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. |
|
|
|
[...]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)[...] Here is that linked post: The reason is that a fee market cannot properly develop in the absence of a block subsidy. One has either a fixed blocksize with a mining oligarchy and infinite fees or an infinite blocksize where competition between miners drive fees to zero.
For layman technophobes, your astute point (which many of us technophiles already aware of and I wrote Spiraling Transactions Fees thread in 2013) is that when the block size is unlimited then anyone can include all the transactions that were excluded by a miner that was trying to force higher transaction fees. But if block size is unlimited then transaction spam can be unlimited, so a mining oligarchy must form to constrain block size. The problem is not due to relative block size (so compression wouldn't fix it), but due to the fact that someone centralized needs to decide which transactions are spam or not (otherwise in decentralization at least in Satoshi's design then all spam transactions are allowed). [...] My idea for fixing all of this, has to do with the way the temporal intrablock partitioning is done. I will probably find some flaw in my design too, but I will spend more time thinking about it. Correction: my idea for temporal intrablock partitioning doesn't solve the problem above, but rather it makes block announcements a constant size (and enables instant transactions). The problem above remains and remains for Iota too in the sense that sending unlimited transactions is still an unbounded load on all the full nodes in the system. Remember that market based transaction fees are not a solution to the problem. My proposed solution (ditto for Iota) is again that every transaction has to include a PoW share. Since PoW is unprofitable (or if the PoW share provided is not computing a block solution), then this solution can be employed. However note it works much better in my (and also Iota's) design because in a Satoshi design it is possible your transaction won't get included in the current block so then you need to recompute your PoW share and resubmit your transaction. This is one of the details I was referring to. I think my design doesn't have that problem. Again I don't want to detail it entirely yet. I will get some rest now. Those naive who are contemplating making their own copycoin lack exposure to level of unresolved problems in crypto land, and the intense level of arcane details they would have to become knowledgeable about. |
|
|
|
I agree with your statement "decentralized crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion". This is a quote by Dan Larimer that has stuck with me for a while and was part of the reason I got into supporting alternatives to PoW: All systems tend toward centralization whether planned or unplanned. DPOS gives the end user as much control over that centralization as possible, where as in the other systems the small player has less control.
This is part of the main ideology behind dPoS... all consensus algorithms eventually tend towards centralization, so it provides for a method for shareholders to decide who produces blocks (ideally whoever best benefits stakeholders.) A few articles you might find interesting: http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2015/01/12/Decentralization-Scalability-and-Fault-Tolerance-of-Bitcoin/Daniel constructs a strawman that claims we need Proof-of-Stake due to the claim that fault tolerance and throughput scaling is just sufficient hardware redundancy and hardware optimization, so decentralized control should be delegated so that delegates with more resources can provide better redundancy and optimization because any system will centralize as necessary to obtain that redundancy and optimization. Conflations and logical errors in his reasoning. Even if the claim is true, it is an assertion of his omniscience to conclude that PoW can't be reorganized in a design that also enables redundancy and optimization. I have a specific design variant in mind to accomplish that with PoW. Thus he constructed a strawman to fool readers into thinking DPOS is superior to PoW. Also I think fault tolerance and throughput scaling is more than just hardware redundancy and hardware optimization. For example, if the politics of DPOS causes de-optimization in some game theory such as the example I mentioned in this thread:
- even 0.1% stake can attack the coin because block solutions are exclusive to some stake holder so the stake holder can delay transactions[1]
[1] Another scenario is DDoS attack other stake holders when their turn to mine a block, then jack up your transaction fees sky high when its your turn to mine a block.
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). I have agreed with the problem he outlines, and have proposed making mining unprofitable by submitting PoW share with each transaction as the way to get very high security at very low percentage of debasement (necessary to replace lost coins). However he has constructed that strawman to lead into a non-sequitur concluding that PoS (even DPOS) can cause a great rise in price. An inferior consensus algorithm is not going to see wide adoption. He assumes that all users in the world will trust BitShares block chain more than any other competing block chain offering similar features. The point he makes about preferring lower spreads also applies to preferring not to exchange in a BitAsset that has to be converted again to the real asset desire, e.g. where the BitAsset is the proxy for another altcoin you are exchanging for. The notion that we could use a proxy for the dollar without ever needing to cash out to actual dollars, also requires that everyone will use crypto currency, thus we could just use the crypto currency instead of the BitAsset proxy (if that crypto currency was ubiquitous which is inherent in his assumption). I think Bytemaster has some of the most sound ideological blog posts on consensus algorithms, and is one of the reasons why I originally got into Bitshares.. sorry to plug Bitshares but I feel the things I brought up are applicable to the conversation.
I hope I have explained why when I used to debate Daniel in these forums back in 2013, I realized he couldn't effectively lead me. He is smart but comes up with the great strawmen and leaps in logic to support his flavor of politics and socialism. Is he still pushing that inane concept of paying an interest dividend to stake HODLers? We are supposed to be designing an End-to-End Principled crypto currency not a country club membership or Amway multi-level marketing scheme. You, and the other posted in this thread, seem to be focused on the shortcomings of every facet of Bitshares without considering (or mentioning) the positives that come along with the different technologies that Bitshares is composed of.
BitShares is so diverse in what it purports to do, I haven't had time to compile a detailed analysis. I do know they liedhyped/mislead about the 100,000 TX/s rate of the 2.0 release, and I had to do some research that it really only is about 10 - 100 TX/s realistically as of now. I will need to spend more time in the future doing a comprehensive analysis of all major coin technology. But for now that would slow me down too much on more urgent work. I must admit I still have a philosophical bad after taste lingering from my debates/discussions with Daniel Latimer from 2013 in this forum, because he was proposing features which seemed to me to be the antithesis of decentralization, e.g. some thing about paying interest rate to stake holders in a namecoin variant which I explained to him was socialistic and opposite of our goals for End-to-End principled protocols. He dismissed me, as most good socialists do to the ideals of Libertarianism (the true anarchistic kind). So when I read him writing that decentralization is impossible therefor we should make a coin a corporation, I want to puke. I try to believe people can change, but I know rarely they do. I almost got desperate enough recently to consider testing whether I could implement some anonymity for BitShares and get paid for it. But then it only took 3 minutes at their forum to change my mind. Search my old username there "AnonyMint". I am not accusing scam. Rather I think difference in core philosophy. |
|
|
|
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. Again I strongly urge you to realize you are not capable of scaling up an altcoin. Just go read this thread, so you have some clue about the level of technical issues you are no where near prepared to implement. You should focus on your app and partner with an altcoin that wants to work with apps and scale up many apps. But you are not going to listen to me, so go ahead and learn the hard way. Good luck. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Fuserleer, This is a design afair I hadn't contemplated until I wrote this. Perhaps this is what you mean by allow Partitions and then letting any user spend on any Partition? But this is essentially a partitioning of access to coins, because there is no cross-spending between forks below... Actually I explained upthread that crypto currency can theoretically tolerate rare partitioning, but in the case where these are no longer Partitions but treated as orthogonal block chain forks. The Consistency is recovered by allowing everyone to double spend on both forks. However willy-nilly forking would be incredibly chaotic to manage. I suppose it is possible to design clients that could interopt with an unbounded number of forks. There are many issues, such as spending on multiple chains and securing multiple PoW chains. |
|
|
|
That article about databases doesn't have to contend with double-spends which infect everything irreversibly downstream. This added wrinkle for cypto currency is what makes CAP more strictly inviolable on us, i.e. we can't in general recover Consistency from multiple partitions. Really? You want to stick with that train of thought? Aside from the fact you seem to be conflating the issue of double-spending to a single problem, when it is in fact two issues, a double-spend is akin to many issues that a database has to deal with and is VERY relevant. Assume we have 3 machines with a copy of a database, and this database contains the state of some object. The state of some object is A in all 3. Then, one of these machines sets the state of an object to B, and another sets the state to Z. The remaining machine A now has to decide which of the 3 states are correct, A, B or Z. The database is in a partitioned state, which is exactly the same as what an internal double-spend results in, a conflict of state. In crypto, A is the existing state, B is a spend to one place and Z is a spend to another. The machines with state A then have to decide whether to ignore the new conflicting 2 spends entirely and stick with A, or pick between one of the spends B or Z. In the case of a database, the choice of selecting A, B or Z effects everything irreversibly downstream also, just like it does here, they are the same thing. In the case of write-only database, the inconsistency can always be merged. I was stating that in general due to double-spends, paritions can't be merged. Indeed in a read/write database where clients of the database base their data writes on the state of the database, then inconsistency infects irreversibly same as for double-spends. My point is that cases of relaxed CAP implications that apply to one type of network do not apply to our case which is strictly inviolable. For example that article says: Second, the choice between C and A can occur many times within the same system at very fine granularity; not only can subsystems make different choices, but the choice can change according to the operation or even the specific data or user involved. Finally, all three properties are more continuous than binary. Availability is obviously continuous from 0 to 100 percent, but there are also many levels of consistency, and even partitions have nuances, including disagreement within the system about whether a partition exists. Which is inapplicable to the inviolable point the double-spends in multiple partitions can't be merged. This ends up infecting every possible design you can think of to temporarily enable partitions, unless you accept reversibility of transactions (tolerance for inconsistency) or give up Access during that temporal partitioning. CAP is strict on our situation. |
|
|
|
If you think of alternative currencies as providers of information on the state of fiat currencies,
then exchanges provide a relationship (information exchange) between partitions. You are
correct in that there is no "formal" transmission mechanism, the question is whether the
CAP theorem renders such a link impossible.
Edit: The question perhaps should be stated as how important could such a mechanism be?
Blockstream's Side Chains indeed would cause CAP to apply interchain. This is why smooth and others (including eventually myself) thought Side Chains are going to be intractable. Exchanges don't link Consistency interchain because the risk of double-spend falls on the counter parties each independently w.r.t. each chain. |
|
|
|
From my reading of the CAP Theorem, Bitcoin has consistency and availability but cannot be partitioned.
Hence crytpocurrencies, as a group, have inherent partitions, availability, but no consistency as a group.
The 1st sentence is correct. The 2nd sentence is incorrect because CAP is inapplicable to a relationship between two block chains. There is no double-spending (Consistency to maintain) between chains. Actually I explained upthread that crypto currency can theoretically tolerate rare partitioning, but in the case where these are no longer Partitions but treated as orthogonal block chain forks. The Consistency is recovered by allowing everyone to double spend on both forks. However willy-nilly forking would be incredibly chaotic to manage. I suppose it is possible to design clients that could interopt with an unbounded number of forks. There are many issues, such as spending on multiple chains and securing multiple PoW chains. |
|
|
|
That article about databases doesn't have to contend with Consistency of double-spends which infect everything irreversibly downstream. This added wrinkle for cypto currency is what makes CAP more strictly inviolable on us, i.e. we can't in general recover Consistency from multiple partitions. |
|
|
|
Getting this topic back on track, I have a question:
* If mining rewards cause centralisation, how do you handle distribution fairly in a system with no mining rewards?
Mining rewards can still be paid to PoW and it can still be unprofitable if the level of difficulty rises too high because every transaction is including a PoW share. Transactions just keep growing and growing while the debasement rate is a constant percentage. If the value of the currency grows as fast as the transaction rate, well then I guess that is a great problem to have.  If mining farms are dumping their coins while the price is rising that fast, they are leaving all that money on the table for us.  Meaning the banksters are shrinking their relative net worth. I assume you are referring to ongoing (a.k.a. tail) emission. For initial distribution, then profitability of mining appears to not be a flaw. I would argue that distribution to HODLers is a market failure plan though. I'd prefer to initially distribute to users than investors. Let the investors buy from the users in secondary markets such as your metaexchange. I would prefer if earliest investors have to work even harder to get coins early by creating businesses which accept the coins from the users. So the early investors add even more value to the ecosystem. As I had explained to you in my vaporcoin thread, I think users would have no idea what an exchange is and how to access it, thus earliest investors would have to work harder to source coins in volume. And that IMO is the way it should be. It shouldn't be so easy to invest as an early adopter, that all you need to do is buy an IPO. There is no capital created from such an activity, unless you can argue that these investors work on improving your coin (but they seem to mostly just clog up the forums with shrilling). At least with Kickstarter, your customers who are your early investors actually help you design and refine your product. Think out of the box. |
|
|
|
Getting this topic back on track, I have a question:
* If mining rewards cause centralisation, how do you handle distribution fairly in a system with no mining rewards?
Mining rewards can still be paid to PoW and it can still be unprofitable if the level of difficulty rises too high because every transaction is including a PoW share. Transactions just keep growing and growing while the debasement rate is a constant percentage. If the value of the currency grows as fast as the transaction rate, well then I guess that is a great problem to have. If mining farms are dumping their coins while the price is rising that fast, they are leaving all that money on the table for us. Meaning the banksters are shrinking their relative net worth. I assume you are referring to ongoing (a.k.a. tail) emission. For initial distribution, then profitability of mining appears to not be a flaw. I would argue that distribution to HODLers is a market failure plan though. I'd prefer to initially distribute to users than investors. Let the investors buy from the users in secondary markets such as your metaexchange. I would prefer if earliest investors have to work even harder to get coins early by creating businesses which accept the coins from the users. So the early investors add even more value to the ecosystem. As I had explained to you in my vaporcoin thread, I think users would have no idea what an exchange is and how to access it, thus earliest investors would have to work harder to source coins in volume. And that IMO is the way it should be. It shouldn't be so easy to invest as an early adopter, that all you need to do is buy an IPO. There is no capital created from such an activity, unless you can argue that these investors work on improving your coin (but they seem to mostly just clog up the forums with shrilling) or they are funding your coding (but that would normally come from angel investors not an IPO in a non-pump&dump). At least with Kickstarter, your customers who are your early investors actually help you design and refine your product. Think out of the box. |
|
|
|
|
Okay let's get back on track of trying to determine what is the best design (in terms of best of the imperfect possibilities) and enumerating the tradeoffs and flaws.
|
|
|
|
In other words, if we have tried and failed for 3 years, the likelihood that we will find a solution that escaped us for 3 years is not good odds.
Better stop spending all that money on solutions for other real world problems that are difficult and taking time to solve then. Like cancer and AIDS for example. Those solutions are not (as far as we know now) limited by physics. Thus they may be worth continued effort to solve. Crypto has certain limitations imposed by entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics specifically) which are inviolable. Being able to state this taxonomy is an example of a highly abstract conceptualization. For example, zero knowledge proofs can't be done without a trap door. Thus they can never be information theoretic security. There are many other examples of inviolable truths. Knowing when the end of the inviolable rope has been reached is a high IQ trait. If my IQ was 160 I would have perhaps sorted it out a year ago. (or maybe if I wasn't so ill doing much of the past 3.5 years) Also I played for example football (the one with the helmet) and other very intense sports. So I also attained a demeanor in life that bullshit walks and performance talks. I am hard on myself this way too. But when I am in relax mode, I am very amiable, joker, smiling to everyone, etc.. I have two modes. Even my gf says she feels terror from eyebrows when I am in "compete and get shit done" serious mode. Sorry. I prefer to do that alone. |
|
|
|
I want a solution. Period. Who ever provides it will get my respect. If I was an independent observer, I would say both you and I have failed for 3 years, so I would say we are both full of shit.
And thats why you won't succeed. You see it as we're full of shit, I see it as we're evolving, maturing and improving. You see failure as the end, I see it as the beginning of something better. You see failure as a lack of knowledge, I see it as a learning experience You see the glass half empty, I see it half full. Get it yet? What I get is that I need to reach a conclusion. Eventually I learn all the possibilities and realize the fundamental truths. I have a very abstract conceptual intellect and eventually it comes to the point where I understand what is possible and not possible. I might be wrong, but any way we are derailing the thread. Let's talk specifics on technology. Talking about my personality and whether I am too negative is off topic. If I for example have some further insightful comments to make, they should be taken on the merits of the technological points I make. I am not entirely pessimistic. I am just trying to be realistic. I have lost 3 years. Three fucking years to this shit. I want to drill down now to the conclusions. Going on and on isn't necessary for me, because I have now the holistic view of all this. Again you will say I am being egotistical if I claim that. So again let's just stay on topic of specific technical points. Until you reveal the details of your design, I can't make specific technical comments on it. Btw I don't dislike you. And I am not a person who is unfriendly. I just hate losing time. I am 51. I have many problems to solve. No time to lose... |
|
|
|
|
I want a solution. Period. Who ever provides it will get my respect. If I was an independent observer, I would say both you and I have failed for 3 years, so I would say we are both full of shit until we prove it with details. In other words, if we have tried and failed for 3 years, the likelihood that we will find a solution that escaped us for 3 years is not good odds.
You may be correct about some of my behavior. I engaged the forum too much. Getting off the forum for 2 weeks helped my sanity. I also have been dealing with daily illness since May 2012 that you likely have no clue of what it feels like. These sort of pressures can change the behavior of a person. I don't want to make excuses.
|
|
|
|
Since you are talking shares anyway, why not simply issue so many common stock shares that they are tiny value per share, comparable to a cryptocurrency value per coin or maybe less since shares have no decimal-places they are whole things, integer things; issue the shares on an existing platform such as HORIZON or NXT or Ethereum or the like, and use the API of that platform from your app to let people earn shares.
-MarkM-
That's brilliant, the only downside being compliance with federal securities laws. I've looked into that. The nasty little surprise is the " Howey test", which allows the SEC to go after any vehicle so long as it meets this four criteria: 1. It has to be sold for money. 2. It has to be intimately tied to a common enterprise, not an aggregation of enterprises. 3. A reasonable person considering whether or not to buy it will be motivated by the hope of profit when deciding to buy or pass. 4. The expected profits are to be realized by the efforts of a centralized group headed up by the promoter, or the efforts of the promoter him- or herself. Cryptocurrency-wise, #4 is the easiest to avoid for a true decentralized cryptocurrency. So long as you encourage, or at least allow, any independent party or parties to build value-adding services using your cryptocurrency which have the effect of making the crypto more valuable, I think you can make a good case for criterion #4 being false. To qualify as a security, all four criteria have to be met. If one of the four criteria is false, your crypto will not be a security by this test. By my reckoning, your best bet is to focus on #4 rather than trying to get clever or cute with #1. ["The IRS said Bitcoin is property, not money, and I sold it for Bitcoin!"] Better yet, focus on #4 and #2 by actively encouraging as many independent folks as possible to build value for your crypto. In this sense, the crypto most unlike a security is Dogecoin. To prove it meets the Howey test, the SEC would have to prove a conspiracy theory. That's possible in a court, but it's an onerous procedure unless the conspiracy is small in membership. With respect to Dogecoin, the SEC might as well be hawking the "Protocols of the Elders of Shibe" (if you get my drift.) One notorious crypto, Paycoin, did meet the Haney test because its promoter, Josh Garza, personally promised that he'd buy back the ones he sold at a price of twenty dollars each through an organization he controlled. This promise sunk him; the fact that he reneged on it sunk him hard. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, only a Googler. Don't listen to me unless you want to go overboard to pass the "smell test." You cannot rely on me for a technicality-driven measn to avoid the Howey test.I replied to you in the long thread about the Howey test. |
|
|
|
Since you are talking shares anyway, why not simply issue so many common stock shares that they are tiny value per share, comparable to a cryptocurrency value per coin or maybe less since shares have no decimal-places they are whole things, integer things; issue the shares on an existing platform such as HORIZON or NXT or Ethereum or the like, and use the API of that platform from your app to let people earn shares.
-MarkM-
That's brilliant, the only downside being compliance with federal securities laws. I've looked into that. The nasty little surprise is the " Howey test", which allows the SEC to go after any vehicle so long as it meets this four criteria: 1. It has to be sold for money. 2. It has to be intimately tied to a common enterprise, not an aggregation of enterprises. 3. A reasonable person considering whether or not to buy it will be motivated by the hope of profit when deciding to buy or pass. 4. The expected profits are to be realized by the efforts of a centralized group headed up by the promoter, or the efforts of the promoter him- or herself. Cryptocurrency-wise, #4 is the easiest to avoid for a true decentralized cryptocurrency. So long as you encourage, or at least allow, any independent party or parties to build value-adding services using your cryptocurrency which have the effect of making the crypto more valuable, I think you can make a good case for criterion #4 being false. To qualify as a security, all four criteria have to be met. If one of the four criteria is false, your crypto will not be a security by this test. By my reckoning, your best bet is to focus on #4 rather than trying to get clever or cute with #1. ["The IRS said Bitcoin is property, not money, and I sold it for Bitcoin!"] Better yet, focus on #4 and #2 by actively encouraging as many independent folks as possible to build value for your crypto. In this sense, the crypto most unlike a security is Dogecoin. To prove it meets the Howey test, the SEC would have to prove a conspiracy theory. That's possible in a court, but it's an onerous procedure unless the conspiracy is small in membership. With respect to Dogecoin, the SEC might as well be hawking the "Protocols of the Elders of Shibe" (if you get my drift.) One notorious crypto, Paycoin, did meet the Haney test because its promoter, Josh Garza, personally promised that he'd buy back the ones he sold at a price of twenty dollars each through an organization he controlled. This promise sunk him; the fact that he reneged on it sunk him hard. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, only a Googler. Don't listen to me unless you want to go overboard to pass the "smell test." You cannot rely on me for a technicality-driven measn to avoid the Howey test.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. To bypass the Howey test, I suggest distributing the coin to non-investors (initial distribution) and diversify the ecosystem as soon as possible so the future performance of the tokens is not tied to the lead developer. These HODLer coins that have nearly no usership can't accomplish this. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. |
|
|
|
I am not affiliated with monsterer in any way, other than appreciating the free analysis he gives. And respecting his intellect. At the time of writing this, we have never had nor have dealings in private nor any financial nor development relationship. Thus we are not colluding nor conspiring. He is expressing his personal view and I mine. I have not attacked Fuserleer nor eMunie. I will wait until he releases all the details. Fuserleer if you are a better designer of models than me, then prove it. If I am better than you, I should prove it. I don't care about ego. I care about a damn solution the problems I outlined in this thread. Bold claims without any details is all we've gotten from you for 3 years. I also made some delusional claims over these past years but I have also been very frank about the flaws I found in my own designs. You have also abandoned many previous designs you discovered to be flawed. I suggest you share your current design with monsterer and myself so we can save you a lot of wasted effort, as I am quite confident we can quickly explain to you the flaw in your design. In the 0.0001% chance there is no flaw in your design, then I would commend you. I would promise not to copy your design if it is not the same as the last design I am contemplating (my last attempt). If you have the solution I want, then I would support your efforts because you would have demonstrated to me that you are better designer of crypto than me. But don't feel pressured to do that. I did not pressure you to release more details now. I am just fairly confident that you can not design something that doesn't use PoW that isn't flawed. Not because you are inept, but because my abstract conceptual understanding appears to be so deep that I know what can't be done even without seeing your design. Your ineptness would only be in the area of being too stubborn or myopic to see that you still have a flaw because what you are trying to design is IMPOSSIBLE (violates physics). Any way, I fairly certain what the outcome will be. Good luck and please let's not worry about our egos. Let's try to solve the problems enumerated in this thread. More power to whomever can. I will be there supporting who ever does. Note for me to support a coin will require they distributed the coin to at least a million users, not just a distribution to small set of speculators in this forum. At HODLer coin is useless to me in my goals to make apps and other uses of cryptocurrency (might as well just accept Bitcoin then since it is more widely known). Also the coin would need to truly solve the fundamental problems of concern to me. I think you are perhaps a productive programmer. I prefer not to see interested and talented people wasting their best years on failed projects. This applies to myself as well. When I say lead you, I think it is because I have at this point seem to have attained a very broad scope holistic view of all possible crypto issues and designs. My knowledge set runs the gamut from inventing Zero Knowledge Transactions across the board to being able to write a thread like this. If you can lead me, prove it. This is not disrespect. |
|
|
|
These attack vectors are part of the problem that enables Bitcoin to potentially be insidious in the first place.
Plus you wanted to talk about solutions that are potentially superior to Bitcoin and other cryptos so here we are, talking about them.
I believe the only way to apportion the resource consumption such that control remains in the hands of the users is for the users to supply more than 50% of the resource being consumed. This can't be done if PoW is profitable, because profitable PoW is always more profitable for the usury-based mining farms operating on hydropower and for Larry Summer's 21 Inc to get stupid sheep to mine for him so his mining costs are lowest. Remember Anthony Sutton documented that Larry Summers was the bonehead bankster who was over in Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain who helped to insure the privatized assets (oil industry, etc) ended up in the hands of oligarchy loyal to the global elite (George Soros et al). And yet fools in this forum think (the former head of the KGB, the counter part to Daddy Bush who was former head of the CIA) Putin is their saviour.  What I mean is it appears you are (may be) focusing on the non-problems and not focused on the problems. You will also need to burn a resource. And you need make sure that resource is supplied by the users. I'd prefer we not waste our effort. If you are a talented programmer I'd prefer to lead you in the right direction so you don't waste effort. We up against a very powerful adversary and we need to work smarter. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin can not provide that assurance as an attacker can rewrite history which is my major gripe with hash POW.
I thought I already made a strong argument that is not the attack vector anyone needs to be worried about. The real worry is the Bitcoin is INSIDIOUSLY centralizing. insidious adjective 1. intended to entrap or beguile: an insidious plan. 2. stealthily treacherous or deceitful: an insidious enemy. 3. operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
