"Peerless Monetary Framework" as competitor to Bitcoin?

[stevekreizl]

I ran across a newly proposed cryptocurrency that promises to dispense with the blockchain and peer-to-peer network. It's called "Peerless" (very subtle). Have a look at http://www.peerless.money, though this URL forwards to an educational site (strange). But it's a monster white paper, and it promises digital cash that's completely secure, anonymous, and decentralized. Is this a serious competitor to Bitcoin?

[BurtW]

What is your connection to this? 

[Scott J]

Sounds interesting. Will certainly give this a read.

[franky1]

What is your connection to this? 

the "whitepaper" is 90% rant.. i gave up reading about all the flaws of other systems and then a sudden injection of what this "peerless"  thing meant to do.

i think its more of a brownpaper than a whitepaper. definitely needs a major re-write

[European Central Bank]

there's a vast amount about bitcoin that could do with tweaking or binning, but it works and it's still here. it's one thing to write a paper, a whole other thing to put it into reality.

but maybe one day relatively soon there will be something that addresses the most pressing flaws. i wonder whether it arrives before 'good enough' has already won out. that day might be arriving relatively soon too.

[BurtW]

What is your connection to this? 

the "whitepaper" is 90% rant.. i gave up reading about all the flaws of other systems and then a sudden injection of what this "peerless"  thing meant to do.

i think its more of a brownpaper than a whitepaper. definitely needs a major re-write

I also gave up reading through the brown paper.  I may try again later.

[MingLee]

I ran across a newly proposed cryptocurrency that promises to dispense with the blockchain and peer-to-peer network. It's called "Peerless" (very subtle). Have a look at http://www.peerless.money, though this URL forwards to an educational site (strange). But it's a monster white paper, and it promises digital cash that's completely secure, anonymous, and decentralized. Is this a serious competitor to Bitcoin?

I wouldn't even worry about this. Sounds like someone is trying to dig up their own competitor to Bitcoin, mostly sponsored by some government agency, and yet fairs to understand what it is he's trying to say.

This is personally going to be ignored by me, it seems like it's someone trying to make something without knowing what it is they're actually doing.

[ffe]

"By encapsulating ownership, Peerless dispenses with all such third-party registries. This is a huge advantage to Peerless, anticipated to some degree by Bitcoin and the blockchain technology, but with the promise here of being carried to fruition. Peerless removes the need to rely on third parties because the individual can handle the task of reassigning ownership directly without their help."

You dispense with third party registries but you do not show how an individual is kept from double spending.  Since things can be anonymous (good thing), there is no way to even know if a double spend occurred (very bad thing).

[BurtW]

I ran across a newly proposed cryptocurrency that promises to dispense with the blockchain and peer-to-peer network. It's called "Peerless" (very subtle). Have a look at http://www.peerless.money, though this URL forwards to an educational site (strange). But it's a monster white paper, and it promises digital cash that's completely secure, anonymous, and decentralized. Is this a serious competitor to Bitcoin?

So far, I have found nothing of technical merit in this paper.

Bill Dembski is obviously a sharp guy and knows a lot about a lot of things.

The proposed system has a huge double-spend problem and relies heavily on trusted third parties.

[alani123]

Do we know who this Bill Dembski is? It matters to know who this is all coming from because first of all, they let it be known that this is whitepaper is published on the website of a friend and secondly, where are the references? We don't know if the author has an understanding of either economics, programming or even cryptography and I don't see any notable references to external sources. I don't know if any idea at this level should be considered a competitor to bitcoin, which has went far beyond than just being a concept at this point.

[iamnotback]

The paper does not solve the double-spending problem. It presumes a global clock and a global search for duplicates, but because this is unbounded then you can never determine when your transaction is final.

The author is a kook with some training in math:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

These kooks seem to be proliferating now that Bitcoin has a centralization problem. HugoStone makes the same mistake:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16928999#msg16928999

Username18333 made the same mistake:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16921783#msg16921783



Readers you are not as technically knowledgeable as I am. Do NOT invest or believe in any money system that claims everybody can mint their own money without a global ledger. It CAN NOT work. It violates the laws of Physics. My coming whitepaper will explain this very clearly.

[clickerz]

What is your connection to this? 

the "whitepaper" is 90% rant.. i gave up reading about all the flaws of other systems and then a sudden injection of what this "peerless"  thing meant to do.

i think its more of a brownpaper than a whitepaper. definitely needs a major re-write

Thanks for the feedback i would not read that whitepaper anymore. Though it has a good plan and intentions oh, all coins I think has the same good plans and intentions But still I think his is stil in planning stage, we will see to it that it is launching next year.

[Snorek]

So they basically promising you everything you want to have but can't due to limitations of our current legal framework.
Let's face it guys totally anonymous coins won't reach total adoption. There is a reason why Monero or Zcash are not topping the market charts.
Their whitepaper is full of empty promises and offers near zero feasible solutions so far, but I wish this project grow some more, it is interesting.

[iamnotback]

The paper does not solve the double-spending problem. It presumes a global clock and a global search for duplicates, but because this is unbounded then you can never determine when your transaction is final.

The author is a kook with some training in math:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

These kooks seem to be proliferating now that Bitcoin has a centralization problem. HugoStone makes the same mistake:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16928999#msg16928999

Username18333 made the same mistake:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16921783#msg16921783



Readers you are not as technically knowledgeable as I am. Do NOT invest or believe in any money system that claims everybody can mint their own money without a global ledger. It CAN NOT work. It violates the laws of Physics. My coming whitepaper will explain this very clearly.

[stevekreizl]

Double spending certain would be a problem, but I'm not sure I'm seeing it. In Dembski's scheme, A spends by giving B a private key and B invalidates A's cash, then C can try to use the private key likewise to invalidate but can't because B has already invalidated it -- it's a question of temporal priority -- having a universal clock the reliable timestamping is supposed to remove the double spending problem. It seems to work unless people double spend at exactly the same time.

My interest in this? I'm not a big fan of Bitcoin and am looking for something better.

[European Central Bank]

your problem is that there may well be better coins than bitcoin right now but no one's using them and maybe no one ever will. without users the finest coin ever made is irrelevant.

[iamnotback]

having a universal clock the reliable timestamping is supposed to remove the double spending problem

Timestamping requires a bounded participation, bounded latency, and other forms of synchronization. The author doesn't understand Byzantine fault tolerance.

I can claim any timestamp I want if it isn't recorded in a globally consistent ledger.

Implicitly he is asking us to all depend on one universal timestamping server which signs all transactions in a total ordering. I analyzed that in 2014 and 2015 and realized that timestamping is not a solution. This timestamping myopia has also been discussed in the Longest Chain Rule thread in the Bitcoin Technical discussion forum:

Utter nonsense.   It is sad that they wrote a paper based on the premise that timestamps can be used to solve the double spend problem (they can't) and then never did any research as to why Bitcoin doesn't rely on timestamps.   I mean it isn't a minor note, it is the core claim of the article.

[alani123]

The paper does not solve the double-spending problem. It presumes a global clock and a global search for duplicates, but because this is unbounded then you can never determine when your transaction is final.

The author is a kook with some training in math:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

These kooks seem to be proliferating now that Bitcoin has a centralization problem. HugoStone makes the same mistake:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16928999#msg16928999

Username18333 made the same mistake:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16921783#msg16921783



Readers you are not as technically knowledgeable as I am. Do NOT invest or believe in any money system that claims everybody can mint their own money without a global ledger. It CAN NOT work. It violates the laws of Physics. My coming whitepaper will explain this very clearly.

Opposition to evolution. Oh man, this guy's biography is funny. I wonder if anyone is going to want to work with such a person to help bring his brainchild to life.

He seems to be a creationist, and involved in various controversies involving Christianity throughout his career.