when the block size needs to be increased again.

Satoshi's PoW only is really viable only for power broker money on small blocks.

Satoshi's PoW is diabolical. We must destroy it.

Decentralized on chain scaling is technologically impossible with PoW:

https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/631ffe/pools_that_block_litecoin_development/dfr3weo/

If you actually understood the technology, then perhaps you'd change your position to something which can actually scale off chain.

Speaking about reddit, I was checking out the litecoin one and saw this comment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/632yau/i_just_rented_some_hash_to_support_segwit/dfr0x1g/

So according to this guy's calculations it would take around $1million "only".

I know basically that he is trying to solve the issues of how to interface modules and APIs with typed objects. Me too. He has his formulation and I was working on different one which would I think be more elegant and attract more app developers.

If you can outdo bitcoin and reddit then holders of such a token must be rich.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to rant.

I fucking hate Redditardit. Their system is corrupt. I want to replace that piece-of-shit shit with app that runs on our blockchain. Redditardit must die.

I'm serious. Many pieces-of-shit are going to die.

With all this in mind there is not many language who fit the bill, and even without premature optimization once you are stuck with a language framework, there is not always good way to optimize much more, or work around certain bugs or deficiency in one area or the other.