James we will have to discuss the synergies and specifics. We will get to that.

As usual, I will need to have some private discussions with James to understand his non-standard terminology. I must admit I don't understand what he just wrote.

That is why I don't want to do that now, because my past experience is it requires considerable discussion before I understand what he means.

I had shared with James (jl777) some suggestions or opinions on his Teleport design several months ago. I see from the link you provided he has now added a DHT to segment the PIR (everyone sees everything, e.g. BitMessage) space of the anonymity set, because PIR can't scale otherwise. Note James and I have recently renewed our private discussions since it seems we share some of the same goals. I don't yet know if we will work together. He and I are both busy on preexisting projects for the next month or so.

I didn't read that whitepaper, but if I understand correctly how a DHT would be used in this scenario, it means everyone knows which IP addresses map to given hash in the DHT (because they need to know which IPs to send the copies of the encrypted message and only the destination IP knows how to decrypt it).

If I am correct, then this means the hidden servers would be known within the proximity of a few dozens (or 100 or so) IP addresses. Whereas with a pure high-latency onion layer design, the anonymity set is the entire network. So from the standard point of protecting Silk Road type hidden servers from the authorities (note the recent crackdown on low-latency Tor hidden servers where Tor failed spectacularly![1]), then I think a pure onion layer design is superior to the DHT design or a combination of onion layer + DHT. If I remember correctly, James was using the PIR only at the exit nodes. He may have felt this is a way to add more anonymity, and I forget his logic on that. Any way, he and I can cover that in discussions. I asked him today if we could wait until we both have completed our preexisting work load, before digging into deep technical design details.

I am here now to discuss any overviews like this. For as long as it doesn't drag too much on my time for programming.

As for other details about the suitability of Teleport to the need I have outlined, I reserve judgement until I've had a chance to look closely. Surely there will need to be changes. For example, I doubt he is using double encryption with quantum proof McEliece as I have proposed. Teleport might be quite suitable as a first attempt at providing a secure communication for NXT and the SuperNet. I make no judgement on that. My goals are broad in scope. By "multiple currencies", afaics that can include NXT, Bitcoin, and any other currency.

[1] I don't think Tor failed only because it is low-latency. There are a litany of possibilities for failure of Tor, and having exit nodes probably leads to correlation attacks. That Tor is free and thus arguably a honey pot is another likely factor.

https://blog.torproject.org/category/tags/hidden-services
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/hidden-services-need-some-love

I created a discussion thread (so this will be my last post in this thread, apologies to the devs for spamming their thread):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=966977.0


Thanks. 12+ hours hence, they did not reply in BitMessage.

[redacted to avoid spamming this thread]

This is a discussion I started in the Skycoin thread. I am creating a separate thread to continue this discussion.





Please note that I did not initiate this. Some others are always pinging me to do something about the state-of-affairs in the crypto world. I guess I got to the point where I just decided to do a brain dump in public of what I think is important.

I think this is too much of me spamming Skycoin's thread. They have been enormously patient with my too numerous posts in their thread. Unless the developers engage me in further discussion, I kindly ask that any further discussion directed at me be move to another thread. Simply provide a link here or in PM please. Feel free to create a discussion thread.


None of those. I had already mentioned "option bets".

My idea is decentralized option bets, with two parties taking opposing positions on the move of the currency relative to the specified unit-of-account exchange rate. Leverage relative to exchange rate movement could vary for different bets. When the currency declines in value (an asymmetry in the opposing risks), then the difference has to be taken from the margin posted to make the 3rd party holder of the unit-of-account constant in value. There needs to be auto-settlement so that if the posted margin is depleted, the unit-of-account contract is settled instantly. Afaics, there could be built automated bots which settle and recontract the unit with a new free market bet with new margins posted.

The free market of bid and ask should determine the bets. So the asymmetry will be factored in by the free market of bid and ask.

In other words, I propose an option system where there is no centralized counter party risk. The protocol makes sure settlement occurs before margin is depleted.

We could create a common trading platform for all these competing currencies, i.e. decentralized exchanges with the appropriate logic and APIs. In essense, Skycoin and some of jl777's work for NXT are mentioning some of these similar ideas about decentralized exchanges and platforms for multiple currencies, but afaics they have missed slightly the key insights of what we really need. (Btw, I am still in communication with jl777, but I am not aligned with him and these ideas do not originate from discussion with him)

I am not an expert on options, so perhaps my idea is flawed?

Afair, the BitShares BitUSD functioned differently but I don't recall all the details. (I might go look up the details and edit this post later)

Edit#1: the flaw in my idea is that no one will buy these options because someone else can offer another set of options with the same features that do not have the asymmetric loses (given to the holder of the unit-of-account when the exchange rate declines). The holder would need to pay some cost for the others to take on this asymmetric risk. The holder would have to weigh this cost against the risk (cost) of holding the unit-of-account in its normal form, e.g. USD in a bank. Note we are moving towards negative interest rates so it will actually cost money to store your fiat in a bank or sovereign bonds.


Edit#2: silly me. All I am really advocating is that users can buy puts. The standard models for options apply. The carrying cost of the put will be relative to the volatility of the exchange rate. I think the Black–Scholes model applies.

https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/derivative-securities/Black-Scholes/v/implied-volatility

Edit#3: Okay I see that what we originally told Daniel Larimer (bytemaster) in this forum in 2013 was finally accepted as reality and so they adjusted their design to use a price feed:

http://docs.bitshares.org/content/price_stability.html

So the buyer of the unit-of-account is essentially buying a put (the right to sell his currency for a constant price relative to the unit-of-account) and the other party (is not a short seller!) is buying a call, i.e. is paid a carrying cost for offering to buy that currency at the strike price. A decentralized exchange would match buyers of these puts and calls, where the bid and ask would be for the carrying costs. If the current exchange price is the implied strike price, bids and asks would need to be updated as often as the exchange price changes (but this is conceptually no different than when strike prices are constant and bid and asks change constantly as the market price changes). There would be different contracts for different expirations.

So all BitAssets are is an attempt at a decentralized options market. But it is only for their currency and not a platform for competing currencies. And they are using a single price feed voted on by consensus, whereas I proposed that there be different contracts for different price feeds so that each contract can use a different price feed server (more degrees-of-freedom).

Edit#4: there is another wrinkle that can be considered. It is possible to give some of the upside to the buyer of the unit-of-account, so they have no risk to the downside, but retain some of the upside appreciation if the currency they hold  appreciates. But this will increase the carrying cost, i.e. the price the buyer needs to pay for the unit-of-account insurance. Rather the buyer could also obtain the same effect by holding some portion in the unit-of-account (without upside) and some in the uninsured holding of the currency.

Edit#5: the market for buyers of such unit-of-account contracts are people who want to diversify their (e.g. USD) holdings into crypto-currency without the volatility risk, i.e. they want the advantages of anonymity, autonomy, instant transactions, without the volatility of crypto-currency. Or for example, you want to invest in Bitcoin, but you like the anonymity and instant transactions of an altcoin, so you can get both for a carrying cost, where the carrying cost is related to the volatility of that altcoin relative to the unit-of-account chosen. Thus altcoins can compete to gain marketshare and thus less volatility.

Bottom line is competing currencies as true decentralization and more degrees-of-freedom instead of "one size fits all, one winner forced on everyone".

First of all, I don't fully know who the developers are, how many of them there are, who else is involved behind the scenes, and what their true plans are. For example, I don't know all the details about coin issuance and IPO. Often a non-PoW scheme is a cover for a way to monopolize the coins, because they are not distributed via the decentralized debasement of PoW. That was one of the flaws of or issues with PoS. If these specifics have been clearly mentioned in the OP then my apology for missing it.

So it is possible that anything I write might be falling on deaf ears because I may in essence be going against a pump-and-dump in great disguise (but I am not accusing them of that! just stating the possibilities that one must ponder). However, I will for the moment assume the developers are sincere (and naive?), because I detect some what appears to be idealistic motivation in their posts. So I want to help them not waste their time (if their motivation is really changing the world and not just a quick buck).

Taleb's Anti-fragility (i.e. autonomy) is why decentralized consensus is not decentralized

Thus, I want to make one more concise attempt to convince the developers that decentralized consensus is a lie, and that the only true decentralization arises from a plurality of competing choices.

In essence, all the arguments for a decentralized consensus remaining stable (resilient) against centralization are the stance that the majority (of nodes or participants) will "vote" (or "follow") for honesty over malfeasance. Even skycoin's prior post in essence makes that analogous argument in support of the robustness of the proposed Obelisk consensus algorithm in the worst case scenarios.

The problem with consensus is that it is a "winner take all" paradigm, i.e. by definition there is no way for a minority opinion to be heard. Thus the minority can not act on its wisdom and must instead follow the ("Too Big To Fail") herd. So for example, if a minority sees that the consensus is being gamed some how, and wants to break away (vote with their feet) they can not. Rather they have to try to prove to the majority what is happening and get the majority motivated to act. Doesn't that sound a lot like what we do now trying to convince our relatives of the problems with malfeasance in central banking, politics, etc and instead they either ignore us or they adopt Marxist objectives which further the concentration of wealth, e.g. "blame it all on the 1%, while we demand a government that gives us everything for free because we are poor and redistribution is justified!".

Whereas when there are competing choices, this is truly decentralization because the minority can autonomously break away to a choice that performs better, and the minority becomes more profitable ("smaller things grow faster, saplings grow to trees but trees don't grow to the moon"). For example right now you want to be discarding your Western citizenship and attaining citizenship in the small state of Singapore.

In our case, I have proposed a platform for competing currencies. One of the key elements of my proposal is to have the ability to purchase a unit in any currency that tracks (via options betting) any unit-of-account (e.g. USD or Bitcoin) that you desire. Thus you no longer are tied to the speculative value of the competing currencies if you don't desire to be, and thus there is no longer a need for the market to choose a "winner take all" because everyone can vote for the currency they feel is best managed while sharing a common unit-of-account across multiple currencies. This is the paradigm in money that has never been tried in the history of mankind.

I also proposed that fundamental building block is a secure communication network with hidden servers. Tor is broken. From this communication network, we can actually drive the demand for a cryptocurrency far beyond Bitcoin's current markets. I have vaguely alluded to the details of that and withheld perhaps some details.

For example, let's say a cryptocurrency was run by one group behind a hidden server. For as long as they publish all of the transactions and ledger then it can be verified whether they are honest, the same as Bitcoin's peers verify. If that central server is dishonest, the users can move their value out of that currency. But the users holding the pegged unit-of-account lose no value in doing so. The options traders take all that risk and will be the ones who predict in advance which currencies are well managed.  (btw, this also resolves many of the fundamental issues that plague Ethereum's designs). Even if the controllers of a centralized server tried to block all transactions and lock up the value, they could only succeed in destroying all the value in the coin and thus destroying their own power and reputation. Thus options traders would seek to verify the safeguards in place for the management of the currency.

This is very similar to the way decentralized consensus works in that if some nefarious group tries to take control of the consensus network, then the majority is expected to recognize this and fork away from that. The salient difference is that in my proposal of multiple competing currencies, it is actually very feasible for the minority to vote with their feet. It is an entirely autonomous action (i.e. it maximizes degrees-of-freedom)[1]! No amazing technical assumptions are required. They simply sell the coin that has problems. And the users who are holding pegged units-of-account don't incur any loses.

And there is nothing in my proposal that says the competing currencies can be PoW, PoS, Obelisk, consensus currencies. My proposal sits at a higher-level abstraction.

For me this is a no brainer clear direction. It beats the pants off anything else out there in the crypto world right now.

[1]

Quote from: iamback on February 17, 2015, 07:38:31 AM CoinJoin doesn't scale and/or it leaks anonymity (e.g. to the masternodes). It is not an autonomous block chain mixing thus it is inferior to one ring signatures. One time ring signatures can be implemented to be prune-able. Quote from: iamback on February 21, 2015, 09:25:36 AM ...IMO you are entirely missing the point... Degrees-of-freedom and innovation is where all prosperity originates. Inflation and deflation have nearly nothing to do with it, because innovation is: http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals Quote from: myself unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market And innovation far outstrips the factors you are modeling. I would like to get to the point of how to create decentralized money. I believe that is only achieved through a paradigm that enables multiple competing currencies, not through a winner take-all collective consensus (which I believe will always be a lie about decentralization). Specifically I have asserted (as well did Satoshi and Moldberg) that a widely adopted unit-of-account is the paramount factor in money (so that volatility is not a factor). Domestic businesses don't worry about the international dollar exchange rate. They can plan unfettered by that volatility. All your top-down, cathedral models won't help you. Enable the free market to experiment and innovate. Don't try to proclaim you know the perfect design for all. http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals Quote from: myself Knowledge Anneals Unsophisticated thinkers have an incorrect understanding of knowledge creation, idolizing a well-structured top-down sparkling academic cathedral of vastly superior theoretical minds. Rather knowledge primary spawns from accretive learning due to unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market. Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math). Given Kurzweil's sensationalized magnum opus is the technological singularity, it is surprising that he is apparently not well studied in the field of social knowledge formation. Update: you are modeling the factors that were more paramount in the Industrial Age where fixed capital investment was a limiting factor on innovation. We are entering the Knowledge Age where all one needs is a computer and their mind.

Need to install a speed recording device on your car if you live in Western country, in order to avoid cops ticketing you for incorrectly estimating your speed:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/truck-driver-films-argument-with-highway-patrol-officer-who-fined-him-after-estimating-his-speed-was-over-the-limit/story-fni0cx4q-1227235093322

This is what happens when government becomes the economy. They start bending the rules of "innocent until proven guilty" because their power becomes unavoidable, and their economic needs become insatiable. The cancer kills the host.

Greece could exit when the cancer has killed the host, i.e. when the sovereign bond market for Europe entirely collapses and the status quo can no longer continue (that which can't continue, stops). That would be consistent with my Petri dish theory and will also coincide with Armstrong's timing models.

I think Armstrong may (in another blog post) be referring to Greece exiting 8.6 years from when Greece marked the start of the last shift in the ECM.

I am hesitant to explicitly spell out the idea in public, although I've already alluded to it in public. Any one that was really astute and read my posts carefully would already have deduced it.

I am hesitant because if we have multiple copies of people trying to do the same idea, then it won't have the focus and inertia to get off the ground.

I would prefer to spell out the idea in private to those whom I trust and who "need to know", i.e. those who would be significant early investors and to the developers I would be working with.

It is much more efficient to do a Private Placement, than an IPO. The IPO in my idea would occur naturally after launch in the purchase of the coins for a necessary use of the coins. The coins would be dolled out at a rate that insures the price is going up, because the users will have no choice but to purchase coins otherwise they can't use the thing they VERY MUCH NEED.

That should be enough hints already actually.

As what I can see, the developers are overly invested in their consensus algorithm and want to focus their effort there.

Thus I agreed with chompZ that they should just proceed. And I should step away and go try to find a way to get my idea implemented.

I am teased by their apparent technical capabilities and their recognition of how bad the situation is. But they think they've found the Holy Grail with their consensus algorithm, so I guess we just are not going to be able to agree on the priorities.

Afaics, they have not provided to me a BitMessage key to communicate privately. No pressure. I must respect their right to set their own priorities. So I think we have a decision now? I can leave now?

How can you meet security requirements when there is no secure communication channel on the internet which can obfuscate the IP addresses of the communicating parties?

Except maybe Bitmessage?


I can't readily find any mention about TOX using high-latency onion routing nor Bitmessage-like PIR (everyone sees everything) in order to obfuscate the IP address of the sender and recipient. Does TOX do this?

Tor is low-latency (with very few onion hops), arguably a honeypot, and thus can not be fully trusted.


Bitmessage finally (after several weeks of my posts in their forum) implemented a variant of my suggestion to mitigate the spam.

But PIR is not a scalable design. We really need the high-latency onion layer network with paid nodes, so we can resolve Tor's vulnerabilities. Also we need to use several layers of encryption including quantum proof such as  McEliece, because if everything is being recorded then eventually our prior anonymity will be cracked ex post facto (and that means jail time for participants later in life).


Deterministic builds are not sufficient to guarantee there are no back doors, instead you need to compile the compilers yourself using multiple compilers to compile the compilers with (and even that doesn't provide an absolute guarantee).

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/01/countering_trus.html

https://blog.torproject.org/category/tags/deterministic-builds


We can't possibly fix this every where within even a year or two.

What we can do is build a more secure network communication as a first line of defense that is needed by everyone. Then we can pick up next in line priorities that apply to the widest swath of software that would be motivated about security.

You can not possibly get any traction if you need to perfect the universe first.


When I looked at it, Golang had afair fundamental design flaws with expression of higher level semantics, and vulnerabilities also creep in semantically.

You seem to be trying to perfect the world from the bottom up, instead of trying to strategize around priorities.

You appear to need a strategist.


How are we going to write our own languages, compilers, and toolchains if we don't first create a $billion market cap so we have the funds to do this?

If you go raise $1-5 million in an IPO, you will quickly burn through that and it will not be sufficient. Plus you will try to do too much at once, not having a good prioritized strategy.

Whereas, I have an idea how to get off the ground immediately without any IPO funding (or very small funding maybe $100,000 max) and generate $billions in revenue for the developers over time in order to actually change the world.

If you have socialist attitude (do not value the importance of the money side of things), you won't be able to accomplish your wide ranging goals.

Again I think you need help. You are excellent nerds (better than me), but you need strategy help. I need some extra brain power (and coding help) on the technical side in order to insure I can accomplish my ideas.

But we can't seem to acquiesce to each other.


You can't possibly protect the user's computer from code they run that is not yours.

You worried about details which are too low-level when we haven't even yet solved the high level issues such as how do we communicate over the internet without revealing our IP address.


Why bother! Just tell the user to not run Chrome! Come on guys, you need to learn how to "ship it" and not "perfect the universe" first.


As usual, estimates in software are always an order-of-magnitude too optimistic. You won't get even close to the resources you need with an IPO.

As another user has commented, if you raise $millions, then the upside is too risky to justify investing. All those fools who bought the Ethereum IPO are going to learn the hard way.


How much time are you going to waste down the low priority rabbit hole of perfecting nature?

Eventually you will learn the hard way that consensus is never decentralized. How many thought experiments and then learning from the real world implementations will have to go through?

There are so many factors such as even social engineering, but it comes down to the fact that humans have large brains and thus prioritize self-interest.

I am not against developing your consensus algorithm to see where it ends up, but it is a lower priority need at the moment. That should happen later when the $billions in development funding is rolling in from a success coup in the investment market.


How many people voted for Obama or Merkel?

Do you want to scale this to the masses? Or are we just playing a delusion game and keeping this within the crypto zealot market where we can pretend we have decentralization (e.g. Bitcoin today)?


Since when did Grandma bother with such technical duties?

And what if node owners are paid to run a client which has been patched with code to serve some nefarious interests? What if this is presented to them as a net positive, i.e. offers some improvements in transaction clearing speed or some other desireable trait.

There are so many vectors to introduce failure of decentralized consensus I can't possibly enumerate them all.


My flippant thought is that is impossible. Why would interest in the coin not decline if it was under attack?


The public never controls anything, they are always controlled by the banks.

Decentralized consensus is a lie that doesn't exist in reality.

Analogous to how the fools who vote now don't realize the political system is captured by the banks, the crypto zealot fools don't realize the decentralized consensus systems will be captured by the banks too (via the government, NSA, etc).

Don't forget that the NSA has a black budget in the $5+ trillion range. Even Donald Rumsfeld admitted on national TV the evening before 9/11 that the $3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon budget. The records for this investigation were destroyed at the Pentagon when the plane (or missle) hit the Pentagon.

To me you appear to be very smart kids playing with Tinker Toys. You are not serious. If you want to be serious, you need to get brutally realistic about what is realistically feasible and what is instead "pie in the sky".

If you expect to perfect the universe and prioritize ideological "pies in the sky" then you will fail.


No the question at hand is whether you guys want to wake up from your myopia and get real, or if you prefer to mess around in delusions.

I say that with a high level of respect for your technical capabilities. I think you need help directing your talents to a better focus.

Armstrong continues to be dumbfounded by  the absence of a Greece exit (guess he didn't read my essays which I sent him numerous times):

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/22/greece-new-govt-signs-it-own-death-warrant/

CoinCube also had an excellent post on Greece:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg10473639#msg10473639

Reposted as edited (again, I apparently have prodigious memory and can seem to vaguely remember key phases in 100s of Armstrong's posts, see added footnote with the aid of my external memory a.k.a. Google)...

chompZ, you are trying to top-down decide "the one right way" but there isn't one right way unless the bottom-up free market decides that. The best is multiple competing currencies. The free market anneals.

I am entirely against this socialism of letting people vote. Leadership by consensus is either chaos (or leadership by lies appeasing to what people want to hear, i.e. politics) and very inefficient. Actually benevolent leaders have been[1] the saviors of society. I'd like to see competition and choice between competent leaders leading a plurality of currency choices.

And yes we are headed into a shit storm and need to get focused on the priorities that make the most significant impact against what we are facing within a year. Consensus algorithms are not the highest priority near-term need. The major need is anonymity of the communication network. We don't have that on the internet and we REALLY NEED IT BADLY.

Transactions fees are not desirable (try to compete against a currency that doesn't have them), except as necessary to prevent spamming the tx network. But I have an idea for a solution that eliminates tx fees and solves the spam issue.

[1] http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/05/19/china-bubble-or-breakout/


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/22/rising-tide-of-civil-unrest-2/

The Sovereign Debt crisis won't bottom until 2024 or so...

The citizenry I assume has become entitled, spoiled, overpriced. Humans don't readjust quickly from this state. They go kicking and screaming back to poverty, not willingly with foresight and planning. Socialism destroys humans.

I repeat my point from upthread that trajectory is more important.

P.S. Note I had edited my post to be less acrimonious but you quoted my flippant comment. Apologies. I guess I am feeling pressured today to get many things done. I need to head out to rent the better house. Worried about my finances and how to complete many tasks pronto. But health is strong today!

CoinCube, you know how to use Google to search my archives? (search site:bitcointalk.org ...)

Norway's savings is wiped out by their external debt:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg9862184#msg9862184

Sorry but large levels of socialism and taxation are never adaptable and always end up in massive failure. Norway has a 78% tax on oil revenue!

I found a figure of $160 billion for annual government expenses, but even if I was mistaken on that, my point remains valid that Norway is not fiscally strong. They have a huge socialism bill (that will worsen as their boomers retire) to pay dependent on revenues which can wither.

In some past post, I showed that they are very dependent on oil revenue and afair approximately within a year they would deplete their reserves without the oil revenue. Their oil revenue will decline significantly with the drop in the oil price, because many of their deep sea wells will be uneconomic.

Counting all the costs of compliance with regulations it is much higher than 60% in the USA and Japan. Meticulous, perfectionist Japan regulates everything even the gloves worn by taxi drivers. Regulations are very lax in China.

Note the linked page:


Note I exchanged email with MW Hodges back in I believe 2010. I have quoted that email exchanged some where on this forum. But I don't feel like digging for it right now.

I had just started to dip my toe into P2P in 2008:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130401040049/http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?id=28#p168

That taxonomy seems to be illogical or you've misapplied it to my proposal.

What I proposed is to have a plurality of independent entities competing, none of which are forced to follow the same protocol. They are completely independent currencies. The only suggestion is they each provide a way to track orthogonal units-of-account.

Thus I proposed decentralization. Your above taxonomy claims that a single protocol with in theory no priviledged peers is decentralized, but in fact this is centralization! That has been my point against Bitcoin since I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch.

For me federation requires a centralized protocol, which is what the standard definition implies.


Indeed. Some of us have gone down this rabbit hole and realize that a single protocol can not be fully decentralized. There will always be an attack vector. Nature does not do decentralization that way. We can't design the perfect protocol. Nature instead decentralizes by having a plurality of competing choices (i.e. creative destruction). I am repeating myself.

Are you starting to come to my perspective?


I am impressed. You have more patience and are more erudite than I am. That would be typical for an Asian vs. Westerner. Also for someone younger with more energy and a long career ahead. I am very impatient now.

But I can cut through a lot of needless (or let's say needed, but lower-level) work and get directly to the end goal. Paradigm shift it. This is the strength of a Westerner (older generation). "Just Do It". See the market as more important than the technobabble. Etc.


Bingo! Exactly. Your consensus algorithm will be competing against something like a hidden centralized server in my idea. And can you match ALL the desired attributes? I think impossible mathematically.

However, we might find something your algorithm can do better than a centralized hidden server. Maybe it is decentralized trust? (but that has to be proven out and the market has to decide if it is important) My proposal for competing currencies gives you that platform within which to compete.


That is why I am advocating we create the secure communications platform first, since it is the common denominator to heading that direction. And we can leverage that communications platform to get adoption (would need to detail that in private because we can't get traction if we open source everything at or before the launch and everybody is copying us before we can gain some inertia).

The secure communications platform is a closer to a guaranteed winner. It is needed. Whereas, your consensus algorithm has to be evaluated by the market. The market may have different priorities, i.e. faster transactions or may not trust your model.

Are we starting to converge our perspective?


Absolutely. And there will ALWAYS be tradeoffs, because the speed-of-light is not infinite (if it was we wouldn't exist). That is why we need competing currencies, so the market can decide which tradeoffs it wants and in which proportions.


You are delving into details. I want to stay more high level for now. Details are for the competing currencies to prove out. I am more interested in developing the platform first. I want to enable others.