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.

If you monetize all orphans then orphans will be unbounded.

My generative essence point applies in spades.

Sorry this discussion is unproductive until you explain precisely how you totally ordered the universe. I'll be waiting. 

Sigh.  

Independent partitions are not merged. The holistic Nash equilibrium (of the LCR) was explained.  

monsterer can rescue his ego (and fill the thread with endless noise about his inability to connect the dots 3 pages ago) because many (most or all) readers are just as incapable as he is, so many will doubt what I wrote. Nevertheless my point was unarguable, but it isn't worth arguing to those are incapable.

monsterer can reply with some more nonsense. I am done arguing with him. Not because I lost, but because his ego desires a filibuster.


They aren't merged for the transactions nor for the Nash equilibrium of the blocks. There is no possible definition of strict(ly independent) partition for asset transfer that can support his position.

The partitions are strictly independent. Remember that.

Okay monsterer really. I must end this now. I am 100% certain my point is unarguable.

I agree with someone else who speculated the price will probably dump down to roughly the 0.045 BTC level (half the current price) or below (probably not to $0.30 cents but maybe), then find support until the upgrade to the next version. Then they will probably hype pump it again.

It doubt anyone is going to try to challenge Ethereum in the interim time to their next upgrade. I speculate Ethereum challengers will come later in the year or next year.

I place 90% odds on ETH never being the most popular crypto currency, so the long-term future price of ETH is bleak.

He has to implicitly (whether or not he includes the latest update to that other unvalidated partition) when he builds his block at the end of the chain that includes that other unvalidated partition. Longest chain wins so he won't want to ignore that last block. His block reward doesn't hinge on whether that latest (before the current or new) block contained a valid partition (assuming it is not the partition the current or new block is declaring to be valid).

Convoluted to write, but not convoluted in my mind. Seems quite simple. Some of the convoluted stuff on the 140+ IQ level of a Raven's matrices IQ test is more convoluted.

Edit: think of it as multiplexing while maintaining a holistic Nash equilibrium.

Total ordering is proven impossible by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and because the speed-of-light is not infinite.

For the same reason you can't reach the edge of the universe because there is no edge.

For the same reason that the future and past don't collapse into one infinitesimal point in spacetime, because we have friction and speed-of-light is finite.

As CfB wrote in response to me upthread, the optimal strategy has to be some balance between maximal and minimal breadth because in the former case then no one's transactions ever get confirmed.

The issue is which strategy do payers and payees choose? And what are the game theories? And is a Nash equilibrium created?

I argue it is very dubious and likely the math model will need to be centrally enforced. But I don't know if there is some math which convinces that I am incorrect.

You will end up right back to why Iota had to adopt a mathematical model of this. There is no structural (of the tree structure) model which will give you these consensus properties without a mathematical model driving what payers and payees choose.

The block producer makes sure his partition (the one he is validating) is valid. Thus he will never lose his block rewards. He marks the block as only guaranteeing the partition(s) he has validated, so any other partitions included are informational but not Nash equilibrium confirmations. Re-read my prior post with that in mind. Again this is only valid for strict partitions (no cross-partition) transactions system.

The partitions can be thought of as separate block chains, that have been interleaved into one block chain with orthogonality between them. It is a more granular generalization of merge mining, because each block producer can choose which partition(s) he is validating and risking his block reward on in terms of the Nash equilibrium. Since all partitions eventually get confirmed by a block producer, then the overall Nash equilibrium is sustained on the coin's external market value.

The issue is not the concept of scriptable block chains, but rather Ethereum's piss poor, overly hyped plans for implementing a consensus algorithm.

You speculators need to learn the distinction.

What I am driving at is that the economics of consensus MUST be centralized due to economies-of-scale which drive the power-law distribution of wealth.

Yet I am asserting (and designing) that it may be possible to decentralize control over the centralized aspects of consensus, by making the decentralized control UNeconomic for profit (yet economic for purpose, e.g. the Nash equilibrium of getting your transactions on the longest chain).

I am thinking Satoshi's PoW, the PoS systems I have seen, and Iota conflate the two issues above such that the control becomes centralized along with the other aspects which are forced to be centralized by the economics of profit.

In other words, I am stratifying economics into profitable activities and purposeful activities. Pure profit will always be won by those with the highest economies-of-scale (and the most corrupt connections).

Afaics, my point was unarguable. I already explained why. Strict partitions can coexist in a block with other transactions without causing the block to be invalid. The block becomes orthogonal to whether any of the partitions in it are valid or not. The key point is that the partition for which the block producer is guaranteeing is valid (i.e. has validated) has to be truth, else that block producer will lose his block reward if another subsequent block offers a proof-of-cheating on that partition. You can think of these proofs as equivalent to not mining on that chain in Bitcoin where Bitcoin has only one partition. Subsequent blocks can correct any deficiencies with proof-of-cheating, thus any cascade of lies is contained within the partition and can be corrected at any time by any proof-of-cheating. Same as for Bitcoin, the users of the currency have to trust full nodes but they should only trust a confirmation which was betting its block reward on that partition the user is relying on.

So in effect what this does is interleave a merge mining of separate "chains" into one block chain, one "chain" for each partition.

You made the assumption that the only way for block producers to veto a lie, is to not mine on the chain that contains the lie. But as you see, there are more flexible possibilities for a design.

I don't know if it is also very useful, yet it does stand as an exception to your desire to pigeon-hole the analysis. I try to have a flexible mind and consider all possible angles.

No I just don't have time to Hangout. I don't even know how to do google Hangout. I am behind on my own tasks.

I have documented all my thoughts on this forum. I like to read any rebuttals or responses. Thank you.

If I was convinced that it was better for me to work with you guys and than do my own, then I would expend more time talking with you guys. I don't know how to become convinced of that. Perhaps if I see your responses or new information that makes me think you guys are on the right track and have the coding resources.

I for one would like to work with great coders, but I am first of all immediately turned off by your pre-selling AMPs way before shipping the product. I also documented my other concerns about the technology. You'll find the link you asked for in the other thread if you simply go back there and look.

No personal animosity intended, but I just think you have some incorrect conceptualizations. But I do think the concept of decentralized social networking and an attention model are correct. My issue is with some very fundamental specifics.

Also I am extremely spread thin on analyzing for example scriptable block chains all across the gamut to anonymity and even getting into the technology and marketing space that Synereo raises.

Apparently programmable block chains will be useful for decentralized financial and business logic, such as for example decentralized crowdfunding and Augur-like decentralized prediction markets.

The key is to understand that such scripts when enforced by the block chain are able to enforce invariants which an external scripting (CounterParty?) of an asset and data storage block chain (e.g. Bitcoin) could not enforce. An example of such an invariant is not releasing the crowdfunds until X percent of the funders have agreed that the necessary milestone has been achieved. It seems in most cases the utility of scripting will involve some crowdsourced decision as opposed to the authoritative judges society uses now.

There are two main points I want to make about the future of scriptable block chains.

1. The currency they use will end up being which every crypto currency is the most popular. Arguing that Bitcoin doesn't qualify because it lacks certains features (e.g. fast transactions) is arguing the Bitcoin won't be the most popular crypto currency. Thus I think it is unlikely ETH will be that currency, because another crypto currency will become more popular sooner.

2. The consensus network (block chain) design will be the most crucial feature for a scriptable block chain. The VM and all that is mostly just noise and experimentation will eventually settle on what is the most efficient. Whereas the consensus design will determine which system wins this technology space.

---

In the meantime, payers need to know where to place their transactions in the DAG so the transactions don't become eventually invalid. And payees need to know NOW which transactions to honor. Please quote my reply and post your reply in your thread, not in this thread.

I copied this post to your thread. Please continue to there. Please.

The system must have some means of converging on a consensus choice amongst competing double-spends.

Your thread is a discussion about that. We don't need to repeat that discussion here. I urge readers to click that link if they want to read what is being discussed about whether there could be an alternative to Iota/DAG, which is mathematical model which I assert the control of must be centralized in order to not diverge.

You can replace the words "block chain" with "consensus system" in my quoted text. The point about the design remains that even by making partitions strict and allowing double-spends to live in separate partitions, it creates afaics a divergent system that incentivizes double-spending, doesn't provide consensus over which double-spend is valid, and is thus chaotic failure.

He told me last night that his asset was removed from Polo due to lack of volume.

He also told me had to reorganize lately because some issues with Nxt and also because his GUI developers bailed on him, but he has some new ones now. He is rapidly proceeding on his backend work which he codes in C (and can port to browser with Emscripten).

You may want to read this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13912704#msg13912704

He also implemented CoinSwap and an efficient bitcoind client. Now working on an online wallet and the other things I mentioned at the link above.

jl777 is a prolific C coder. And he is knowledgeable enough to understand what I am saying when I chat with him (and vice versa). Long ago I used to have difficulty communicating with him (it was all like gibberish), but now it is has improved and the conversation makes sense.

I can't vouch for the quality of his code. I haven't reviewed any of it. I suggested to him to hire a technical writer, because his past white papers were incomprehensible.

We discussed some of his design decisions and I gave him my opinions.

Edit: I have no idea if there is no volume bcz SuperNet investors don't wish to sell, or if because there are no buyers or both. I haven't spent any time on the Nxt or SuperNet discussion forums.