brekyrself, wrong thread. I answered you:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1342065.msg14012825#msg14012825

Perhaps Tor/I2P are useful for privacy against those who don't have the data collection capabilities of the NSA. I don't know what those use cases are. If you are trying to hide from the government, I don't think Tor/I2P are sufficient. Governments will cooperate and share data on those who are avoiding goverment's absolute power of taxation and regulation.

I have stated in this thread that for corporations who will comply with government edicts yet otherwise want privacy, then they want a more reliable solution than depending on a network layer for IP address obfuscation. Remember that the fundamental End-to-End Principle of the internet says the ends should not rely on the performance of any particular network nodes in the middle (i.e. the network should be a fungible layer). I suspect (wild conjecture) Tor/I2P might fail 0.1 to 1% of the time (in terms of IP anonymity and/or performance).

Thus I have stated Zcash/Zerocash (zk-snarks) are a superior solution because IP address becomes more or less irrelevant (which is not the case for any other technology such as Bitcoin or Monero/Cryptonote).

I give up on hiding from the government. Can't be done. I am pursuing microtransactions as the way to fight back (the government can't tax every damn little thing that people do, because people don't want to track every damn little thing they do). You can say I am pursuing a new strategy of "hiding in plain sight".

For privacy, I prefer zk-snarks. Monero is available now, Zcash is not. I presume Monero could perhaps add zk-snarks in the future if they decide to.

Users typically can't make such settings from any knowledgeable stance. They are ignorant of the tradeoffs and technical issues. I firmly believe you must make this decision for them (at least the default), because I believe they will blame you (the decentralized exchange concept) for any failure. I speak from decades of experience of making B2C (not B2B) commercial software for customers.


That seems reasonable since checkpoints are required in PoS due to people selling their stake and then doing a long-range attack with stake they no longer own based on reorganization of historical transactions that create stake. Anyone who is buying NXT should hopefully understand the tradeoffs of a PoS system (centralized governance, advantage of less electrical consumption, my arguments against PoS in my prior post, etc).


I assume you mean writing some meta-data into the stronger block chain, that the weaker block chain could refer to as evidence. The hindrance is that decentralized block chains have no external reference point. There is no way to enforce that a particular block in one chain came before a block (nor within some # of blocks after a block) on another chain. Block chains are self-referential, and that is precisely why we need CLTV to implement decentralized exchange. It is also why Blockstream's side chains have security which is as weak as the weakest side chain (because a reorganization in one chain erases coins that have already been reserved in other chains for maintaining the one-to-one exchange peg), which is btw why afaics Side chains are implausible (hopefully this post won't get deleted by the moderator, hehe).


I have agreed. Remember what I wrote upthread:

---

---

Thanks to TierNolan et al, we already have a solution employing CLTV on both chains and even squelched the hypothetical jamming with "coin age" filtering. I even wrote that I am excited about you implementing it.

I think you are trying to argue for cut & choose, but that is not the only way to do DE. We already have a technically sound solution for DE as stated.

I have also stated that the (innovative and clever but yet still economically) technically flawed cut & choose protocol variant might be acceptable if the user understands the risks.


Seems to me the problem of financially incentivizing long-range chain reorganizations by enabling the attacker to steal coins from the 2 of 2 multisig, will infect every coin. Similarly to how Side chains devolves to the security of the weakest chain. However, a key distinction is that Side chains depend on a fungible one-to-one peg, so the catastrophe is much more pervasive because the failure isn't isolated to the participants to the exchange between chains but to the value of all the coins on the chains.


Much better altcoins are forced to add CLTV and do DE correctly. Why encourage them to be lazy. Let them die with CE (centralized exchange) if they are too damn lazy to implement CLTV.

You do what ever you want, but you open Pandora's box. If you need to support Nxt, then I say go ahead. But generally supporting DE via the flawed cut & choose seems unsavory to me, but it is of course your decision.

I hated vegetables when I was younger, probably also because I was eating so much sugar and junk food that my taste buds didn't like the taste of real food.

I think it is an acquired taste, such as perhaps the first time we drank beer (assuming it wasn't when you were too young to remember), it probably tasted weird.

You might start first with the milder tasting vegetables such as munching on lettuce and peeled cucumber to allow your taste to adjust. Also cutting out all sugar will help you appreciate the taste of real food.

You could even mix some vegetables with wild rice with some gravy or tomato sauce style pilaf (I'm from New Orleans so I love cooking and food, just haven't had time and up until just recently many ingredients weren't available in Davao).

Also if you like Japanese raw fish, wrapped in seaweed, that also helps to adjust to the taste of real food.

If you like barbacue taste, then grill a fish (sans the high fructose sauce). Eating this helps to adjust away from sugary/high frustose coin syrup laden junk foods to real food. Filipinos used to eat their meat barbacued ("Sinugba") until the modern introduction of a metal pots, gas burner and cooking oils. Filipinos didn't have metal pots, so they skewed the meat with a stick and roasted it over a open fire. Mmmm... making me hungry...

Eventually you will love the taste of real food. It is just an adjustment process.

Raw vegetable juicing is a very intense taste (and afaik not healthier for us than eating the raw solid vegetables). I even puke on that. I'd suggest easing into it instead.

P.S. I don't know if I can heal from this disease, because I suspect an infectious origin originally (if it wasn't cured already by all the crazy herbal treatments I've tried over the past 3 years), thus inflammation may be driving the fatty liver and not vice versa. I am awaiting more laboratory test results focused more on infectious agents, and results from change in diet.

I mean it is very strange for me to have this illness if considering I stopped consuming sugar in any processed form two decades ago. But then I realized my diet was very poor because I've been living in the Philippines and also I was consuming too much pineapple juice before 2012 (again refined foods are not healthy as eating the original fruit or natural food). All the food here is cooked in oil (and usually reused oil over and over that has oxidized), even the vegetables. And all the food is laden with MSG. Etc.. So perhaps my problem is just diet, but I also was infected by numerous females with a wide sprectrum of STDs, gastronomical infections, and upper respiratory infections as well as attacked by mosquitos such as I had dengue roughly 2010 (and perhaps caught dengue twice which is very dangerous and I was never hospitalized for dengue but my blood test confirms I had it). Also I think the diet in the West can be worse if one is eating snack foods and microwave foods. At least the food here in the Philippines is usually cooked from farm fresh ingredients, but apparently all that white rice and cooking in (reused) oil outweighs the source ingredients.

Basically I was this athlete feeling strong who thought I was too strong and could just subject myself to anything. And now I am paying the price for that hard headed mistake. That is why I said, it is my own fault. It will be bittersweet if I am healed just by simple changes to my diet which I could have made 3 years ago and 3 years of productivity wouldn't have been lost.

Yeah (especially daily, continuous, chronic) suffering really sucks. Anyone who has suffered themselves or seen a love one suffer, doesn't wish that on anyone. Competition is different and people may want to do battle for example in sports, but you still should not wish for your adversary to suffer. You actually want your adversary to be strong to give you enjoyable and challenging competition. For example, I admire the young guys who are in great physical shape. I feel immediately I want to join, and I am not wishing them to be weak.

I am adding this to the post on the first page of this thread documenting the insecurity of proof-of-stake (PoS):

I think we should celebrate TierNolan's original protocol, the implementation of CLTV in Bitcoin recently, and now my added improvement of "Coin Days Destroyed" to squelch jamming. DE can be a reality! Hooray! I am excited about you implementing this. All altcoins that are excited too, need to implement CLTV.

---

I am making a mathematical asymptotic argument similar conceptually to the arguments about Big O and Big Theta computational complexity classes (wherein at any particular/small values the conclusion might be opposite of the asymptotic reality). The point is mathematical structure in that stake only has to be purchased once, whereas electricity has to be paid continuously. Thus in terms of mathematical structure (all other variables the same, e.g. market cap, etc), then hashrate will be structurally more expensive than stake. Stake is not as secure as hashrate because stake is paid once for an eternal attack and hashrate must be paid continuously else the attack ends (is finite in duration). In short, stake enables an infinite duration attack (at no extra cost) and thus stake is free and hashrate is finite and thus it is not free. If you don't believe that, then just consider that one can short a PoS coin (thus recovering the cost of the stake making it less than free) and the market is likely to sell off the coin during any stake-based attack because the market understands the only way to overcome the attack is to fork the coin. Whereas with PoW, the market may ignore the attack because it will be ephemeral unless the attacker can profit from the attack enough to pay for the ongoing cost of the electricity.

This is the fundamental reason that PoS is not secure. Apparently some PoS coins have been attacked with stake, and the common case are the exchanges which control huge amounts of stake.


I presume I did not adequately explain the economic argument. The point is that once you incentivize profitable PoW attacks, the attacker can now sustain an attack indefinitely (or the DE is abandoned). Thus there is no longer period of time which is sufficient (from a mathematical structural perspective, although there might be particular cases that are secure, you can't state them with equations that enable reliable decisions). I understand you want to find some reasonable middle ground, but I presume you would play with fire if you pursued this similar to those who argued that PoS was an acceptable middle ground (yet even today we see that Bitshares' DPOS is probably controlled by a few exchanges and I think someone told me Nxt is controlled by a dictator).

I comprehend and am aware of the stance that says nothing is perfect and choose some practical middle ground. But I argue we can do better than some muddled middle ground where for example Bitcoin is already controlled by a Chinese mining cartel that has 65% of the hashrate and is provably lying about the Great Firewall of China being a hindrance for them (their motivation is obviously to make higher profits with higher transaction fees by constraining block size). This outcome I predicted in 2013, even I nailed in 2013 the block size as the specific failure mode, and everyone was arguing at that time that I was loony. Their % of the hashrate will increase on the next block reward halving this year, because the marginally profitable miners are the first to go (and I suspect the Chinese mining cartel is getting subsidized electricity with political connections/corruption).

You can make the reasonable argument that the insecurity of the proposed cut & choose algorithm only impacts those altcoins without CLTV and thus it is better than no DE for those coins. In that case, maybe I can agree with that. But do fully acknowledge the Pandora's box security threat so enabled (but at least isolated to those who trade for those altcoins). Thus I don't think it will be a very popular case, if proper disclosures are made. Who would trade BTC for an altcoin where they might lose their funds due to an attack (particularly even a long-range lie-in-wait attack) and where the developers of that altcoin are unable to add the CLTV op code.


Of course there are scenarios where a PoW coin pays less % of debasement to mining thus requires less cost for a short-term attack than a PoS coin with a huge market cap. This is primarily because Satoshi's PoW design is incorrect. I have a solution to this by making mining unprofitable so that no debasement is paid for mining.

Both the current PoS and PoW designs are flawed. That is one of the major innovations I am working on.


The generative essence statement I made upthread was referring to the fact that given no reference point, DE would not be secure,. Without a reference point, nothing can be proven about crypto currency (e.g. double-spends can't be prevented, etc), thus the requirement for a reference point is essential (even Satoshi's PoW suffers from the fact that it is probabilistic and didn't solve the Byzantine General's Problem because it can't identify an attack from a non-attack because the longest chain rule is self-referential). I can make such a general statement and be 100% certain there is no possible exception, because it is a fundamental inviolable mathematical structural issue.

The reference points are provided by my upthread "Coin Days Destroyed" suggestion a few days ago and the point yesterday in this thread about hard-coding the destination addresses in the CLTV. In order words, those reference points do not depend on future confirmations, but are past history (the age of the UXTOs being spent) and future invariants (the hard-coded destinations).

I was just starting treatment for fatty liver disease over the past 2 days (along with running around getting a diagnosis and other foggy brain matters) so apologies that only this morning did I feel alert enough to write a coherent explanation such as this.


There is a distinction between theory and inviolable mathematical structure. I will give you another example that I learned when I started to teach myself cryptography over the past 3 years. That is zero knowledge proofs are impossible without an asymmetric trap door function, i.e. they can't be done with hash functions. That is not theory. It is an inviolable fact due to the mathematical structure.

Non-sequitor. I am stating that the insiders are buying from themselves to drive up the price. Thus the market cap is not evidence or proof, but rather a symptom of the disease. Proof would be to ask the SEC to require the exchanges trading ETH to provide investigators with all the KYC and trading data (and then the regulators would have to require those individuals provide detailed financial accounting in order to track down all the potentially illegal insider trading). Absent that proof, you will be unable to make any proven counter claim.

I am now placing you on ignore along with stoat for intentionally posting noise. Enjoy posting to yourself, because none of the astute readers believe your nonsense.

P.S. Even if hv_ is correct in his theory that the Chinese mining cartel is buying up ETH, this could be proven if the exchanges were investigated and complied with a demand to provide the necessary data. However I think some exchanges (e.g. Bitfinex at least) allow anonymous trading when exchanging BTC for altcoins, i.e. for as long as fiat is not involved. Note the regulators are preparing to put an end to this apparently. Note recently I have been aiding the process of developing decentralized exchanges that can't be jammed, so I am working to enable anonymous trading, but the great thing about DE will be that the market price won't really be measurable, so thus market caps won't be measurable also. And that is the way it should be because this crap is all manipulated noise any way. All that really matters is at what price did you as a speculative investor buy and sell.

Here is what my abdomen looks like this morning. I post this so it is unarguable to readers' eyes that I have fatty liver disease. Clearly you can see the jaundice (yellow) skin and the inflammation which is the reddish discoloration. Note my abs are not as flat as they were a few days ago, because I haven't run much the past few days and have been eating more carbos (wild rice, rolled oats, etc).

I just completed a delicious breakfast of imported Australian rolled whole oats in boiled distilled water, with imported Fuji diced apple & sliced local native banana, steamed locally grown broccoli, and canned imported wild Alaskan salmon. And a glass of distilled water.

cryptohunter2, thanks for the message. My beloved Yorkshire/Celtic grandfather (on my father's side), Shelby Moore Sr., died of esophagus cancer in 1996 which was probably due to decades of smoking, although he had quit roughly decade earlier when he was first operated on to remove a small tumor. Here is a photo from 1985 taken in Metairie (suburb of New Orleans), when I was in top running conditions (< 35 minutes for a 10,000 meter road race). It was about this time I started coding Neocept WordUp. Also another photo in the 1990s of my grandfather at my sister's university graduation (my sister was murdered by her husband in 2006):



I've read up on fatty liver disease, and most of the mainstream western medicine advice online doesn't emphasize whole rolled oats. Oatmeal ends up being the excelsior for fatty liver disease. Oatmeal is gluten-free. So seems I am well on my way to being cured. From the moment I had oatmeal, I felt it soaking up the toxic fatty acids in my body. I added a small sliced banana (a local variety which is very starchy, not so sweet) and some diced portion of a Fuji apple. Note stay away from fruit juices (and any refined foods!) as they are high in fructose which makes the fatty liver worse! The other very important food is raw sashimi tuna (the red colored meat) which I eat with chopped cucumber in vinegar and patis (it is a special dish named Kinilaw here in Mindanao). The omega 3 and other nutrition in the lean tuna is incredible and I want to sleep immediately after eating it. Of course I am eating steamed and raw vegetables also, such as broccoli, cabbage, carrots, Romaine lettuce, etc..

I am only a couple of days into this more strict diet and I made an error yesterday eating too much white rice and Apple juice, which caused my worse symptoms to return. But then oatmeal & Kinilaw last night and feeling great this morning. So I believe I am hopefully within days or a couple of weeks of getting my mojo back. I was a bit lethargic on my jog this morning as apparently my body is in healing mode and doesn't have excess energy for athletics yet.


Here is what I looked like in Australia before we got back to Philippines and before I started lifting weights in Subic for a few days as shown in my slightly more macho photo at the golf driving range, and you can note how slim I was from coding continuously on CoolPage in 1999:




Any way, the point of this message is say thanks for everyone's concern, sharing (AltcoinUK maybe I can get some golf lessons from you), and mostly to say my brain seems to be emerging from a fog. Let's see how my condition progresses with the change in diet. I am very eager to get back to working (and exercising) the way I used to.

Btw, my brain was really in a super fog as for example 2 days ago I left my headlights on and drained my battery which wasted an entire day because my car was over at my other house and I had to use taxi to go fetch my Iota Engineering deep cycle smart battery charger (which was broken so I had to do some electrical engineering which was the course I had started at the university before I switched to computer science). But I also fell asleep in the middle of the day. Also we've been having two times 2 hour brownouts daily here in Davao past several days! Seems I solve one problem and more problems appear!

I climbed into the second storey attic yesterday so I could place the wood bracing in the ceiling for the ceiling fan I want to install in the upstairs living room so I can work in fresh air with a window, screen door to balconey instead of always being in the adjacent bedroom with aircon and no natural lighting, but the ceiling is supported by very fragile light galvanized steel that can't even support my body weight and the ceiling is some 3mm fiberboard that my foot punched through with only the slightest pressure. So then I discovered there are no wood wall studs either! So nothing to mount the ceiling fan to! So I had to go buy enough 2x4 pine studs so today during the brownout I will construct a wood framed cage inside the living room to mount the ceiling fan! Don't you love the quality of home construction here in Asia  

Hopefully as I become more physiologically capable, I will also talk less and more on action. For example, the issues above would have been solved quickly and without needing to utter a word in my healthier and more energetic past.

Well, well, if you consider that my post today basically points out that scripting on a block chain can never be secure unless the security is centralized (and you trust that centralized manager), then basically the writing is on the wall that China already controls Bitcoin and they also want to control the centralized scripting block chain.

Decentralized crypto currency and block chains are currently dead. We only have centralized. The internet is being destroyed.

China may be mining BTC with free electricity (cost charged to the collective), thus the ETH is essentially free for them at any price. And they can't sell all the BTC they mine without driving the BTC price down.

On the next halving, China's % of the hashrate will increase from the current 65%.

Unlike hashrate (electricity), stake only has to be purchased once and attack forever, so therefor rental prices for stake should be much lower (since stake costs less than hashrate).

---

I think we solved the jamming problem with CLTV version of DE. So there was a positive outcome from this thread. I am happy that DE can work.

Apparently the insiders can push the price higher and higher buying from themselves because there aren't many people selling. Perhaps only the insiders actually own any now, or a few other fools who don't understand the bag they are holding.

This is the greater fool theory in action. They apparently think they are going to be able to dump this on some greater fools at nose bleed prices, if they continue to push the fake price and fake market cap higher.

I suppose there is a steady stream of new fools coming into altcoins, so the scams stay active to pilfer their lunch money.

Why do you assume only one DE transaction will be ongoing on a block chain simultaneously. And why do you assume that DE transactions will be limited to 1 BTC.

I don't want to repeat myself. You will destroy the security of the coin by enabling the hashrate attacker to steal other people's coins. This was not possible before (rather before an attacker could only attempt to double-spend his own coins), thus such an attack was not well funded. You are proposing to fund 51% attacks. I hope you understand that hashrate is rentable and the implications of that. Especially when you are proposing to exchange between altcoins which have very low hashrate security (note Alice's multi-sig occurs on the altcoin not on Bitcoin).

Sorry the cut & choose proposal must be scrapped.

Stick with the CLTV on both block chains where the destination addresses are hard-coded and thus can't be stolen by a hashrate attacker. That is technically sound.

Generalized scripting is going to open up 51% attack vectors that didn't exist in a more pure crypto currency usage of a block chain:

I didn't intend to post in this thread again, but seems I remember Monero would soon add multi-sig, and I wanted to make you aware of a potential 51% attack hole enabled by multi-sig:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364951.msg14002317#msg14002317

generalizethis thanks for pointing out the range of the grammatical applicability, creativity and the concept of a living language. I was also thinking of those points, but I felt it might muddle my response if I elaborated. Also you explained it more eloquently than I would have.

Other examples I have employed in the past are Bitards, Bitcon, etc..

And the most recent usage of 'shrilling' was done on purpose to incite stoat to further attack irrelevant issues so readers can see he has no relevant technical or otherwise factual knowledge that pertains to the substance of this thread.