The state of crypto - The only serious thread on the subforum - page 6.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: r0ach on September 14, 2015, 06:26:58 PM

I saw your idea of a proof of burn coin. Seems hard to get those right since you have to account for runaway inflation/deflation. I remember there was this previous proof of burn coin called "Slimcoin" where you burned coins to mine. Even though it was already unprofitable to burn coins to mine, since there were already so many in the system burning, people kept just dumping more and more in continuously. I wouldn't be surprised if half the entire money supply was burned.

Oh, that was a different idea completely

I am still working on that one - when I feel it is ready, I'll post it on this forum for scrutiny.

I hadn't heard of slimcoin, thanks, I'll take a look at their whitepaper.

r0ach

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Quote from: smooth on September 14, 2015, 11:52:17 PM

When phsycology gets involved price can do irrational things to people like sellimg at a major loss in panic and in this scheme end up burning 99% of the coins which you cannot get back

Even burning 99% of the coins, I can't see how that is a problem. The remaining 1% become a lot more valuable and then people won't be willing to burn them. (This assumes of course that the system has some actual utility at all.) Some equilibrium must be reached.

But like I said earlier, I don't rule out that some ongoing instability may exist including psychology or something else. I don't know anything about the structure of that proposed system so I can't even begin to guess.

Coins lost per year due to strong encryption, which is estimated to be up to 5% in bitcoin? Then an incorrectly tuned proof of burn coin on top of that and suddenly you're getting world class interest rates that make Gresham's law turn it into the horder coin that nobody will actually spend.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: sidhujag on September 14, 2015, 11:34:28 PM

Quote from: smooth on September 14, 2015, 06:31:15 PM

Quote from: r0ach on September 14, 2015, 06:26:58 PM

half the entire money supply was burned.

Does that matter?

One an equilibrium is reached, the money supply is what it is, and people using it as money don't really care.

Unless there is something unstable about it that would cause these sorts of "burn storm" events to occur repeatedly. It wasn't clear to me if you were suggesting that happened in your post.

When phsycology gets involved price can do irrational things to people like sellimg at a major loss in panic and in this scheme end up burning 99% of the coins which you cannot get back.

Even burning 99% of the coins, I can't see how that is a problem. The remaining 1% become a lot more valuable and then people won't be willing to burn them. (This assumes of course that the system has some actual utility at all.) Some equilibrium must be reached.

But like I said earlier, I don't rule out that some ongoing instability may exist including psychology or something else. I don't know anything about the structure of that proposed system so I can't even begin to guess.

sidhujag

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1005

Quote from: smooth on September 14, 2015, 06:31:15 PM

Quote from: r0ach on September 14, 2015, 06:26:58 PM

half the entire money supply was burned.

Does that matter?

One an equilibrium is reached, the money supply is what it is, and people using it as money don't really care.

Unless there is something unstable about it that would cause these sorts of "burn storm" events to occur repeatedly. It wasn't clear to me if you were suggesting that happened in your post.

When phsycology gets involved price can do irrational things to people like sellimg at a major loss in panic and in this scheme end up burning 99% of the coins which you cannot get back.

It's much like a federated pegged asset which is based on market demands to control price according an external target. We know what it should be, but in a panic it may break. Actually vbuterin wrote about that how black swans would break a peg indefinitely based on game theory if it didn't place limits on selling. That's why in bitshares you can't short below 10% or above 10% of the price feed. Anyways who knows if it limits the long term swan from happening, perhaps pushes time further in achieving a better solution down the road before a peg breaks and all hope is lost in a project. I'm not sure how the pegs work in ether but if they don't have rules in place like bts they will break sooner than ones that do.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: r0ach on September 14, 2015, 06:26:58 PM

half the entire money supply was burned.

Does that matter?

Once an equilibrium is reached, the money supply is what it is, and people using it as money don't really care.

Unless there is something unstable about it that would cause these sorts of "burn storm" events to occur repeatedly. It wasn't clear to me if you were suggesting that happened in your post.

r0ach

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Quote from: monsterer on September 14, 2015, 04:37:16 PM

I repeat: I am not talking about his approach.

This was a distant consensus design of my own in which I considered a system which would stay 100% decentralised POW.

I saw your idea of a proof of burn coin. Seems hard to get those right since you have to account for runaway inflation/deflation. I remember there was this previous proof of burn coin called "Slimcoin" where you burned coins to mine. Even though it was already unprofitable to burn coins to mine, since there were already so many in the system burning, people kept just dumping more and more in continuously. I wouldn't be surprised if half the entire money supply was burned.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: smooth on September 14, 2015, 04:29:16 PM

You don't know how his chain is structured (is it even a chain of blocks or is it something else?) nor how difficulty is calculated or used (or even if such a thing is done or if there is another approach). "Sybil attacks" is certainly a valid point but you haven't connected the dots nor can you since you don't know what sort of voting scheme is employed. The point being you are (implicitly) assuming something very much like the structure of Bitcoin and then analyzing it on those terms. That's not a good approach.

I repeat: I am not talking about his approach.

This was a distant consensus design of my own in which I considered a system which would stay 100% decentralised POW.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: monsterer on September 14, 2015, 04:06:28 PM

Quote from: smooth on September 14, 2015, 04:04:34 PM

A, B, and C are not good arguments because he hasn't disclosed enough about the structure of his scheme to determine if they are even relevant, or if so how. You could propose a guess about his scheme is structured and then consider those items, but that's pretty silly.

A, B and C are the consequences of mining your own transactions. I'm not talking about his scheme, because I don't know it.

You don't know how his chain is structured (is it even a chain of blocks or is it something else?) nor how difficulty is calculated or used (or even if such a thing is done or if there is another approach). "Sybil attacks" is certainly a valid point but you haven't connected the dots nor can you since you don't know what sort of voting scheme is employed. The point being you are (implicitly) assuming something very much like the structure of Bitcoin and then analyzing it on those terms. That's not a good approach.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: smooth on September 14, 2015, 04:04:34 PM

A, B, and C are not good arguments because he hasn't disclosed enough about the structure of his scheme to determine if they are even relevant, or if so how. You could propose a guess about his scheme is structured and then consider those items, but that's pretty silly.

A, B and C are the consequences of mining your own transactions. I'm not talking about his scheme, because I don't know it.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: monsterer on September 14, 2015, 04:02:16 PM

Quote from: smooth on September 14, 2015, 03:48:48 PM

Of these only D) is a reasonably good argument. Or to put it another way, if something new relies on old components and has not previously been developed, then it must be innovative (which implies a degree of conceptual if not implementation-level complexity, or more precisely non-obviousness).

A) is relevant because if you have fixed difficulty designed to target home computers, home computer will be able to send transactions, but server farms will have a controlling advantage which leads directly on to...

B) block reward with home computer difficulty and no adjustment (which would render home computers unable to send transactions) would mean the coin supply would suffer out of control inflation in a short period which leads directly on to...

C) sybil attack - mining your own transactions is great until some huge player starts executing double spends with his massive server farm by chucking a bunch of CPUs at a POW designed for home computers

A, B, and C are not good arguments because he hasn't disclosed enough about the structure of his scheme to determine if they are even relevant, or if so how. You could propose a guess about his scheme is structured and then consider those items, but that's pretty silly.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: smooth on September 14, 2015, 03:48:48 PM

Of these only D) is a reasonably good argument. Or to put it another way, if something new relies on old components and has not previously been developed, then it must be innovative (which implies a degree of conceptual if not implementation-level complexity, or more precisely non-obviousness).

A) is relevant because if you have fixed difficulty designed to target home computers, home computer will be able to send transactions, but server farms will have a controlling advantage which leads directly on to...

B) block reward with home computer difficulty and no adjustment (difficulty adjustment would render home computers unable to send transactions) would mean the coin supply would suffer out of control inflation in a short period which leads directly on to...

C) sybil attack - mining your own transactions is great until some huge player starts executing double spends with his massive server farm by chucking a bunch of CPUs at a POW designed for home computers

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

1. Yes. But I think the tradeoffs are superior. And so far it doesn't look any worse than heuristics I heard Maxwell talk about are in Bitcoin for defending against Sybil attacks on the P2P network.

2. That is of course a strong possibility, especially when there is only one dev working on it with no peer review. Problem is that I think I lose more time to verbiage than it is worth to team up. Better to produce a basic product, then ask for team work. At least that is what I am thinking today given my M.S. isn't bothering me.

Okay i am really going to try to sign out. I have people watching these forums and they will alert me if there is any thing really egregious that needs my response.

Good luck to everyone in their coding as well.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: r0ach on September 14, 2015, 01:37:42 PM

Quote from: monsterer on September 14, 2015, 12:58:56 PM

Quote from: Fuserleer on September 14, 2015, 12:49:24 PM

Ooh, right yeah. That opens a major can of worms though....

Worm A) difficulty
Worm B) block reward
Worm C) sybil attack

D) Satoshi probably spent numerous hours trying this already, otherwise he wouldn't have used PoW in a more obscure manner creating the "Rube Goldberg" machine that Realsolid implies

Of these only D) is a reasonably good argument. Or to put it another way, if something new relies on old components and has not previously been developed, then it must be innovative (which implies a degree of conceptual if not implementation-level complexity, or more precisely non-obviousness).

Therefore you can conclude:

1. There is something Rube Goldberg-ish about TPTB's scheme that Satoshi didn't consider or perhaps considered but chose another also Rube Goldberg-ish path. (I don't think this is necessarily bad, although I do think that Bitcoin is about the limit of complexity that might be viable right now)

2. There is a serious flaw in TPTB's scheme that he hasn't identified

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Well remember I wrote I think it is better for now if you think I am full of bullshit.

So I am purposefully not attempting to refute you.

Just remember it is not over until the Fat Lady sings.

Seems I have some coding to do.

r0ach

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Quote from: monsterer on September 14, 2015, 12:58:56 PM

Quote from: Fuserleer on September 14, 2015, 12:49:24 PM

Ooh, right yeah. That opens a major can of worms though....

Worm A) difficulty
Worm B) block reward
Worm C) sybil attack

D) Satoshi probably spent numerous hours trying this already, otherwise he wouldn't have used PoW in a more obscure manner creating the "Rube Goldberg" machine that Realsolid implies

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Fuserleer on September 14, 2015, 12:49:24 PM

Ooh, right yeah. That opens a major can of worms though....

Worm A) difficulty
Worm B) block reward
Worm C) sybil attack

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Fuserleer on September 14, 2015, 12:49:24 PM

Ooh, right yeah. That opens a major can of worms though....

Yup.

Fuserleer

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1016

Quote from: monsterer on September 14, 2015, 12:37:09 PM

Quote from: Fuserleer on September 14, 2015, 12:35:40 PM

Where did he say that?

Meh...there is too much vague detail spread too thin and I don't have the time to go chasing it around.

I'm going to just wait until he finally decides to let the details out.

He didn't - but this is one way you can achieve that... actually pretty much the only way.

Ooh, right yeah. That opens a major can of worms though....

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

When I said ms, I mean fraction of a second, not double digit ms. I assume network latency will improve over time. Also some nodes may be very well connected, since we were talking about HFT here.

Also I made the point that indeed HFT traders could make their own node and thus no external network latency.

I would prefer if you all think it is bullshit for now. That would be better actually.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Fuserleer on September 14, 2015, 12:35:40 PM

Where did he say that?

Meh...there is too much vague detail spread too thin and I don't have the time to go chasing it around.

I'm going to just wait until he finally decides to let the details out.

He didn't - but this is one way you can achieve that... actually pretty much the only way.

Topic: The state of crypto - The only serious thread on the subforum - page 6. (Read 19483 times)