Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 224. (Read 2032248 times)

I don't think you get it.  It is a proof that an entity is storing a UNIQUE copy of the blockchain.  What little prior PoS work I've read seems to prove that storage exists, or that a file is being stored.  Unfortunately they do not address the idea that you want to store a file in 2 places A & B and ensure that A & B are not in collusion and so the file is only stored one of the 2 locations.

Honestly I'm less interested in the BIP 100 voting scheme (and the usefulness of voting in general as a governance mechanism) as I am in healing the rift between miners and full nodes.  Clearly no-one is going to implement the above proposal for bitcoin just so full nodes can vote on BIP 100! :-)

Justus: I could see your post just fine.

Note to Blockstream, compromise on a BIP and increase the block size already (and don't blablah about you already suggested they propose a BIP, Gavinmike aren't leaders, etc ... get a compromise done with as few words as possible). You are being out maneuvered politically and will be painted as the bad guys if you continue to write more rebuttals to Mike Hearn. STFU (with the diatribes from Adam) and live to fight another day. Stop that nonsense policy on the bitcoin.org that is divisive.

To Adam and Gregory, when you joined Bitcoin you implicitly agreed that it was "one for all and all for one". If you do anything politically to violate that, even if with good intentions to protect Bitcoin from a mad rush towards centralization or technical breakage as the Coinbase et al drive up TPS rapidly towards Visa scale, then you are violating your own interests believe it or not.

Instead of fighting your battle on the political front, go get clever on your technical work and make an end run around what you fear. STFU and reach compromise asap so you can live to fight another day.

Yes Gavinmike are diluting your power. They know what they are doing. You better know they can do it. If you are wise, you will rescue the clout you still have and retain some of it by using your political power less auspiciously (or let's say don't try to paint yourselves as the good guys, because it makes people sneer or skeptical when they read those diatribes that reflect on your egos more than on the reality of the situation) so you can win some concessions on the rate of increase.

Adam and Gregory are engineers and ostensibly thus far not very astute political scientists.

They apparently can't see that Gavinmike purposely incited them to fight in order to drive a wedge between them and more than 50% of the power in the community. It doesn't matter who is right, because both directions are flawed thus whomever resists forward movement will be the bad guys. The most astute action on their part is to not fight in public.

Now it does for me as well.

I think the auto moderator may have grabbed it for a few minutes, which makes me wonder exactly what kind of setting theymos is using for it.

Okay I got it now (I was very fatigued before prior reply and you didn't give any high level description). It is a historic proof that an entity was winning PoW blocks. So basically you have to set a threshold as to what level of cumulative PoW difficulty constitutes a vote, thus a centralized party decides what class of voter is included.

This is representative governance, because the users can't vote and those with more PoW can vote more times (creating numerous sockpuppets which is essentially analogous to my prior rebuttal). Representative governance is even more prone to capture by the Logic of Collective Action.

Bitcoin has no choice but to head these sort of perilous directions because the fundamental design is flawed.

If Bitcoin's design would scale without intervention, we wouldn't be seeing the need to do this.

Shows up just fine here.

Does this post show up for anyone else?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3a5f1v/mike_hearn_on_those_who_want_all_scaling_to_be/cs9jehy

I think it might have been censored.

As soon as you introduce voting to Bitcoin, you've entirely lost to the banksters. Any one who doesn't realize democracy is a lie, is really a sheep. I already explained the Logic of Collective Action is a power vacuum. It is amazes me that smart people can't understand this holistically.

A power vacuum is an entropic void that requires a leader. But the only way to lead collective action is to promise everything and steal everything (if you don't, someone else will and they will amass more power). The logic on that is explained in more detail else where.

I grow weary. Just go ahead to your NWO outcome. Some of us others will fork away and survive to continue the human race. <bankster illogic>Perhaps it is better you all continue with your myopia and cull yourselves, so we can clean up the gene pool.bankster illogic>

Prior proof-of-storage (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proof-of-storage-to-make-distributed-resource-consumption-costly-310323) "wastes" storage like POW "wastes" CPU.  It proves that storage exists.  The proposal above proves that a unique copy of the blockchain is stored somewhere.  This is much more valuable than proof that storage exists so it is perhaps better named proof-of-full-node.  The reason you can't just rent hard disk space on AWS to fake this out is because you need to calculate the inverse hash for every byte of the blockchain, salted by your node id.  The designer can choose how hard this is so it could take (say) a normal computer 6 months to do the entire 5 year blockchain. So the proof of storage is backed by POW which makes it hard to calculate the values on-the-fly.  You could rent a bunch of AWS storage AND separately rent a supercomputer to individually calculate the hash-1 blockchain data, storing the result into AWS.  But if you do that, you actually HAVE N individual copies of the blockchain so would receive N votes.

Because I am basically arguing with myself here I will now criticize the approach's limitations.  It is possible that modifications to this approach could solve them:

1. "Difficulty" is chosen in advance, not dynamically.  This is problematic as processing power increases.
2. It takes a long time for a new node to become a provably "full" node.  Of course, nodes could become non-provably "full" nodes just by downloading the blockchain as is done today, and nodes could advertise themselves as partly provable, receiving a partial vote...
3. The provable blockchain could be constructed by many CPUs running in parallel... is this a problem?  If so we could force serialization by salting Xi with Xi-1.
4. The system functions as a real-time interactive proof.  There is no way store a historical proof that a node was full on date D.  Bitcoin-style POW+blockchain does store historical proof of computation power.

It is not me. It is you all are that good but you don't know how to organize yourselves except to be corralled by the banksters (even you don't know it). The only way to accomplish that is get a lot of capital focused on solving these problems. Right now all your capital is going to the utility and hardware companies. It is not being focused where it can actually form an ecosystem. The Bitcoin ecosystem is dominated by bankster whoreshipping venture capital (and your individual capital gets siphoned off by PoW and the shitcoins).

This is the reason you would buy my coin, because there will be an ecosystem that as a geek you will be damn proud of. And it will be your ecosystem, not mine. I am just here as the seed (who needs to as quickly as possibly set things on an open-source auto-pilot and get out of the way), and will hopefully be rewarded for my efforts so I can retire comfortably.

Somebody has to be crazy enough to try. Then the others will follow once they see it working.

Btw, I debated Chomsky in email several years ago before my Multiple Sclerosis symptoms had become severe (meaning I was more mentally complete ... I'm sure you notice my prose is often missing words and this is due to fatigue and trying to write too much with this illness).

I have all the copies of the debate. Maybe I will publish them in this forum someday if I can justify the downtime to dig them up (I did publish already a small portion at goldwetrust.up-with.com).

I remember we got off into existential philosophy and what could and could not be proven. My appraisal of the outcome is it was a draw. He is extremely smart (impressively so at his advanced age) but he did meet his match with me (which is why I think he was compelled to debate me and also because I did show him respect and appreciation). So that will give you some clue into my logic capabilities. The computer and I were destined to be one since I think like one.

Btw, Chomsky is a gatekeeper for the establishment (perhaps unwittingly). That doesn't mean I dislike him. He was very cordial, empathic, and willing to debate an unknown person.

I don't have time to watch that video above, but I am quite sure he can not win a debate against me about 9/11 because I will focus only on the irrefutable physical science arguments and not the circumstantial innuendo that most Truthers blabber.

An example of circumstantial arguments is, "why was the steel rushed off to China for melting and under such intense security?". I believe that data point adds to the probability of understanding, but I wouldn't use it in debate because someone could attack me on that point. Another example, "why did Donald Rumsfeld announce that $3 trillion was missing from the DoD budget on the eve of 9/11 and the next day all of the documents and investigators were destroyed by whatever hit the Pentagon and just that one section of the Pentagon".

Or another one, "why were all of Armstrong's voice recordings of the manipulations the banksters were doing in the markets destroyed at the WTC, as admitted in a letter to Armstrong from the SEC?".

So many circumstantial points taken together form a nexus of improbability of an unplanned event.

But I don't need to revert to those arguments because most people can't correlate holistic probabilities (and debaters use this disingenuously and/or unwittingly). They study issues piece-meal only. This is also why they can't assess the holistic design failure of Bitcoin.

He's that good.

JGarzik's proposal:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
Wherein the central authority of developers to set block size is passed to the miners who vote (with the highs and lows dropped).

This seems to solve the issue of figuring out the right size a bit better than one person picking an arbitrary number.

It also moves the ball forward in automating the governance of the protocol.

note the oil price move in the last few months, and compare to movements before the fall of the USSR (80-86 for the big move - 3yrs more for the impact to cripple)

Wow, on the entire internet?! That's really impressive!

Chomsky's confrontation with a truther idiot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6Knc

This is the why 90% slow burn into the NWO is so assured, because most people don't act to save themselves until it is too late. They actively avoid pain if the losses to society are only 10% on each iteration:

nwo future prosperity = 0.90 ^ n, where n is time elapsed and 1 is maximum prosperity and 0 is total destruction of the human race.

Also people get lulled to sleep by their past success in following the herd.

My rebuttal is talk to some people whose grandparents lost everything in the Great Depression because they trusted society to not go F.U.B.A.R. Realize that every 79 years or so, society does default and reset.

I do firmly believe your Bitcoin will be expropriated before 2032 (most likely before 2024), unless you've cashed out to something more protective BEFORE THE NSA HAS BEEN TRACKING IT. Gold will only work if you plan to never be able to cash it nor spend it, i.e. it won't work.

I do believe there will be clawbacks and they come asking what you did with the Bitcoin you sold back in the day. And they will use any excuse to expropriate everything they can find. The only wealth that is going to survive what is coming is that which can't be found.


If I did a pegged side chain with its own coin, that coin would be entirely orthogonal to the BTC coins in the chain. I wouldn't want the BTC holders to feel threatened in any way. They bring greater network effects to the coin, thus indirectly driving up the value of the coin used to pay miners with debasement.

Btw, in my coin's design the miners can not be paid with transaction fees that originate from prior balances because this is a source of censorship of transactions (even if the inputs are blinded by a mix because one blacklisted input in the mix could cause censorship of the entire mix). My design is 100% censorship free (no heuristic arguments, rather 100% provable).

Shit I am giving away too much of my design. I better STFU.

You will end up buying my coin if I create it, because it will blow your fucking mind or I mean to say the design will make your jaw drop to the floor and you will say, "I must buy this".

Well then take solace in that I am working for you then because I (as AnonyMint) have been pushing for greater anonymity since 2013. And I am pushing for it not just in cryptocoins but also on the entire internet and my plans are much broader in scope than just cryptocoins.

No. This species is going forward; leaving your collectivist behavior behind. Crypto based Anonymity is not a tool to maintain collectivism; it will destroy collectivism and society and that will lead to the rebirth of the selfsufficient community. Not nice for you the collectivsts, but inevitable.

Okay now take the analogy of Amazon being one entity controlling all 10,000 nodes, and then imagine the government controlling all those 1240 universities (and other institutions) because they are extremely visible and vulnerable to comply with regulation. Thus the universities are actually controlled by the banksters. Via regulation and other means they have installed their people as the leaders and powerful alumni at all major universities.

The name of the late One Handed Economist was Howard Katz, a Jew who graduated from Harvard. He wrote about how the universities have been captured based on his personal experience and other insights.

The only form of decentralization that is not ultimately controlled by the government are those nodes that can pop in and out of the network at any time at random places by random individuals. And not on hosts since the government will crack down on hosts if they need to. The government can't effectively crack down on every random person on the globe. They can crack down on the ISPs but if necessary we can use stenography to obscure traffic in normal web browsing. One of my major goals centers around building out a network for browsing that is impervious to filtering based on content. HTTPS is not sufficient since the certificate providers are compromised by the NSA.

I really can't fathom why some of you don't understand (or agree with) this. It is so blatantly obvious. I just can't understand how you guys think (or don't). Sorry I am not trying to be condescending nor insult you. But I really can't fathom how grown men can be so oblivious to reality      

(again the answer is because you don't want to know. You've willfully chosen to live in a world of fantasy because reality is a world you wouldn't want to live in. Most people can't deal with pain. They actively avoid it at any cost to rationality. I actually seek out pain and love to fight it, although this M.S. is pushing the limits of my tolerance. I remember when I was about 13 years old I used to immerse myself in scalding hot water in the bathtub.)

Ahem, try reading again. You proposed proof-of-storage as a potential means to voting.