Topic: [XVC] Vcash (former [VNL] Vanillacoin) cryptocurrency unmoderated discussion - page 7. (Read 16242 times)

First they ignore your unmoderated thread
Then they make fun of your unmoderated thread
Then they fight you unmoderated thread
Then you win

i smelt your fear and i did enjoy

The question is now, "Why are they threatened by an unmoderated thread?"

And this is absurd logic as it only accounts for the few that have posted on here about the need for an unmoderated thread, but highlights the absurdity of making "they" claims and making (or intimating) logically fallacies hinged on those claims.

For unmoderated discussion. Enjoy.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14472374

the question is why they created an unmoderated thread about Vcash?and i got it now...they know in their deep mind that Vcash is far more superior than Monero,and this thread is all about a place for FUDing Vcash.

this is just a troll thread, if you really wanna talk about that with John Connor, go to official forum https://v.cash/forum/

What was your retort to my prior post? I only see a photo with some inconclusive claims.

Correct, meaning the amount of hashrate miners spend will be equal to the block subsidy[1] (where block subsidy will ultimately be Monero's perpetual tail reward which is necessarily a fixed # of coins), because (as I pointed out in our prior discussion) transaction fees will trend to costs, due to that the median block size M_N will trend upwards to match market demand and thus there is no pricing power on transaction fees.

[1] Note this means the tail reward security of Monero will be very weak and insufficient.


You wrote that before in our prior discussion:


And it still doesn't make any sense to me. The block size will trend upwards to match transaction demand, because the penalty is driven to 0 as the median block size increases as  miners can justify burning some of the transaction fees to the penalty. That drives the median block size upwards, which drives the penalty to 0 again. The median block size doesn't have any incentive to decrease again, thus transaction fees then fall to costs.

Sorry as I told you before, Monero does not solve the Tragedy of the Commons in Satoshi's design. It does adaptively increase the block size while preventing spam surges.

I doubt John Conner's design has achieved any better, because as I explained at our prior discussion, there is no decentralized solution to that Tragedy of the Commons in the current proof-of-work designs. I have a solution, but it is a very radical change to the proof-of-work design that relies on unprofitable mining by payers.

Whichever you prefer, debating between BCN and XMR is obviously off topic here. Either way the claim that there is no prior working code is wrong.

every body knows that monero copy&paste bytecoin code.
The proof is right here on bitcointalk, just look at the release date of coins

Monero and prior to that Bytecoin has had working dynamic block size code since early 2014. It has been proven in the wild against three at least spam environments, one due to poorly-written pool code and twice against malicious attacks.

This brings us back to the Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limit combined with a tail emission found in Monero where:
1) The cost of mining a block is set by the block subsidy
2) The total amount in fees per block has to rise to a number comparable to, but most of the time smaller, than the block subsidy.

"Blockstream’s Johnny Dilley: We’ll Eventually Have an Adaptive Block Size Solution (From Vcash)" https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/blockstream-s-johnny-dilley-we-ll-eventually-have-an-adaptive-block-size-solution-1460997499?utm_content=buffer36b7c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The solution to the block size problem has nothing to do with controlling the size of the blocks. It requires a different design where transaction fees trend near to costs but not to costs, thus not making the nodes of the system bankrupt.

Quote from: r0ach on April 18, 2016, 08:36:11 PM
Wasn't the Bitpay solution the one where there's no negative incentive for continuously inflating the block size over time?  I haven't really spent any time examining any of the adaptive block size proposals, but it's obviously not as simple as just coding up something that sounds logical if you're unable to identify all the various game theory and attack vectors involved.

John's answer

I've never seen a proposal other than mine that had working code. Fixed block sizes "by design" are attack vectors. You cannot keep growing the block size, this does not work as it is nothing more than a "fixed variable" since it only grows. If transaction's grind to a halt you end up with 100 MB blocks that could be targeted. I've solved the problem in a deterministic way that does not break consensus rules and XVC is moving forward with it so we never have to think about it again.  Shocked
Report to moderator 
John Connor
Vcash Chief Architect
Website - Offical ANN

Regarding the future of Bitcoin and its Tragedy of the Commons economic design:


Cartels form in power vacuums. They must align with the greater power vacuums in order to sustain their market inefficiency (top-down control can't anneal maximum fitness). So the only way such a cartel would not fail, would be to become a fiat of the world government and be sustained by the Iron Law on Political Economics which is the perennial, inimitable power vacuum.

I read Stephen Pair's proposal and it is basically the Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limit in Monero without the penalty function. It relies only on the probability of orphan blocks to set fees. My take is that this will suffer the same fate as a Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limit without a tail emission, such as is the case in Bytecoin. It will fail once the emission runs out, with the hashrate collapsing and the coin becoming insecure  At best one would see the type of cartel that TPTB_need_war  has suggested; however my take is that this kind of cartel would only last for a short time before collapsing. Just witness what is currently happening in the crude oil market.

Edit: https://medium.com/@spair/a-simple-adaptive-block-size-limit-748f7cbcfb75#.muot131pa

XMR dev creates an unmoderated thread about another coin...

XMR shills pile in to prove how shitty bitcointalk has become..

There are already other unmoderated forums that aren't on bitcointalk, and although I would rather discuss things here, you guys really show me why it has moved.


I mean really doesn't the XMR shill army have enough places for them to wag their tongues by now... 

Oh well that's my rant, from now on I'll just come in to add weekly updates.  Have fun running an XMR thread about XVC.