Topic: The deflationary problem (Read 32501 times)

Much better.

Ok, it's not obvious, it is just my opinion.
To me the consensus algorithm is the most promising alternative to PoW for public p2p accounting, mainly because it is the only alternative I know.

Doesn't matter what I may or may not know.  It's an objective observation that a consensus algorithm is not an obvious "most promising" anything.  If you hadn't stated it as if it were fact, I wouldn't have objected, but that is not what you did.  Your opinion may or may not be shared, or supportable with objective or subjective arguments, or even considered common knowledge; but it is still an opinion.

I really have no opinion on whether or not ripple's new consensus algo is "the most promising alternative to Pow" or not.  I consider that a silly idea on it's face.  My personal opinion is that comparison is akin to the next most promising alternative to good health, life or freedom; the next most promising alternative is not usually acceptable.

Do you know any other alternative for p2p public accounting?


Well, the Ripple concept (Ryan Fugger, 2004) has nothing to do with the new consensus mechanism (Jed McCaleb).
The Ripple concept can be implemented on top of a PoW chain (we want to do that for freicoin, bitcoin could just pull the changes).
The new consensus mechanism doesn't need the p2p credit network. Opencoin could have launched only XRP without Ripple, only a new cryptocurrency.
But the new consensus system requires a host currency to pay the fees which are destroyed because there's no mining.
They couldn't have launched Ripple without XRP if they want to use their new consensus mechanism, period.


Can you extend on this, please?

EDIT:
Here's my first attempt to implement Ripple on top of bitcoin more than 2 years ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-like-implementation-of-ripple-3557

And this is the last design I'm working in with @maaku: https://docs.google.com/a/monetize.io/document/d/1nnul3oDO5z8sspWBKgTKKSjQ7dWoOqU4Pd8DILLmFN8
Sorry, we have to clean that up, but we're open to collaborate with more people interested in this. Most of the colored coins people didn't wanted to modify the protocol so they're more limited.
When implemented, it will be less controversial to deploy it on Freicoin than Bitcoin, but I think bitcoin will end up something like that (if not the same code) as well.

That's not at all obvious.



It certainly doesn't leave PoW obsolete, it doesn't even serve the same function.  Ripple is a p2p credit system.  It's not a monetary system at all, and it's recent attempts to develop it's own internal currency are going to hamper it's utility.  They are simply trying to be all things, and it's not going to turn out well.


Oh, consensus can certainly fail.  Deadlock for a necessary change is a failure.

Obviously the most promising alternative to PoW is Ripple's new consensus algorithm.
It is still unclear to me if it leaves PoW obsolete, since PoW seems to be more trust-less and robust.
But I don't see how the consensus can fail, maybe someone sees it when it becomes free software.

In the end is all about following the same rules. If 99% of bitcoin users want to make a change in the rules but 90% of the miners oppose it.
What's the "real" chain?
The one that 99% of people listen to or the one with 9x more hashing power?
I say the one chosen by the users.

Anyway, "alternatives to PoW" seems very distanced from "the deflationary problem", which the austrian dogma says doesn't exist and I've already discussed extensively in the previous thread about this.

The link in my sig is to a thread on these forums. Reply to it with questions/comments.

Cool thanks, I'll look into it ... I'm always open to new ideas. Where do we send feedback?

I've literally been talking about this kind of thing for years.  Heat trace cabling for public and private infrastructure being a big one.

I don't have the luxury of ignoring members.  Those who would most likely earn it, are the same group of people that need be moderated.

I wouldn't agree that Etlase2 falls into that catagory anyway.  He is as free to make his silly proposals as I am to mock them.

And mock them I shall, it's one of the things that makes that "Global Moderator" tag worthwhile.

Isn't that what the "show" link is for?

Wouldn't we need to take him off ignore before we could do that?

I often wonder about that myself... but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that this sort of thing would happen in any free market. It just happens faster in bitcoin... because it is a free market. Which in turn makes me want to shake statists and banksters.

Etlase2 and I have a history about this kind of thing.  He proposes BS,and I point out it's flaws.  It drives him nuts.  He's being fuzzy because he is afraid that someone is going to point out flaws.

I can think of lots of scenarios where the heat can be effectively utilised, I think it will be an industry unto itself.

So I think Satoshi was close when he discounted the size of the blockchain looking at the historic rate that Hard drive space is increasing relative to cost. But bandwidth requirements are increasing at a rate higher than the cost of bandwidth is decreasing. The result is maintaining the blockchain will become more and more costly to the point it is an investment that has no return. 

So it makes sense to reword the stewards of the blockchain in a similar way to the miners.

The advantage of making one proof of stake option, is with the space heater idea, it won't be practical to run it in summer, however the cost investment in hardware would result in a lost opportunity in mining. The net result is, human action isn't held in balance with the system and people will waste energy. It is in contrast to the other aspects of the Bitcoin economy.  If you had options to mine you could save them in the summer and use them in the winter, the only risk is the business risk that is similar to the risk Bitcoin has now. (this would be ideal feature now before Bitcoin energy consumption grows exponentially.)   

All in all I keep wondering how much of what makes Bitcoin so cool, was the result of the conceived  design (getting the fundamentals right in the protocol) or getting the protocol aspect resolved and by chance, it being so accurately timed and exsiccated it has become the catalyst for new ideas and features and ways of exchanging and storing economic activity among the benefits possibly eliminating the economic problem of inflation and deflation.

Oh please. Unless you plan on debating the finer points of the cryptographic proof differences between DSAs and hashing algorithms, your argument holds no water. It is defeated very easily because you must concede that a central authority with one key could control a network such as I describe. The point of course is to not give just one key this privilege, but very many.


I'm aware of that. It's because of an unfounded fear about someone using the idea that I've spent far too much time developing. I wouldn't have a problem with that per se, but it would probably be used to create bitcoin 2.0 rather than cryptocurrency 2.0, and that would be a shame.


That is a reference to the constants I use.


What is a 1% attack? Refusing to acknowledge a consensus block? Well if no one can hear you scream... Acknowledging a different consensus block? Well hey you've created a fork where you are the only one and the original fork has destroyed your money. Sure, I can just say these things and pretend that's evidence, but understanding proof-of-consensus requires a break from the bitcoin mentality of security. Your attitude speaks volumes about your willingness to think differently, so there is little point in me continuing.


They aren't created or sold, money of the network is used to purchase shares in the network. The recipients aren't "chosen", they make the decision to work for the network. In return, they receive a portion of transaction fees. This stuff is all covered clearly enough in the first few paragraphs.


Complex? Yes. Protocol incomplete? No, only the proposal is incomplete for brevity and the aforementioned fear.


The simple fact that every single other SH that is not colluding with him will agree destroy his share for his unwillingness to agree to consensus. Of course then comes the "well what if EVERYONE is colluding?" and I have to point out the failure of that logic etc.


Well if you contend!


I'm not here to argue, I know what I propose is possible and it will be made. The more that are made aware of a completely different way to accomplish the task at hand is available, the more quickly it is likely to be realized.


And thanks for the support 100x.

Not in any way that's provably sound, in the mathmatics proof sense.  Proof-of-work is mathmaticly provable.  This is no small hurdle.


Oh, wow.  Here we go again.  Havn't read your description completely, but I already have a complaint.  Your description is 'fuzzy', as even you mention that your numbers are "debatable".  Worse still, you start by establishing a two-tier class system (like common versus preferred corporate stocks), wherein ownership of the high class assets are what give you special rights to be a 'supernode'.  While this might be 99% attack resistant (I'm not conceding this, just not contesting it yet) what prevents any one person or group from accumulating those Shareholder coins until they can functionally perform a >1% attack?  On the flip side, what incentive would a SH coin holder have for selling one?  How are they created, and how (or by whom) are those recepients chosen?  God this thing is complex, and it's not even close to a complete protocol.  What prevents a SH coin holder from using that power to disrupt the network itself, by voting against consensus?  I contend that some of these features are impossible on a practical level, and some might be impossible on an implementation level.

Good God!  That's an awful way to make an argument, Etlase2.  Haven't you learned anything during your tour here?

Of course they can. The problem is figuring out how to moderate it with an efficient decentralized system while also making it sybil-resistant. I claim I have just the thing in my signature.


Nice post.

The point is that BTC intertwined transaction security with creating the money supply and then says these things will be divorced from each other at some future data that's so far in the future we will all be dead by then.  Now I'm aware that the double spend issue has not been solved in a robust way by any other system, but the general lack of interest in solving it is I think a reflection of a desire by most of the community here NOT to try to solve it in any other way.  

People really like being well payed bodyguards for a system that could collapse without them, the poorer the systems innate security the more bodyguards needed and the bigger the cut for the bodyguards.  Low and behold the bodyguards aren't interested in anything that would replace them at lower cost.  Should we be the least bit surprised that this bodyguard system isn't being used by real merchants who have the option to use Fiat money instead with it's massively lower costs?  Even if you call the State the bodyguards/enforcers of that money system (fair enough), they charge less then you guys and they have more market share, if you want to win market share lower your price.  But it seems to me people here prefer to get a big slice of a little pie then a small slice of a big pie, the classic error of guilds and unions throughout history.

OR somebody could do something like... oh I don't know - buy a bunch of avalon chips - put together a rig that acts as a space heater, and sell that for a profit. How many people buy those "edenpure" space heaters for multiple thousands of dollars...

Why not a bitcoin based product in the same price range - where a consumer can purchase it and then heat his house by mining bitcoin to offset his power bill? What about a bitcoin based hot water heater (just liquid cool your chips and heat exchange into a water tank)?

The point isn't purely 'secure the network' although it is a point. There are also a myriad of ways to profit by building services on the bitcoin network. Device construction is only a part of that pie... services are going to be key in the future as well (or this whole project at some point fails).