Inertia is an interpretation of the (history of the) UTXO. It it is the context in which it is interpreted that gives rise to my design. Sure anyone can make transactions to themselves and even avoid TX fees if they are also the confirmation delegate to Sybil attack the UTXO, but...

More hints about what is unique in my design for block chain consensus...

Note afaics (?) PoS isn't inherently lacking the permissionless attribute, but rather it is ill-defined as to what threshold of adversarial strategy does it break, because the "something to stake" isn't consumed because for example there are a myriad of strategies such as shorting against your own stake so you have "nothing at stake". Perhaps someone can quantify the breakage thresholds of all the myriad of adversarial strategies precisely, but I doubt it. For example, I started to read the 40 page Neucoin white paper, but there is so much verbiage to wade through as compared to Satoshi's concise elucidation.

PoW election of delegates (i.e. Bitcoin-NG except with multiple simultaneous leaders) still retains the Satoshi weaknesses that 51% can destroy the permission-less quality and the centralization directed economics of the longest chain (refer to my up thread post). The permissionless breakage point is more well-defined than PoS, nevertheless Satoshi's PoW doesn't appear to have a decentralized future. I originally also contemplated this method, as superior to stake deposits but dissatisfied that the permissionless attribute would not be durable as the network becomes more centralized. I did have one idea for battling centralization of PoW by not offering any rewards for PoW and making it required, but this still meant that the inertia of popular delegates with 51% could form an censorship clique which I wasn't totally satisfied with (although willing to attempt as an improvement over what we have now with Bitcoin and more well-defined than PoS).

My idea for "inertia" is how I think the permissionless attribute can be impossible to break unless the adversary has near to 100% of the inertia. The relevant form of inertia should have the property of a virus in that if you can't block all of it, it eventually infiltrates the other 99.9% of the inertia as kryptonite against the power of the censorship. DAG (Iota) and similar explorations (e.g. RaiBlocks block lattice) have been essentially trying to capture permissionless "inertia" but I believe they missed some key insights.

One of the key insights comes from the entropic force and the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics insures us that nature is always trying to route around inefficient Coasian barriers. Conceptually PoW is a Coasian barrier attempt to control inertia rather than recognize that inertia is an emergent phenomenon of the entropic force and structures itself. So I believe Iota and RaiBlocks are attempting to force non-emergent structure because they haven't identified that which is emergent and removed all the other unnecessary controlling structure which afaics renders their designs unable to provide the objective reality within the CAP theorem (interpreted with a higher level ontology as I have described in my discussions with the devs of those two coins).

Another insight derives from the fact that the world must be relative, because if everyone was forced to hold the same perspective, then no entropy could emerge. Nothing would exist. In other words, if everything is the same, then nothing exists (nothing is distinguishable). So I was searching for a way that there could simultaneously be virtual Partitions of consensus (allowing different relative perspectives), yet impossible to have multiple or ambiguous objective realities about validity (i.e. not losing global Consistency, except by absolute physical network partitioning, which is very unlikely since we do have permissionless global communication with for example shortwave radio and degrading functionality more precisely in that physical partitioning scenario). Accessibility could be forsaked on some virtual partitions for as long as it is not lost on every partition, because on the internet every partition is reached (unless there is no physical connectivity or perhaps if the anti-DoS is flawed). So essentially I think Satoshi's PoW is inflexible on gradations of tradeoffs between C, A, and P (in my ontology of that CAP theorem), thus it loses centralization (permissionless) durability because it can't model the actual inertia.

In my abstract conceptualization, Iota is essentially trying to capture the same conceptual direction, but I think they missed the insight of what the key emergent phenomenon that is the inertia, thus afaics their design suffers from conflating some other structure which I am currently thinking makes it weaker (but more precise analysis awaits after they've released a product and finalized their design and ditto me as well). For example, afaics I believe their first fundamental mistake was to introduce longest tangles of PoW as the metric of objectivity. Afaics this just mucks up capturing the true metric of inertia. PoW forces giving control to the longest chain or no objectivity, but the longest chain may deviate (centralize due to its economics) from some other more permissionless durable measure of inertia.

Another key insight is that afaik all PoS penalization mechanisms are based on the concept that it is "more expensive to attempt to cheat", which unfortunately are theoretically broken by strategies such as shorting the coin. Whereas, the inverted concept that "it is too expensive to not check for cheating" transforms the onus from the one with stake to the one who needs inertia. This is an example of the powers of discernment that recognize that "nothing at stake" is distinct from "something to stake". We should consider all the possibilities of abstraction in order to broaden our ability to discern.

Referring to the prior two paragraphs and the following self-quote, note that the incentive to be on the longest chain in PoW conflates the incentive to not be on a invalid chain with the requirement to have only one virtual partition.

---

---

Thanks. I am trying my best to rush, and hopefully cutting corners in implementation won't end up blowing up in my face.

The white paper will be less abstractly opaque. I have to be somewhat opaque at this point, otherwise I simply spill the beans entirely.

I registered:

inertia.social ($12)
inertias.net   ($9)
inerti.us      (only $4)

I don't know why I am failing to communicate my point in two prior attempts.

My point is that unless the currency fluctuation is extreme to the point of causing general economic malaise, then the users of that currency as a unit-of-account have no appreciable individualized risk risk w.r.t. to the international exchange fluctuations.

Thus if a crypto-currency is intended to become a currency (e.g. a unit-of-account), then the "nothing at risk" will apply and my point is the "rich get richer" applies.

Note the Euro's extreme fluctuation right now is a result of the suicidal decision to merge the unit-of-exchange of Europe without also merging the unit-of-account for (national fiscal) sovereign debts (e.g. thus Greece borrowed in devalued Euros when there was a mad rush to chase investment into southern Europe over a decade ago, but now has to pay back overvalued Euros as north Europe's higher productivity and the reversion of the trend, and Greece can't devalue its sovereign debt relatively due to the fact that it is not denominated in Drachmas). If a crypto-currency makes suicidal design decisions, then it will also likely have a loss of CONFIDENCE and thus a loss of security as well.

In short, I don't see how adding risk to stake or burn deposits improves the issues with "nothing at stake" and advantage to those with the most to stake.

Tangentially please note even though you didn't make this error, it is a semantic conflation error to equate "nothing at stake" with "nothing to stake" as others have (and James apparently wasn't considering that attackers with large value to stake, can short the coin as a way to make sure they have nothing at stake ... will make sure I bring this to his attention next time we exchange messages):

---

---

It is a simple fact that volatility declines with increased liquidity (participation) and thus price. So by definition a more volatile and risky investment will have a smaller market cap and thus less security (relatively speaking). Even in my proposal to use "inertia" at the objective metric of consensus, the larger the participation, then the stronger the security of more inertia (at least the "inertia" I have in mind scales by n² though). Whereas, your described a design where risk declines as value increases, thus your security that depends on risk declines as the value increases which could provide more security. So you have two things working against each other in that design. Seems flawed.


The problem with the Slimcoin's PoB algorithm (as I understand it from your brief descriptions only) isn't due to volatility of risk, but rather as I explained above due to depending on risk to provide an objective metric of consensus yet risk declining as coin value increases, and overall objectivity of consensus (i.e. security) being dependent also on stability provided by larger market cap (actually participation, since some/most of these altcoin market caps are total illusions).


The underlined is not a logical statement, if only those who can lock their coins instead of transact them will receive the mining rewards.

I don't mean to be condescending, but I really don't have time for this. I prefer to have discussions with those who I rarely have to correct their logic or repeat the same logic several times. Simply because I should be programming and not here in the forum losing time writing. I prefer it when those such as perhaps monsterer nearly always have some logical statement and then we are simply trying to add to each other's knowledge and perspectives. No one can be perfect (including myself), but the quality of the discussion determines whether I will just have to throw my hands up in the air and bow out (not for any personal animosity reason but just as a matter of prioritization of scarce time and effort). Hope I've expressed amicably and not condescendingly, my frustration with not having infinite time and wanting to interact with everyone but recognizing the reality of a finite lifespan.


That simply isn't true that those with the most to stake won't benefit disproportionately just because you think you've forced them choose between more risk or lower returns. Apply some math and probability theory. I don't have time to explain in detail. Perhaps monsterer or other astute person can.

You can't escape from the fact that something to stake is nothing at stake, because the stake is not a resource that is globally consumed. Create local Coasian barrier by locking the coins, but the attacker can short the coin on the external markets (thermodynamics insures us that every such Coasian barrier is not durable as the universe trends to maximum distribution of probabilities). The reason I have chosen "inertia" as the resource of objectivity is because it consumes itself because it can only have one copy of self. There is no way to digitally reproduce "inertia", if it represents an inertia that isn't just digital.  

Inertia and space (via partitions, thermodynamics, and energy) are fundamentally an emergent phenomenon originating (that can be shown deriving) from the entropic force, i.e. the organization of microstates:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

Well that is good, we finally have someone who states they will never invest in anything I create. And then if what I create is spreading like wildfire to millions of users then you will simply step aside from crypto as Bitcoin dies, because YOUR EGO is bigger than YOUR RATIONALITY.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404


What I have to prove now is prove to myself that my illness and my age has not removed my ability to do important work, i.e. that I have not become useless.

I am not striving for your validation (as in a personal one of comparing myself personally to you or any other person for validation of my ego). I recognize the talents of others and have commended them on their capabilities when they shine such as smooth, gmaxell, vitalik, etc.. I have also expressed my disgust with individuals who abuse their skills to ridicule others (such as gmaxwel ridiculing me in some forum interactions) who are sincerely trying to contribute and always willing to mea culpa. What I am saying is that OTHERS DO THEIR DAMNED BEST TO TURN WHAT SHOULD BE A MERITORIOUS COMPETITION FOR THE BETTERMENT OF ALL INSTEAD INTO PETTY EGO BATTLES. And when I state that, then those same people (e.g. including apparently yourself) then claim it is my ego that is the source of the acrimony. It is just so nonsensical that I am reaching the point where I think the best course of action is to ignore these B-listers and just focus on what I am trying to accomplish.

The other thing I am trying to prove right now is the myopia of all those who think that the only correct way to create a better crypto-currency is the Monero way, and basically that you must join together in open source, "steal" ("improve" or "open source") someone else's invention (and claim perhaps rightly so that the inventors abused their invention), and then use groupthink to make all the creative decisions.

So many people have criticized me for refusing to join a groupthink at the nascent stage, and do not seem to understand that I want the flexibility to apply my own creativity until I have proved something that is worthy of open source collaboration.

I competed in team sports and individual sports in my youth. At various stages of my life I was an MVP in both American football (one with the helmet in playground leagues and again in college) and Track & Field (at middle distance in high school). Later in life I competed in software, several times being involved with software that reached out to millions of users. What I learned is that there is a role for individual competition (e.g. in Track and Software you are often going alone and competing against yourself) meshed with team based competition (e.g. in Football and even in Software if you create a successful open source effort).

So I have experience in discerning where the optimum sweet spots are in terms of the balances between individualistic and team based efforts. The Mythical Man Month applies especially to highly flexibility, iteractive, creative nascent stages that require an abundance of communication to accomplish within a group effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

"Therefore, assigning more programmers to a project running behind schedule will make it even later. This is because the time required for the new programmers to learn about the project and the increased communication overhead will consume an ever increasing quantity of the calendar time available. When n people have to communicate among themselves, as n increases, their output decreases and when it becomes negative the project is delayed further with every person added.

Group intercommunication formula: n(n − 1) / 2

Example: 50 developers give 50 · (50 – 1) / 2 = 1225 channels of communication."

---

You have failure of logic and rationality as follows. Which can severely impact your ability to be an expert speculator.


Personal social interaction is not marketing genius or luck which drives a million user adoption. Personal social interaction scales far too slowly. Duh. I couldn't even personally interact with a million people in my lifetime.

So my personality has nothing at all to do with it. This is I presume your butthurt ego standing in front of the line of your rationality telling you that I can't possibly succeed. If you say to yourself, "there he goes again using 'butthurt' and offending the community", my response is that I am tired of this forum and the attacks. Enough already! And besides this forum does not matter to the success of my project as you will soon see once you see my marketing and distribution method.

And also your assumption that I don't excel in social interactions is incorrect and based on some nonsense forum with 99.999% males who are constantly trying to prove their big egos. I have in fact entertained large groups at Comdex exhibits.

When it comes to interacting with other programmers in an open source setting, the key is to be factual and meritorious. That is what the A-listers want, because A-listers care about results, not time wasting egos. The B-listers of course are all elbows and acrimony and that is why you want them to go "contribute" to your competitor's open source in order to bog their project down in molasses and least common denominator groupthink. That means every eyeball is helpful and welcome, but even Linus Torvalds said he has about 5 people who he trusts and everyone else is an idiot. He is very outspoken this way, yet runs the largest and most successful open source project on the planet.


1. Time is ticking.

2. I never ran off a team, I chose not to grab the opportunity to collaborate with others who offered, because flexibility is more important in the nascent stage. And because I didn't want to suck others into my grand experiment and make them suffer for any failure on my part. A team makes much more sense when they can contribute on their own volition to something that already has a demonstrated position. To organize a team when everything is a projection, requires a partnership in risk and binds people in ways that means I really can't lead 100% without taking responsibility for the effects of my decisions on others who have staked their future on their investment (contribution of effort and time).

3. I am solo right now, because it made the most sense after all considerations. But of course no one who is serious about long-term viability is going to remain solo on an open source crypto-currency any longer than it is beneficial to do so, which is a very short nascent stage when flexibility of leadership is a higher priority than the shared resources of open source.

Note that if I had an ongoing software engineering relationship experience with another or others, then it is possible I would have made the decision to leverage teamwork during the nascent stage, because I would have had confidence from past experience with those individuals that we possessed the working synergy to make it work at the stage where the ideas around the designs and the issues are changing so fast. Even just working in the same building so able to talk at-will instead of working virtually could have impacted that decision. But given the situation I have and the time criticality of releasing something asap, the decision was made that the quickest result would be to not involve any others in the programming and engineering. I have involved the community in the naming and marketing conceptualization in this thread.

Another failure of logic is to assume that a team of 3 guys could scale a crypto-currency any better than a solo developer. Unless you can get the project to the point where many, many people are contributing, then 3 programmers can't scale it by themselves. That is why it is irrational to conclude that a project with 2 devs is somehow more likely to succeed than a project with 1 dev. A project with 3 devs might be more likely to fail, because more opportunities for the 3 devs to cheat each other and cause a devolution of the project. The only thing that brings stability is long-term popularity of the project.

To repeat what I wrote in my prior post, that is likely because RAID 5 and other levels that require extensive computation for the parity bit benefit from an additional hardware ASIC that is optimized for that specific computation. But it appears for RAID 1 that there is no such onerous computation, as the OS is simply writing two copies to two disks. Hardware controllers at another ~3% annual risk of failure to the existing ~1.5% annualized risk that an SSD will die. Also hardware controllers are proprietary and add another layer of issues to sort out.

Can anyone add anything to my knowledge about software RAID 1?

If your unit-of-account is in Euros, then normal fluctuations in the currency are irrelevant.

Capital is fleeing Euro because EU is imploding (because they separated the unit-of-exchange from the unit-of-account for fiscal debt). Thus an example of what I said, then that the security is low.


I was speaking about short-term double-spend risk where "weak subjectivity" doesn't apply. If the currency's exchange rate (to normally used units-of-account) is too volatile, then the PoB variant you described will have low security because it will be too risky to participate in the long-range PoB commitment risk.

So my point is that requiring risk does not fix the problem that rich get richer (and centralization results). When there is risk, the coin loses viability. When there is insignificant risk, the rich get richer (as they do in all block chain consensus algorithms thus far invented).


True.

Eliminating that attribute should be another coup of my "Tour de Force" of block chain consensus paradigm shifts coming soon...

Dropping some hints about what is unique about my block chain consensus algorithm...

I believe you are stating that no one would assume a transaction is confirmed until the amount of accumulated burn was greater than all the possible transactions that could be double spent.


The key distinction from PoW is that the PoB variant you described can be spent in more than one chain. This is the "nothing at stake" problem of PoS as well. To address this weakness, the PoS algorithms attempt to penalize applying stake (mining power) to more than one prospective chain and/or to the orphaned chain(s).

Another key distinction is you've assumed the randomness (entropy) of PoB is fully preimaged so that the attacker can set up his coins to burn such that he can burn on every block of his secret chain. PoS algorithms attempt to make the entropy larger than what could be practically computed to find the prerequisite preimage.

The popular counter-argument that "it costs more to attack than to participate in the security" is flawed.

As I was explaining in the "block lattice" thread (RaiBlocks) yesterday, if a resource is not irreversibly burned as proof of the longest chain, then the only possible objectivity is the "weak subjectivity" of social memory of historical consensus. In the long-term, the memory of (and investment in[1]) the verifiably recorded historical consensus overwhelms any alternative realities that can be conjured from "nothing at stake". In the short-term, arbitrary alternative realities are indistinguishable from reality unless there is an objective measure of the longest chain (with a sufficient penalty for not joining the longest chain to motivate convergence on one chain). In PoW, the short-term objective metric is the probability of double-spend by a given % of total network hashrate.

A non-PoW algorithm could in the short-term use an objective metric of the long-term historical consensus to limit the rate of deviation of the short-term consensus. Think of rolling checkpoints, but applying this inertia to the future as well, analogous to anti-aliasing. There is your strong hint as to what I am doing differently than other attempts to overhaul the block chain consensus algorithm.

[1] Include all the dependent transactions in that history as a social investment that won't be revertible.


You are (perhaps unconsciously?) identifying a more significant economic fact: there is no way to secure a block chain without centralization due to power law distribution of wealth coupled with the Iron Law of Political Economics when any resource is involved in the objectivity of the consensus. With inertia as the objectivity, I think it will be much more difficult to centralize the block chain.

Bitcoin is being raped TO DEATH by disproportionate cost of security (investor's money is being siphoned off to the electric utilities):

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable

“a single Bitcoin transaction uses roughly enough electricity to power 1.57 American households for a day”

That electricity consumption cost per transaction will decrease as TX/s scaling increases, but currently the only way to do that is to drive centralization of mining (whether it be larger blocks or even Lightening Networks will be large corporate servers doing the glue between user level channels). But centralization is economically inevitable in Bitcoin any way...

Bitcoin pays about 1.35 million BTC to mining annually and consumes roughly 365 x 24 x 250,000 kWh annually. Thus roughly 1600 kWh per BTC in electricity cost. Thus Bitcoin mining is marginally profitable up to nearly 20 cents per kWh ($320 per BTC), which is roughly the marginal rate for residential electricity.

Yet mining farms locate where they can get subsidized water dam generated electricity for as low as 4 cents per kWh, thus $64 per BTC.

But the above assumes that all miners have the same electrical efficiency, which is not the case. Thus the mining farms are mining BTC at probably less than $50 per BTC (not counting hardware amortization).

http://www.neucoin.org/en/whitepaper/download#page=10


The point being that Bitcoin mining is economically driven to be controlled by those who have the highest economies-of-scale and are beholden to the governments which regulate utilities and subsidize cheap electricity with massive infrastructure spending with public debt.

Thus Bitcoin's mining is in effect controlled by the (oligarchy which controls the) governments, and this will become more evident over time.

Ditto PoS mining redistributes the coins over time to the largest stakeholders.


If it becomes a widely used liquid currency, exchange volatility is minimized, so then the risk argument fades away.

In the nascent stage, what you are saying is that proof-of-deposit-at-risk coins that don't have very favorable risk will have very low security.

I hope James saw the following comments pointing out that shorting is a means to profit from the destruction of a currency as alternative to needing to sell or double-spend:

Does anyone have an opinion on which is better for a dedicated server host?

Hivelocity
Codero

Or any other suggestions? I am looking at (to start with) a E3-1230 v3, 16GB, dual s/w RAID 1 SSDs running Node.js as the web server.

On Hivelocity, I figure I can write frequent backups over the 1 Gbps private VLAN to the server mountable CloudStorage, in addition to the RAID 1 redundancy.

I have some tricks to maximize SSD performance and to track changes more efficiently because I am writing everything to files (absolutely no LAMP!) and always extending the file (with periodic batch file "defrag").

The two hosts above seem to be roughly the same price, but Codero includes the "Essential Management" service at no charge and Hivelocity requires cPanel to be bundled with management, but it seems these standardized LAMP monitoring solutions aren't going to restart Node.js if it crashes. Hivelocity provides the superior Intel data center SSDs (Codero the inferior Samsung 840):

http://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_dc_s3500_enterprise_review

Hivelocity seems to more completely detail their data center and Tier 1 connectivity.

I am a bit perplexed about server monitoring, as I've never done it before. Do I have to stand by my mobile phone 24 x 7? (Good luck with that, when I haven't taken a shower in a monthtwo months, haven't opened my email in a month, and my mobile phone is under the seat in my car and check it once a week!) Aren't there any third party 24 x 7 services which can do customized monitoring for a Node.js set up?

Hivelocity allows you to buy down a server's monthly price by up to 35% for $500 per $50 buy down. I wouldn't do that until I was sure the project was scaling as hoped.

I am leaning towards Hivelocity, because they appear to be a more contained unit whereas Codero appears to have grand aspirations of competing with Amazon AWS:

http://www.codero.com/blog/cloudopoly-why-we-need-an-alternative-to-aws/

Edit: I also looked at VPS offerings with SSD such as Host9, but it doesn't seem to make sense to attempt to save $70 a month but have much less precise baseline to compare resource utilization when deciding what to scale up to next. VPS resources seem to be somewhat nebulously specified.

Edit#2: I run a Ubuntu derivative on my desktop (in addition to an old Windoze XP machine), but seems CentOS is the standard for dedicated servers. I've read up on this, and so unless you can say something I didn't likely already read, then no need to comment about which OS is better. I figure it doesn't really matter much in general. I just know I don't want cPanel because it doesn't interopt well with manual edits to configuration files.

Edit#3: also Hivelocity has some moderate-level DoS protection service, but it is quite expensive and DoS is most effectively squelched with decentralization by not giving attackers only one NOC to attack and then using clever filtering strategies that minimize resource usage:

Programming now hoping to launch next week or so.

You will be able to join easy-as-pie with an email address and choosing a password. No balances stored on the servers, thus you and only you control your funds.

Once again this is not targeted to investors. You will soon understand.

Haters prepare to be taught a lesson in marketing and efficiency.

For example, banning by IP address is incongruent with anonymity mixnets such as Tor.

Perhaps you missed the fact that I already stated that without recording of the voting, there is no way to know when "now" is as it pertains to confirmation of consensus being attained. How is the payee supposed to know when to trust the payment and release the goods or services?

---

---

This is because you have no objective means of determining which set of "now" is the reality. Thus you assume that the online nodes will just magically agree on the "now" they all have. The fact that you can't see that you've failed to even define the way the majority chain is objectively determined, should be indicative of that you are not sufficiently knowledgeable to design a new block chain paradigm.

Two or more errors don't make it correct. You can state that your system flies to the moon and if that assumption is based on foundational errors then no one can disprove your claim. The proof will come in the fantastic devolution of your system in the wild.

Also you seem to have lost the point that if the historical coins locked was only 1% of the coin supply, then only 1.1% of the coin supply would need to be retroactively locked to rewrite history in the lack of durable objectivity in your system.

I am not going to go back and forth with you on the comedy of errors. It is a pointless waste of my scarce time.



Logic fail. You are assuming every coin is locked so every coin votes, which means no coins can be transacted. Duh.


You habitually conflate orthogonal concepts.

Even if the vast majority of users do not run full nodes, the security of Bitcoin is still based on the objectivity of the full nodes, which your design does not possess.


The astute people such as Gregory Maxwell understand how critical it is that no party has 51% or even 25% of the network hashrate. Do not let what fools write misdirect you on the objectivity of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin does "continue to operate despite arbitrary partitioning due to network failures".

Again you conflate the double-spend on a forked network in your mind a claimed refutation of CAP, because you assume CAP is only useful in an absolute frame-of-reference. But absolute frames-of-reference do not exist in the universe. And this shows you do not understand the definition of "Byzantine fault tolerance", because it only applies to the nodes on each of the forked networks as to whether the objectivity of the system has remained intact and the nodes can continue to operate within that defined objectivity.

Essentially what you are trying to say with your design and your arguments in this thread, is there is no possible objective frame-of-reference, because there never can exist an absolute one. You conflate absolutism with relative objectivity (which btw is all we have in our universe, because nothing is absolute).

At least Bitcoin achieves CAP up to the limitation that networking partitioning can fork the Bitcoin network and the participants on each fork can continue to operate. Whereas, your design doesn't even achieve assurances of objectivity even without network partitioning.

I do not appreciate your ad hominem accusations claiming/implying that I am generally not correct in my logic because it is another attack on my person instead of refuting a stated technical issue. (Nothwithstanding that my logic is correct and you are not skillful enough to discern it yet)

Also you conflate a) refuting a stated fact; with b) making a statement about a person's need to read before commenting. The former is not ad hominem, the latter is ad hominem. Period.

Edit: also you are assuming CAP only applies to the physical network partitioning, but it also applies to logical partitioning. Bitcoin is resilient to logical partitions (forks) because of the longest chain rule. Your design is not analogously resilient, which monsterer and I have explained.

Touché. Agreed. 

http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/use-double-quotes.aspx


http://www.scribendi.com/advice/when_to_use_double_or_single_quotation_marks.en.html

---

I warned you not to write condescendingly to me again. Now I will more forcefully state the facts.

I can see I am dealing with a pedantic Dunning-Kruger jackass who has too limited understanding of the technical field to discern technobabble from expertise.

Arguing with someone who is not knowledgeable enough in the field to know whey are acting as a Dunning-Kruger jackass, ends up being an enormous waste of time and effort for the expert.

When you are ready to come down from your ignorant high horse and learn, let me know.

Note most readers here are not knowledgeable enough to discern that you are not an expert. Thus you can probably convince them to invest in your project. The proof of failure will come down the line. No need for me to educate you beforehand, given your attitude.