Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 277.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: justusranvier on June 05, 2015, 11:12:14 AM

Note that just proving the cryptographic properties of ring signatures isn't enough, because some other part of the system might leak information or be susceptible to privacy-reducing user error. You have to evaluate the entire stack.

I am still concerned that Monero allows rings to be oversubscribed in terms of being overlapping ring sets. This might need to be improved but I need to spend more time analyzing this.

But the anonymity set issue is distinct from the End-to-End principle scaling issue which off-chain mixing can not achieve.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 05, 2015, 06:34:10 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on June 05, 2015, 06:14:20 PM

Most chineese outsource their servers for obvious reasons. Its not the service providers location that counts but rather the location of their contractors. Nice try Wink

Quote from: Wang - mining superstar

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Are most Chinese outsourcing to the 1 of 91 nodes located in China? the concern quoted above would imply that or it would imply they are outsourcing to some on in North America.

eather way they better jack up of piss off, Bitcoin is not a charity, they should outsource to someone with more bandwidth, let me guess Blockstream wants to keep a client happy by limiting the block size?

Nice try Wink

not a client but $21M worth of investors.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hdbuck on June 05, 2015, 06:14:20 PM

Most chineese outsource their servers for obvious reasons. Its not the service providers location that counts but rather the location of their contractors. Nice try Wink

Quote from: Wang - mining superstar

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Are most Chinese outsourcing to the 1 of 91 nodes located in China? the concern quoted above would imply that or it would imply they are outsourcing to some on in North America.

eather way they better jack up of piss off, Bitcoin is not a charity, they should outsource to someone with more bandwidth, let me guess Blockstream wants to keep a client happy by limiting the block size?

Nice try Wink

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: rocks on June 05, 2015, 11:00:04 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 04, 2015, 11:32:17 PM

Quote from: majamalu on June 04, 2015, 11:13:51 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 04, 2015, 10:18:40 PM

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper. Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

Where is the evidence for these naked assertions? (Visible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.

Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?" Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.

Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.

If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.

majamalu's point is that for money, there can only be one dominate ledger. He is saying that for Monero to succeed, Monero has to become that ledger over Bitcoin, and there will not be 2 separate ledgers side by side.

Commerce requires a single ledger in order for two entities to interact, and this is why we have always ended up with a single global unit of money that everyone uses. That unit was gold where national currencies were valued by how much gold backed their issuance. This switched over night at Brenton woods when the world agreed to switch the backing unit from Gold to FRNs, and today currencies now require FRNs in the form of treasuries to back them.

If crypto currencies succeed, there will be one successful one. That is why majamalu says Monero needs to be in competition with Bitcoin to succeed. It's either or, not side by side.

This presumes that Bitcoin has any chance of becoming the global unit-of-account, which I assert is preposterous (any NWO reserve is going to have to be negotiated politically among a power-sharing between nations in a multi-polar world and any non-NWO attempt will need scaling and decentralization Bitcoin can't do).

We are no where near that. We are still trying to unlock huge markets which Bitcoin can't EVER touch (not without radical redesign that is not only implausible but wouldn't be "Bitcoin" any more).

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 05, 2015, 10:56:07 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 05, 2015, 01:31:37 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 04, 2015, 02:35:07 PM

do you care to explain how it's centralized again.

if the idea you have is correct then it needs to spread, it wont spread if it cant be understood.

can you ELI5.

Because the center (the group acting in lock step) has the power to include or not include transactions (and set transaction fees).

That alone is already centralization.

And worse is that power (lack of autonomy of the ends of the network) can be monopolized, e.g. State regulation of mining, Larry Summer's 21 Inc economics that mine for free for the cartel, Sybil attack on pools, economies-of-scale (and fiat subsidy via the usury backstop) with ASICs, electricity costs charged to the society, Transactions Withholding Attack, etc, etc, etc. Do I need to enumerate every monopolization vector in detail again (each was already debated upthread)?

I feel the force of the argument, but I think it only applies to the ledger-updating protocol, not the ledger itself. From an investment perspective, the ledger is what matters. The ledger is where the most economically important network effects are.

Even if TPTB can centralize and control the protocol, they can't stop the users of the ledger (BTC holders) from switching to a different ledger-updating protocol. Thus the store of value is maintained, and the network effect of what is now called "the Bitcoin ledger" is maintained. Now they could cut it off in its infancy, push another ledger to compete with it, etc., and that would be damaging, but you'd still have that core group of people who are aligned with the principles Bitcoin was intended to uphold, ready to carry on with that ledger.

One of the general classes of mistakes I see repeated in economic analysis is the erroneous concept that time is reversible.

Path dependencies proliferate not vice versa.

For example, the wealth effect (i.e. market price determines market cap != wealth invested) destroys wealth on the egress.

Armando

hero member

Activity: 870

Merit: 500

Trading will make me rich)

By the way, are there any reliable exchanges for XBT/XAU trading with margin trade etc.. ?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on June 05, 2015, 06:07:03 PM

Quote

so who has more credibility in this matter? the pools themselves, who have the hard data? or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd? the answer is simple: the armchair experts are wrong.

These guys are actually writing the code you are running, are you making code commits ... I mean who's really the "armchair expert" here?

Just stop being a dick. You are looking worse and worse every time you open your ignorant mouth to trash the developers.

marcus, you have long been the real dick.

nice of you to ignore the thrust of my argument. the armchair experts on this matter who haven't done any studies on the matter are blockading the 80-90% of the community's wishes to increase the block size based on just this large block attack hypothetical that just got totally trashed by the large miners they were pontificating about.

how do you explain that?

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: tvbcof on June 05, 2015, 10:50:18 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 05, 2015, 03:55:08 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 04, 2015, 11:45:11 PM

Now, if Monero or pretty much any total shitcoin was a sidechain and I could have the proper level of confidence that I could, autonomously, shift my holdings back to BTC, I'd be all over it. If XMR is as great for privacy as iCEBREAKER claims (again and again and again), fantastic! I'd happily use it whenever I have that need.

...
But I don't see why we need Blockstream to do that. Afaics, any altcoin could offer the feature where its coin supply is the number of BTC on specified reserve on the Bitcoin blockchain (using the methods devised by Blockstream).

Where I see something like Blockstream being of enduring value is that I'm not going to be checking every line of code of every (of the many) sidechains I want to peg. The stamp of approval from some organization I trust is what I would be using to make a judgement.

Of course in the early stages there is a lot of fairly intricate work to get the crypto and certain aspects of the security developed.

I focus on the makeup of the Blockstream group significantly for these reasons. Indeed, it is because sipa and Maxwell in particular are involved in Bitcoin core that I retain the position that I do. I would probably have sold a lot more (or tried to) at the $1000 mark if Gavin was the main guy actually doing things. Ironically it looks like Maxwell might have done me a dis-service by lending Bitcoin credibility at a time when I should have been bailing.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 05, 2015, 05:37:24 AM

Edit: there is one way side chains enable scaling. That is the side chain is a centralized ledger. So if the masses can be enticed to spend their BTC into the Coinbase+Paypal+Circle cartel side chain, then it can scale easily. And then the hashrate of the Bitcoin blockchain will wane and can be attacked by the cartel.

Yeah a cartel side chain is great sell out to TPTB. Go! Good job!

Blockstream is (unwittingly?) enabling an easy path for the cartel to fork Bitcoin.

I don't think it was clear to readers that the reason the red bolded sentence is particularly worrisome for Bitcoin is because those who remain in the decentralized fork have to fear a declining hashrate and 50% attack.

Side chains are a natural feature that will be added to any crypto-coin in the future, thus the design of crypto-coins has to eliminate the 50% attack.

Again I propose doing that by reducing the power of the consensus center, i.e. applying Tim Berner-Lee's Principle of Least Power.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 05:53:59 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 01:53:25 PM

Quote from: Wandererfromthenorth on June 05, 2015, 11:57:30 AM

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior" bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior" connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

i just have to repeat this quote and add another from the article to discredit the anti-Gavin's #1 objection to increasing the blocksize; the large miner large block attack:

"Similarly, Wang argued:
“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

this was from BTCChina's director of engineering Mikael Wang, the #3 in size mining pool in the world. his statement is inclusive of the Discus Fish and AntPool, the #1 & #2 pools in size in the world as they are also in China.

so who has more credibility in this matter? the pools themselves, who have the hard data? or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd? the answer is simple: the armchair experts are wrong.

Its a Business issue not a Bitcoin issue, cheep warehousing and energy coat with poor bandwidth "V" expensive warehousing and Energy with Good Bandwidth, Gmax and LukeJr feel a central planing comity can resolve the indifference with smaller blocks.

It's a free market the bigger farms should move closer to the majority of the nodes, or should we have the Core Dev's engineer Bitcoin to accommodate the Chinese minority.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 06:05:26 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on June 05, 2015, 06:00:52 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 05:53:59 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 01:53:25 PM

Quote from: Wandererfromthenorth on June 05, 2015, 11:57:30 AM

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior" bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior" connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

i just have to repeat this quote and add another from the article to discredit the anti-Gavin's #1 objection to increasing the blocksize; the large miner large block attack:

"Similarly, Wang argued:
“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

this was from BTCChina's director of engineering Mikael Wang, the #3 in size mining pool in the world. his statement is inclusive of the Discus Fish and AntPool, the #1 & #2 pools in size in the world as they are also in China.

so who has more credibility in this matter? the pools themselves, who have the hard data? or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd? the answer is simple: the armchair experts are wrong.

Armchairs might be wrong. But toilet USGavin is being flushed away by chineese pandas. China 1 usg 0 Cool

the Chinese miner question can easily be counterbalanced by this map of full node locations:

Most chineese outsource their servers for obvious reasons. Its not the service providers location that counts but rather the location of their contractors. Nice try Wink

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 05, 2015, 05:49:20 PM

I understand Cypherdoc criticizes Gregory's stake in Bitcoin because Greg is on the other side of the block size increase debate. And he seems to be jealous that Greg was gifted some hardware in exchange for (and/or to aid) his development work.

Seems to me that there will always be jealously, but Satoshi seems to mostly get a free ride. Is it because he is anonymous, gone, or because he caused a star to appear in the eyes of the Bitcoin supporters?

don't be an idiot about what you don't know. my criticism of gmax goes back years from simply observing his bearishness and misunderstandings around mining centralization. it then escalated several notches from the Press Center debate from what i found to be highly authoritarian behavior. he also has chased me off the dev IRC channels in the past which by itself wasn't a big deal but contributed to my thinking of him as a self important apparatchik presiding over Bitcoin. then also, i've observed his shameless dealings in the mining hardware section where he lobbies for free hardware. oh and then the SC's financial conflict with Blockstream. he keeps adding to the list rather quickly though now with this anti Gavin debate wherein it's becoming all too clear to the community that he is a problem.

I observed some similar behavior. Mea culpa. I will accede to you on that aspect.

But is that a sufficient justification for not wanting him to beg for some hardware so he can be vested in the coin.

Any way maybe the answer to my question is that Gmax isn't the lead dev. Satoshi was.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote

so who has more credibility in this matter? the pools themselves, who have the hard data? or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd? the answer is simple: the armchair experts are wrong.

These guys are actually writing the code you are running, are you making code commits ... I mean who's really the "armchair expert" here?

Just stop being a dick. You are looking worse and worse every time you open your ignorant mouth to trash the developers.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: hdbuck on June 05, 2015, 06:00:52 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 05:53:59 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 01:53:25 PM

Quote from: Wandererfromthenorth on June 05, 2015, 11:57:30 AM

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior" bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior" connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

i just have to repeat this quote and add another from the article to discredit the anti-Gavin's #1 objection to increasing the blocksize; the large miner large block attack:

"Similarly, Wang argued:
“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

this was from BTCChina's director of engineering Mikael Wang, the #3 in size mining pool in the world. his statement is inclusive of the Discus Fish and AntPool, the #1 & #2 pools in size in the world as they are also in China.

so who has more credibility in this matter? the pools themselves, who have the hard data? or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd? the answer is simple: the armchair experts are wrong.

Armchairs might be wrong. But toilet USGavin is being flushed away by chineese pandas. China 1 usg 0 Cool

the Chinese miner question can easily be counterbalanced by this map of full node locations:

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 05, 2015, 05:49:20 PM

I understand Cypherdoc criticizes Gregory's stake in Bitcoin because Greg is on the other side of the block size increase debate. And he seems to be jealous that Greg was gifted some hardware in exchange for (and/or to aid) his development work.

Seems to me that there will always be jealously, but Satoshi seems to mostly get a free ride. Is it because he is anonymous, gone, or because he caused a star to appear in the eyes of the Bitcoin supporters?

don't be an idiot about what you don't know. my criticism of gmax goes back years from simply observing his bearishness and misunderstandings around mining centralization. it then escalated several notches from the Press Center debate from what i found to be highly authoritarian behavior. he also has chased me off the dev IRC channels in the past which by itself wasn't a big deal but contributed to my thinking of him as a self important apparatchik presiding over Bitcoin. then also, i've observed his shameless dealings in the mining hardware section where he lobbies for free hardware. oh and then the SC's financial conflict with Blockstream. he keeps adding to the list rather quickly though now with this anti Gavin debate wherein it's becoming all too clear to the community that he is a problem.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 05:53:59 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 01:53:25 PM

Quote from: Wandererfromthenorth on June 05, 2015, 11:57:30 AM

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior" bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior" connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

i just have to repeat this quote and add another from the article to discredit the anti-Gavin's #1 objection to increasing the blocksize; the large miner large block attack:

"Similarly, Wang argued:
“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

this was from BTCChina's director of engineering Mikael Wang, the #3 in size mining pool in the world. his statement is inclusive of the Discus Fish and AntPool, the #1 & #2 pools in size in the world as they are also in China.

so who has more credibility in this matter? the pools themselves, who have the hard data? or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd? the answer is simple: the armchair experts are wrong.

Armchairs might be wrong. But toilet USGavin is being flushed away by chineese pandas. China 1 usg 0 Cool

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: rocks on June 05, 2015, 10:50:10 AM

What I said is it is possible to layer similar schemes on top of Bitcoin. For an example just look at the reusable payment codes justusranvier posted here a bit ago. That alone gets you a long way towards the anonymity of Monero, and more and more methods will continue to be developed on top of Bitcoin over time, achieving whatever level of anonymity desired.

None of those off-chain schemes can provide autonomous mixing, thus they can never scale per the End-to-end Principle. Smooth and I already rebutted JustUs upthread.

And no there won't be any discovery to make it possible to do autonomous off-chain mixing on Bitcoin. I thought about this for months. And I am confident smooth thought about this deeply. He and I discussed and debated these issues in great detail last year.

DarkCoin proposed (implemented?) a prequeue of mixes to try to make it behave more autonomously. But this is an "obfuscation by centralization", which is also what the masternodes of DRK did to solve the jamming problem of CoinJoin thus trading off anonymity which is unmasked by the masternode.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 01:53:25 PM

Quote from: Wandererfromthenorth on June 05, 2015, 11:57:30 AM

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior" bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior" connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

i just have to repeat this quote and add another from the article to discredit the anti-Gavin's #1 objection to increasing the blocksize; the large miner large block attack:

"Similarly, Wang argued:
“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

this was from BTCChina's director of engineering Mikael Wang, the #3 in size mining pool in the world. his statement is inclusive of the Discus Fish and AntPool, the #1 & #2 pools in size in the world as they are also in China.

so who has more credibility in this matter? the pools themselves, who have the hard data? or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd? the answer is simple: the armchair experts are wrong.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: smooth on June 05, 2015, 03:38:55 PM

makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets

Some of have publicly commented that you ended up coding less for Monero than they had hoped.

If I said that hypothetically if I was a dev on a coin and my holding in the coin was only 1% of my assets then I wouldn't have much incentive to work on it full-time (forum posting not included as work); would this strike you or anyone else as being unethical or in any other way incorrect or inappropriate?

I am getting at whether a dev having a large stake in a coin is detrimental or positive?

I understand Cypherdoc criticizes Gregory's stake in Bitcoin because Greg is on the other side of the block size increase debate. And he seems to be jealous that Greg was gifted some hardware in exchange for (and/or to aid) his development work.

Seems to me that there will always be jealously, but Satoshi seems to mostly get a free ride. Is it because he is anonymous, gone, or because he caused a star to appear in the eyes of the Bitcoin supporters?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

walls are finally starting to posture bullish. it's b/c the Dow is starting to roll:

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 05, 2015, 10:36:20 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 05, 2015, 01:15:28 AM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 04, 2015, 01:41:01 PM

How do you create a network topology that is decentralized at any scale?

With a design that enables the ends of the network to be autonomous (e.g. the internet), i.e. the End-to-End principle. Ideally the power (autonomy) of the ends over the center (or the group) should get stronger the more it is Sybil attacked (i.e. the attack doesn't exist).

Abstractly not erroneously redefining decentralization to be centralization-by-free-will-but-no-other-choice (aka "one for all, and all for one" collectivism) as Bitcoin did:

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 04, 2015, 02:05:55 PM

Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way).

So no universal agreement on the state of the ledger? There must be some way of settling up over time. But I guess you just mean the protocol doesn't have to be shared, in some sense. This may be outside my technical knowledge. Not being a coder at all, I admit I haven't thought a great deal about how Bitcoin runs under the hood until recently. Your hints are getting somewhat tantalizing, but without seeing the whole thing we of course can't know if there's some obvious error if you're recreating Hashcash or Ripple/Stellar (can you? if it's that important you may as well open it to peer review; with a lot of it precoded you could still easily be first out of the gate).

There must be universal agreement on the state of the ledger and it must insure ordering. But there are aspects of Bitcoin's design which are unnecessary for those narrow requirements and this excess power (violation of Principle of Least Power) at the center constrains the Ends of the network more than necessary (violation of the End-to-end Principle).

When an altcoin is launched that is a form of peer review. It is possible that a qualified developer will join with me and be able to peer review my design. If someone of smooth's caliber wanted to join and take over the public face, I would grateful. That might relieve much of the vexing thought process I am going through about whether and how to proceed.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 277. (Read 2032252 times)