Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin? - page 30. (Read 95279 times)

Bitcoin clearly had momentum at the start of 2013, and it was a technological concept that was so revolutionary that it was clearly going to take the world by storm.

Ethereum not. The conceptual technology isn't even threshed out yet, and they are adding more and more complexity on top.

If I am somehow wrong about some killer app that requires a programmable block chain and some way that Ethereum's complex design process is able to solidify (and for all that to occur this year), then I will be quite shocked.

---

We tend to get so excited about a programmable block chain because we think that implies that there are unbounded cases of apps that can be written, but as Ethereum is discovering as they go through the research process, is that so many limitations have to placed on the scripts in order to achieve scalability that I argue much of the generality is also lost. For example, scripts can't be allowed to read/write from any state that any other script could, because then commutativity of block chain ordering is lost. There is the Tragedy of Commons issue around fees (gas) that I raised. Etc..

And I never said otherwise.

Since when did "it is centralized" and "it has been 51% attacked" constitute a statement that Bitcoin had no utility 

You put words in my mouth that I never spoke, because you are trying to rationalize your investments in Monero and Ethereum. Thus you have lost your objectivity, not me.


I did point out in 2013 exactly how Bitcoin would end up failing, which I said would be game theory of centralization around mining. And I was correct.

I never wrote that Bitcoin would have no utility and in fact I wrote that the utility of Bitcoin was very inspiring. Why do you reckon I am still here in crypto if I didn't think so!

Problem Monero has is that there is very little demand for an anonymity for which the reliability is unprovable. It is a marketing utility problem, which Bitcoin doesn't suffer. Even if we did implement provable anonymity (e.g. Zerocash not Zerocoin), it still not clear if markets for anonymity would be great, especially if the decentralized, permissionless attribute isn't assured, because the government can simply take control over centralized mining and force the anonymity to be stripped off. OTOH, companies are saying that privacy is very important to them and perhaps they do not mean hiding from the NSA. And public block chains using encryption are superior conceptually to private block chains using perimeters defenses because even sneakernets fail (e.g. Stuxnet). But the things corporations want privacy on are the block chain 2.0 features that Ethereum is working on. The corporations aren't interested just in crypto currency alone as that doesn't have much utility to them. Cryptonote (especially combined with Confidential Transactions that hide values) is a very technologically interesting concept, but without any significant utility in the markets.

Problem Ethereum has is that programmable block chains are an overly ambitious clusterfuck. And it isn't clear that the major markets for block chain utility require a fully programmable block chain. And the developers of Ethereum are basically clueless and have been making it up as they go along. You are basically investing in research. That guy Vlad has changed designs numerous times and has come up with some of the most stupid ideas, as even he admits. They haven't been able to think it through from start to finish as to what design they should use. And their current direction on scaling looks to me to be another clusterfuck.

However I am also curious about smart contracts, block chain applications, and programmable block chains. And maybe I will come to different conclusions after I have more time to analyze all the issues of those extended ideas. At the moment, my research is more focused on scaling crypto currency.


You mistake sobering analysis for being some form of demanding perfection. I demand only that I understand the issues of a technology.


Then you haven't read about the design I proposed in the decentralization thread I started this week in this Altcoin Discussion forum.


You are not forced to invest in cryptocurrency. An investor needs to be unbiased and flexible. For the moment, I am investing in the US dollar, until some clarity is obtained in the crypto scene.


I told rpietila back at the start of 2013 when Bitcoin was < $10, that I approved of his decision to sell $100,000 of silver and buy 10,000 Bitcoins. Unfortunately I couldn't follow him into the investment because I had been so ill since May, 2012 and had lost $75,000 in the markets during June through August. This was caused by some craziness in my life (something about my ex yanking my kids from the Philippines and my endocrine system going bezerk). So unfortunately I had to stay on the sidelines, but never did I argue against investing in Bitcoin when it was at such a low price. When Bitcoin hit $1000, I began to argue that the direction would be downwards and lately the clarity on the bottom should be < $150 in Q1 or Q2 2016.

At this point I am trying to contemplate what is going to happen to Bitcoin given these issues revolving around scaling. I don't see any technical solutions for Bitcoin other than to centralize and then raise the block size. Maybe that is what will happen. At this time, I need to be focused on coding and not trying to analyze the complex possibilities of what might happen with Bitcoin from here forward.



No problem I am happy we were able to discuss some of the details about Ethereum over there.

Hey Tromp, are there any altcoins implementing Cuckoo yet? I'm working on a 'lil old project and casting about for a suitable CPU PoW.

To eliminate profitable mining, how about block rewards that are inversely proportional to chain difficulty? Only those who can mine at a (someone elses) loss will mine.

Anonymint, hello, always a pleasure.

What does that have to do with the discussion of the facts about Monero (and Bitcoin) being broken for Tragedy of the Commons scaling issues and more or less useless for anonymity?
 
Is ad hominen your version of discussion of the facts. Attacking me or my vaporshit plans is irrelevant to the point I made.


You are 100% certain correct? I would like to have you on record please. 100% certain? Yes or no?

Cryptonote can not be fixed. I don't see any Cryptonote devs willing to stop working on what is useless and start working on the future. If they are, my Inbox is open.

Have you ever considered that my goal is not to convince investors of investing in me, but rather to fool everyone into thinking I am no threat to them. Of course you wouldn't think of this, because you think cryptocurrency is only about the speculators at the early stages. But what if there was a different way...

---

My only point was to inform the community that Monero is claiming to have fixed things that it has not. Also to see if anyone could point out an error in my analysis.

I don't see how having community discussion is desperate.

I continue to make the point that what ever you might think of me and my plans, that is irrelevant to the point that I made some factual statements.

The continued attacks of me (my person) and on my vaporshit, shitplans shit, seems more desperate. Better to ignore me entirely right. Or respond to the facts.

Any way, it seems our community is always about fighting. Smoothie you in the past were very focused on truth, but when you don't like the facts, then you don't want to talk about truth and instead want to attack my reputation.

My reputation has nothing to do with any of it. It has nothing to do with whether the facts I explained are correct. It has nothing to do with the outcome of my vaporized shit shit shit. The result of my life will not come from my reputation but from my actions and the serendipity of life.

Okay I think we are done here. I don't expect we can elevate our discussions to a mature level.

Afair, you argued that (or was it submitting a PoW with each transaction?) in one of my older threads from 2013. I also had the idea at that time. I remember you were perhaps the only other person to mention it to me back then.


Haha nice catch.

Of course smooth. No argument from me.

That's exactly what I argued for in my comment on "The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment" at
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=tromp

Only a small portion of the mining gear at any given time is the latest ASICs. If it were not so, then depreciation costs would be huge.

I doubt that actual average mining costs across the population of miners is anywhere near $50. We know of course that the marginal miner has a cost of 1 BTC (currently $385). For the average to be $50 it would have to be like a step function from $50 to $385. Very doubtful.


Agree with this.


Not really. One of the nice things about PoW is that attacks are never permanent.


Implement, write publish a paper, do something. I'm close to just joining the group that ignores you as a useless talker for years. Not quite there yet, but getting there.

1,312,500 BTC mined per year @ $300+ profit = $400 million annually (assuming the very low < $50 costs for mining for 2 cents hydropower and latest ASICs). Chinese are mining an estimate of 67% of that apparently.

They can afford to build that custom software solution.

The Chinese miners are lying.

Expect corruption at the highest levels. Probably are getting subsidized electricity for free. Etc.

Bitcoin has already been 51% attacked. End of story.

We MUST eliminate profitable mining (my design)!

---

Edit:


That was also one of my thoughts about the possibilities.

But also consider that the core devs of Bitcoin can't be this dumb. Surely they also know about this and have covered it up.

They would have to build a custom solution to do that, and then deal with maintaining it and potentially being exploited in some manner. If forced, they will likely do exactly that, but they would prefer not to.

I'm not referring to what is theoretically possible (maybe, if there aren't some non-obvious ways to exploit it) but what is readily deployable using existing tools.

BTW, aren't many of the "Chinese miners" actually in Mongolia? Is that inside or outside the GFW? I think outside, but I'm not sure.

Incorrect. The pool still has to propagate the block solution to the block chain which means all block solutions have to propagate across the GFW (so it always double for incoming/outgoing block solutions regardless whether the pool is inside or outside China's wall). The size of the blocks is irrelevant as I said.

The block solution can be propagated directly to others inside of China even if the pool is also outside.

A few seconds is a huge deal. The block time is 600 seconds. Three extra seconds by itself means 1/2% extra loss. As TPTB said, they may be concerned about small costs, but this isn't even that small as mining goes. Miners frequently optimize for less.


Why do you think it is binary, or that China's advantage is necessarily so durable? Competing miners outside of China also have good electric bill advantages, have good equipment (arguably Bitfury's equipment is better at the moment), could also mine 0-tx blocks if they wanted to, etc.

The one thing that is absolutely unique to China is the GFW. It makes no sense to assume that the unique properties of the GFW don't factor in Chinese miners' thinking here. Hearn was just stating the obvious.

That's clearly true. They are saying they want developers of Bitcoin Core to decide for the best of Bitcoin or some such doubletalk, but clearly they know that means blocks will remain small, which is what they want.


I also agree with this too. Another way to say that is that the miners are on the side of wanting to support the "fee market".

Bottom line, the miners in China want small blocks, so that's what we are getting.

Yes it does. Block is solved in China. If it is sent to a mining pool in China, that mining pool and the other ones in China receive it right away. If it has to go over GFW twice, as would be the case with a pool node outside China, then there is added latency.

That doesn't add any latency that they wouldn't have already with small blocks.

The Chinese are lying about their motivation.

The Chinese are extremely devious/clever about political leverage, and they hide it well.

Somehow I doubt that they can't figure a solution out (in the networking sense). You could have 4-5 nodes spread all around the world, in pretty well connected data centers, to send you everything you need in a few seconds at most - or do it through elsewhere.

If the chinese miner has a good electric bill advantage, good equipment, the ability to mine 0-tx blocks (to gain a broadcast advantage / fast propagation compared to others who transmit a few mb worth of blocks) and he only gets delayed a bit when receiving large solved blocks by others (if he is not doing network work-arounds), I think he still has the edge.

A pool abroad is a loser. It just adds latency.  Also likely easier to block and less reliable. The mining gear itself is pretty dumb. It wants to connect to some reliable (pool) address (or small set of pools) at low latency. That's why they have pools in China at all.

Why? They can control the pool abroad.


Bingo!

Because all full node miners have to verify all transactions and all blocks. But they could relocate their pools offshore (if they aren't already), so that only hash that needs to be computed is propagating across the Great (Internet) Wall of China.

So this shows the Chinese miners have another motivation for wanting small block sizes. (They are lying about bandwidth being the problem)

I think it is because they want to force transaction fees higher to maintain the block reward on the next block halving. Chinese are notoriously selfish and short-sighted (which is perhaps why they require a totalitarian govt to discipline them). For example, here in the Philippines they have the reputation of being misers and counting every penny and even firing a good employee if 1 penny is missing (or charging normal losses in a business to the employees, e.g. customer complains the food was incorrect and so the food has to be discard and redone).

By creating large blocks that take a long time to reach China. As a countermeasure, China can SPV mine, which they do already, but it is risky and puts them at a further disadvantage.

Secondarily, it means that more translation fees would flow to miners outside China. That's not a big factor now, but will become significant after the halving in a few months. Transaction fees are already over 1% of mining income, and will likely be over 2% after the halving, potentially much higher if Bitcoin's usage grows over the next few years.

It's pretty silly to suggest that a group of miners with lousy connectivity they can't fix are not favored by small blocks.