Topic: Why all centralized coins fail (Read 2809 times)

Failed or some good idea to repair?

http://youtu.be/i93dNBW4NEM

You are wrong.

And you are consistently wrong when ever you argue with me.

And you are back on Ignore and you won't be coming off it any more, because the S/N ratio from you has declined precipitously.

Yes he did - your argument was nonsense.

edit: but a modified version of your argument does apply to a coin with no mining incentive.

I'd like a formal proof that FAA is soluble. When you have one, alert me so I can show you why you failed.

The reason you can't solve it is because it is impossible to know that a particular algorithm is full optimized. That is a fundamental mathematical restriction in the analysis of computation complexity. That is why the only way we can define computation complexity classes is by nebulous rules. Even Bitcoin's SHA256 is not proven to be fully optimized, but at least we only have one well studied hash function that controls the proof-of-work security. Whereas, you want to introduce unbounded number of new algorithms, and there is no means of forcing any particular level of peer review on them in a decentralized environment.

Really what you pumpers and scammers want is to be able to write some technobabble that n00bs can't comprehend and present insoluble problems as solved, so that you can sell tokens and make a profit on hype.

If you were a real career oriented software developer, you would work on things that have real world practical adoption baked in, and not be some 20 year old college dropout like Vitalik who has never accomplished any adoption in his life and waste $18 million on technobabble nonsense.


Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine Generals problem, and Bitcoin is failing because Satoshi's design is forced to centralize economally:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-all-centralized-coins-fail-1388887
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14144978
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13823607

Good luck with your project! I think I can speak for a lot people in saying that I don't have the technical knowledge enough to dig into all these crypto-currencies and point out potential concerns or fatal flaws as you have. So I REALLY appreciate all the time you've spent sharing that and keeping the discussion highly critical, rather than conceding to "the market will figure it out" or that Satoshi knew every possible outcome and planned for it.

Stay healthy and I'll be watching for more from you in the future. I'm sure many of us would be interested in being investors/early adopters of your solution! 

Best def is like 1h work equivalent ( PoW ) = 1 Money   

You're kinda using double standards.  Money is an abstract concept, but at it's core, it's just an IOU.  All money is really debt, a coupon that pledges to provide you with goods or services at a future date.  No matter what form of money you use, anyone can simply refuse to honor your gold, fiat, whatever, as being a useful monetary instrument at any given time and now you're the victim of a pyramid, ponzi, or pump and dump scheme.

Gold does not return it's value because the vast majority of it's value is derived from network effect, not intrinisic value or manufacturing utility.  Just because people used it in the past as currency means nothing about whether it will be used in the future.  There will never be any coin that offers guaranteed redeemability because not even real world objects do.

The only example I can even think of for money that offers full redeemability and isn't a ponzi or pyramid scheme, is the transformers cartoon where they use blocks of energy called "energon" as currency that can be fully redeemed at any given time regardless of whatever whims the market has.  Since matter and energy are interchangable, if you don't have the science to store energy permanently in a stable form, the next best thing would be scarce, non-volatile, non-corrosive forms of matter like gold, which the market seems to have logically chosen.  Although gold works decently, it is still inferior to the fully redeemable energy cube example.

r0ach, I will refute you in my white paper. There is a monetary science and you are not aware of all of it apparently. For example, there is no store-of-value, when the TPTB enforce capital controls on your Bitcoin because it is entirely controlled by a collusion of China's mining cartel and Blockstream/Fintech's $75 million investment. Store-of-value not only means "holds its value", it also means "returns its value, i.e. doesn't become worthless because it is confiscated or locked from transacting".

Now this really is my last post. Many of you will write what I believe are false statements I want to refute, but I will have to bite my tongue and save it for the white paper.

This is a rehash of the Gavin vs small blocker ideology.  Gavin believes the price of Bitcoin is solely derived from the utility of the network.  Small blockers seem to believe the network effect creates a captive audience where the price will continuously go up anyway, although they will never admit their ideology specifically relies on the terminology as I've defined it: "captive audience".  This captive audience effect does seem to have legs since there's plenty of other rare materials people could trade in real life rather than overpaying for a mostly cornered gold market.

I don't agree about your assesment that Bitcoin as a service makes the token worth zero.  Bitcoin as a service means you still have to submit to the network effect and transact in tokens with the largest market cap to avoid slippage.  There's still plenty of scarcity in the system such as transaction throughput to bid the prices up as well.

Even if nobody on earth can figure out why Bitcoin should have value, the fact that it already has value means that random individuals holding tokens as the cost of doing business, even if only for short term and they don't consider it a store of value, creates a constant demand on float that allows others to use it as a store of value.

Me and the annoying small blockers like Brg444 and Belcher already had this argument.  It's a chicken and egg scenario:

adlai:  bitcoin is useless if nobody views it as a store of value; not everybody is required to, but if nobody does, the incentives get quite funny
r0ach: assuming you achieve decent scalability, you really don't need to view it as a long term store of value because...we use fiat every day and that's exactly how it works (not a store of value)
r0ach:  If I'm a business and find Crypto valuable for international transactions for example, but don't even care about it's store of value, I might have tons of it on-hand just as the price of doing business with international customers. That demand on float amount held by many businesses will prop the market cap up and suddenly people can use it as a store of value even if nobody believes it is a store of value...so the chicken and egg scenario is, payment processing (utility) comes first before store of value
brg444:  That's backwards. Read Szabo's paper Schelling Out on the origins.  Most forms of money not fiat start off as collectibles. Same for Bitcoin. If no one cares to hold it as a store of value it will be impossible for your business to use it for international transactions.
r0ach:  well, Bitcoin itself didn't have value until someone bought a pizza, so the ability to buy pizza (utility) was the prime mover
brg444:  no see that is backward because the only reason somebody was able to buy pizza is because the recipient of the btc valued them enough to consider them worthy of holding them
r0ach: if you assume the initial coin recepient was a rational actor
brg444:  huh yes I do assume the guy didn't buy a pizza for someone on the other side of the world for shits and giggles.
r0ach:  Yes, that's exactly why he did do it.  Some guy acting a fool was the prime mover in creating a 7 billion dollar market.

Thanks for keeping my mind switched on!

I give you sth on the way (if you did not come over yet):

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf

My more careful explanation...

I just saw the future / vision for perfect decentralized miners:

They just need legs and a wlan, so you can send them out all over the world:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9QzIkP5qI&ebc=ANyPxKrdHui0obbDEkTSOOMBAOQ3abv6slUfSqiL08ZdB7R2cKdFXxteRy46NC-4Ii8tVvupI_rfU_6JuEBFMWa9ekHnu2X7Gw


 

Edit:  I call this  proof of leg (PoL)

interesting and long comments which i don't mind but guys.
I feel i need to remind again the same guys here..
Your not having a private conversation.
Everyone here would benefit from discussions.. if you tried to speak in laymans terms / dumbed it down a bit.
A hell of a lot of people have weak English for one thing.

I'd say it's critical the masses get educated as much as possible as fast as possible.
..to base their trading / support decisions on.

Writing a scientific paper on altcoins is not going to do much good if no one reads it.

The relay network probably falls under the category of collusion and the first sign you have a free market is that monopolies and cartels form.  It's just a choice between free market derived monopolies/cartels with a finite lifespan vs almost immortal government instituted ones.  I think from some core dev's mouths, the relay network is needed for blocks 500k or bigger currently, and there is no alternative right now I know of that isn't opt-in, so you're basically required to collude for the thing to work already.

That implies the miners collude, which isn't the case. They all compete for a central resource (BTC) and they try to do so by expending as little energy as possible; that is their rational behaviour. The reason it might be a 'tragedy of the commons' is if they chose to exclude transactions, or any other activities which benefit them but not the network as a whole.

I could also think of a second motive of miners that is to ensure the entire security, because if they own a big chunk of coins. So they have an huge interest to gather a big mining share (best > 50%) because they cannot trust other pools.

In this case biggest holders should also be biggest miners!

I don't believe the tragedy of the commons argument is a valid one because Bitcoin never existed in "the commons" as something like a lake in the first place due to one obvious reason, it's a for-profit system managed by central bankers.  For Bitcoin to not have central bankers, it would require no maximum block size and no min transaction fee.  The problem here is, one of those variables is required to be constrained to prevent spam attacks, so you'll always have central bankers in Bitcoin.

The current devs seem obsessed with utilizing block size as the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin solely to try and give the appearance of Bitcoin having no central bankers, when block size is only arbitrary throughput constraint.  Minimum transaction fee is the real spam prevention tool for the job.  They just haven't utilized it because they want to pretend there's no central bankers in the system when it's obviously required.

From a miner's perspective, it's in their best interest to vote for the highest minimum transaction fee that the network will bear.  From a developer's engineering viewpoint, it's in their interest to set it to a level to prevent spam or attacks from constantly filling up blocks to create a permanent backlog.  They both have authority to do so, and both of these interests clearly point to a minimum transaction fee higher than zero, so a Bitcoin dev that isn't advocating a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval isn't fulfilling his role well IMO.

If you take these previous points as fact, there will obviously not be any marginal cost doomsday event by raising block size because the system already required central bankers to work in the first place.  Whether you agree or disagree about millions of other Larimer issues, he got it right when saying Bitcoin is a decentralized business or corporation, not a public good.  My semantics might also be wrong and you might be able to classify them as "decentralized bankers".  It's kind of unknown territory.  Regardless, there is governance and profit structure built in where it's not an unmanaged dumping ground.

Rational behaviour of the miners is the profit motive; if they don't lose out to the competition (to produce the block) by including transactions, then they will. If not, they don't and they take the loss of fees for the reward of 25 BTC that they don't lose to the next guy.

Am I incorrect in what I wrote here about the mindset of Bitcoiners and speculators (see the prior post for a link to the prior discussion)?

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/49a14r/how_the_heck_are_actual_bitcoin_users_who_want_a/d0sa5x6

The conversation with the Computer Science Professor continues:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/49a14r/how_the_heck_are_actual_bitcoin_users_who_want_a/d0rt03p