|
The corporation will still charge the costs to the collective and keep the profits for themselves. And it will still be a power vacuum of winner takes all. So it doesn't change my argument.
Corporate-fascism is just the State by another name. It will be multi-national, i.e. a world governance.
I agree corporations will want privacy features, and months ago I urged Monero to look more in that direction. I explained that Zcash might have a better technology for that, c.f. the Thoughts on Zcash thread for that. Unfortunately that might not support the current valuation of the current individual focused ecosystem. I don't know. Someone would need to think that out.
And again, I like my recent discovery of how to do more efficient and non-simultaneity off chain anonymity, as perhaps better than both Zcash and RingCT, but I can't be sure yet because so far that is only a rough sketch in my mind and some private discussions.
|
|
|
|
The other problem facing Monero is that their awesome RingCT upgrade just might not be actually desirable: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.msg15381217#msg15381217I say that with a heavy heart, because I invented essentially the same technology as RingCT, named Zero Knowledge Transactions. But I abandoned ZKT because I didn't see the great marketing win. I tried to find some coin to take my technology and no one was interested. Just goes to show there isn't much demand for it. Monero's problem from the start was that DASH beat them to the first mover advantage of the hype around anonymity. AnonyMint and Gmaxwell had basically ignited that hype demand for anonymity back in 2013. Gmaxwell wrote about CoinJoin and AnonyMint was writing about how anonymity was necessary for fungibility and generally pointing out the coming battle against centralization of mining and potentially blacklisting. Then Mike Hearn proposed that redlisting, blacklisting, whitelisting crap, and the interest in anonymity exploded. So Monero was later than DASH on marketing, so they tried to compensate by emphasizing the fair mining launch and rpietila bought some and started telling preaching that it was the only altcoin he would buy after being a Bitcoin-only maximallist. AnonyMint got pissed off at rpietila (his former colleague in silver trading) for prematurely trying to kill experimentation in altcoins. AnonyMint become a thorn in Monero threads and they began to see him as someone they had to destroy reputationally wise. DASH seems to have moved on to payment technology. AnonyMint would waver away from criticizing Monero and then at times come back to it again. This was because AnonyMint was in the midst of sorting it all out in his mind as well. So AnonyMint was having mixed thoughts along the way of discovery. Of course there was the BCX incident along the way also. Through all of it, I gained a lot of respect for smooth's logic skills and also his ethics. The one thing that bothered me was that smooth believed in the concepts of Monero's culture and I didn't. This includes the leaderless open source concept (which I don't think is how open source is really done), and the tolerance of bad apples in the community, as well as the censorship of the Monero Speculation thread. I could understand censoring the ANN thread, but not an ongoing discussion thread. In any case, I still respect their coders, except the ones who are condescending. I don't hate ArticMine. The issue is philosophical to the core of who I am. He has a Communist core (normal when coming from academia) and I detest Communism. It even bleeds into for example the culture I mentioned above. Any way, it is too much to verbiage to try to explain all the nuances. The bottom line is that Monero needed a market, but the only one they found was the delusion of "we are holier than thou" communism. That is my rough sketch stereotype, but of course there are other nuanced ways to look at it. I don't see the demand for their technology and I don't see the culture of their community succeeding. Sorry. And good luck. I could be wrong.Edit: Monero could have done an ICO back in 2014 and pooled a lot of money to fund development. IMO, they blew their chance to be relevant. But let's see maybe they can shift their focus to corporations and compete with Zcash. |
|
|
|
He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join.
IC, thx for clarifying that for me. smooth thank you for the honest re-summary of my statement. smooth actually including the viewkey, not necessary an ID. smooth I am thinking of 10X hashrate attack as well, not just a 51% attack, which I had explained in the other thread is much more brutal on the other miners. In either case, the attacker can change the protocol to award his miners the fees from "incorrect transactions", while refusing to process the other outputs. So sorry your logic is refuted. The payer's input becomes spent/confiscated and the Cryptonote rings can do nothing to stop this. Mea culpa. I got some sleep, then upon awakening, I realized smooth is correct. If the 51% (or 10X) attacker adds the transaction to the block chain, even if it interprets that only the fee UXTO is spendable, then when the other outputs are spent, it must add those transactions in order to take their fees. So indeed as the transaction fees excluded from the block chain accumulate to be greater in value than the excess hashrate possessed by the attacker, then honest miners are economically incentivized to process the blacklisted transactions. However, the attacker may drive the exchange value of the token so low by attacking it, that the transaction fees might have to accumulate over very long periods of time. Perhaps the excessive delays (a year?) would spiral the exchange value downwards and/or many users would capitulate and provide the viewkey required. So actually smooth is only correct if the number of users of the token who don't capitulate is greater than those who do (presuming the attacker has an externally funded incentive to attack providing the excess hashrate in the first place), otherwise the attacker will have more funding than the honest miners. Because even if the honest miners include the capitulated transaction, the attacker can blacklist those blocks due to the attacker's higher level of base hashrate aforementioned. In other words, the success of the defense smooth advocates is quite slim, because if the token ecosystem is only composed of diehards, then it is likely won't have a very high base hashrate, thus an attacker with a higher base hashrate is more likely. Whereas, if the token ecosystem is composed of the masses, then most are likely to capitulate. Even if the token's protocol made anonymity mandatory on every transaction, such that users' clients would choose the minority hashrate fork which enforced the ban against capitulating users, the problem is it is possible to capitulate external to the block chain data, thus there would be no means by which the users' clients could discern which transactions capitulated. It seems that it is impossible to make a minority block chain protocol that defies the desires of the majority and their collectively funded State (which can charge the cost of attacking a minority block chain to the collective, even surreptitiously). Ironically, AnonyMint had written about this in 2013. This is why I became less focused on the anonymity feature over time. I always wanted it and was trying to find a way to perfect it, but really what we need is to make decentralized money popular. And hope that some good comes from that. We can't actually succeed by fighting the majority, unless our minority is very significant in size. I am hoping that microtransactions are so numerous and tiny, that the State can't afford to enforce some form of taxation on all of them. But I admit that eventually the global State will get organized and perfect the systems of digital control. It just seems inevitable. Only the will of the people at-large will decide if the State's power is curtailed. Privacy on block chains could be a popular feature. But preventing the State from tracking criminals will not be popular. Thus the State must be given a viewkey. This is why I am more focused on scaling block chains, not only absolute anonymity. Privacy can be added with much less costly technology than the very heavy RingCT. That is why I was excited last month when I discovered a way to fix off chain anonymity and scale it. |
|
|
|
He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join.
IC, thx for clarifying that for me. smooth thank you for the honest re-summary of my statement. smooth actually including the viewkey, not necessary an ID. smooth I am thinking of 10X hashrate attack as well, not just a 51% attack, which I had explained in the other thread is much more brutal on the other miners. In either case, the attacker can change the protocol to award his miners the fees from "incorrect transactions", while refusing to process the other outputs. So sorry your logic is refuted. The payer's input becomes spent/confiscated and the Cryptonote rings can do nothing to stop this. |
|
|
|
Don't tell me the current Satoshi proof-of-work is any where near a fair, competitive free market distribution scheme: Remember ZIRP-pusher Larry Summers (the same guy alleged to have gone to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union to arrange the transfer of nationalized assets to newly anointed oligarchs), is on the board of 21 Inc. As an example of the potential power of its pool, 21's mining operations generated approximately 5,700 BTC in 2013 and 69,000 BTC the following year, according to the document.
By the time its chips were to be embedded into Internet of Things (IoT) devices, 21 projected its cost to produce 1 BTC could be as low as $7.45.
So we pay $600 per BTC, and 21 Inc. will pay $8. |
|
|
|
Remember ZIRP-pusher Larry Summers (the same guy alleged to have gone to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union to arrange the transfer of nationalized assets to newly anointed oligarchs), is on the board of 21 Inc. As an example of the potential power of its pool, 21's mining operations generated approximately 5,700 BTC in 2013 and 69,000 BTC the following year, according to the document.
By the time its chips were to be embedded into Internet of Things (IoT) devices, 21 projected its cost to produce 1 BTC could be as low as $7.45.
Going social
The documents suggest 21 had been considering a multi-pronged strategy to build out a competitive mining network that also sought to reimagine the transaction confirmation process as a way to onboard consumers.
Without a strong core of industrial bitcoin mining facilities, the document contended, consumer mining with the chips would have been too unprofitable to attract interest.
The documents projected that, should the BitSplit chips seek to process transactions alone, a user would need 34,722 days, or about 93 years, to discover a block. By pooling its resources, however, 21 projected it could reduce the average block time to 200 minutes, or roughly three hours, paying users 0.72 mBTC or about 17 cents per day.
As part of this effort, 21 would also seek to make the activity of mining more user-friendly by auto-enrolling users into its own social network. Named BlockParty, the project was introduced via a visual mock-up of how the social network might look running as a mobile application.
According to the image text, users could keep track of BTC earned daily and view the purchasing habits of friends. In the example, one user is able to use his BTC to skip 15 minutes of commercials on online video service Hulu.
Other updates show friends activating and deactivating devices.
Internet of Value
Once consumers and businesses are set up to receive bitcoin via everyday devices, the documents provide evidence 21 had built technology that intends to serve as the template for how such earnings could be used in microtransactions on the Internet.
In particular, 21 had been working on a process that would allow developers to block users from accessing websites unless funds are sent to a bitcoin address. Notably, the process used the 402 Payment Required error code originally intended for web-based micropayments at the outset of the World Wide Web.
Under this scenario, a client would ask a server to open a connection, and rather than seeing an error when denied, the user would receive a price quote in BTC.
Paid APIs, paid Wi-Fi, priority email and ad-free web browsing, 21 had suggested, were all additional use cases that could be enabled once consumers are able to generate small amounts of bitcoin through its mining products.
|
|
|
|
edit: don't see a problem with margin-exchange. It just adds a little more volatility but won't affect the overall valuation of the coin. It's just more noise, no issue with that.
I added that after writing the OP, based on learning that one way to manipulate the coin's price and market cap is to control many of tokens (such as perhaps via an ICO buying from yourself as the issuer), then use margin to create more buy or sell demand. If the distribution of the token is thought to be reasonably competitive, transparent/free market (i.e. "fair"), then I also don't see a problem with margin trading. It actually adds more information to the ecosystem. |
|
|
|
In the OP you admit that no one has been able to solve the ideals you claim as being ideal.
Then, you go on to crucify any cryptocurrency that doesn't meet these unobtainable ideals by trolling Bitcointalk.
I didn't crucify any project. I wrote these are my ideals, i.e. goals. I did point out where existing projects don't yet accomplish these idealistic goals, which just makes facts, not crucifixion. If nothing yet meets my ideal goals, that doesn't mean I am crucifying the others. Since no one is willing to waste as much time as you are by defending their points, you "win" by default.
Outlining idealistic goals and shooting to achieve them, is a win for everyone that cares and shares my vision about the value and idealistic outlook for our crypto block chain ecosystem. Perhaps you didn't realize this thread isn't pumping any projects. Just because I didn't pump your favorite investments, doesn't mean you didn't win. Unless you are just a selfish Hitler "assimilate or die" retard. I already know from your prior stalking of me, that you are 20-something guy at the university with a chip on your shoulder. Hopefully you come to maturity senses after reading this, and chillax. But something tells me your bruised tardbutt ego is going to go ballistic instead of taking this mild "for you own good' educational spanking and realize you are just acting like a jealous asshat again. Since your ideal list of cryptocurrency "must haves" is not achievable, ...
I will later prove it is achievable; thus your assumption is incorrect. But even presuming you are correct (which you aren't), it is still okay for some of us to have idealistic R&D goals. ...it is akin to me saying "all cryptocurrencies should solve world hunger" or "all cryptocurrencies should have the ability to time travel".
I did not state any where in this thread that anyone should stop their involvement in existing projects in the interim time until my goals are attained. Nor did I state they should abandon other projects and choose my idealism if ever my ideal goals were attained. Every person should decide for themself. Then, imagine that I go around trolling all cryptocurrencies that do not have these features.
You used to troll other coins while trying to promote the features of Bitshares. And I didn't troll any CCs in this thread. You are trolling my thread and attacking me. So don't be surprised by my reaction. Grow up kid. That is in essence what you have been doing for the past year(s) on here.
Do you have my photo taped on your dorm room door and throw darts at it while studying? Chillax bro and focus on making your own accomplishments. Stop stalking my coattails, because you are jealous when I have any readership. Otherwise you just waste time & effort you could apply to making your own accomplishments. (I'd refer you to threads over the past month where I did extensive mea culpas about being wrong for harping about scams and taking strong-willed sides about which projects are worthy, but I don't think you are sincerely interested in the power of reformation and improvement) There is no such thing as a fair cryptocurrency distribution.
What is fair to someone (for example, you) would not be considered fair by someone else (enter some random person here).
The definition I am using was provided upthread. What you've written is not my definition. You are free to not ascribe to my definition of a fair, free market, competitively priced launch distribution. And others are free to ascribe to my ideals. You may think you have obtained some state of enlightenment, and been able to solve the problem no one has been able to solve, but you are fooling yourself.
I cannot wait for you to release your plans for an "ideal" distribution so that I can point out all of the ways it will be considered unfair by random current and future participants.
You are so sure of yourself. Cocky enough to troll your off-topic attacks. Remember how when we were teenagers and we thought our parents were stupid. And you are a 20-something "know it all" now disrespecting a 51-year computer programmer with 37 years of coding experience. It doesn't mean a 20 year old doesn't have anything useful to say. Rather it means don't go gun blazing, when you are not even not wrong, but rather off-topic. If you want to start a "I hate AnonyMint" thread, then go ahead. There is actually already such a thread about AnonyMint that got move to Reputation. Your personal attacks on me are off-topic to this thread subject. I am going to ask you one time nicely to please not troll this thread with nonsense bickering, back and forth flame wars. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah unlike the Monerotards, I am not going to harp on what I can't prove. There is some suspicion that ETH is a manipulated after market. But I can't prove it. And I don't have time to waste on that. I'd better off to go create something myself and compete, if I feel that way.
I pray that some of you can explain this concept to Monero. I am tired of arguing with them. They are always right™.
|
|
|
|
As far as I am concerned, your proprietary secret sauce has zero value until people can use it. That means you will have to reveal it and run the risk that someone will copy it and not pay you for your intellectual property, As far as what is already there in the market when it comes to fairness Monero's POW is among the best.
Thanks for promoting theft. Thanks for promoting the force of viral communist Copyleft licenses. Thanks for all the dogma you've been destroying the altcoin ecosystem with. Now please go away! |
|
|
|
As far as what is already there in the market when it comes to fairness Monero's POW is among the best.
You can't prove that. How many people weren't using stolen cloud mining accounts as I already explained upthread. You can't just make up bullshit without proof, math, and a white paper. Are you sure you are actually an academic  I do not need to. You can't make any claim about proof-of-work launch distribution being more fair, unless you can prove that you know how much hashrate was produced using stolen cloud mining accounts (and other ways of cheating the fairness). It is you that is making the claim that it is not, and proving a negative is even harder.
I am not required to prove there was no stolen cloud mining accounts involved in mining. You have to prove the negative. You got that part backwards. What I have already done is disprove your assertion that POW mining is equivalent to paying the utility companies for electricity. That is why the weather is so critical.
You have presented no proof of anything. When the white paper is ready, please reply. |
|
|
|
As far as what is already there in the market when it comes to fairness Monero's POW is among the best.
You can't prove that. How many people weren't using stolen cloud mining accounts as I already explained upthread. You can't just make up bullshit without proof, math, and a white paper. Are you sure you are actually an academic |
|
|
|
It is cute how you tried to change the topic. Please show me where in my post that I mentioned Bitshares. I will resize the text back to normal to help you out.
Likewise, show me where I stated you mentioned Bitshares. Likewise, it is cute how you try to change the topic. Refer to my reply to you again. |
|
|
|
Yes the Butterfly Effect impacts everything. But if anything you are supporting the position that it doesn't matter which method of distribution is employed. So why are you arguing against Monero's "only proof-of-work is fair" doctrine? My point is that the distribution can have some mathematically provable bounds on insider ownership (my plan), so some people may judge this is more or equivalently trustless (i.e. worthy) as a proof-of-work launch. Others may have a different opinion. And my point is Monero can't use that dogma to claim they are provably more fairly distributed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
