To create a real decentralized currency would probably require active participation ... senders of transactions ...
... the only way that really makes sense is ...
Let me ask you a rhetorical riddle. Does the proper functioning of some open source software require every user of that software to review every line of code. Linus' law is the only known positive scaling law of software engineering. Malthusians want to return to simpler time when there was no surplus and thus we were all struggling every day to find food:
That statement is nonsensical referring to people who know that increasing technology requires an exponential resource commitment curve, increasing vertical integration and loss of freedom as "Malthusians". Kaczynski is correct and increasing complexity always results in loss of freedom. You are entirely conceptualizing everything incorrectly. And I mean everything. You are so fundamentally off course, it is ridiculous. Your error begins with not understanding that the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that entropy is always trending to maximum. Technology increases the degrees-of-freedom, thus is congruent with the inexorable Second Law. Consuming resources is merely the restructuring of matter in greater degrees-of-freedom. I have written extensively about this in my discussions with CoinCube. Remember iron used to be a precious metal. I don't have time to argue this with you, but I am warning you r0ach that if you stay in this tinfoil hat delusion, you are going to miss the big enchilada investments. I suggest you move this debate to the Economic Devastation thread where it belongs. It is really off-topic for this thread. |
|
|
|
Those models worked (BTC, XMR) and are working
Define "working". I see them as dismal failures both technologically and (mass) marketing wise. |
|
|
|
Ark.io is running an ICO now and already raised $1 million with another ~3 weeks to go, but they are not even promising how much of the premine the ICO participants will get: https://ark.io/ARK-TEC-Agreement.pdfNor are they limiting the amount of funds raised, thus the initial value of the market cap required in order for those ICO investors to even exit break even. Why would anyone invest under such horrible terms? What are these speculators thinking? (I hope somebody is going to put an end to this nonsense soon! and all those who bought these scamcoins are going to observe their tokens become worthless! That is my hope.) Well good to see that 4 days hence, they still only raised about $1.1 million. So perhaps this ICO will fail to meet the threshold, which would be a good middle finger to these bullshitters. |
|
|
|
One common trait amongst all the altcoin scams is they don't create any significant real commerce outside of speculation.
I beg to differ! Their common thing is that they are distancing cryptocurrencies from adoption. Those two statements are roughly equivalent. |
|
|
|
|
One common trait amongst all the altcoin scams is they don't create any significant real commerce outside of speculation.
|
|
|
|
If Doug Casey was an idiot, he'd be poor like a certain big mouth on these forums.
In your case, pride cometh before the fall. In Doug's he is smart enough, as I said. He is still a tinfoil hat idiot. He managed to hire some people who are not idiots. One world government was possible on the basis of creating large unions of countries (EU), this is now falling apart. US is divided too. How do you govern hundreds of small tribes? Power vacuum will not happen, there are a lot of leaders hungry for power, the vacuum will be filled on all levels at light speed.
Thanks for confirming you don't know the applicable meaning of "power vacuum" in this context. |
|
|
|
If Doug Casey was an idiot, he'd be poor like a certain big mouth on these forums.
In your case, pride cometh before the fall. In Doug's he is smart enough, as I said. He is still a tinfoil hat idiot. He managed to hire some people who are not idiots. One world government was possible on the basis of creating large unions of countries (EU), this is now falling apart. US is divided too. How do you govern hundreds of small tribes? Power vacuum will not happen, there are a lot of leaders hungry for power, the vacuum will be filled on all levels at light speed.
Thanks for confirming you don't know the applicable meaning of "power vacuum" in this context. |
|
|
|
No, I don't think that bitcoin is the trojan horse because it is already in the public the bitcoin so it is not something secret.
The original Trojan horse was publicly wheeled inside the gates. Study history. And one thing that we should notice is that if the governments want they can shut down and ban the bitcoin businesses and the bitcoin infrastructure itself.
Lol, you entirely didn't understand the thread. Try again to read. |
|
|
|
I argue in my white paper that TaPoS is as objective as proof-of-work.
Okay, but does it also provide objective consensus in the strict sense of the following definition (personally, I'm sharing Vitalik's opinion that weak subjectivity is sufficient)? A consensus protocol is objective if a new node can independently arrive to the
same current state as the rest of the network based solely on protocol rules (e.g., a definition of the
genesis block) and messages propagated across the system (e.g., a set of all blocks).
By that definition, proof-of-work is also not objective, because you don't know which hidden chains are the longest chain. You are trusting that the sources who send you chains are omniscient. Vitalik's entire premise was undecidable and irrelevant. |
|
|
|
If the loss of stake is less than the cost of the proof-of-work, then there is a gradual transfer of the ownership of the coin to the mining farms and thus the stake eventually becomes winner-take-all concentrated.
The point is that proof-of-work is no matter how you organize it, a transfer of wealth out of the ecosystem to pay for security. And worse is that unless your coin is the "one chain to rule all the others" then your coin is always vulnerable to rented double-spend attacks, because even if your proof-of-work algorithm has been implemented on an ASIC and has great investment in mining farms which do not wish to destroy their investment by renting out hashrate to attackers, the problem is they effectively control the coin (even in your negative interest rate design) because they can decide to move their hashrate to the coin which they feel has better attributes or is a new pump&dump speculation (moving on from one to the next). Thus your undesirable negative interest rate on savers is an insecurity. It creates a power vacuum for the miners to move their hashrate to a coin that doesn't have that weakness and to 51% attack and short your coin on the way out the door. Proof-of-work is a winner-take-all, "the one chain to rule them all" phenomenon. Slice and dice it as you wish, that won't change. |
|
|
|
Shelby, if you look at BTC and XMR as modules for how to launch and implement a coin, then you are on the right page--this is how opensource works : stages.
I'd open source all of it immediately now because it could potentially accelerate the implementation, except it would defeat two important aspects: 1. It would create many competitor copycats, so more difficult to get clarity on which one the community should focus on as the likely winner. 2. It would likely defeat my opportunity to end up with say 1% of the tokens (medium-term, e.g. after a few years) so that I would be rewarded for my 3+ years (enjoyable, intellectually stimulating) "sacrifice" to spend all my UNPAID time working on crypto-currency. And to motivate me to dedicate the remainder of my career to the ecosystem ongoing (given my project is going to be a social network in addition to the consensus ordering algorithm claimed innovation we are discussing, so I see opportunities to replace the browser, invent a better JavaScript, etc). It would also cheat my angel investors accordingly. Thus my best option is to make it to rudimentary implementation, then open source it with a lead on any copy cats. That will maximize value for the community as well. But the big question mark, is can I get that done quickly enough. If I was 100% health, I would be extremely confident. All I can say, is I am busting my ass on hard athletics trying to counteract the effects of the liver+digestive toxins and headed to Singapore Jan 12 for an expert diagnosis and hopefully treatment, if I can afford the treatment with my 9.5 BTC in funding. If I can make it to testnet before that (not likely!) then I could have more funding for treatment if I need it. I think originally there was a chronic, latent HPV viral infection involved as I had symptoms since 2006, but I think perhaps the viral aspect is eradicated from all the various experimental treatments I did over the past 3 years, such as AHCC, high-dose curcumin, sublingual and enteric oregano oil, etc.. So I am hopeful that only the (likely mechanical and/or microflora dysbiosis) liver+digestive problem remains to fix. I relaxed most of the past 2 days to recharge my battery. Also because my 20 year old son arrived (without prior warning!) from the USA and first time I've seen him in 4 years. So a lot of catching up to do and also I am having to manage now the fallout of telling my gf all about my past life and kids. So Sunday, I brought her to an upscale beach resort with live band and fine dining yesterday to try to soothe this. The story of my life is the chaos comes all at once. Telling my life story to my gf was incredibly depressing. It was basically a "How to Waste for Twenty Years, Your Talent and Life for Dummies" book. I got home, went to bed, and locked the bedroom door. Depressing. But I feel better this morning. I was also feeling ill last night from the fried foods we ate at the resort. Okay this morning. Edit: it added insult to injury to learn that my son has been earning up to $500 a day on tips working at the casino in Washington State, while I've been earning $0. He hasn't even started college yet is earning more than I have been earning for the past 4 years. Yet doesn't have any savings at all to show for it. He showed up without even a pair of basketball shoes. (I had an extra pair in my inventory so gifted it to him) Edit#2: it is not ideal that my design is bottle-necked on my productivity until I can reach testnet! This is pushing me and stressing me, but I am probably not of the health where being pushed is ideal. I end up pushing too hard and get less done because of being zombifried. I don't have a good answer to this. Push on I guess. |
|
|
|
Proof-of-importance is an obfuscation of proof-of-stake, because it doesn't burn transaction fees, so a cartel majority of stake holders (who thus can control which chain wins) could do as many transactions as they want, paying any transaction fees to themselves:
I am doing my best to share why I abandoned unprofitable PoW within the limited time I have to share.
I am not going to share the scheme because a facet of the scheme is employed in my ongoing (current) solution, even though my current design no longer employs unprofitable PoW. I am instead burning transaction fees and using TaPoS to prevent long-con nothing-at-stake attacks. But the "longest chain rule" is not the default consensus mechanism in my design. I can't give more details than that right now. My design has multiple facets which are (afaik) novel.
W.r.t to consensus ordering algorithm, I have I think a design which removes the power of control from those who have the most wealth resources and puts the control in the hands of those who transact the most. The capitalists transact very little and thus are not consumers and are wealthy. The rest of us transact a lot and our power is that we are the consumers!
Thank you for providing these interesting details! I think I got your basic idea. I'm curious to know in what ways your concept can improve the idea of TaPoS. Many ways.  Btw, does you model offer objective consensus or does it rely on weak subjectivity in the sense of V. Buterin?
I argue in my white paper that TaPoS is as objective as proof-of-work. I think Vitalik's idea of how TaPoS could be attacked is as implausible as doing a long-con attack on Bitcoin. One class of approaches at solving the problem is to combine the Slasher mechanism described above for short-range forks with a backup, transactions-as-proof-of-stake, for long range forks. TaPoS essentially works by counting transaction fees as part of a block’s “score” (and requiring every transaction to include some bytes of a recent block hash to make transactions not trivially transferable), the theory being that a successful attack fork must spend a large quantity of fees catching up. However, this hybrid approach has a fundamental flaw: if we assume that the probability of an attack succeeding is near-zero, then every signer has an incentive to offer a service of re-signing all of their transactions onto a new blockchain in exchange for a small fee; hence, a zero probability of attacks succeeding is not game-theoretically stable. Does every user setting up their own node.js webapp to accept bribes sound unrealistic? Well, if so, there’s a much easier way of doing it: sell old, no-longer-used, private keys on the black market. Even without black markets, a proof of stake system would forever be under the threat of the individuals that originally participated in the pre-sale and had a share of genesis block issuance eventually finding each other and coming together to launch a fork. In my white paper I refute the above logic: 6.5 DecidableUnlike how PoW is pragmatically “decidable” only for the “the one chain that rules them all” (meaning effectively that all other PoW blockchains are undecidable except Bitcoin), the Transactions as Proof-of-Stake (aka “TaPoS”)¹ employed in DPoS makes implausible the “nothing-at-stake” long range retroactive chain forks (aka “long-con attack”) without requiring that any DPoS blockchain is predominant over all others. TaPoS provides this security because although not selling the discarded private keys for the stake is in theory an “altruistic-prime” incentive for an undersupplied good[Vitalik], it is not plausible for an attacker to obtain the private keys for every historic transaction, so as to not create resistance by the current stake holders to the attacker’s fork (because otherwise the attacker’s fork would double-spend the current stake holders’ stake back to the historical owner of the stake). Note that I helped Dan Larimer invent TaPoS.¹ ¹ Daniel Larimer, Transactions as Proof-of-Stake. Invictus Innovations, Nov 28, 2013. Key design decision prompted by Shelby Moore III. Summary in BitFury whitepaper. I explained to you that your negative interest idea could be attacked by a 51% attack which enables only the majority to retain stake by orphaning the minority's blocks. So it is just an obfuscated minted block reward. That is not unprofitable PoW.
Of course, this scenario would be possible. But would it make sense economically? I have my doubts. In case of profitable PoW, such an attack indeed makes sense since you only hurt the minority miners, whereas the owners of the currency remain unaffected. With a negative interest on your stake (that gets inevitable due to the attack), the owners would quickly get discouraged from using/keeping the currency, which will eventually lead to depreciation. It's not sufficient to look at the nominal value of your stake, you also have to take its real value into account. The hashrate value is only going to be some % of the market cap daily. So to attack this coin and double-spend, you just rent that level of hashrate. Otherwise the coin needs to become the "one chain that rules over all the rest" and is dominated by entrenched mining farms which refuse to rent out 51% of the hashrate. So what happens in that later optimistic case is that if those who transact end up paying a transaction fee for this PoW to be done on some mining farm. Thus the mining farms are not paying for the hashrate, yet they have the hashrate available to attack the coin when they are ready to flip the switch and take control. But the mining farms have this huge investment which they don't want to destroy, thus they will not attack in any overt way which undermines their investment. Additionally I explained to you that if you did indeed have unprofitable PoW then it would have insufficient hashrate and it could be attacked very cheaply by renting hashrate.
I'm not sure how big the hashrate would be if it's used to avoid negative interest on your stake. For sure the total hashrate would depend on the market capitalization of the coin and its popularity. It would also depend on the interest rate itself and how it can be decreased by PoW blocks. Even if the hashrate alone was insufficient to protect the coin, an attacker would still have to buy/rent 51% of the stake if we put an upper limit on block creation for each account, in proportion to its stake. Without acquiring the necessary stake, you would have to create a whole new alternative chain (fork) by doing PoW, which would be very costly even if the hashrate is lower than in Satoshi's PoW. This would amount to surpassing the cumulative hash power (or energy) as I explained here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1570198.msg15972492#msg15972492One of the other problems is that you are disincentivizing buy & hold investors/speculators. You are basically emulating Freicoin's market failure and its demurrage concept. I don't see penalizing those who don't transact as a viable model for a store-of-value which is one of the attributes of money. Power vacuums are disequilibria. That is the fundamental point of my white paper and my attempt at a technical solution. So in your proposed negative interest rate design, if the loss of stake is greater than the cost of the proof-of-work, then all savers will transact to themselves, thus this is just proof-of-stake so the majority stake must collude to do the 51% attack I explained as quoted above. If the loss of stake is less than the cost of the proof-of-work, then there is a gradual transfer of the ownership of the coin to the mining farms and thus the stake eventually becomes winner-take-all concentrated. I hope readers are starting to understand how very difficult it is to design a money system which is not a winner-take-all power vacuum. |
|
|
|
...
ArticMine here you are again posting your inkblots. Slow down and try to understand your mistakes. Go take some quiet time and think for a while before you respond, so you don't fill up thread with useless noise.
I am saying that is as the "transaction-related costs" approach the minted block reward, then the Tragedy of the Commons in transaction fees results. This has nothing to do with a fixed per KB transaction fee, but rather the costs of actually processing the transactions. You have to factor in that costs include the fact in proof-of-work mining, that a 0.1% hashrate miner must propagate and validate 100% of the systemic transaction volume (yet he is only paid 0.1% portion of the total systemic rewards, and probably even paid less because of selfish mining and asymmetric propagation costs due to mining on the wrong chain part of time).
And any way, the entire discussion is irrelevant, because regardless, the economies-of-scale in proof-of-work dictate that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So you are just wasting your time any way arguing about the transaction fee aspect.
The inevitable mining cartel (presuming Monero becomes economically relevant) will dictate transaction fees in Monero as well, and also control the mining and all the bad impacts (censorship, deanonymization, etc) that come with it.
Sorry. Better luck next time.
Again a false assumption bold since there is no explanation how this is supposed to happen in the presence of a fixed tail emission. This assumption is up against: 1) The Equation of Exchange in economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange MV = PQ. What is being assumed here is to increase Q without a corresponding decrease in P. Or to put it in simpler terms one cannot expect a 100x increase in the number of transactions (Q) in Monero without a corresponding increase in 1/P (purchasing power) of the tail emission in Monero. 2) The fall in real terms of the unit cost of the "transaction related costs". The best example of the latter is the credit card industry. The transaction throughput of the VISA network today would not be possible with the technology of 1949 (punched cards, tabulating machines telegraph lines etc. ) This is relevant because the business model that was conceived in 1949 for Diner's Club, retail payments of high margin luxury goods and services (Tiffany & Co.). fails today when it is applied to very low margin retail purchases of commodity items (Walmart). We do not see American Express at war with Tiffany & Co but we sure see VISA ar war with Walmart. I wonder why. Edit 1: The only other variable in the equation of exchange that can change is V (The velocity) and changing V would require a change in use of the coin. M is set by the protocol and cannot be changed. One time changes in V and the slight increase in M due to inflation are more than compensated by the drop in real terms of the unit cost of the "transaction related costs". Edit 2: One cannot simply extrapolate what are valid assumptions in Bitcoin to Monero without running into some very serious problems. I expect V to be on the order of 10 - 100 for a microtransaction coin for use on all the activities we do on the Internet. So a minted block reward in the realm of ~1% would require transaction-related costs that are less than 0.01 - 0.1%. Yet microtransaction values may be so small that actual costs may be higher than that. Most damning is my additional point which you did not respond to: You have to factor in that costs include the fact in proof-of-work mining, that a 0.1% hashrate miner must propagate and validate 100% of the systemic transaction volume (yet he is only paid 0.1% portion of the total systemic rewards, and probably even paid less because of selfish mining and asymmetric propagation costs due to mining on the wrong chain part of time).
So for the control over mining to remain decentralized and for their to be a viable fee market, this means the 0.1% hashrate miner has to have transaction-related costs in the realm of 0.0001 - 0.001% of the tiny microtransaction values of transactions. You may argue that Monero will be a coin for high valued transactions and you don't think microtransactions are important, and I will rebut by arguing that it will not survive then as a system of money: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16969596#msg16969596https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1693466.msg16993233#msg16993233https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1685115.msg16993524#msg16993524Also although costs will decline over the decades, transaction volumes can also increase at that rate or faster than Moore's law. And lastly, as I said arguing about your tail reward is pointless, because it can't stop the economies-of-scale which cause proof-of-work (in Monero, Bitcoin, etc) to be a power vacuum which is a winner-take-all economic system. You didn't even address this point: And any way, the entire discussion is irrelevant, because regardless, the economies-of-scale in proof-of-work dictate that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So you are just wasting your time any way arguing about the transaction fee aspect.
The inevitable mining cartel (presuming Monero becomes economically relevant) will dictate transaction fees in Monero as well, and also control the mining and all the bad impacts (censorship, deanonymization, etc) that come with it.
Sorry. Better luck next time.
Edit: apologies about the gloating. I am just letting out some pent up frustration about the way I felt about the way (some or most of the) Monero folk were so sure they were superior to everyone else. That had really alienated me and I admit it one of driving motivations I have. I understand the importance of building a community, but not a community that thinks that no other experimentation from outside can be valuable. Any way talk is cheap. So unless someone demonstrates a better way, then it is useless for me speculate verbally about what sort of community I would like to be a part of. |
|
|
|
It's something that will obviously happen eventually since we take all the low hanging fruit first, but they're claiming that within only 10 years 75% of gas stations in the US will be gone
Because we are transitioning to battery powered transportation. These dense cities are suffocating on smog in China. Ditto Asia in general. Just makes sense as Asia becomes the most wealth economy in the world. As for fossil fuels generation plants, Australia and other places are loaded to gills with cheap coal. Also, for those suggesting a world government is a good thing; not on the banker's terms, and not before the rest of the world catches up to "first-world" status. The labor imbalances and new labor markets opening up for super cheap, along with societies further back in technology, are a net negative. Plus national culture is lost, among other things. Not a benefit.
Malthusians are always correct.  (they never are, never) They always see a larger pie as impossible. Malthusians want to return to simpler time when there was no surplus and thus we were all struggling every day to find food: The government is the most inefficient use of resources, so keeping resources out of the government's hands should be the best for growing the economy.
Yea, the government requires lots of waste to exist. Humans used to be hunter gatherers, then as soon as they started creating surplus, the predator class (govt) arose from that surplus. It seems like peak conventional crude oil (which appeared to happen in 2004) will force the state to scale back most of it's power unless it can replace all of it's current waste with fusion energy or having a dangerous fission plant every few feet. |
|
|
|
However can anyone argue that technically it is not superior to many coins here? I know some knowledgeable people here question that zero time can scale well. But really it has way more going for it than many coins.
Seems the dev team although talented are not great with social skills so the community seems very small and there is no official thread on here.
... I think it's been demonstrated repeatedly that better tech on the margins accomplishes nothing... It's all about creating a cult following which breaks through to real people (reddit a good proxy) and ignites a Dev network effect... And today there are only 2 platforms in that game= Bitcoin and Ethereum (XMR might be a very distant 3rd). Any one who designs an instant txn technology, names it "zero time", and doesn't explain that it just won't scale up, is either disingenuous or incapable of significant paradigm-busting invention/insight. Lots of silly little technical improvements which change/fix nothing about the fact proof-of-work is doomed, do nothing to create a new market. This is the hamster coin, for those who like to spin their wheels ending up with no meaningful progress in the end.  Hey that cartoonish face looks somewhat similar to the images I have seen of the Johnny.  What I think we (@smooth, myself, and other developers and technically capable people in the ecosystem) are saying is that if you are the real deal, then embrace the community by producing white papers that inspire the prominent and talented individuals to join your ecosystem. Produce meaningful innovation that impresses us and inspires us to look to you as an important contributor to the ecosystem. In short, we see him as ripping off Bitcoin and basically adding nothing of great importance and then hyping up his wares and also acting like a sourpuss. And not being a team player and not producing anything significant enough to justify his maverick attitude. And being anonymous which IMO requires an uber level of talent to justify. Walk the talk, not just a bunch of silly performance refinements that don't really change anything significant. I think many in the Monero community suspected me to have similar deficiencies and I am hopefully about to demonstrate their appraisal was incorrect. In short, here is a guy with moderate level skills trying to act like he is a Satoshi Nakamoto. He appears to have come from prior experience working on BitTorrent clients or related. He may indeed be a talented developer, but talented developer != Satoshi Nakamoto. I can relate my own experience as an example of what I mean. I have near zero experience in network coding, so any developer who had worked on a BitTorrent client would trounce me in knowledge about networking. Yet I am writing a white paper to improve on proof-of-work and proof-of-stake. So where I lack specific skills in coding (although I am a strong polyglot coder), I may have talents in conceptual innovation which are important on the ecosystem scale. And quality networking coders can be hired/inspired to join. Of course, we all could end up being incorrect. We are not omniscient. It is just the pattern of his activity that seems to indicate failure. |
|
|
|
Instead of formal advertising, all advertisers need to do is buy some steempower and then automatically upvote anything that has their chosen keywords in it. Writers will automatically start including said keywords, so it is win-win, especially as it is a more natural form of advertising.
The problem is that the advertising industry is stuck in the old days where they advertise like they do in newspapers or on the search engines. It will take them awhile before they wrap their heads around a new model.
The new model will be that your users do your advertising. You can't buy this with money. You buy this by providing something to your users that they need to talk about with others. Welcome the Knowledge Age that I (@AnonyMint) was writing about and predicting since 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0 |
|
|
|
Instead of formal advertising, all advertisers need to do is buy some steempower and then automatically upvote anything that has their chosen keywords in it. Writers will automatically start including said keywords, so it is win-win, especially as it is a more natural form of advertising.
The problem is that the advertising industry is stuck in the old days where they advertise like they do in newspapers or on the search engines. It will take them awhile before they wrap their heads around a new model.
The new model will be that your users do your advertising. You can't buy this with money. You buy this by providing something to your users that they need to talk about with others. Welcome the Knowledge Age that I (@AnonyMint) was writing about and predicting since 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0 |
|
|
|
it is interesting, why steemit dont use advertising selling on steemit platform? it can interested a lot of investors. Also it will help to support sbd withou steem dump.
Ad revenue would be so little to sustain Steem or SBD price that it's not worth the inconvenience for the users. Indeed. I documented this quantitatively upthread months ago and earlier this year in my analysis of the non-potential of Synereo. The real problem with Steemit is that their content quality is pathetic compared to Facebook, Reddit, Medium, etc. If the content was superior and it had actual demand from the mainstream...
Medium is not going survive either. Blogging content is not sufficiently monetizable to sustain the model Steem has. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
