Segregated Witness is overviewed here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/segregated-witness-part-how-a-clever-hack-could-significantly-increase-bitcoin-s-potential-1450553618https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/segregated-witness-part-why-you-should-care-about-a-nitty-gritty-technical-trick-1450827675Old nodes have no way to know if they are including a fraudulent transaction in their blocks, thus everyone will upgrade to new node else they can be attacked with fraudulent transactions which cause their block rewards to be ignored by the new nodes. Thus Segregated Witness is effectively a hard fork. Thus this does nothing to solve the Tragedy of the Commons which is driving PoW mining towards (an oligarchy) centralization in order to scale transaction volume. It is a gimick used to increase the block chain by some factor, while sneaking in the ability for Blockstream to add new scripting versions so they can later soft fork (version) the block chain to support Sidechains. Clever but not clever enough to hide from Sherlock Holmes (me)! Upthread I have rough sketched a design for a solution that conceptually scales and maintains decentralized, permissionless control over mining.
Apparently you don't understand that you are talking to someone who is much more astute than you and more so than most of the guys on this forum. blah blah blah
You have a reading comprehension handicap. Try again: while sneaking in the ability for Blockstream to add new scripting versions so they can later soft fork (version) the block chain to support Sidechains
A third advantage of Wuille's Segregated Witness proposal has Bitcoin programmers just as excited as the first two – if not more-so: script versions.
As explained in the previous article, Segregated Witnesses carry scriptSigs that unlock bitcoin. But they carry something else, too: version bytes. These version bytes preface scriptSigs in Segregated Witnesses, indicating what kind of scriptSig it is. If a node reading the version byte recognizes the type, it can tell what requirements must be met to unlock bitcoin in the scriptSig. If a node reading the version byte does not recognize the type, it interprets the scriptSig as an “Anyone can spend.”
This opens up all sorts of new ways to lock bitcoin up in transactions. In fact, it can be used to lock bitcoin up in any way developers come up with. As such, it's impossible to explain how this will be used in the future, since much of this still needs to be invented. But initial ideas include Schnorr signatures, which are much faster to verify than signatures currently in use, and more complicated types of multisig transactions; perhaps even Ethereum-like scripts.
And importantly: Like Segregated Witness itself, these types of upgrades will not break Bitcoin's existing consensus rules. Rather than every single Bitcoin node, only a majority of miners needs to adapt, making them much easier to deploy.
|
|
|
|
OROBTC we already discussed in the past that your holdings of gold are a single-digit % of your net worth and are held for diversification against abnormal outcomes and not for gains. My writings about price is for those speculating on price because they are investing for gains. Note though I do think gold will be entirely banned. I don't know how long it will take for the NWO to reach this level of control. Might not be within your and my lifetimes given we are 50+. However, the digital control over the world is accelerating. The Corporate Fascism controls every nook and cranny. (this is presuming that decentralization technologies can't take back the upper hand) Since you are a Bible believer, I assume you are aware that it says everyone will throw their gold & silver into the street. And no merchant will be able to conduct commerce. That is the digital control system at the end game of totalitarian collapse. I am not sure if we will get there any time soon. No one knows for sure. What a shame to leave a worthless relic to your children when you die. I'd take profits at $5000 and leave them some land or something they can use. Then again, you've stated you are already diversified in real estate. So I understand your logic. It is I guess good to have some gold coins as a "get out of Dodge" insurance policy. And that is what MA advocates as well. His gold price models are for those who are paper trading gold, not for those buying coins which he has said he gives as gifts for the kids in the family.  |
|
|
|
I think proper checks and balances could be implemented to reduce the amount of nodes the code has to be ran on while maintaining decentralization.
Reply is in the proper thread. |
|
|
|
Note the viable solution for Ethereum may be to centralize only the verification, and keep the voting power decentralized. This is essentially what I am proposing for my PoW design.
I assume you mean verification as in if the smart contract output matches the input submitted by the requesting node? Centralization of the transaction processing seems to be giving up the decentralized voting power. Centralization is always more efficient, but complete centralization is not necessary. That is your main gripe with Ethereum, right? That each node has to run the scripts themselves? I think proper checks and balances could be implemented to reduce the amount of nodes the code has to be ran on while maintaining decentralization. IE. If 100% of an arbitrary number of randomly selected nodes agree on the output, then it may not be necessary for all nodes on the network to run that code as long as there is one honest node. If there is one dissenting node, then the full network (or a larger percentage of the network) runs the code to solve the dispute. ... or something similar to this. I don't want to be condescending, so please try to take this reply constructively. We already discussed upthread why delegating consensus decisions to a minority of the stake (PoS) or hashrate (PoW) will result in divergence and no consensus. You are not considering the economic game theory that comes into play. When there isn't a resource consumed to force a choice of orderings amongst the plurality of potential arbitrary orderings, then there is discord. This was covered for example in the discussion starting some where around page 28 of this thread between enet, myself, and monsterer. I am not going to be able to help you digest this entire thread, by resummarizing the entire thread. You will have to invest the effort/time to read and digest the technical points carefully if you desire to be fully knowledgeable about this issue. What you feel might be okay, is not actually a well researched level of knowledge of this particular consensus/verification issue. Please don't again accuse me of writing too much technobabble. It isn't my fault that the issue is complex. You are welcome to quote a specific point upthread and rebutt it.
Again, people shouldn't keep this at arm's length. Imagine if it really does become the 'world computer' with a billion users, and billions of smart contracts, the blockchain would be too huge.
There won't be any block chain that scales to the significant global usage where most users (and miners) run full nodes. Simply can't be done. Centralization is required for scaling. The only solution I thought of is to control the centralized full nodes with decentralized power. Keep the mining power in the hands of the users. Agreed. You need trust to scale. Mining = creating coins + verification. It would be better to talk about verifiers or auditors rather than miners. Trust & verify (statistically). |
|
|
|
Pool centralization increased in Bitcoin in 2015 as I predicted back in 2013, despite arguments that said miners will switch pools to avoid centralization  When will many prominent people here in this forum ever learn economics. |
|
|
|
SEC, "Some mining contracts are securities": |
|
|
|
Let's not forget that Peter Thiel awarded a $100,000 grant to Vitalik. Ethereum may not be only the investment scam that it appears to be to me, but also a gambit by consortium of the world's largest 42 banks to catch up with us and outlaw us:  Looking ahead, expect to see various deployments of DLT, along with further attention given to arguably DLT’s 'killer app', smart contracts (Slide 95).  Of particular interest will be whether the Open Ledger Project, which will be managed by the the Linux Foundation, can address the many governance problems observed around software development in 2015 (Slide 118). Also expect to hear more about Ethereum in 2016 and the decentralized applications being built on its public blockchain, including Slock.it, Augur and Vunk (Slide 109).  Well apparently those banks are clueless that Ethereum can not solve the fundamental flaw that provides decentralization. Or more likely they realize that it will end up centralized and thus they retain control! Note the viable solution for Ethereum may be to centralize only the verification, and keep the voting power decentralized. This is essentially what I am proposing for my PoW design.
Nick Szabo also chimed in: |
|
|
|
Let's not forget that Peter Thiel awarded a $100,000 grant to Vitalik. Ethereum may not be only the investment scam that it appears to be to me, but also a gambit by consortium of the world's largest 42 banks to catch up with us and outlaw us: Looking ahead, expect to see various deployments of DLT, along with further attention given to arguably DLT’s 'killer app', smart contracts (Slide 95). Of particular interest will be whether the Open Ledger Project, which will be managed by the the Linux Foundation, can address the many governance problems observed around software development in 2015 (Slide 118). Also expect to hear more about Ethereum in 2016 and the decentralized applications being built on its public blockchain, including Slock.it, Augur and Vunk (Slide 109). Well apparently those banks are clueless that Ethereum can not solve the fundamental flaw that provides decentralization. Or more likely they realize that it will end up centralized and thus they retain control! Note the viable solution for Ethereum may be to centralize only the verification, and keep the voting power decentralized. This is essentially what I am proposing for my PoW design.
Nick Szabo also chimed in: |
|
|
|
That will not work in my design because the payer has to do a roundtrip request to request the current "intra-block chain" hash from a "provider" to include in the PoW share (otherwise the same PoW share could be submitted to multiple providers and thus payers have no vote in the LCR). Therefor the PoW share computation can be outsourced at no extra latency cost.
Why don't you have the providers just act as the mempool? Then users can gather the TXIDs in their round trip and sign their own PoW, rather than just gather the already produced block hash. This wouldn't remove the economic incentive to outsource the PoW share computation to an ASIC. Also note the payer is only computing a PoW share, so they won't be announcing a block solution most of the time, so that extra communication load is on every transaction submitted to the network. Also you are missing a key point (that I have not yet revealed) about how I do the intra-block partitions so as to enable instant transactions. |
|
|
|
|
On any sufficient time horizon, it has to be a bubble that will crash to near 0 unless they solve the fundamental flaw of how to handle decentralization of a block chain given the Tragedy of the Commons which forces centralization due to asymmetry in block rewards per verification cost, or unless the verification cost is insignificant which isn't to be the case for arbitrarily long running scripts. And I assert this flaw can not be fixed. I have studied this and it is fundamental due to the CAP theorem that they can't use partitioning (shards) nor consensus-by-betting nor any of the other ideas proposed for Casper.
This would be true for any block chain that supports long-running programmable scripting with verification cost that is unbounded (and not assuredly insignificant). The Tragedy of the Commons even applies to Bitcoin and any PoW coin to a lesser extent because verification cost is much less.
I am not just interjecting technical fundamentals, I am also asserting speculative insight that a block chain which can't scale decentralized is not an innovation for anything (well an exception could be a centralized Zcash is still useful for provable anonymity). This doesn't speak about the short-term pump which is more of speculator sentiment and liquidity issue. I am speaking about "On any sufficient time horizon".
Note the viable solution for Ethereum may be to centralize only the verification, and keep the voting power decentralized. This is essentially what I am proposing for my PoW design.
|
|
|
|
Mmm, hmm. Yes, even though I look rather favorably on Armstrong's ideas (even where I disagree, at least somewhat [gold])
I guess you saw this (~March low for gold < $850 still on tap) and I am expecting a possible collapse in crypto currency then too (but not certain that the gold model applies also to crypto assets yet I think it does since it is essentially the same market for alternative private assets and the first to be sold in a liquidity contagion coming apparently in March): Naturally, the gold promoters are out in force. The problem with their theories has always been that they are dead wrong. The REAL BULL MARKET will see the metals rise with equities. Right now, they focus on the stock market and yell buy gold because a depression is here. Here wee need to see a weekly closing above the 1143 level to raise any hope of a temporary low. Without that, we have a [potential] turning point in February which can be a high with a low moving into the next Benchmark target. A closing for January below the 1103 level will warn there is inherent weakness still lingering within this market. Next month, watch the 1097 level for that is key support. Break that and its looking into a low into the second benchmark. |
|
|
|
I understand what he is referring to when it comes to time and price. In the example I gave it was simply Euro vs USD, nothing more complicated. Admittedly, his timing wasn't definite but it was pretty clear that he expected it to breakdown soon, certainly not years later, as he has now adjusted it to.
You lie about or do not know the facts. He said the Euro would decline relative to USD, which it already has (from ~1.30 to ~1.05). The change is that he originally thought perhaps the USD bull market would peak 2017.9, but now he is opening to the possibility of 2020. I suggest to get out from your troll cave and attend his next conference. You will meet me there (yes, some retail traders like me attend his conference), which will provide you a wonderful opportunity to apologize in person for your personal insults, and most importantly you will meet some of his serious clients there.
You yet again prove that you work for MA by selling me his conferences. Illogical. AltcoinUK is not selling you anything. He is rebutting your trolling. You are on a crusade to slander Armstrong (and without a coherent understanding of the facts). And now you stoop to asserting that rebutting you is akin to selling something. You do not like that MA promotes his work. Fine. So go preach on a soapbox some where. We are telling you that we find some value in reading his blog. His long-term predictions have been particularly insightful (and I have refuted all your lies/misconceptualizations about that). MA is an uneducated convicted fraudster and con artist who lost hundreds of millions and cheated Japanese investors.
And you believe everything you read on Wikipedia without researching all the facts. Armstrong has shown the documentation that it was the banks who were cheating and when they got caught, they tried to pin it on him. But in the end, the banks admitted to it and paid a fine. He was entirely vindicated. Also he was never convicted (certainly not in an open court with a jury of his peers, but rather the corrupt Goldman Sachs-affiliated judge kicked out all the media!). He was held illegally in contempt-of-court for 7 years because he refused to turn over the source code to his computer model to Goldman Sachs. And when they found out that his case was about to be heard by the Supreme Court, they had him beat up and his teeth knocked out in prison so that he would accede to a plea bargain deal. He was coerced. This is like the 5th time I have explained this in this thread. It makes me very angry that you abuse my time by not reading the thread entirely before you blow your snot all over this thread. This is all in the movie and the movie had to buy insurance about the facts being properly vetted. So the movie has already been vetted by attorneys working on behalf of the insurance company. Dude who is paying you to slander MA? Goldman Sachs? (surely they can afford better) Or are you just some snotty n00b who found a crusade to appease boredom? |
|
|
|
And they insulted me about doing a 30 second rough sketch of a logo (just to see how it would appear not because I thought it was a great result): Saint Patrick's Day  4-leaf clover or a bowtie. Smooth you are out of your experience zone. The above is apparently after "many iterations" whereas my ideas below were quick one-offs:  Very roughly (the proportions are not balanced in this rapidly hacked up mockup) what I am thinking about for a Sync logo, if we choose the Sync name for the consensus network.  I am still considering 'ion' as well. Perhaps people can learn to think of it as the "electric charge" (fuel) they need to do actions in virtual reality. The logo would probably be a lighting bolt and/or positively charge ions floating in a cloud   . If 'ion' wins out, I won't be upset. I just want to make sure all perspectives have been weighed by voters. Here were some refined logos I did: |
|
|
|
Saint Patrick's Day 4-leaf clover or a bowtie. Smooth you are out of your experience zone. |
|
|
|
I have roughly sketched a proposal which I am thinking will ameliorate the energy problem, remove the selfish mining attack (because mining becomes unprofitable), fix the block chain scaling, and Tragedy of the Commons around verification asymmetry for PoW (which is Ethereum's insoluble dilemma). It is in the thread I provided a link to previously, but I will point you to a more specific post that gets more direct to the economic math point (though one would still need to read the context of prior and subsequent posts of the thread): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13634257#msg13634257https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13647887#msg13647887https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13684665#msg13684665However, this design may not work for Zcash, because Zcash has higher verification costs (but that is not a problem if the verification cost is still insignificant relative to the typical transaction values) and because the rate of transactions might be much more infrequent than the microtransactions market I was designing for (however if Zcash can be widely used then transaction rate may be sufficient and also the PoW share submitted with each transaction can be much higher than in my design because I assume anonymous transactions can be for much higher minimum values). There may or may not be another hindrance with the fact that Zcash's block chain is afaik monolithic and amorphous, but I haven't thought through that issue yet. Afair (and I don't have time to re-read it given all I have learned since I first read it) that paper did not articulate the most unarguable and salient reasons that PoS is inferior. I think we furthered the understanding in my linked thread. Also I wrote something about this in one of Vitalik's threads: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/42rvm3/truth_about_ethereum_is_being_banned_at/czcpoezOn any sufficient time horizon, it has to be a bubble that will crash to near 0 unless they solve the fundamental flaw of how to handle decentralization of a block chain given the Tragedy of the Commons which forces centralization due to asymmetry in block rewards per verification cost, or unless the verification cost is insignificant which isn't to be the case for arbitrarily long running scripts. And I assert this flaw can not be fixed. I have studied this and it is fundamental due to the CAP theorem that they can't use partitioning (shards) nor consensus-by-betting nor any of the other ideas proposed for Casper.
This would be true for any block chain that supports long-running programmable scripting with verification cost that is unbounded (and not assuredly insignificant). The Tragedy of the Commons even applies to Bitcoin and any PoW coin to a lesser extent because verification cost is much less.
I am not just interjecting technical fundamentals, I am also asserting speculative insight that a block chain which can't scale decentralized is not an innovation for anything (well an exception could be a centralized Zcash is still useful for provable anonymity). This doesn't speak about the short-term pump which is more of speculator sentiment and liquidity issue. I am speaking about "On any sufficient time horizon".
Note the viable solution for Ethereum may be to centralize only the verification, and keep the voting power decentralized. This is essentially what I am proposing for my PoW design.
|
|
|
|
I read an article on Flipboard about Zcash is this different coin than zerocoin?
It's by the same people, so I assume it's the same thing and going to be the real implementation. >All of the authors of the Zerocash protocol are on our team, which includes most of the creators of the Zerocoin protocol and zk-SNARKs themselves. Is there a thread on bitcointalk about zcash Get the links to some BCT threads here: https://forum.z.cash/t/fundamental-challenges/39Also see this new thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1342065.0 |
|
|
|
Normally ads pay between $1 - $10 per CPM (thousand impressions),
In my experience that's too high by a factor of 10 - 100 for CPM ads. Maybe CPA you might get closer to $1 per action, but they're generally pretty low quality ads, which you wouldn't want on a social network. Are you sure? I am saying $1 - $10 paid per 1000 displays of the banner ad. During the dot.com bubble is was as high as $40. Has it declined now below $1? Tsu has been doing that over a year and they have been a lot of social sites that pays just to use their site just like they do on facebook,one site that is also doing that,that pays through crypto currency is startpeeps own by jens,they had a thread here,looks profitable though ..
This doesn't look good: "tsu is an invite-only platform that rewards social activity for all users" |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have any data on what users typically earn from these sites?
Let me attempt a "back of the napkin" guesstimate.
Normally ads pay between $1 - $10 per CPM (thousand impressions), but it can be even less if there are very low CTR, low sales conversions/branding recall, or too many ads on same page. For starters let's assume the revenue distribution is egalitarian (i.e. uniformly distributed among users), and assume a typical user views 100 ads per day. So that is $0.10 to $1 per day in revenue for each user. That isn't even a third world wage any more.
Perhaps with multiple ads on the same page and very well targeted ad content, we could raise that by a factor of 10. Then it might be worthwhile to someone in a third world country, but it doesn't seem like it will ever be worthwhile to someone in a developed nation. Okay $300 per month might be worth it to some kids who live with their parents in a developed nation, but it isn't going to be participating in the significant portion of the economy.
It just seems to me to be economically implausible as a motivation to seek out a big chunk of the economics of social network. Social networks are driving much larger economics that are the derivative sales that come from networking.
Now a concept such as Synereo doesn't have to be about revenue for users. It could be focused on achieving other goals that are important to users of social networks. So far Greg Meredith hasn't articulated that clearly to me.
I will be trying to figure this out. It is a complex mental challenge.
I would appreciate all the information and opinions I can read from others about what other social networking experiments are doing and their results. As much data as possible please.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
