Probably because you can't understand the underlying mathematics.

One would have to live under the stone to not hear about e.g. Black-Scholes option pricing model.

1) Have you talked to your satellite ISP about using SCTP/IP instead of TCP/IP?

2) Have you talked to your satellite ISP about using UDP/IP multicast in the downlink?

3) - - - - - - - about using MPEG system sub-channels in the downlink?

OK, my attempt at answer through a negative didn't work. So here's the more straightforward answer:

Because the scientific economists are willing and capable of building the statistical and mathematical models that in practice do work and have a decent predictive power about the future of the economy.

How about an answer through a negative?

Q: Why it is so easy for everyone in academia to dismiss the so called "austrian economics"?

A: Because the Austrians propose that mathematical modeling and statistical methods do not apply in the real world economy.

Thanks, but I don't want to read prose explaining things. I wanted to see the textual representation of your "software manufacturing" rewrite of the short buggy C++ snippet and the safety-improved C++ snippet. AOP is a know paradigm and I don't see a point of re-explaining it.

I just wanted to be able to se qualify how much technology is in what you propose and how much is pure marketing bullshit. Your "methodology" link is pretty much own-words rewrite of the "Microsoft Site Server 3.0 Commerce Edition" marketing blurb. Did you intentionally plagiarize it (counting on the readership not remembering Microsoft Windows NT 4) or was it because your life experience was more or less equivalent to Microsoft state-of-mind circa 1999 (with C++ substituted for Microsoft Visual Basic)?

Point of though for you: Chess is essentially a two-dimensional game yet chess players developed linear one-dimensional  representation of chess games to be able to talk and write about it.

Please elaborate your post and show how you propose to linearize your "software manufacturing" representation of this sample program.  It has to have a one-dimensional representation to be really useful.

All I saw in your links is this picture which (I cannot even post the link, because your Javascript & DOM are so complex that they completely don't render in Safari and in Opera I can't "Copy Image Address"). I have to transcribe the portion of the image:


If this is another attempt at "visual programming" then it will probably fail to provide progress in the same way as all previous attempts at two-dimensional programming degenerated into "freehand paint programs".

It reads like you misdiagnosed this or the OpenWRT is the dumbest PPPoE router I have ever seen. It really terminates the PPPoE session when the PPPoE frames are coming in at the connection saturation rate? This is unbelievably dumb, put still possible. Can you just configure this "ping the PPPoE connection" out?

Get the proper version of router firmware without vulnerabilities. Enable UPnP and poll it using upnpc-static from a .cmd script with a task scheduler. When there's an IP address change cleanly shutdown and restart bitcoind.

It sounds like obsessive-compulsive behavior. DSL is an "always on" technology, you are supposed to keep your DSL *-box continuously on. Your ISP uses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_spectrum_management to continuously optimize your connection parameters. Probably any of your neighbors that use VoIP or IPTV and keep their *-box on at all times have much better Internet connection as a side effect of not being obsessive or stuck in behavior from the POTS dial-up modem times. All DSL ISPs I have ever seen always recommend to keep their connection on for around 10 days after starting the service to let the DSM calibrate. But I've also heard of people who are annoyed and distracted by the blinking lights of their *-box.

Or maybe you have a DSL modem that is separate from the router and independently powered?

Bitcoin P2P network only deals with numerical addresses: 4 bytes for IPv4 and 16 for IPv6. How you think you are going to push a  string DDNS name through the Bitcoin protocol?

Bittorrent clients poll UPnP every few minutes, typically 3, most I've seen was 15. In fact many popular UPnP gateways have time-to-live of 30 minutes, meaning that if they don't see the UPnP packet from a device for 30 minutes they consider it switched off/disabled.

If your question was about how often you can poll DDNS provider this is usually proprietary competitive information related to how they mitigate denial-of-service attacks. You are unlikely to get a straight and simple answer. DoS attacks from misconfigured routers is their everyday occurrence.

Many DDNS providers will kick you out for abuse if you poll them too frequently. Or forcibly upgrade you to an expensive business plan.

The better choice is to get the upnpc-static program from the UPnP library that Bitcoin is using. Use that program to rapidly and continuously query your outside IP address from the UPnP gateway. Once you detect a change of IP addresses then you could stop and start the bitcoin daemon.

But as gxmawell said your wanna-be-full-node isn't really helping much the overall Bitcoin network. You'll just end up spamming the network with your IP address changes. If all the DSL users with daily changeable IP would start doing the above procedure I think the overall availability and integrity of the Bitcoin P2P network will go down.

The whole process of the peer address distribution in the Bitcoin protocol would have to be significantly redesigned: shorter timeouts, lower time-to-lives, possibly adding a cryptographically signed IP address revocation message, etc.

From my observation of the behavior of Bittorrent protocol the overall swarm quality also suffers. Depending on the clients used the really-dynamic-IP peers sometimes constitute between 10 and 100 times the true active peers. With Bittorrent there are multitude of disjoint swarms whereas in Bitcoin there is just one global swarm.

Let me guess: you are on a DSL connection with PPPoE or PPPoA and your ISP is enforcing the periodic IP address change.

If the forced IP address change periods are reasonably accurate (e.g. 24 hours) you could stop and start your bitcoind using the task scheduler. I don't think bitcoind is capable to deal with the outside IP address change, unlike pretty much all bittorrent clients.

Poland has some sort of "promoting small business" and "limiting bureaucracy" regulations that allow people/businesses to operate for certain time (perhaps one year?) without filling all the paperwork. bitomat.pl was an earlier example that failed before it could even incur all the formal requirements.

You start writing like a bolshevik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism . I'm pointing this just to make sure you are aware. I still enjoy your writing and read most of it.

Actually CD-RWs. Using erasable media is a great protection against accidental reuse, one of the most important failure modes of the OTP.

You have to be really clear whether you are against "reimplementing code" from the libraries or "inventing hokey-pokey algorithms". In particular SSLeay/OpenSSL is a swiss-army-harvester-combine-cum-crutch that is a culprit of many bugs and inconsistencies in many, many codebases. It is not uncommon for a undergrad-student-level exercise projects to beat the efficiency of the supposedly well optimized code from the well-known cryptographic libraries, both open source and for-pay source.

In particular rewriting conventional crypto implementations to properly take advantage of the SIMD instructions that are now available in nearly every processor gives great payoffs in terms of power efficiency and resistance to various attacks.

One thing is the PhD-level knowledge of relevant mathematics/algebra and the other thing is simple patience and careful craftsmanship required to write clear and neat code. There's lots of the source code available out there that for the expedience of portability and meeting some very narrow benchmarking goals had completely forsaken readability and maintainability.

I did not know that insult. Cypherfunk is probably someone partway between cypherpunk and cypherflunk. 

You just googling way, way more than anyone in your neighborhood. It happens all the time. Google is defending itself against scripts running amok. The exact quantity of what it means "way more" depends on the network neighborhood you're connecting from. Since you've posted your IPv6 address we know that you use Comcast Cable. Post some more about your network hookup (e.g. are you using router/gateway or just a modem), maybe someone familiar with a similar setup will help you how to change both of your IPv4 and IPv6 address.

Edit: Since you're using IPv6 here are two addresses to start:

http://iplookup.co/      - IPv6 enabled free geolocation
http://test-ipv6.com/   - exactly what it says.

Perhaps there is a different way of explaining my position.

I see most of the posters in this thread interested mostly in relatively short-term, startup behavior of their chosen blockchain-validity algorithm.

I'm taking an opposite view. I assume already reaching an equilibrium or steady state. Every proof-of-something algorithm postulates existence of some society where a monetary system with that algorithm is dominant.

Lets give a two very simplified examples:

1) Pure proof-of-work society expends all otherwise unallocated electricity defending their monetary system against an attack. Every power station is always running full-tilt strengthening the defenses against the attackers.

2) Pure proof-of-stake society always keeps maximum amount of money in a semi-cold storage as a guard/moat against an attack. Every spent or circulated monetary unit is weakening their defense against the ever-present attackers, so it is always good thing to avoid spending money.

To me those examples look like dystopias, but at the same time I understand that they are intellectually very attractive to some people. (1) is an utopia for people with bunker mentality and paranoiacs. (2) is an utopia for compulsive tightwads.

I'm more interested in societies that are open and participatory and defend themselves only when really attacked, not under perpetual state of self-imposed war on drugs, terror, counter-revolution or other bogeymen. Doing sort of the reverse-engineering process I want to ponder which algorithms would be stable in the society I would like to be a member.

The above leads me to the observation that the actual owners and users of the capital will have to have a say in the design and operation of the proof-of-whatever algorithm. All the paper algorithms designed by outsiders and operated in a social vacuum will be either unstable or lead to a societies that is much worse that the current ones.

Hating is not enough. The customers/investomers need to learn from the experience. To round it up, I'll recommend a short book first published between the world wars, and republished in 1999: "The Big Con: The Story of the Confidence Man". It should be available through the nearest library. A short excerpt:

• Locating and investigating a well-to-do victim. (Putting the mark up.)
• Gaining the victim’s confidence. (Playing the con for him.)
• Steering him to meet the insideman. (Roping the mark.)
• Permitting the insideman to show him how he can make a large amount of money dishonestly. (Telling him the tale.)
• Allowing the victim to make a substantial profit. (Giving him the convincer.)
• Determining exactly how much he will invest. (Giving him the breakdown.)
• Sending him home for his amount of money. (Putting him on the send.)
• Playing him against a big store and fleecing him. (Taking off the touch.)
• Getting him out of the way as quietly as possible. (Blowing him off.)
• Forestalling action by the law. (Putting in the fix.)

Proof-of-stake does nothing to prevent vertical integration where the large stakeholders (who can keep their stakes semi-cold for a long continuous time and have cross-subsidizing income from the other side of the transactions) can easily outcompete others who can only stake their short-term revolving capital. It is the same problem, only the first initial step to the capital concentration is different.

Well, who's going to be mining if not exchanges, when the general mining becomes continuously non-profitable?
I don't think that MtGox was postulating the existence of different blockchains.

The way I understood the blockchain discrepancy in May of 2013 was that Bitcoin Foundation and/or core developer team evaluated transactions on both of the competing chains, choose one branch and then reimbursed the affected exchange (OKcoin?) or the affected user (macbook_air?). Edit: Apparently I misremembered things. A double spend was successful, but not reimbursed by the Bitcoin Foundation nor the core development team. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki End of edit.

I don't think that Bitcoin Foundation would have enough capital to do all future reimbursement in case of chain discrepancies.

The regular accounting behaviors when the "books don't close" is to halt or suspend trading until the mutually agreeable resolution could be achieved. In my opinion no large capital entities will risk Bitcoin trading when they have no say in the decisions made when the discrepancy occurs.

One could argue that the May 2013 event was resolved in favor of those running buggy software and to the detriment of those running the software free of the bug that causes fork. That bug could be easily fixed with simple 2 line DB_CONFIG file and restart of the Bitcoin client, which would take much less than 10 minutes.

On the other hand I understand the pressure that was put on the core development team to issue a "patch" and "new compiled executables", especially from the people unfamiliar with operational issues of the database systems.

Finally the core development team is always torn between the needs of two vastly different subgroups of the Bitcoin milieu: the anarchists and the statists (or etatists, meaning those who are OK with the existing state's governments, not anti-dynamists). In the future I could envision a chain split between a monetary exchange (Bitcoin<->FIAT, subject to KYC and other regulations) and e.g. ammunition exchange or survivalist gear exchange patronized by the anarchists. This is the situation where I think you wouldn't ask the Bitcoin elders about the chain correctness, but you'll simpy synchronize to the chain that will allow you to trade your Bitcoins for USD or bullets, depending on your particular needs.