...These conditions will never be met and thus finance will never cease to exist...
Sorry but this bolded assumption is myopic and exemplifies you still haven't grasped my conceptual insight entirely. The more that final production moves closer to the individual with lower startup costs, the more uncertainty and risk decline. When a human can fully leverage his knowledge creation, he earns such an enormous ROI that several iterations of failure between each success are a non-risk and a no-brainer decision versus slaving away as an employee. Trust me, everyone who has made this leap has never gone back. I certainly never will work for financier nor employer ever again. I mean how obtuse is it really? If you try to swat a fly 10 times before you succeed does that require finance?  To the degree this is increasingly true how is it incompatible with what I wrote above. I imagine that even in a future knowledge age there will be some projects with such a low chance of success with correspondingly high reward that it would not be feasible for an individual to pursue alone and that some form of finance would be used. Change 10 times to 10 thousand times and you have a situation that may call for finance providing the payoff justifies the investment. I don't know why I have to repeat myself. What you keep forgetting CoinCube is that relative size can force an withering paradigm into waterfall collapse into extinction. Refer the math I provided in the post about relative rate of growth.
Maybe you thought you were providing a counter-example by stating that some high ROI project might have too large of an economy-of-scale (risk of failure isn't a finance problem if the scale is small, remember my fly swatting analogy), but the entire point is the Knowledge Age will destroy the need for economies-of-scale because the production is becoming more fine grained and modular (e.g. designs for 3D printers, 3D CNC mills, 3D house printers, my work on complete solution to the Expression Problem for software fine grained modularity, etc). My best guess is your bias is you want so much to believe that your world won't radically change. My bias is I want the world to change, and I want the areas where I am strong to be strong.
Perhaps I would certainly benefit from continuation for the status quo for as long as possible. However, I do expect change to be gradual. My suspicion is that time will prove you correct but not in the time frame you hope to see as the majority of the economy transitions from one fiat global currency to another perhaps SDR's. Time will tell, however, and this is not a point I have much interest in debating. Oh I agree that the majority will transition to SDRs. I don't see that dying until at least 2032 and probably withering some decades on from there. The main reason being that morass can wage war on and steal from those in the Knowledge Age. In short, I see the Age of Totalitarianism first before the Golden Age of Knowledge wins outright. P.S. How much are you earning CC? I hear programmers of my caliber are earning roughly $0.5 - 1 million a year counting the stock options. I was earning $0.3 - 0.5 million a year including those factors in the 1990s and that is not even inflation adjusted. Unfortunately I let my career slip away. Do you understand why he doesn't have a right to demand my time (especially I am battling Multiple Sclerosis, am 4 days into fasting, in a deep financial hole, and risking it all to make sure we all have the cryptocoin we desperately will need). |
|
|
|
My own experience has been that name substitution does not further constructive dialog.
There was no constructive dialog because he was determined to not do his effort on the vast information that is already in the thread. Instead he wanted to be the 30 minute in-and-done superstar. As if his laziness is my responsibility!  CoinCube did you earn 2 university degrees by making your homework and study the responsibility of the authors of the books in your curriculum. And yet you apologize for his behavior and try to passively aggressively slander me. Sorry you need to pick sides between productive and failure. Choose. BldSwtTrs has been polite in his posts.
Absolutely not! Notice he is on ignore (except for the brief moment to quote the following) so I don't know if he has wised up yet and apologized to me. Here he is blaming his lack of reading comprehension on me, which is not polite. If he was polite, he'd expend more than 30 minutes before assuming that my writings didn't already explain it. Even you warned in the opening post that even for someone of your intellect (with a Math degree and a medical doctor) that you needed 2 weeks to fully absorb, yet he comes in here guns blazing like a typical Dunning-Kruger dufus: in front of a lack of a solid argument to explain why finance doesn't give an edge in knowledge creation and why wage earning will stop being a thing in the future, I have no other choice than to think that you have at least one blind spot
He had another choice which was to expend more time studying, reading, researching, and thinking before slandering and wasting the time of the author. I suspect he had some education in finance and is offended. OK so because East Asia is emerging that means finance will no longer be important. You are a formal logic genious!
...
So because manufacturing is disrupted by 3D that means finance will no longer be important. Because we all that the only reason finance exist is for building factory!
...
You are less smart that you think you are, and I am smarter than you think. You seem pretty bad at assessing that kind of things.
|
|
|
|
The key issue in my mind is that the coin must not be hard coded to todays tecnhnology.
The solution is a design that does not significant increase the block chain size as the transaction rate increases. I know of no other design that solves the bandwidth scaling other than my design. |
|
|
|
Where do you get all those 25%s and 50%s from? Byzantine generals problem talks about 33%.
We can pick numbers out of a hat all day long to reinforce your theoretical argument, but it remains that in practice its difficult, costly and requires a lot of effort for what is probably minimal gain.
At the very worst case, we have a solution that is as secure as Bitcoin, but with many other benefits as will be revealed soon.
A point of distinction is that the adversary only needs to acquire as much trust T as is necessary to be able spread his nodes around sufficiently to block (delay) propagation to (51% - T) of the total trust in the network. I don't know how small T can be until it is properly modeled. Maybe it is only 5%. The other 46% then comes for free. Maybe it is 26% then the 24% comes for free. We won't know until the system is holistically modeled. I don't have time to go back and forth here. Your design might be somewhat secure or it might not. It is far too complex for someone to know that in this thread. Will require much peer review and modeling. |
|
|
|
Oreo and Trolcookies, When this stuff started in Nazi Germany, everyone was as nonchalant and non-alarmed as we are now. It won't happen to us. |
|
|
|
|
I just wonder if we are going to cut to the chase or continue bloviating.
Yeah there is even 4G in Philippines in about 0.01% coverage by land area. And you won't be signing up with an unregistered account.
|
|
|
|
If you can block 25% (do you mean 25% of 100% or 25% of 75%??) of other trust, then that leaves 50% of honest remaining, of which your 25% is not enough to overcome to a majority, at best you have a 50/50 chance., which is the same as the attacker with no Sybil as discussed in the article.
If adversary has 25% and can block propagation to 25% of the other trust, he can allow the first spend to propagate to remaining 50% of the trust, then he can propagate the double spend to the other 50% (i.e. his 25% and the other 25% he originally blocked). He only needs an infinitesimally small more % to be sure his double spend wins. TADA! It's magic. Which puts you in exactly the position I said you would be in, 50/50 which is also stated in the document. So its not magic at all really is it? That is a lot of work and effort for a 50/50, you'd be better off spending all that money on buying scratch cards, and the effort used by scratching them off. The adversary with say 26% of the trust and block 25% (sure you can read where I wrote "infinitesimally...") can impart 51% trust to the double spend thus he wins. Not 50/50.
Then I will delete this post and not reply further at this time.
If adversary has 25% and can block propagation to 25% of the other trust, he can allow the first spend to propagate to remaining 50% of the trust, then he can propagate the double spend to the other 50% (i.e. his 25% and the other 25% he originally blocked). He only needs an infinitesimally small more % to be sure his double spend wins. TADA! It's magic.
Somehow I knew you weren't going to keep your promise  Because he did not follow my request to edit his prior post. Instead he made a new post. So I did too. See how that works? |
|
|
|
These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.
In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common. I can't even get reliable 3 Mbps download with 512 Kbps upload where I am. Many users will be on wireless devices. Yes I as I said it isn't everywhere, but you don't need everywhere either, just "enough" places. I'd add that I've had 100-ish megabit wireless for quite a while too (and I sometimes use a location in a G7 country that just got upgraded to the ultra-speedy 3mb/384mb after many years stuck at 1.5/128!). No if you want to maximize resiliency against a bezerk totalitarianism, you need to be able to mine from any where and any connection. We don't even know if they will shut down the internet. We have to be prepared for everything. You love to argue just to argue don't you? How about cutting to the chase? Or do you really don't want to win. I don't disagree that massive blocks or fast blocks are problematic with a Bitcoin-style chain (nor that being functional over ham radio, mesh networks, etc. would be preferable) but I'm not sure that "increasing" centralization is inevitable with simple scaling either. It is a race between capacity and available connectivity. Six years ago when Bitcoin started the availability of even 10 megabit connections was far narrower. Gavin may be wrong overall but there is some merit in his approach too.
It depends on the threat environment. I'd prefer ultimate resiliency given there are no tradeoffs and it is simply better in every way. |
|
|
|
These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.
In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common. I can't even get reliable 3 Mbps download with 512 Kbps upload where I am. Many users will be on wireless devices. Yes I as I said it isn't everywhere, but you don't need everywhere either, just "enough" places. I'd add that I've had 100-ish megabit wireless for quite a while too (and I sometimes use a location in a G7 country that just got upgraded to the ultra-speedy 3mb/384mb after many years stuck at 1.5/128!). No if you want to maximize resiliency against a bezerk totalitarianism, you need to be able to mine from any where and any connection. We don't even know if they will shut down the internet. We have to be prepared for everything. You love to argue just to argue don't you? How about cutting to the chase? Or do you really don't want to win. I don't disagree that massive blocks or fast blocks are problematic with a Bitcoin-style chain (nor that being functional over ham radio, mesh networks, etc. would be preferable) but I'm not sure that "increasing" centralization is inevitable with simple scaling either. It is a race between capacity and available connectivity. Six years ago when Bitcoin started the availability of even 10 megabit connections was far narrower. Gavin may be wrong overall but there is some merit in his approach too.
It depends on the threat environment. I'd prefer ultimate resiliency given there are no tradeoffs and it is simply better in every way. |
|
|
|
Hi tromp. Remember me? AnonyMint.
Sure. Who could forget:-? Damn I thought I was flying below the radar.  |
|
|
|
Finance is primarily a tool to push forward consumption and disperse risk.
Actually it turns out that it metastasizes and aggregates risk until it becomes Too Big To Fail. |
|
|
|
I mean how obtuse is it really? If you try to swat a fly 10 times before you succeed does that require finance? I don't expect people to see insights the first time, but I do expect them to not be in woefully unable to think once it has been explained to them. |
|
|
|
I would agree with you when you state that proving finance will vanish entirely requires you to prove that 1) uncertainty will disappear and 2) humans will stop caring about the passage of time. These conditions will never be met and thus finance will never cease to exist. However, lets exam the conditions needed to ensure not the elimination of finance but rather its gradual and relative decline.
To prove finance will decline longer term requires you to show:
- uncertainty will progressively decline
- humans will care less about the passage of time
Sorry but this bolded assumption is myopic and exemplifies you still haven't grasped my conceptual insight entirely. The more that final production moves closer to the individual with lower startup costs, the more uncertainty and risk decline. When a human can fully leverage his knowledge creation, he earns such an enormous ROI that several iterations of failure between each success are a non-risk and a no-brainer decision versus slaving away as an employee. Trust me, everyone who has made this leap has never gone back. I certainly never will work for financier nor employer ever again. I mean how obtuse is it really? If you try to swat a fly 10 times before you succeed does that require finance? I learn key insights from software development. One of those was the amazing advantage of incremental development. In the words of the 150+ IQ genius progenitor of the term "open source" Eric S. Raymond, "release early and release often". Why? Precisely because the finer grained the iterations of failure, then the less risk. What BitAssHole doesn't grasp is the concept of entropy. He is not sophisticated enough and I lost desire to teach him because he is not teachable. He is one of those players that argues with the coach and gets kicked off the team in spite of maybe having some talent. What you keep forgetting CoinCube is that relative size can force an withering paradigm into waterfall collapse into extinction. Refer the math I provided in the post about relative rate of growth. My best guess is your bias is you want so much to believe that your world won't radically change. My bias is I want the world to change, and I want the areas where I am strong to be strong. But the deal is I made the choice to pursue the Knowledge Age when I was about 20 years old. By then I had figured out that a computer was cheap and powerful to work with and I only needed myself, yet if I continued my degree in Electrical Engineering I would be a slave to a corporation and large fixed capital startup costs (so I shifted degrees midstream). P.S. you are correct to differentiate between fixed rate of return usury finance and investment with risk. I covered that in my essay which you linked from the opening post. Apparently BitAssHole didn't bother to notice. Btw, I can only see his posts if you quote them. |
|
|
|
If you can block 25% (do you mean 25% of 100% or 25% of 75%??) of other trust, then that leaves 50% of honest remaining, of which your 25% is not enough to overcome to a majority, at best you have a 50/50 chance., which is the same as the attacker with no Sybil as discussed in the article.
If adversary has 25% and can block propagation to 25% of the other trust, he can allow the first spend to propagate to remaining 50% of the trust, then he can propagate the double spend to the other 50% (i.e. his 25% and the other 25% he originally blocked). He only needs an infinitesimally small more % to be sure his double spend wins. TADA! It's magic. |
|
|
|
It was a suggestion to someone I know and hopefully a wake up call to readers to be careful. But he is of course free to make statements such as this where he is implying some very complex math and algorithm with some blackbox non-peer reviewed simulation model is some how at some higher level of soundness (it is the sort of proclamation only n00bs can make because they don't seem to understand that even academics make big mistakes, that is why peer review is so important). And I provided a link for him in my prior post for one reason all consensus algorithms up to now may be fundamentally flawed. Specifically I expect serious issues to be found in NEM, once someone expert has the time to dig into breaking it. The more complex a model, the more likely it will have flaws. Bitcoin's proof-of-work is simple and withstood the test of time so far and up to a $10 billion market cap to attack (and yes I do think it is fundamentally flawed also but at least the flaws are enumerable which I can't say for complex designs): PoI is one of the most complicated consensus mechanisms in crypto created by real published academics. Stellar also has real academics working on their consensus mechanism, but it works in a completely different way so it is hard to compare.  For an in depth explanation you can read the technical report in chapter 7. http://nem.io/NEM_techRef.pdf |
|
|
|
So to decentralize it a node reputations system kind of like NEM's Eigentrust++ is being used to make sure that nodes stay honest and are checking each other and giving each other ratings and reputation.
I caution you jabo, that my impression (having interacted with you in the past) is you are reasonably smart guy but don't have the necessary domain technical expertise to make some of the conclusions I've seen you posting lately: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159691.0I know everyone wants to think they've found the holy grail. Unfortunately most all of it is fundamentally flawed, but only the most expert can see why. And we don't have enough time to write white papers revealing the flaws in every whiz-bang new tech for crypto. |
|
|
|
Hi tromp. Remember me? AnonyMint. |
|
|
|
Evaluation of eMunie
CN = consensus node = holds local information regarding the state of the ledger, and likely peripheral repository content.
IN = issuing node = challenges CN to insure they hold the correct data
SN = service nodes = only they can earn trust, and only if they respond to services timely. Thus CN and IN must be SNs.
TXN = transaction creation node = seed the trust earning process for each txn for a chosen service. Unclear how the network reaches consensus on trust awarded.
To start, one nitpick is there is no reliable concept of time in a consensus network, so instead you must base decay on blocks elapsed. If you entrust consensus on time, it adds another complex attack vector.
First, there are no blocks!!  I knew that of course, which was another reason I am thinking the design is flawed. But let me read your reply below in case I don't yet have a complete picture... Because the commital of transaction is fluid and real time, and providing you have a majority of honest nodes where no Sybil attacker has achieved 50%+ of the trust, you can safely and easily approximate the current time to within about a minute. Time management is also another document, but that fact should be apparent if you "read between the lines" a little when digesting the consensus.
You have to consider the holistic interaction of conflicts in trust and game theory. This is already getting so complicated that I don't think anyone can be sure they've addressed all possible attack scenarios. Any way, I realize such as statement is FUD without an explicit attack vector described. And you haven't released all the details yet. But I will just caution you that I think you opened Pandora's box. I see much simpler and provably modeled ways for a design which has a near boundless transaction rate. I am all for experimentation and having more competition though. That is way we hopefully get something better than Bitcoin. I'll try to make this my last reply unless you write something that I feel I must address. Thank you for your respectful reply. I've been aware you were working on this back in 2013 when I (as AnonyMint) used to debate with the creator of Decrits (one of your former competitors to the general concept of a complex delegated trust consensus design). I've gained a lot of domain knowledge since then, as I assume you have to. Btw, I wrote a balances design with PoW in 2014 and coded some of it, but abandoned it. If I understand the general conflict resolution concept (ignoring for the moment possible attack vectors created by the bandwidth optimization that need more study), transactions are propagated over the network and counter signatures (CS) weighted by trust of the SNIDs propagate telling each node which of each set of transactions (amongst each double spend set) are the "first seen" transaction.
Your understanding is slightly wrong, its not explicitly the "first seen" transaction, as the first seen may not validate for that node at the time. Because transactions are fluid, nodes may be missing dependent transactions and so can not validate the first seen. By the time the second has come along, those nodes may have the dependent transactions required and so counter-sign on it. This is part of the reason why an attacker that causes a conflict without a successful Sybil attack has a best a 50/50 chance, as explained in the document, of the second transaction being accepted Of course I put "first seen" in quotes because it is really "first propagated" with dependencies. I don't think your last sentence changes any of my concerns below. The attack vectors are DoS (especially on network propagation), Sybil attacks (spreading trust around to infinite nodes in order to control the transaction propagation order legally in the protocol), and collusion of nodes (legally within the protocol).
You address the Sybil attack due to trying to impart trust to self by creating spam transactions, but you don't address the Sybil attack designed to control propagation order. Additionally your proposed solution to transaction spam is flawed because if the transaction fees are greater than what is earned by any node(s), then eventually the money supply must go to zero (and that is true even if you create new money supply in other ways since the game theory will be holistically connected).
Again your understanding breaks down here. A successful Sybil attack can prevent and hinder the propagation of counter-signature information to some degree by not forwarding on counter-signatures, and it can also isolate some nodes from broadcasting counter-signatures at all. But you don't need every node in the network to present a counter-signature to form a consensus on a transaction, only a majority. Thus to completely prevent any counter-signatures and prevent any transaction committals at all, the attacker would have to isolate ALL nodes in the network from ALL other nodes other than his to be sure of disruption, and that is no easy task to do. The most an attack of this type could do, would be to slow down the finalization of transactions. Sorry but I think your conceptualization is incorrect. The Sybil attack can game the double spend by allowing only a minority of the trust to see the propagation of the first transaction, then it can feed the double spend to the majority of the trust. For example, the adversary has 25% of the trust and can block propagation to 25% of the other trust. There are so many possible attacks, I would need to think about this for a long time to enumerate them all. In my high IQ visualization, the system has no reference point and thus not Byzantine fault tolerant. In Bitcoin you can target a miner and isolate him much easier, provide him with bad transactions to mine, and not broadcast on any of his blocks. Isolating ALL miners its a monumental undertaking.
Because Bitcoin relies on proof-of-work so it doesn't matter which order the transactions propagate, because only one will make it into a block and then the network hashrate will mine on that block. The only way to cheat in Bitcoin is to have a majority of the hashrate (or 33% for selfish mining) to create an orphaned transaction. See Bitcoin has a reference point called a block. Note your point does apply to 0-confirmation transactions in Bitcoin, which is why they are unsound. And recall the recent discussion on VanillaCoin's zerotime being unsound as well. It is a tough nut to crack, but I dare say I did. Also what is the financial incentive for these nodes to participate? Game theory can't be analyzed without that information.
Explained in a follow up post further up, it should really be left to a document of its own on economics, but the information I've provided should be adequate. Again I asserted in my prior post this will drive the money supply to 0, else it won't prevent profit from spam transactions in your design. |
|
|
|
It's not completely pointless at all! If sufficiently many users are willing to run a microminer at a small monetary loss, then it becomes practically impossible to run a commercial mining farm. I think we're quite far away from that scenario, but it's a theoretical possibility. I hope that eventually a hundred million people will care enough about decentralisation, and in that case it might happen.
You astutely describe my design for eliminating commercial mining. But I don't rely on them caring about decentralization. If you can market it as a lottery, it may work. You've got one aspect of it. Of course Bitcoin's full node requirements are too onerous as you point out. If they aren't full nodes then you really don't have decentralization. |
|
|
|
Well I thought eMunie might be a competitor to what I am doing and a potential solution to the totalitarianism, but now I highly doubt it: Evaluation of eMunie
CN = consensus node = holds local information regarding the state of the ledger, and likely peripheral repository content.
IN = issuing node = challenges CN to insure they hold the correct data
SN = service nodes = only they can earn trust, and only if they respond to services timely. Thus CN and IN must be SNs.
TXN = transaction creation node = seed the trust earning process for each txn for a chosen service. Unclear how the network reaches consensus on trust awarded.
To start, one nitpick is there is no reliable concept of time in a consensus network, so instead you must base decay on blocks elapsed. If you entrust consensus on time, it adds another complex attack vcctor.
If I understand the general conflict resolution concept (ignoring for the moment possible attack vectors created by the bandwidth optimization that need more study), transactions are propagated over the network and counter signatures (CS) weighted by trust of the SNIDs propogate telling each node which of each set of transactions (amongst each double spend set) are the "first seen" transaction.
The attack vectors are DoS (especially on network propagation), Sybil attacks (spreading trust around to infinite nodes in order to control the transaction propagation order legally in the protocol), and collusion of nodes (legally within the protocol).
You address the Sybil attack due to trying to impart trust to self by creating spam transactions, but you don't address the Sybil attack designed to control propagation order. Additionally your proposed solution to transaction spam is flawed because if the transaction fees are greater than what is earned by any node(s), then eventually the money supply must go to zero (and that is true even if you create new money supply in other ways since the game theory will be holistically connected).
Also what is the financial incentive for these nodes to participate? Game theory can't be analyzed without that information.
You will have a very difficult challenge to beat me in terms of designing a better consensus network. Seriously. Good luck.
P.S. you have decent coin name. Perhaps you may consider abandoning your (what appears to me to be a) faulty design and joining me.
No personal offense intended, and I will not harp on this. Again good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
