Topic: IDEAL: no ICOs, no proof-of-work, no proof-of-stake, no governance, and no forks - page 6. (Read 6484 times)

Hmm,
OK, as far as the 1st two.
Here is an idea.
IBM used to make a network topology called Token Ring,

The way it was explained was each token ring card address was a bus stop and the Token was a Bus,
So the Bus travels to each Bus stop to pick up information/passengers and moves on to the next stop.

So for an updated version
The Bus is the next Block in the Blockchain
Each online wallet have some type of Identifier/Address and is able to only generate a block only when the Bus is at their stop.
(Which means their should never be any orphans as their is no conflict on between blocks.)
Once the Bus leaves that stop it has to service every other stop before that one can create a new block.
If the wallet is not online when the Bus hits it's stop , the Bus just marks the block area blank and moves on to the next.
Also you could place some type of maximum limit on rewards per stop, to spread out rewards over a longer period.
And at some time if you need to add negative feedback, have the Bus skip their stop in 1 rotation.

 

Ok, fair enough. You pursue the ideal that is described in the bitcoin whitepaper and consider that the current bitcoin failed to deliver on that because of the list of you already supplied.

gee dude you really read whitepaper? i really thought it was just for formality sort of a standard procedure and that the real aim is to squeeze every penny from investors 
whatever algo that you think is a better than what we call decentralized as of now would be great! right on!

I am not offended as much as frustrated. I don't know how to teach all of you what I know. I try but it seems there is a never ending stream of newbies or misunderstandings.

Also I did thank you and I did apologize in advance if I was overreacting.

It is really just about us being able to understand each other. If we can articulate coherently any disagreement and if it makes sense for us to have two opinions, then I am okay with that. What frustrates me is when I perceive that readers lack the background understanding of the issues and so thus we are unable to communicate to each other.

Hopefully we can rectify that now in this instance between us.


Yes I did realize the value, which is why I thanked you.


I admit I wrote the OP as the tersest possible summary for myself to refer back to and used the links off to prior discussion as the means by which the reader should become familiar. I realize readers need a tldr; up front.



No Satoshi says in his white paper what his ideals and objectives are where he criticizes existing financial systems and credit card methods of payment.

He made it clear that he was removing the need to trust any corporation. He says it. Go read the white paper. That is required Bitcoin 101 education.

Ow, you seem offended. I truly am sorry. Serious.
Although you - to my surprise - do not approve of the form, in fact I did raise some questions. It is up to you what you do with it.

The words "secondary" and "irrelevant" are not intended as an insult, the intention is to indicate I cannot interpret that without a better description of what your ideal or vision is. Saying "your only ideal" should be explained as a tease to get you to give more information about it. Instead you go meta immediately.


As to why Satoshi did anything will forever be unknown to us, unless one of us would be him.

So lets not go there, as it would just be an argument without end. Unless of course, I should understand it in such a way that you are pursuing (what you think is) the same ideal satoshi is/was?

Well this thread is not supposed to be just about my plans, instead in general.

In general, joining any existing coin would take on all their already flawed distribution (ICOs and deceptions) or lack of developer funding (e.g. fair launch proof-of-work).

Besides, who ever solves these ideals has achieved the Holy Grail of block chains, and can expect to raise a lot of funds on their own. If that were not the case, then there is no hope for block chains to ever achieve the ideals we originally had.

Thank you for your post, as you enabled me to see where I have not communicated to those who lack background understanding of the issues.

The ideal specified in the OP is to have a consensus+distribution system that:

• doesn't centralize
• doesn't allow voting or consensus to drive a fork, which violates the permissionless, trustless requirement (the entire reason that block chains exist otherwise we could use corporation and a database)
• doesn't create a manipulated money supply distribution
• doesn't end up as just another fiat system because it is controlled
• doesn't end up implementing MIT's CoinAnchor which will force us all to present our 666 id when we transact
• doesn't create the moral hazard of and complete loss of trust in the block chain by bailing users of the system, e.g. Ethereum forking to bailout the Too Big To Fail DAO.

Have you been sleeping under a rock while the Ethereum/DAO fiasco has occurred?

You seem to not understand how the ideals specified in the OP pertain to avoiding a fiasco like that. I suggest you click all the links in the OP and get the full flavor of what is driving these ideals.

Sorry to speak to you this way and apologies if I am overreacting to your erroneous use of the words "secondary", "irrelevant" and "your only ideal", but it is amazingly frustrating when instead of asking a question about the relevance of the OP, you make smug (and frankly speaking, slightly condescending although you did admit it is all "vague" to you) statements which are clueless as if you don't even understand anything about why Satoshi invented a block chain.

We seriously need someone to launch a Block Chain University. There are far too many speculators who are ignorant about what they are speculating on.

so you wanna be funded?
you may wanna just join a team instead and with their existing coin if possible, you wouldn't need more funds but just an update to the coin. and you still have the legacy still.

Specifying an ideal by specifying the absence of whatever properties does not mean much to me tbh, it is all secondary and/or irrelevant.
Your only ideal specified here is "launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer." which is very very vague to me. If that is all it is, then I would say just code something that someone wants to pay you for. Software industry is not bad to be in - in terms of pay - and still absorbing more and more devs  .

I have such technology under development.

That is Proof-of-Burn (PoB) or Proof-of-Sign.

Neither raise any funds for development of the ecosystem.

Proof-of-sign duplicates Bitcoin's corrupt distribution controlled by mining farms who mine at perhaps $50 cost (some of us even think they get free subsidized electricity in China paid for by the State) while we pay $600 cost.

For those who want to duplicate Bitcoin's distribution, they may prefer this. I should not judge for them what they want. I am just explaining why it wouldn't fit my ideal.

I don't believe the insiders didn't get a lot of tokens. Prove it with math and/or the block chain. How were these "stakeholders" selected? Why were they able to coins but not others? How do we know these "stakeholders" are not Sybils identities for the insiders?

Almost always there is some deception that enriches the insiders and always the market to manipulated (which may explain NEM's rising price if the supply was largely concentrated into a few hands). Not an accusation, but I will assume it is true until shown otherwise, because every single altcoin launch has had some deception.


Which I had explained in the past is just Proof-of-Stake under an obfuscation.

Someone else seems to have figured it out also:

XEM's 'Proof of Importance' is Pagerank Fused With Proof-of-Stake


Proof-of-Stake is inherently a voting system.


Please don't gloat. I was aware of NEM since last year. jabo38 used to be in my inner circle in 2014. He already knows that I refuted a lot of the bogus claims about Proof-of-Importance. He and I agreed to not argue about it. But since you seem to want to claim that PoI is a panacea for everything, then I guess I am going to have to deal with this now.

Edit: I will redo/refresh my study of Proof-of-Importance, then expound on this.

Edit#2: Proof-of-Importance is just Proof-of-Stake. Sorry BigSirko, but you have no technical knowledge about what you are writing. NEW hasn't solved the IDEALs in this thread. Not even close.

Although you posted a disclaimer that your topic should not be about a single cryptocurrency, I'ld have to point out NEM is the one which fulfills all your criteria and it is currently in the top 5 of currencies on coinmarketcap. 

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/

Sounds like OP either wants to launch his own crypto, which most failure, or is theorizing when his dream coin is real and out there.


1. NEM was a wide distribution to 1000s of stakeholders and only around 65 BTC was collected.  When R0ach and Spoetnik call ICOs scams, they're almost always referring to stuff which collects millions of dollars and is distributed to a few.
2. NEM is Proof-Of-Importance
3. Proof-Of-Importance
4. NEM does not have a voting system.  At one time NEM considered it, but there were a lot of disasters then with other people's implementation and even now.  Bitshares' issue was it was very hard to kick out apathetic / inactive delegates.  DAO, before the hack, was only able to get around 20% participation.
5. Proof-Of-Importance.  



These are threads I have seen a lot on Bitcointalk.  People saying we need a fair distribution or an alternative to PoW/PoS.  NEM already had you all beat since 2014 and now it's a top 5 currency.  NEM is still cheap so the time to buy is now.

The best initial distribution of an alt is to take the snapshot of bitcoin blockchain at a particular point of time and enable holders of these bitcoins to receive this altcoins, in proportion to their bitcoin holdings.
No ICO is good, but what is the initial distribution proposed?

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

This thread is not intended to be about any specific crypto project, nor claim that these ideals are the only way forward. Because for one reason, no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible.

I just want to explain my reasons for setting these ideals as the goals from my crypto work and open these goals to discussion. Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals. The following summaries are not intended to be exhaustive nor present counter arguments. This thread is unmoderated, so you all can add your thoughts.

One of my motivations for creating this post, is to gather the past couple of weeks of my discussion into one coherent post, for my own future reference.

Readers should click all the links in this OP, to get the full flavor behind these summaries.

1.	No ICOs: ICOs enable insiders to buy from themselves, creating a non-free market distribution of the money supply, thus manipulating all the market parameters and effects creating a controlled, non-free market. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15340159 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15343686
2.	No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work: Proof-of-work concentrates the money supply, economic profits, and control to the mining farms (esp. those with electricity subsidies). Meet your new central bank masters, the mining cartel. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. Since all the debasement ends up with the rich via mining, the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public. Proof-of-work launches provide no funding for the core developers, unless they are accomplished with premine, instamine, stealthmine, or non-optimized proof-of-work function deceptions. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15342314
3.	No Proof-of-Stake: The brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) applies. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. No changes of the ICO token distribution share can be accomplished via mining, thus the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public.
4.	No governance: Foundations and governance are just bringing the brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) to what should be permissionless, trustless. If democracy was going to save us, why has it never done so in 6000 years. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15352261
5.	No forks: no one, not even miner's should have the brutality-of-the-majority power to break the Nash equilibrium and vote on a fork: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15335354 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15285558
6.	No Marginable Exchanges: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15363845 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15376776

Yes smooth I have some new magic¹ for launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer. Not an ICO, not proof-of-work, and not some obfuscation of an ICO which has the negative implications of an ICO I enumerate in #1 above.

Note I don't see any need to eliminate having a set of core developers, as I don't see how any development can proceed without them. I would encourage those developers to not cultivate nor employ their political clout to facilitate forks. Note ecosystem development can proceed without the need for a fork.

¹ “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”— Arthur C. Clarke