Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin? - page 3. (Read 95279 times)

I believe perhaps the global elite will kill off any system which doesn't mandate a viewkey on each mixed transaction, wherein some elected foundation or body is given responsibility for whom has the private key(s) to the viewkey. Better perhaps a multisig viewkey would be best where these would be given to multiple authorities (e.g. each of the major powers or regions national security agencies), and then a quorum of them would have to agree in order to view a transaction.

Thus I think the level of mixing (above 0) is irrelevant.

I just don't believe you snub the global elite and expect to not get your ass wiped in the mud.

I had hoped for an absolute technological immunity, but I studied all the technology deeply and I am very, very confident to tell you that it is impossible. The global elite will remain in control of the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Mass privacy is very important and Monero should stop being delusional and realize how they have to structure their system in order to be accepted.

I guess they might just attack the users and catch them at the on/off ramps and destroy interest in coins that obscure the blockchain from the authorities.

I had to speak the magic words to @keean in order to get him to see I am thinking of something very different:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/229

If I bring my design to fruition, the intent is that it can't be centralized, because the power remains in the hands of the each spender to choose where they sent their unprofitable PoW share. But the bottom line is that Iron Law of Political Economics guarantees that in effect the global elite control the minds of the people, e.g. which wallet software the spenders choose, etc..

You'll never create a protocol that is immune to political economics. Not even the base protocols of the Internet are immune.

But yeah, I'd attempt to give us the best that can be achieved in terms of decentralization.

I am just being honest. I don't want to fool people with ideological bullshit.

You say the protocol will remain with the global elite ... will that include your version of a CC, should it ever come to fruition?

And that's just domestic consumer payments.

Throw in various other financial markets and products (b2b, insurance, futures, etc) and 100k tps soon becomes quite limiting.

Some financial products and markets need more than just raw throughput though.  I don't think we'll see fortune 500 stocks traded on crypto-platforms as that requires a HFT capable solution (< 1ms trades), which after spending some time looking at various tricks to achieve it, I struggled to get even < 1 sec reliably without implementing some forms of centralization. Ergo its likely impossible in a truly decentralized manner due to CAP and other information theories.

Of course there is also an adoption period, so by the time you're hitting 100k tps, the technology available can probably do 200-300k tps.

Bottom line though, I'm yet to see any tech around here actually achieve anything even close to 10k tps in a real world testing environment, let alone 100k tps.  Right now there isn't anything that could absorb the transactional load should one of the current crop of platforms get some serious mainstream traction and take off.

I find that quite worrying, because it could happen and all of that transactional load will perform poorly and put the users off immediately.....then they'll never come back.

Probably the most vocal regarding supposed load capability other than myself is BitShares.  They claimed (and still do) 100k tps, but that was in a controlled test with a super computer  In reality when it came to the crunch the best the could do in their test network was 1000 tps, and it crashed the network IIRC, so it was throttled to 100 tps.  They may have fixed that specific problem now and are able to squeeze out some more, but I doubt its anywhere like the 100k tps they claim.  

IOTA has the ability to handle quite a lot of load though.  I was looking at similar structures to a DAG/Tangle over 2 years ago now and the performance was promising.  Ultimately though we discarded that tech as it wasn't able to support some of our additional critical requirements other than outright speed.  IOTA doesn't have all the requirements we do, so it can probably utilize the DAG in a less stressing manner and see possibly more performance than we did  (lets leave the Iota POW debate where it is ).

Quite a few other projects also have claimed 10k+ tps speeds but have never actually shown any evidence of anything at all.....so....yeah

Pretty much everything so far in terms of "claimed speed" has been total hot air, in most cases < 1% of actual claimed speeds has been attainable with regular commodity hardware.

I myself am also guilty to some degree of that, some might remember about 6 months ago there was quite a lot of noise about what eMunie is able to do in theory with the channels and partitions.  In theory we should be able to support in excess of 100k tps quite easily, but as of yet we haven't performed any test to try and hit it.  Part of that comes from the fact that actually generating 100k tps is a pretty tall order unto itself, and to do it in a way that simulates real world to some degree (not just 1 huge box in a room spitting out transactions to a 2 node network) is more of a logistical challenge.

That said, I think the eMunie platform is still the fastest on the block at the moment, as we've done a number of speed tests in our beta network and posted the results with our fastest so far being ~2500 tps.  

Still a long way off the theoretical 100k+ though....hopefully I wont have to eat too much of my hat like everyone else so far

Mass privacy is very important. That is why Monero and Zcash matter. We'll never have mass anonymity. Fuhgeddaboudit.

Privacy doesn't mean privacy from the authorities. Sorry. Politics and technology will never allow it. I tried to search for the absolute technology for anonymity and I can promise you it does not exist to be found. I promise you.

The control over an individual's CC will remain with the individual, but the control over the CC protocol will remain with the global elite. This will always be the case. Accept it. This is the reality of the world we exist in.

"Anonymity well I tried"

Maybe anonmity is not that important for your average user.  But, the ability to keep what is yours from being taken by thebanksters, TPTB, your local hacker, is an absolute.  The unconditional control of any CC must remain with the individual.

I reckon the global elite do not care how they reach their goal, as long as they can attain the following goals:

1. The result achieved can't be controlled by any nation and can be controlled by them through their control over the global politik and their control over fiat banking.

2. It scales.

3. It is a traceable block chain so they can institute their planned Technocracy (smart meters, digging tagging of humans like chattel, etc).

LN is flawed in that it doesn't really scale ideally. It is fraught with technical complexity and likely to have serious corner cases and failure modes. Centralization is a failure mode and surely the global elite must understand this.

Thus I think the ability to provide what the global elite want, will be a very, very successful and profitable project.

I remain committed to my design which I think better fulfils their (and our!) goals.

None of us are going to stop the world from enslaving itself. Sorry. Impossible delusions are a waste of my life.

My best hope is that I can provide a way for the system to be more decentralized.

Anonymity well I tried. It is rather impractical to try to hide from the NSA but let's see what Zcash and Monero end up with. Privacy is important, so that is what they are really vying for, not anonymous and not hiding from the global elite. The viewkey aspect is going to be crucial.

Visa has about 50% global market share. So double to 6k. Now multiply by 7 if you want to expand the market. That's already 42k/sec average rate (peak is likely much higher) and you haven't even touched microtransations.

Microtransactions.

And 6 billion people who don't have credit cards now.

"In 2015, The Nilson Report, a publication that tracks the credit card industry, found that Visa’s global network (known as VisaNet) processed 100 billion transactions with a total volume of US$6.8 trillion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Inc.

100bn / 365 days / 1440min per day / 60secs = 3170 tps.

If the global Visanet does 3k tps, why would a crypto need a spec of 100k tps in the short or mid-term future? There isn't even a need to cover that many txs because those txs don't exist.

As for zero fee, well, zero-fee use = zero-fee abuse.

Smooth you never learned. Years ago I told you Bitcoin would be centralized and you were spouting caveats.

Get a grip on how these things evolve naturally due to the economies-of-scale, power-law distribution of wealth, and the Iron Law of Political Economics.

I don't have any more time for delusions. I need to work on realistic things and fix my finances.

LN isn't necessarily corporate controlled, if the usage in terms of number-of-channels is small enough and the rest of Bitcoin isn't scaled up too much where it too becomes corporate controlled. It does mean that millions or billions of active users without massive centralization is an unsolved problem. I specified "some B2B type applications" above (i.e. relatively small number of users, large number of transactions)

Which is a future like this:

---

"Crap I failed to buy that 1000% ROI crap."

We were crazy for ignoring what Bernie SandersMadoff was selling, until the clawbacks[1]...

Oh so you aren't aware they can come take your profits long after you've disposed of the asset. This is a clawback.[1]

[1]	http://www.businessinsider.com/the-truth-behind-how-gerald-celente-got-screwed-by-mf-global-2011-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/two-mf-global-clients-share-their-stories-2011-11

---

Obviously in the former case, it isn't an instant microtransaction in a decentralized, 100.000 Txns/sec system, because it requires the Bitcoin block chain to handle that volume.

The entire point is that LN is a microtransaction system for a corporate behemoth controlled internet (where everyone has an account with a corporate entity), not for an internet where there are millions of artists receiving payments in a decentralized chaotic pattern.

It'll be about as decentralized and permissionless as Bitcoin is, which might be a decent degree if Bitcoin itself isn't scaled up too much (the whole block size argument), and possibly something is done about ASIC strangulation.


I haven't studied this carefully but I've been told (maybe incorrectly) that with duplex channels this is (or will be with some script improvements) possible. Party A can open a channel to party B and then party B can either close the channel and accept the payment as simple Bitcoin, or just reuse the channel to send those coins back out.

But it won't decentralized and permissionless. It will be corporate server controlled by the banksters. But that may not matter.

And it also won't enable you to transact from anyone Bitcoin address to any Bitcoin address (your original observation in our private discussion many moons ago). It has a simultaneity requirement.

Lightning network could probably do 100K+ tx/sec with no problems as long as the user base is limited (so number of channels is limited and capacity spikes from mass channel closings don't need to be considered). That could have practical uses for some B2B type applications.

ftfy

Answer: none of the CC currently envisioned. Neither will Lightning Networks nor Dash Evolution meet those specifications.

thank you for the link.

Open-sourced summary of the detailed technical progress of the discussion between @keean and myself:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/190

(Lambda Cube ramifications)