You are conceding your only claim to fame to me  

Afaik, merged mining doesn't change anything about the centralization of mining. It enables mining multiple chains, but that doesn't mean the miners are any more decentralized. Am I missing something about merged mining?

I did not make a 'fallacious' statement. There is a difference between a 'claim' and a 'fallacious' statement. Perhaps you could use the adjective 'vacuous' instead to qualify my statement.

I would argue that inferior logic and vocabulary skills is an indicator of which of us is likely to be correct on the final resolution of my 'claim'.

You know I am all for not conflating separate concerns, so I concede.

But again the 51% attack (if you believe it is realistic the G7 or G20 and other government unions can regulate that much mining) renders the distinction almost entirely effectively invalid.

But I will repeat the point I've made to you this year (recently) that as you raise the bandwidth requirements, you reduce the diversity of ways that mining can be connected to the network which thus increases the State's ability to regulate you (i.e. effectively centralize mining w.r.t. to censorship resistance and KYC) and also decrease network fault tolerance issues such as network slowdowns w.r.t. to orphan rate which then impacts double spends, etc.. You can't win the argument that big O (or theta O) scaled higher bandwidth requirements beats a design with lower big O bandwidth requirements scaling, all other factors being equal. I know you did not argue higher bandwidth is superior rather you seem to be arguing it might be a mitigated issue. And I am arguing that the failure potentials are significant and that we need to improve on all aspects to maximize probability of retaining some attributes of resilience such as censorship resistance.

Also there is the issue of network fragmentation, which none of the consensus network designs deal with at all. They just collapse into chaos of double-spending.

Also on that chart you posted upthread about electric consumption and hashrate declining over time due to block reward halving, that excludes the expectation that transaction rates and fees will be increasing and assuming the market is competitive then hashrate should be higher than it would be due to value of block rewards alone.

r0ach's overall point is we are headed for centralized mining any way.

On that thesis he is correct, unless someone presents a superior consensus network design.

smooth please see the edit on my prior post. I was rushing when I wrote that because my gf was giving me "3rd call" on "come eat breakfast".

I realized you have a valid point in the non-51% attack case. Again please bear in mind that I am most concerned about the case where the G7 can regulate 51% of the large centralized mining corporations, such as 21 Inc. which is coming up fast.

This is another epic logic fail.

You love to argue ad nauseum points that are not viable.

Fact is that mining will become ever more centralized in Satoshi's design because of the economies-of-scale of ASICs and electrical power. I believe there was maybe even a research paper that proved something along these lines?

The fundamental problem is the mining is done for profit. For as long as that is the case, ASIC farms (or Larry Summers' 21 Inc. economies-of-scale) and subsidized, industrial/government/utility scale electricity will rule.

Also due to bandwidth issues and that every full mining node has to validate every transaction, scaling transaction volume will force centralization.

These are precisely some of the core issues my Delegated Transaction Consensus design is attempting to fix.

Also your argument about sacrificing cost is nonsense, because the low cost leader will take hash rate from the others over time by reinvesting higher rates of return.


Edit: Smooth has a valid point if no entity (or collusion of entities) has 51% of the hash rate because then someone could sacrifice mining losses in return for censorship resistant way to post transactions to the block chain. So in that sense, my word "nonsense" is incorrect and I apologize. But the huge glaring flaw is that once the State can regulate 51% of the mining power (which is destined to be centralized), then Smooth's caveat no longer applies. And this is my overriding concern, so that is why I often downplay this caveat that smooth points out.

Edit#2: however if hashrate is very large then smooth's caveat is really pointless because who has enough hash rate to push their transaction onto to the block chain without a pool. And again Satoshi's design doesn't enforce that pools must allow getblocktemplate. If your hashrate is not too small, you can just mine on any pool that offers getblocktemplate and wait a long time until you win a block solution to insert your transaction, or just mine a long time solo. Many could potentially join together to pool their resources to mine at a loss to have ready access to censorship resistance, but unless you are using P2Pool (which can be attacked with share withholding attacks) then the State might target your pool server (but again I think it is easier for them to just target 51% of the hash rate for regulation requiring all transactions to carry KYC, since you might place your server behind an anonymity network although this will be very difficult to do in Satoshi's design because of the bandwidth requirements). And now you start to get some inkling of why my consensus network design overhaul is so important.

Please re-review the chronological record. Your summary does not appear to be accurate.

Re-read my prior post. I have provided a chronology which makes my case irrefutable.

And again you argue ad nauseum on a point that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

He has provided no strong evidence of any of these things. His evidence links to the opening post of this thread, which is a bunch of links to a cat fight[1].

Smooth when I evaluate people for their efficacy, one thing I look it is how well they reason to the effective point of it. Logic ad nauseum isn't logical.

[1] Also the timing of his Trust report is when I told him to his face that he was making Freudian slips with his use of the words "humble" and "immaturity" and that he was employing psychological warfare. I outed him and he didn't like it. So he proceeded to use every weapon in his toolchest to try to discredit me. The circumstances along with the evidence presented clearly show his motivation is revenge. And the reason is clear also. He was embarrassed because he started off initially attacking me over the definition of the 'delegated'. And then I pointed out that only a simpleton, non-skilled programmer assumes that delegation must be married to trust. Rather than eating humble pie, he turned Freudian and blamed me for not being humble and not putting the entire thread in the opening post.

Here he starts the conflation of 'delegated' and 'trusted':

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.msg12374689#msg12374689

So then I explained to him not to conflate the two, yet he repeats for the second time that he doesn't understand the definition of 'delegated':

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.msg12374976#msg12374976

After r0ach tried to explain it to him, then I explained it to him yet again and asked him kindly to not start a word war:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.msg12375049#msg12375049

Then for the third time he repeated his insistance on conflating the words 'delegated' and 'trusted' even after he has been told already 3X and by 2 experts not to do that:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.msg12375107#msg12375107

Then after r0ach tries to warn him the 4th time, he then defiantly states he is not trolling:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.msg12375170#msg12375170

But then he proceeds over to my thread to repeat the same nonsense some more as follows...

First, I had to explain it to him again for the 5th time and again caution him that I wasn't going to reveal the secrets of how I unconflate the delegation and the trust:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174653.msg12375146#msg12375146

Yet for the 5th time he repeats his same insistence that delegation must be married to trust:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174653.msg12375327#msg12375327

Around that point he started blaming me for his inability to read and saying I wasn't humble:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174653.msg12377982#msg12377982

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174653.msg12378045#msg12378045

I asked they move that detailed delegation issue discussion to another thread and it looked like maybe he was going to be reasonable, so I allowed his link to the new thread to remain in my thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375430#msg12375430

And I even pointed out to monsterer that it seemed to me like Smoothie was starting to genuinely think about a potential middle ground and I thought he had opened his mind and become more reasonable finally:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375644#msg12375644

But then he backslides and joins in with the VanillaCoin investors who want to attack me:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375676#msg12375676

And he starts attacking me ad hominem:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375708#msg12375708

Again I apologize profusely (2X) and beg one more time for mutual respect and level headedness (am I am not humble  ):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375715#msg12375715

Then smooth jumps on the bandwagon too with them all attacking me:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375982#msg12375982

Then Smoothie starts with his Freudian slips attacks where he is projecting his lack of humbleness and immaturity as accusations on me when in fact he is covering for big ego and butt hurt over being told 5 times not to conflate delegation and trust by both myself and r0ach:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12377446#msg12377446

If you value my posts, for this political reason please put a positive Trust rating on my profile. I am asking for this favor in return for all the research I done for you all over the past 2 years at no charge.


From 2015.75 to 2017.9, all the fractional reserve liquidity created by QE ZIRP comes home in a massive bubble for the $usd and US stocks, and this will overshoot because there are $9 trillion dollar short positions abroad (actually $usd denominated loans) so speculators will leverage up to go long.

So all those dollars will be captured, then FINCEN and FATCA and other capital controls can kick in before 2017.9. Sort of looks like TPTB had it all scheduled out doesn't it.

Banksters don't want to inflate away the debt, because then they lose.

The following attempt to summarize the bankster business model, yet they assume hyperinflation which is not the usual way the banksters run the end game. The end game is usually expropriation by the government because debtor is slave to lender during deflation:

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/01.10/thinklikeabanker.html

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/06.11/owntheearth.html

So the banksters don't want to hyperinflate away so that the common man can payoff debts and keep cash under his mattress. Rather the banksters want to trap the common man in debt that he can't pay because of deflationary defaults and then make the common man dependent on the government in 666 like slavery system with the banksters+industrialists (the Bilderbergers) running the entire world top down with humans as mere laborer cows for the milking.

I have waited long enough for Smoothie to remove his scammy report against ion.cash.

I filed the following Negative report on his Trust.

Perhaps your reading comprehension or memory retention might be fading at your advanced age, but please do be reminded that 2015.75 is the start of the global contagion. You'll probably have your regular services levels through 2017 and we would look at the 2018 to 2020 timeframe for some serious civil unrest, war, and worsening expropriation.

As for Madmax, it was always made clear to you that this was a worst case option and if so it would be more likely in the post-2020 time frame. If Asia bottoms 2020 as expected and the Asia doesn't move in lock step on the expropriation of expats, then perhaps a release value frontier of that sort (or maybe crypto and a rising Knowledge Age) could avert the total devolution of the West. My bet is we won't go all the way to Madmax in most locales. Odds are much greater for a muddle through with some hotspots in the world 2016 - 2024. In order words, your location may determine how bad it is. For those fleeing ISIS or some in Ukraine, they already experienced the start of Madmax.

http://cryptorials.io/glossary/delegated-proof-of-stake/
https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus/

Well, well now I see I have the only consensus design that is not a PoS (Piece of Shit), Satoshi's design included.

I take the best from Satoshi and fix it all the way it should have been.

'Nuff said. I need to implement, so I can publish. Sooner the better.

I am so sleepy, been here discussing for entire afternoon and night and now it is 11am again. Zzzzzz....

My white paper will be the first to show the above are false assumptions.

I am telling you I am going to shock the world.

I don't do small things. I rock the Titanic.

Call this hype without details. Fine. But I can't let you write fallacious statements without pointing them out.

This is why being able to objectively filter 25 - 33% selfish mining attacks and 51% attacks is so critical. Satoshi's design can not do it. Mine can.

With that key improvement, then one can change the way mining is done so that those who are sending transactions are doing the mining, but they don't care about their profitability so then you drastically reduce the electricity used, yet simultaneously make it uneconomic to run an ASIC farm. And pools become irrelevant because no one is mining for profit, rather because they must mine to send a transaction.

So then you have the unbounded entropy of proof-of-work that insures its model of security and game theory, without any of the drawbacks.

TADA.  

Guns and bullets are not the same, but they don't preclude working together. If your point is that delegation does not necessarily imply decentralization, then so what. Satoshi's white paper Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System doesn't have the word decentralized in the name. The title of my white paper emphasizes the key feature of the design. That omission of word in the title doesn't insinuate that it isn't decentralized nor trustless.

Come on I don't want to get into silly tit'for'tat noise.


Very well stated. Thanks. I am not too clear yet on the DPoS design and its tradeoffs. I will look into it.

Nor is it necessarily an antithetical concept. Delegated can be decentralized and effectively as trustless as Satoshi's design is (with some differing assumptions that have differing tradeoffs).

The thread's opening post is reasonable but I didn't have time to check all the detailed points for absolute correctness. You will need to add my Delegated Transaction Consensus algorithm once it is published.


The first few seconds of this interview with bytemaster (Daniel Larimer) explains they hide both the values and whom you are sending to (i.e. the payee):

https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-stealth-confidential-transactions/

In other words in the terminology of the Cryptonote white paper, they have unlinkability but not untraceability.

He admits this at 13:45 mins point and (in his non-analytical summary) he highly understates the block chain analysis that can be done with traceability because they have not hidden the payer. For another thing he completely discounts the possibility that the adversary is gaining access to some of the hidden values because the payer and payee both know the transferred value, which then rapidly breaks down his other assumptions. The merging of balancing he is suggesting at 21:00 will break untraceability.

They accomplished the easy part. It is combining that with untraceability that seemed nearly impossible to achieve without Zerocash's flaws. But finally after many days of brain stumping I did figure out how to do it.

Well I have them beat. In July I wrote a white paper where I can hide the values, the payee, and the payer. Thus I also have untraceability. And I don't have any of the setup issues that plague Zerocash! I invented the holy grail of on chain anonymity.

My white paper is entitled Zero Knowledge Transactions.

P.S. About the 9 min point, bytemaster is explaining that payees can't anonymously scan for their Stealth (unlinkable) transactions, which means they even break the unlinkability. Very sloppy. Yes he is correct that it breaks scalability which is one of Monero's issues. I have solved this issue also!

Your confusion fundamentally derives from your assumption that cost push inflation and deflation are the primary determinants of economic outcomes and health. Rather debt load and international capital flows are much more powerful factors. This generative essence point is what makes Armstrong's analysis so much more reliable than the other bozos who claim to be economists.

That is a good point to raise and attempt to clarify. The USA will be experiencing deflation of imported goods cost (USA being a significant net importer) simultaneously experiencing a net inflation in asset prices (especially the stock market) because of a net gain in the capital account (ingress of international capital as the carry trade tide of QE comes back in). Simultaneously exports will be experiencing deflation both due to increase in cost of exports for importers and the collapse of the international markets which are short the dollar ($9 trillion international dollar loans from carry trade due to ZIRP from QE). So from 2015.75 to 2017.9, mainstreet USA will be experiencing deflation in both costs of imports and income as export industry collapses. Wallstreet USA will be experiencing asset inflation and increases in net worth. Again the rich class is victorious both on the egress of QE and again on the ingress reverberation effect.

Other significantly net importing countries which are not pegged to the dollar (e.g. not Hong Kong) such as the PIIGS, UK, France, and India will be experiencing basic goods cost increases thus mainstreet experiencing inflation at the same time their economies are collapsing due to debt defaults as the QE carry trade reverses and a liquidity crisis envelopes, i.e. stagflation or deinflation. The net exporting countries have a slightly better buffer zone but will eventually get caught in the contagion of deflation and stagflation/deinflation.

In short, a contagion of pain of deflation of income and jobs every where, and even some basic goods cost inflation in Europe and India. China is also allowing some goods cost inflation to kick in by allowing some subsidies to default (which they absolutely must do or it will be forced on them Minky Moment style or already is).

The only upside are the rich who ride the last bond bubble to October, then ride the dollar and US stocks stampede to 2017, then after that the USA falls completely into deflation too and the world goes FUBAR.

From 2018 to 2020, it is going to be waterfall collapse every where, and the only assets rising will probably be the shit the government can't grab, perhaps crypto-coin and gold, but the government will likely attack all the gold dealers thus I think crypto is our best bet. Technology and nerds have an inherent advantage over the government. We can outsmart them. They are too slow. We innovate too fast. They have no clue what we did until years after we did it. Then it takes them another 5 - 10 years to get all the other governments organized and unified. Gold is an old relic they know how to attack. A Treasury official said some years ago, "we will burn the fingertips of the goldbugs up to their armpits". (that might have been Larry Summers or Time Geithner or more likely Robert Rubin)


Not likely again before 2032. The political climate in the USA will have changed so much by 2017.9, it will be impossible for them to get away with another QE. The problem is confidence. Once the people have decided to exit stocks and put their cash under their mattress, then the Fed is powerless. What the government will have to do instead is stop people from getting cash to put under their mattress. This is why the coming attack on cash, capital controls, bail-ins, nationalization of pension plans, etc..

The shit coming is going to make you wish for QE. But your prayers will not be answered.

I have been trying to take the bull by the horns and work on the crypto-coin attributes we will need coming 2017ish.

And as I have stated too many times already, US stocks and the US dollar will receive stampede capital inflow after 2015.75 until the next turn in 2017.9 because these will be perceived as the most liquid private assets for the time being (this will cause the DJIA to double or triple and the rising dollar will reverse the $9 trillion carry trade in dollar loans originally spawned by the ZIRP of QE, wrecking massive deflation in all countries except the USA). The US will eventually top out because of these stampede in of international capital flows, and the USA will probably end up attacking that capital, thus eventually it will shift towards the harder core private assets such as crypto and gold more. Bitcoin and crypto aren't scheduled to bottom until Spring 2016. Thus 2017.9 to 2020.05 looks to be a descent into totalitarian hell. And they will attack all the places you store and trade your gold. That period is where everything will get very dicey and perhaps anonymous crypto is going to be the big winner but many details remain to be sorted out on that one. I'd hedge my bets if I were you via diversification. Which is what you can see I am doing now by attempting to develop a crypto-coin which is not purely focused on anonymity but rather on fixing Bitcoin's major faults especially around scaling and real-time use.

I am also hedging my bets by thinking about diversification of opportunities in the fledging Knowledge Age, which is counter trend to this global deflation.