digitalindustry,
Nothing has changed with human nature and human failings. I stand by my statement that we get only one chance to make the digital currency for the world. Once the masses have adopted one, there won't be a chance to change it any more. Heck we already can't hard fork Bitcoin, because of the vested interests of the pools.
You simply don't understand that people don't change from the money that everyone else is accepting, unless the money they are using fails. We get one chance to change from the dollar (and Euro, etc), because all the governments of the world are bankrupt and they will be hunting down all the money and stealing it to pay for the socialism which is growing everywhere (including Russia which is corrupt as hell and bankrupt). And the EU is corrupt as hell too and bankrupt. Ditto China. Here is a page for you to read:
http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/10/hidden-debt-must-still-be-repayed/#comment-3179
P.S. I don't want to continue to argue this. I want to keep my comments focus on the technical points of the design of an altcoin which can replace Bitcoin.
Topic: [white paper] Purely P2P Crypto-Currency With Finite Mini-Blockchain - page 2. (Read 24182 times)
November 04, 2013, 12:58:57 AM
November 03, 2013, 06:06:03 PM
Of course if you read the news and many story's...
based on my above hypothesis, the USA looks like its failing or say may be a "Failed State"
the seemingly rising Police violence etc, but I tend to take some of it with a grain of salt as I have to look (again) at the sources of that information.
the USA has a bad corruption problem, but many rational actors inside.
based on my above hypothesis, the USA looks like its failing or say may be a "Failed State"
the seemingly rising Police violence etc, but I tend to take some of it with a grain of salt as I have to look (again) at the sources of that information.
the USA has a bad corruption problem, but many rational actors inside.
November 03, 2013, 05:58:20 PM
"Currencies are more long-lived than operating system monopolies, e.g. Windoze-- winner takes all and it is nearly impossible to unseat the currency that everyone else is already using, e.g. the dollar.
We have one chance to put a decentralized currency in place of the dollar, then the masses won't be interested in switching again, because the compelling differences won't exist for them any more."
Ok let me break this down:
1. People will stop watching TV.
2. People will become less retarded.
3. People HAVE stopped watching TV.
4. People HAVE become less retarded.
{see the trend here.}
5. TV is a single directional form of information, a system of control.
6. now add ({Poverty}) to the equation lets call that ({P})
7. We have better (generally and it only has to be a little bit ) educated people receiving multiple point of information {sending and receiving} {similar to a blockchain} lets call these people ({ME}) Multipoint Educated.
8 ME + P = BitFail.
But !
did we think of
9. ME + E = "What the fuck are we doing"
Where ({E}) means the Epiphany of agencies and governments that at a point, they figure out its easier not to try to control people on mass ({ME}), but to instead work with them.
10. Because on a competitive stage - {ME + P = BitFail} isn't very productive , so if i'm Joe USA running {ME + P = BitFail} , and Jack Europe is running {ME + E = "What the fuck are we doing"} and related solutions, who's society is going to move forward and who's society is going to descend into so sort of neo - Communism/Police state.
11. Police states are notably inefficient, (wait don't bring up Germany, think it though first..)
12. So humanity only needs one rational actor , where by we can measure our success and failure , that rational actor seems to be the Russian Federation as they move towards freedom , not oppression look at RT look at the free comments system , the success of this system, the rise of popularity do you believe this went unnoticed ?
Summary:
Freedom works , and free markets work, and they tend to be the most system efficient thing we have, so generally if competition exists markets will tend towards a freer system.
I expect the Leaders of the Russian federation understand this, maybe they are just waiting for their friends to catch up ?
no one is perfect, and its a fine line of course.
** Where "BitFail" is the attempt to control a mass of ({ME}) people without violence , as violence is a failure in its self , and thus may lead to that .
*** In the past becasue all information was controlled and directed (hopefully you agree) when ({P}) occurred , often so did a War , this was usually becasue the result of ({P}) could be directed by the control system to any convenient outlet.
**** you can see some of ({ME + E = "What the fuck are we doing"}) in the recent "Snowden" and etc affairs, instead of looking negatively upon these things , one has to say these are positives ....
I don't want to get long winded here , but :
along the way to its ultimate failure as a system of control , there would need to be a transition , you see where at a point {think like a fluid} the TV system would have to "take on" ideas' from the ({ME}) so you see as multidimensional information competes with the control of information - the control system as its failing has to "adapt" to the continuing new situations, this "adaption" is a net positive .
becasue you see the glass the TV its self is of course not the problem its only the source of the information, so the Control system is constantly faced with an IF OR type situation ,
IF we ignore it what happens?
OR we have to try to "Spin" it.
it would take a lot of energy its quite an inefficient way to have to deal with information.
with "Snowden" etc, the Control System for the most part OR and tried to spin , which is a positive becasue it shows further integration.
whereas you see in the past maybe the affair might have been "Deleted" .
We have one chance to put a decentralized currency in place of the dollar, then the masses won't be interested in switching again, because the compelling differences won't exist for them any more."
Ok let me break this down:
1. People will stop watching TV.
2. People will become less retarded.
3. People HAVE stopped watching TV.
4. People HAVE become less retarded.
{see the trend here.}
5. TV is a single directional form of information, a system of control.
6. now add ({Poverty}) to the equation lets call that ({P})
7. We have better (generally and it only has to be a little bit ) educated people receiving multiple point of information {sending and receiving} {similar to a blockchain} lets call these people ({ME}) Multipoint Educated.
8 ME + P = BitFail.
But !
did we think of
9. ME + E = "What the fuck are we doing"
Where ({E}) means the Epiphany of agencies and governments that at a point, they figure out its easier not to try to control people on mass ({ME}), but to instead work with them.
10. Because on a competitive stage - {ME + P = BitFail} isn't very productive , so if i'm Joe USA running {ME + P = BitFail} , and Jack Europe is running {ME + E = "What the fuck are we doing"} and related solutions, who's society is going to move forward and who's society is going to descend into so sort of neo - Communism/Police state.
11. Police states are notably inefficient, (wait don't bring up Germany, think it though first..)
12. So humanity only needs one rational actor , where by we can measure our success and failure , that rational actor seems to be the Russian Federation as they move towards freedom , not oppression look at RT look at the free comments system , the success of this system, the rise of popularity do you believe this went unnoticed ?
Summary:
Freedom works , and free markets work, and they tend to be the most system efficient thing we have, so generally if competition exists markets will tend towards a freer system.
I expect the Leaders of the Russian federation understand this, maybe they are just waiting for their friends to catch up ?
no one is perfect, and its a fine line of course.
** Where "BitFail" is the attempt to control a mass of ({ME}) people without violence , as violence is a failure in its self , and thus may lead to that .
*** In the past becasue all information was controlled and directed (hopefully you agree) when ({P}) occurred , often so did a War , this was usually becasue the result of ({P}) could be directed by the control system to any convenient outlet.
**** you can see some of ({ME + E = "What the fuck are we doing"}) in the recent "Snowden" and etc affairs, instead of looking negatively upon these things , one has to say these are positives ....
I don't want to get long winded here , but :
along the way to its ultimate failure as a system of control , there would need to be a transition , you see where at a point {think like a fluid} the TV system would have to "take on" ideas' from the ({ME}) so you see as multidimensional information competes with the control of information - the control system as its failing has to "adapt" to the continuing new situations, this "adaption" is a net positive .
becasue you see the glass the TV its self is of course not the problem its only the source of the information, so the Control system is constantly faced with an IF OR type situation ,
IF we ignore it what happens?
OR we have to try to "Spin" it.
it would take a lot of energy its quite an inefficient way to have to deal with information.
with "Snowden" etc, the Control System for the most part OR and tried to spin , which is a positive becasue it shows further integration.
whereas you see in the past maybe the affair might have been "Deleted" .
November 03, 2013, 04:56:59 PM
I'd propose that transactions should have a set fee based on percentage; what exactly I think is debatable but I'd say 1%.
One of the great things about Bitcoin, and one of the things which really encourages me to send international payments using bitcoin, is that I'm basically only paying for the bandwidth of my transaction, I'm not paying some disproportionate fee which has nothing to do with the cost of sending the transaction. Having a percent based fee takes away that incentive and forces people to pay fees which are completely unrelated to the bandwidth cost of sending the transaction. So it's something I don't think is a great idea.Agreed 1% is too high. There needs to be a tx fee, else (non-cartel) miners are not incentivized to include transactions in blocks. But 1% is ridiculous. 0.01% is probably enough.
A set tx fee would help to simplify wallet clients and be sure your transaction is accepted in the next block.
A percentage fee even if small is not as good as a small fee in coin units, because the cost for the network per transaction shouldn't vary by the value of the transaction, we don't want miners to ignore lower value transactions, and we want to disincentivize dust transactions.
Data transfer costs are below 10 cents per GB, thus even if each transaction causes 1MB in total network load, cost should be roughly 1/100 of a cent. If we expect the coin to ultimately be worth more than $1000, 1/10 millionth of the coin unit is a sufficient tx fee. Perhaps 1 millionth is better to allow some margin for increased network load and/or lower value of the coin.
Dam Anonymint, did you miss a prescription?
You probably could stop calling people low IQ ,.... wait for it....
You probably could stop calling people low IQ ,.... wait for it....
No. I am just tired of reading his repeated "debasement is stealing" illogic. Both Etlase2 and I have already refuted that upthread.
If your elevated IQ statment regarding the relativity of all things in nature is true, then surely IQ comes under this broad umbrella,
Of course single IQ measure of "g" can't measure the value of differing perspectives. But that is not the situation here. He is just wrong. The math is unarguable.
and you are not only contradictory in comment , but owe Bit freak an apology.
No he owes me an apology for wasting my time with that nonsense. Else he can refute what I and Etlase2 already explained.
To your " fee's siphoned back to create monopoly, and it was all done by the NSA" narrative.
Satoshi even admitted it. He predicted the mining would be done by large corporations in the future.
Well I have to credit you with the idea, but unfortunately the decentralized nature of consensus based information systems is just one of the stumbling blocks.
Another is that inequities in this system ( once widespread) ( that is to say labor is expended primarily for say BTC), well , said inequalities would more than likely cause the quick and immediate destruction, reconstruction or parallelism, of of the system and/or another system.
So while I wouldn't write off your statments, and well I suppose you could be right, but this means that the NSA, had zero foresight to understand the nature of future information systems.
Another is that inequities in this system ( once widespread) ( that is to say labor is expended primarily for say BTC), well , said inequalities would more than likely cause the quick and immediate destruction, reconstruction or parallelism, of of the system and/or another system.
So while I wouldn't write off your statments, and well I suppose you could be right, but this means that the NSA, had zero foresight to understand the nature of future information systems.
Currencies are more long-lived than operating system monopolies, e.g. Windoze-- winner takes all and it is nearly impossible to unseat the currency that everyone else is already using, e.g. the dollar.
We have one chance to put a decentralized currency in place of the dollar, then the masses won't be interested in switching again, because the compelling differences won't exist for them any more.
November 03, 2013, 11:15:03 AM
The problem is, can you achieve a currency which encourages people to spend their money with a mechanism other than debasement or something similar to it?
People can't even be encouraged to spend with debasement. Either the value is rising, or a rational person will convert the currency for an asset that is rising in value.
You are conflating currency with asset AGAIN. I pointed that out to you upthread.
Bitcoin as an asset is rising in value, even while its debasement is a horrific 11% currently. Debasement neither causes the price to fall, nor does it correlate with the value of an asset.
You confuse things which are not directly proportional mathematically, because you forget the Quantity Theory of Money equation:
M x V = P x Q ≈ GDP
P (price) of goods and services doesn't necessarily increase (i.e. drop in value of the currency) in the above equation when M (money supply) increases, because the production Q can increase and/or the V (velocity) can decrease. In addition to those variables for a currency, for an asset such as Bitcoin, the demand can also be increasing faster than M.
I can agree with the basic idea that debasement is potentially desirable if it's used to keep the value of the currency stable,
What you agree to is irrelevant. It is what the community wants that is relevant, and polls I ran showed clearly the community understands debasement is desirable.
Stability is nonsense, as the price is set by the market.
The purpose of perpetual debasement is to fund mining. Funding mining from tx fees will lead to cartelization of Bitcoin (because the cartels such Amazon.com can siphon all txs to themselves by offering 0 tx fees or tx fee refunds) as I explained upthread, which means you will completely lose control of the debasement and be right back to an elite controlled money supply (which is precisely where Bitcoin is headed 2033 and I even believe it was designed that way by the NSA, and Satoshi was not one person).
The other purpose of perpetual debasement is that as I explained mathematically upthread, society will ALWAYS require it via their use of debt. And thus if you don't have it, society will replace your coin (via wars if necessary).
A tertiary purpose of debasement is that mining is the only way to get virgin coins, which are not tainted by previous illegal activities on the existing coins in the public ledger.
http://www.nestmann.com/civil-forfeiture-of-cash-it-could-happen-to-you
but I cannot agree if it's used to steal value from the currency over time.
Sorry but I will tell you frankly, this demonstrates low IQ thought process. Your IQ must not be above 120 (or you are not trying to think).
A small 3 - 5% (similar to the natural rate for gold) debasement doesn't steal.
1. It funds the damn coin mining, so your coins are not destroyed by a cartel.
2. How can it steal when the debasement doesn't drive the price? A healthy coin gets more demand and thus a higher price.
That stupid, hard-headed, goldbug nonsense has to go!
But the fundamental problem is designing the debasement mechanism in such a way that is keeps the value of the currency stable. First of all what are we measuring the "value" of the coin against, what is its value relative to, and how can we ensure that the thing it is pegged to is also stable. There simply is no way in my mind for how that can be achieved in a satisfactory manner, the only logical solution imo is a floating coin with a value determined by the free market and a stable currency supply which doesn't increase or decrease perpetually (which can be achieved by re-mining lost coins).
No shit Sherlock. What do you expect for raising such a stupid idea.
Stability is a non-existent thing in nature. Nature is relative and dynamic. I will once again suggest reading about what scientists know about what the Universe is made of (in short everything is relative, there is no invariant point of stability in the universe):
http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html
I am sorry, but I am so sick of dealing with low IQ nonsense when the person habitually repeats it without refuting the points that have been made already upthread showing that it is nonsense.
I'd propose that transactions should have a set fee based on percentage; what exactly I think is debatable but I'd say 1%.
One of the great things about Bitcoin, and one of the things which really encourages me to send international payments using bitcoin, is that I'm basically only paying for the bandwidth of my transaction, I'm not paying some disproportionate fee which has nothing to do with the cost of sending the transaction. Having a percent based fee takes away that incentive and forces people to pay fees which are completely unrelated to the bandwidth cost of sending the transaction. So it's something I don't think is a great idea.Agreed 1% is too high. There needs to be a tx fee, else (non-cartel) miners are not incentivized to include transactions in blocks. But 1% is ridiculous. 0.01% is probably enough.
A set tx fee would help to simplify wallet clients and be sure your transaction is accepted in the next block.
Dam Anonymint, did you miss a prescription?
You probably could stop calling people low IQ ,.... wait for it....
If your elevated IQ statment regarding the relativity of all things in nature is true, then surely IQ comes under this broad umbrella, and you are not only contradictory in comment , but owe Bit freak an apology.
To your " fee's siphoned back to create monopoly, and it was all done by the NSA" narrative.
Well I have to credit you with the idea, but unfortunately the decentralized nature of consensus based information systems is just one of the stumbling blocks.
Another is that inequities in this system ( once widespread) ( that is to say labor is expended primarily for say BTC), well , said inequalities would more than likely cause the quick and immediate destruction, reconstruction or parallelism, of of the system and/or another system.
So while I wouldn't write off your statments, and well I suppose you could be right, but this means that the NSA, had zero foresight to understand the nature of future information systems.
Look upon TV ratings, and tell me such future.
{ although I will concede I just recently pictured many a happy TV watcher lining upmfor a palm print to transact BTC without knowing who was recording the palm print and where the information was going, on this net connected device }
so you know...
But please to be nice cost 0 BTC or NSAcoin or even USD.
November 03, 2013, 07:45:25 AM
The problem is, can you achieve a currency which encourages people to spend their money with a mechanism other than debasement or something similar to it?
People can't even be encouraged to spend with debasement. Either the value is rising, or a rational person will convert the currency for an asset that is rising in value.
You are conflating currency with asset AGAIN. I pointed that out to you upthread.
Bitcoin as an asset is rising in value, even while its debasement is a horrific 11% currently. Debasement neither causes the price to fall, nor does it correlate with the value of an asset.
You confuse things which are not directly proportional mathematically, because you forget the Quantity Theory of Money equation:
M x V = P x Q ≈ GDP
P (price) of goods and services doesn't necessarily increase (i.e. drop in value of the currency) in the above equation when M (money supply) increases, because the production Q can increase and/or the V (velocity) can decrease. In addition to those variables for a currency, for an asset such as Bitcoin, the demand can also be increasing faster than M.
I can agree with the basic idea that debasement is potentially desirable if it's used to keep the value of the currency stable,
What you agree to is irrelevant. It is what the community wants that is relevant, and polls I ran showed clearly the community understands debasement is desirable.
Stability is nonsense, as the price is set by the market.
The purpose of perpetual debasement is to fund mining. Funding mining from tx fees will lead to cartelization of Bitcoin (because the cartels such Amazon.com can siphon all txs to themselves by offering 0 tx fees or tx fee refunds) as I explained upthread, which means you will completely lose control of the debasement and be right back to an elite controlled money supply (which is precisely where Bitcoin is headed 2033 and I even believe it was designed that way by the NSA, and Satoshi was not one person).
The other purpose of perpetual debasement is that as I explained mathematically upthread, society will ALWAYS require it via their use of debt. And thus if you don't have it, society will replace your coin (via wars if necessary).
A tertiary purpose of debasement is that mining is the only way to get virgin coins, which are not tainted by previous illegal activities on the existing coins in the public ledger.
http://www.nestmann.com/civil-forfeiture-of-cash-it-could-happen-to-you
but I cannot agree if it's used to steal value from the currency over time.
Sorry but I will tell you frankly, this demonstrates low IQ thought process. Your IQ must not be above 120 (or you are not trying to think).
A small 3 - 5% (similar to the natural rate for gold) debasement doesn't steal.
1. It funds the damn coin mining, so your coins are not destroyed by a cartel.
2. How can it steal when the debasement doesn't drive the price? A healthy coin gets more demand and thus a higher price.
That stupid, hard-headed, goldbug nonsense has to go!
But the fundamental problem is designing the debasement mechanism in such a way that is keeps the value of the currency stable. First of all what are we measuring the "value" of the coin against, what is its value relative to, and how can we ensure that the thing it is pegged to is also stable. There simply is no way in my mind for how that can be achieved in a satisfactory manner, the only logical solution imo is a floating coin with a value determined by the free market and a stable currency supply which doesn't increase or decrease perpetually (which can be achieved by re-mining lost coins).
No shit Sherlock. What do you expect for raising such a stupid idea.
Stability is a non-existent thing in nature. Nature is relative and dynamic. I will once again suggest reading about what scientists know about what the Universe is made of (in short everything is relative, there is no invariant point of stability in the universe):
http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html
I am sorry, but I am so sick of dealing with low IQ nonsense when the person habitually repeats it without refuting the points that have been made already upthread showing that it is nonsense.
I'd propose that transactions should have a set fee based on percentage; what exactly I think is debatable but I'd say 1%.
One of the great things about Bitcoin, and one of the things which really encourages me to send international payments using bitcoin, is that I'm basically only paying for the bandwidth of my transaction, I'm not paying some disproportionate fee which has nothing to do with the cost of sending the transaction. Having a percent based fee takes away that incentive and forces people to pay fees which are completely unrelated to the bandwidth cost of sending the transaction. So it's something I don't think is a great idea.Agreed 1% is too high. There needs to be a tx fee, else (non-cartel) miners are not incentivized to include transactions in blocks. But 1% is ridiculous. 0.01% is probably enough.
A set tx fee would help to simplify wallet clients and be sure your transaction is accepted in the next block.
October 30, 2013, 10:57:58 PM
I need to read the pdf a couple of times...
Read the project wiki, the white-paper is quite out-dated now. October 30, 2013, 10:56:44 PM
Initially I disliked the idea of Bitcoin's fixed supply but I think with a slight tweak it could be the best solution. We want to have something which will act as a solid currency, encouraging people to spend their wealth but without penalizing them for saving as seems to be the case with Freicoin. We also want to avoid the problem of deflation from lost coins (government seizers, death of hoarders without wills, lost keys and mistaken transfers). Bitfreak suggested somewhere that coins in unused accounts should be removed and remind after some lengthy period of time (something like 100 years) just to avoid long term deflation but I see doing this on a smaller time scale as being beneficial in other ways.
The problem is, can you achieve a currency which encourages people to spend their money with a mechanism other than debasement or something similar to it? I can agree with the basic idea that debasement is potentially desirable if it's used to keep the value of the currency stable, but I cannot agree if it's used to steal value from the currency over time. But the fundamental problem is designing the debasement mechanism in such a way that is keeps the value of the currency stable. First of all what are we measuring the "value" of the coin against, what is its value relative to, and how can we ensure that the thing it is pegged to is also stable. There simply is no way in my mind for how that can be achieved in a satisfactory manner, the only logical solution imo is a floating coin with a value determined by the free market and a stable currency supply which doesn't increase or decrease perpetually (which can be achieved by re-mining lost coins).I'd propose that transactions should have a set fee based on percentage; what exactly I think is debatable but I'd say 1%.
One of the great things about Bitcoin, and one of the things which really encourages me to send international payments using bitcoin, is that I'm basically only paying for the bandwidth of my transaction, I'm not paying some disproportionate fee which has nothing to do with the cost of sending the transaction. Having a percent based fee takes away that incentive and forces people to pay fees which are completely unrelated to the bandwidth cost of sending the transaction. So it's something I don't think is a great idea. 
October 30, 2013, 10:48:11 PM
oh, I get it, you're right
It's interesting, but I still don't completely understand how everything fits together, I need to read the pdf a couple of times...
It's interesting, but I still don't completely understand how everything fits together, I need to read the pdf a couple of times...
October 30, 2013, 10:23:12 PM
Quote
Now, when nodes A and B connect to the network on week 3, they have a minichain of week 1 (the "old chain") which has more work, more difficulty, than the rest of the network which has ONLY the blocks of week 2. If nodes A and B see each other they will fork, not accepting the good minichain.
The entire "chain" can be thought of as the proof chain + the mini-blockchain. What you seem to be forgetting here is the proof chain. The first thing nodes A and B will do is update their proof chain (every node has a full copy of the proof chain because it's tiny), and it's the proof chain which is used to calculate the cumulative difficulty of the entire chain. October 29, 2013, 09:05:37 PM
What is the "diff"? What do you mean "old chain"?
By diff I mean the difficulty. Imagine this scenario:Let's the minichain has 1 week worth of blocks. In week 1, network difficulty was set to a number which we'll call d1. And nodes A and B are connected during week 1 and then disconnect.
During week 2, nodes A and B are not connected. Also, for some reason some nodes disconnect too (let's say week 2 is vacations in Silicon Valley, this is not crazy, bitcoin difficulty has a trend of going up but sometimes it oscilates a bit), making the difficulty of week 2 go down. So d2 < d1.
Now, when nodes A and B connect to the network on week 3, they have a minichain of week 1 (the "old chain") which has more work, more difficulty, than the rest of the network which has ONLY the blocks of week 2. If nodes A and B see each other they will fork, not accepting the good minichain.
So you can't choose based on difficulty. But you can't choose based on timestamp, because those are easy to forge. You must do some combination when deciding which is the valid minichain.
Also, and worst, if I want to create a fake minichain for attacking, I could spend months or even a couple of years creating the minichain of one week. A hardcoded genesis block prevents this, and forces me to start from a fixed point, but new blocks are added to the end of the valid chain all the time. If you don't have this, a 50% attack can create a minichain in 1 week, but a 25% attack could create one in 2 weeks, and so on, a 6.25% attack could create a whole fake minichain in 2 months.
I like the idea, I'm just pointing out that there are many things to have in mind and it may be tricky to make it work.
October 29, 2013, 06:28:13 PM
if I disconnected for a week (or whatever the length of the minichain), then when I connect i have to download a full new chain. If I'm shown more than one by different nodes, which one do I choose? the one with more work?
Yes you trust the proof chain that has more difficulty. The proof chain is much more compact than Bitcoin's complete history of all transactions.
If there is a (50+%, thus not likely) secret chain attack, then you need to refer to more complete history of transactions saved by the community.
what if the diff went down? I could end up downloading an old chain...
What is the "diff"? What do you mean "old chain"?
October 28, 2013, 03:12:30 PM
if I disconnected for a week (or whatever the length of the minichain), then when I connect i have to download a full new chain. If I'm shown more than one by different nodes, which one do I choose? the one with more work? what if the diff went down? I could end up downloading an old chain...
October 28, 2013, 10:46:02 AM
October 28, 2013, 10:38:54 AM
October 28, 2013, 01:08:59 AM
When pruning an old block, for which fees have already been paid, the transactions will be included for free in the new block, at the cost of the current effort minus current fees.
How can then the mini-blockchain offer "lower fees" if more effort is needed for the same reward?
How can then the mini-blockchain offer "lower fees" if more effort is needed for the same reward?
The pruned transactions are discarded and not added to new blocks (otherwise how would we shrink the blockchain which is the entire point). The account balance tree retains the necessary information, which is secured by the unpruned (i.e. "eternal") proof chain and a recent history ("sliding window") of transactions.
P.S. The following comments are stuck in moderation queue, so I throw them here in case they never appear there:
http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/10/hidden-debt-must-still-be-repayed/#comment-3203
Quote from: shelby a.k.a. AnonyMint
Indeed it appears the outcome in the USA will be politically decided. If the government is not successful in convincing the broad populace to backstop the $quadrillion of derivatives of the too big to fail banks, then the writedown will be charged mostly to investors. Whereas, if via the growing socialism movement, the populace can be convinced to accept $trillions in bail-ins and $17 trillion in retirement plan nationalizations, then the broad populace will pay for the writedown.
I can cite the official G7 government website plans for the bail-ins which stipulate that writing down trading losses (e.g. derivatives) takes precedence over bondholders and depositors; and the discussion of the $17 trillion retirement nationalization has reached official agency level already. Also I cite references on the well documented theory that Obama refused to allow continuing funding proposals during the recent government shutdown in order to enrage the broad populace and insure the democrats win the Congress in 2014, thus giving them the power to carry out these plans and to raise taxes (“tax the rich” which really means the middle class and small business) significantly. Giving traitor Boemer, the Tea Party has split from the Republican party which is now disintegrating.
Europe is already well along this socialism path as Spain recently added a tax on sunlight and France recently made it illegal to shutdown a company that is unprofitable, thus forcing the company to increase debt perpetually.
Google “Some Iron Laws of Political Economics” to understand why socialism can’t retreat without a Minsky moment chaos.
I can cite the official G7 government website plans for the bail-ins which stipulate that writing down trading losses (e.g. derivatives) takes precedence over bondholders and depositors; and the discussion of the $17 trillion retirement nationalization has reached official agency level already. Also I cite references on the well documented theory that Obama refused to allow continuing funding proposals during the recent government shutdown in order to enrage the broad populace and insure the democrats win the Congress in 2014, thus giving them the power to carry out these plans and to raise taxes (“tax the rich” which really means the middle class and small business) significantly. Giving traitor Boemer, the Tea Party has split from the Republican party which is now disintegrating.
Europe is already well along this socialism path as Spain recently added a tax on sunlight and France recently made it illegal to shutdown a company that is unprofitable, thus forcing the company to increase debt perpetually.
Google “Some Iron Laws of Political Economics” to understand why socialism can’t retreat without a Minsky moment chaos.
http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/10/hidden-debt-must-still-be-repayed/#comment-3179
Quote from: shelby a.k.a. AnonyMint
The solution to China’s debt spiral is the same as the solution to utilizing the FX reserves most efficiently by increasing imports– liberalize the economy so decentralized fitness[1] of private investment can provide (investment and employment) opportunities for the home sector and thus consumption to rise. The export and housing sectors are heavily subsidized and pushed to overinvestment (and oversubscription of available resources) by centralized policy and crony ownership.
[1] I’ve explained fitness in terms of simulated annealing and degrees-of-freedom in past blog comments, and a simpler way of visualizing it is that small things grow faster, i.e. selling cold water on a hot day can double or triple capital, yet a billionaire can never do that in a day.
Correct me if I am wrong, but China’s debt spiral hasn’t peaked yet thus adjustment hasn’t begun in context of a Minsky moment that ALWAYS occurs at the peak (i.e. China’s solution to prior debt crisis was not a peak, rather an extension to enable debt to continue to grow). China can’t make such a drastic shift without chaos (i.e. a transfer from crony sector to write-down the debt), and chaos won’t be accepted willingly. So will China slow grind while increasing debt perpetually as Japan did for 23 years, or will it have a Minsky moment sooner forcing it into chaotic adjustment? I would love to see an article that explored the differences between Japan and China towards understanding the factors. Japan can’t continue to increase debt forever, thus a Minsky moment must eventually occur.
I again take issue with Michael’s repeated contention that the USA has adjusted. The banks have not been recapitalized because they are sitting on a $quadrillion of derivatives that are going to blow up ostensibly when Europe, China or Japan does. It was the default of Rothschilds’ small bank in Austria that set off the contagion of World War 1, so it may not even require one of the major economies to blow up. Debt continues to increase globally and the USA is no exception.
Michael, how do 300+% debt-to-GDP levels (with a $quadrillion of credit swap derivatives as the enabler) for the entire world resolve in historically. Every one with a noodle should understand there is going to be massive chaos ahead and there is no solution that can avoid that Minsky moment. What am I missing that causes you to think the USA has adjusted or recapitalized? The socialism and debt is increasing everywhere, no write-downs or peaks have been achieved except perhaps in Iceland.
P.S. Michael thanks for clarifying that you desire comments. I was contemplating if you had turned them off intentionally.
[1] I’ve explained fitness in terms of simulated annealing and degrees-of-freedom in past blog comments, and a simpler way of visualizing it is that small things grow faster, i.e. selling cold water on a hot day can double or triple capital, yet a billionaire can never do that in a day.
Correct me if I am wrong, but China’s debt spiral hasn’t peaked yet thus adjustment hasn’t begun in context of a Minsky moment that ALWAYS occurs at the peak (i.e. China’s solution to prior debt crisis was not a peak, rather an extension to enable debt to continue to grow). China can’t make such a drastic shift without chaos (i.e. a transfer from crony sector to write-down the debt), and chaos won’t be accepted willingly. So will China slow grind while increasing debt perpetually as Japan did for 23 years, or will it have a Minsky moment sooner forcing it into chaotic adjustment? I would love to see an article that explored the differences between Japan and China towards understanding the factors. Japan can’t continue to increase debt forever, thus a Minsky moment must eventually occur.
I again take issue with Michael’s repeated contention that the USA has adjusted. The banks have not been recapitalized because they are sitting on a $quadrillion of derivatives that are going to blow up ostensibly when Europe, China or Japan does. It was the default of Rothschilds’ small bank in Austria that set off the contagion of World War 1, so it may not even require one of the major economies to blow up. Debt continues to increase globally and the USA is no exception.
Michael, how do 300+% debt-to-GDP levels (with a $quadrillion of credit swap derivatives as the enabler) for the entire world resolve in historically. Every one with a noodle should understand there is going to be massive chaos ahead and there is no solution that can avoid that Minsky moment. What am I missing that causes you to think the USA has adjusted or recapitalized? The socialism and debt is increasing everywhere, no write-downs or peaks have been achieved except perhaps in Iceland.
P.S. Michael thanks for clarifying that you desire comments. I was contemplating if you had turned them off intentionally.
October 27, 2013, 02:58:40 PM
October 27, 2013, 10:23:14 AM
Add:
4. Remove the capability for the private banks to create base money out-of-thin air when they issue loans on reserves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin#The_.22Mandrake_mechanism.22
Of course they may still be able (if not illegal) to write more receipts for deposits, than they have reserves, but they won't actually be able to create base cryptocurrency money, thus bank runs and defaults should be more frequent and self-correcting (as they were in the 1800s on a gold base money with gold certificates as receipts for deposits). The subversion is if the receipts begin trading as currency (e.g. Ripple currency) and are more widely accepted than the cryptocurrency base money, which I guess is what happened near the end-game of the 1800s.
+1
Now you make more sense anonymint.
Ripple is essentially designed for this purpose, but actually it serves no purpose, where as in an old analog system ripple could actually serve a purpose, its a paradox of sorts, it reminds me a little of the zeitgeist paradox I identified.
For example break down the headline just basic support for this movement and you will find a large demographic in post what i would call " post cocommunists baby boomers" , what im trying to state badly is , those generations after the " communist baby boomers" .
So we have these supporters , of the zeitgeist movment , but wait for it :
Without "multidimensional information" , a the zeitgeist movement would not exist, but also without "multidimensional information" the zeitgeist movement may have been very large , but because of it primary reason for existance is also the reason for its failure.
So we have this effect you see.
One in fact Tesla predicted, maybe the genius of all humans?
4. Remove the capability for the private banks to create base money out-of-thin air when they issue loans on reserves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin#The_.22Mandrake_mechanism.22
Of course they may still be able (if not illegal) to write more receipts for deposits, than they have reserves, but they won't actually be able to create base cryptocurrency money, thus bank runs and defaults should be more frequent and self-correcting (as they were in the 1800s on a gold base money with gold certificates as receipts for deposits). The subversion is if the receipts begin trading as currency (e.g. Ripple currency) and are more widely accepted than the cryptocurrency base money, which I guess is what happened near the end-game of the 1800s.
+1
Now you make more sense anonymint.
Ripple is essentially designed for this purpose, but actually it serves no purpose, where as in an old analog system ripple could actually serve a purpose, its a paradox of sorts, it reminds me a little of the zeitgeist paradox I identified.
For example break down the headline just basic support for this movement and you will find a large demographic in post what i would call " post cocommunists baby boomers" , what im trying to state badly is , those generations after the " communist baby boomers" .
So we have these supporters , of the zeitgeist movment , but wait for it :
Without "multidimensional information" , a the zeitgeist movement would not exist, but also without "multidimensional information" the zeitgeist movement may have been very large , but because of it primary reason for existance is also the reason for its failure.
So we have this effect you see.
One in fact Tesla predicted, maybe the genius of all humans?
October 27, 2013, 10:14:31 AM
That's because the whitepaper mentions "fees" 5 times, yet they are used only in philosophical contexts and not in examples or suggested rules.
When pruning an old block, for which fees have already been paid, the transactions will be included for free in the new block, at the cost of the current effort minus current fees.
How can then the mini-blockchain offer "lower fees" if more effort is needed for the same reward?
When pruning an old block, for which fees have already been paid, the transactions will be included for free in the new block, at the cost of the current effort minus current fees.
How can then the mini-blockchain offer "lower fees" if more effort is needed for the same reward?
October 27, 2013, 07:15:58 AM
Perhaps you might get a response from the original proponents. I think I can possibly answer correctly interim.
It is not clear what is the deal with the fees:
- Will the pruned blocks delete the already given mining fees, if so that would break transactions that spend the fees?
- Do the pruned blocks keep the mining fees transactions, how do they preserve the special coinbase transaction for this?
These end up in account balances tree, just as any other transaction does. All transactions are secured into the account balances the same way (eternal proof chain + sliding window of transaction history).
Huh? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question; sounds like you misunderstand how transactions work in Bitcoin versus this proposed Mini-blockchain.
No. I don't know where you got this idea. I will guess that you have some confusion about how the blockchain works in Bitcoin versus this proposed Mini-blockchain and this may be causing you to invent things that have not been stated.
It is not clear what is the deal with the fees:
- Will the pruned blocks delete the already given mining fees, if so that would break transactions that spend the fees?
- Do the pruned blocks keep the mining fees transactions, how do they preserve the special coinbase transaction for this?
These end up in account balances tree, just as any other transaction does. All transactions are secured into the account balances the same way (eternal proof chain + sliding window of transaction history).
- Who pays for the new block that includes already mined transactions with spent fees? Does the new block offer just new transactions fees?
Huh? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question; sounds like you misunderstand how transactions work in Bitcoin versus this proposed Mini-blockchain.
- Do you use recurring fees, thus double-triple-Xuple charge someone's account down to 0 and create artificial demurrage?
No. I don't know where you got this idea. I will guess that you have some confusion about how the blockchain works in Bitcoin versus this proposed Mini-blockchain and this may be causing you to invent things that have not been stated.
Jump to: