so did he prove that you can indeed time-travel?
Topic: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? - page 9. (Read 79971 times)
My self-delusion meter, just broke!
Whats the online etiquette, when addressing troubled minds?
Whats the online etiquette, when addressing troubled minds?
Apparently LTC will likely be a hedge against the coming BTC decline. Go long LTC (Litecoin) now.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18614017
(I deleted this post temporary at 11:40 because so many of you jumped on it buying LTC that you caused a significant price rise and volume, thus were interfering with me covering my short and taking a long position. I am re-posting now that I completed my trade)
How do you like my perfect timing on LTC yet again! That is twice that I said emphatically
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18614017
(I deleted this post temporary at 11:40 because so many of you jumped on it buying LTC that you caused a significant price rise and volume, thus were interfering with me covering my short and taking a long position. I am re-posting now that I completed my trade)
How do you like my perfect timing on LTC yet again! That is twice that I said emphatically
So get this:
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitconnect/
Another "bit-something" coin goes to the moon.
3 months at less than a dollar. Current price: $10.75, sustained for a couple of days, coming from a $17 peak. Good volume so no shitty pump and dump with no volume (900+ BTC in 24 hours, so that should be enough to cash out a decent amount of BTC over the course of a couple days so you don't crash the market)
By looking at the website of this:
https://bitconnectcoin.co/
Same font as bitcoin's font, same orange logo style. Im trying to find out what's the punchline with this one. Looks like a regular PoW/PoS coin.
What I find interesting is that they integrated an exchange within the site so they don't have to wait for any exchange, and claim the exchange is decentralized which I doubt.
Anyway this is just ridiculous. I don't see anything remarkable about this coin, just another coin. People seem to love bit-something coins, specially if they can sit back and relax as they stake more coins.
If this thing can get to $10 with decent volume, then bitnet must be able to do it too. We need to get rich, the situation is intolerable. All those lame coins making people rich, it's just nuts.
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitconnect/
Another "bit-something" coin goes to the moon.
3 months at less than a dollar. Current price: $10.75, sustained for a couple of days, coming from a $17 peak. Good volume so no shitty pump and dump with no volume (900+ BTC in 24 hours, so that should be enough to cash out a decent amount of BTC over the course of a couple days so you don't crash the market)
By looking at the website of this:
https://bitconnectcoin.co/
Same font as bitcoin's font, same orange logo style. Im trying to find out what's the punchline with this one. Looks like a regular PoW/PoS coin.
What I find interesting is that they integrated an exchange within the site so they don't have to wait for any exchange, and claim the exchange is decentralized which I doubt.
Anyway this is just ridiculous. I don't see anything remarkable about this coin, just another coin. People seem to love bit-something coins, specially if they can sit back and relax as they stake more coins.
If this thing can get to $10 with decent volume, then bitnet must be able to do it too. We need to get rich, the situation is intolerable. All those lame coins making people rich, it's just nuts.
The betting stuff enables what Vitalik refers to as "dark uncles" or "dunkles", which Vitalik incorrectly thinks will solve the nothing-at-stake problem.
What makes you think that dunkle inclusion/slashing conditions won't solve NaS?Also Casper has the problem that all deterministic finality PoS and Byzatine agreement systems have, which is a 33% liveness threshold which if that many validators balk or stop processing, then the chain can't move forward without a hard fork.
I agree with this.The only way to replace PoW is with an Inverse Commons consensus protocol, which is my new invention.
I'm looking forward to hear more about this and the incentive structure of your protocol. From my deep study of the range of plausible designs for a blockchain consensus system (and I studied much deeper than in than what is contained in that linked thread), I conclude that it is impossible to have a fungible token on a blockchain in which the consensus doesn't become centralized iff the presumption is that the users of the system gain the most value from the system due to its monetary function.
However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff that value can't be financed (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way that is not democracy and is a crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium, then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.
The elite simply weren't aware of these concepts, because I invented them. Nash didn't know this.
And that is what I intend to launch with BitNet.
However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff that value can't be financed (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way that is not democracy and is a crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium, then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.
The elite simply weren't aware of these concepts, because I invented them. Nash didn't know this.
And that is what I intend to launch with BitNet.
Quoting, because this post is too valuable
More on that...
You could just remove the reward, any one can mine new block out of the mem pool, if two blocks or tx are in common, a determinstic algorithm could be used to select between the two.
I agree with you. The error in most crypto is the reward, which gives rise to strategies that do not necessarily induce the desired properties. I also think that the only viable kind of crypto currency is where the validation/consensus decision is taken on a voluntary basis, the "reward" being that the system in which you are invested, keeps running correctly.
However, you still need a kind of deterministic decision *that is hard to game* (because you can do "proof of work" like calculations to get the deterministic solution in your advantage). This is why a kind of PoS signature scheme is necessary in my opinion.
@dinofelis, how many times do I have to repeat to you that voting is not free.
Ethereum's Casper shit is more of the same proof-of-stake (nothing-at-stake or centralization by economic weight, e.g. DPoS) nonsense. The betting stuff enables what Vitalik refers to as "dark uncles" or "dunkles", which Vitalik incorrectly thinks will solve the nothing-at-stake problem. Also Casper has the problem that all deterministic finality PoS and Byzatine agreement systems have, which is a 33% liveness threshold which if that many validators balk or stop processing, then the chain can't move forward without a hard fork.
The only way to replace PoW is with an Inverse Commons consensus protocol, which is my new invention.
And all together your comment also show that you dont see my perpective, and why the thing you point doesnt matter, and what I meant with checkpoint is that you would only need real pow consencus on this checkpoint to "harden" The chain if you want to enforce a particular order on the tx/block, but that would just be about one packet saying this block height is this block hash, and having a pow once in a while on this checkpoint instead of every block.
I invented that already in collaboration with @jl777 for Komodo in 2016. It is named dPoW (delayed proof-of-work).
CounterParty does something somewhat analogous as well.
And really it isn't a secure and sound solution, but more of a gimick. Because the local consensus still have to decide what to submit for checkpoints because the PoW system isn't validating every thing and can't resolve conflicting double-spending orderings that occurred between checkpoints.
Re: How do you stop someone forcing you to hand over your private key and taking all
If they know for sure that you have a lot of Bitcoins and are willing to torture you to get them, you are pretty much screwed.
This kind of thing happens to bank managers/rich people where they are forced to withdraw money from banks etc, it's called tiger kidnapping.
If you're worried about something like this happening. Step up your personal security. Get a gun etc.
If they know for sure that you have a lot of Bitcoins and are willing to torture you to get them, you are pretty much screwed.
This kind of thing happens to bank managers/rich people where they are forced to withdraw money from banks etc, it's called tiger kidnapping.
If you're worried about something like this happening. Step up your personal security. Get a gun etc.
The government has more guns than you do...
no, you will not be tortured if you own BTC
Will you guarantee that no one will be imprisoned/tortured for "financial crimes"1 if they fail to comply with government orders to turn over their private keys?
I want you to make an asshat for yourself so we can enshrine your post later when it is proven that you were incorrect.
1 Read more about this here.
I am like so Lolz when I read the below and remember how I (as @AnonyMint) was telling everyone that Tor was compromised back in 2013 and everyone thought I was a kook.
Re: Trezor security
Regarding the privacy I believe that unless there is a way to detach/decouple the physical world with the cripto world there is no way to protect you against being tracked on block chain.
in the end of the day if you spend your bitcoin you connect yourself with somebody else. Tumblers/Mixers do not help. TOR has been hacked by the NSA so what for.
There are ATMs but as long as I can see they have all sort of tracking for your real Identity (even finger tips) which in my opinion is completely insane.
Regarding the privacy I believe that unless there is a way to detach/decouple the physical world with the cripto world there is no way to protect you against being tracked on block chain.
in the end of the day if you spend your bitcoin you connect yourself with somebody else. Tumblers/Mixers do not help. TOR has been hacked by the NSA so what for.
There are ATMs but as long as I can see they have all sort of tracking for your real Identity (even finger tips) which in my opinion is completely insane.
Sell all crypto-currency to fiat IMMEDIATELY. BTC will dive -30%. Altcoins will decline even more. SegWit and scaling has been defeated on both Bitcoin and (at least near-term) also Litecoin. Also there are macroeconomics things going on which will also hit gold and every asset except USD. Store your money in USD or altcoin USDT (dollar peg) temporarily until this dip has concluded
I posted about this the other day. Wondering what people's opinions are on the value of cryptocurrency during geopolitical issues (ie war, financial markets crash etc). It is an interesting subject... it seems you're of the opinion crypto will crash heavily. That is one possibility, but it also could potentially be unaffected due to the decentralized nature and perhaps even grow as people look for alternatives to store their money in times of crisis? Just a thought... I'm a glass half full kind of guy :-)
Either way, it's a good topic for people to get involved with as an overall market drop would be a bummer for everyone!
Crypto is not long-term affected by geopolitical noise.
The crypto market is undergoing a painful Scalepocalypse metamorphosis as n00bs come to understand their idol Satoshi was an evil motherfucking genius.
So this cognitive dissonance is causing them to rail against Bitcoin (USAF nonsense, etc), and so they will be served up some event which steals their tokens to silence them so Bitcoin can move forward without the deadweight.
Sell all crypto-currency to fiat IMMEDIATELY. BTC will dive -30%. Altcoins will decline even more. SegWit and scaling has been defeated on both Bitcoin and (at least near-term) also Litecoin. Also there are macroeconomics things going on which will also hit gold and every asset except USD. Store your money in USD or altcoin USDT (dollar peg) temporarily until this dip has concluded
I posted about this the other day. Wondering what people's opinions are on the value of cryptocurrency during geopolitical issues (ie war, financial markets crash etc). It is an interesting subject... it seems you're of the opinion crypto will crash heavily. That is one possibility, but it also could potentially be unaffected due to the decentralized nature and perhaps even grow as people look for alternatives to store their money in times of crisis? Just a thought... I'm a glass half full kind of guy :-)
Either way, it's a good topic for people to get involved with as an overall market drop would be a bummer for everyone!
If I couldn't convert my BTC to FIAT that would not affect my ability to pay for my electricity, or much of anything else. I can pay for pretty much anything in BTC so I don't really see why you think this. As it is, I convert my BTC to goods, not FIAT.
You don't seem to understand that the transaction fees will rise to $600,000 per transaction when 1 BTC costs $500k. Study the math I showed else where on that.
If I couldn't convert my BTC to FIAT that would not affect my ability to pay for my electricity, or much of anything else. I can pay for pretty much anything in BTC so I don't really see why you think this. As it is, I convert my BTC to goods, not FIAT.
That said, I'm interested and will be looking for your whitepaper and mining it or whatever. I am of the opinion that Bitcoin will eventually be dethroned by a currency that is yet to be developed.
That said, I'm interested and will be looking for your whitepaper and mining it or whatever. I am of the opinion that Bitcoin will eventually be dethroned by a currency that is yet to be developed.
Sell all crypto-currency to fiat IMMEDIATELY. BTC will dive -30%. Altcoins will decline even more. SegWit and scaling has been defeated on both Bitcoin and (at least near-term) also Litecoin. Also there are macroeconomics things going on which will also hit gold and every asset except USD. Store your money in USD or altcoin USDT (dollar peg) temporarily until this dip has concluded
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18594538
Is BitFUnix and the Tether dollar USDT about to crash the Bitcoin market?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18594538
Re: Take profits now!
None of those are possibilities. 0% chance.
And no side will ever win.
Reading the following threads (not just the linked post) will help you understand:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18526721
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18571238
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18579825
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18570031
The above link to all my points on the Scalepocalypse.
In my opinion, going "all-in" or "all-out" at this very moment is dangerous (only exception: if you are totally satisfied with your profits until now).
The scaling debate still dictates the price movements. In every single moment the following two things could happen:
- some pool jumps to BU and gets it near or over 50%, making hard fork a real risk -> very bearish (target: ~700)
- some pool jumps to Segwit and gets it near or over 50% -> bullish / sideways (~1200-1350, but perhaps not strong enough for a new ATH)
- UASF gets traction and Segwit approval is very likely -> very bullish (new ATH, target ~2000)
- a compromise solution (EB, Segwit2MB) gets Core and majority miner approval -> also very bullish
That's why I wouldn't take sides still. And I disagree with AnonyMint: I think no side has "won" until now.
The scaling debate still dictates the price movements. In every single moment the following two things could happen:
- some pool jumps to BU and gets it near or over 50%, making hard fork a real risk -> very bearish (target: ~700)
- some pool jumps to Segwit and gets it near or over 50% -> bullish / sideways (~1200-1350, but perhaps not strong enough for a new ATH)
- UASF gets traction and Segwit approval is very likely -> very bullish (new ATH, target ~2000)
- a compromise solution (EB, Segwit2MB) gets Core and majority miner approval -> also very bullish
That's why I wouldn't take sides still. And I disagree with AnonyMint: I think no side has "won" until now.
None of those are possibilities. 0% chance.
I think no side has "won" until now.
And no side will ever win.
Reading the following threads (not just the linked post) will help you understand:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18526721
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18571238
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18579825
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18570031
The above link to all my points on the Scalepocalypse.
Is BitFUnix and the Tether dollar USDT about to crash the Bitcoin market?
Re: BTC doing good after this big dump
Just like what others said, I don't go for it that it was a big dump. It's only a very small fluctuation compare to what happened from the past like Mt.Gox and with the BTU drama.The price right now is at $1,199 on preev and it will keep on moving and stable at that rate. We'll see that $1,300 very soon.
Expect some event to serve as a distraction from the Scalepocalyspe reality that we are enslaved by the shadow elite.
BitFUnix has probably been paying off old thefts with new Ponzi money incoming per recent news.
Making excuses about not being able to make wire transfers.
Also note that Tether was involved in that lawsuit, so perhaps USDT token is also not safe to hold:
The reason for the 2 - 3% discrepancy between BitFUnix/Poloniex and Bitstamp is because the former at quoting in USDT, which is the Tether dollar. The market believes the Tether dollar is worth 2 - 3% less than the real US dollar.
You can rest assured that Tether dollars are a private fractional reserve system. The list of those who can redeem USDT for real US dollars is controlled by Tether, so they can prevent a run on the bank. If the market ever senses that the USDT is not backed by anything or is in danger of being regulated non-compliant for exchanges, then all those holding USDT would probably see the value of their USDT go "proof, and it's gone". I am suspecting that the way BitFUnix has remained afloat is by scheming with those who created Tether so they get a kickback for using USDT instead of actual dollars on their exchange. Ditto perhaps Poloniex. The collapse of USDT could cause another flash crash to Bitcoin.
The floor is really around $1050-1100 right now and it's unlikely to break that due to the strong resistance in the market.
We went from $1200 to $1165, it's staying up nicely, so we must hope that we don't go below $1100 and I think we are reasonably ok and good to go for the next $1300 test.
Just like what others said, I don't go for it that it was a big dump. It's only a very small fluctuation compare to what happened from the past like Mt.Gox and with the BTU drama.The price right now is at $1,199 on preev and it will keep on moving and stable at that rate. We'll see that $1,300 very soon.
as far as I know a correction shouldn't be sharp. it is usually a slower drop. the sharp dips usually show some kind of manipulation and followed by panic sell. mostly starting with the expectation of a drop (in this case the SegWit drama by F2Pool) and then weak hands jump.
Expect some event to serve as a distraction from the Scalepocalyspe reality that we are enslaved by the shadow elite.
This market is flat out fraud. $30 $41 spread between Finex and Bitstamp. Since we all know Bitfinex is an insolvent exchange that trades against it's own customers and also steals their money, I'm guessing that spread is also propped up by non-existent money just like Gox. Why are people willing to put up a $2 million buy wall on Bitfinex but no other exchange to try and prop up price? Because Bitfinex probably isn't even using real money, just imaginary exchange digits.
I've been saying BitFinex is the new Gox forever and here it is. There is no valid price of bitcoin as long as Bitfinex is the market maker.
The current chart looks like shit and is forming a down channel and you got fraudsters on Bitfinex trying to manipulate it up with imaginary money that probably doesn't exist:
I've been saying BitFinex is the new Gox forever and here it is. There is no valid price of bitcoin as long as Bitfinex is the market maker.
The current chart looks like shit and is forming a down channel and you got fraudsters on Bitfinex trying to manipulate it up with imaginary money that probably doesn't exist:
BitFUnix has probably been paying off old thefts with new Ponzi money incoming per recent news.
Making excuses about not being able to make wire transfers.
Also note that Tether was involved in that lawsuit, so perhaps USDT token is also not safe to hold:
Court records show that yesterday, lawyers for the plaintiffs – iFinex (the owner and operator of the exchange), its two British Virgin Islands-based subsidiaries and digital asset transfer firm Tether – filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
The reason for the 2 - 3% discrepancy between BitFUnix/Poloniex and Bitstamp is because the former at quoting in USDT, which is the Tether dollar. The market believes the Tether dollar is worth 2 - 3% less than the real US dollar.
You can rest assured that Tether dollars are a private fractional reserve system. The list of those who can redeem USDT for real US dollars is controlled by Tether, so they can prevent a run on the bank. If the market ever senses that the USDT is not backed by anything or is in danger of being regulated non-compliant for exchanges, then all those holding USDT would probably see the value of their USDT go "proof, and it's gone". I am suspecting that the way BitFUnix has remained afloat is by scheming with those who created Tether so they get a kickback for using USDT instead of actual dollars on their exchange. Ditto perhaps Poloniex. The collapse of USDT could cause another flash crash to Bitcoin.
Is rpietila also part of that group? what will happen to him? he seemed like a cool guy.
All his funds (have been and) are being stolen from him, because he tried to compete with Bitcoin.
He is not mistaken that he has been targeted. He is mistaken that he can defeat the forces against him, because for one thing he doesn't even understand the technology he needs to know in order to defeat the TMSR.
Re: PRE-ANN: People's Mark - basic income local currency in Finland - launch Oct2016
This is a technological and political-economic flaw. A Nash equilibrium immutable protocol should be the law, not humans.
A system mutable by humans is a power vacuum.
- is currently executing Kansanmarkka, a debt-free basic income currency, designed to oust Euro from Finland (and the world) by voluntary choice by the people. Participation in Kansanmarkka is free, you actually get paid.
Centralised DB
This is a technological and political-economic flaw. A Nash equilibrium immutable protocol should be the law, not humans.
A system mutable by humans is a power vacuum.
How can they find out I own bitcoin?
You have no secrets from the national security agencies. I don't care how many mixers you use, you have no secrets from them. Find old discussions between @smooth and myself on that topic.
Why doesn't MP dump too? he is a public figure so he will be the first to get trapped by the anti bitcoin government control operation.
He is already one of the $billionaires (will probably be $trillionaire by 2030). He is a member of their shadow elite's club named The Most Serene Republic.
Do you need the evidence. MP alerted the TMSR which controls Wikileaks and this is why Wikileaks destroyed Hillary's campaign. Do some research on the connection between Rothschild and Julian Assange. Btw, Julian was a cyberpunk (the mailing list discussions) before he launched Wikileaks of which so were other players such as Hal Finney and James A. Donald (see my quotes of him in the Dark Enlightenment thread and note he was first person to respond to Satoshi on the metzdown mailing list whet Bitcoin was announced Nov. 1, 2008).
It's harder to trap the small guy that only owns a couple 5-21 BTC, it's not public, uses Tor etc.
If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.
If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.
They don't need to trap you. You'll get caught in their regulations because you will get kicked off the blockchain by the exorbitant transaction fees due to the constrained block size.
Also they can create war and other problems for us that cause us to need to spend our BTC sooner than we anticipated.
If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.
You'll be forced to cash out of BTC before that (to some regulated financial system such as Lightning Networks, SEPA, etc) or hold your BTC a regulated exchange.
Or possibly there will be another blockchain choice such as yours truly.
Ethereum is also attempting to scale the blockchain. I will make a post comparing Ethereum's technology to mine in Altcoin Discussion soon...if your basing it on moving 1btc... the answer is naturally when it becomes costly to the point of over 1% (so 0.01btc fee) to move it people will lose preferential desire to hold bitcoin.
I disagree. People will see an incentive to hold bitcoin as long as the price keeps going to the moon. If the fee is 0.01 BTC, but the price of 1 BTC is $10,000 with prospects of going $100,000 BTC, then who is the idiot that doesn't want to hold that?
As long as the price keeps going up and the fees allow you to move your wealth when needed, it will have an incentive to be the holder's coin.
If the fee becomes higher than 99% of people's wealth and only billionaires see a point in using it, well that's a problem, everyone else will have dumped and only a few will be using it (and I don't see how it can survive in this state, since barely any transaction volume would be going on for miners to be worth mining)
You have an incomplete mathematical conceptualization.
You can't just analyze from the perspective of a percentage fee, because the blocksize is constrained.
It can become possible that transacting in morsels as small as 1 BTC is no longer possible.
So let me get this straight.
Even people holding millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, will see their bitcoins trapped because transaction fees will be worth millions of dollars? What fees are we talking about by 2030? (at supposedly around $500k price)
Even people holding millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, will see their bitcoins trapped because transaction fees will be worth millions of dollars? What fees are we talking about by 2030? (at supposedly around $500k price)
Well we can estimate given that BTC trades 1/100th of its market cap daily. So @ $500k per BTC thus a $10 trillion market cap, thus $100 billion transacted daily. Given 144 blocks per day, that is $600 million per block.
Let's assume that whales will put complex settlement transactions on the blockchain with many inputs and outputs so perhaps only 100 transactions per block. Presuming that whales are willing to pay 0.1% fee for security (i.e. $600,000 per block), that means a minimum transaction fee of $6000. If whales are willing to pay more for security, say 1%, then minimum transaction fee of $60,000.
However, I think whales will end up demanding a kickback from miners for their transaction fees, so that miners can jack up fees on non-whales. Whales can make this demand because they can refuse to send their transactions to miners which won't deal. Yet non-whales can't make a credible threat, because miners who generally offered lower fees would end up losing hashrate relative to those miners who didn't defect from the fee market. Thus I think you will probably see miners colluding to extract the maximum fees that gouge non-whales.
So perhaps 10% fees so $600,000 per transaction. You'll pay it because you have no choice, whereas the whales will have exempted themselves from the fee. So in other words, we will be paying the fees for the whales, eventually the millionaires paying exorbitant fees in order to transact unregulated.
You'll of course be able to avoid that exorbitant fees by going through a regulated option as I explained previously.
So the bottom line is the whales will be free from regulation and we will not. We remain slaves.
No one wants a bitcoin network where they'll have to pay more than 1% of the transaction amount as a fee
The whales do because they will be paying 0% fees, as I explained in my prior post.
And everyone who can afford it, will still want to hodl BTC, because the price is going to the moon.
So it will be a process that as the price rises, more and more riff-raff get priced out of the block chain. But those who remain will hodl because the price is rising logistically.
Really you need to think this out. It works very well economically and Satoshi was an evil genius.
Satoshi did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone. For example, SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness when not doubled with itself or another hash, which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient.
Satoshi was so genius that he designed the AsicBoost into the design.
I can say that with great confidence because double-hashing defeats attacks such as AsicBoost, and Satoshi did double-hashing as a precaution every where it could be required in his design except for the proof-of-work.
He managed to think far ahead on the game theory and realized he would need a poison pill to ensure that no one could modify his evil design.
So therefor he created a design that he knew the Chinese ASIC manufacturers would figure out how to make covert AsicBoost and that if it was patented outside of China, then this would be the poison pill against any changes to the protocol (as I have recently explained at @gmaxwell's Redditard discussion).
@dinofelis STFU on your nonsense about Satoshi wasn't genius. I've strongly refuted all of your nonsense technical claims. Stop your lying nonsense.
@iamnotback: This newly released paper might be of interest to you as it suggests an incentive-compatible, race-free block DAG model. The model is claimed to be superior to existing approaches such as GHOST, SPECTRE, Bitcoin-NG, Blockchain-free Cryptocurrencies etc.
Tortoise and Hares Consensus: the Meshcash Framework for Incentive-Compatible, Scalable Cryptocurrencies:
Tortoise and Hares Consensus: the Meshcash Framework for Incentive-Compatible, Scalable Cryptocurrencies:
Quote
Meshcash, is designed to be race-free: there is no “race” to generate the next block, hence
honestly-generated blocks are always rewarded. This property, which we define formally as
a game-theoretic notion, turns out to be useful in analyzing rational miners’ behavior: we
prove (using a generalization of the blockchain mining games of Kiayias et al.) that race-free
blockchain protocols are incentive-compatible and satisfy linearity of rewards (i.e., a party
receives rewards proportional to its computational power).
honestly-generated blocks are always rewarded. This property, which we define formally as
a game-theoretic notion, turns out to be useful in analyzing rational miners’ behavior: we
prove (using a generalization of the blockchain mining games of Kiayias et al.) that race-free
blockchain protocols are incentive-compatible and satisfy linearity of rewards (i.e., a party
receives rewards proportional to its computational power).
...
John Nash's Ideal Money stated that to bring about ideal money it would have to be done evolutionarily in an incremental and naturally viral fashion. If you understand game theory, you would understand why the elite can't just announce a new monetary system and expect to not be attacked and undermined.
... Because viral things don't stop growing due to naysayers. The more naysayers, the more a viral thing spreads.
Chapter 6 Why Bitcoin Is a Big Deal in the book Bitcoin for the Befuddled addresses this very well. You can read it online for free with Google books.
Also chapter 7 The Cryptography Behind Bitcoin in the same book, is a very comprehensible explanation of ECC and the ECDSA algorithm employed in Bitcoin. With only knowledge of high school level math one could understand that.
I will also explain how to do time travel realistically!
Not sure if...
There is a serious inconsistency in how UTXO are referred.
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain. It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO. No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain. It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO. No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !
Seriously you need to stop pretending you know anything about blockchain design.
This is beginners' egregious error.
Lol you just flunked the most fundamental issue of decentralized systems, which is there is no total order.
Well deep down blockchain are still a decentralized database, who preserve total order
Even if the way the chain will be constructed is not ordered, the system make in sort to garantee total order consistent across the network.
Incorrect. Chain reorganizations can happen at any time. PoW is probabilistically (i.e. never) final, not deterministically final.
Thus referencing by specific chains instead of by hash as @dinofelis suggested would be a DDoS security vulnerability at least and other cascading issues.
@IadixDev, that is why you leave the blockchain design work to me. I am expert. You are not.
For the moment im still on the script, it advance good
I will probably give more news on it in a few days.
It should have everything needed to can create a blockchain with custom block validation algorithm, all the parameters to initialize the node for a specific chain with block reward curve, pos, with event handler for p2p messages, and rpc server + block explorer
All this in super simple javascript like language, with the module and event queue.
it could probably be compiled to assembler easily, as it's mostly C call to the framework, and it use only base types that the cpu understand like pointer , integers and simd.
For the other discussion if you follow the thread you will see better where I want to get at, and also why in my idea chain ordering could not matter at all.
But again the main point was not even this, but to show pow is not only about solving consencus etc
How to find your blog on SteemIt?. Your knowledge is astounding.
Besides, if you think bitcoin will be rejected in favor of one or some of the alts out there, that shows you don't understand the shadow elite well enough.
My altcoin project doesn't depend in any way on Bitcoin being evil, perfect, or flawed. My project is about helping us share our knowledge production without being hostage to 3rd parties. It only depends on BTC being available as an exchange mechanism to and from fiat.
I believe any alt, no matter how good or bad, needs the support (financial and non-financial alike) of the shadow elites in order to have a lasting impression in the society (or else they will die out sooner or later).
What makes you think the elite want to be locked together in a mutual self-destruction of NWO and 666.
They think they have no choice, because fungible money is a winner-take-all power vacuum.
My idea may change everything. If the knowledge age ameloriates the power vacuum of fungible money, then the shadow elites may gleefully attack each other and return their former power back to emergent chaos, because they would have no other choice.
Fundamental laws of physics can't be avoided.
I also have a Theory of Everything I hope to publish a summary maybe tomorrow in a blog on Steemit. I will also explain how to do time travel realistically!
Jump to: