The thing is ultimately I dont even care about this lol

Im into doing application for blockchain, and with the script thing im doing ill be able to kick start test net with experiment like this to see if they fly or not.

The only thing im concerned with in short term about coins is that they can keep windows of 10-30 min of non extreme volatility, the rest ultimately I can do with it

Im more concerned about the currency side rather than the consensus / speculation / pow aspect, and for distributed application data data, the problematic is much simpler than this.

So ultimately for me it's just curiousity, and if I have time maybe ill do test with a blockchain like this without block reward, and using other way to solve double spent and resolve sybils "non attack" ( merging of the tx ).

And all together your comment also show that you dont see my perpective, and why the thing you point doesnt matter, and what I meant with checkpoint is that you would only need real pow consencus on this checkpoint to "harden" The chain if you want to enforce a particular order on the tx/block, but that would just be about one packet saying this block height is this block hash, and having a pow once in a while on this checkpoint instead of every block.

But even this is not even my main concern for the moment, and I wont speak more about it because anyway I know it's not complete at this point, and if I want to put time in making a blockchain like this and resolving all the issues, ill do it easily with the script.

And other than this for the moment I dont need this to be error free, and you dont seem to really read or understand my own thinking before to cherry pick a sentence out of context and making some kind of strawman arguments out of it, to counter some implication I didn't make to begin with.

In the same time it's also my bad because I dont do welling constructed posts to explain my thinking clearly, but to really do this i would need to really dig some math, layout some equation, and restating a whole lot of things on blockchain seen mostly as distributed ledger, rather than speculative coins or ideal currency.

And I dont have time for this and it's not my focus for the moment

I have put my father on it lmao he is retired so he has time and he is super good in math and economics lol

I showed him the pdf you sent me, he said it's the old notation and there are much better math to do this now, and the heart of the pb with modern math is simple. It's from 1929  he said there are much better book for this sort of stuff now

Then I talked to him about Nash and this stuff , he looked interested, and said he would look into it lol

But other than this, other than getting in the math myself which I dont have the time for, and I dont see the interest for me for the moment, I dont see how to reach conclusion about the whole math model that can be behind bitcoin.

And again im mostly interested in the currency aspect from app side, I dont specially plan on holding lot of coin to sit on them waiting that they Hatch with the invisible hand

So all this side is most irrelevant for me, and for the part it matter for running a coin with value today I would stick to already well tested protocols

The rest would be for pet toy or distributed application data, which is different logic all together.

The thing is, ok it's easy to game, but then, there is nothing to win either

The whole problem of sybil attack become almost nothing.

Because even let say you have a whole new blockchain of 1 millions tx, vs the local blockchain.

Either

1 All the tx are identical, and it's just about reordering them to end with the same block header, which just involved sorting them on any kind of value that can be the same for every node, could be based on the hash or something else, even only the timestamp, and that just involve recomputing the merkle root and the block header hash, period.

2 One of the blockchain contain tx that the other doesn't have, and in the end, it's same than 1, just need to insert the transaction in the good block and recomputing merkle root and block header hash.

3 One of the blockchain contain a double spent for the other, and it's only in this case that there is any kind of need for a hard consensus, either via POW or other.


For all the other cases than 3, all the nodes can already know how to get the tx and block hash in the same manner than all the other node, if an algorithm is made in sort than given a set of N tx, it always end up with the same chain of block headers, then they just have to know they are on the same set of tx, and they have naturally the same blockchain.

Looking into what they are doing with the XThin block with bloom filters and that sort of things is intersting in this regard.

I'm 100% convinced if the goal is only to get to some sort of distributed ledger that protect against double spent, there are much much less expansive / risky manner to reach consensus than the game theory of reward & mining.



It's not that the mining is a 'bad idea', but it's clearly not made in sort to be an efficient distributed ledger system. It's made to induce game theory.

When you think about it, the only thing that make reward / mining game interesting is the speculative value on the other side, because if there is no speculative value, the block reward worth nothing.

In the end there is necessarily a direct connection between the speculative value of the coin on one side, and the cost invested in the mining risk taking. The two balance each other out.

And then it need some kind of 'clock' to be connected to real time economy, and it's how you get the fixed block time emission. Like this the whole thing is 'hard pegged' to real time economy, with the predictible inflation rate etc.

Remove all this problematic of speculation from the equation, and it become much simpler as a simple open distributed ledger. And the pow become overkill if it's just to solve double spend or sybil attack.

I dont think you understand where I want to get at. If you want to build a réputation of the forum, please do it with someone else. If you want to add to my point of view, dont just claim I dont understand.

But I wont go in the full détails of it, the detail are annecdotic and it's not even the main point of the discussion, which you dont even seem to catch.

Maybe ill work on the full détails of how it would work with this idea, but in the context it's just annecdotic to show Pow only motivation is not necessarily only consensus

But for the moment all this topic is just curiousity for me

It's not really what im into, and if you want to even go at critic it, at least pick all the elements.

For the moment im still on the script, it advance good 

I will probably give more news on it in a few days.


It should have everything needed to can create a blockchain with custom block validation algorithm, all the parameters to initialize the node for a specific chain with block reward curve, pos, with event handler for p2p messages, and rpc server + block explorer 

All this in super simple javascript like language, with the module and event queue.

it could probably be compiled to assembler easily, as it's mostly C call to the framework, and it use only base types that the cpu understand like pointer , integers and simd.


For the other discussion if you follow the thread you will see better where I want to get at, and also why in my idea chain ordering could not matter at all.

But again the main point was not even this, but to show pow is not only about solving consencus etc 

In fact where i really want to get at with this is this :

Even if let say you find a system who can solve the double spent in a way or another,( and without block reward all version if chains are 99% interexchangeable, for all the non double spent there is zero need for PoW, and hard consensus is only really needed when there is two incompatible version of the same tx within a certain timeframe )


But ok let say all the double spent pb are solved and there is no pow and reward associated to the block emission.

Then you dont have coin emission, the problem of initial coin distribution, and zero appeal for speculation, because all is deterministic and planned so not much speculative value.

It could be useful in case chain assets are backed by real world assets and another way is found to reach the initial consensus , but still no speculative value.

If you add to this the whole thing of fixed block emission time associated with coin emission/fixed inflation rate, and pow reward, you see the pow main interest is not necessarily the consensus reaching over the double spent .


And you cant understand the full interest of something in bitcoin if you dont see the whole picture and hiw it influence also the other side of the "coin".

And you cant estimate the value of something without taking in account all its purpose, and it's not only though as flat out distributed ledger solving double spent, there is more to it,  and all sides have they own thinking .
 

The more i think about it, the more it's sure it's someone who has good knowledge of it ( for the distributed ledger/p2p), of game theory for the reward/proba pow, and of financial world with the inflation rate, and of startup because of coming out from the shadow with a whitepapper and a fully working portable app in binary, and how fast it went with exchange etc, hard to think it was not planned.

And if you take all those part flat out alone or study only one aspect it doesnt make that much sense.

Hard to think it's made by a single guy in his basement.

But you know even when I talked about this with a guy who is head of software company who works with AMF, he told me for him bitcoin comes from goldman sachs, it's something to "disrupt" and destroy government institutions, that it's very liberal at hearth, even if he didn't understand much in blockchain themselves, he knew it was something anti establishment, based on liberal view and from goldman sachs.

Not saying he is necessarily right, but many people still see it this way, and it's hard to think there is not some deep planning behind.

Or that some forces didn't use it or create it for that purpose of destabilizing certain establishment or trigger some kind of new UBER model for currency itself. And someone wanting to do this must have something in mind. Especially considering all the different aspect that are involved to have something that even fly a bit. Not even saying topping #1 after 8 years at +1000$.

You could just remove the reward, any one can mine new block out of the mem pool, if two blocks or tx are in common, a determinstic algorithm could be used to select between the two.

With the hash of previous block in the header including timestamp for me it's enough to prevent sybil attack. Checkpoint could be made every 100 blocks and hashed in the chain.

And selecting conflicting blocks/tx within a timeframe with deterministic algorithm.

You can only emit a new block based on the last good one, including a timestamp and still need to keep checking other nodes for better blocks based on deterministic algoritgm.

Well would need to cut some corner there with the timestamp of valid chain to avoid sybil attack.


Other than this, all remain the same without the whole competition for the reward.

In other words, the amount of computational resource required to solve double spent is much < to cost of mining the proof.

Same for the complexity and time of solving the problem of double spent with classic deterministic solution, and putting the whole pow in place.

Because blockchain are a very specific case of byzantine general, and a lot can be assumed from other nodes due to the protocol , there is lot of things that can be assumed about the valid chain, and it's not like just any data can fit and there is no way to say which one is good or wrong at all.

It's like all the generals know each other thinking from before the battle. And the plan cannot be just anything.

If 90% of node want to collude on a chain, then it's the good chain, cant really prevent it anyway lol if 90% of users are against the protocol, why would they use it to begin with ?


The thing is in most case , all the chains will still contain sensibly the same txs in an order or another, so there is nothing to loose or win in choosing one or the other, it's just reordering the tx to fit the block header hash, outside of double spent that are fraud and should be removed anyway.  And all non double spent tx made on a chain is also valid on the other.

So in the end, why twist it so much with the pow and reward, for me it's still someone who know well the world of investment start up and trading, and it's not too far stretched either to think there is some kind of financial plan with it, and it's never really clear what those plans are, and there are many shady area surrounding it's thinking and deployment.

Either it was planed as a boat, a space ship, a submarine, hard to even say.

But it's hard to think there no plan with it all, or that it was studied with good knowledge of economic theories, and the world of IT, and he knew at least a minimum where he wanted to get at.

But his idea seem quite oriented with free market and still thinking with buisness in mind , with some kind of philosophy or plan.

But you see it's here I see something that still is weird.

If you are a guy in your basement, and that you want to find a solution to keep the chain coherent, and you choice between à simple well proven determinstic solution , or a solution that is completely off chart, super costly, and risky, why he would choose the second ? Why going through all this bother with pow and block reward who introduce huge complexity ? Why ?

Cause if it's too sélect between block header A and B, it doesnt even matter, any can be chosen arbitrarily as long as everyone agree.

Between tx A and B, same, anyway there is one that is a fraud, so any can be picked up.

That could be just be as simple as selecting block and tx based on which have the lowest hash. Period. No pow, no reward, no mining craze.

Why in the name of ocam razor to insert this  whole pow in the system ?

If it's not to introduce some kind of un certainty on purpose to encourage speculation. Toss a coin and watch the fools making bets.


If we had to deal with a stream of chaotic random data that make no sense in itself, ok for the pow. Because it need strong power to establish the good stream.

But in the case it doesnt make much sense in this perspective of consensus.  

The rule to make the decision could be 100% hard coded in the protocol and basta. The few case where there can be ambiguity are not really that hard to solve.

Well the only way to be sure it isnt there is still to admit the possibility it's a mark of open mind to consider all theory equally unless proven right or wrong. The opposite is mark of indoctrination and there are plenty of non religious form of indoctrination


But it's where I want to get at is that in this particular context, the pow is totally over kill to solve this problem, and if the goal is only to reach consencus in the simplest / more efficient manner, it's not the good solution.

In the context, it's like the byzantine general all know the criteria for what is considered good attack time, and can just rely on this know when to attack.

The criteria to sélect good block and transaction are not that hard-core to require this giant pow lotery.

Well if you see this only through the prism of economy this is right.

But if you think more generally in term of propagating "stananist agenda", law of the jungle, irrationnal risk taking for greed, etc, it can still have interest in that view.

And on a bigger perspective it's easy to see how that could benefit "elite" in the sense illuminati/satanists .

Im quite in line with this idea

In fact my initial idea in seeing blockchain only as distributed ledger lead me to think the whole interest of pow is very limited in this context, and the same result could be achieved in way that are much simpler and less expansive risk, like "fault checking " even if the real pb is not exactly fault checking, but selecting one between two valid version , but even this could be achieved without pow. And the base cost / risk to operate distributed database is not that high.

Maybe there is something im missing.

But it could look as the whole pow thing was just inserted to put some game theory in it, and give it more speculative value or for purely economic reason  ( in the sense market economy) than to really be the most efficient way to keep à decentralized ledger consistent.

Bitcoin is basically two part, one of them is game theory, the other is decentralized transactional database.

Game theory is all about reward vs risk. Bitcoin pow is exactly this. Into maintaining a constant with the risk/reward thing for miner. The risk is the difficulty ( 1/rateof(good nonce)), and reward is the block reward associated with taking the risk associated with finding the good nonce.

The whole mining for reward thing totally fit within game theories.

The other aspect is speculative value, which is something Nash also studied.

Not saying it's Nash who made it, but the model could fit.

Depend on what you call "elite"

Originally elite is the same root than "elected" and are supposed to emerge as responsible to handle certain things for the other people better than what they would do themselves. Shadow elite in itself is bit an oxymoron.

But if you are talking about money worshiping,  if you study occidental philodophy, it's really classic. It's even the stuff in the first star war trilogy with the federation of trade against jedi council . Well just to say it's very classic abc of philosophy since the beginning and plato wrote many about this.

It's not really about elite, but psychology of the mass and pyramidal nature of society. With gauss curve etc you know very small fraction of person really study math or philosophy or care about law , justice, truth, good & all.

It's really a central question in occidental philosophy since the beginning.

And the idea is always the same that money worshiping or greed, materialism , doesnt lead to wisedom, or idealism. Actually materialism is the enmy of rationality and moral for plato. But majority of people are materialistic, and plato was very aware of this.

And it's just where you get Nash theories with proba and game theory who are made to model this "low end of the pyramid" psychology, and model it as a coherent whole with higher purpose even by taking in account all the economic game theory that animate trader and speculators.

And im not sure the whole demarch would be so coherent coming from plain dumb money worshiping greedy person. Those people just run mining hardware and play on bitrex. They dont design whole system like this in the shadow.

Yes but to me you see it's there that a connection with taoism can be made, even with the conclusion of Nash theories.

Again would need to do the maths to be sure, but im fairly convinced the whole design rely on tieing up two opposite for them to work together as a greater whole with a certain global order even if it's composed of two opposite forces.

The two sides are the market/trading/speculation, and the other side, the predictible nature supposed to emerge from it, from the Mining, to keep the chain coherent and secure the transactions.

Im pretty sure it would come out as butterfly shaped thing where the two side are kept together by the pinning of the two side on the block reward/inflation control/pow/proba.

Because it become obvious to me now there are two game playing together with the bitcoin, and each can have opposite interest, but it's kept together as a coherent whole because of a certain dynamic that take in account the two side and make them work together as a common interest emerge from the system even if each side only think about his interest.

In that it could be close to some taoist principle, add to this the kanji, it still make a lot of coïncidence,

But maybe it's not this at all, again just an idea that start to form in my mind

So you think it's respectfull to answer with two trash words, without even constructing a sentence ?

And still there are meaning associated with the kanji, and it might not be a person name, but an immortal concept.

And yes we cant tell for sure if that's it or not, just a possibility

Well satoshis still mean wisdom , and the other central origin of. Path of the middle to reach wisdom , it's still plain budhism/taoism .

And yes either we assume it's name or not is assumption. Just saying we already know it's not a real name, and so the assumption to assume it's a person name to begin with is moot.

Coïncidence or not, cant tell for sure.

I studied taoïsme too, not sure why you try to construct my point of view as a lack of respect. Specially calling me garbage in the same breath. It's not a lack of respect in taoist culture ?

To me still from the day I sensed bitcoin was not really moral or good currency in my standard lol

Only because it's based on reward and probability, and game theory, it's the kind of stuff to dance with the devil, and no matter how you think it's going to work out, it always lead to amorality .

Actually I hate the principle of game theory and probability math lol

I remember I read about this before, but i didn't make the connection before lol

But all the mathematics and economic theories always stem from philosophy or sociology deep down.

Game theories come from dumb philosophy theories. It's known since plato and the very inception of rationalism,idealism, mathematics,  and republic / democracy that people who only fit on this model of reward and greed are opposite to idealism, intelectualism, and often are very short sighted regarding consequences. And will be anti law, anti morality, anti gov, anti anything that prevent them from maximum personal reward. Morality is always a constraint.

Now Nash was very aware of this, and I think his thinking is that it's possible to "game the game" , specially by exploiting this short sighted view and ignorance of long term to design system in sort to do some kind of jiu-jitsu with short sighted greed to trap them into acting in  a certain manner for short sighted seek of reward, but the law if the game have other implications who turn the system into some equilibrium, even if all individuals are only thinking for themselves in short sighted view.

And there are things that can lead me to think btc is this kind of jiu-jitsu to game the game theory based on proba and tieing two logic together through the system of pow/reward/coin emission all tied together.

But to be sure, would need to do the maths lol need to find someone good with proba and algebra and market economy to put the equation together to see if some prectible behavior is supposed to emerge through some factor who is made to be kept constant in the equation, even if it's seemingly random and clumpsy.

Care to elaborate ? Or just a little hate burp in the morning ?

But I said it's just a possibility, if you have more element to disprove it, go ahead,  otherwise you are the one posting garbage

But from japanese these kanji can also have meaning, and they are not very common name.

Well deep down blockchain are still a decentralized database, who preserve total order

Even if the way the chain will be constructed is not ordered, the system make in sort to garantee total order consistent across the network.

It's this principle that took me to blockchain originally because they solve lot of pb inherent to distributed / decentralized system.

I can agree with you on certain point, but I would still be more nuanced about it, it's why I said to me there are contradictory aspect to btc.

Cause on one side there are these clumpsyness ,  can be seen on many points.

But on the other side, still, only the fact it was by far the first working crypto currency, that it's still #1 after 8 years, and it integrate many aspect like distributed database, the sig scripts, and the whole concept still involve good design thinking. Not something pulled out in a sunday afternoon by a student .

But yeah after indexing tx on 256 bits is quite a waste. No data base system would ever do this. The only interest is maybe for separate storing of the tx, where the whole prev tx integrity can be checked by the hash, and another form of index could get wrong tx or block. But in the context of database indexing and transmission  over network, clearly huge waste. Nothing use 256 bit hash of the data as index ! lol

It's why for me there are contradictory aspect making me think either it's a guy who was splinter gift in one area, and just average on others, or the concept and design from a guy, and the whole btc project made by a company to exploit it.

Either it's like work of genius where he doesnt need to put much care into things because he know exactly where he want to get at, and make the choice with a specific life time in mind with enough security for the use case in that time frame.

And sometime, the impression of security is more important than actual security, specially when talking to investors or the masses, since I saw the movie equity im not the same lol

It's why to me most of decision seem to have Been taken more in the context of startup thinking from a company, rather than by some nerds math genius.

But still the overall design is still smart, even if it contain  lots of things that "look secure and good" for average and investor, but clumpsy and not optimal from expert analysis.

But I cant get out of my mind that there is still a brain behind the concept. Either the btc dev copied the base  from something else, or he developped it iteratively, and left some things designed for something else.

But it still contain too much new things and mathematically /  economically sound concept, still #1 after 8 years for me to think it's just a student in his basement.


For me the clumsiness can be explained by :

Complex math theories implemented in cheap code

Targeted more to investor traders and gamblers rather than to developpers or expert

Severe time constraint on the development



But again maybe maybe not, it's hard to be sure of anything, neither about the original intention or if it evolved as planned.