Where does that say it is an encryption algorithm? It is a hash function, there is a big difference.

Neither is SHA

The mechanics of SHA-3 offer little different from SHA-2. Scrypt, on the other hand, is a fundamentally different beast. The way forward is almost entirely likely to be with scrypt unless something that is similar-but-better to scrypt comes along. Continually wasting money and resources on completely useless pieces of machinery (ASICs) is not good for decentralization or sanity.

Oh please, this guy has been a broke joke trying to make a payday from the start under the guise of "hay I'm honest, trust me".

Except you haven't a clue as to how to do this and are relying on polls to find answers rather than actually working on researching this yourself. You are the laziest and probably least competent person to ever try making a shitclone. But kudos for trying to come up with super original ideas like "paying myself 1%" and such, I am positive this will be a keeper.

Assuming, of course, that on aggregate the hatchers are honest. When dishonesty can lead to profitability, this is very unlikely to remain true.


I'm going to straight up call bullshit on this until someone from emunie shows how this is possible. It doesn't even make sense.


If the "graph" algorithm is open source, it can be gamed. As I mentioned to brenzi, the bitcoin theft was only obvious because the perpetrator was unaware of how his transactions could be analyzed. Under emunie, a dishonest person will know exactly what behavior the network is looking for, thus making it trivial to avoid detection.


It doesn't matter because then google can change the parameters to something else without the spammers being able to stay ahead. This is not possible in an open system.


No, it can't, unless you throw any notion of scalability out the window. It is easy to say something is possible, but when it comes down to implementation, this is not going to be a protocol that will be useful on any sort of reasonable scale if you have to keep track of kilobytes of data for every little gameable metric multiplied by millions or billions of transactions, or to check hundreds of thousands of prior transactions to determine how each divisible unit of a transaction has arrived to where it is today.


"Yes, emunie intends to be a centralized protocol." This a monumental failure in design. You may as well drop all these shenanigans and have a central server--it would certainly be far simpler.

If fuserleer thinks your ideas bear any consideration, combined with his poor understanding of the double spending problem, I do not foresee emunie being a viable currency. But the details are so scarce at this point I could be convinced the code is nothing more than a hamster running on a wheel.

While this is nice, it is not what I was referring to. Those exchanges still have the power to determine what is "validly transacted" or whatever you want to term it. It is still not decentralized just because you put the bids and asks over the protocol--it is actually somewhat silly since it is just a waste of bandwidth, but presumably you are using this as some kind of metric for determining legitimate network activity. Rather unscalable, and still centralized because it is the exchanges that make this determination.

Also note the complete sidestepping of the issue as to what a mediator is.


An obvious fail attempt is assuming that a MAC address is in any way definitive. Assuming it was (which it absolutely is not), who is validating the MAC addresses? If I'm a hatcher and I say these 10 million MAC addresses are connected to me, how do you prove that I'm lying? This is also under the incorrect assumption that a MAC address means anything more than one hop away.


Not only is google's system proprietary and closed, it is also centralized. If it were open, it would never work because everyone would know what google thinks and how to manipulate it. If it were decentralized, no one would ever agree on how it's supposed to work. And whenever the emunie developers want to tweak this system, how do you get the hatchers, or whoever controls the network order of events, to agree? Only via a centralized mechanic. In effect, the emunie developers, or whatever few that are in control of this system, are in control of the money supply.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=246463.0

"eMu can not be spent from a hatcher account, it can only be transferred to either an exchange account, or a regular eMu wallet via a mediator. This mediator records the movement of supply eMu into the system and is included in future supply calculations.  Hatcher owners are then free to do with the eMu as they so wish, hopefully, trading some or all of it out into the system."

I don't know if exactly what a "mediator" is is explained anywhere, but the exchange accounts are definitely centralized from what I briefly read on their forum. Basically "people we select to prove you aren't gaming the system", because they have apparently realized that doing things like checking IPs and whatnot cannot work. Can a mediator deny a hatcher's transaction? :lol: I'm sure visin will come in and say "lol of course they can't"--great explanation.

While the bitcoin theft graph is nice, it is because someone expected only a cursory glance at their activities. When the model behind any behavior algorithm is known, it can and will be defeated. So unless eMunie remains closed source, it will not be effective. Their solution (now) seems to be a centralized mechanism.

I don't see how any supply adjustment algorithm comes into play here. Probably because one hasn't been given, as if this is some kind of trade secret. More probably, there isn't any concrete design.

The options I still see for creating money are:

1) Centralized control of the monetary system - where eMunie seems to be headed
2) Proof of work
3) A broken system that can be gamed

And the developers still have not addressed in *any* significant way how hatchers can't be gamed. Sure I have been dodgy too in parts of this thread, but I also don't have a working implementation.

A crypto exchange being the source of the supply is essentially a central bank, it is not decentralized. Decrits has the closest thing yet that I've seen to achieving a goal of a decentralized stable price. Of course I am biased.

It is probably unscalable. Requiring the history of transactions for any significant amount of time results in runaway storage issues for a network of any significant size. Any system that relies on the difficulty of obtaining IP addresses or MAC addresses is also setting itself up for failure. Are they aware that IPv6 has 3.4x10^38 addresses? Where is this information being stored? Are more complicated models involved in determining who might be spoofing (MAC addresses? Really?)? I believe further in that thread Fuserleer talks about centralizing exchange nodes that will actually be the source of this information. Maybe it was a different thread.

Decrits does not rely on the number of transactions, but the amount transacted and charged a percentage fee. It also requires proof of work to prove demand--the transaction activity only sets a few (important) variables. We are back to energy wasting proof of work again, but as eMunie scales to more hatcher nodes, the energy required to run all of these models of behavior may well be very significant, and may result in there being few hatcher nodes. It is difficult to say with what little information has been provided, but there always seems to be a trade-off between centralization and energy usage. At least Decrits requires the bare minimum amount of energy in a network that is not producing new currency, and only fractions when it is.

Additionally, there are several very simple things that can be done to prevent maliciously changing the important minting variables if someone does choose to donate a bunch of money to the network via tx fees--such as only considering money that has aged for awhile and dropping outlying periods of excessively high transaction activity. This does not require any complex behavioral models.

Didn't you say something like 124 nodes connected? That is 500 tx/s / 62 (124 / 2 if we assume half the network receives txes first on avg).

You may be interested in my decrits ideas (see sig). I use a large deposit as a requirement for becoming one of the central nodes, and they create the timeline of the network. Not sure why you're limiting the number of accounts so heavily. I skimmed a few parts, I'll read a little more deeply later. And I would think you'd have to come up with a currency distribution scheme somehow?

Surely an unbiased article from unbiasedmagazine

Well whatever you read or the knowledge you've gathered here betray a lack of understanding of economics. Like all of the established gents that spout off around here. "Deflation is prices, but inflation is money supply increase, ooh ahh teh debil". There is no whole statement to comprehend--it is based on incorrect presumptions therefore should not carry any weight, and would only bear discussion in a place that uses misdefinitions and disinformation as its MO. Like, oh say the btctalk forums. Your post screams, "I've either been fooled or am attempting to continue the foolery in a circle-jerk of bitcoinomics".

You could start by explaining what you see the difference is between the "stated QE inflation rate" and the "real inflation rate", and when you stumble and realize you are using the same word for two different things and that neither has a 1:1 correlation with prices, perhaps you will understand. Perhaps you can link some graphs from shadowstats or whatever that website is that shows the inflation rate has been 20% for decades. I will be so convinced.

My thoughts are this is an ignorant statement. You use deflation to mean "prices", while inflation means "increase in money supply". Talk about being as obtuse as possible when describing economic fluctuations. QE is picking up the slack of where credit money disappeared due to the recession. Learn how money actually works, and stop eating what bitcoinomists feed you.

Clearly the solution is to distribute currency in a pyramid-like fashion to achieve this goal.

Very little trust, if that's what we'll call it, is required for decrits. On the other hand, proof-of-work requires faith.

You are not going to convince me by comparing to bitcoin. Can your shit scale to visa and the future? Probably not if all history has to be kept.


I would hope that you understand that ASICs and GPUs have nothing to do with the processing power required to run a node. So no red herrings, please. I dunno, you are the one who talks about tree traversals and all that.


Uhh, it's a forum, a place for discussing stuff.


These are all just buzz phrases that have no evidence to back them up. I'm not saying that you don't have this, but I don't have any evidence because you elected not to answer any tough questions. "ohh go see my forum" how about no. Does anyone even know what a seeder node is yet?

There might be some promise to emunie, but it looks like it is going to require a ton of bandwidth and disk space and a lot of processing power and transaction confirmations that take longer as the network grows, because hatchers will be competing. And very little money or luck is required to start attacking the network with double-spent transactions and so on. Clients won't even be aware of this problem a lot of the time, too, so they could be fooled. I dunno, I'll have to see more about it when it is more public, but it seems like the propagators and network securers are the same entities again which causes problems.

Fuserleer hasn't addressed any of the tough questions in the thread.

The OP's idea is actually not very sound, because Milton Friedman was talking in terms of a sovereign currency. It does not apply well to bitclones.

Even if you assume that somehow this currency has gained wide acceptance, a 2% yearly increase in the money supply means that close to 2% of the economy's resources will be wasted on producing new money via mining. This is a horrific economic motivator. More efficient mining equipment does not make this better, it just makes new competition. The alternative is to centralize the creation of new money, which is also the source of network-approved transactions. Conflict of interest, anyone?

In my proposal for decrits, this is solved by separating the creation of money from network security. Money does not need to be constantly created, and security is paid for by transaction fees. There's a lot more to it, so I'll just say check out the link in my sig if interested.