TPTB: do you have any thoughts on the "black monday" crash going on right now? Is this the start to the 2015.75 financial crash? A foreshadowing of things to come over the next couple months?
Any steps to take in the immediate future?
As I explained in my post in the MA thread today, this is the false move that causes the peak in bonds by Oct. 1. You should be selling gold, BTC, and bonds, and buying US dollar and US stocks on this low this week. Hold tight in that until Spring 2016, then diversify some into gold and crypto coins (especially mine  ) as they will bottom (<$700 and <$100). |
|
|
|
TPTB: do you have any thoughts on the "black monday" crash going on right now? Is this the start to the 2015.75 financial crash? A foreshadowing of things to come over the next couple months?
Any steps to take in the immediate future?
As I explained in my post in the MA thread today, this is the false move that causes the peak in bonds by Oct. 1. You should be selling gold, BTC, and bonds, and buying US dollar and US stocks on this low this week. Hold tight in that until Spring 2016, then diversify some into gold and crypto coins (especially mine ) as they will bottom (<$700 and <$100). |
|
|
|
Maybe try reading johoe's lottery statement again. Is playing Lotto profitable? Do people do it?
I do not believe Lotto is sufficient, because the payoff it so small. But there are more strategies within that generative essence concept that I think do work. Please do not expect me to reveal my secrets before they are published.
People gamble actively, not passively. This is why this doesn't work for rational miners - they are always profit motivated. Now, if you were to auction off the block reward, then you would be in a situation very similar to POW. The only trouble is, voting will rely on transaction which themselves require consensus. Please do not expect me to reveal my secrets before they are published. |
|
|
|
This back an forth is uninteresting and can be simplified mathematically to the following. F(x)=  CoinCube: For any finite value of x the function is not 0
TPTB_need_war: The answer is 0
CoinCube: For a finite value of x the function is greater than zero
TPTB_need_war: Why do I have to repeat myself the answer is zero
You have a blind spot when it comes to economics. If the opportunity cost of not joining the Knowledge Age is say 10 - 100X greater than remaining in the financed NWO morass, the profit margins of the financed world go negative (in fact this has already happened in China in the export manufacturing sector!) because you have too many competing for the same small bounded value (relative to the Knowledge Age value and the unbounded opportunities for growth). Thus collapse to 0. That collapsed financed NWO system will try to survive by TOTALITARIANISM and eugenics. Q.E.D. |
|
|
|
Not sure what point you were linking to there? Isn't this statement just obviously true, though for any rational miner? Maybe try reading johoe's lottery statement again. Is playing Lotto profitable? Do people do it? I do not believe Lotto is sufficient, because the payoff it so small. But there are more strategies within that generative essence concept that I think do work. Please do not expect me to reveal my secrets before they are published. |
|
|
|
aside from networking i see two other major crypto currency hurdles for rural areas.
1.) cheap way to harness energy for electricity, these network devices should only need little energy from solar, wind or water steam to be online and transmitting signals.
https://www.google.com/search?q=micro+hydropower2.) putting physical coins in common people's pockets..and the coins denominations. simple minded common people don't want operating systems (windows, linux, android or IOS) to transfer their money, they only need their hands.
Sorry physical coins can't be secure. The solution is to make cryptocoins as easy as opening Facebook. |
|
|
|
This back an forth is uninteresting and can be simplified mathematically to the following. F(x)= CoinCube: For any finite value of x the function is not 0
TPTB_need_war: The answer is 0
CoinCube: For a finite value of x the function is greater than zero
TPTB_need_war: Why do I have to repeat myself the answer is zero
You have a blind spot when it comes to economics. If the opportunity cost of not joining the Knowledge Age is say 10 - 100X greater than remaining in the financed NWO morass, the profit margins of the financed world go negative (in fact this has already happened in China in the export manufacturing sector!) because you have too many competing for the same small bounded value (relative to the Knowledge Age value and the unbounded opportunities for growth). Thus collapse to 0. That collapsed financed NWO system will try to survive by TOTALITARIANISM and eugenics. Q.E.D. |
|
|
|
This back an forth is uninteresting and can be simplified mathematically to the following. F(x)= CoinCube: For any finite value of x the function is not 0
TPTB_need_war: The answer is 0
CoinCube: For a finite value of x the function is greater than zero
TPTB_need_war: Why do I have to repeat myself the answer is zero
You have a blind spot when it comes to economics. If the opportunity cost of not joining the Knowledge Age is say 10 - 100X greater than remaining in the financed NWO morass, the profit margins of the financed world go negative (in fact this has already happened in China in the export manufacturing sector!) because you have too many competing for the same small bounded value (relative to the Knowledge Age value and the unbounded opportunities for growth). Thus collapse to 0. That collapsed financed NWO system will try to survive by TOTALITARIANISM and eugenics. Q.E.D. |
|
|
|
This back an forth is uninteresting and can be simplified mathematically to the following. F(x)= CoinCube: For any finite value of x the function is not 0
TPTB_need_war: The answer is 0
CoinCube: For a finite value of x the function is greater than zero
TPTB_need_war: Why do I have to repeat myself the answer is zero
You have a blind spot when it comes to economics. If the opportunity cost of not joining the Knowledge Age is say 10 - 100X greater than remaining in the financed NWO morass, the profit margins of the financed world go negative (in fact this has already happened in China in the export manufacturing sector!) because you have too many competing for the same small bounded value (relative to the Knowledge Age value and the unbounded opportunities for growth). Thus collapse to 0. That collapsed financed NWO system will try to survive by TOTALITARIANISM and eugenics. Q.E.D. |
|
|
|
I think I do, but it is your decision to interpret a challenge in this thread as a demand on your time. Challenges can also be ignored or addressed at a later date. The primary purpose of this thread after all is to challenge and explore your thesis.
Let's differentiate an intelligent, well researched challenge from a lazy "sound bites" (non-holistic) conceptualization slander. Generally you get on my ignore list in one of the following 8 ways: - You have exceeded my patience in your refusal to pay attention to something that was being explained to you
|
|
|
|
The Fed is caught between a rock and a hard place. If it raises interest rates, the dollar will get even stronger. But if it doesn't raise interest rates pensions will go soon start defaulting. And it if doesn't raise interest rates by backing out its bloated balance sheet then it has no ammunition for a future scenario where it needs to QE again. The Fed will and must take a middle ground so it will raise rates in baby steps. But this will spiral out-of-control due to the contagion outside the USA, and with the USA stock markets skyrocketing, the Fed will feel compelled to raise interest rates faster in order to prevent a selloff of bonds. Well even if the Fed doesn't do it, the bond sellers will drive interest rates sky high as they exit to buy US stocks.You heard it first from me. No one else has ever explained that bolded part.Expect MA to echo me soon.  Edit: MA is already getting closer to realizing or stating the above (but I beat him to it): http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/36393This three-month rout in equities is scaring the hell out of everyone and changed the view that the Fed will not raise rates sending the dollar lower in which appears to be completing the bubble in government, particularly in Europe. The bells are ringing across world markets on Monday with a 9% nosedive in Chinese shares that has sent the major commodities into a panicked tailspin and a sharp drop in the dollar as investors try to figure out where to run now.
...
We are seeing a dollar decline in Japan and Europe, which is precisely the two places we need the dollar to drop the most furthering deflation in those economies to push them over the edge.
...
Everything still suggests that we have a Directional Change this week and today could be the intraday low. So pay attention. It is almost time to buy the US stock market. Pay attention. |
|
|
|
This is my long standing (since 2013 when I as AnonyMint was debating with the author of Decrits) objection to proof-of-stake (a.k.a. proof-of-share was my misnomer at the time) that the entropy of the system is bounded and thus can be gamed. I think Vitalik refuted Andrew's other arguments to some extent (arguing both PoS and PoW have some subjectivity), yet this entropy argument remains true afaics. Thus I think it should be emphasized. Note that if PoS does indeed have this inherent flaw, it is likely those who are aggregating stake will try to hide this and thus PoS coins may have no metric of how centralized they are. Of course a similar argument can be made against PoW in that we don't know which pools are really controlled by the same entity behind the curtain, but the distinction is the point below... Seperately, selfish mining is basically orthorgonal. And as you note, it only works when a miner has a very high proportion of the hashrate. A system where any participant has anywhere near one quarter of the authority isn't all that decenteralized.
Agreed proof-of-work as it is formulated by Satoshi is resistant to the above self-reinforcing collapse into centralization (a.k.a. entropy collapse) if the maximum hashrate that can collude for attacking the network is less than some figure between 25 - 51% depending on network propagation vulnerabilities. I'd appreciate anyone pointing out any errors in this post. |
|
|
|
BTC is dead in that scenario
Network fragmentation and Bitcoin is dead because you can spend your coins in every fragment. Not just a double spend rather an N spend. Where N is number of fragments. I'm very sleepy so will sign off. |
|
|
|
Well remember you have bandwidth to worry about You see the devil is in the holistic details. I said in my first post that the bandwidth optimization would work to open more opportunities to attack. So decrease bandwidth, that must equate with reduced # of P2P connections per node, no matter how you formulate it. Thus increasing the probability of being able to isolate it. |
|
|
|
Also if producing a block in BTC cost 25BTC, then no one would do it because the reward is only 25BTC for doing so :|
As most people know, the cost has mostly shifted from hardware to electricity, but when I've calculated mining costs during the last year, there are times when it seemed like a huge percent, maybe even the majority, were mining at a loss. It makes perfect sense from many angles. For instance, if you own 1000 Bitcoins, but only now pull in a small amount through mining at a small loss, you're increasing the value of the stash you already hold by increasing network hash rate. You're increasing both network security and scarcity for others at the same time. I think Satoshi's papers would classify this as an irrational miner, but it seems perfectly rational to me. This is assuming they did not believe the speculative price of Bitcoin would go up, since that would be a different reason to mine, but the results from their direct actions would have an effect. This also occurs on a daily basis for any coin not secured by heavy parallelization computing, since bot nets can mine for free, thus making legit miners unprofitable. Some people still do it anyway...until the coin dies. Seems like one of Satoshi's biggest blunders, not accounting for botnets, ASIC, Chinese government subsidized power, currency manipulation to increase exports which results in all mining hardware being made in one country, etc. That's a lot of anti-decentralization going on. PoW was kind of presented as a bulletproof solution, when it was more like the best bad solution. The real reason PoW mining exists is because there is no other valid form of distribution that can hope to reach a wide audience. As you say how can you know if they are mining at a loss if their electricity is heavily subsidized. Also how do we know they aren't being funded by the $4 trillion Black Budget that is confirmed to exist by Donald Rumsfeld and thus growing hashrate over time to take over Bitcoin. I don't think you can conclude with certainty the motivation is altruistic. Btw, I have solutions to all those issues with PoW that you mention. |
|
|
|
Lets say that A is an important node, lets also say that it has a slightly above average trust weight. It has many connections incoming to it, and many outgoing from it that it makes of its own. Assume that is also has a list of preferred outgoing connections to nodes it knows are of similar importance to it. If you can isolate it then it improves your chances of success slightly.
How do you isolate it so that it can not receive or relay information to anyone without being physically near it?
I assume A is not going to connect to infinite nodes. Thus I assume there are certain finite number of nodes it connected to such that if they were all adversarial then node A would never know it was occasionally receiving a delayed transaction propagation. Even if there were a few connections to A that were not the attacker, those connections connect to other connections and the attacker may be able to map out the network and determine where to place its effort so that as a mesh it becomes blocked off. If you can't visualize this, then I don't know what to say. I can visualize that in my mind. I don't feel like diagramming it. I don't know how successful it would be. Attacker might just maximize number of nodes by diluting trust and how random luck plays out in terms of the amount of trust cordoned off. Now as for the probabilities and what would be the ratio between T and 51% - T, I don't know. Would have to develop a formal model and analyze. Btw the more trust A has, the most incentive to focus all adversarial nodes, on isolating that node. Note there was a research article I saw recently on how surprisingly hierarchical the Bitcoin P2P network is and how propagation is controlled by fewer super nodes. |
|
|
|
I want to know how you isolate a node A, that is honest
You make a holistic assumption about the economics which I can't even make. Again see my point about undersupplied good and the ability to bribe nodes. I mean every one is participating in consensus "mining" (or what ever you want to call it) to earn the most they can for themselves. Until we know well the holistic economics game theory of your complex design, it is not really possible to even reason about what 'honest' means. It isn't dishonest to maximize my profit. I thought you were going to let me leave the thread with my gracious comment that my comments were speculative only. But since you insist, I guess I have to become more forceful than I wanted to. |
|
|
|
arielbit, thanks for this. I'm still looking into the pros and cons of shortwave for this application - plenty to learn! For instance, do you know how/if the "Rural Mesh Network" above could be adapted to be independent from the internet?
yes the "Rural Mesh Network" can be independent from the internet..it is like a separate internet from "the internet" but being disconnected from the internet will prevent you from accessing servers from a different location (e.g. google.com) http://wirelessafrica.meraka.org.za/wiki/index.php/DIY_Mesh_Guide_Downloadusing dd-wrt, an open source hack to cheap routers gives some advanced routing features needed for networking. even Linux pc's can be used as routers. https://www.pfsense.org/i think we should still interconnect any network (e.g. rural wireless mesh, shortwave/HAM radio) to the internet because internet is already inside peoples homes, in their pc's and gadgets..this will greatly increase adoption of crypto currency. These networks should function as backup network or an alternative route for transactions..just like being able to get your money from an ATM in Bank A and an ATM in Bank B even though your money is deposited in Bank C (their ATM networks are interconnected)
One of the arguments for being able to withstand the government's documented moves towards controlling Bitcoin[1], is that mining can move to any jurisdiction and any means of internet connection, even low bandwidth shortwave or HAM radio.
Who ever is rolling on this with professionalism will receive funding to help make it a reality for common people, if any coin I am involved with reached fruition. So do your homework now. |
|
|
|
Of course that is the point of spreading your trust around to as many nodes as possible and target isolating nodes with a Sybil attack. You can also isolate nodes by identifying the patterns that make some nodes more important to isolate than others, so a lot of nodes are isolated by isolating a fewer nodes. No P2P network is perfectly distributed. Again I don't know what the ratios will end up being between T and 51% - T. A proper modeling has to be built. And I doubt that is the only attack. I haven't expended more than 5 minutes yet thinking about how I would attack it. And I don't even know all the fine design points and I would need to probably know that in order to try to identity more vulnerabilities. Also it is not clear if your economic model isn't gameable. I haven't delved in that. For example, nodes might even pay other nodes to accept them as their peers. Remember Vitalik's point that consensus is an undersupplied public good. Unfortunately, altruism-prime cannot be relied on exclusively, because the value of coins arising from protocol integrity is a public good and will thus be undersupplied (eg. if there are 1000 stakeholders, and each of their activity has a 1% chance of being pivotal in contributing to a successful attack that will knock coin value down to zero, then each stakeholder will accept a bribe equal to only 1% of their holdings). In summary, I don't want to comment more other than to say it is a complex model and I would want extensive peer review. Edit: I want to emphasize that my comments in this thread are not to be taken as a statement of certainty (or even probability) that eMunie has a flawed security. I am presenting my initial opinion (based on very quick read of the first blog article) that it is difficult to reason about with certainty and I'd prefer a more thorough analytical review especially a formal model would be fabulous. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
