Need for censorship resistant block chain technology applies not only to currency: 1. So the decentralized database is a block chain? 2. Does the browser need to run Java applets to do wallet level operations? 3. What is the advantage for the user of a decentralized block chain storage for their tweets? The data is open to display/access to anyone and thus isn't owned by Twitter, so tweets can be displayed by any client, not just through an API authorized by Twitter. Talk about how this creates advantages that users care about? Sounds like it will be used by terrorists so then the government has an incentive to shut it down. 4. How can this remain decentralized if the mining becomes centralized? Seems the same centralization problems that plague crypto currency thus hang over the head of any current block chain design. 5. Why should we think a product that is breaking SEC regulation by selling shares has any long-term future? The government can make an example out of you with SEC action. |
|
|
|
1. So the decentralized database is a block chain? 2. Does the browser need to run Java applets to do wallet level operations? 3. What is the advantage for the user of a decentralized block chain storage for their tweets? The data is open to display/access to anyone and thus isn't owned by Twitter, so tweets can be displayed by any client, not just through an API authorized by Twitter. Talk about how this creates advantages that users care about? Sounds like it will be used by terrorists so then the government has an incentive to shut it down. 4. How can this remain decentralized if the mining becomes centralized? Seems the same centralization problems that plague crypto currency thus hang over the head of any current block chain design. 5. Why should we think a product that is breaking SEC regulation by selling shares has any long-term future? The government can make an example out of you with SEC action. |
|
|
|
So let's say the union of both chains is the rule. The problem becomes how many chains do we allow in the union because it is unbounded. If we place a bound on it, the adversary can Sybil attack the bound.
It has to remain unbounded for it to have any chance of working. In this case, such an attack would bring consensus to a standstill - but would this be a sustainable attack? If you imagine the attacker generating new POW transactions continually to create the bigger union, this is going to get quite expensive for him quite quickly... whereas the minority do not need to expend as much energy, since they are just bundling transactions not fabricating them. Remember I had mentioned in my vaporcoin thread last month that this was my original idea to defeat 51% attack by including all chains. I mentioned when I started this thread that I had found a fundamental flaw in that design. Now I remember what it is. The attacker can put a double-spend on every block of the minority chain to invalidate it relative to the longest chain (which also contains the double-spend but confirmed after the minority chain has confirmed the double-spend). This is an example of how elusive the flaws can be. You really have to dig. I think what I did next was contemplate still taking the union (conjunction) of all non-double spent transactions from all chains. I forget at the moment what was the flaw with that. I should have wrote it down. Edit: now I remember. The attacker simply waits until there are derivative transactions, so no one can trust any transaction is truly confirmed on the minority chain.  |
|
|
|
|
Fuserleer if you can solve it, I am ready to work on yours. Who ever can solve it, I am with you.
|
|
|
|
I made some most likely unwanted shilling about your effort. I hope you can make some progress on this. That't would be really cool.
The only hope if some idealistic but super intelligent individual like TPTB_need_war will build a system that solve the decentralization issue as well as eliminate the CAP theorem flaw, Byzantine generals problem and many other issues that needs to be solved in order to implement a safe and decentralized system. Personally, I doubt such system can be designed, Satoshi, Szabo, etc have not even tried to design such system, but lets hope some smart people are capable to do that.
I will try to find the flaw asap. Hopefully today. |
|
|
|
The bolded phrase can't be measured. With block chains we don't know when is when. All we know is the longest chain and what was confirmed in each block. As you know, there is no global clock to compare chains. This insight is fundamental to understanding block chains at the research level.
As I explained in the post of mine you quoted from, the only way to measure relative time between two block chains is during propagation, but you and I already documented in my vaporcoin's thread that propagation doesn't prove anything (can be inconsistent among peer nodes and offline nodes can be lied to).
I'm not entirely sure you need time at all for this. For the sake of argument, imagine we have our awesome new chain selection rule in place already, which selects the chain with the largest set of transactions. If the majority POW starts censoring transactions and produces a block with a subset of all transactions, the minority can produce a competing block at the same height which contains the attackers transactions and the censored transactions. Now, logically at this point, the attacker would simply use his superior POW to generate a bunch more transactions to fool the chain selection rule, however, again, the minority can simply include these new transactions and the original censored ones thereby producing the largest set again. This might end up in a stalemate of infinite forking, of course as attacker and minority battle it out forever, but there we are. Yes of course was one of my ideas long ago, but as you have identified there is still an ambiguity because as soon as we accept the minority chain, then the longest chain announces a new block with more transactions. There is never a point in time where we know definitively which chain is longer in number of transactions. So let's say the union of both chains is the rule. The problem becomes how many chains do we allow in the union because it is unbounded. If we place a bound on it, the adversary can Sybil attack the bound. |
|
|
|
Gentlemen, if I could butt in here.. Ixcoin, clone of bitcoin, has reached end of coin minting as of over a year ago. ix is a good test subject as it is struggling to maintain interest among the exchanges and miners due to not alot of transaction fees and zero coin reward. Without a block reward, you are correct that the only incentive to be on a longest chain is so your transaction is confirmed unambiguously.
There are still transaction fees to consider (although obviously not in Iota), otherwise you might argue that bitcoin itself would suffer the same fate of diverging consensus, when the block reward expires. I am proposing a design where the spenders (of transactions) are the miners. Thus if there isn't a lot of transactions, then there won't be much hashrate on the mining. I have long stated that I am not interested in developing a coin that is distributed to HODLers. I want to distribute a coin directly to typical users of social media and other internet activities. So my response to you is that a coin without transaction adoption is going to die. Why should it be any other way. |
|
|
|
Problem is there is no way to prove the majority chain has seen a transaction since it refuses to acknowledge it. The minority chain could include the censored transaction, but the majority chain could include more new transactions. There is ambiguity over which chain is the truth and so the Longest Chain Rule (LCR) kicks in and the majority PoW chain is the winner.
The chain selection rule is the problem here. You'd need a new one to deal with this - it would somehow need to take into account the greater set of all transactions; since censorship necessarily is exclusive, the true set of all transactions would always be larger than the censored set, such that the minority would always have the ability to include the attackers transactions along with the censored ones. However, quite how you combine this with the LCR is unclear at worst and maybe impossible at best, because the minority by definition has less hashing power than the majority. The bolded phrase can't be measured. With block chains we don't know when is when. All we know is the longest chain and what was confirmed in each block. As you know, there is no global clock to compare chains. This insight is fundamental to understanding block chains at the research level. As I explained in the post of mine you quoted from, the only way to measure relative time between two block chains is during propagation, but you and I already documented in my vaporcoin's thread that propagation doesn't prove anything (can be inconsistent among peer nodes and offline nodes can be lied to). |
|
|
|
Without a block reward, you are correct that the only incentive to be on a longest chain is so your transaction is confirmed unambiguously.
There are still transaction fees to consider (although obviously not in Iota), otherwise you might argue that bitcoin itself would suffer the same fate of diverging consensus, when the block reward expires. And note that if we use Satoshi's design or Bitcoin-NG's design, then transaction fees are problematic because in Satoshi's design we don't know when our transaction will be included in a block because we can't know apriori the minimum transaction fee of the node which wins the next block solution and for Bitcoin-NG that node (which is already known when we send our transaction due to NG's instant confirmations) can extort high transaction fees if we are in a rush because that node has a monopoly until the next block is found. Thus essentially these designs make mining profitable again and eliminate the advantages of including a PoW share with each transaction. Mining has to be unprofitable for my idea to enable decentralization and fix the " unbounded transactions spam versus centralized oligarchy mining control tradeoff" dilemma. Thus I believe my idea can only work in my design which has a difference from those two above. I am trying to find the flaw in my design that renders mining profitable through some game theory. That is why I say I am not yet sure if my idea is sound. In my design there are multiple nodes to submit transactions to, i.e. the intrablock partitions, so they can't monopolize and thus transactions fees should fall to the level of costs. And thus mining should remain unprofitable. There can be complex elusive flaws though, so I need to study my design more. |
|
|
|
Here is another question, sparked by TPTB (and partially aimed at Iota, but not exclusively so):
* If there is no reward at all to performing POW (neither block reward nor transaction fees), what incentive is there for consensus to diverge vs converge?
One incentive for it to converge is the desire to have your transaction confirmed in a timely manner - this encourages transaction submitters to chose the chain with the most work and submit their transaction there.
Why would it diverge?
Thanks for raising that issue for clarification. Without a block reward, there is nothing at risk in terms of not being on one longest chain, other than that your transaction isn't truly confirmed if there is no convergence. But remember I was proposing there will be a block reward, it just won't be profitable. So the miner will still risk losing the compensation of the block reward same as for Satoshi's design if they don't follow the LCR. So this is a major difference in my design and Iota. Iota has no blocks so it can't offer a reward (which also means the coin supply will shrink to 0 asymptotically in Iota). Without a block reward, you are correct that the only incentive to be on a longest chain is so your transaction is confirmed unambiguously. But the problem is that multiple chains can have conflicting double-spends ex post facto and thus merging partitions becomes impossible in come scenarios without reversing transactions. I don't think a DAG (Iota) can force convergence in all scenarios. I would need to spend more time writing down attack scenarios and motivations. I assume I would do that some months later if I had already invested developing my design. I don't want to go off on that tangent right now. |
|
|
|
Disagree - once inequality passes a critical limit revolution is inevitable. While some would prefer
a world government, it is not an optimal solution, indeed, there may not be a single optimal solution.
This is offtopic of technical, and I don't want to encourage a noisy discussion about everyone's crystal ball opinion. I reply because I think it is very important to get readers to understand how social inertia ALWAYS works historically and thus how it will work again. Because many people just assume that when totalitarianism of top-down society (e.g. socialism end stage and reset) is too oppressive to bear then it resets and everything is restored. But that is not what happens. Study history. At the minimum, at the timing of peaking global top-down society (e.g. Fall of Western Rome), there are decades of extreme suffering. And if the balance between decentralization (individual action) and centralization (top-down societal control) is unable to restore itself, then society stops functioning and enters a Dark Age for usually hundreds of years. Even the books of knowledge are burned. We are at a juncture where the control of the digital highway by government could cause all commerce to die as it is monopolized by those with the most capital and connections and all individual entrepreneurialism is taxed and regulated to extinction. Society is unable to do anything to escape this downward spiral, because analogously to the reasons that professional miners can't prioritize fighting back and have to save their own ass, the people always prioritize themselves first. Thus the people will prioritize what ever morsel they can get for themselves while Rome burns. This is fact of human nature. Study history. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Edit: whether we are at a global peak of top-down control might be a subject of debate. We know there is a lot of productivity in Asia with all the youth and Asia is rising with increased education and standards-of-living. It seems Asia will decline but bottom and then rise going forward from say 2020 or so. But that doesn't mean that the top-down control isn't increasing because China's (Asia's) model of commerce is very much top-down control (you can do what you want as long as you don't stick your neck too high above the poppy seeds, i.e. save face and appear to be obedient while learning to cheat and hide that you are doing so...and make connections because top-down power is to be gamed by being part of the hierarchy). Taxes are low but registration and licenses are increasing and so later taxes can increase too. It is a repeat of what happened to us in the West since WW2. One can point out that opportunities are increasing in Asia, but yet top-down control is always becoming more pervasive in other ways such as the example of China requiring all citizens to join a social network for credit ratings which requires snooping and banishing those who issue public comments or otherwise go against Party standards of social conduct. I am in Asia. What I see is the people are becoming more digitally enslaved while simultaneously gaining more income. One difference is the massive duplication of businesses, e.g. a gas station every 200 meters on the highway here in Davao. Thus the profit margins are squeezed. The fat cats in government and large corporations take the lion's share of the profit. Yet for me to ride this boom means I have to also enlist into the same digital control system. So it appears to me that we will definitely see exactly what I explained above which is that the individuals will fall-in-line to the top-down control to get the morsels for themselves as the control increases over time. Thus to profit in this era will mean losing your American values of individualism and joining the China/Russia model of obedience (which to some Westerners is akin to slavery). If I can't find any way to fight this direction, then I will have no choice but to enlist into this direction or just hide away on a farm while the world passes me by. I am 50.7 so maybe my era is over. I am fighting for my ideals and what would be worthy of me continuing to be productive. Otherwise maybe it is time for me to retire. I hope I can find a way to be inspired about what I am working on. I still want to be productive. I don't want to retire yet. In short the world culture and economy is changing and I don't know if I am aligned or can adjust. What I am seeing now is what you all will begin to face as the West collapses.
With regard to cryptocurrencies, I doubt that a single cryptocurrency ie bitcoin, can provide an optimal
solution to the paradox of thrift, and for that reason alone other currencies must exist.
I can't see any correlation between Paradox of Thift and the need for more altcoins. Society will converge one one fungible unit. It always works that way. We are not creating apps here. This is money. I realize all the altcoins so far are not really money, but just delusional projects. But if we are talking about widepread adoption, then there will be only one. Those who deny how history has already shown that there can only be one outcome for money (which is unification on one fungible unit), are in delusion. Edit: note I am referring to money above. There could end up being multiple viable projects for block chain 2.0 features that are not money. |
|
|
|
Your reply: Afaics, the Howey test only requires that investors had a reasonable cause to expect their gains would come from the efforts of some group or community. So if you are pitching your coin to investors, I think you will be culpable. Just being decentralized in terms of distribution of the coins (and not selling it directly) doesn't appear to be sufficient. The Supreme Court said it will look past any obfuscations and always at the underlying economic reality, meaning whether the investors were reasonably relying on the lead developer for their future returns. says that you're either antsier or more prudent than I. You seem reluctant to accept that Howey requires that all four criteria be met, and even more reluctant to recognize the efficacy of a "best-efforts" defense. Did you read the link I supplied, or the Wikipedia article on Howey? W.J. Howey went out of his way to discourage independent action. By my lights, that's the complete opposite of the peer-to-peer foundations of cryptocurrency. As I noted, I'm no lawyer myself...but I fail to see why a best-efforts defense backed up by repeatedly and publicly encouraging independent entrepreneurial action won't hold up. A capable lawyer could really drag out the case by slowly and emphatically introducing every individual exhortation by the dev (team) to build an independent service for the cryptocurrency - as Defense Exhibit A, B, C, and so on in a performance that would be a lot like a filibuster - and not stop introducing them until he runs out, or is shouted down by the judge (which would give him good grounds to "except" [i.e., indirectly object and give notice of a future appeal.]) or until the prosecutor agreed to stipulate that there's a pattern of exhortation that's the opposite of the pattern of W.J. Howey's exhortations. To mount a defense of this kind, all you need to do is be somewhat of a nag.  I can probably safely assume you didn't read the entire thread of prior discussion and analysis at the link I provided to you. I don't have time to go redigest that thread again, so I will just attempt to broadly resummarize from memory. You should refer to the thread to dig deeper. I had read the actual Supreme Court text and not just summary of interpretation. The judgement revolves around the interpretation of the meaning of "investment contract" and it specifically says that there are no specific cases that will preclude the interpretation of the economic reality: The term 'investment contract' is undefined [...]it had been broadly construed by state courts so as to afford the investing public a full measure of protection. Form was disregarded for substance and emphasis was placed upon economic reality. An investment contract thus came to mean a contract or scheme for 'the placing of capital or laying out of money in a way intended to secure income or profit So there are no specific rules. The court will look at the economic reality of whether participants were placing of capital or laying out money in expectation of profit. Note that 'capital' might not even mean money. It can include applying their effort, which is a form of human capital. I confirmed this by reading in depth other expert interpretations and subsequent case law. It appears to me that the court will look at the reasonable expectations of the participants. And always side with protecting the public. Thus my interpretation is if the participants are not investing but just using your tokens, then they don't need to be protected by securities registration. However if your tokens are being invested in by investors expecting a profit, then you need to register then with the SEC. This is why I advised making sure the ecosystem is well diversified asap, so that by the time investors start accumulating the tokens, then it can't be alleged that the investors were basing their investment on the ongoing effort of the original developers of the coin. It is with this interpretation that I have concluded that even coins (such as Aeon and Monero) which distributed their coins via PoW are still culpable under this law. And I don't understand why smooth is risking his already lucrative employment as a software developer to work on a coin that could end up getting him in big trouble. He doesn't need that! And for what gain? IMO Monero and Aeon are not solving any major paradigmatic issues for crypto. OTOH, since they are very small fish, they are likely to never amount to any legal case, but again why waste effort? But again I am not a lawyer, so you can't cite my posts as legal advice!! |
|
|
|
Your reply: Afaics, the Howey test only requires that investors had a reasonable cause to expect their gains would come from the efforts of some group or community. So if you are pitching your coin to investors, I think you will be culpable. Just being decentralized in terms of distribution of the coins (and not selling it directly) doesn't appear to be sufficient. The Supreme Court said it will look past any obfuscations and always at the underlying economic reality, meaning whether the investors were reasonably relying on the lead developer for their future returns. says that you're either antsier or more prudent than I. You seem reluctant to accept that Howey requires that all four criteria be met, and even more reluctant to recognize the efficacy of a "best-efforts" defense. Did you read the link I supplied, or the Wikipedia article on Howey? W.J. Howey went out of his way to discourage independent action. By my lights, that's the complete opposite of the peer-to-peer foundations of cryptocurrency. As I noted, I'm no lawyer myself...but I fail to see why a best-efforts defense backed up by repeatedly and publicly encouraging independent entrepreneurial action won't hold up. A capable lawyer could really drag out the case by slowly and emphatically introducing every individual exhortation by the dev (team) to build an independent service for the cryptocurrency - as Defense Exhibit A, B, C, and so on in a performance that would be a lot like a filibuster - and not stop introducing them until he runs out, or is shouted down by the judge (which would give him good grounds to "except" [i.e., indirectly object and give notice of a future appeal.]) or until the prosecutor agreed to stipulate that there's a pattern of exhortation that's the opposite of the pattern of W.J. Howey's exhortations. To mount a defense of this kind, all you need to do is be somewhat of a nag. I can probably safely assume you didn't read the entire thread of prior discussion and analysis at the link I provided to you. I don't have time to go redigest that thread again, so I will just attempt to broadly resummarize from memory. You should refer to the thread to dig deeper. I had read the actual Supreme Court text and not just summary of interpretation. The judgement revolves around the interpretation of the meaning of "investment contract" and it specifically says that there are no specific cases that will preclude the interpretation of the economic reality: The term 'investment contract' is undefined [...]it had been broadly construed by state courts so as to afford the investing public a full measure of protection. Form was disregarded for substance and emphasis was placed upon economic reality. An investment contract thus came to mean a contract or scheme for 'the placing of capital or laying out of money in a way intended to secure income or profit So there are no specific rules. The court will look at the economic reality of whether participants were placing of capital or laying out money in expectation of profit. Note that 'capital' might not even mean money. It can include applying their effort, which is a form of human capital. I confirmed this by reading in depth other expert interpretations and subsequent case law. It appears to me that the court will look at the reasonable expectations of the participants. And always side with protecting the public. Thus my interpretation is if the participants are not investing but just using your tokens, then they don't need to be protected by securities registration. However if your tokens are being invested in by investors expecting a profit, then you need to register then with the SEC. This is why I advised making sure the ecosystem is well diversified asap, so that by the time investors start accumulating the tokens, then it can't be alleged that the investors were basing their investment on the ongoing effort of the original developers of the coin. It is with this interpretation that I have concluded that even coins (such as Aeon and Monero) which distributed their coins via PoW are still culpable under this law. And I don't understand why smooth is risking his already lucrative employment as a software developer to work on a coin that could end up getting him in big trouble. He doesn't need that! And for what gain? IMO Monero and Aeon are not solving any major paradigmatic issues for crypto. OTOH, since they are very small fish, they are likely to never amount to any legal case, but again why waste effort? But again I am not a lawyer, so you can't cite my posts as legal advice!! |
|
|
|
It certainly isn't the case that every ICO has to be of the form "hey anonymous investorsoh-sorry-I-meant-users, send your BTC to this address and we'll send you some coins, and remember this investmenttoken is not an investment".
Obviously you are referring to Iota and Ethereum. I was responding specifically to the OP's statement here about giving away 100% of the coins. If you don't give away the coins but instead sell them (or do anything else like pretend to give them away while actually keeping them or giving them to privileged affiliated parties) you are likely taking a bigger risk.
And thus my point was that it can't proven that you gave away 100% and thus the implicit distinction you made was impossible. |
|
|
|
Thanks for reply. I didn't quote it to keep the clutter down
Very courteous. I would like to reply to all who posted upthread, but my time priorities may or may not allow it. Others should feel free to also post replies to others. I launched and posted vigorously to give the thread value, but I might not be able to keep it going. I think one thing is that the problems discussed in this thread highlight the need for alternative chains. One way to keep cryptocurrencies decentralized is to make sure there are many of them.
I believe the world is likely to settle on one fungible unit because widespread acceptance is more attractive and once the trust issues have been resolved, then why need another coin. And this is another reason I think we are running out of time to avoid enslavement. And I mean I guess thats why we're all her in the altcoin thread... But the other aspect of this notion is that you can't waste your time developing these systems if you think you have something worthy of developing. The only solution that truly fails to solve a problem is the solution that's not implemented.
And the other aspect is that bitcoin maximalists are just vested idiots.
I agree to continue working if I have something to work on which is actually significantly and paradigmatically improving the permissionless commerce and also giving us sound instant and micro transactions (and hopefully which is also compatible with integration with Zerocash for perfected anonymity[obfuscation of all transaction details]). If I can convince myself that I have a design which is sound and achieves those goals, I will continue to develop. But I want to be brutally frank with myself at this juncture. I've expended 3 years so far in crypto land research and development. No more half-ass delusion bullshit for me. I have to enumerate all the issues in a design and be very certain I am producing something more than just a dubious babystep that isn't really advancing the core dilemma, e.g. in my opinion Cryptonote/Monero doesn't really advance anonymity in terms of permissionless commerce against a global adversary such as the government (top-down society). And I was sad to come to that realization because I invested a lot of effort in June/July to invent Zero Knowledge Transactions combining Cryptonote with Compact Confidential Transactions (and even paid 4 BTC to the inventor of CCT for his collaboration with me). Hope everyone realizes I abandoned that invention only after serious reflection thus meaning I was forced by the reality of my analysis to abandon a major invention and effort. So therefor when I make that assertion about Cryptonote/Monero, I am also suffering for that assertion. Edit: it might be the case that some would argue we don't want to create a crypto design which is resistant to top-down government (society) interference with the protocol, because we want mainstream adoption. For example, the Monero folks might argue that anonymity for businesses hiding data from snooping by competitors. But this logic falls apart because the data obtained by for example the NSA can be leaked or sold because again there are human employees inside these institutions (e.g. Edward Snowden). When the balance between decentralized and centralized power is lost, then the world falls apart and enters a Dark Age. This is not a joke. This has happened before in human history and we are at another very dangerous juncture given the digital landscape has now become ubiquitous. His egregious myopia is that fault tolerance and throughput scaling depend on decentralized control! At the post I quoted above, I summarized why PoS is less secure for sustaining decentralized control. If we just punt and say centralized control is coming any way, so let's accelerate it by choosing to replace Satoshi's attempt at decentralized consensus with the same political mess we are trying to fix by inventing Bitcoin in the first place, then we have entirely defeated our reasoning. My aim is to try to improve on Satoshi's design to add more power to the ability to sustain decentralization. Or give up and quit. Decentralization is the normal mode of society. It is when the normal oscillating balance between decentralization and top-down control entirely fails in one extreme direction that society enters a Dark Age for 600 years. Without a balance of decentralization and top-down control, nothing functions and everything collapses. So I am trying to figure out how we construct a crypto coin so that there remains a tension or competition between decentralization and centralization ongoing. We don't want entirely decentralization and no centralization as that is just as bad as entirely centralization, e.g. see the reply I made to ArticMine upthread and how 100% decentralized control over what goes in the block chain means a choice between unbounded spam or oligarchy control. Thus the problem is the lack of balance and Bitcoin flip flops either to too much decentralization forcing too much centralization (a Tragedy of the Commons). Credit CoinCube for making me aware of the applicable math on that point. Message him if you need the link to it (I don't have time to go find it). |
|
|
|
Here is an example of a design thought process I went through and exemplifies how the CAP theorem flaw in a design can be elusive. Start with the insight that if the greatest realistic concern with a 51% attack is that it could censor transactions, then if a minority PoW chain could prove that that majority chain is censoring then the minority chain could fork (automatically due to protocol without any politics) without any ability of the majority PoW to attack the fork (in terms of censoring transactions). Problem is there is no way to prove the majority chain has seen a transaction since it refuses to acknowledge it. The minority chain could include the censored transaction, but the majority chain could include more new transactions. There is ambiguity over which chain is the truth and so the Longest Chain Rule (LCR) kicks in and the majority PoW chain is the winner. I did think of having the majority chain include a hash of the transaction, then later reveal the transaction data, but this doesn't solve the problem (just think it out). The minority chain needs some way to prove that it included the censored transaction a long time before the last block of the majority chain. The problem is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that we can't prove that a digital signature/hash occurred before some event in the future. The minority chain can refer to a historic event (e.g. block of the majority chain) when it hashes a block, thus proving a block occurred later than some block on the majority chain, but that doesn't prove that the minority chain wasn't just constructed before any event (i.e. it could have been constructed just now). Thus there is no way for the minority chain to construct the necessary proof. Even employing a timestamp server in various clever formulations won't solve the dilemma of trying to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is what I mean when I state that the CAP theorem is inviolable.
Thus my idea for permissionless improvement is to make mining unprofitable by limiting the debasement rate yet requiring each transaction to include a level of PoW difficulty. The goal is to keep the PoW power in the hands of the users so their client software can (perhaps automatically?) redirect to delegate full nodes which are not censoring transactions or otherwise maliciously modifying the protocol (e.g. censoring transactions that don't sign a KYC/666 id number). As I stated in the previous post that if mining is unprofitable then requiring some PoW with each transaction solves the " unbounded transactions spam versus centralized oligarchy mining control tradeoff" pointed out by ArticMine— which in Satoshi's design requires contention over the block size choice which thus reduces Satoshi's design to a centralized politics because there is no block size which is ideal. There are at least three design challenges introduced: - The PoW only has to be recomputed if the prior block on which the PoW share was computed is orphaned.
- The delegates could provide the PoW (compute it more efficiently employing an ASIC) in exchange for a fee.
- The difficulty has to be adjusted so that the block period remains constant.
If the PoW share difficulty is constant and chosen such that it requires at most only a millisecond to compute on most client computers, then the 100s of milliseconds round trip latency cost of paying a delegate server to compute the PoW is more costly to the user than just computing the PoW share locally on his client. The user doesn't care about the increased electricity cost for computing the PoW on less efficient hardware because the cost is miniscule compared to the value of the transaction. The difficulty can be adjusted as it always is in Satoshi's design as this is orthogonal to the amount of difficulty required for each PoW share. Thus so far my idea has passed the initial process of searching for a flaw. This is promising. Note this was not my only idea for significant improvement to Satoshi's design, as I explained (but did not yet reveal all details on) up thread. |
|
|
|
i recommend integrating an existing altcoin or even 4.
I think he wants to add value for users by giving them some coins for free. So he would need to partner with an altcoin that has that sort of partnership opportunity available. Afaik, none do. It is one of the marketing ideas I was going to pursue with my coin. Obviously Aeon and other coins which are distributed via PoW or are already fully distributed for PoS can't qualify for his needs. And you all think I was joking when I said I had many tricks up my sleeve on marketing. This wasn't the only one. use ones with a strong existing infrastructure that means you can get away with minimal requirements to support your usage.
you will not even need to run nodes, just use their existing api's
and many such api's are generic between coins, so won't require too much work between coins.
also if you use existing popular coins, it will be an encouragement for those coin users to use your app,
He is naive if he thinks he can manage his own coin. But let him learn the hard way. if your app is awesomely used and popular, then you could consider adding an in-house currency which you could distribute through the app itself.
personally i'd recommend PoS as it's easier to protect the network by holding a % of premine in house staking wallets, rather than putting it at risk to the amount of random rogue hash or even legitimate coin-switching pools.
Choosing an inferior consensus model in order to create an inferior copycoin is of low value to his users. |
|
|
|
i recommend integrating an existing altcoin or even 4.
I think he wants to add value for users by giving them some coins for free. So he would need to partner with an altcoin that has that sort of partnership opportunity available. Afaik, none do. It is one of the marketing ideas I was going to pursue with my coin. Obviously Aeon and other coins which are distributed via PoW or are already fully distributed for PoS can't qualify for his needs. And you all think I was joking when I said I had many tricks up my sleeve on marketing. This wasn't the only one. use ones with a strong existing infrastructure that means you can get away with minimal requirements to support your usage.
you will not even need to run nodes, just use their existing api's
and many such api's are generic between coins, so won't require too much work between coins.
also if you use existing popular coins, it will be an encouragement for those coin users to use your app,
He is naive if he thinks he can manage his own coin. But let him learn the hard way. if your app is awesomely used and popular, then you could consider adding an in-house currency which you could distribute through the app itself.
personally i'd recommend PoS as it's easier to protect the network by holding a % of premine in house staking wallets, rather than putting it at risk to the amount of random rogue hash or even legitimate coin-switching pools.
Choosing an inferior consensus model in order to create an inferior copycoin is of low value to his users ( Edit: because as the linked post points out, wide-scale adoption drives value and wide-scale adoption via network efforts requires trust in the consensus model). |
|
|
|
Hopefully, we would be OK with regard to securities law if we premine 100% and distribute those coins to users of our app at no cost.
I think so if you can also get many other apps to use your coins and create a huge diverse ecosystem for these tokens (but I don't think you can do that without losing your focus on your app!), but consult your own attorney. Note smooth and others felt premine was culpable. I argued against that. None of us are lawyers. I doubt distributing 100% at no cost is a problem. How do you prove 100% was distributed not to yourself? I think you should remove the "100%" and reconsider if that changes your stance since you were stating in my thread that a premine is culpable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
