I have become disgusted with:
1. Bigotry against altchains
2. Infectious centralist dogma
3. Delusions about the nature of the economy
4. I can no longer participate here without feeling like I'm fighting a wall

http://litecoinforums.org/index.php?/topic/18-proof-of-stake-is-a-scam/#

this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests
this is relevant to my interests

Goodbye.

This is the stupidity that did it:
"Big accounts are investors that do not want to lose their wealth that they put into Bitcoin."

Kill me now.

1. Early adopters didn't need to invest shit to amass 10s of 1000s of Bitcoins.
2. Exchanging currencies is hedging not investing.
3. Investing increases participation at all levels, not just creating more worker drones for the first to hear of it.
4. The Internet does not have a linear time line preferring the first diver. Adapt to it or sink.

No more Bitcoin forums for me.

This rhetoric wouldn't fly on the school playground, how the fuck do people actually believe this.

It's not an investment vehicle. Exchanging one currency for another is not investment. It's valueless hedging. Musical chairs does not a factory make.

It's the least amount of effort which leads to a different analysis: None of the big investors actually give a shit for bitcoin evolving into something useful for many different interests. Furthermore, since the big shots want it easy, they will attack any innovator that makes things less comfortable. Because they can. There's several such wankers already in this community.


It gave out no superpowers. One little clique had them.

"Accountability and feedback"... Fuck you and your crumbs from the master's table.


Maybe you need to reread the software license. This is a seriously uninformed comment.


When the possibility of checkpoints was added, it was by vote of the user.

If you allow partial blocks to be written say every X% transactions then it's not enough to have the longest blocks, you also need to maintain that speed and during an attack speed varies even if they are blind mergers. Attackers will have to check their stats all the time. Once there's multiple attackers the threshold goes from 51% to 75% or more.

The solution to the 51% problem is either an emergency pool that mines only when there's a sudden drop in hashrate, leaving the altchains to grow (or you'll replace violence by the state with violence by zealots), or take a paranoid monopolar (easily bipolar) system and make it naturally multipolar.

There's plenty of talk about advances like the 51% killer concepts (avoid centralization).

Supernodes allow even the peasants to mine the trust chain. And besides it's unnecessary if you just allow potentiall attackers to fuck up each others' forks by using partial blocks.

I cannot believe you guys think the peasants should be second class especially regarding trust nodes.

Fuck this.

It's a good thing my friends are working on something compatible with most chains cuz it seems each community does not know how to say no to power trips.

CGMINER.

See if you can help there.

Reaper is useful for those who can't get cgminer to work right.

51% attack exists because ppl want a one size fits all solution. This is necessary for store of value purists and for the demurrage ppl as well.

Stop being paranoid about altchains and build a library of common functions.

1. The trusted node bit is further toward the beginning of the thread.
2. I replaced trusted nodes with supernodes.
3. Then I threw that out for partial blocks where you allow attackers to race and as such cancel out their power.
4. Fiat (VISA) is controlled by people who think we're all extra baggage (much like Bitcoin zealots hate altchains).

WAI CANNA U GUIAS JUSSA MAKE A DA MICROSORFT BETTA? YUSE NOT GUNNA WIN. ISS IMPOSSIBRU.

Love the end quote. I think my idea is a more in-the-stream real time version of what you suggest and it plays on consistent features, like image recognition.

Yours would work to an extent, it could be voted in, but now we don't know what transactions are real anymore. So magically appearing coins...

They would just screw the peasants with fewer coins and even gang up on them.
Economics is never separated completely from politics because the economics is designed to serbe some political creature a person, an institution, a dogma, or a corporation like a business or a bank (or a govt).

Anyways, I'll keep brainstorming in this thread, but I have updated the 51% killer (75% one) here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96365.0

BitcoinEXpress started this thread on solving the 51% issue: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96255.0
Ignore the fact that he's asserting some debatable points about his actions. That's been hashed to death.

I'll keep brainstorming in that thread but here's a completely decentralized solution to the 51% attack:

What is the nature of the 51% attack?
It is a single monolithic but decentralized network coming apart that is always ready to combust. That gives us the 50% + small edge parameter. A cursory study of chaos theory would tell you a truly decentralized system allows no monolithic attributes, ie. single difficulty, single hashrate target, etc. However, we don't need to modify those yet.

What we need to do is turn this monopolar model into a multipolar model. Any large attacker can make it bipolar. If we're going to have 2 poles then it's like two orbiting planets eventually crashing into each other. So either monopolar which is unstable or multipolar which is more flexible. Then 51% can become maybe 66.6%, 75%, 80%, 83.3%, 85.7%, 89.1%, 90%, etc.

Split the attack into two challenges or more perhaps like so:
Every block that's created must be submitted in portions but only the longest block with the consistently longest portions (at least 80%) in a row will be accepted.
This will lead to race conditions between multiple attackers. The blockchain is a managed self consistent race condition.
Instead of gaining control they may only be able to choke the network into a long context war.

The forking is solved because the possibility of gaining control is diminished with multiple attackers, but now we have the issue of drawn out battles.

So let's use our heads. What does a healthy chain look like?
No fever or cold sweats (way too high difficulty or way too low hashrate).
No sudden breakouts (blind merger as with the "attack").

Therefore the correct chain would be the one where the miners who were not knocked our during the tell tale DDoS are still producing at the same or similar rate.
In other words, assume the drop is a forced one and compare the hashrate against the participation rate. The fork with the least change in rates/participant and the longest most consistent (most partial blocks are longest) blocks is the correct one.

Think of the fair division of cake problem or a pile of loot with multiple thieves. What method allows the fairest distribution? Transplant the solution to that to the blockchain context.

More of this type of problem solving will be added here: http://antishock.tumblr.com

By the way, the blockchain is starting to sound like an operating system kernel and it would be wise to use ideas from that space to solve problems.

Hell, evolution and biological strategies for survival can also inform this issue.

Even better:

During a 51% attack (after alarms are triggered) you would have a battle for people to try to grab the chain.
In other words multiple nodes or teams trying to fork the chain or the original chain trying to reassert control.

So the solution is to have partial blocks which would allow competition between the two or three attackers.
And only the longest block with the consistently longest partial blocks will overtake the main one.

Now it becomes a 75% attack.

Nah. The people with the most coins are also the ones who are most against alt chains, any emergency features (not that they are necessary), any ideas that would challenge their position.
The people with the most coins are not building nor investing.
They have no interest in serving the needs of people who need to acquire and spend coins much more frequently.
Hell no. All they care about is "GET OFF MY LAWN!" and their bunkers.

If you really want trusted nodes, they may not be as necessary as ppl think:
1. half the problem can be solved by the network having a warning system regarding suddenly high difficulty, suddenly low hashrates, suddenly high invalids/rejects, suddenly low completed miner to pool interactions.
2. there can be a rotating set of trusted nodes that have a limited time to fight off a threat.
3. the trusted nodes would convene during a disaster and disband when no longer necessary.
4. defining one's node as a supernode (rather than trusted) would be a better way.

What you would do is have pools or groups of nodes come together and put collateral in an address that cannot be reorganized as long as any super nodes are live. Then when the threat is over, that address releases the coins. This way any people can be super nodes including the peasants. Also this means unbalanced power is never permanent.

Look at the way the United States was organized under the Articles of Confederation versus the later Federalist model which has become corrupt and fights wars at our expense. A digital version of the same thing would self-destruct much faster.

Specifically to #2, the United States has behaved as if it under threat of immediate attack for 80 years. We cannot go down that road.

An even better idea is not having one massive blob of a network always ready to combust.

Operation Reactor is exploring crytocoin cities or something like virtual cantons: http://freenation.org/a/f23l3.html

Account based leads to a whole bunch of vulnerabilities. Transaction based is inherently resistant to common problems in the physical world.

What should be done is to store a compressed version of the last 1024 blocks in a new block and don't download intervening blocks.

We're experimenting with putting together a few coders, making some code, giving it to the community, and disbanding.

Hive to operation and back to hive. More code less drama.

Single node training is pointless. The whole idea is to use the system for transactions and do as they say a burn in with real people sending mining at different levels then freeze the values that it creates. Anyways, "expect us" to put out a prototype soon.

Our working theory is that creating a fork by harrassing the network (as opposed to updating clients as a vote) is too dangerous for a blockchain.
So we're writing a cryptocoin model (old chains can be grandfathered in) where a 51% attack creates a new universe. A new chain with no fixed parameters, no history, and a separate address space.
The parameters are trained during a training period (like with voice recognition) where the users simulate or engage in the transactions that they like, want, need, or choose.
This allows new chains to skip the bullshit "paranoid warm up" stage and inventing the wheel and be sent to school instead.