Trust me I don't need your help. Trust me you do not understand well the issues which differentiate my design from Iota (you do seem to understand the Nash equilibrium correctly).

Anyone marketing altcoins on Altcoin Discussion has a few screws loose in their head.

Not if you need your transaction confirmed. The cost can go as high as the opportunity cost, which is unbounded.

In short, the cost is always higher than the cost to do the PoW, otherwise you wouldn't even issue the transaction in the first place. A very high orphan rate could potentially be problematic and drive the PoW redos higher than the value of the transaction, but that is already prevented in the design.

I will not reply to you again in this thread on this topic. This is a waste of my time and I am coding today. And I am giving away my secrets at no benefit to me whatsoever.

Which is what I predicted it could do. In May 2015, I stated it would rise over the summer to $320, then decline. Which is what it did. That eventually it would crash below $150, but that it could also rise to the $450 area interim. Go review klee's PnF thread in Economics -> Speculation again asshurl. I also stated I would be stopped out at $380 on a short position, but BTC declined into the mid-$200s and meandered, so I would obviously have exited my short due to the meandering. Unfortunately I was talked out of shorting it on Bitfinex by one of my regular private message cohorts, who felt I couldn't rely on Bitfinex to be liquid or not cheat. Oh well.

And yes my < $150 prediction remains.

Yes but obviously that isn't true. The cost of not mining on the longest chain if your transaction isn't confirmed. That is an infinite cost.

That is only true if there is no cost to not mining on the longest chain. Which I have already stated is not the case. I am sorry monsterer you are slow minded.

People that hate the truth aren't valuable.

I explained how it is accomplished to you before. I am not going to repeat myself. You can go back and re-read our prior discussions in the Decentralization thread, or you can wait for a white paper. But it is really quite simple actually. If you don't do PoW, your transaction isn't valid. No one receives any coins in exchange for doing PoW. You seem to be caught up on details because you incorrectly assume this requires everyone who transacts to run a full node. You also seem to be caught up on assuming that no one has an incentive to do their PoW on the longest chain, but that doesn't make any sense because if so, their transaction wouldn't be confirmed. You may also not have fully appreciated the economics of the 51% attack.

Transacting.

You don't have to pay them money in order to pay them.  

Haven't you ever heard of barter trade which is non-fungible with money.

New threat to open source leaders, fluffypony needs to make sure he is never alone with a woman:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918

Do you mean altcoins? Like what? Litecoin? Dogecoin? Monero? Of those, afaik only Monero doesn't have a mining algorithm that isn't currently mineable with ASICs.

Please don't tell me you fell for the hype of Ethereum, MaidSafe, Factom, etc..


And then the South Seas bubble collapsed. Tulip bulbs have the attribute that they aren't worth 1000x their cost of manufacture.

Yeah but can't tax a company for the decentralized microtransactions between individuals which is the point of a Knowledge Age economy wherein individuals sell their wares directly, such as the music they created, etc..

The government will have a very hard time taxing what requires them to go into everyone's home to enforce (especially during a global economic collapse where people need that income to eat and thus will fight the government). They rely on the fact that companies withhold our taxes.

See my strategy.

I didn't realize you were making a country club membership program. I thought it was supposed to be a decentralized currency with no governance.

r0ach, you may not agree? But one possibility is we will see a selloff of Bitcoin for liquidity reasons but that might also coincide with disillusionment by the hardmoney technophile geeks who originally ideologically believed in Bitcoin. So maybe we get a selloff, to let the ideologues out and then the next ramp will be the rollout to the masses. Or Bitcoin just fails in a heap of centralized failures.

It is very murky, because I don't know how all the various players are really playing this behind the scenes (are they throwing in the towel on decentralization and joining the China oligarchy?), e.g. Blockstream, Coinbase, etc..

Any thoughts?

You will never stop hyping that flawed algorithm that you also refuse to release an entirely detailed white paper on. The white paper glosses over the specifics. Propagation is not proof to offline nodes. Voting can be Sybil attacked. Voting can fail to converge to majority. Etc. These are fundamental design errors that a rank amateur in block chain consensus makes. Even if the Sybil attack is unlikely at Vcash's small market cap and insider controlled mining, the Zero Time can't scale because all nodes need to see the real-time lock.

I don't give a rat's ass if Poloniex accepts Zero Conf transactions as some of you claim. They may be in on the pumps, or they may not be technologically knowledgeable.

Physical gold is for collectors. And maybe for an extreme insurance plan. It is not a liquid investment any more (or only in certain venues and the government can shut these dealers down). And the spreads are horrendous (especially if you travel... try selling those overpriced coins in the Philippines, they will give you 5% below melt spot if they will even buy them and never cash on the spot, maybe you get your cash after 30 - 90 days).

Maybe a bag of USA silver dimes might end up being spendable but I doubt it.

Yeah Bitcoin is more accessible, but it is also going to be a fiat currency controlled by China. Once the masses are using it, they won't care if China is debasing it with their mining cartel. I hope we will have moved on from Bitcoin to something better by then.

I am not interested in profit with Bitcoin. Profit is from altcoins. Or software development. Bitcoin is for liquidity and for avoiding the banks, but now I am losing trust in Bitcoin's loss of decentralization.

And the overshoot works in both directions up and down. Right now nobody understands that Ethereum, MaidSafe, Factom are broken designs that can't function. That reality will eventually hit and perhaps coincident with a general market and Bitcoin liquidity contagion.

You are correct to imply that I can't know precisely the timing.

r0ach seriously gold is going to crash. Martin Armstrong is never wrong about these matters. So many people got pissed off at him when he was stating gold would drop to $1050 when it was at the $1600+ level. This is dead-cat bounce for people who believe the lie that gold is special. Gold is mostly a useless relic nowadays.

As MA says, gold will only come alive as a hedge against government. That is its true role (although greatly diminished now because you can't spend it any where and can't carry across a border or checkpoint and cash is being phased out so it won't be possible to sell it anonymously in blackmarkets in the future).

Since the majority of mainstream wealthly investors don't yet fear the total collapse of government, thus gold has not yet reached that moment. Right now we are still waiting for the capitulation bottom where the tinfoil hats finally get their delusion busted.

Ditto Bitcoin. Another delusion.

Well I am saying the current nosebleed pump of ETH and the rise of entirely useless altcoins such as Factom and MaidSafe is an indication of the froth in the markets and so the contagion coming is going to shake the tree and a 1000 speculators are going to try stampede out the door and fight over 1 chair.

I haven't tried to model it quantitatively. It might be a long-tail distribution, thus maybe they can get away with for a while until there is failure of the Nash equilibrium and perhaps split into multiple forks that refuse to converge.

It is something for them to think about, not me. I wouldn't waste my time with that sort of design flaw. Thus I am not that interested in developing a model of its failure. Limited time and resources to do work that doesn't benefit my goals.

Just to reiterate or resummarize, if a validator of a shard has to trust the validators of other shards (for cross-shard state, e.g. the gas balance from one shard being spent to run a script that resides in another shard) then it creates a game theory which is not a Nash equilibrium but rather a Prisoner's dilemma, because the trusting validator can lose his income if the other validators lied to him (and that includes all blocks downstream from that one). Now one could perhaps reduce the probability of the other validators lying over the short-term by incentivizing them to report each other in exchange for a reward (proof-of-cheating), but I analyzed this for my own design and realized it is flawed and abandoned the idea. Because of several reasons such as those validators have an incentive to become coordinated to cheat (in some game theories whereby they can profit, e.g. shorting the coin), and it is impossible to make the reward more than any possible value that can be gained from cheating, etc...