Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 41. (Read 99876 times)

The fact is, you are fudding something that you have no idea about because it isnt released.

It's pretty pathetic really and you should instead be buying ETH.

Because I've been studying consensus design issues for 3 years and I've watched numerous technical presentations on Casper, thus I know what they are designing and what is possible and impossible.

What you believe about me or my capabilities is irrelevant since you don't understand any of the technology.

Produce technological rebuttals or get off my lawn troll kiddie.

How can you FUD casper when you don't know how it will work because it hasn't been developed yet?

Another troll who has no technological knowledge whatsoever and thus doesn't understand what he is commenting on.

This is a technical thread. Those without technical knowledge should please go troll in their numerous ETH P&D threads.

Casper has much bigger problems than just the sharding - even if you remove all sharding, you cannot escape from the fact that they rely on transactions to form their consensus, when transactions require consensus due to double spends.

Like a bad dream.

dude for real your shilling or eth leg-humping is really annoying. fuck.

you have not explained in a coherent way why casper won't work.  It's impossible because casper is not released yet so you have no idea how it will work.

You are just an angry FUDer at this point.

Trolls could sell turds as Snicker bars floating the swimming pool. Difference here is that speculators have no care whatsoever if the technology will actually work or not, because speculators are only chasing price (and the insiders can manipulate the price buying from themselves because they control the float, thus converting greater fools into cash flow for the Casper team to waste another $15 million down a rat hole). Thus trolls find it valuable to pollute the technology discussion with inane posts.

Nope

Smart contracts in a real world setting that must scale can not exist without Casper.

The virtual machine for smart contracts runs, but any sort of real world scaling of the virtual machine requires Casper.

I have explained why Casper can't possibly work and my point is unarguable.

You wish FUD masters

And more condensed again, ETH needs Casper to work as promised, that is the entire core and value, correct?

So if Casper is still not ready and maybe can Never be created decentral, ETH has a value between a MySQL DB and NXT....

Shut up you're boring now

Readers should note I commented on the prior linked video upthread. Now I will comment on the second one you've linked to.

Listening to this video further affirmed how lost the Casper design team is.

Around the 27 minute point, Lucius Greg Meredith interjects the salient point that voting on blocks can't be orthogonal to voting on partitions. And you can see the point I made upthread as quoted below, that there is no possible way to partition the gas for scripts. Thus there can't be a Nash equilibrium on partition voting.

Vlad proposes to separate the voting for hashes of "blocks" (these "blocks" don't reference a prior block hash as in Satoshi's design, so Greg renames them "sequences") which he assumes are pre-partitioned, and then separately vote on how these blocks are ordered into a "state root". But the problem is that scripts need gas to run and since it is impossible to partition gas, then the entire assumption is invalid that validators can assume the transactions in their partition are orthogonal.

Bottom line is they will fail. They apparently haven't realized this yet, and they haven't articulated the core essence yet. I am superior designer (and note that Gregory Maxwell did not reply again because ostensibly he knows I am correct) because I can cut directly to the core issues.


The point of the above quote is that gas can't be spent across partitions. There is no way to merge partitions because it introduces the ability to double-spend in more than one partition. Thus if gas can't be spent across partitions then there is no way that gas can be moved in and out of partitions to where it is demanded.

The only way to spend a token across partitions is to have a LCR (a single partial order) for all partitions, i.e. a single partition for inter-partition state changes. LCR means longest-chain-rule. But this can only be a Nash equilibrium when all validators for the LCR validate all partitions (otherwise because as explained upthread, the Nash equilibrium is lost because the winner of a block can't be sure if he is building off an invalid state). Thus cross-partition spending requires centralization of validation (a.k.a. verification) because LCRs require centralization of validation. So if the point of sharding (a.k.a. partitioning) was to decrease latency and speed up and decentralize validation, it is a futile goal. This is unarguable.

Note an alternative to LCR is a traditional proof-of-stake for enforcing a single partial order (yet the point about validation in the prior paragraph still applies), but which is highly flawed and loses Nash equilibrium in numerous ways. Worse is that Casper's consensus-by-betting has a combinatorial explosion of partial orders, so as Vitalk admits in the above linked video, the model doesn't converge on enforcing a single partial order. The failure to converge (or the alternative being over fitness and converging on noise, as Vitalik also admitted) is entirely expected because proof-of-stake is self-referential and thus does not have a reference point from which to anchor a single partial order for which the Nash equilibrium can't be gamed. The way proof-of-stake overcomes this is by being essentially centralized. But I have also shown (see link in prior paragraph) that proof-of-work is also economically driven to centralization of validation.

There is only one way out of this mess for consensus systems, and that is my design which centralizes validation but decentralization control over the choice of validators (and decentralized statistical validation of validators).

How about for proof just go run a DApp? There are plenty of smart contracts out there live and functioning on the network right now.

Capser is for scaling.

Not a Proof. Maybe the core that executes now or in future is called different, but still it needs that casper.

Sorry, a bit more precise: Is casper the  base for the Smart contract executor?