This really is a pointless
Only to someone who isn't paying attention to what is really going in the world that is oblivious to most (see below). Whereas, it has helped me greatly to decide how to launch a coin wherein it will be legal every where. Which is very important compared to those coins which may run into trouble later, such as Ethereum and Zcash (assuming Zcash continues with their plan to have miners act as money transmitters to the foundation). Note the issues I raised in this thread may not apply for those coins that never reach some level of millions of adoption, if they are no threat to the powers-that-be and haven't caused anger among investors. You're trying to second guess what regulators will do in each country by reference to America?
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/2017-the-year-from-political-hell/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/2017-is-coming-and-the-g20-has-agreed-to-share-all-info-on-everyone/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/swiss-to-give-up-everything-everybody/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/western_europe/britain-to-ban-any-encryption-that-prevents-the-taxman-from-exposing-british-citizens/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/western_europe/uk-to-ban-whatsapp-messaging-service/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/larry-summers-calls-to-end-100-billis-here-comes-the-totalitarian-state/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-new-age-of-economic-totalitarianism-the-london-meeting-to-end-currency/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/nsa-blames-snowden-for-paris/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/nsa-a-tax-economics-espionage-agency/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/category/world-news/taxes/http://www.nestmann.com/http://www.nestmann.com/best-place-to-launder-money-surprisinglyhttp://www.nestmann.com/theyre-coming-for-your-cashhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-has-made-obedience-to-the-state-a-game-a6783841.htmlhttp://theantimedia.org/china-just-launched-the-most-frightening-game-ever-and-soon-it-will-be-mandatory/At G20 last year, all governments agreed to report everyone everywhere to their host countries for tax purposes. The hunt for taxes is destroying the world economy at a staggering rapid pace and this is far worse than even I had anticipated when we first forecast BIG BANG would hit 2015.75 back in 1985. Here is a email a non-US citizen received from his trust company in Malta. “The reporting charges have arisen due to the implementation of new U.S legislation known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) which has been introduced as part of a global initiative to create an International tax reporting regime. Together with the majority of the World’s major trading nations, the Maltese Government has entered into an agreement with the US Authorities to implement FATCA legislation in Malta. The legislation has required all Trust Companies in Malta to evaluate all structures operated on behalf of clients and categorise them according to detailed rules set out in the FATCA legislation. This categorisation process is not just limited to structures operated on behalf of US clients, or clients holding US assets but has to include all clients and structures irrespective of where clients and their structures are domiciled. We can advise you that <Name> has taken extensive legal and tax advice regarding the categorisation of clients and which information should be reported according to various trigger reporting events since our accounting and client management systems have to be tailored to supply relevant information on a per client and <Name> entity basis to the Malta Authorities who then report directly to the IRS.
Consistent with many other Trust Companies a decision has been taken to pass on some of the costs of this work to client structures for whom we act. Accordingly a December invoice will be issued for a one off fee of £250 that will be described in the invoice as a FATCA classification fee.“
The dollar rally and the devaluation of the yuan is not a fluke and it most certainly is not a one-time event. The dollar declined against the yuan for 19 years during the same timing that saw gold decline from 1980 to 1999. The major low on an annual closing basis at 2013 and 2014 was an outside reversal to the upside for the dollar. The Yearly Bullish Reversal stands at 683 and technical resistance stands at 658. The dollar filled the gap that existed prior to 1994 and is yet another confirmation that the dollar rally is underway.
Yes, the world trade is contracting and will get much worse after October. Governments are destroying the world economy on their hunt for taxation. Politicians are hunting money as if it were some sport and are undoing everything that was built postwar. Numerous reports are coming in to us about people traveling on trains and having their bags searched for money in Europe. The hunt for cash is wiping out the world economy. Americans are being thrown out of banks and mutual funds everywhere. FATCA has forced Americans to repatriate dollars. The only real Americans who can operate overseas are now established multinational companies. Small companies cannot expand from the United States nor can individuals send money anywhere.
Add to FATCA the problem in Europe and we see capital still pouring into the USA from both China and Europe. The real estate cycle has/or will peak with this turning point around the world from Switzerland, Britain, Canada, to Asia right down into India and Australia. We are plagued by politicians who have absolutely no clue how to run an economy and it is now all about them retaining power virtually everywhere we look.
The dollar rally is unfolding despite the fact people do not understand why. They look only at the USA debt and assume the dollar must crash, when in fact, the problem we face is on a global scale and $18 trillion in U.S. debt is simply not the large enough for international capital to hide. The future is going to be anything but a textbook move. This is why this year’s World Economic Conference is going to be a real eye opener.
|
|
|
|
I leave and the thread goes to shit.  |
|
|
|
An attacker with infinite resources that doesnt care about monetary losses...
I claim that such an attacker can bring any network to a standstill. So defending against this is not a high priority in the beginning.
But this is not a symmetric analogy. An attacker may only want to (discretely) jam decentralized exchanges, not (boisterously) bring the entire internet crashing down. I like the simple approach where the fee (insurance) is prepaid before each trade. The fee is tagged with the orderid of the recipient of the offer, not the initiator of the trade. This means that a papercut attack cannot be done proactively, but only if somebody else initiates a trade with the attacker.
So, that means a reputation system will be effective as trading with newbie accounts will carry some small risk that they are a papercut attacker who set a trap.
By linking the fee to the orderid of the one that posted the bid/ask, that means the papercut attack only delays as the fee that was paid is still valid for completing the atomic swap with a real peer. The attacker cant reuse the fee paid, so this is assymetric in a good way.
Granted the victim will be out a fee if their bid expires without the trade being completed. We are talking about 0.13% in the event of an attack, so most of the time not even worth going through a claim process.
But maybe an active trader over time will accumulate a bunch of such failed fees, and I think if there was some sort of automated claim process for this, it solves the practical issues of this theoretical problem.
Before you start complaining that requires trust that this process will be honored, my response is that if this attack scenario remains hypothetical, then it is not an issue. If it does happen and the fees paid for failed swaps are not refunded, then that will damage the reputation of InstantDEX and so there is strong incentive to keep the customer's happy. Keep in mind it is the 0.13% fees that are lost due to an attacker that doesnt care about losing money and just wants to jam things. Typically non-economically viable attacks are not a big priority to solve. But I dont want there to be any obstacles to using InstantDEX, so I will commit to refund the fees paid for atomic swaps that dont complete, as long as the txfees needed to send out the refunds are less than 10% of the refund.
As opposed to having 100% of your capital at risk when you use centralized exchanges.
James
Sounds like InstantDEX would have an incentive to attack the victim since victim won't bother to apply for 0.13% refund, so victim will try again and thus pay 0.26% fees. If you refund, then attacker has no cost of jamming, or do you have a way to identify which party was the attacker? How can you differentiate a glitch/slowness in the network from a true jamming attack. What if the attacker DDoS attacks the victim and victim can complete the protocol. An attacker can build reputation before attacking, by trading with himself, i.e. reputation can be Sybil attacked. Sorry I have thought deeply and there is no solution for decentralized exchange. Although I love it ideologically and I was very positive on you doing it, I unfortunately have to conclude that is not viable and should be abandoned. I am trying to help you not waste time on deadends. I invested my effort precisely because I wanted to help you. |
|
|
|
I wrote blake2, not sha256. Blake2 is 3 - 5X faster than SHA256. I doubt one needs 256-security for this so 128-bit hashes probably suffice, so that would be another doubling in speed. I think some CPUs now have hardware acceleration for SHA256. Btw, I wasn't discrediting your contribution. I was just offering another option and comparing the tradeoffs. |
|
|
|
Ahh OK I see now, you think that all pow coins and the users that support the network through mining are essentially doing harm to the decentralized nature of their supported projects.
So what then? Air drops? IPO?
How does a project fairly distribute a coin without creating this problem.
 Without the backing of a centralized authority there will always be this problem.
Coins don't become currency until distribution has reached a level where investors create the ecosystem where others can exchange goods for this coins in the place of a currency.
That is what you think.  Lay it on me brother... how do you add worth to play money without centralized backing or without a mining system? Don't feed the troll, it is obvious that he has no answers just makes empty claims. You have seen that he avoids/fails to answer every single counter argument where he can't respond and simply quotes/answers single words/parts of a sentence which he in turn can attack or answer. This is the definition of an internet troll. And to the type of question which you just asked (about a potential sollution to a problem with crypto in general) he will put an answer down pointing at his vaporware and vapor sollutions which are in works since more than a year. Always the same, he has obvious mental issues. I love it when people doubt me. I get the last laugh. = my secret |
|
|
|
There is that blind lunatic sloanf again screaming at the French teacher. Even a dumbass could look at this chart and realize that if population and building costs are rising, then price should be rising. They see price is not rising so thus it must make sense the rise was occurring in the appreciation of the dollar. Duh.  QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, your real estate cycle turned up from 1955. It does not match the Case-Shiller index which peaked in 1890s and bottomed in 1920 and then began to rally after 1940 into the 1955 period. Something seem strange with that index given the huge Florida real estate bubble which burst in 1927. Can you explain why the Case-Shiller seems to be off so much? Here is a chart that has been going around the Web. Thanks  ANSWER: This is the typical problem with people creating an index and then trying to extend it back in time. They ALWAYS ignore the currency and project purely a domestic view. During the 1890s, J.P. Morgan had to bail out the U.S. Treasury for it was dead broke. As people feared the government would declare bankruptcy, private assets rose in NOMINAL terms. This was matched by the massive exit of foreign capital from the USA. The Case-Shiller index bottoms in 1920, but this was the point of a massive rise in the dollar’s value. Foreign capital poured into the USA to park because of World War I. This, in turn, led to wild speculation in Florida, which as you correctly stated, burst in 1927. Because rhis isdex is national, it also suppresses regional booms. As real estate peaked in Florida, the hot money then shifted to stocks creating the Phase Transition into 1929. It was this capital flows between asset classes into stocks where that concentration led to the 1929 bubble. The Case-Shiller index, which suddenly rose from the Great Depression, does not take into account the dollar devaluation that sparked that rise as it did in equities. That was virtually a 60% devaluation of the dollar that moved it from $20 to $35 on a gold standard by FDR. Was that rise “real” or currency related? Sorry, the real rise begins post-war from 1955. That was the real housing boom. The Case-Shiller does not accurately reflect the changes in currency. One must look at everything in terms of international value before they can see if they really made money or just broke even because the currency declined. From a value perspective, the 1929 high was more than three times that of the 1890s. So the high of the 1890s was purely a rise due to the collapse in the dollar; it was the hallmark of the panic of 1893 and was best expressed in Grover Cleveland’s speech before Congress. |
|
|
|
... Maybe ZIRP and NIRP deserve its (their) own thread, but individual ("guerrilla") level work-around suggestions to avoid getting NIRP-ed might be welcome. If they escalate their "War on Cash", then other solutions for us are needed. A unusual suggestion (for larger-scale wealth preservation in a NIRP Environment) would be collecting Rolex watches!  Maybe a basket of top tier altcoins? Analyze altcoins with small volatility, and build up a basket of them in relative % of allocation by their volatility. Excluding new ones like ETH and other suspicious ones like Riple. That should be a good idea isnt it? (even for big whales) ... Pretty much every alt coin is all about the hype. What alt is actually used or useful currently?
There is no altcoin that exists which has 10,000 regular users who not also investors. Ethereum $400 million market cap for shit that doesn't scale and has no adoption. Of course everything is about mining the speculators, because you all just chase scams all day. |
|
|
|
Pretty much every alt coin is all about the hype. What alt is actually used or useful currently?
There is no altcoin that exists which has 10,000 regular users who not also investors. Ethereum $400 million market cap for shit that doesn't scale and has no adoption. Of course everything is about mining the speculators, because you all just chase scams all day. |
|
|
|
Very interesting answer, thank you a lot for that. If you are right, positive side should be seen, that all these fails being recognized can be seen as a transition toward a more perfect cryptocurrency. Nonetheless, it seems like you are willing to see a perfect cryptocurrencie, but I am sure I do not need to remind you the saying... Considering Schumpeter's gale, I find it very interesting to look closely how innovation clusters possess destructive cycle in itself. (I hope i was clear, english is not my native language  ) Well yes there are many experiments leading us hopefully to new frontiers. My gambit is someone will produce a coin soon that changes the way everyone is looking at these issues. I say that because I think that someone will possibly be me (although I get discouraged when I feel nauseous, ill, and unproductive as of this moment). We will see what happens... Again adios. You guys take over the forum. |
|
|
|
The "transaction" which contains the input data for a script, can be set by any external entity. How do you propose to require that the bits & bytes of that input data declares its dependencies when it is impossible to force the external entity to declare where the data came from? You seem to not understand some basic facts about modularity and type systems in programming. Even if you could force the external entity to declare the full lineage of the input data (i.e. 100% dependently typed), that would require that the scripting can't be programmable, i.e. the external I/O capability would be eliminated...
Note I hedged that above statement (your quote of me above) as follows... Even if someone argued against my upthread point that strict partitions can't exist for scriptable block chains wherein I claimed this is due to uncontrolled external chaos due to external I/O, there is another unarguable reason that strict partitions can't exist for a scriptable block chain. That is because the gas (currency) transfers must be atomic with the script block confirmation (i.e. if they are orphaned and chain reorganized then they must be done together) so they must be in the same partition. But if the currency for a partition is a static set of UXTO or account balances (i.e. no cross-partition spending), then the system can not function properly.
Yet we also explained above (and even monsterer agrees on this point fwiw) that cross-partition spending breaks the Nash equilibrium.
Thus I continue to maintain my point that Ethereum can not scale with decentralized validation.
|
|
|
|
Ahh OK I see now, you think that all pow coins and the users that support the network through mining are essentially doing harm to the decentralized nature of their supported projects.
So what then? Air drops? IPO?
How does a project fairly distribute a coin without creating this problem.
Without the backing of a centralized authority there will always be this problem.
Coins don't become currency until distribution has reached a level where investors create the ecosystem where others can exchange goods for this coins in the place of a currency.
That is what you think. |
|
|
|
|
From the very start when I used to debate bytemaster (Daniel Larimar) on BCT in 2013/14 before he left to his own forums, he was proposing for example every HODLer of the coin received an interest payment.
He has always been about financialization and collectivism with some top-down fox sugarcoated in a decentralized deception wrapper. He used to talk about reputation systems I explained they can be Sybil attacked and thus always end up centralized.
I am about user adoption, I mean people who use a currency never for investment.
It is a totally different approach in terms of market demographics and philosophy of focus (and thus design).
Let CoinHoarder dream about his DAOs.
|
|
|
|
- That VNL is premined
I'm mining since the first minute and it's not
No adoption users are mining VNL. I mine it and I have only been around for three months.... so yes there are adoption users mining it. You are not an adoption user by evidence of the fact that you claim you are mining, and not simply using it as a currency for daily activities. People don't mine dollars, they just use them. Relatively few people invest in dollars (whereas most users simply adopt it as their permanent unit-of-account in their daily lives). You are a miner (by your own admission) and ostensibly an investor. |
|
|
|
Pretty sure Gold wont be banned in my country.
All the countries are coming under the umbrella of the G20 power, which have agreed to harmonize enforcement starting in 2017. There will be no place to run and no place to hide. You continue your delusion at your own peril. You don't need to show them what do you have in your pockets. Always be prepared and keep small portions of your goods hidden for a bad times. Yeah but if you can't sell until the good times come again, the price will probably be much lower than it is now (especially considering the opportunity cost of how long it has been buried). Because gold rises when the bad times start. Then if the bad times get too bad, then gold gets buried in the ground and we switch to food as money. I don't have qualms with holding perhaps up to 5% of net worth in physical gold and silver coins buried some where. But to expect to be able to trade it at a profit for anything on a routine basis in bad times is delusion, if the government decides to make gold trading illegal. We are headed into a digital money future. The government will track everything. So just forget being able to store a lot of wealth and hang on to it. The government is going to tax everything until they have taken all of our wealth during the crazy period of 2017 - 2032. Spend more time enjoying life while you still can, and less time counting your money which will soon grow wings and fly away. |
|
|
|
On further thought, I have decided that my suggestion for coin age is useless by itself and I need to add the following to make it work as intended (while coin age remains necessary else the attacker could use a mixer to create new UXTO that escape the decentralized reputation system I will suggest below). DoS by jamming is the paramount threat to decentralized exchange that needs to be solved first. If this isn't solved, then it isn't worth pursuing because for sure the government will be against exchanges which they can't regulate to enforce KYC, etc (this will become more so in 2017). Governments have unlimited funds to attack with (e.g. $4+ trillion went missing from the DoD budget and finances the DEEP STATE). Please don't tell me that Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Moyers aren't mainstream and reliable sources. There is no way to solve the jamming problem by relying on the two block chains that are doing the trade, because someone always has to go first, thus someone will always get jammed. If the honest person never goes first, then no one will go first. Simple logic. The only way I can hope to fix this problem is to have a separate block chain for recording the intention to enter a trade, and with this block chain track those UXTO which are bailing out and thus users can refuse to trade with them. Again this requires the coin age to prevent the attacker from using a mixer to subvert the tracking by UXTO. Also coin age is necessary so someone doesn't get inadvertently blocked forever due to some glitch on their end where they couldn't follow through on the protocol. One way I contemplated is to have both parties sign the intention to trade, then they post it to this block chain. However, one might sign and the other might not, thus jamming the other party (in terms of computing the signature and the communication latency between the two parties). Also worse is that one party might sign more than one intention to trade or inadvertently do so if the attacker didn't sign immediately but later signed and published it to this block chain. Thus the first requirement is we need a way for both to sign where the signature isn't valid if they both didn't complete the signing protocol. I am not sure if this can be accomplished. I would need to think about some variant of Shamir's How to Share a Secret crossed with "simultaneous contract signing". Something like a Diffie-Hellman exchange (but that is sharing a symmetric key) where either party can then sign on behalf of both parties proving that the Diffie-Helman exchange occurred. If the prior paragraph can be achieved, then the jamming that remains is only on latency of the protocol in the prior paragraph, yet this is still a jamming problem. There is no way for the user who is being jammed to share his UXTO blacklist with other users since the attacker could Sybil attack such sharing. So thus I conclude that decentralized exchange is probably not going to work unless there is some reputation system. But then when I consider reputation system designs, they can also be Sybil attacked. It seems the only possible solution would be a Web of Trust similar to PGP wherein I decide to trust those who trust me and vice versa. But the problem with Web of Trust in this context is the attacker can Sybil attack it by first gaining trust, then violating trust thus causing the Web of Trust to be unstable. Sigh.  If anyone can think of a solution at the conceptual level (never mind what block chains currently offer), I would love to read it. So far decentralized exchange looks to be jammable in every design I've contemplated. I have my strong intuitive (generative essence) sense that I will find a flaw in any method of using a fee to block the attacker who wants to jam the protocol, because the fee can't be atomic with the trade
You can make it connected with the trade by having the final steps in the protocol release the fee. If the trade doesn't complete both sides lose money. But my point is the jamming will come before that connection has been established. Also if both sides lose money when one side bails, then the attacker can cause the innocent party to go bankrupt. You are ostensibly dismissing the case of the attacker who can charge the cost of the attack to collective. Right at this moment, China's mining cartel controls an estimated 65% of Bitcoin's hashrate and they have vetoed every block size increase (even Classic's reasonable doubling to 2MB), and they apparently have very low electricity costs so it isn't unthinkable that with a "wink and a handshake" this electricity is coming for free from Three Gorges Dam. The fact that I have proven they must have lied about the bandwidth problem (since of course they could put a pool abroad and just relay the hashes across the Great Firewall of China). One motivation could possibly be to force transaction fees higher and reap more profits. So there is already circumstantial evidence that the attack scenario I am worried about is not impossible. |
|
|
|
|
MA has been using international capital flows and internationalized value since the 1970s when he picked the top in gold using it.
He has been emphasizing that "international" aspect to his analysis every since.
sloanf is like the drunk troublemaker who arrives late to French class, hears someone speak in English, and thinks he was in English class. Then forever refuses to admit he was really in French class while slandering all the students in the classroom asserting they are fools for following this charlatan teacher who claims to be a French teacher and is really just bluffing (i.e. changing his tune from English because sloanf challenged him).
The insane student ends up in the classroom all by himself because everyone else just leaves him there to rant to himself. The police eventually show up and put him in a straight jacket and cart him off to a mental institution.
|
|
|
|
The likely reason it was closed is CIYAM got pissed at me (in another thread) and decided to have a temper tantrum (perhaps because I was also supposed to be talking to him soon in Skype about decentralized exchange). |
|
|
|
What do you think about anonymint's idea of having a user settable coin age requirement for the feetx? The idea is to slow down the annoyance attacks. That seems reasonable too. You are forcing people to expend a finite resource, so they can't spam. It could be an issue for people who have just obtained coins and then have to wait a few days to build up coinage. What I suggested to jl777 in a PM, is that he make it (the coin age, a.k.a. "Coin Days Destroyed") a user-adjustable variable so that users can select the tradeoff between delay for themselves and those counter-parties available to trade with, and depending on the level of jamming present at that time. jl777 referred to it as a "rainy day" insurance, which seems an apt characterization of the suggestion. I have my strong intuitive (generative essence) sense that I will find a flaw in any method of using a fee to block the attacker who wants to jam the protocol, because the fee can't be atomic with the trade (without also opening a jamming window of interaction), so a window of jamming is always opened. Whereas, the coin age is a finite resource which exists (is committed to) prior to the initiation of any protocol for trading. Also it is impossible to use a mixer to hide the identity of the attacker, since mixing will bump the coin age back to 0. Note my suggestion hinges on the first interaction with the counter-party in the protocol must bump the coin age to 0 on the block chain (else only a local blacklist can be maintained which is much less robust defense). Otherwise the attacker can reuse the same resource over and over to jam with. Jamming is the main obstacle I forsee impinging on the viability of TierNolan's decentralized exchange protocol. The next obstacle is the very limited scalability of transaction rate for existing block chains, but that is a holistic problem for crypto right now (meaning it MUST be solved else the crypto currency phenomenon dies). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
