My design and white paper combines CN with Compact Confidential Transactions (CCT, and improves that white paper) which is supposedly more compact than Blockstream's CT. I believe I am the only person do that so far (completed in July). I need to do some calculations now that I have digested Monero cryptographer Shen-Noether's version that combines CN with CT.

CCT is apparently less complex to implement than CT because proving the hidden values are positive requires a simpler zero knowledge proof (which I improved to increase compactness and make it faster).

Lol I don't know. I guess I mean on-tangle, those participating in your algorithm?

Can you explain to me why this doesn't require every connected IoT that wants to sign a transaction to not have to listen to every transaction on the network?

Doesn't the bandwidth requirements of that limit which sort of devices can participate?

Can a IoT device proxy its request a well powered server?

Reading through the comments on the linked page, and given I felt 100 TPS would be more believable and I never even was aware that Bitshares admitted 100 TPS, I urge the OP to edit his chart and put 100 TPS (TX/s) for Bitshares. Also I believe that 100 TPS is not a figure in the wild with DDoS attacks. I suspect the actual figure "not in a controlled environment" will be even lower than 100 TX/s.

Also by the way Stan Larimar writes about the 100,000 TX/s goal, it sounds like their figures come from assuming that all the witness nodes are being run by the corporation with a consistent level of hardware.

I don't trust any of this. Pushing everything through one node has issues.

Also I don't think any of this addressed block chain scaling. This is about TX/s only.

Both smooth and r0ach have mentioned Dash working on a new block chain scaling design. The only information I found on this as follows:

https://dashtalk.org/threads/rebranding-and-scalability.4254/

I have a reasonable sure idea what Evan is thinking. I expect the weaknesses of his design I expect he is conflating distributed and decentralized and uses the later term where he should use the former. Yes the masternodes are distributed but if you give them any discretionary power then you have the problem of power corrupts absolutely. Remember masternodes can be purchased.

---

Edit: I found the following information:

https://dashtalk.org/threads/development-update-oct-19-2015.6429/

https://dashtalk.org/threads/dash-team-at-bitcoin-wednesday-amsterdam-presentation.6287/page-6 (see last post on page)

Appears to be something like this Open Transactions white paper:

http://stashcrypto.com/how-it-works/


So Evan is planning to allow a quorum of masternodes to confirm a transaction through thresholded multisig. He will move transaction confirmation off chain, similar to the InstantX which moved certain transactions presigned to certain outputs off chain to the masternode. The transaction's hash will determine I assume which quorum the transaction is routed to.

So yes he is doing exactly what I expected him to do. The weakness is that a little bit of corruption in the masternodes and you have either chaos of a block chain that is double-spent or loss of fungible permission-less commerce. The difficulties are in coordination overhead (DoS, etc), fungibility, and verifiable global coherence. The security model of crypto currency either has to be proven to still be in force, or he has to explain how he has modified the security model and why his alternative is secure. The Bitcoin security model is that any full node can download the entire block chain history and verify everything.

Evan claims immunity to 51% attacks. I also claimed this is in my design in recent months. He didn't mention that in the March post, so assume he (or Dash people) read my posts. (remember the masternode concept originally started back when Darkcoin was created when I was in discussion in the forum with Evan about the weaknesses of his first design for Darkcoin).

I know how he intends to achieve 51% attack immunity. But I think he will lose verifiable global coherence. I claimed that feature knowing that I could not commit these shortcut errors in design that I assume he is making. Any way, I haven't seen his design, so let's see if I end up being correct. Perhaps they will read this post and try to correct the mistakes they were going to make.

---

Edit#2: found this and seems to confirm to me that he is doing it the way I expected him to do it. Not enough details are revealed for me to determine how he is handling the issues I stated above.

---

Edit#3: It doesn't appear this is aimed at block chain scaling rather only at faster confirmation times for transactions. Because it appears that all the confirmation records have to come back to the block chain. So you still need huge blocks and lots of CPU power to verify all the confirmation records. He is authorizing a quorum to preconfirm the transaction before the block confirmation.

---

Edit#4: I realized his claim of immunity against 51% attacks is probably not true. Because if the minority refuses to honor the collusion between some masternodes and 51% of the mining hashrate, then those masternodes can stop responding to the minority block chain, thus forcing the minority chain either to violate its own protocol or be orphaned. Or he may have in his protocol that masternodes are excluded when they stop responding, but if 51% of the masternodes are gone then it means 51% of the money supply has probably gone from the minority chain too, because in Dash coins are conflated with masternodes. So this could collapse the value of the minority chain in exchange markets. Overall it doesn't look like "immunity" against 51% attacks because the masternode is very much a concept of he who has the money rules the coin.

Everything I have written about Bitshares 2.0 needs to be subject to discussion. I will just add that in terms of putting a caveat on your table, the high TPS rate claimed is what the CPU can do (per an interview I listened to of Daniel on Letstalkbitcoin). To get a real world test must stress this network with real DoS attacks to claim with confidence what the real throughput will be. They funnel the network into one node every 3s. It will be required to have many nodes involved to solve this scaling problem and if they all must to talk to each other to propagate every transaction, then may have network communication scaling issues at that high TPS. If they instead make the propagation of transaction data hierarchical then may have DoS issues. This is not an easy thing to solve and must stress it under all these conditions to start to see the issues holistically.

I do believe they can get higher TPS than Bitcoin can do currently but they have issues to work out or detail how they already worked them out. And they need to explain more details and have more testnet modeling revealed. If they were claiming 100 TPS with 10s blocks, I might be more prone to accept that they've actually modeled all the major issues. But that 3000s in 3s looks like hype and lack of actual real world modeling. I haven't actually gone digging in the Bitshares forum threads looking for more information. Perhaps someone else can enlighten me with more details.

As I said, I think Bitshares is flawed but let me reserve final opinion until I get more feedback and do more study. I will be covering the other contenders in the following post as my time allows:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153740.msg12745519#msg12745519

Move that discussion over to that appropriate thread.

I am going to be adding my comments about each of these coins in this post. Please check back on this post from time-to-time as I will be updating it as I complete my research gathering process. I will correct any incorrect information as I learn or it is pointed out to me. The statements below are what I think to be true based on the level of reading I've done to this point.

BitShares 2.0

• Any engineer should know the antithesis of reliability is lack of fault-tolerance, i.e. depending on only 1 node for each block validation. Variability in the network hiccups, DoS-resistance, hardware, and other aspects of witnesses will mean that some can't keep up with the 3s block time every time or they drop transactions and transactions need to propagated to further witnesses and blocks. So either will have unreliability on the real-time promise, and/or this will push approval voting for witnesses that are centralized by those who have the resources to defend their nodes and maintain uptime and performance loads. These issues don't matter as much with longer block times and/or lower expectation of tps, but if you are seriously expecting 1000s of tps in 3s block times sequenced (funneled) into a queue of witnesses then issues will amplify exponentially not just linearly.
• As far as I know, the 3s block time with 1000 tps will be vulnerable to DoS attacks in terms of incoming transactions, because it is known a priori which witness will be producing each block. All PoS shares system suffer this issue, but less of an issue until you start to go for very fast block times, very high tps rates, and very small transacted values for microtransactions with real-time dependency on performance. In PoW the winning witness is unknown a priori and is randomized. Thus if ever Bitshares becomes a serious competitor to a properly designed high tps system, you can probably expect DDoS attacks on Bitshares causing it to become unreliable and suffer outages that belie any claim of real-time performance. I am sure many users have noticed significant delays and downtime of the Bitcointalk.org site due to DoS attacks. The system could be (re-)designed so each witness delegates transaction verification to a large distributed group of transaction verification servers (e.g. perhaps the other witnesses) and only accepts connections from those servers blacklisting any that DoS, but this means the same transaction can be sent to all the servers thus exponentially increasing network bandwidth requirements and the cost that must be charged to fees. Complex coordination algorithms might be attempted but complexity is increasing, so normally resilience suffers and corner cases proliferate. As the transacted value of the valid microtransaction decreases, the DoS cost per transaction increases proportionally. Viewing this as an analogy, it is well known that in multithreaded systems that contention (coordination) load can starve actual throughput and even to the point of gridlock. This appears to me to be fundamental issue that can't be fixed within the design of round-robin rotation through preassigned order of witnesses. Typically all solutions to coordination and even in Bitcoin's case lead to increased centralization and I am sure Bitshares will find this to be true. They've already centralized by adopting reputation and voting schemes in order to get a deterministic node for each block in order to eliminate network coordination load that plagues PoW system but they just pushed the problem onto DoS and they will need to centralize more to address this fundamental issue.
• PoS systems are inherently more centralized because reputation and voting are power vacuum paradigms, meaning that power amasses more power and those who don't play the game theory for power lose power. Democracy is always corrupt for this reason. Thus these systems are the antithesis of the reason we are hear for crypto which is to have trustless protocols without power vacuums that can't be gamed by those who aggregate power. Now I am aware that PoW has analogous failure modes in that coordination load is driving centralization and the 25 - 51% attack exists, but just because that is so it doesn't mean PoS is a solution. And I maybe someone actually has a solution. We will have to wait for that solution to appear and make a choice between lesser evils in the meantime.
• DPOS claims[1] that by having the stakeholders in the system vote, that the controlling group which is the corporation comprising the developers is not in control. Well publicly listed entities allow shareholders to vote, and that doesn't absolve the classification of investment securities. Ostensibly Bitshares is trying to not run afoul of the criminal and civil liability that results from unregistered investment securities, but my interpretation of the law[2] is they may be still acting as a controlling group since investors depend on them to add value to the investment and the future performance of the investment (again I am not making any declaration that they are or are not, I am raising awareness on this issue for potential investors and participants).
  
  

  [1]

  https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus/ Quote This design was chosen to ensure that delegates technically have no direct power and that all changes to the network parameters are ultimately approved by the stakeholders. This is done to protect the delegates against regulations that may apply to managers or administrators of cryptocurrencies. Under DPOS, we can truly say that the administrative authority rests in the hands of the users, rather than either the delegates or witnesses.

  [2]

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12739508#msg12739508 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12722193#msg12722193

• The new anonymity features in Bitshares are incomplete and not at the level[1] of Cryptonote combined with hiding values which was independently invented by both myself and separately Monero's Shen-Noether.
  
  

  [1]	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12711191#msg12711191 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12711400#msg12711400

• Quote from: TPTB_need_war on August 27, 2015, 03:56:39 AM
  Quote from: StanLarimer on August 27, 2015, 03:52:39 AM

  This thread has been created to try to provide a no-hype summary of critical information you might just want to know about.
  
  At launch, the big gold-rush excitement will be about signing up new users since those who do will receive up to 80% of the lifetime fees generated by every user they sign up.  (So you can get a share of the blockchain's profits without owning any of the BitShares yourself.)
  

  
  Is this a decentralized coin or a gymcountry club membership?
  
  Sounds like a top-down corporation to me.
  
  
  
  
  Quote from: TPTB_need_war on August 27, 2015, 05:01:18 PM
  Oh it is sort of like Amway but anyone can buy direct, no MLM pyramid.
  
  Ah okay I thought I was a crypto-currency. Now I understand you guys are into [small niche] marketing schemes instead. Good luck.
  

I thought smooth was too busy to reply but he replied in private because I had locked the thread. So here is my reply and includes everything he wrote. I assume he wrote this for public consumption.


My point is that the existence of XMR without that parasitic fee made it largely unnecessary to make another fork of BBR to remove it. Being first or second seems irrelevant.


As I had pointed out later in my prior post on this issue, it can be that since ostensibly BBR has lower adoption (no offense intended to boolberry), there simply isn't the available resources to fork it can remove the parasitic fee. My point is that if your coin is scaling out to the world in potential, then opportunity for someone to fork and remove the fee and the world maybe preferring that fork is probably greater. Although it is possible that the inertia makes it impossible to do such a hard fork. Yet I think it is very likely that if BBR was Bitcoin, many people would have made the argument and actions to remove a 1% fee on the entire world's debasement or mining income (is the 1% on all mining income including transaction fees?).

It seems like a potentially viable funding model for a coin until it gets large adoption. Yet for that reason, it probably isn't viable. I assume boolberry isn't making enough money on that fee to justify working a lot on the coin lately.

Again I reiterate that it seems to me the only model of development funding which seems viable is to sell the programming work to produce the initial code base which should have some major new feature for crypto that drives interest and adoption. Or try to mine your own coin at a "fair launch", but this requires getting people to basically ignore your launch ANN or some hidden form of premine or instamine (or as apparently in the case of many Monero developers means your coins are worth roughly the same or less than the cost you mined them and this is probably why there is no pump or fast appreciation of the speculation price occurring for Monero). Or go for the donations model of methodical open source that produced Linux and Gimp. But please note, many people are paid high salaries to work on Linux because corporations have a vested interest in Linux. This may be what is missing from Monero's economics. Monero can not afford your or my time. Monero can only afford volunteer experts or people from countries with a very low average salary for programmers such as Ukraine and Russia (but I doubt any of the experts working on Monero are inexperienced developers from these countries and the experienced ones have surely learned their true value on the international stage).

Everyone has told me that Monero developers are impoverished if just considering their gains from the Monero project. Thus they must be participating for ideological reasons, or some vision that one day the gains will come as the code base reaches certain levels of capabilities. For me 10 years waiting for gains is too long to wait. And a 10 bagger over 10 years is only a 26% per annum gain. Seems like a long time to wait with a very high risk of failure for such a low annual return. Inflation will eat probably 1/3 of that gain. There is some hope that with the coming economic collapse in 2016 that interest in anonymity will increase and Monero will benefit by being the technologically most advanced anonymous coin. That may be so. And they should focus on anonymity since that is where they are already strong and perfect that as their highest priority first (because they already made that their core focus and rewriting a code base is generally considered a very chaos inducing and dumb decision).


Well you must mean adding services or products to the ecosystem, because the ramp up in the price hasn't happened as it did for other altcoins. And due to the "fair distribution" it should not happen ever. Monero can only appreciate by significant adoption that is not driven by speculative fever. Thus they will have to do some serious marketing into new demand for crypto. Or anonymity will have to naturally gain significant new adoption. But generally I think people adopt crypto, before adopting anonymity. Anonymity takes a while to learn about. Users are much more likely to look at other general crypto features first as being most important when they first come to crypto.

How to drive demand and network effects for new adoption is one of the key challenges of crypto. I have my plans and ideas about how to do this. I don't think such a viable plan and action will come from group action. It requires a creative force and leadership to push it in a certain direction. If I had to explain by committee my ideas, I'd spend more time jawboning thus removing the time to actually implement. And then one of the people in the discussion would go tell some others who would steal the ideas and launch a coin before I ever was able to. Open source as a model for profit driven innovation doesn't seem always to be well matched. Open source is for the finished product and the decentralized community that results from finishing the programming and releasing the protocol.


I hear there will be lawsuits. The USA security law seems to be quite clear. When you sell a share in something where you have an ongoing controlling interest which the purchasers of the share depend on for the value of the share, then you have sold investment securities.

Work in practice requires perhaps that either they've paid off someone at the SEC which may be the case since I noticed that Vitalik received a $100,000 grant from Peter Thiel, and because none of the investors bring a lawsuit or complain to the authorities. The SEC does not bring cases against their own (e.g. Peter Thiel).


Yes but as I argued at the start of this reply, I am wondering if the level of income that can come from that is worth it. You wouldn't have significant transaction fees in low adoption. You'd need to be taking it from debasement so then it is basically equivalent to the level of premine for a static money supply. So if 1% of the money supply of a low adoption coin is worth it. Seems like it is just better to sell some coins in a crowdfund. Gimicks don't really payoff. Either you go for making your coin big and show the world you intend to, or you do some gimick that will show the world you are preventing it from becoming big. And given my interpretation of securities law risks, being an ongoing lead developer paid from some revenue stream taken from the coin, appears too close to being a controlling entity unless you actually stop doing any actions to maintain control (i.e. don't let all commitments and upgrades come through you only as the master and don't coordinate with others that do as if you are working together as a unified controlling entity). Even then given the ongoing revenue stream, it is probably necessary to do nothing at all on the coin, because it can be perceived that the exclusive control over the revenue stream is a factor which would cause the community to see you as the controlling entity. It is expectation of investors that matters in securities law. Where they expecting you to control the outcome of the development and thus performance of the investment.

The concept of a lead developer should be for producing the initial launched code base (debugged). Ongoing the lead developer should be a spiritual leader concept where his repository is widely respected, but not where every thing is controlled through him. Decentralized version control. Decentralized choices for the current code employed by nodes of the coin. The lead developer can lead quite effectively without retaining absolute control. Natural born leaders such as Linus Torvalds are respected because they are really good at what and how they do it. Being very intelligent is one important aspect, but there are other qualities that make a great leader. And note Linus is very frank and does piss people off. But he is usually correct.


My point is that Litecoin positioned itself with Scrypt so it was ready to receive the GPUs from Bitcoin when ASICs arrived. They probably didn't plan that, just got lucky. But they did choose the name Litecoin and market it as the silver is to gold concept. Are you sure it was "fairly distributed"? I've head of various things that refute that, such as those who got a lot of cheap coins when they were the first to port GPU mining to Scrypt. What worked apparently was the marketing, the timing, and the cheap coins motivating some to pump it. The innovation wasn't Scrypt alone, but in combination with the marketing and the luck on attaining "unfair distribution". Markets don't appear to work properly when the powerlaw distribution of wealth is eradicated with a fair distribution. Fair distribution is communism. It doesn't reward anyone for being first or producing more creativity. It destroys the value of production.

Open source is a tool, not a religion. Those who make "fairness" a religion will suffer I bet. Open source isn't really about fairness and transparency of all things. It is about sharing that which there is the predominant economic incentive to share. But not all things should be shared at all times. Should I share my house with everyone and leave my door open to all. Should every idea be shared, or is it better to go develop the idea and then release it in terms of those who have the vision to invest earliest. Wealth is unequally distributed so that those with the best ability of discerning and implementing improvements are entrusted with the most capital to do so (wealth migrates to those who are serially successful at doing so). Inequality is necessary in order to lift the prosperity of those even at the bottom of the wealth curve.

I know you know all those points of view. I am just stating for the readers and so you know I know also. And to see how you might relate your thoughts to this.


Okay then that further supports the argument that Monero's distribution is too fair.


So there was never a point where the difficulty was low, not even the first day of mining?

So that explains it, no one got cheap coins.


Even a $100,000 cash out if I had mined it for $1,000 in rented hardware would qualify as "rich" for me at this point in my life, lol.


Okay so this explains why so many Monero folks suggest this to me. Btw, I have never looked at $4 million market cap as the right price to enter a coin. As a lead developer I want to enter at $100,000 market cap. The earlier investors should enter at < $1 million market cap.

Because unless you challenge Bitcoin or expand the crypto userbase, then the realistic upside for any altcoin right now is in the range of $10 - $100 million market cap. If you happen to create a Bitcoin killer or a product that causes new adoption outside of Bitcoin, then we can start talking $billion market cap potential.

I understand there is great hope that crypto adoption will spread in general, but it is also quite possible that by the time that happens some new development will have changed the landscape. To look too far into the long-term when dealing with technology that is unfinished and in great flux is very, very risky investment. So no, I am not very motivated by a $4 million market cap, lead by a group that thinks the way that they do about the way to organize development, marketing, and distribution. I would be fighting with a core culture that is different than my philosophy of venture capital formation.


Thank you. Yeah I don't want to force another group to change their culture to match mine. I understand that if I become a Monero developer, then I must change. Besides they really don't need me, they have enough really smart people contributing (smarter than me in their fields of focus, e.g. Shen-Noether is more knowledgeable about wide ranging cryptography and algebraic algebra than myself). And I could change if that was my only option to survive. I am capable of subjugating myself. But I don't think it is wise for me to do so because there is still so much opportunity to create in this crypto space. Btw, there is a slight cultural difference between you and I which is what makes me apprehensive about whether we are fit to co-develop a project. I wanted to protect you from my idiosyncrasies. Skills wise we appear to be really well match in that we are each strong in the area where the other may be slightly weaker.

My main mitigating issue is I stopped being self-funded this year and my health issue drained me over the past 3 years. So I became sort of discombobulated (as well as in foggy brain for example in September) and fretting over what to do. But I've had reasonably solid health since I started the antibiotics + NAC. And even more stable thus far since I added the alpha lipoic acid, and restarted my 20,000 IU daily vitD3 and daily coenyzmated B-complex. But in these 16 days of reasonably good concentration (and no exercise since that horrible relapse), I've had 3 days where I had mild relapse and one of those days I had a horrible relapse (6 days into the antibiotics). So I can't tell yet if I am finding a cure. Exercise seems to trigger relapse but if I don't exercise eventually I get worse (or that was my experience in the past but now I am on a new therapy). And I need to review information others have given me. And maybe lose more time searching for diagnostic tests. Damn this health really fucked me up from what I wanted to do in crypto. But maybe now finally I have it under control. We will see over the coming week and weeks.


I am not saying I like the greater fool theory of investing. I am saying that apparently nature does and a theory is that anyone who tries to do otherwise may under perform.

If you want to produce a product or service and build long-term value, then don't go public. Just sell your products and services at a profit and serve your customers. But that won't apply here, because crypto-currency is inherently a public token system.

Thus I assert Monero is trying to apply an ethics which is unnatural in the space in which they are applying it.

As the lead developer, I shouldn't concern myself with trying to void nature, and instead should make sure that my innovations and creations are widely exposed to the market. The market price can do what ever it is going to do, and the usership due to the value of the creations can continue on. Speculative traders provide a service to the market by promoting the creations far and wide in exchange for their profits. This is symbiosis at play.


Speculative traders are opportunists. They spend their time with their eyes and ears open waiting to leverage some lead developer who is good at creating. If lead developers spent all their time doing that, then they wouldn't be good at creating. Thus the division-of-labor applies. The two can come together to provide the symbiosis so that the developer is financially motivated as well as creatively motivated.

If a developer has earned a lot of capital and wants to change vocations to become eyes and ears, the problem is (as was my case when I had 18,000 oz of silver in 2007 at the $21 price) that we are not naturally attuned to be speculators. After 2002 when I was a millionaire (inflation-adjusted), I was always off doing some creating (all nighters coding, researching tech, learning Haskell, etc) when I should have been 100% focused on my investments, thus I ended up losing all my wealth due to be unprepared. The typical absent minded scientist that is too busy to even take a shower or care that the socks he grabbed are two unmatched colors. I predicted the rise from $25 to $48 of silver back in a published article on marketoracle in 2010, but when the time came to sell at $48, I called my broker in Philippines and he said he can't sell there are no buyers. I was in physical and I should have been in paper silver! Ideological shit trapped me! I made so many errors like that. Then got sick at the very moment that Bitcoin was developing (2012). I have learned my lesson about focusing on core talent, interest, and vocation.


Indeed. That was the observation I was making and leading me to propose this theory about required symbiosis with speculators. You can argue it as a positive for Monero, but I positing a theory that is a negative.


But of the ones that had any semblance of unique and worthwhile features, they remained in the Top 10 once they got there. The core usership was grown.


Speculator performance != user performance. Users of the coin buy to use the product not for appreciation.

Some have argued that huge volatility is a negative for adoption for currency use case. Well I disagree. Volatility is necessary for the speculation case. And for the main use case the crypto can beat fiat and credit cards which is microtransactions, then I argue volatility will be mostly irrelevant. I will have to show in the future why. Not now.


May be too late. Seemed I looked at the tech for those three and they all are lacking in some significant way. I will look again and comment later.


I basically take the attitude that I should be invested in my own work. And that speculators are going to do what they are going to do. And that I should be smart about when I take some partial profits and when I reinvest in my own work, holding a core position long-term. One of the key things is never again will I hold the majority of my investments in something I can't trade with my finger at a moment's notice. Thus physical gold is out of the question, except as a long-term holding. Also remember as a lead developer I hold the trading weapon of when to announce new developments and release them.

I think the developer should be excel at his role and responsibilities and the tools which he is most expert at deploying. He should not try to control what is not his role, rather roll with it deploying his natural tools and role.


Rather than see them as the enemy, one could look at them as natural; and my attitude is for as long as you don't actively collude (e.g. discuss and coordinate a market manipulation) in a way that makes you culpable under the law. A small float early on is a good thing and then the float widens over time. Speculator purchasing low, reducing the float, then sitting on the ask to drive speculative fever is free market activity and performing a service to the market by drawing many others interest and then basically turning them into long-term shrills for the coin because they are underwater. Some boom and busts during this process seems to be natural and beneficial to growing the userbase and adoption as well as funding the development.


Right. But sell that to a market. I don't trust anonymity because Tor and I2P are not sufficient. Thus I don't assume I am truly anonymous. One of the reasons I did this recent expose in this thread about the securities law research I did recently, is because I realized I couldn't really be anonymous. And the desire to be anonymous so I wouldn't be culpable to securities law is why I had long-stated I wouldn't announce a coin in my name. But after much reflection (and now desperation) I realized that to be legal I really need to avoid a controlling entity on the coin entirely. And I couldn't be anonymous to the government. And that I wouldn't worry about the government attacking me over anonymity, because I wouldn't even be the one pitching that feature. I would focus more on scaling and anonymity could be implemented as a plugin.


Well but the anonymity has to be combined with some useful features to make it even worthwhile to be using crypto currency any way. I don't think deciding to put all a companies financial trades on Monero is very realistic absent some incentives other than just anonymity on a block chain. Many businesses aren't even using a block chain so they don't need anonymity on a block chain. First you have to get them interested in using block chains, and so the first step is they will be looking for features to motivate block chain use. Later they may get around to wanting anonymity, but by that time others will have added anonymity to those other products that provide more features compelling businesses to adopt block chain.


I don't know if Evan consciously designed masternodes to limit float. He I think was just trying to find a way to solve the jamming problem of CoinJoin that I was pointing out to him. Serendipity of nature. Perhaps Monero is too anal? (trying too hard to control ideologically) I have always felt something culturally alienated from Monero. I think it is something like this desire to be holier than thou. I have appreciated though all the tech interaction, the 10 BTC and all that, so please don't take my words as one-sided. Just throwing out there other ways of theorizing about it. I am not sure.


What I was thinking was you can't pump some featureless copycoin to the Top 10 and have it remain there. Sorry sometimes my typing fingers are struggling to keep up with my mind. Takes so long to write these long discussions.


That is because they stopped adding features. Dash and Bitshares haven't stopped. And none of those coins had really Bitcoin killer features. Bitshares is still trying to. I need to go study again their Bitshares 2.0.


Monero certainly has more intellectual developers contributing. And this attracts a certain breed of community that are strongly in belief that if you get a bunch intellectual guys contributing on open source, then you have a powerful freight train.

Again I am not sure. I can see your cryptographer matched my best effort on the convergence of rings and homomorphic value.

Competing is exciting. I get to play sport again but on the programming field. Whether the communities see any released competition from me or not is totally dependent on my health.


But the problem is that for Monero to implement something Bitshares DPOS they would have to complete restructure their block chain code and probably their database code, etc.. Major rewrites of large code bases become progressively unlikely or unwise. The larger the code base becomes, the more unlikely to rewrite it.

You and I know that but many readers may not.


Yet othe says Monero forces a hard fork every 6 months.

Btw I was very, very sleepy when we were discussing burned upgrades.


Agreed only theories and the few anecdotal cases we have as evidence thus far.

And I am not 100% sure that Monero is doing what they need to do to be immune from USA securities law. Appears there is some things they are going which appear to be like an organized controlling entity. Of course much less likely culpability than what Evan or Ethereum have done.


I am not sure either. See my argument that those underwater become promoters for the coin instead of throwing in the towel. especially if there is ongoing hope from new developments and a strong tech from the outset.


Same argument could have been made against my burnable code coins. But in reality the investors don't control the mining nodes, so thus I think your response is incorrect.


Agreed. I also have that motivation (e.g. the dating site I created but needed permission-less micropayments so I shut it down). But it is too indirect and removed from my current financial stress.


Then it isn't really decentralized. Do it isn't a solution to decentralized block chain scaling.


And d) trying to do it with past 3 years history of chronic fatigue syndrome and pain/headaches that limit production.

But the problem is #d also may limit what I can get hired to do outside of crypto as well. Really I have to solve my health issue or better prepare to live in the jungle eating grass.

As for doing a job outside of crypto first, as you said it is do or die time on block scaling. And I have invested a lot to come up to speed on crypto and designs. It is do or die time. The work outside of crypto will still be there.

Readers please note the voting is not locked. Just the topic. Unfortunately I had to lock the topic because of that one troll. And also I think we said enough already. I need to get back to work. I am available in private messages.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cw67x1d

And who do think suggested jl777 to use CoinShuffle as a first step? Me.

But now there is something better available (or you can use both together as I also gave jl777 the idea of using CoinShuffle as a way to send messages anonymously):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12740753#msg12740753

And who do think suggested jl777 to use CoinShuffle as a first step? Me.

But now there is something better available (or you can use both together as I also gave jl777 the idea of using CoinShuffle as a way to send messages anonymously):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg12740753#msg12740753

As I wrote up thread about my block chain design, the transaction processing format is orthogonal to the block chain, so anybody can add any kind of transaction processing they want.

I am talking really radical concepts. You all haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet. My anonymity paper is just a small smidgen of what is up my sleeve. (fucking health problem!)

I never viewed those as Bitcoin killers. If their supporters thought they were, they were delusional.

You don't replace Bitcoin by doing some obscure feature better. You replace Bitcoin because something everybody desperately needs NOW can't be done by Bitcoin and only by your coin.


Except one problem. Bitcoin's block size can't scale to large data. Not without mining becoming very centralized.

You assume that Etherium did it correctly. There might be an epiphany that simplified the entire concept and enables one man to sort it out better than they did. Never underestimate the creativity of the odd thinker. When you think someone is odd, maybe that is sign they think differently than others thus are more likely to think of things in ways others don't.

What drives success more than anything is passion and commitment. Next comes a 6th sense of picking what is important. Next comes the aptitude to achieve it. Next comes some clever insights. Last comes some luck. Very rarely is it because of affiliations. Well that has been my experience at least. In terms of doing work as a group, work only with the very best, because the others just bog you down. And minimize the number of people you work with.

I don't think it is always best to have industry experts on your side. Sometimes the craziest damn unexpected thing comes from the one who was the least expected to do so and was the least conformist.

You know what I love about your post. You are challenging me. When I am not sick and someone says I can't do something, that is going to motivate me to do it. Lately I haven't been myself because illness physically removed what I could normally do in terms of effort and hours.

Any way enough about this. Thanks for your opinion. Very motivational.

That might make me worried because I might think that no one would invest in my work if I wasn't affiliated with other experts, but then I know that the smartest venture capitalists want to buy when everyone else won't so they get the lowest price and the go for the huge gains in appreciation.

I think one thing is clear. Drop a fully implemented Bitcoin killer in testnet on this forum, and the interest will be very high.

From private messages, some Monero supporters (not rangedriver) think I could earn some XMR from doing a few coding jobs for donations, and they would like to see my creativity inside of Monero's community. I really appreciate that guys. Thank you for the warm invitation. And thanks for the help on my health. I will be looking more into the health tips.

I just want to point out something. I am 50 and I have no retirement, no savings, I live in a 3rd world country, and no one in my family can help me even a dime. And I have no insurance and no social welfare system to help me (I refused the USA system). So I don't have time for ideological giving. I need to produce with the few years I have remaining before I am old geezer (in the midst of a global crisis underway!!) and I need to know I am earning a market rate for my skills. So asap I need to do something in crypto and see if I can earn enough, else I need to get out and go work in other areas where I can earn a decent income.

The XMR donations model seems to pay about $1000 to $1500 per 2 weeks of work. So less than $40,000 per year. Sorry I was earning that much (inflation-adjusted) at age 19 back in 1984. That is totally incompatible with a man of my age and situation. Monero work is fit for those coders who have made already a lot of money and want to make an ideological contribution to crypto. Or who are young and live for example in Ukraine or Russia. I applaud their ethics, but I am also not sure if their ethics have not clouded their understanding of nature, economics, and market dynamics. But I don't want to judge. I am just saying the choice seems pretty clear that either I can earn enough in crypto or I can't. I need to find out as quickly as possible.

Sorry for writing so much. But I am tired of being misunderstood. I wanted to make it very clear.

Also I don't feel Monero really needs me. Because they need guys who fit well into a cooperative open source model where each of a multitude of people do coding tasks. Even though I am aware of this open source model, I have never done it. Never. I have always coded on small teams or by myself. I am not accustomed to interacting with code virtually. I think these guys get a great feeling from for example being on freenode talking tech. It doesn't drive my feelings. I feel no interest in that sort of thing. I go off by myself and create. That has been my style my entire life.

I suppose if I had no other options I would do it. But I really think you are asking to put a square peg in a round hole. Just isn't well matched. Perhaps I am mistaken, but usually my gut instincts are correct.

Slander is attacking someone's reputation with lies that have an economically damaging effect.

Asking him to put his legal name on his attacks is way of saying to readers that "please note this guy is attacking me but won't even use his real name, but I have used my real name". So it is way of stating to readers who is more trustworthy.

Also it was the easiest way to respond since this is not a moderated thread, otherwise I would have just deleted his posts and ignored them.

As for suing for slander and the legal system, obviously he isn't worth my time to do that. I only stated that he should be willing to be culpable (responsible for his actions) if he wants to claim righteousness.

When reading my posts, please note I am often an abstract thinker, so I often have something going in my mind that is conceptual and not just what is literally written.

I think you failed to read what I wrote:


If you are referring to the offer to sell my completed work in the whitepaper then apparently you have some kind of comprehension disability.

Smooth and I have talked on occasion in private about working together. Lately we are not talking about that. That is always a possibility again in the future. Realize any code I am off doing, can at any time be brought to smooth and say, "this is working, should we integrate this in Aeon?".

I think coming with some code in hand is maybe more instructive than a lot of verbiage.

I just want to code and know I have enough support out there if I produce something of value. Appears the support is out there. The onus is on me. If it makes most sense to ally with smooth, that can be discussed. Producing some code first might be the most convincing.

Absolutely not. My inventions have not been copied from any one. Put your full legal name on your posts as mine is on my white paper. So you can be held legally culpable for slander.