legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1174
Always remember the cause!
P.S. If you understood anything about the Old South, you would understand that is the way you talk to other people that makes you a bonafide citizen of that culture. I do not talk to people on this forum the way I talk to people in my culture, because very few here have the etiquette of the Old South. So on this forum I get to be as big of an asshole as others are to me. It is pure defect-defect because the forum is anonymous. Although I have a made a decision to try to exhibit much greater patience and tolerance.
No worries dude, I will do my best to keep this debate alive as long as some meat is served here
About Old South, .... you already know, I'm a fan!
I introduced PoCW not for giving birth to a new coin, improving bitcoin and Ethereum (while saving it from Butterin's Caspar coup d tate) are my main concerns. As one of the first contributors to this topic has correctly emphasised the main challenge here is political. I started this topic to spread the word and the idea not to convince people to join a scammy shitcoin project but to find about who is who and how is the weather. The next step is implementing the code and demonstrating how feasibly smart and clean I can do this.
I'm having a long war to win and I don't play this game so cautiously: saying nothing unless you got an army of academicians in your back. It is not the way I fight, when I find the answer I show up with it and start fighting and will fight to the river, as I have told you elsewhere. I don't hesitate and don't postpone everything for paperwork.
Proof-of-work is “might is right.” Why are you idealistic about fungible stored capital enslaves mankind? You are just fiddling with the fringe of the issue. The central issue is that proof-of-work is all about the same ole paradigm throughout human history that says fungible stored claims on someone else’s labor is powerful.
I reject that and we are headed into a paradigm-shift which will render the NWO reserve currency Bitcoin irrelevant. Security of fungible stored capital is not the big deal it was before in the fixed investment capital Agricultural and Industrial ages. You need to understand that you are barking up an old, rotten tree with old, rotting Old World money in its midst.
Read every linked document in this blog, and my comments below the blog and wake up:
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless It is the true story behind this debate, isn't it?
At a very unfortunate moment of your history with bitcoin and PoW, you made a horrible decision: giving up on both!
Cultures won't help, people just are the same, no matter to when or where they belong, they just give up when they become disappointed.
For me, this is a different story. When I find something brilliant, I don't care about its current state of development, brilliance is enough for me to commit and not to give up on it, no matter what.
History teaches us another important lesson too: When a paradigm shows up, it will stay for a while and it is pointless and mostly impossible to have a paradigm shift every decade.
I will check your link and I'll go through your replies as you wish, I promise, but, I have to say, I'm strategically against any attempt to replace PoW, it seems to me just a fake ridiculous attempt, a cartoon. Sorry, but it was you who chose the wrong side.
If by formalism you mean a lot of mathematical analysis to address every single possible attack or vulnerability, I think it is too much in this stage.
I think it’s impossible to not have acrimony without it. You just assume epilson without actually proving how small are the effects you dismiss.
{....}
You need to show the math and prove it is epsilon.
And that includes also your presumption of “for few seconds per minute.” Depends on the variance of the miner.
I don't agree. It is always possible to discuss issues without going through formal and mathematical analysis. I did some formal analysis of this specific subject of your concern (variance in transition period) and have shown how sharp is this period.
But now you are unsatisfied and keep pushing for more details which I just can't schedule more time for , and if I do it, nobody will read it, not now.
There is also a countervailing force which you could argue for, which (I mentioned up-thread) is the investment in shares the miner already has and the amount of luck he adds to the block being solved if he does not stop mining. But that is probably a neglible factor and Vitalik already explained that altruism-prime is an undersupplied public good (see the weak subjectivity Ethereum blog), so I doubt miners would be able to agree to not defect for the greater good. It’s a Prisoner’s dilemma.
Again you need to show the math.
Please! You probably know my opinion about this kid, Buterin and his foolish "weak subjectivity" thing. It is a shame, a boy desperately obsessed with being genius, is trying to revolutionize cryptocurrency by 'weak' shits. Absolutely not interested.
As of the proposed 'additive' for miners not to back-off because of the hypothetical variance in transition phase, thanks for reminding and I'm fully aware of that, I just didn't bring it forward to avoid complicating the subject even more.
Anyway, it improves the odds and can't be rejected by the boy's "discovery" of altruism not being the dominant factor in a monetary system
It is not about well being of others.
Miners have always incentive to have
their own previously mined shares (in the current round) to be part of the chosen %93 and their late shares besides direct rewards will help this process.
Actually perhaps the most logical action is for smaller miners to switch to centralized pools for a portion of the block. Probably it will be difficult to argue against that mathematically. So that if true, probably more or less defeats the stated purpose of PoCW.
I think, there is a possibility (not a force) for some kind of pooling in PoCW. But it won't be the same as conventional centralized pools even a bit (it doesn't need to be) and won't defeat the purpose being eliminating the pooling
pressure and its centralization consequences.
I have to analyze it far more, but I guess a
light gradient exists here in favor of forming kinda 'agreements' between clusters of small miners to communicate in star topologies to help each other transiting more smoothly. It is a light gradient, as there is very low stakes ( 2% or so) on the table.
One should again take into consideration the way PoCW fixes proximity premium and practically synchronizes miners to transit between phases almost in the same time, as I have already discussed it extensively, implying short transient periods and less incentives for setup/cleanup costs needed to join a pool temporarily.
I feel good about you despite the bitterness and this topic is about collaborative work after all. PM'd just to keep topic focused.