|
Costa Rica is an interesting choice. They managed to avoid having a military!
I'd be concerned about culture for your kids in the schools. Seems too laid back. The "mañana" mentality which is pervasive in any brown skin country (winter forced white people to be serious and productive, long before Socialism destroyed our culture).
|
|
|
|
CoinCube that is the big open question which is regularly discussed at http://mpettis.comI don't think it will be smooth. I am expecting a Minsky Moment collapse and I think China will gyrate through war first before settling into a new path of growth. I think this is why Asia won't become the new financial center of the world until 2033. China can't head there in a straight line. So yes, I am concerned Asia could also be hit with war. This is the reason I am also looking at South America too. NZ seems far enough away from the China sea. With Singapore citizenship, I bet you could residency in NZ or vice versa, if SE Asia descends into war. But the other possibility is Japan is really bottoming. They will have a flash crash and finally bottom. Thus Asia is aligned for mutual interest in a growth model with the Asian Union starting this year. I suspect Asia might rattle the sabers but end up working together. Japan needs SE Asia. |
|
|
|
They could concentrate influence all they want. In fact, we could give control of the network to Bank of America, the FED and Goldman Sachs and it would not matter.
They are unable to 51% attack. What is the worse they could do? The worse thing they could do, would be to black list transactions or slow down network consensus. If they abused their power, people would modify the network topology and kick them off the network.
So there is
- a set of consensus nodes and you probably dont care who runs these. Ideally should be someone you trust.
- a piece of software to ensure the consensus nodes are not fucking up. If they fuck up, it detects them and removes them and any other sane peer will automatically do the same.
If Goldman Sachs, the FED and Bank of America were running the network, they can follow the rules OR they can violate and get their asses kicked off the network. They might be able to get their transactions executed slightly faster than other people, with network control, so there might be a slight benefit. However, any brazen abuse just gets their asses kicked off the network.
That is why this system is perfect. It is perfect, not because it stops people from attacking, but because it just doesnt care.
Proclamations and pontifications. Experience has taught me that these evaporate because you are not omniscient. I don't have time to dig into the details of and figure out how to game your model. Put it into the wild, then you will find out. There is a huge difference between a few nerds messing around with (limited scope) models and research (i.e. theory) and actual real world practice. For example, you assume above that ("sane") peers have an incentive to follow the protocol ("the software") and not game it. |
|
|
|
|
OROBTC,
NZ is shifting with Kim Dot.com leading the way politically. It is a member of the USA's 5 Eyes, but the people are turning against their own government. It is a socialist country, but the natural resources far outweigh the population at this point, so the capital is not bankrupted. An influx of high tech workers can transform NZ into a paradise and this is what I think will happen. I am even drooling at the pics of NZ. I wouldn't go for NZ citizenship, but I might live there during the summer. That Kim Dot.Com could so impact the politics there is indicative of NZ being small enough and manageable enough to adapt, unlike the USA which is a social capital morass of epic proportions.
Australia is also shifting politically back towards more conservative but it is bigger morass (incorrigible, youth drugs is very widespread) and less adaptable. But still much more upside than the USA. Has a wider range of climates than other choices in Asia. As a NZ citizen, you can reside in Australia.
Canada is slightly better than the USA for similar reasons, but I agree with you the climate is too cold for me. For many Americans it may be the most practical plan B.
CoinCube is wise to select Singapore as the best of Asia. I agree. Hong Kong is another slightly more turbulent option. And a pathway to leveraging China. You can still get residency and a travel document (Stateless person) there by just landing there and renouncing your US citizenship (a little secret most people don't know, but make sure you check with an attorney first).
I am ignorant of Taiwan. Passed through the airport there only. Met one young man from Taiwan in 1991 in New Orleans and showed him around the French Quarter, then he sent me a calendar scroll from Taiwan! He told me Philippines could never be productive because it is too hot of a country. Decades hence, I agree with his astute analysis.
The corruption of the Philippines is precisely what makes it such a great place to live. The Philippines is for people who hate to have any rules. Filipinos hate discipline. If you like discipline, erudite schools, and an accomplished life, don't migrate to the Philippines! The Philippines is the place to go to goof off. I am about done with the Philippines. I would like to focus more on quality of life and work. The Philippines will remain a great place to play and I will be back to visit. But not a great place to live if you want to maximize productivity. Everything is more inefficient.
China is not for most Westerners. Yes you need to learn how to work within their system which is a mix of lies, corruption, two-faced, backstabbing, but also erudite and productive. Did you see they built an entire building in a day?
South America is violent. But there are some good options there for citizenship. One doesn't need to live where they hold citizenship. One would want to study the future tax direction of that country though. Most Latin American countries are very socialist. Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil come to mind as being very socialist. Guatemala appears to be less so and more like the Philippines.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube, China can write down the debt because they have so much upside. Japan was already a first-world economy and had already maxed out. China is no where near maxed out, and is in fact highly retarded from its potential because of the Communist Party holding back the full capability of China's free market. All that top-down driven debt growth was focused on negative profit margin activity being driven by the corruption in the political system. The coming Minksy Moment correction will force radical openness in China and it's fully potential can be realized. China isn't bankrupt in social capital as the West is. The population is still young enough (not as young as SE Asia, but not mostly retiring as the West is) and very erudite with strong family values and hard work ethic. Also Chinese are naturally explorers and traders, unlike the Japanese who are insular and tyrants (and a very old population). Through trade instead of war, China is leveraging Africa, SE Asia, etc.. The West is decadent and the social capital is negative and everyone is entitled and overpriced. The Chinese political elite if they could, would extract as much as they could from the peasants, just like the American elites. However, they have a much weaker hold on power. They are also engineers and not lawyers and have a much clearer vision of the world undistorted by lobbyists, think tanks and a controlled media. China has experienced thirty years 10% economic growth with living standards doubling every eight years for decades. The Chinese political elite are aware that they will remain in power only as long as they continue to deliver prosperity and increasing standards of living. For Chinese, to return to even living standard a few years ago is a 30% decline and the public would riot and draw blood. Even a decline to 6% yearly growth is problematic, while Americans have been kept at the same living standards since the 70s. Chinese riot when pork prices rise and hold their leaders accountable for even things they cannot control, while Americans accept even the greatest abuses of government.
Chinese do not want cheap slogans about "democracy", they want iPhones, sports cars and houses.
There is a turbulent period coming for China wherein the people come to realize that what they've been doing doesn't work. If China choose to tax and financially repress to prevent writing down the debt for 26 years as Japan did, then the Chinese standard of living will decline (and it is not that high yet), thus I think the Chinese peasants will riot and the system will have to change. The last major inflection point for China was when Deng embraced capitalism under a State model. This coming Minsky Moment should push China to make the shift to ending the State oppression. However during this transition, the State may try to make war with Japan as a scapegoat and to direct peasant angst towards nationalism. The Chinese are not as religiously nationalistic as the Japanese who whor(e)ship an Emperor. The Chinese spit and defecate along the road. Japanese are very conforming society and more like cats than the Chinese who are more like dogs. Japanese sip tea and have many formalities of social behavior. The Chinese gets things done any way they feel like it (did you read about them putting straw in the concrete to save money so the bridges collapsed, the Japanese would never do that!). China is a mainland held back from conquering the world by geography (Himalayan mountain range blocks projecting supply lines for war) and Japan is an island. Two different cultures arose from that differing geography. |
|
|
|
Cross-posting from the Skycoin thread... The increase in technology, knowledge, productivity, machinery is constantly pushing the cost to do things down. A person could operate one lathe by hand, now a technician can operate a thousand CNC controlled lathes. Soon a technician with robots will be able to operate an infinite series of lathes and shuffle work units between lathes and CNC machines in a factory anywhere on earth, from a laptop.
A single person will be able to design a thing, have millions of pieces machined out and then assembled into a structure. The physical world will increasingly look like a game of Minecraft being played by robots. The same robot on earth that can build a castle or pyramid in an Africa desert over the internet, can build the same structure on the moon or mars, from the same laptop on the same beach.
---
The reason companies are organizing theses cartels through government, is that they are on their deathbed. The large companies are unable to achieve consistent long term profitability without a government organized cartel, subsidies and a heavy financial manipulation by the FED.
That is the bifurcation of the economy I was writing about in the Economic Devastation thread. http://mobihealthnews.com/36874/the-evolution-of-ibms-watson-and-where-its-taking-healthcare/http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/21/doctors-lawyers-peaking-with-2015-75-the-crash-burn/The two fields that are peaking with this turn in the ECM appear to be law firms and the medical industry. Both has become extremely arrogant and way over-priced. The entire Obamacare was REALLY about hospitals who had to provide care for indigent people who just showed up in emergency rooms. Obamacare was all about making sure these medical-for-money corporations did not have to do anything for free. But in trying to guarantee their financial security, he has established the high.
The legal profession has committed suicide. The big firms have so over-priced themselves and pad the bills unbelievably it is outright criminal. I actually had a lawyer send me a bill [for an] attempted phone call not answer[ed]Analysis on a closer level reveals how the greed of the “Largest 50” firms has taken it toll. There has been a distinction shift in legal work from the “Largest 50” firms to the “Large Enough” category is far more dramatic. The “Large Enough” firms have almost doubled the share of high fee litigation matters that generate fees exceeding $1 million or more rising from 22% three years ago to 41%. This is contributing to lawyers being laid-off. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/21/comment-from-the-medical-profession/I laughed out loud this morning reading your blog. Your blog piece about how doctors (health care in general) and lawyers are peaking with 2015.75, I believe is spot on.
Looking back at the past 10 years I have been in practice, the fortunes of my group do trace out the ECM. There was a soft landing from the bottom in March 2009… an Ice storm! Independent medical practices that are still afloat are delving into real estate and other ventures. Just look at the number of practices or any health care ventures in strip malls and retail commercial space at this time. Think back ten or 15 years ago…. how many back then? I believe this is part of the peak.
At a conference not dealing with medicine, I sat next to a hospital administrator of a small outlying facility in southwestern Pennsylvania. The projections from his association for their future is for 50% of small outlying hospitals to be closed in the next 5-10 years. (The periphery goes first!)
From a personal perspective, I appreciate very much your opening up your thoughts and teaching to the little guy. I have felt for some time that something is wrong but could not put my finger on it. |
|
|
|
The increase in technology, knowledge, productivity, machinery is constantly pushing the cost to do things down. A person could operate one lathe by hand, now a technician can operate a thousand CNC controlled lathes. Soon a technician with robots will be able to operate an infinite series of lathes and shuffle work units between lathes and CNC machines in a factory anywhere on earth, from a laptop.
A single person will be able to design a thing, have millions of pieces machined out and then assembled into a structure. The physical world will increasingly look like a game of Minecraft being played by robots. The same robot on earth that can build a castle or pyramid in an Africa desert over the internet, can build the same structure on the moon or mars, from the same laptop on the same beach.
---
The reason companies are organizing theses cartels through government, is that they are on their deathbed. The large companies are unable to achieve consistent long term profitability without a government organized cartel, subsidies and a heavy financial manipulation by the FED.
That is the bifurcation of the economy I was writing about in the Economic Devastation thread. http://mobihealthnews.com/36874/the-evolution-of-ibms-watson-and-where-its-taking-healthcare/http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/21/doctors-lawyers-peaking-with-2015-75-the-crash-burn/The two fields that are peaking with this turn in the ECM appear to be law firms and the medical industry. Both has become extremely arrogant and way over-priced. The entire Obamacare was REALLY about hospitals who had to provide care for indigent people who just showed up in emergency rooms. Obamacare was all about making sure these medical-for-money corporations did not have to do anything for free. But in trying to guarantee their financial security, he has established the high.
The legal profession has committed suicide. The big firms have so over-priced themselves and pad the bills unbelievably it is outright criminal. I actually had a lawyer send me a bill [for an] attempted phone call not answer[ed]Analysis on a closer level reveals how the greed of the “Largest 50” firms has taken it toll. There has been a distinction shift in legal work from the “Largest 50” firms to the “Large Enough” category is far more dramatic. The “Large Enough” firms have almost doubled the share of high fee litigation matters that generate fees exceeding $1 million or more rising from 22% three years ago to 41%. This is contributing to lawyers being laid-off. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/21/comment-from-the-medical-profession/I laughed out loud this morning reading your blog. Your blog piece about how doctors (health care in general) and lawyers are peaking with 2015.75, I believe is spot on.
Looking back at the past 10 years I have been in practice, the fortunes of my group do trace out the ECM. There was a soft landing from the bottom in March 2009… an Ice storm! Independent medical practices that are still afloat are delving into real estate and other ventures. Just look at the number of practices or any health care ventures in strip malls and retail commercial space at this time. Think back ten or 15 years ago…. how many back then? I believe this is part of the peak.
At a conference not dealing with medicine, I sat next to a hospital administrator of a small outlying facility in southwestern Pennsylvania. The projections from his association for their future is for 50% of small outlying hospitals to be closed in the next 5-10 years. (The periphery goes first!)
From a personal perspective, I appreciate very much your opening up your thoughts and teaching to the little guy. I have felt for some time that something is wrong but could not put my finger on it. |
|
|
|
|
Summary of my opinion follows.
I just want to save you (or myself) time. I'd rather get directly to what can work.
IMO, your consensus algorithm is a lower priority because collective consensus is not provably decentralized (and I don't think you've proved it yet and I am very skeptical that collective consensus of humans can be decentralized because afaics it is incongruent with nature and our big brains). Your worthwhile experiment could be a competing currency but IMO it is not the high priority structure we need first to put in place.
If any highly talented programmers, cryptographers, and/or mathematicians wants to help me implement the paradigm shift structure I outlined, then please PM me.
|
|
|
|
What you want is not "decentralization", it is "federation". You trust a number of servers, but each individual chooses the set of servers they trust. Email is federated. It is not a centralized system and there are multiple domains and anyone can run their own email server if they want to and do not want to use a third party domain.
Incorrect. fed·er·a·tion ˌfedəˈrāSH(ə)n/ noun a group of states with a central government but independence in internal affairs. the action of forming states or organizations into a single group with centralized control. |
|
|
|
The consensus algorithm is bullet proof.
You appear to have ignored that your partner admitted the consensus model in the white paper does not include modeling the economic incentives to game it. I do not believe it is bullet proof. I do not believe that consensus can ever be leaderless as I explained upthread, unless the actors (e.g. ants) are incapable of survival without the group. Humans have big brains and thus have a large personal opportunity cost. Thus they maximize how they game the collective for personal benefit at the expense of long-term failure of the collective. This algorithm is not "perfect" but it is vastly superior to Bitcoin and it is vastly superior to all other methods we are aware of.
Easy to say when you don't have a real system with the same market cap as Bitcoin, being attacked every day to try to find weaknesses. I would say at this point Bitcoin's is clearly vastly superior to vaporware. Until we can analyze thoroughly the economic incentives in your consensus model, we can't declare it is theoretically superior to PoW. |
|
|
|
The Chinese political elite if they could, would extract as much as they could from the peasants, just like the American elites. However, they have a much weaker hold on power. They are also engineers and not lawyers and have a much clearer vision of the world undistorted by lobbyists, think tanks and a controlled media. China has experienced thirty years 10% economic growth with living standards doubling every eight years for decades. The Chinese political elite are aware that they will remain in power only as long as they continue to deliver prosperity and increasing standards of living. For Chinese, to return to even living standard a few years ago is a 30% decline and the public would riot and draw blood. Even a decline to 6% yearly growth is problematic, while Americans have been kept at the same living standards since the 70s. Chinese riot when pork prices rise and hold their leaders accountable for even things they cannot control, while Americans accept even the greatest abuses of government.
Chinese do not want cheap slogans about "democracy", they want iPhones, sports cars and houses. Agreed. The Communist Party is dying and the free market is rising in Asia. Eventually, China will be overcome by the same leadership as the western world and the growth will stop and extraction will begin. This process has already begin in Brazil and it took less than a decade.
Perhaps some many decades from now, but not before China rises from the bottom-up and becomes the new financial center of the free world, while the USSA (and perhaps Europe) sinks into a police state here and now. Try to see the world as cycles and not a flatline. |
|
|
|
Apologies but frankly I think your economic models are masturbation (not referring to the consensus algorithm model). Sorry. You are geek who is having fun but IMO you are entirely missing the point. ( I come from the small-startup commercial software world where we used to speak extremely bluntly in the office. My boss when we created what is now Corel Painter told me, "If you are so smart, why are you working for us and not still running your own software company as you did before". Note I proceeded to leave shortly after that and created by all by myself CoolPage which grossed a half $million in year 2000). Degrees-of-freedom and innovation is where all prosperity originates. Inflation and deflation have nearly nothing to do with it, because innovation is: http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Annealsunexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market And innovation far outstrips the factors you are modeling. I would like to get to the point of how to create decentralized money. I believe that is only achieved through a paradigm that enables multiple competing currencies, not through a winner take-all collective consensus (which I believe will always be a lie about decentralization). Specifically I have asserted (as well did Satoshi and Moldberg) that a widely adopted unit-of-account is the paramount factor in money (so that volatility is not a factor). Domestic businesses don't worry about the international dollar exchange rate. They can plan unfettered by that volatility. All your top-down, cathedral models won't help you. Enable the free market to experiment and innovate. Don't try to proclaim you know the perfect design for all. http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_AnnealsKnowledge Anneals
Unsophisticated thinkers have an incorrect understanding of knowledge creation, idolizing a well-structured top-down sparkling academic cathedral of vastly superior theoretical minds. Rather knowledge primary spawns from accretive learning due to unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market. Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math). Given Kurzweil's sensationalized magnum opus is the technological singularity, it is surprising that he is apparently not well studied in the field of social knowledge formation. Update: you are modeling the factors that were more paramount in the Industrial Age where fixed capital investment was a limiting factor on innovation. We are entering the Knowledge Age where all one needs is a computer and their mind. |
|
|
|
- Bitcoin. First working decentralized digital asset.
False. Not decentralized. More accurate statement is "collectivized consensus that claims to be decentralized but is arguably controllable by a few pools". You mean first attempt at fooling people about what is decentralized. |
|
|
|
NXT (Proof of WorkShare
Typo. |
|
|
|
I have been trying to think of a paradigm shift. That would radically shift the problem space in order to provide a breakthrough.
Afaics, the way decentralization appears to work in nature is multiple competing entities...
Collective decentralization is not the natural order of how nature organizes. Rather what happens in nature is a plurality of centralized options (which is in effect decentralization), i.e. nature decentralizes through creative destruction. I've been trying to think about how to apply that to money systems, which is difficult because we need fungibility and volatility is eliminated through a common unit-of-account (a plurality of currencies is unnatural). At this point, I am thinking that collective decentralized currency is a lie. It can't exist. It will always come down to trusting some parties, whether it be the developers or the pools or the influential nodes, etc.. This is the dirty little secret that all the experts know but don't want to admit publicly. Thus I've started to think more about how the trusted parties can't be coerced by the government, i.e. anonymity. And less about the perfect decentralized consensus, which I coming to the realization that collective decentralized currency is a lie and an enormous waste of time. So don't you see the obvious solution? Daniel Larimer was on the correct conceptual track with his BitUSD for BitShares. But he messed up some of the details. In particular I don't think a decentralized BitUSD unit can track the exact exchange value (my logic was expressed long ago as AnonyMint, I haven't monitored to see how BitUSD worked out?), and instead I would design the options to track a mutually agreed exchange rate server (each decentralized option bet could agree on a different server so this isn't centralization if we assume that we when pay we can convert to their desired unit in real-time, i.e. this would depend on liquid markets and well automated decentralized exchanges). I didn't like the BitShares centralized design for market clearing. I would need to go over the details of that again. We need multiple competing centralized currencies (hidden behind hidden servers on a high latency[1] Tor improvement, because hidden servers are broken in Tor and will never be sure enough due to the low-latency design, ditto I2P) and each of them needs to have a unit which is stabilized by a decentralized option market to maintain a peg to the target unit-of-account. So that solves all the problems with instant transactions, because all the consensus lie crap gets tossed out the window. Then you have the unit-of-account economies-of-scale without the centralization of collectivized consensus. Then you hide the leaders so they can't be coerced. The market can vote with their money on which leaders (currencies) they wish to hold value in but the key point is they can hold it in a pegged unit to their desired unit-of-account, i.e. you could hold CurrencyA or CurrencyB or CurrencyC while pegging your value to the USD, Euro, Bitcoin, or any asset you choose. The advantage is that if you think CurrencyX is more well managed than CurrencyY, then you vote with your value. The exchange value of each currency can float while your value will remain pegged to your choice of unit-of-account. Even some of those currencies could be decentralized consensus crypto-currencies, but they would have to compete against the centralized choices. And these multiple choices for currencies is a decentralized paradigm, that is congruent with how nature decentralizes. Collectivized consensus as a winner take-all unit-of-account is not decentralization. This is the (less complex, more simplified) short cut to where we need to be. Any one ready to work with me? It doesn't matter if crypto zealots can't religiously agree. The masses don't get a fsck about your ideological mumbo jumbo. They don't know the difference between a centralized hidden server and a decentralized consensus lie. They only care that when they click "spend" it happens easily and quickly and that their value isn't volatile and any other advantages that can be offered, e.g. autonomy, anonymity, etc.. Again I like paradigm shifts. I hate digging canals with spoons. Update: also there needs to be an option to pay, because Tor is a honeypot because it is free. So there is the demand for micropayments that drives your crypto-currency demand. And so then you help Bitcoin also, providing better anonymity for sending transactions to the network. And where is most of the demand for Crypto? Silk Road! Gambling! Hiding wealth! Etc.. Nefarious activities and speculation. This is the idea I have presented before and everyone ignored. I guess I will just have to implement it by myself! [1] High latency is relative to the traffic in the system. The more traffic the less the latency and be relatively less susceptible to timing analysis. Also Tor is broken for other reasons including the fact that it interfaces to non-hidden servers via exit nodes (which is a can of worms in many ways and leads to correlation). Etc, etc, etc. We'd have to dig into the details of it. Bottom line is Tor needs to be replaced. |
|
|
|
|
We will need to see some economic game theory models such as the economic incentive to game influence to double-spend the system or game what ever incentive you are offering to those who participate in the consensus algorithm.
I am very skeptical that you've discovered the Holy Grail to turn nature upside down and suddenly collectivism can self-organize without leaders. I think influence can always be purchased, and nodes can follow who they are paid most to follow.
Afaics, the way decentralization appears to work in nature is multiple competing entities. When ever there is a collectivization in nature, it is always gamed by leadership, except for perhaps ants. But ants are innately constrained by their inability to survive individually, so they are acting in their best interests to organize to prioritize the colony over self. Humans don't act this way, apparently because we don't rely on a collective intelligence in order to carry out our daily life. Ants can't even function individually without the colony. It appears the ant's brain is not sophisticated enough individually to survive as an individual. It is the collective brain of the hive that raises the collective intelligence so the colony can do amazing feats such as build bridges, etc.. I like to think of an oversimplified analogy where each ant is a neuron or synapse in a human brain.
|
|
|
|
Incorrect. Google "pool hopping". Miners can surely mine (follow) for many pools.
Pool-hopping is the practice of mining in a pool only during the good times, and leaving during the bad times; by so doing, a pool-hopper can get more out of the pool than the value he contributes to it, increasing his rewards at the expense of other miners. Pool-hopping gets its name from the act of constantly hopping into and out of the pool (to either other pools or solo mining). Pool hopping does not make sense for counting voting power. The power of the miner is still the same. One could pool hop for reasons of wanting to spread their voting power around not for gaming the payout algorithm. There is a variance disincentive to dilute your mining shares across many pools though. But I also am not convinced your algorithm has a disincentive to not participate in aggregatingconcentrating influence. Your whitepaper says roughly 2% of influential nodes can game the system.
Yep, so if of the same scale of bitcoin network(8000 nodes), it will need 150 top nodes to collude. Your statistic counts nodes irrespective on their relative influence? I doubt it. If not, then the number of nodes could be much less if their relative influence is much higher? I think you are obfuscating here. The point is that in Bitcoin the influence is much more concentrated in a few pools. You apparently assume the influence will be less concentrated in your algorithm, thus you claim it will take more nodes to collude. You are asserting that there is no disincentive to not participate in aggregating influence in your algorithm. Prove it.
I believe an influential node can offer to pay those who will participate in gaming the system. Which is what PoW implicitly does.
aggreating is inevitable, that's the reason why there are top influential nodes. actually in our test dataset, each of the most several top nodes has about 30% followees. a node can follow MANY nodes, so the power it gives out is decentralizated. If a node is paid to only follow exact ONE node, then the followee is highly suspicious. Bitcoin pools are highly suspicious but nodes get paid more, so they mine there. That is the reality of life. Profit talks, ideology walks. As you pointed out, GHash could hide its influence so that the ideology surely walks and miners get on with maximizing their profit. I don't see how it will be any different for your algorithm. The nodes will maximize their profit and the influence can hidden with Sybil attack (as it is for Ghash hiding that it is really multiple pools or what ever technique they use to create obfuscation). |
|
|
|
Considering an extreme case, if US gvmnt develop a super miner, then it can beat all of the other mining power.
And so it can control the bitcoin network without even collude with other miners, and we can do thing against it even we know it.
The free market has more resources than the USA government. But most of the free market is not interested in mining Bitcoin. I had a design that could potentially get everyone to mine (they didn't need to buy an ASIC, they already have an ASIC inside their recent model CPU) and by making it unprofitable to mine at scale. But in our algorithm, US gvmnt will fail on both of the two aspects.
Afaics, they can still buy and/or confiscate influence. Afaics you haven't thoroughly analyzed the ways to game your system economically. I expended a lot of effort to design a hash function which can't be monopolized by ASICs (note it can be accelerated by an ASIC, but in theory can't be monopolized and that is a deeper explanation revolving around making PoW unprofitable for large economies-of-scale by leveraging the fact the home electricity is already budgeted!). I was trying to think of clever ways to decentralize the pools. But when I forced myself to think brutally realistically, I started to come the realization that I was fighting against nature and I would lose.sourced.
Whatever PoW algorithm is, it's always a paradigm of voting power by invest. So anytime US gvmnt step it, the decentralization is over. There is more ASIC computing power inside existing CPUs than the US govt could manufacture. Moreover they couldn't source enough electricity to match the world's existing computing power. Let's stay on point. This is drifting off point. |
|
|
|
Honest nodes can move which pool they send their shares too. Unfortunately the larger the pool, the more consistent the revenue for the honest nodes. However, I suspect a similar game theory disincentive will arise in your model also, because influence = power = money.
Nope. If you are a miner of PoW, then if you join a mining pool, you voting power goes there. I'm sure you are aware of "pool hopping". Miners can surely mine (follow) for many pools. See your point below... But if you a node in our algorithm, then you can follow MANY nodes,
as a result, for a network with N nodes, if a node is followed by all the other N-1 nodes, it still can't control the consensus.
But....if in the PoW case, the pool will have 100% computing power.
This is not a clear statement. Your whitepaper says roughly 2% of influential nodes can game the system. Not considering other factors here, just for voting power, the paradigm is apparently different:
- If you a miner, you voting power is given by your investment, you can split your power into different pools, but the result is your power is weaken by yourself.
- But in our case, you give other nodes voting powers, meanwhile, your voting power is also given by other nodes.
You are asserting that there is no disincentive to not participate in aggregating influence in your algorithm. Prove it. I believe an influential node can offer to pay those who will participate in gaming the system. Which is what PoW implicitly does. iamback
are you going to purchase some skycoin?
I wouldn't answer that because I am not here to make the developers my enemies. I am continuing here to see if we can reach any mutual understanding that might help us. And so the people who follow me can read my logic not just about skycoin, but generally what I think about crypto-currency and where I want to lead it. I haven't bought any altcoins yet. I also didn't invest in Bitcoin yet either. Partially because I was bankrupted by a chronic health issue and I made some poor investment decisions in 2012 and lost most of my stored wealth (in a sort of zombie and high adrenalin mental state due to suffering a combination of Dengue, Acute Peptic Ulcer that Exploded, and Chronic Possibly Terminal Viral Infection). I didn't know anything about investing before 2006 when I got into gold and silver. By about 2007 I was starting to make headway on understanding and even tried to sell my silver at $21 at the peak but my sell order was refused by the people holding my silver in the USA. So I had to ride it down as I had to physically remove my silver from there. I published an article predicting the move from $25 to $48 and then crash, a year before it occurred. But again in 2011, I wasn't positioned well to make a sell order at $48 (physical silver that was illiquid in the Philippines), so again I had to ride it down and I tried to get cute by playing with options to try to recover what I thought was what I should have had by that time in net worth. It was about 2012 that I started to take Armstrong more seriously, but it wasn't until after I lost most of what I had remaining that I realized Armstrong was the only analyst whose calls had always been correct. I had followed his writings when he was in prison, but it read to me as discombobulated noise. Only when he starting writing his blog daily, with much feedback from readers, was he able to communicate effectively. When rpietilla gave me a heads up in early 2013 on Bitcoin at $10, I couldn't enter the investment even though I thought he was probably correct, because my tolerance for risk has completed evaporated, because my health was in a tailspin and I had lost most of my wealth and had become very conservative trying to hang on to what I could. Since then I sort of stabilized my situation somewhat, but bankruptcy approaches in a few months, so I am more focused on projects that can generate an immediate income at the moment. One salient point is that complexity is difficult to manage. That is why it is best to simplify and understand well all the factors that can come into play. |
|
|
|
|
I have been trying to think of a paradigm shift. That would radically shift the problem space in order to provide a breakthrough.
One potential solution (and I think it is the one the world currency must adopt also because a reserve currency held by one nation causes so many distortions) is to make the unit-of-account a basket of currencies.
Thus there would be multiple competing currencies and we would hold our value in multiple currencies simultaneously, and when we pay we can pay in multiple currencies according to the basket weights.
But the centralization problem remains who will decide the basket.
Money is just a really big problem. It is all about confidence and trust.
Decentralized currency is the concept that we can trust the broad consensus, but the reality is technically there is no way to eliminate influence = power = money.
Sorry I don't think there is any solution to this.
Thus I am thinking now more of how to gain market share for a currency and make sure the trusted parties can't be coerced.
I am giving up on eliminating trust and influence.
For how long are we doing to delude ourselves? We (idealistic Westerners) can pontificate and do research experiments until 2032, but the reality is decentralized currency won't exist except as a figment of our imagination and delusion. Meanwhile the Asians are busy building real capital.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
