Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 47. (Read 99910 times)

Ouffff.... Do they really know they have about 300Mio on stake and seems to me no clue on solving the crux at all?

That's getting hotter than hot.

I am 7 minutes into the video, and Vlad Zamfir (developer of Casper) has already not underst00d that proof-of-stake has externalities. I mentioned that to jl777 today:


Also Vlad doesn't seem to fully appreciate that a validator will not be betting against himself if he bets against his historic validation:


Also around the 22 - 23 minute point Vlad makes a reasonable point that having no block reward incentivizes miners to not do game theories that would destroy transaction rate, but he is wrong to assume that is the only possibility. For example a cartel on mining could limit block sizes and thus drive transaction fees higher. Also he is incorrect to imply that proof-of-stake is orthogonal to monetary policy because proof-of-stake can only distribute coins proportionally to stake, which thus the same as no distribution. Vlad has so many myopias, I don't have time to comment on all of them. The myopias are pervasive through the entire interview.

Btw, the interviewing female seems to be quite intelligent. I'm shocked because first female I've seen in crypto currencies and she seems to be a quick thinker.

I am reasonably certain you would not understand the following, its relevance, or even that WebSockets now exist in the browser:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nL9VauetwYgYtpgSVRmm8_SgH7K2P15GwaGMEbAizGs/edit?usp=sharing&authkey=CLOirMAE

At least it's readable now.  You were saying you were developing a shitcoin that will make people look at shitcoins differently, please do go on:

i dont think i can pay myself for wear it, but there is no campaing. yah keep on it lol develop dem alts.

I leave and the thread goes to shit. 

I would ask if the shitcoin sig pays out in ETH or BTC

What if i told you the shitcoin in my signature is better than eth?

Well yes there are many experiments leading us hopefully to new frontiers.

My gambit is someone will produce a coin soon that changes the way everyone is looking at these issues. I say that because I think that someone will possibly be me (although I get discouraged when I feel nauseous, ill, and unproductive as of this moment). We will see what happens...

Again adios.

You guys take over the forum.

Note I hedged that above statement (your quote of me above) as follows...

The "transaction" which contains the input data for a script, can be set by any external entity. How do you propose to require that the bits & bytes of that input data declares its dependencies when it is impossible to force the external entity to declare where the data came from? You seem to not understand some basic facts about modularity and type systems in programming. Even if you could force the external entity to declare the full lineage of the input data (i.e. 100% dependently typed), that would require that the scripting can't be programmable, i.e. the external I/O capability would be eliminated...

Very interesting answer, thank you a lot for that.

If you are right, positive side should be seen, that all these fails being recognized can be seen as a transition toward a more perfect cryptocurrency. Nonetheless, it seems like you are willing to see a perfect cryptocurrencie, but I am sure I do not need to remind you the saying... Considering Schumpeter's gale, I find it very interesting to look closely how innovation clusters possess destructive cycle in itself. (I hope i was clear, english is not my native language  )

Hopefully r0ach and others can offer their laymen's summaries.

What you need to know is that Ethereum as it is currently designed can't scale just as Bitcoin can't scale, but the level of scaling which the current Ethereum can do is much less than even Bitcoin's current limitation because verification/validation of Serpent scripts takes more resources than verification/validation of ECDSA signatures.

For both Bitcoin and Ethereum, this is not just an issue of block size limitation. The issue is that in order to scale, the mining becomes more centralized. I think you will should note that Bitcoin and all other major coins are entirely centralized already and on the precipice of failure (all of them! study my links!).

Thus Ethereum proposed Casper which is a design that attempts to use sharding (a.k.a. partitions) to improve scaling decentralized. But I explained in this thread, that can't work. To reduce electricity consumption, Ethereum also proposed PoS-like consensus-by-betting with forfeitable deposits. PoS has known failure modes that violate Nash equilibrium.

So the point of all this is that Ethereum and all the rest of the crypto coins have not yet solved the fundamental issue of decentralized consensus.

If you want to read a theoretical discussion of why, I did that too.

Okay that is enough from me. Adios.

They are trying to apply 100% dependent typing to a distributed database by limiting the universe within which a script resides to a family of rules:

http://tauchain.org/tauchain.pdf

This means the programmability of that universe ("locally, not the network" meaning they also can't control external I/O) is limited to the permutations of the rules (which must not be unbounded, else it is Turing complete and thus no longer dependently typed). These universes won't be able to talk to each other unless by intepreter universe which speaks both families perhaps.

Some where the programmer will bump into a limitation that can't work. This is why Haskell MUST have the UnsafeIO class.

The fundamental issue will not be ameliorated by any design. I am not that worried about external failure, for as long as the external failure can be attributed to using a certain set of external logic (and thus not kill the block chain system's perceived value and thus not kill the Nash equilibrium). We need to think about how externalities will integrate with the programmable block chain.

I am really not ready to research that. I have other more important things to work on first.

The point is that scriptable block chains are something that won't mature and become a real adoption market until after many years from now (perhaps decades). The wild price rise of ETH is much too premature and purely hype.

I just came again across this initiative
http://www.idni.org/

like much of the discussion in this thread,
it occupies the higher stratosphere of crypto-related theory,
but as much as I'm able to make out of it, it endeavors to steer
clear of many pitfalls that have been explored here by employing
purely functional language "that contains a blockchain support built-in"

Btw, the way valiron handled the first few people who trolled him in this thread is probably indicative of the way I should handle monsterer, but what was more shocking is how gmaxwell and his gang railroaded valiron and even apparently deleted Come-from-Beyond's post wherein CfB had linked to this white paper just today:

http://rakeshk.crhc.illinois.edu/dac_16_cam.pdf

What is incredible is to see gmaxwel (and the other huge egos over there in Bitcoin Technical Discussion) have his arrogant, totalitarian ass (their arses) handed to him (them) by valiron (who is apparently a PhD level researcher) and so what does Gmaxwell do? Today when CfB posts, he locks the thread and does his usual Hitler tactics.

Fucking amazing.

I will do my damn best to make the Bitcoin killer and dethrone Blockstream. I hope you all have noticed that Blockstream's Segregated Witness proposal is a Trojan Horse takeover of Bitcoin.

You didn't understand.


Obviously from the context of our discussion, I meant in the context of a block chain that allows multiple partitions to persist in the longest chain. In that case, you have agreed. Of course with Bitcoin's LCR, only one partition sustains within the LCR, so obviously I didn't mean that since the Nash equilibrium isn't broken for Bitcoin.

monsterer all I can say to you is sigh. You sure know how to fill up a thread with needless discourse.

As I understand it, gas is paid within the script activating transaction.


You're putting words into my mouth there - I agree that there is a disincentive to merge partitions yet partition merger is essential for consensus; that is the basic problem facing all trustless p2p currencies and is particularly acute when there is no mining incentive.

Even if someone argued against my upthread point that strict partitions can't exist for scriptable block chains wherein I claimed this is due to uncontrolled external chaos due to external I/O, there is another unarguable reason that strict partitions can't exist for a scriptable block chain. That is because the gas (currency) transfers must be atomic with the script block confirmation (i.e. if they are orphaned and chain reorganized then they must be done together) so they must be in the same partition. But if the currency for a partition is a static set of UXTO or account balances (i.e. no cross-partition spending), then the system can not function properly.

Yet we also explained above (and even monsterer agrees on this point fwiw) that cross-partition spending breaks the Nash equilibrium.

Thus I continue to maintain my point that Ethereum can not scale with decentralized validation.