The state of crypto - The only serious thread on the subforum

[monsterer]

Ooh, right yeah.  That opens a major can of worms though....

Worm A) difficulty
Worm B) block reward
Worm C) sybil attack

[1715539515]

1715539515

[1715539515]

1715539515

[1715539515]

1715539515

[r0ach]

Ooh, right yeah.  That opens a major can of worms though....

Worm A) difficulty
Worm B) block reward
Worm C) sybil attack

D) Satoshi probably spent numerous hours trying this already, otherwise he wouldn't have used PoW in a more obscure manner creating the "Rube Goldberg" machine that Realsolid implies

[TPTB_need_war]

Well remember I wrote I think it is better for now if you think I am full of bullshit.

So I am purposefully not attempting to refute you.

Just remember it is not over until the Fat Lady sings.

Seems I have some coding to do.

[smooth]

Ooh, right yeah.  That opens a major can of worms though....

Worm A) difficulty
Worm B) block reward
Worm C) sybil attack

D) Satoshi probably spent numerous hours trying this already, otherwise he wouldn't have used PoW in a more obscure manner creating the "Rube Goldberg" machine that Realsolid implies

Of these only D) is a reasonably good argument.  Or to put it another way, if something new relies on old components and has not previously been developed, then it must be innovative (which implies a degree of conceptual if not implementation-level complexity, or more precisely non-obviousness).

Therefore you can conclude:

1. There is something Rube Goldberg-ish about TPTB's scheme that Satoshi didn't consider or perhaps considered but chose another also Rube Goldberg-ish path. (I don't think this is necessarily bad, although I do think that Bitcoin is about the limit of complexity that might be viable right now)

2. There is a serious flaw in TPTB's scheme that he hasn't identified

[TPTB_need_war]

1. Yes. But I think the tradeoffs are superior. And so far it doesn't look any worse than heuristics I heard Maxwell talk about are in Bitcoin for defending against Sybil attacks on the P2P network.

2. That is of course a strong possibility, especially when there is only one dev working on it with no peer review. Problem is that I think I lose more time to verbiage than it is worth to team up. Better to produce a basic product, then ask for team work. At least that is what I am thinking today given my M.S. isn't bothering me.

Okay i am really going to try to sign out. I have people watching these forums and they will alert me if there is any thing really egregious that needs my response.

Good luck to everyone in their coding as well.

[monsterer]

Of these only D) is a reasonably good argument.  Or to put it another way, if something new relies on old components and has not previously been developed, then it must be innovative (which implies a degree of conceptual if not implementation-level complexity, or more precisely non-obviousness).

A) is relevant because if you have fixed difficulty designed to target home computers, home computer will be able to send transactions, but server farms will have a controlling advantage which leads directly on to...

B) block reward with home computer difficulty and no adjustment (difficulty adjustment would render home computers unable to send transactions) would mean the coin supply would suffer out of control inflation in a short period which leads directly on to...

C) sybil attack - mining your own transactions is great until some huge player starts executing double spends with his massive server farm by chucking a bunch of CPUs at a POW designed for home computers

[smooth]

Of these only D) is a reasonably good argument.  Or to put it another way, if something new relies on old components and has not previously been developed, then it must be innovative (which implies a degree of conceptual if not implementation-level complexity, or more precisely non-obviousness).

A) is relevant because if you have fixed difficulty designed to target home computers, home computer will be able to send transactions, but server farms will have a controlling advantage which leads directly on to...

B) block reward with home computer difficulty and no adjustment (which would render home computers unable to send transactions) would mean the coin supply would suffer out of control inflation in a short period which leads directly on to...

C) sybil attack - mining your own transactions is great until some huge player starts executing double spends with his massive server farm by chucking a bunch of CPUs at a POW designed for home computers

A, B, and C are not good arguments because he hasn't disclosed enough about the structure of his scheme to determine if they are even relevant, or if so how. You could propose a guess about his scheme is structured and then consider those items, but that's pretty silly.

[monsterer]

A, B, and C are not good arguments because he hasn't disclosed enough about the structure of his scheme to determine if they are even relevant, or if so how. You could propose a guess about his scheme is structured and then consider those items, but that's pretty silly.

A, B and C are the consequences of mining your own transactions. I'm not talking about his scheme, because I don't know it.

[smooth]

A, B, and C are not good arguments because he hasn't disclosed enough about the structure of his scheme to determine if they are even relevant, or if so how. You could propose a guess about his scheme is structured and then consider those items, but that's pretty silly.

A, B and C are the consequences of mining your own transactions. I'm not talking about his scheme, because I don't know it.

You don't know how his chain is structured (is it even a chain of blocks or is it something else?) nor how difficulty is calculated or used (or even if such a thing is done or if there is another approach). "Sybil attacks" is certainly a valid point but you haven't connected the dots nor can you since you don't know what sort of voting scheme is employed. The point being you are (implicitly) assuming something very much like the structure of Bitcoin and then analyzing it on those terms. That's not a good approach.

[monsterer]

You don't know how his chain is structured (is it even a chain of blocks or is it something else?) nor how difficulty is calculated or used (or even if such a thing is done or if there is another approach). "Sybil attacks" is certainly a valid point but you haven't connected the dots nor can you since you don't know what sort of voting scheme is employed. The point being you are (implicitly) assuming something very much like the structure of Bitcoin and then analyzing it on those terms. That's not a good approach.

I repeat: I am not talking about his approach.

This was a distant consensus design of my own in which I considered a system which would stay 100% decentralised POW.

[r0ach]

I repeat: I am not talking about his approach.

This was a distant consensus design of my own in which I considered a system which would stay 100% decentralised POW.

I saw your idea of a proof of burn coin.  Seems hard to get those right since you have to account for runaway inflation/deflation.  I remember there was this previous proof of burn coin called "Slimcoin" where you burned coins to mine.  Even though it was already unprofitable to burn coins to mine, since there were already so many in the system burning, people kept just dumping more and more in continuously.  I wouldn't be surprised if half the entire money supply was burned.

[smooth]

half the entire money supply was burned.

Does that matter?

Once an equilibrium is reached, the money supply is what it is, and people using it as money don't really care.

Unless there is something unstable about it that would cause these sorts of "burn storm" events to occur repeatedly. It wasn't clear to me if you were suggesting that happened in your post.

[sidhujag]

half the entire money supply was burned.

Does that matter?

One an equilibrium is reached, the money supply is what it is, and people using it as money don't really care.

Unless there is something unstable about it that would cause these sorts of "burn storm" events to occur repeatedly. It wasn't clear to me if you were suggesting that happened in your post.

When phsycology gets involved price can do irrational things to people like sellimg at a major loss in panic and in this scheme end up burning 99% of the coins which you cannot get back.

It's much like a federated pegged asset which is based on market demands to control price according an external target. We know what it should be, but in a panic it may break. Actually vbuterin wrote about that how black swans would break a peg indefinitely based on game theory if it didn't place limits on selling. That's why in bitshares you can't short below 10% or above 10% of the price feed. Anyways who knows if it limits the long term swan from happening, perhaps pushes time further in achieving a better solution down the road before a peg breaks and all hope is lost in a project. I'm not sure how the pegs work in ether but if they don't have rules in place like bts they will break sooner than ones that do.

[smooth]

half the entire money supply was burned.

Does that matter?

One an equilibrium is reached, the money supply is what it is, and people using it as money don't really care.

Unless there is something unstable about it that would cause these sorts of "burn storm" events to occur repeatedly. It wasn't clear to me if you were suggesting that happened in your post.

When phsycology gets involved price can do irrational things to people like sellimg at a major loss in panic and in this scheme end up burning 99% of the coins which you cannot get back.

Even burning 99% of the coins, I can't see how that is a problem. The remaining 1% become a lot more valuable and then people won't be willing to burn them. (This assumes of course that the system has some actual utility at all.) Some equilibrium must be reached.

But like I said earlier, I don't rule out that some ongoing instability may exist including psychology or something else. I don't know anything about the structure of that proposed system so I can't even begin to guess.

[r0ach]

When phsycology gets involved price can do irrational things to people like sellimg at a major loss in panic and in this scheme end up burning 99% of the coins which you cannot get back

Even burning 99% of the coins, I can't see how that is a problem. The remaining 1% become a lot more valuable and then people won't be willing to burn them. (This assumes of course that the system has some actual utility at all.) Some equilibrium must be reached.

But like I said earlier, I don't rule out that some ongoing instability may exist including psychology or something else. I don't know anything about the structure of that proposed system so I can't even begin to guess.

Coins lost per year due to strong encryption, which is estimated to be up to 5% in bitcoin?  Then an incorrectly tuned proof of burn coin on top of that and suddenly you're getting world class interest rates that make Gresham's law turn it into the horder coin that nobody will actually spend.

[monsterer]

I saw your idea of a proof of burn coin.  Seems hard to get those right since you have to account for runaway inflation/deflation.  I remember there was this previous proof of burn coin called "Slimcoin" where you burned coins to mine.  Even though it was already unprofitable to burn coins to mine, since there were already so many in the system burning, people kept just dumping more and more in continuously.  I wouldn't be surprised if half the entire money supply was burned.

Oh, that was a different idea completely I am still working on that one - when I feel it is ready, I'll post it on this forum for scrutiny.

I hadn't heard of slimcoin, thanks, I'll take a look at their whitepaper.

[HCLivess]

PoS is the future

[monsterer]

PoS is the future

POS is the past

[r0ach]

PoS is the future

POS is the past

DPoS is the future.  Here's my DPoS proposal if it's required to scale past 101 delegates for increased redundancy:

A super delegate system - Re-inventing the Roman Republic

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18457.0.html

[kelsey]

the most sensible thing to be stated in this thread is that BTC is a rube goldberg machine. bitcoin and everything todate related is simply an overkill in complication for a p2p currency.

the blockchain idea leads to too much complications trying to plug its obvious flaws, leading to the biggest flaw of them all complication itself.


as i say its a currency not a mission to mars.