Who runs that node?
Iota team.
Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 29. (Read 99876 times)
Fee payment can be included as one of the transaction outputs should necessity arise. It's possible to do right now. So if the fee-less system fails to sustain it will fallback to "classical" scheme (or its hybrid).
IMO you should make sure it is collectable by any miner, not a specific miner - this will create the mining competition necessary for equilibrium.
There is a node that doesn't roll back transaction that it considered finalized.
Who runs that node?
If they were to add fees collectable by miners, the problem might well simply fade with time, just as everyone hopes will happen to bitcoin when the block reward runs out. There still needs to be a competition at some level, though, IMO.
Fee payment can be included as one of the transaction outputs should necessity arise. It's possible to do right now. So if the fee-less system fails to sustain it will fallback to "classical" scheme (or its hybrid).
Ergo the need for them to use checkpoints early in the life of the currency.
It works slightly different:
There is a node that doesn't roll back transaction that it considered finalized. Others who have "iri.coordinator = [that node IP]" in their configuration file will request the coordinator what transactions to approve. The coordinator returns the youngest finalized transactions on such requests.
As we see, if a node operator thinks that the network hashrate is strong enough he can remove that line from the configuration file and enjoy decentralized wild west.
Haha, I already knew that problem would exist in their system at 0 adoption, but I always thought Come from Beyond would try to keep the network up on his own shoulders at day one. I guess he figures if no adoption ever comes, he doesn't want to be responsible to keep it up forever.
If they were to add fees collectable by miners, the problem might well simply fade with time, just as everyone hopes will happen to bitcoin when the block reward runs out. There still needs to be a competition at some level, though, IMO.
.. when the block reward runs out, the fees come in (in BTC that happens already due to block size issue..)
Haha, I already knew that problem would exist in their system at 0 adoption, but I always thought Come from Beyond would try to keep the network up on his own shoulders at day one. I guess he figures if no adoption ever comes, he doesn't want to be responsible to keep it up forever.
If they were to add fees collectable by miners, the problem might well simply fade with time, just as everyone hopes will happen to bitcoin when the block reward runs out. There still needs to be a competition at some level, though, IMO.
edit: I suggested that they pay some honest miners with their IPO fund instead of using checkpoints, but they didn't like that idea.
Haha, I already knew that problem would exist in their system at 0 adoption, but I always thought Come from Beyond would try to keep the network up on his own shoulders at day one. I guess he figures if no adoption ever comes, he doesn't want to be responsible to keep it up forever.
but if Iota requires them to work at all, is this an admission the system just dosn't work?
Their problem is two-fold; at the inception of the currency, the network hashrate landscape will be sparse and patchy since there is no mining competition, only user's transactions - this means any actor with large hashrate relative to the early network hashrate can cause havoc by double spending. Ergo the need for them to use checkpoints early in the life of the currency.
Personally, I think they will be necessary throughout it's life, though, simply because there is no mining competition, therefore no bound on the network hashrate or anything to value the PoW such that transaction acceptability can be easily bounded.
I'm sure @Come-from-Beyond will clarify your question in more detail.
edit: I suggested that they pay some honest miners with their IPO fund instead of using checkpoints, but they didn't like that idea.
Profitable PoW just seems harder to attack by irrational actors than unprofitable PoW on an unpartitioned system.
Rational actors in unprofitable PoW have no incentive not to attack the system. At least if it's profitable there is the mining incentive.
edit: some centralisation is necessary; this is why Iota has opted for checkpoints
Yea, I meant to use an all encompassing term for attackers and used "irrational actors" instead. I didn't know Iota was using checkpoints now. How are these checkpoints derived? Bitcoin uses them to avoid people initially downloading bad chains and black swan complete rollbacks, but if Iota requires them to work at all, is this an admission the system just dosn't work?
Profitable PoW just seems harder to attack by irrational actors than unprofitable PoW on an unpartitioned system.
Rational actors in unprofitable PoW have no incentive not to attack the system. At least if it's profitable there is the mining incentive.
edit: some centralisation is necessary; this is why Iota has opted for checkpoints
I largely agree here. I don't know that any of these systems can truly scale, nor that any of them will ever be useful for large amounts of value.
It's not a big problem to me for Bitcoin. Like I said before, you can fit all of the entire world's house and car transactions per day into 1MB blocks. Around 8-10MB is where I see much of the glass ceiling on price coming off. It's hard to imagine a future where Bitcoin is unable to scale to such small goals. Even if Lightning Network is a flop and useless, there will be other transaction bundling services as well.
TL;DR: Bitcoin, like house dealers and cool bands, was great when it was obscure. Success just doesn't become it 
I largely agree here. I don't know that any of these systems can truly scale, nor that any of them will ever be useful for large amounts of value.
The solution may be much the same as cool bands, or anything else (including anything "cool" that only works when it is small). Churn.
On this score, even Ethereum has its role, just don't buy in too high.
Once again, we come full circle
Such is the case with everything in crypto. The last resort is always shifting to some type of reputation based system with a completely unquantifiable security model - que Fuserleer...
I talked to Realsolid and ironically this Microcash thing he was working on was similar to your idea with centralized verification, but in current state, I analzyed it as being a federated chain. If he was to try and convert it entirely to your system, it seemed to me like it would easily suffer from permanent preemption or constant service outages from government powers attacks. I'm not really sure how you get past that issue. Profitable PoW just seems harder to attack by irrational actors than unprofitable PoW on an unpartitioned system.
TLDR: Bitcoin has problems but actually works somewhat. Eth is doomed and not much progress has been made in any other areas.
TLDR2: I believe Fuserleer does use the Oxford comma, so that's one positive aspect of Emunie.
I suppose everyone understand this, but I will state it for the record.
With a $200,000+ monthly budget, Ethereum can afford fancy website design and paid promotion at sites such as Coindesk, etc..
We gave them $18 million to produce no solution to the fundamental challenges they never solved, and they spent our money on hype to fool other greater fools into buying at nosebleed, manipulated prices. We invested in screwing the newbies who come to crypto.
That is not a sustainable model for growing our ecosystem. We are poisoning the well from which we drink.
With a $200,000+ monthly budget, Ethereum can afford fancy website design and paid promotion at sites such as Coindesk, etc..
We gave them $18 million to produce no solution to the fundamental challenges they never solved, and they spent our money on hype to fool other greater fools into buying at nosebleed, manipulated prices. We invested in screwing the newbies who come to crypto.
That is not a sustainable model for growing our ecosystem. We are poisoning the well from which we drink.
Sorta working for BTC, no?
Huh
Despite having become by now arguably controlled by the Chinese mining cartel, Bitcoin had some years of being mined from laptops decentralized and I can spend Bitcoin widely and use it to transfer funds internationally.>Bitcoin had some years of being mined from laptops decentralized
Yeah, way back when you couldn't
>spend Bitcoin widely and use it to transfer funds internationally :-
Billed as noninflationary -> inflating @ 10 -12%/yr
Billed as virtually instant -> sometimes virtually instant
Billed as virtually free -> fees growing and are guesswork
Billed as money 2.0, the next world currency -> 3tps tops; not enough for a suburban shopping mall
Billed as p2p cash ->
So yeah, with the only unique use cases being ransomware, child porn, online gambling & DNMs, I'd say fancy poker chips; speculative value only (regardless of teh backstory du jour).
And compared to what? Ethereum with 0 users versus Bitcoin's 1 million users.
Yes Bitcoin has stalled. We all know that. But the shit offered so far to replace it is useless/flawed lies and hype.
Bitcoin fulfilled a significant portion of its promise. Enough such that we now all have a crypto unit-of-account to trade from.
A unit of account that fluctuates as much as BTC is about as useful as ...let's just say it's not useful.
Myopic given a major use of BTC is for accumulating more of by using it as a barometer against and with to trade between altcoins.
Bitcoin, outside of DNMs, was always a purely speculative commodity, a way to gamble online without the associated social stigma, tell [overly trusting] friends you're a currencies trader 
It also provides a bridge to that savoircoin which will actually provide the use cases. It pulled a lot of capital into our arena in order to incentivize someone like myself to devote 4 years of my life to studying it.
Still an interesting laundering vehicle, but that's not gonna last more than a year or two. Less, if there's serious growth.
TL;DR: Bitcoin, like house dealers and cool bands, was great when it was obscure. Success just doesn't become it
TL;DR: Bitcoin, like house dealers and cool bands, was great when it was obscure. Success just doesn't become it
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Bitcoin has served an essential role.
Ethereum 1.0 sucks. Ethereum 2.0 is being worked on right now. I have high hopes for it.
Exactly. ETH 1 is just a pump and dump machine. ETH 2 will be the real deal.
Ethereum 1.0 sucks. Ethereum 2.0 is being worked on right now. I have high hopes for it.
exactly,
Technology idiots, uniformed dreamers, and/or pumpers who haven't read my posts in this thread.
More reasons Ethereum can't scale decentralized:
Truth is started to come out...
Also the Dapps look mostly like nonsense or they don't need Turing complete scripts:
WOW....
all these prediction would be fit perfectly in augur... LOL
Except that augur is nonsense, because the market is not an accurate prediction paradigm. The market speaks, but after the fact.
I could sell you idiots turds wrapped in a Snicker's bar wrapper and you'd buy it, take it home proudly, and put in your ref for safe storage without ever opening to verify it. Then later when your frig smells like shit, you go searching for some poo and never open the Snicker.
augur more like decentralized betting market, they want us to bet on everything. if you look at it that way, it actually make sense.
True. But we can already do that. What augur is trying to do is figure out how to record of the outcomes decentralized. But the problem is that violates the Nash equilibrium (since users have game theories to profit on reporting different outcomes). I don't expect Augur to function decentralized and expect it to diverge into chaotic disorder unless they centralize control of the recording of the outcomes (in which case they've accomplished nothing). Bitshares is centralized which enables using a price feed for the BitUSD algorithm.
There is a lot of bullshit floating around in this forum.
Check https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/492fse/serenity_poc2_ethereum_blog/d0okwaw and https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/492fse/serenity_poc2_ethereum_blog/d0oik7j, please. Are those centralization concerns legit? I suspect that any real criticism will be shadowbanned on sites controlled by Ethereum marketing team, so I'm asking here.
Truth is started to come out...
Also the Dapps look mostly like nonsense or they don't need Turing complete scripts:
WOW....
all these prediction would be fit perfectly in augur... LOL
Except that augur is nonsense, because the market is not an accurate prediction paradigm. The market speaks, but after the fact.
I could sell you idiots turds wrapped in a Snicker's bar wrapper and you'd buy it, take it home proudly, and put in your ref for safe storage without ever opening to verify it. Then later when your frig smells like shit, you go searching for some poo and never open the Snicker.
augur more like decentralized betting market, they want us to bet on everything. if you look at it that way, it actually make sense.
True. But we can already do that. What augur is trying to do is figure out how to record of the outcomes decentralized. But the problem is that violates the Nash equilibrium (since users have game theories to profit on reporting different outcomes). I don't expect Augur to function decentralized and expect it to diverge into chaotic disorder unless they centralize control of the recording of the outcomes (in which case they've accomplished nothing). Bitshares is centralized which enables using a price feed for the BitUSD algorithm.
There is a lot of bullshit floating around in this forum.
I'd estimate, that 'working' DAPPs can only be nichy ones w/o any real risk exposure. Similar to bitcoin early bootstrapping with Silkroad you can start with:
Gaming, Betting, Cheating, Porn...
I need to spend more time thinking about it in detail. Devil is in the details.
Let's consider the example of the use of a smart contract by Slock.it to validate availability of and then escrow funds during an electric charging service. The escrow is necessary because the charging time is not an instantaneous transfer of a good for payment
https://blog.slock.it/partnering-with-rwe-to-explore-the-future-of-the-energy-sector-1cc89b9993e6
http://www.coindesk.com/german-utility-company-turns-to-blockchain-amid-shifting-energy-landscape/
This does not benefit from a smart contract for an analogous reason as to why Augur and BitUSD are not secure without centralization of the prediction outcome or price feed respectively. That is that a decentralized block chain can not determine whether the charging completed successfully.
The only verification of the success of the charging can be either a) mutual agreement of the service provider and the client, or b) a trusted third party escrow agent. In either case, we don't need smart contracts to do this, as we can do it with multi-sig transactions on Bitcoin.
This generative essence flaw that block chains can't validate external events and must trust humans to sign for events, renders most Dapps no better than what we can do with Bitcoin and external business logic.
Of the 7 cool Dapps listed for Ethereum, the Vevue project should be implemented with a decentralized file store employing a DHT for quick lookup by geographical target with a list of approved hashes stored on a block chain (per my suggested improvement for decentralized file storage systems to make them not useless/banned pirating systems). There is absolutely no reason that any of the logic needs to be contained in a smart contract! Because even if you do incorporate a means of disapproving hashes (e.g. for plagiarized content), the decentralized block chain can't make this determination per the prior paragraph. 4G Capital's use case, decentralized micro-blogging, and empowering artists can be similarly handled without smart contracts.
Etheria is a different case because it wants a global consensus on the state of all the resources (tiles and blocks). Therefor it needs an enforcable smart contract in order to guarantee the global state is updated corrrectly and under control of the protocol (enforced by the smart contract), i.e. not controlled by an entity. This could run on its own shard (i.e. effectively its own block chain!), except for the problem that it uses ETH which I explained upthread is impossible to shard without breaking the Nash equilibrium and creating a Prisoner's Dilemma for validators and the security of the block chain. Thus the way to implement Etheria correctly is for it to run on its own shard with its own currency unit. Those who want to play have to purchase its currency unit (and note the work I did recently on decentralized exchange). But this does not solve the scaling problem, because there will be no way to shard this Etheria currency unit (token). And Etheria's block chain's security would have to be provided by its own miners/validators, not Ethereum's. Once again, we come full circle and see that for the applications where smart contracts are required and would work, they don't work because there is no way to scale them decentralized. Crowdfunding is another valid use case for a smart contract, but with the same problems.
The more important issue for block chain 2.0 is getting the decentralized consensus correct for a normal block chain (without smart contracts) which can store hashes of data, not the entire data nor enforce business logic. For the cases where we need smart contracts and they work, then we first need to solve the scaling and decentralized consensus. Again I have explained that Ethereum is headed the wrong direction with Casper and it can't work. I have an idea of how to make this all work. I have already explained my idea.
Ethereum 1.0 sucks. Ethereum 2.0 is being worked on right now. I have high hopes for it.
Exactly. ETH 1 is just a pump and dump machine. ETH 2 will be the real deal.
Ethereum 1.0 sucks. Ethereum 2.0 is being worked on right now. I have high hopes for it.
I suppose everyone understand this, but I will state it for the record.
With a $200,000+ monthly budget, Ethereum can afford fancy website design and paid promotion at sites such as Coindesk, etc..
We gave them $18 million to produce no solution to the fundamental challenges they never solved, and they spent our money on hype to fool other greater fools into buying at nosebleed, manipulated prices. We invested in screwing the newbies who come to crypto.
That is not a sustainable model for growing our ecosystem. We are poisoning the well from which we drink.
With a $200,000+ monthly budget, Ethereum can afford fancy website design and paid promotion at sites such as Coindesk, etc..
We gave them $18 million to produce no solution to the fundamental challenges they never solved, and they spent our money on hype to fool other greater fools into buying at nosebleed, manipulated prices. We invested in screwing the newbies who come to crypto.
That is not a sustainable model for growing our ecosystem. We are poisoning the well from which we drink.
Sorta working for BTC, no?
Huh
Despite having become by now arguably controlled by the Chinese mining cartel, Bitcoin had some years of being mined from laptops decentralized and I can spend Bitcoin widely and use it to transfer funds internationally.>Bitcoin had some years of being mined from laptops decentralized
Yeah, way back when you couldn't
>spend Bitcoin widely and use it to transfer funds internationally :-
Billed as noninflationary -> inflating @ 10 -12%/yr
Billed as virtually instant -> sometimes virtually instant
Billed as virtually free -> fees growing and are guesswork
Billed as money 2.0, the next world currency -> 3tps tops; not enough for a suburban shopping mall
Billed as p2p cash ->
So yeah, with the only unique use cases being ransomware, child porn, online gambling & DNMs, I'd say fancy poker chips; speculative value only (regardless of teh backstory du jour).
And compared to what? Ethereum with 0 users versus Bitcoin's 1 million users.
Yes Bitcoin has stalled. We all know that. But the shit offered so far to replace it is useless/flawed lies and hype.
Bitcoin fulfilled a significant portion of its promise. Enough such that we now all have a crypto unit-of-account to trade from.
A unit of account that fluctuates as much as BTC is about as useful as ...let's just say it's not useful.
Bitcoin, outside of DNMs, was always a purely speculative commodity, a way to gamble online without the associated social stigma, tell [overly trusting] friends you're a currencies trader
Still an interesting laundering vehicle, but that's not gonna last more than a year or two. Less, if there's serious growth.
TL;DR: Bitcoin, like house dealers and cool bands, was great when it was obscure. Success just doesn't become it
Jump to: