Topic: Zero Knowledge Transactions - page 8. (Read 18668 times)

If it makes you feel any better, you probably still would not have been a millionaire since you'd likely have sold all or most coins on a spike up that doubles the price.  Afterwards, like everyone else, you probably would have gotten the urge to buy some mining gear that arrives at your house in a bunch of broken pieces, or not at all.  Mining has been good to me, but there's plenty of times where I would have made far more by just buying coins.  Ironically, I think even the great Gmaxwell lost 100 BTC from a failure to deliver miner.

Jason Hommel's theological research should be linked to in the above context.

CK is young and needs to "borrow legitimacy" from a project 6 months older: Monero.

In practice, we designed it such that XMR is the link to the a-bit-less-virtual-world. Audited depositories are needed to ensure that all CK money exists in the blockchain and can be withdrawn if required. It is a kind-of two-way peg.

Only about 5-10% by value of assets owned by characters are money, but I still feel it is important to have the money link there.

If we wanted to pay out all XMR and issue ingame fiat instead (like every other game is doing), I believe we would do as well as every other game. But the intention is to do better.

No, in a spin-off system the coin supply in the old system is not decreasing. People keep both their new and old coins, but as an obsolete system with a clearly-superior replacement, the old coin should become worthless or at least nearly worthless. This removes both the negative feedback that discourages upgrading and also the instability of burning being an irreversible (and potentially in the case of catastrophic failure, perishable) process.

You can't really enforce merge mining in a decentralized system. You are thinking in terms of being the developer "in charge" of what code people run and how to manage an upgrade process, instead of a developer who releases an upgrade people might choose to adopt because it is better.

I'm not even saying this is a good way to do development, but if you really want a fully decentralized system where you are not controlling anything, that's how you have to approach it.

EDIT: Also, by claim date having passed in my previous post I'm referring to the ex date on the old chain. Claims are frozen but can be claimed on the new chain for a very long time, potentially forever (any successor spin-off chain should also respect predecessor chain claims directly, ideally, though in practice that may not matter all that much). So there are no issues of potentially missing out or preferring to wait, both of which potentially give rise to instability. It just happens without any active participation being needed and old coin owners can pick up their new coins at their convenience.

Maybe you should open your eyes to Aeon.

I and many others also tried, but Risto was the one who actually made it work somewhat even if I am remember getting the Post Office of Finland to have some of his silver units (or was that physical silver dimes) available for purchase.

Then Bitcoin came and opened our eyes...(and it opened your eyes before mine Risto, which is one reason why you are a millionaire and I am not)

But Risto I am not sure if you have totally made the transition to decentralized. You still write of audited depositories in your CK.

Actually you could have it in the protocol of the old coin that any coin it can be burned to (perhaps has to be registered in the old coin's block chain) can burn the coin for the old coin. But this requires a different sort of block chain consensus algorithm that doesn't assume it has all the data at every mining node all the time. This is close to describing my radical design for a block chain.

And if the old coin disrespects its own protocol, then one assumes the market will highly devalue it as dysfunctional.


But this has another risk which is the expiration on the demonstration of relative interest in the new coin, although that can also be signaled ongoing by relative market prices. Timing risks include a bug found in the new coin or some FUD campaign that needs time to be discredited that needs to be fixed first and people delay burning.

Yet I agree that while the period of burning is open, it complicates calculations of future value because the future coin supply is variable. It seems the best balance is probably some multi-month period, perhaps even up to a year.

Other risks during that longer period?


It is complex though. The coin supply of the old coin is decreasing, so some might view it as gaining value, yet if mining declines too much some might view it as becoming more in danger of failing to function. To lower risks in burning, merge mining both the old and new is how I would code the upgrade which also facilitates the redesign of the block chain consensus I alluded to.


I agree the additional unpredictable dilution causes discord in the social contract and confusion. Risk is a countervailing force to adoption.

I am trying to feed it piece by piece. Town is a CK Corporate Character with the rule-making authority. VOD is an ingame item. XMR is not a CK concept (I used it incorrectly on purpose), but ingame money can be had if an XMR deposit to an audited depository is made. "burning" "XMR" in my text really means spending ingame money, except in IC where it means burning ingame items. XMR cannot be officially burned, but can be sent to a "burn address".

You can only do this if the old coins even functions, isn't weakened and attacked, etc.. That in turn will be reflected in the market as a sort of black swan risk that is extremely difficult to reason about or handle, leading to things being generally unstable. That is one reason why I find spin-off claims to be preferable. Once the claim date is passed, the claims are frozen, the state of the old coin no longer matters, and claims are not perishable.

The possibility remains that people would prefer the old coin, since the only actual transition process is that the value of the old coin declines and the new coin increases (other than that, people are free to continue to use the old one if they prefer), but in a situation where ongoing development is occurring, presumably people would strongly prefer the new-and-improved version (or if not, is it really improved?)

Claims can be made against a new coin with another ICO, but the added dilution adds to the risk that the market will reject it. Such is the nature of true decentralization. You can't simply corral people to the new coin if you don't deliver enough value. (This may also weaken confidence if there isn't a strong social contract, since people have no idea how much they will be diluted in future versions, nor how many times.)


The "other user" was probably cypherdoc himself. He certainly didn't understand the technical details and probably not really the financial/economic details either, but he still had a very good intuition that there is more complexity and risk to this story than just "Two way peg. Full stop."

Please define terms "Town", "VOD", and "burning XMR". I am thinking burning XMR can only happen on the XMR block chain. Does XMR have this feature?

We at least I tried: the depository was able to work as a redeemable 100% guaranteed storage of silver and it "issued" (it did not circulate anywhere except in the centralized system though, because at the time we were ready for it, Bitcoin started its ascent already and the plan for silver felt outdated) units worth about $0.10 pegged to the silver warehoused. Nothing would prevent from doing every same thing with them as with Bitcoin (we contacted banks re: credit cards etc. fancy things, had a "hawala" payment where you can get your silver credits to your bank account in 30 minutes, ...), except the "hard withdrawal" would be more cumbersome due to the smallest coin being worth ~$1.00 and physical collection of the silver was required.

At max, the value of silver deposited by our customers was about $4 million so small business here. But it all contributes to the experience  

There are several of these still working (mainly on gold) though they tend to run into mysterious problems... 

Mycotoxins:

https://www.bulletproofexec.com/mycotoxins-in-america/

https://www.bulletproofexec.com/asprey-shoemaker-toxic-mold-exposure/

https://www.bulletproofexec.com/why-bad-coffee-makes-you-weak/

https://www.bulletproofexec.com/remove-toxins/

I haven't had time to re-read the thread about Peter R's spin-off idea to see if the following was already discussed (or perhaps similar discussion about Blockstream's side-chains), but even if you have a capability to burn from one coin to the new coin (e.g. an upgrade fork) the new coin needs to add some coin supply in order to sell something in its crowdfunding unless it only accepts the burnable coin as funding. Burning to the new (e.g. upgraded) coin will:

• Dilute the new coin supply.
• Dilute or increase the owner of the coin's share of coin supply depending on the relative size of the coin supplies at the time.
• Increase the share of the coin supply for all remaining owners of the coin being burned.
• Affect the relative market price of the coins in complex ways, including expectations of burn.

Seems the most straightforward crowdfunded upgrade would be commitments to sell the coin being upgraded. As participants commit to the upgrade to meet the crowdfund threshold, they know the minimum coin supply of the new upgrade (assuming the funded dev(s) intended to burn the coins to the new coin) and any dilution beyond that is a vote of confidence in the upgrade which is perhaps viewed as counter-balancing to the additional dilution.

If there are series of upgrades and you are late, you could burn from one to the next to the next, so there isn't any hindrance there. All these factors will be reflected in the complex expectations that form the relative market prices. I might want to assume someone will burn when the market price is less than 1 for the burnable coin (denominated in the new coin), and they will trade instead for the new coin if the market price is greater than 1. So at the start one would expect mostly burning, because the new coin supply is much lower than the money supply of the burnable coin (and demand for the new coin should be higher if it is clearly better). When the relative market price is close to unity, there is no incentive to burn nor trade for the purpose of burning. But expectations will change due to various market factors over time, thus unity relative market price will not likely be a stable homeostasis. And moreover, why would any one assume that unity is the natural equilibrium? Some may have the expectation that the long-term value is going to be something other than unity so their decisions to whether to trade or burn may be so altered, i.e. not everyone jumps on a short-term valuation option because it might not be sustained and then everyone has a stop-loss provision in place.

This complexity of interaction between market price and burning impact on Blockstream's side chains (bidirectional burning) is either simplified or further complicated by the assumption you in theory can always burn your coins back to the chain where you want unity value to be respected. If that two-way transfer can be guaranteed, then it is a simplification. But each coin is a decentralized system subject to for example 51% attacks, takeover by centralization of mining, or even defection of 51% of the mining due to for example a stampede from one coin to the other due to some bug or even suspicion of hidden inflation in the for example the value hiding algorithm of the anonymity. This is the relativity of the universe, i.e. there can be no absolute point of reference such as BTC.

Thus my former enthusiasm for side-chains has waned somewhat now that I can see that unity pegging can't be assured due to different market expectations (which was something smooth and one other user told in me cypherdoc's thread but I emphasized the arbitrage effect of being able to two-way transfer). I still believe the two-way arbitrage would provide a unity peg if it is unassailable, but I realize it is not likely to be assumed unassailable by the market. For example, side-chains have technical hurdles revolving around orphaned reorganizations and the lack of native support for the protocol in Bitcoin.

We can consider (Town-emitted) CK assets to be "community burn" then.

For instance there is now a decree that Town will (effectively create) and sell VOD item for 0.14 XMR in unlimited quantity. The item is expected to be around for a long time. Anyone can "burn" their XMR to convert it to VOD at a fixed rate but not back. If VOD is perceived to have better characteristics than XMR, it will be desirable. (It can be consumed to gain health, on the other hand it is not as liquid.) Gains from selling VOD will be divided to the game shareholders.

Another example is item IC, which is actually burned and disappears from the game when it is converted to TS160 silver coins, for instance.

In this "closed burn" system, items constantly change their form, and their value is determined in the marketplace. We are currently not relying on blockchain to be the arbiter of the game state, because a blockchain this small can easily be attacked. Our "public community consensus" validation has worked very well so far, and in the future the data storage will be even more difficult to interfere with from the outside. It will have multiple layers with the critical items (such as voting rights of the game rules and items of major value) secured better than lesser-valued items (such as food and drinks that each character continuously produces, buys, sells and consumes).

I don't think precious metals are a solution in the modern world in the first place. They'll only be useful in a hard collapse where/if we go back to the dark ages.  Precious metals have low granularity and high friction in use.  They were useful in an age of barter where you show up at a market and want a chicken and the vendor estimates which coin in your pocket the chicken is most closely valued to.  He then has to toss in a loaf of bread or something else until you both agree on value.  

Most business owners don't run their own floor nowadays and nobody is even allowed to barter.  Let's not forget gold backed currency is how fractional reserve was created in the first place.  In other words, it's almost useless because the market demands higher granularity and lower friction.

Cool. Let me know how you get on.

You may want to research:-

Stachybotrys (toxic black mold)
Trichothecene Mycotoxins (T-2 mycotoxins)
Cholestyramine Mycotoxin Detoxification

You'll probably want to check C3a, C4a as well as ACE, C-Reactive Protein as well as cholesterol levels. If C3 is high (i.e above 200) then it would indicated Lyme. If C4a is high then it's probably mold, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if its mold then your cholesterol levels are going to be through the roof also, irrespective of how fat/thin you are.

If mold is the culprit then you can be sure that's the reason your GSH levels are depleted thus causing oxidative stress. Building it back up as you are is an excellent idea, but bear in mind as long as you have mycotoxins in your system then you're at risk from relapse. So locate the source of the mold first, detox second, and rebuild last.

You'll find this interesting:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942754/

By the way, skipping sleep is a really bad idea. While detoxification of the lymphatic system can be achieved in numerous ways, detoxification of the glymphatic system can only really be achieved through deep sleep. So you'll want to be sleeping 9-10 hours a day.

Also don't be doing caffeine. If you're faced with the mammoth task of detoxing mycotoxins from your system it makes no sense to overload your liver with un-neccesary "extra" detoxification tasks. For that same reason I'd question why you're eating raw tuna.

In my understanding, the solutions need to have the following characteristics:

- not be against "God's law" = the "natural law" we all have in our conscience
- cannot be shut down by the perpetrators of other laws.

If it can be shut down by anyone, it is not a solution. Isn't that the reason we are here in crypto, because this is the most promising field now where unstoppable things are able to be developed?

(I just closed a silver depository storing tons of silver. I did not see it had the quality of not being able to be shut down; thus it was a non-solution, and not worth my effort. My silver businesses are from the era when crypto did not exist, and silver was the most promising thing.)

Pretty obvious example of if they want you to go down, you're going down:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve

The feds are even saying they have jurisdiction over banking records held by the Chinese government nowadays...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-08/us-government-just-crossed-rubicon

The decentralized systems with no "controlling entity" will have this quality. But a regulated/unregistered company running a coin doesn't have this quality and thus is culpable under man's law serfdom. Daniel 2:44 says the righteous unassailable kingdom will "break apart" meaning it will be decentralized.

Selling unregistered securities internationally appears to be asking to put oneself in multiple-jeopardy because you become culpable to numerous jurisdictions and court interpretations.


https://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm


It appears that securities regulation in the EU is limited to shares in companies (and certain bonds), but if you are selling coins which you used to fund development activities and you are controlling the coin ongoing, one might argue this is equivalent to a company operating an exchange which trades the shares it issued. In other words, you didn't register your company but it is still operating as a company. Thus I do think offering ICOs in Europe are potentially culpable especially as EU totalitarianism proceeds with the sovereign debt collapse the push to federalize the governance and taxing power to Brussels as a "solution" to the ("incorrigible nations") debt crisis, i.e. the member nation debts need to be consolidated thus fiscal policy and thus law needs to be consolidated (the Euro was the Trojan horse to full integration of sovereignty). Does anyone think this interpretation of potential risk is ludicrous and if so then why?

Perhaps a securities case will be brought as part of a class action lawsuit, such as if Ethereum investors become disgruntled.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1472&context=ilj#page=9

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31989L0298:EN:HTML


Even in the Philippines (Asia) you can't even take an exemption from registration without applying to the Commission and paying a fee:

http://www.sec.gov.ph/laws/src%208799-chapter_iii.html