|
Neither is better. Ripple's consensus algorithm is fundamentally flawed shit that they must centralize to make it work. Ethereum is also insolubly flawed nonsense.
|
|
|
|
So you've concluded that those projects will be abandoned before release as there's no way to get them to work?
I am guessing they will release them but they will be plagued by non-adoption and to the extent their is significant ETH in play, they will be attacked either to steal ETH or short ETH and crash the ETH price. I am expecting a centralized clusterfuck (much more dire than Bitcoin's current scalepocalypse) originally marketed as decentralized nirvana. Of course it is also possible it could unravel before that and they abandon with their tail between their legs, but I doubt this because one assumes they raised more $millions in the recent pump. The chance of them solving the underlying insoluble fundamental flaws is nil. There is no way to do sharding of smart contracts without breaking the Nash equilibrium that creates a majority consensus instead of many competing forks. There is no way to arrive at consensus of off-chain events without delegating consensus to trusted centralized entities. It is a huge clusterfuck that Vitalik weaved. |
|
|
|
So you've concluded that those projects will be abandoned before release as there's no way to get them to work?
I am guessing they will release them but they will be plagued by non-adoption and to the extent their is significant ETH in play, they will be attacked either to steal ETH or short ETH and crash the ETH price. I am expecting a centralized clusterfuck (much more dire than Bitcoin's current scalepocalypse) originally marketed as decentralized nirvana. Of course it is also possible it could unravel before that and they abandon with their tail between their legs, but I doubt this because one assumes they raised more $millions in the recent pump. The chance of them solving the underlying insoluble fundamental flaws is nil. There is no way to do sharding of smart contracts without breaking the Nash equilibrium that creates a majority consensus instead of many competing forks. There is no way to arrive at consensus of off-chain events without delegating consensus to trusted centralized entities. It is a huge clusterfuck that Vitalik weaved.
Listening forward to the end of the 15th minute, will if you are solid senior level software engineer with a strong economics expertise, start to make you realize that Vitalik is an unrealistic dreamer who doesn't think out the real world insolubility of his childish fantasies. Listening forward to the end of the 15th minute, will if you are solid senior level software engineer with a strong economics expertise, start to make you realize that Vitalik is an unrealistic dreamer who doesn't think out the real world insolubility of his childish fantasies.
Maybe you are too logical... What is an unrealistic dreamer? “Imagination is more important than knowledge... I am extremely creative (did you not look at CoolPage.com or Corel Painter on which I created or worked on as a programmer and graphic artist). How about my essays[1]. How about the print ads I did for WordUp which I also programmed. The difference is I am a realistic dreamer with a realistic plan who has proven I make products that end up used by millions. Vitalik lacks the realistic grounding (and no experience!) to choose viable goals and implement them effectively. What a horrible destruction of a math nerd to allow him to enter this fantasy world where he can sell childish, unrealistic fantasy technobabble to gullible speculator n00bs. [...] |
|
|
|
Won't work AT ALL??
It was explained upthread. Helps if you know how to read. |
|
|
|
Micro transactions is one thing that can be easily provided by a traditional centralized ledger provider that is funded by Monero.
Won't scale. I explained why if you had clicked my quote to read the rest of my post. The first thing to understand here is that micro transactions by their very nature fall way below any AML/KNC regulatory requirements. Someone funding an account with say 10 USD, in order to pay for say 10,000 page views at 0.001 USD per page view is not the concern of financial regulators.
The merchants receiving the payouts do fall under AML/KYC. And any MSB has to register with FinCEN. Also criminals will structure their microtransactions across multiple anonymous user accounts to side-step limits, thus your point really does not apply. This issue with micro transactions with the current fiat payment systems is not the actual micro transactions themselves but how do you fund the account in the first place
Yes. Credit cards can be incentivize massive fraud especially if they can pay themselves as merchants. But the scaling problem of centralized ledgers is just as onerous an issue too. , especially if anonymity is desired and this is done across international boundaries? As for the micro transaction provider themselves there is no reasonable reason for them to keep track of who sent 0.001 USD to whom. If they do not have a strict privacy policy then the market can find another provider. Filing millions of suspicious transaction reports for amounts under 0.01 USD each is not a valid reason and could easily land the provider who does this into serious legal trouble with the agency that was the target of such a denial of service attack.
Now you understand why a centralized ledger (and a centralized aggregator of funds) will never scale nor work in practice due to FinCEN requirements to avoid criminal structuring. |
|
|
|
Micro transactions is one thing that can be easily provided by a traditional centralized ledger provider that is funded by Monero.
Won't scale. I explained why if you had clicked my quote to read the rest of my post. The first thing to understand here is that micro transactions by their very nature fall way below any AML/KNC regulatory requirements. Someone funding an account with say 10 USD, in order to pay for say 10,000 page views at 0.001 USD per page view is not the concern of financial regulators.
The merchants receiving the payouts do fall under AML/KYC. And any MSB has to register with FinCEN. Also criminals will structure their microtransactions across multiple anonymous user accounts to side-step limits, thus your point really does not apply. This issue with micro transactions with the current fiat payment systems is not the actual micro transactions themselves but how do you fund the account in the first place
Yes. Credit cards can be incentivize massive fraud especially if they can pay themselves as merchants. But the scaling problem of centralized ledgers is just as onerous an issue too. , especially if anonymity is desired and this is done across international boundaries? As for the micro transaction provider themselves there is no reasonable reason for them to keep track of who sent 0.001 USD to whom. If they do not have a strict privacy policy then the market can find another provider. Filing millions of suspicious transaction reports for amounts under 0.01 USD each is not a valid reason and could easily land the provider who does this into serious legal trouble with the agency that was the target of such a denial of service attack.
Now you understand why a centralized ledger (and a centralized aggregator of funds) will never scale nor work in practice due to FinCEN requirements to avoid criminal structuring. |
|
|
|
I am closing this topic (at least until there is something other than a vaporcoin to talk about).
More vapor, but I think this is a reasonably good start for a Mission Statement: Mission Statement
We will decentralize digital age distribution, sharing, collaboration, work, marketing, and monetization in the social networking model. In contrast to other naive attempts (e.g. Diaspora), this will be executed in a profitable paradigm that enables a serious, profitably funded disruption of the large behemoths which are exerting too much deleterious control over the internet and our privacy.
Digital age distribution, sharing, collaboration, work, marketing, and monetization in the social networking model, are profoundly reshaping civilization.
Scaling the internet to billions did not happen by accident. It was baked into the End-to-end principle on which the core internet protocols adhere. The End-to-end engineering principle dictates that the intermediaries of the system are fungible with each other so that all control rests with the end users and user applications. Imagine the harm that could be done if there were choke points on the internet controlled by vested interests, which could block competitors. Decentralized, permissionless protocols are necessary for scaling, so vested interests can’t obstruct the competitive innovation and network effects which drive scaling to all potential diversity and reach.
Although the low level internet protocols are decentralized with the End-to-end principle, million and billion user centralized websites are dominating the percentage of internet use. For example, 71% of netizens are on Facebook for 42% of the 28% of their time online spent on social networking[1]. The centralized behemoths are in control of the users’ data, privacy, and choices. The users do not have the control to choose other competitive innovation within the existing economies-of-scale and history of the system to which they are by the millions collectively invested. Investors may love this vendor lock-in moat around the users— but they myopically choose lower return-on-investment due to slower scaling than if they had invested with the myriad of faster scaling diversified entities enabled by a decentralized paradigm. A forgotten truth is that selfishness drives failure.
...to be continued...[1] 71%: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/ 20 minutes Facebook daily: https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/ 20 hours weekly online: http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/time-spent-online-doubles-in-a-decade/ 28%: http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/time-spent-online/613474 |
|
|
|
The perfect piece of technology will not ever exist.
The internet isn't perfect but it scaled to billions. Ethereum won't work for anything that will scale to more then a few users. And smart contracts are nonsense that has no use cases. Slock and Augur won't work AT ALL. Yeah no perfection, but don't invest in rocks. They are pretty much useless. |
|
|
|
...
Btw, proof-of-stake will never scale out user adoption, because it is a vested interest paradigm, and thus will be destroyed by its stake holders. No stake holder (in any context or business model) allows a competitor to profit. Only permissionless, decentralized systems scale.
|
|
|
|
Ethereum is smart contracts...
Which I have explained in the Ethereum Paradox thread have no use cases that work technically. For example, Slock and Augur won't work technically. The details are all there for those who don't want to drink the Dapp Koolaid. Have you write something about Bitshares? Yes. Search the Ethereum Paradox thread for "BitUSD". Or maybe it was in the "POLL" thread for which coins are scams. Btw, proof-of-stake will never scale out user adoption, because it is a vested interest paradigm, and thus will be destroyed by its stake holders. No stake holder (in any context or business model) allows a competitor to profit. Only permissionless, decentralized systems scale. |
|
|
|
Desperate
That would be those using ETH to steal speculators lunch money. Others of us have more serious things to work on that could actually benefit society. Smart contracts won't work. We've covered that in great detail in the Ethereum Paradox thread. No one has refuted this. No one. Vitalik is well aware of my challenge and has not rebutted me. Also: ...
Btw, proof-of-stake will never scale out user adoption, because it is a vested interest paradigm, and thus will be destroyed by its stake holders. No stake holder (in any context or business model) allows a competitor to profit. Only permissionless, decentralized systems scale.
|
|
|
|
Call me naive
Familiarize yourself with 21 Inc. Familiarize yourself with the Ethereum scam and who funded its inception (Peter Thiel gave Vitalik $100,000). Etc.... |
|
|
|
Ethereum is smart contracts...
Which I have explained in the Ethereum Paradox thread have no use cases that work technically. For example, Slock and Augur won't work technically. The details are all there for those who don't want to drink the Dapp Koolaid. |
|
|
|
Many people are holding more then 10K in eth. It went from pennies to 15$
I'll wait for someone to identify themselves. So I know whom I am explaining to. I don't want to waste my time arguing with people who only have their lunch money invested. |
|
|
|
Replacing Cryptonote rings with RingCT value hiding is probably incompatible with microtransactions-at-scale in all current block chain designs because (including Monero) they don't remain decentralized at-scale, but not that was Monero's focus any way: Although sub-penny microtransactions are not economically feasible with credit cards nor current crypto-currencies because the fees are too high, these systems could in theory lower costs enough to lower fees to a percentage of the value of the transaction ( assuming transaction values are not hidden with homomorphic encryption, because in which case the oligarchy centralization inherent in these system has an incentive to raise to fees to what the market will bear cutting out lower valued transactions). ... Dunno if i grasp your intention at full spec, but microtransactions we´re never intented to be populating the mainchain ---> https://getmonero.org/design-goals/Side-chains and daughter-chains (even if merged-mined) have very negative implications on security for the main chain. Nevertheless, the core issues of scaling the design still need to be solved for the daughter chain, which no one has solved yet. Or you go off-chain, which has another set of insoluble issues. So we might as well just say Monero isn't going to do anyone-to-anyone-spontaneously microtransactions-at-scale. Until I see a detailed technical refutation, I will assert that from my knowledge base on this area of expertise. Edit: RingCT I presume is optional. So those who want to present the value of their transaction, so that an oligarchy could apply a lower fee (without destroying their ability to charge the highest fee the market will bear), would still work for users that chose not to hide the value of their microtransactions. |
|
|
|
|
I want to know who here has more than $10,000 in ETH now?
If you identify yourself, I will take the time to explain why you are holding a technological lie.
I won't waste my time trying to explain for these idiots who drank the Dapp Koolaid and thus have their lunch money invested in a technology they do not understand why it can't function and why Vitalik and Vlad and their development team are inexperienced and incompetent (except quite competent at taking money from fools).
|
|
|
|
since you think there are 0 users of ethereum
P&D transactions don't count as users. I am talking about impacting the world, not just small circle jerk of Pink Sheets gambling orgies. First, you have to appeal to their values to start with. If you attack them, you lose them. ~ Jacque Fresco
I told you to get your proudly ignorant ego off my lawn. I want to lose useless, obstructionist garbage deadweight such as yourself, so I can focus on changing the world. You are meaningless to my goal. Accept it or remain in delusion. |
|
|
|
Replacing Cryptonote rings with RingCT value hiding is probably incompatible with microtransactions-at-scale in all current block chain designs because (including Monero) they don't remain decentralized at-scale, but not that was Monero's focus any way: Although sub-penny microtransactions are not economically feasible with credit cards nor current crypto-currencies because the fees are too high, these systems could in theory lower costs enough to lower fees to a percentage of the value of the transaction ( assuming transaction values are not hidden with homomorphic encryption, because in which case the oligarchy centralization inherent in these system has an incentive to raise to fees to what the market will bear cutting out lower valued transactions). ... |
|
|
|
Although sub-penny microtransactions are not economically feasible with credit cards nor current crypto-currencies because the fees are too high, these systems could in theory lower costs enough to lower fees to a percentage of the value of the transaction (assuming transaction values are not hidden with homomorphic encryption, because in which case the oligarchy centralization inherent in these system has an incentive to raise to fees to what the market will bear cutting out lower valued transactions). Millions-of-transactions-per-second scalable instant transactions are not feasible in either centralized database systems such as Apple Pay nor in any “decentralized” crypto-currency yet devised. Centralized database systems have (afaics insolubly) greater latency due to the requirement for a roundtrip network query on the centralized database because unlike for a crypto-currency full node, the transaction can't be verified autonomously by a merchant. Additionally centralized database systems don't scale network effects as well (meaning they can't be ubiquitous[1]), because being a single-point-of-control power vacuum that demands vested interest conflicts. The state-of-the-art crypto-currencies are (not only are centralized due to economies-of-scale, yet also are) are incapable of scaling up instant transactions and remaining decentralized. I have an idea of how to solve this, but my white paper is not yet published. Some dubious designs (e.g. VanillaCoin's Zerotime) have been presented which rely on propagation and node voting, yet don't scale and are susceptible to Sybil attacks. Other designs (e.g. Dash's InstantX/Evolution masternodes and Bitshares' Delegated Proof-of-Stake) rely on the centralization of proof-of-stake which destroys the Nash equilibrium security in a power vacuum winner-take-all political economics. The hyped Lightning Networks (LN) proposes to centralize off-chain instant transactions in order to scale, but it places a huge “garbage collection” headroom load on the block size which exacerbates the insoluble Bitcoin scalepocalpyse it portends to solve! Also LN doesn't enable anyone to pay anyone spontaneously as they first need to enroll in time locked channel deposits on the block chain. Microtransactions have been criticized for the cognitive load they place on the consumer and that consumers prefer to reason about “all-you-can-eat” subscriptions than the “nickel and diming” of microtransactions. However there are use cases for microtransactions which can't be fulfilled with subscriptions nor existing alternatives such as advertising revenue. For example, advertising monetization just doesn't work well for indie content such as music and probably also not for games. Pharrell’s ‘Happy’ streamed 43 Million Times, yet earned less than $3,000 for the musician. The 8 Core Drivers in gamification includes “ Epic Meaning & Calling”, “ Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback”, “ Ownership & Possession”, “ Social Influence & Relatedness”, “ Scarcity & Impatience”, and “ Unpredictability & Curiosity” engender use cases such as for example rewarding indie musicians and developers a fraction of a penny for each stream play or a small payment for game paraphernalia. Smaller payment choices might monetize more of the users who value their time less. Subscriptions would be required with each musician or game, which would disincentivize the spur-of-moment impatience driver because of the cognitive load on choosing which of the unbounded quantity of choices to subscribe to. Or subscriptions would need to be centralized (acting a middle man between payers and payees) which then incurs the vested interest power vacuum scaling problem, as well as needing to register with FinCEN as a money services business which further limits scaling due to onerous KYC requirements. Centralization sucks because it stomps on the network effects of the free market. ...
Btw, proof-of-stake will never scale out user adoption, because it is a vested interest paradigm, and thus will be destroyed by its stake holders. No stake holder (in any context or business model) allows a competitor to profit. Only permissionless, decentralized systems scale.
[1] A prime example of this is how the oligarchy of credit card companies hasn't innovated internet payments and has strangled use cases, some of which are enumerated in this post.
Replacing Cryptonote rings with RingCT value hiding is probably incompatible with microtransactions-at-scale in all current block chain designs because (including Monero) they don't remain decentralized at-scale, but not that was Monero's focus any way: Although sub-penny microtransactions are not economically feasible with credit cards nor current crypto-currencies because the fees are too high, these systems could in theory lower costs enough to lower fees to a percentage of the value of the transaction ( assuming transaction values are not hidden with homomorphic encryption, because in which case the oligarchy centralization inherent in these system has an incentive to raise to fees to what the market will bear cutting out lower valued transactions). ... Dunno if i grasp your intention at full spec, but microtransactions we´re never intented to be populating the mainchain ---> https://getmonero.org/design-goals/Side-chains and daughter-chains (even if merged-mined) have very negative implications on security for the main chain. Nevertheless, the core issues of scaling the design still need to be solved for the daughter chain, which no one has solved yet. Or you go off-chain, which has another set of insoluble issues. So we might as well just say Monero isn't going to do anyone-to-anyone-spontaneously microtransactions-at-scale. Until I see a detailed technical refutation, I will assert that from my knowledge base on this area of expertise. Edit: RingCT I presume is optional. So those who want to present the value of their transaction, so that an oligarchy could apply a lower fee (without destroying their ability to charge the highest fee the market will bear), would still work for users that chose not to hide the value of their microtransactions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
