Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin? - page 41. (Read 95279 times)

Well I presume Evan's claim is that honest PoW miners will respect the propagated quorum announcements. So unless the attacker has 49+% attack on PoW, then it is assumed the honest PoW miners will follow protocol. So I don't think the weaknesses is there other than the normal weakness of a 49+% attack (not 50% because Bitcoin loses 1% of its hash against an attacker due to lost time mining orphans). Evan even implied that the minority would fork away from the majority PoW if the majority is not respecting the quorum announcements. That is fine as long as there is no ambiguity, but I had already explained to you up thread numerous cases of ambiguity without my innovations.

Yet as I explained, without a majority of resources, one might still be able to DDoS jam all block announcements by spamming the quorums and block chains with double-spends, or surely can commit a Finney attack as I described.

The other flaw is the ambiguity of which quorum is valid when there is an orphan chain right at the edge transition from one set of quorums to the next (realize this change has to occur periodically otherwise transactions stay stuck on masternodes that might no longer exist or which are unresponsive).


I don't see how having a majority masternodes helps to commit a double-spend? You need either a Finney attack (controlling one block solution), a majority PoW attack, or sending to both of conflicting quorums with an orphan chain right at the edge of the periodic quorum change.

I am very sleepy now, so it is possible I might be making an error.

How to not make an altcoin for the masses:

No, I understand that. The problem (as I see it) is the masternode's quorum can be formed, scrapped and then re-formed with a conflicting double spend transaction all before their votes get embedded into the blockchain by the POW miners.


Last I looked, you needed to lock some collateral away to become a masternode, so acquiring N masternodes has a constant cost, as does acquiring a majority of them with which to perform the quorum attack described above. In regular POW chains, an <50% hash power attacker attempting to double spend has a longest chain production cost which is super linear in the number of blocks.

Are you assuming the masternodes have a majority of the PoW? Masternodes are orthogonal to miners.

But in another way yes the Finney attack (and you don't need a majority of masternodes, just have the next block solution hidden then send your transaction to the quorum then announce your block solution with the double-spend) and pretending they didn't receive the propagation of the instant confirmation. Yes this is another problem of allowing transactions to be confirmed by instantly by quorums and also alternatively by normal spending on the PoW block chain.

It is ambiguous which is the truth, because that scenario could genuinely happen due to propagation delays and no one knows if the miner is the double-spender so penalizing the miner is a DDoS attack hole. The attacker could do this continuously (ever 1 second or whatever) with many small transactions and force all block announcements to be double spends.

There are probably other flaws along these lines. I know that without my two fundamental innovations (1. including all chains, 2. transactions can only be confirmed by quorums or the single designate), it can't be secure in any reformulation. And I still have to convince everyone (and myself via peer review) that my innovations are secure for all the scenarios.


Could you unpack that for me? I didn't follow your math thought.

InstantX required the funds to be presigned over to masternode. I believe the idea in Evolution is all UTXO are eligible to spend through quorums without any presigning.

Isn't it much worse than that? If I own a majority of masternodes, I can have my faulty nodes agree to confirm transaction A, dump all their votes of the their mempools and then confirm a double spend B with another merchant. None of the votes will get baked into the blockchain by that point if I'm quick enough.

This turns the cost of a double spend under instant X into a constant proportional to the amount of locked collateral I have, which is far worse security than regular POW, which is super linear in the number of blocks.

I should clarify what I mean by this. Dash's Evolution proposes a feature where a N-of-M quorum of master nodes can instantly confirm a transaction by sending their signed confirmations to the block chain. This quorum M is chosen by using historical block chain hashes (well it was current block chain hash until I pointed out to Evan that was insecure in this Altcoin Discussion forum, and so I assume he changed his design after Illodin pointed out the improvement).

So the theory is that even if there are orphaned chains, they won't disagree (conflict) on these quorum announcements. I pointed out to Evan that if he changes the quorums on every block then there will surely be conflicts. So again I assume he altered his design to not change the quorums very frequently, thus thinking he had fixed the problem. I decided to sheepishly be silent and let him go down that direction, knowing full well that it is flawed.

As I explained to monsterer in our recent discussion, the conflict occurs at the edge of the period. So if there is an orphan at the time that the quorum assignments change, then the two orphans can conflict on a double-spend, because there can be two quorums that are valid at the same time on the two different chains.

The design Evan is implementing is highly flawed because he didn't use my innovation to fix this fundamental problem. And I only revealed my fundamental innovation in the past days. Before that it was secret (well not totally but I doubt anyone would have deduced from my obscure solution to selfish-mining which was posted a long time ago).

For Evan to fix his design would require a total reworking of the concept of master nodes because all transaction confirmations have to be made orthogonal to the PoW chain, because otherwise my innovation can't be implemented else there can be conflicts between transactions on the block chain which prevent the innovation. So I see he is stuck in mud.

Perhaps Dash can pretend their feature isn't flawed if the masternodes are all loyal. But it isn't a design that could really scale decentralized.

And as for Monero, Aeon, Bitshares, etc, afaik they would have to in large degree scrap their existing code base and start over to achieve microtransactions. Note I haven't been following the latest developments on Aeon (and for Monero only the RingCT feature). Bitshares 2.0 I analyzed a little bit at the start of this thread.

I doubt any one will beat me to market now on this block chain scaling, microtransaction, 1 second transaction innovation. On my marketing plan, yeah someone might copy and beat me to market in December. I probably shouldn't have shared my marketing plan.

This will all be explained in more clairvoyant detail in a white paper in the future.

Proof that I am the real SlimShady (ahem I mean AnonyMint):

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg266700.html#msg266700


Someone invited me to offer to implement that feature for Bitshares for $45k. I am not yet clear if they need a programmer or not. If they do, I would consider it probably only as a plan B if my project fails.

You can confirm from AnonyMint's post history on that forum, that account is the same AnonyMint for the account that was closed (per my request) on this site.

Thanks for that information. I am aware that depending on policies of a behemoth such as Facebook is an unstable strategy. I am not creating any app on facebook.


Exactly the plan.

Just be aware that facebook are so draconian in their policies about what they allow app creators to share automatically, or auto fill link sharing that they have totally wiped out any built in virality that platform used to have when farmville was first launched.

When farmvile was launched it was totally ok (by facebook's policies at the time) for the game to lock content on the condition that you invited *all* your friends into the game; that's how zynga got so big so quickly. These days it's a very different story.

You'll need to create something which has uses wanting to share it with their friends; that's really the only way now.

That is good to see that even I thought I had revealed my marketing plan, that some people still didn't realize what I meant. Yes monsterer a socialized referral system. I thought from what I wrote, it would be obvious, but I guess my plan is not totally obvious. For me it seems so obvious and the only possible way to really launch a currency to the masses. I don't even think those who control the media could do it better than my plan.

If attain any significant adoption, the social distribution game will be entirely out of my control fairly quickly, because the token protocol is decentralized. Initially it is a means of distributing the software to the users as widely distributed as possible. The goal is to get between 10,000 to 100 million users within the first 6 months to a year (none of those counted from our forum). Yeah I really don't know how fast it will scale. It might be geometric in which case the upper end of the number might be plausible. But I am not pitching that as an outcome. MyVaporwareShitCoin may reach an adoption of 2 people, myself and my gf, lol. I am not pitching any outcome to speculators, nor investors. I am creating a software and attempting to give it away to users in order to get them to use it. We'll see what happens.

How many users does Cryptokingdom have?

Cryptokingdom is trying to be a vertical market game. I am not making a vertical market game. There is a difference between a horizontal (i.e. general for all uses of a currency) social networking game and a vertical (i.e. targeted to one use of currency) market game that happens to have a social component.

I think many people do not understand that using a social network such as facebook is a form of a game. There is a game theory in social interaction. Many engineers even think that social networking sites are for silly people.

Here is an example of the sort of stuff that people share on their timelines in facebook:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155807443185191&id=333770020190

I am confident that my gf and none of her 1000s of friends (who each have 1000s of friends who each have 1000s of friends) have ever heard of Cryptokingdom and in 20 years they still wouldn't hear or care about it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless about demographics and how small the reach of this forum is compared to global reach. That is not even close to what I am attempting to do (no offense to Risto but he doesn't have the experience that I have in software marketing to the masses). We can use the Alexa rank to estimate bitcointalk's daily reach at about 2% of the internet population, but that is for every forum with most interested in Bitcoin and not for this Altcoin Discussion forum. My guess is maybe 1/100 of the visitors to bitcointalk.org are even remotely interested in purchasing/using an altcoin. So that would be 1/5000th of the internet population, or roughly a few hundred thousand individuals. Even that seems to not match reality, because it rather seems that level of interest in altcoins appears to be so low that rarely do I see newbies even post in the Altcoin Discussion forum. My guess would more on the order-of-magnitude of 10,000 potential investors total. So there seems to be something wrong with the statistics. The 2% internet reach implied by Alexa would mean 40 million of the internet population. But most estimates of Bitcoin usership in the single digit millions if not lower. One thing this discrepancy may be pointing to is that there is wide gap between interested usership for decentralized money and scammy overly detailed shitcoin noise. Typically the more complex some arena is, the less interested people are. So this is one of the major insights my marketing is designed to skirt.

The ecosystem for a currency needs to be very broad and include a smorgasbord of merchants and activities. As well the creation of new activities and participants needs to be spontaneous, grassroots, and uncoordinated. Some infrastructure needs to be built by leaders, but the entire market can't be dictated to in a vertical paradigm because that scales too slowly.

Cryptokingdom 2 - Now you can choose between Risto or Anonymint to be your King. 

"the social networking game" - as in you are making farmville, or a sort of socialised referral system?

I discussed my marketing plan with my filipina gf, who is a social networking addict. I explained to her Magic Johnson's correct point that there must be an existing demand for your product and that customers must come to think of your product as their own (e.g. "that is my local McDonalds"). I expressed to her my concern about whether users who uptake and do they have a demand for cryptocurrency when in the beginning when there is nearly no one accepting the currency as a medium-of-exchange.

I explained to her how a social race or competition can spread like wildfire. I explained that it doesn't matter what the exchange value is, if the currency is not viewed initially for exchange but rather as points in social status. I explained how the users themselves can be incentivized in this competition to educate the other users.

Her eyes got very big and she said she is very excited to begin. I agree with her. I don't think this will fail. Because I know social networking is mostly about gossip, social jockeying, social game theory, etc..

I told her the epitome of success would be if I go over to the local internet cafe and some 6 year old kid tells me about my token and I ponder aloud, "I wonder who created that?". Lol.

Now damnit, if someone copies my idea before I launch because I was too generous with my sharing, then that will be an explanation of why for such a long time I was unwilling to share publicly before launch. Hopefully I am close enough now.

Lol.

I am still rubbing the morning (3pm) cobwebs out my eyes to be sure I wasn't hallucinating. (I know you were just being humorously self-deprecating/modest)

Smoothshit is something I strive for these days. When I get the plop, plop, plop pebbled shit, I know the inflammation of the gut/colon is active.

(Hey I am still the boyish kid who liked fart jokes)

Agreed you need to know how transactions are ordered globally. Well I already sort of explained it, but it requires understanding how Dash's Evolution quorum works but then adapting it my more decentralized design of nominated verification nodes. There are no timestamps. Ordering is relative. Remember as for Iota's DAG or a PoW block chain, that a hash of a hash of a hash is ordering. Smooth was correct back in June when he (whether he realized it or not) implied that ordering is the only requirement for cryptocurrency. Well that is not comprehensive (and smooth knows this), because also need consensus on the ordering (which is where I assert that Evolution's incorporation of a quorum is inconsistent because it is intended to enable instant confirmations yet the orphaned rollbacks are a security risk).

So I think the design is sufficiently described, but pulling all those vague allusions together into the holistic design might take a lot of mental effort (and you need to make the mental leap of deducing that the hash of hash of hash are eventually recorded onto the block chain, interim while they are not recorded on the block chain because some 49 - 99% attacker then the confirmed transactions are still valid because the verifiers were nominated, and these orderings can't conflict per the logic I introduced already in our discussion), and it would be better to just wait for the white paper. And I need to focus on the marketing and implementation first, because that decentralized block chain theory won't amount to anything if I don't take care of business first.

Given. However, I still maintain this is better estimate than last traded price * coin supply in all other cases, and pretty much the only real metric for value.

Let me explain why you are wrong with an intentionally-extreme example.

Let's say I own all of the supply of SmoothShitCoin.

I can place bids for millions of SSCs at 1000 BTC/SSC because I know that no one owns any, so they can't possibly sell into it.

You, as a third party observer, can look at the order book and see billions of BTC of market cap for SSC. It is obviously fake.

To make this look even more convincing, I can sell some SSCs to myself, so you see not only a large buy-side, but an active ticker. Subject of course to the caveat already mentioned about non-trivial transaction fees payable to an unrelated party. Even that may be a small and acceptable cost to maintain the fiction though.

Less extreme examples are possible of course.