Bitcoin Forum

True (for various reasons such as ratios relating to propagation, denial-of-service, etc).


False assumptions galore.

Wait for the white paper. Amazing to me that what I invented seems so obvious in hindsight yet it isn't obvious to you all. Interesting.

All discussion about delegation should stop now. Otherwise I will be forced to delete some posts. We are cluttering this thread with too much detail.

Wait for the white paper then you will all understand.

- at one extreme, the service is completely trust based and very efficient and at the other extreme there is no advantage at all to having delegates but they are completely trustless.

Okay let's talk about the delegating party.

Supposing they are random then it is like a musical chairs type thing. Some times certain parties will play the delegator and some the delegat-ee.

But the delegator needs to be trusted in some form as they need to delegate correct tasks (within the specs of the system). Who decides who the delegator is?

If it is random don't you think that a malicious delegator could exist at some point?

Here is my reasoning:

Extreme lower end

100% trust based, permanent list of delegates - this is the ripple labs model. They are an unchanging set, never disagree with each other and can provide transaction finality in under 3 seconds per block.

Extreme upper end

Ever changing list of delegates, where network latency entirely governs the current state of the network and because of that you have to wait for 50% of them to come to a consensus. Because of the ever changing set, you need sybil resistance and now you've basically got trustless POW.

Is there any middle ground in your mind?

Here is my reasoning:

Extreme lower end

100% trust based, permanent list of delegates - this is the ripple labs model. They are an unchanging set, never disagree with each other and can provide transaction finality in under 3 seconds per block.

Extreme upper end

Ever changing list of delegates, where network latency entirely governs the current state of the network and because of that you have to wait for 50% of them to come to a consensus. Because of the ever changing set, you need sybil resistance and now you've basically got trustless POW.

I'm bothered by the fact that he opens a thread for his project where he refuses to discuss certain questions in detail (even goes as far as threatening with deletion) because "wait for the whitepaper".

I don't see the point of the thread.

Personally, I really dislike trust based models in crypto-currencies - trust is for the centralised banking system we've all come to know and hate.

edit: and whenever you combine anonymity with trust, you are asking for trouble IMO

IMO 'Trustless' is a completely revolutionary concept which deserves to be applied to anything and everything possible.

I'm bothered by the fact that he opens a thread for his project where he refuses to discuss certain questions in detail (even goes as far as threatening with deletion) because "wait for the whitepaper".

I don't see the point of the thread.

I am not going to be following the discussion in this thread at this time. Any who continue to make more false and myopic statements, that doesn't mean you are correct.

You didn't answer his astute question. And your dichotomous assumptions are very myopic. You do not entertain all the possibilities. You are going to receive a very big surprise when you read my entire white paper.

I told everyone that I am not ready to discuss my design at this time. When I am ready, we will in great detail.

I am not going to be following the discussion in this thread at this time. Any who continue to make more false and myopic statements, that doesn't mean you are correct.

P.S. no personal offense intended. I will appreciate the debate and discussion with you at the appropriate time. I allowed you to push me for more information and discussion than is advisable at this time for my project.

Add: I really appreciate all the interest in this topic. It is an important one.

You realise you sound like John Connor?

You realise you sound like John Connor?

Not to be mean, but posting an observation, Anonymint has a god complex.

He really thinks highly of himself.

The word humble does not appear to be in his mindset.

Carrying on discussion about delegation...

I'm bothered by the fact that he opens a thread for his project where he refuses to discuss certain questions in detail (even goes as far as threatening with deletion) because "wait for the whitepaper".

I don't see the point of the thread.

He does indeed, I've expressed this to him a couple of times.

I can't deny the fact that he is very smart, and weirdly, I do respect his position on a lot of topics.  

Problem is I've seen many times that those kind of character traits cause the undoing of that individual, even though they have the capacity to do something truly great...

Mark this down for the history books.

I agree with traumschiff.

Seems like the only purpose is to hype vaporware.

I don't think it is really malicious but more driven by enthusiasm and being a bit impatient to wait until it's actually done (at least in part) before discussing it. The effect is similar though.

I started a thread where I could update the public on progress of the development, with first order of business being getting a vote on the proposed name and the next step I said I would be uploading some code. Then from there on updates on the progress.

I don't understand what is wrong with making a thread for that purpose to track the early stage development of a coin?

Please enlighten me?

Mark this down for the history books.

I agree with traumschiff.

Seems like the only purpose is to hype vaporware.

I don't think it is really malicious but more driven by enthusiasm and being a bit impatient to wait until it's actually done (at least in part) before discussing it. The effect is similar though.

Smoothie says "put up or shut up". We are going to do it like this. I shut up. Then I put up and everyone else will shut up.

One important question to ask:

DID SATOSHI EVER ACT AS EGOTISTICAL AS ANONYMINT?  ::)

Satoshi could teach Anonymint a thing or two about having the right attitude and being humble.

Lol!  He's really hit a nerve with you hasn't he? :)

It stems from self control. Anyone who has a good sense of self-control would shut his mouth and work and release the product when it is done.

Instead of posting for months (and years?) about how he has a great system that will blow bitcoin out of the water on every item of importance, just work on it and get it done.

Instead of waiting, he jumps the gun.

I would be willing to apologize publicly if he indeeds fulfills ALL of his claims in his project. But until then it is all HYPE.

It's called being mature and humble.

Take a lesson from Satoshi.

It starts with you giving me mutual respect. You started this. Do you want me to show your numerous disrespectful posts and trolling the definition of "delegate" (which clearly has an alternative definition which fits my use of it).

Back in Satoshi's days here, there were respectful very skilled developers here. Now the forum is populated by half-assed who think they know more than they do and Dunning-Kruger over all the place slandering those of us who are at Satoshi's caliber and beyond.

I couldn't have said that before I wrote the two recent white papers. But now I've seen with my own eyes (actually make that 1 eye, I'm blind in the other) that I bested all of them, Maxwell, the Zerocash devs, the Cryptonote devs, and even Satoshi.

So I know the respect I deserve. Or at least we can start with mutual respect. I put up with your ad hominem FUDing for several posts, without blowing up but you just keep grinding and grinding away. What are you the Altcoin Discussion police? Who assigned your badge and rank?

Do you really think I give a rat's ass what you think of my personality (when what you are seeing is a delayed and patience lost mirror of your massive disrespect)?

I just have one suggestion for you. Prepare for massive humiliation when I launch.

You are going to eat that " ::)  ::)  ::)" you were putting in every post about me in every fucking thread. Spreading your ad hominem shit all over the place.

Hey I don't have an ego problem. You are the one who is insulted and butt hurt ego when I pointed out you don't know how to read the thread before you comment, thus you make statements which were already refuted. Then you expect me to cower to you so you don't feel butt hurt.

Look in the mirror buddy. There is the ego problem.

Recently I announced my rationale to develop my coin non-anonymously, with any anonymity features to be added by other developers later.

The proposed name of the coin is Ion with a capitalized first letter when it can be written with a serif font, e.g. Ion— otherwise ion instead of Ion. For me ion connotes a thing that can conduct a current and be zapped to a destination.

Formerly AnonyMint et al, I expended 2+ years thinking about anonymity designs and recently formalized an unreleased white paper which I think is the holy grail of on chain anonymity. This will be offloaded to other developers, so I can work non-anonymously on this coin.

The current focus of my development on this coin is to complete a novel consensus network design which has proposed the following fixes to flaws in Satoshi’s design while retaining proof-of-work as unbounded entropy[1]:

Censorship resistance even if mining is entirely centralized.
Attack-free instant zero confirmation instantaneous transactions.
Impervious to selfish mining and 51% attacks.
Transaction rates virtually unbounded by block chain bandwidth and size.
Resilient against network fragmentation.
Decentralization of pools and ASICs by making them uneconomic.
Non-heuristic Sybil and DoS resistance.

None of the above is a joke nor exaggeration. I am entirely serious. My programming background and expertise is documented in the archives of my prior usernames.

Currently unreleased white papers will not be published until this coin is nearer to release to insure these designs are released first in our coin. Thus for the time being I may not be providing more details on how the above features are accomplished.

Soon I will be uploading some code to the internet and will update this opening post and bump the thread. I will also be announcing some bounties in coins for those who want to do development on this coin. I will also later add some information on the targeted launch date and other details on the coin supply and distribution.

So that new readers can digest this thread from start to finish, I will be removing your posts sometimes to incorporate what was discussed into this opening thread post. I will also remove posts which are redundant or otherwise don't add anything useful information. Constructive critical discussion is welcomed.

The future goal is to have a Wiki and incorporate all discussion there. All posts would remain viewable in the Wiki history as they are removed from current versions of the Wiki pages and the outcome of discussion incorporated into the current versions of the Wiki pages. The point again is so new readers can access the information they need.

You are welcome to make an unmoderated thread, but do not expect me to comment there. Bring any issue in this thread if you want me to address it.

[1] My position until I am convinced otherwise is that all non-proof-of-work consensus systems have a bounded entropy (e.g. the total stake and/or any initial seeds used for randomization) and thus their attributes (e.g. decentralization, censorship resistance, DoS resistance, Sybil attack resistance, impartiality) is subject to a game theory which is potentially undiscovered. Whereas, the entropy of proof-of-work is unbounded because it is externally added and the game theory is well defined.

I am not going to be following the discussion in this thread at this time.

It stems from self control. Anyone who has a good sense of self-control would shut his mouth and work and release the product when it is done.

Instead of posting for months (and years?) about how he has a great system that will blow bitcoin out of the water on every item of importance, just work on it and get it done.

Instead of waiting, he jumps the gun.

I would be willing to apologize publicly if he indeeds fulfills ALL of his claims in his project. But until then it is all HYPE.

You post this earlier today ^



Hence my " ::) ::) ::)"

lol

You ad hominem me every where then tell me I don't have self-control when I restrain myself and try to explain to you calmly.

Then you push and push and push your  ::)  ::)  ::) in my face in numerous threads numerous times attacking me as not being humble when I am in fact answering far more about the consensus algorithm than was my request to not discuss it, trying to be nice and appease you all.

But you just keep kicking me in the balls because you want to be able to say that I don't have self control.

Nice classic asshole technique. Thanks.


I try to stop discussing and you attacked me for doing so. Thanks for proving my point.

You are like a spoiled brat who can't get what he wants, who makes logical errors, is too lazy to read the thread, then blames it all on the other person.

You ought to really go re-read everything chronologically so you can see how fair I was.

ad hominem?

You mean me posting my observations of your huge ego?

You also appear to play the victim card. Sorry I don't feel sorry for you.

It's called an opinion. Please be mature and act your age as I get a gist that you are much much older than I am.

Thanks   :)

Likewise I am expressing my opinion. You need also a lesson in being humble. If you are humble with me, I am humble with you.

Mutual respect. You didn't make a single valid point in all the noise you wrote today. You try to salvage your ego by declaring I am not humble. Whining like a bitch. Are you a female?

Likewise I am expressing my opinion. You need also a lesson in being humble. If you are humble with me, I am humble with you.

Mutual respect. You didn't make a single valid point in all the noise you wrote today. You try to salvage your ego by declaring I am not humble. Whining like a bitch. Are you a female?

Hey your bullshit is becoming far too obvious. Now you try to sucker me into some dislogic that I was trying to be a victim.

FUCK OFF ASSHOLE.

YOU WILL NEVER CODE A COIN.

I see you like to play psychological games.

Crafty slimy weasel.

It won't help you win. Being good at being a weasel doesn't go far in terms of real accomplishments in life. It is destructive behavior and thus you will end up where you deserve.

Wow, dude, seriously just breathe and relax.

That kinda talk ain't gonna win you any friends nor do you any favors!

BTC keeps going sideways and everyone is ripping each other apart - the next rallye is overdue, otherwise there won't be much community left  ;D

edit: sorry for off topic @smoothie, won't happen again

Recently I announced my rationale (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg12304886#msg12304886) to develop my coin non-anonymously, with any anonymity features to be added by other developers later.

The proposed name of the coin is Ion with a capitalized first letter when it can be written with a serif font, e.g. Ion— otherwise ion instead of Ion. For me ion connotes a thing that can conduct a current and be zapped to a destination.

Formerly AnonyMint (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.0) et al, I expended 2+ years thinking about anonymity designs and recently formalized an unreleased white paper which I think is the holy grail of on chain anonymity. This will be offloaded to other developers, so I can work non-anonymously on this coin.

The current focus of my development on this coin is to complete a novel consensus network design which has proposed the following fixes to flaws in Satoshi’s design while retaining proof-of-work as unbounded entropy[1]:

• Censorship resistance even if mining is entirely centralized.
• Attack-free instant zero confirmation instantaneous transactions.
• Impervious to selfish mining and 51% attacks.
• Transaction rates virtually unbounded by block chain bandwidth and size.
• Resilient against network fragmentation.
• Decentralization of pools and ASICs by making them uneconomic.
• Non-heuristic Sybil and DoS resistance.

None of the above is a joke nor exaggeration. I am entirely serious. My programming background and expertise is documented in the archives of my prior usernames.

Currently unreleased white papers will not be published until this coin is nearer to release to insure these designs are released first in our coin. Thus for the time being I may not be providing more details on how the above features are accomplished.

Soon I will be uploading some code to the internet and will update this opening post and bump the thread. I will also be announcing some bounties in coins for those who want to do development on this coin. I will also later add some information on the targeted launch date and other details on the coin supply and distribution.

So that new readers can digest this thread from start to finish, I will be removing your posts sometimes to incorporate what was discussed into this opening thread post. I will also remove posts which are redundant or otherwise don't add anything useful information. Constructive critical discussion is welcomed.

The future goal is to have a Wiki and incorporate all discussion there. All posts would remain viewable in the Wiki history as they are removed from current versions of the Wiki pages and the outcome of discussion incorporated into the current versions of the Wiki pages. The point again is so new readers can access the information they need.

You are welcome to make an unmoderated thread, but do not expect me to comment there. Bring any issue in this thread if you want me to address it.

[1] My position until I am convinced otherwise is that all non-proof-of-work consensus systems have a bounded entropy (e.g. the total stake and/or any initial seeds used for randomization) and thus their attributes (e.g. decentralization, censorship resistance, DoS resistance, Sybil attack resistance, impartiality) is subject to a game theory which is potentially undiscovered. Whereas, the entropy of proof-of-work is unbounded because it is externally added and the game theory is well defined.

Not trying to win anything. But anyway...

Get back to work! You have a shit-ton of work to do with your "project"  ;D

No time to slack on arguing with smoothie.

Sticks and stones buddy... Sticks and stones ::)

I won't be humiliated as I already offered to publicly apologize if you do create a system that does everything you claimed below

BTC keeps going sideways and everyone is ripping each other apart - the next rallye is overdue, otherwise there won't be much community left  ;D

edit: sorry for off topic @smoothie, won't happen again

it is cool.

You have any input on the discussion?

Unfortunately yes. I do respect you for stopping the discussion when I requested we stop. Thank you.

To be honest, I just went to bed - it wasn't related to your request... but I'm glad that I did looking at the state of this thread!

I got the impression the main motivation for starting the thread was to get feedback on the name of the coin, as well as list the features designed so far to start attracting interest of potential developers reading these forums who might want to join the project. Along with establishing a thread whose OP would be updated to contain relevant information arisen in the discussions while keeping the thread readable for new users arriving perhaps months later by deleting back-and-forth after the relevant bits have been moved to the OP.

This should be okay, right? I think his mistake though was to start answering to detailed implementation questions while being unable to reveal the specifics after stating that already in the OP. And your mistake was to insist on asking those detailed implementation questions, and getting angry when not getting them answered.

You realise you sound like John Connor?

...and here was me, looking forward to a mature discussion on delegates.  

It was I that suggested a new thread in the first place!  Fuck ya'll for spoiling it  ;D ::)

At this point it seems pointless to continue trying to get answers from someone who has none to share.

Just like when I delegate the transfer of my internet packets to my ISP and all the router hops along the way, thus my participation in the internet is no longer decentralized.  ::)

That is the fabulous logic of Smoothie which he tried to ram down our throat 5 or more times (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175752.msg12386678#msg12386678).

As I tried to explain to that young punk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg12387338#msg12387338) several times, if the routers are fungible, replaceable, and can't be monopolized, then the packets find their way to the destination, without need to trust or centralize. Delegation should not be conflated with centralization, nor trust. We told him this 5 or more times, yet he still insisted.

And he claims to be a software developer. I wouldn't let him any where near my code.