ion discussion

[ion.cash]

Recently I announced my rationale to develop my coin non-anonymously, with any anonymity features to be added by other developers later.

The proposed name of the coin is Ion with a capitalized first letter when it can be written with a serif font, e.g. Ion— otherwise ion instead of Ion. For me ion connotes a thing that can conduct a current and be zapped to a destination.

Formerly AnonyMint et al, I expended 2+ years thinking about anonymity designs and recently formalized an unreleased white paper which I think is the holy grail of on chain anonymity. This will be offloaded to other developers, so I can work non-anonymously on this coin.

The current focus of my development on this coin is to complete a novel consensus network design which has proposed the following fixes to flaws in Satoshi’s design while retaining proof-of-work as unbounded entropy[1]:

• Censorship resistance even if mining is entirely centralized.
• Attack-free instant zero confirmation instantaneous transactions.
• Impervious to selfish mining and 51% attacks.
• Transaction rates virtually unbounded by block chain bandwidth and size.
• Resilient against network fragmentation.
• Decentralization of pools and ASICs by making them uneconomic.
• Non-heuristic Sybil and DoS resistance.

None of the above is a joke nor exaggeration. I am entirely serious. My programming background and expertise is documented in the archives of my prior usernames.

Currently unreleased white papers will not be published until this coin is nearer to release to insure these designs are released first in our coin. Thus for the time being I will not be providing more details on how the above features are accomplished.

I am using this thread to post updates about the coding progress. This thread will be pruned periodically so please don't get offended if your post was incorporated into the summary below.

[1] My position until I am convinced otherwise is that all non-proof-of-work consensus systems have a bounded entropy (e.g. the total stake and/or any initial seeds used for randomization) and thus their attributes (e.g. decentralization, censorship resistance, DoS resistance, Sybil attack resistance, impartiality) is subject to a game theory which is potentially undiscovered. Whereas, the entropy of proof-of-work is unbounded because it is externally added and the game theory is well defined.


Some readers wondered how my consensus network design can delegate without requiring trust whereas Satoshi's proof-of-work is trustless. I explained that if the function of these delegated nodes is verifiable truth, replaceable, non-discretionary, and not monopolizable, then using a twist on the security model and some epiphanies on delegation membership, Merkel encoding, Cuckoo hashing, Sybil, and DoS strategies, then it is possible to achieve that trustless delegation. I did not disclose further details and will not until implementation is nearer to completion (some months to go). Monsterer asked about how orphaned deleted actions would be handled and I responded that I had solved that issue but I wasn't revealing how at this time.

I familiarized myself again with Bitshares' Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) and concluded that is yet another design that sacrifices effective centralized control in order to scale transaction rates higher. Satoshi's design also suffers this same tradeoff.

[rpietila]

Following. I like the name!

[antanst]

Following. Kudos to you for deciding to go forward with this after all, one way or another.

[klee]

Name is cool & trendy.

Will you have any Ethereum like features? I am extremely interested in a decentralised exchange for assets where people could trade anything in any way possible (spot, margin, futures, cfd, etc) without the DAMN centralised gvt manipulation (see how at summer Greek, Chinese and US markets were closed, banned short selling, etc).

Good luck!

EDIT: The reason I am interested for this feature especially in your platform is for the anonymity that would be a priori build into the coin

[TrueCryptonaire]

The name is okay.
At least it is better than Vanillacoin's name.
The name sounds neutral and it doesn't refer to money so I assume it is not a coin? Is it Etherium type of platform or what is it?
Please explain what is Ion like I am 5 years old. 

[Fuserleer]

Reserving this spot for initial thoughts/comments once more information is available.

[Shrikez]

following. Name is ok, catchy.

best of luck with your endeavor

[wizzardTim]

I somewhat like the name, though I'd prefer to have more name choices.

Truth is the more I think about the name, the more I like it

Fixing Satoshi's design flaws is huge, the entire cryptocurrency scene needs this,

Wish you all the luck!
Following

[monsterer]

Vanilla coin already did this......no prizes for second. Move along nothing to see,



Now I see why you attacked Vanialla coin, I hope you are ready for the same treatment you dealt out.

Don't worry, we will apply the same level of scrutiny and analysis to this proposal as well as the many others.

Btw - dash was the first to claim this feature, not VNL. Instant-x is only slightly less rubbish than zero time.

[tiggytomb]

I like Ion, wish you luck with developing and releasing this coin.

[asdf55]

Good luck with ion!
I am following your work and previous posts for some time and I really wish you to succeed to deliver what you intended with this coin. It will be revolutionary if you do.

[canth]

Following - reserved. I'd keep the name, assuming there aren't any existing name collisions.

[RAJSALLIN]

Following. Like the name. Wishing you all the best with this project and your health!

[pandher]

After hearing all kinds of names in crypto, Ion did not wow like Monero did. But i hope it grows on me

[dEBRUYNE]

Following and I wish you all the best of luck!

[macsga]

Being back home I followed your recent activity of the last 5 days. I say that no matter what name this coin has, it has some pretty heavy momentum to make it already a winner. I voted "yes" for Ion (it's a Physics term anyways, so how couldn't I dig it? ).

My best wishes and good luck!

[ion.cash]

Thanks for the upbeat posts. Very inspiring. Today (and past days) I had my head deep in hash function research papers and it looks like the Cuckoo hash has the best properties for the global consensus aggregation. Not tromp's proof-of-work cuckoo hash, as I had already designed a CPU favorable hash in 2014, which generalized benchmarks seem to indicate it will be on par or exceed the CPU-only attributes of Cryptonite (no specific benchmarks yet and I have a significant innovation over the generalized benchmarks).

Wishing you all the best with ... your health!

The latest development is that apparently I was drinking some remnants of Kombucha tea when I drank the first batch that was misprepared with salt instead of sugar, because that batch started to grow another tiny SCOBY in the refrigerator! So the miraculous abatement of M.S. symptoms the past days appears to be due to something in that concoction that I drank which apparently corrected some of my gut dysbiosis. It doesn't yet feel certainly stable (little signs here and there) so I am eager to receive tomorrow by courier a replacement full-size SCOBY and pre-prepared batch of Kombucha tea. Soon I will know if this lack of headaches the past few days is going to be sustained. If my M.S. goes into remission, that will be an especially important achievement for assuring I can do this coding fast.

When is release date?

We are months away, but I will try to release some of the code progress open source, at least the parts that don't reveal the secrets that need to be held until testnet. And I will try to be more specific about target dates as the coding progresses and deadlines become more realistic to estimate.

The question is how do you ensure instantaneous transactions with NO confirmation. <----seems like a paradox to me.

Of course there are confirmations but the confirmations are instant and decentralized. The key is to attain global 0-confirmation consensus on local instant confirmations. And that is already revealing too much because some of you are clever enough to reinvent what I did given enough hints, but there are a lot of details to work through to attain holistic soundness. So if anyone asks for further clarification on this, I will have to decline to comment until we get closer to testnet.

Again another hint was the white paper written by Vitalik about an abstract partitioning the network, which is conceptually similar. I as TPTB_need_war posted about that some weeks ago. You can find that post and quote it in this thread so everyone can have the link to that paper. I don't have time to go dig my archives for it. It appears he published that white paper about the same time (maybe a month after) I had discovered this scheme.

Vanilla coin already did this......no prizes for second. Move along nothing to see,

Afaik, VNL claims to do nothing about network fragmentation, nor anything significant about the scaling issue that is causing the Gavincoin war. Also I think it will be clear when the details are published that VNL hasn't come close to achieving this very significant overhaul of Satoshi's design, but let's reserve judgement on that until both VNL and ION have released more detailed white papers (than the one VNL already released). So how about we both hold our tongue and reserve this aspect of the discussion until after we publish our details.

Don't worry, we will apply the same level of scrutiny and analysis to this proposal as well as the many others.

Please do. We don't want to waste our time on anything which can't stand up to peer review. As I said, we'll try to do it in a communication format where nothing is censored but in such a paradigm that we can get the conclusions, caveats, and rational objections from discussions summarized for new readers. Hopefully a custom designed/configured Wiki.

When I write "we" there is really only me as a developer (and two angel investors that have put up some meager funds and several more potentially interested if we need more funding) at the moment but there are at least two others devs that might join in soon. And potentially more perhaps if we offer some bounties, though I've heard the experience with bounty work hasn't been spectacular.

Will you have any Ethereum like features? I am extremely interested in a decentralised exchange for assets where people could trade anything in any way possible (spot, margin, futures, cfd, etc) without the DAMN centralised gvt manipulation (see how at summer Greek, Chinese and US markets were closed, banned short selling, etc).

Good luck!

EDIT: The reason I am interested for this feature especially in your platform is for the anonymity that would be a priori build into the coin

I am very interested in decentralized features. As much as possible I liked features such as these (including anonymity) to be bolt on and orthogonal, so that we can develop on them after getting the basic block chain network solidified. This overhaul of Satoshi's design appears to be able to make for example the transaction data format orthogonal to the block chain, but I need to work through some more of the pedantic details before I can be absolutely sure of that.

Although it is not in the set of features I want to accomplish before a testnet on the block chain network, I believe my design solves the scaling problem of Ethereum-style programmable contracts that afaics Ethereum never did solve. But again devil is in the details, and I am not studying that right now. I have to stay focused on one area of the problem set of crypto at a time. The feature space is large and there are a lot of things that need to be done. Everything can move faster if we can launch a novel consensus network, raise more money with that live, and then invest in developers. Developers will be more keen to hop on the train if they see something significant launched.

The name sounds neutral and it doesn't refer to money so I assume it is not a coin? Is it Etherium type of platform or what is it?
Please explain what is Ion like I am 5 years old.  

I hear you that Ion or ion doesn't connotate money. Let me address that issue where I discuss naming below...

The first goal is to solve the fundamental problems in Satoshi's design that revolve around scaling, maintaining permission-less commerce via decentralization, attaining instant transactions without needing to centralized the network (which is where Bitcoin is headed otherwise), attain network fragmentation tolerance that Bitcoin doesn't have, etc.. Did you ever realize that if the internet fragmented, everyone could spend their Bitcoins multiple times (once on each network fragment). These are major fundamental problems in Satoshi's otherwise excellent design.

After that, the innovations won't stop. As I wrote, I already have better than Zerocash anonymity designed, but need to turn that over to other developers to implement, because I don't want to be culpable for the features that might bring on the ire of authorities, since I have decided to be the public developer on the coin.

As my reply to klee hints, many other innovations appear they may spawn from the fundamental restructuring of Satoshi's design.

Again I will try to get some code published soon, so it is clear I am a real coder.

After hearing all kinds of names in crypto, Ion did not wow like Monero did. But i hope it grows on me

I somewhat like the name, though I'd prefer to have more name choices.

Truth is the more I think about the name, the more I like it

It is normal most people would prefer the name that is already more well known. Takes some time for a name to become branded in the minds.

I also wish there were more choices and I am open to suggestions, but please let's not litter the thread will silly ones. If there are any well thought out suggestions, please share. If anyone provides a winning name suggestion, I assume some coins will come your way (but I don't have a specific offer).

Monero name's positives:

• sounding like an existing monetary unit (the Euro)
• very unlike any other name for a crypto-coin
• having nearly the literal word "money" in the name
• even it is longer than 3 letters, very difficult to misspell it, money+ero, how else could you misspell it.

Monero name's negatives:

• it doesn't connote electronic currency nor high-tech money (my opinion it connotes old world aristocratic money or money for a Monopoly board).
• the name of the currency unit isn't ideal, and I can't remember which currency unit name the community wants me to use, "moneros", "moneroj"
• the ISO currency abbreviation XMR is not the same as the name

My PERSONAL OPINION is the negative attributes are it is pronounced like "moanero", it is associated with a failing currency union (Euro), and it doesn't sound very cool to say "pay me 15 moneros". For me it sounds like I am ordering egg omelet tacos in Mexico ("rancheros").

Ion name's positives:

• connotes something high-tech that can be zapped or lives in the electronic cloud
• memorable catchy currency unit name, "zap me 15 ions"
• potentially creates a new terminology for real-time electronic commerce, i.e. unproven potentially huge new markets of instant 0-conf microtransactions ("zap me 2 ions")
• the ISO currency abbreviation ION can be the same as the name (yeah I read about preference for X as first letter in standard, but this doesn't have to be strictly followed, e.g. BTC and BBR)
• three letters concise a la "Nxt" (people prefer to write short names and easier fit into web page cart screen space layouts, less opportunities to misspell it)
• is generic enough to also connote the general decentralized cloud block chain technology as capabilities extend beyond currency

Ion name's negatives:

• doesn't connote currency inherently, instead it must redefine what electronic currency is by making crypto-currency scale to millions of instant microtransactions per second globally, something no other crypto-currency can do yet.
• similar to another crypto-coin, e.g. Aeon (but likely only one or a few crypto-coins will win big in the end so it probably doesn't matter and Aeon is easily misspelled)
• first letter when capitalized is indistinguishable is some fonts between a lowercase L or an uppercase i

Note we are considering making the money supply billions or trillions of coins, so that instead of "mIon" you would use "ion". I think it is preferable for people to use large numbers for big box purchases, e.g. 127,000 ions for that television instead of using fractional numbers for microtransactions. We are moving to a Knowledge Age economy wherein people are paid for every Like they click and every action they do.

For example instead of filling up those tedious captchas, wouldn't you prefer to pay 1/100 of a penny and click straight through without the hassles. Microtransactions can be used for anti-spamming control and also for business models that weren't possible before (and you really must click that link and read the lack of permission-less commerce saga that I described as my former user name iamback).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169532.msg12368247#msg12368247

virtual work sites - future of work now

humanatic.com
scribie.com
mturk.com
microworkers.com
bitcoinget.com
slicethepie.com
usertesting.com
clickworker.com
clixsense.com
speechpad.com
upwork.com
freelancer.com

https://monerobase.com/Crypto_Kingdom

Look for affiliate offers such as the following on all such sites:

https://www.gambit.com/affiliate (this one has chess too)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Bitcoin+gambling+sites

[smooth]

Of course there are confirmations but the confirmations are instant and decentralized. The key is to attain global 0-confirmation consensus on local instant confirmations.

Hashing your own transactions gives you local instant confirmation. But once you submit these into a chain of work, the selection rule means you can still get orphans.

You are assuming the design is essentially the same as Bitcoin etc. It should be obvious from the numbered items in the OP (and later comments from ion.cash) that it is not. I suggest waiting for further details rather than pointless debates on the basis of no detailed information about how it claims to achieve those.

[macsga]

Of course there are confirmations but the confirmations are instant and decentralized. The key is to attain global 0-confirmation consensus on local instant confirmations.

Hashing your own transactions gives you local instant confirmation. But once you submit these into a chain of work, the selection rule means you can still get orphans.

You are assuming the design is essentially the same as Bitcoin etc. It should be obvious from the numbered items in the OP (and later comments from ion.cash) that it is not. I suggest waiting for further details rather than pointless debates on the basis of no detailed information about how it claims to achieve those.

More of these to be expected sooner than later. It's in the physis of human beings to question everything a-priori (ie: without first studying it). I'd propose a short synopsis of the project's basic aspects so that there are more participants involved and -hopefully- gain more attention from possible programmers. Of course there's a side-possibility:

Currently unreleased white papers will not be published until this coin is nearer to release to insure these designs are released first in our coin. Thus for the time being I may not be providing more details on how the above features are accomplished.

Just my 20c

[ion.cash]

Of course there are confirmations but the confirmations are instant and decentralized. The key is to attain global 0-confirmation consensus on local instant confirmations.

Hashing your own transactions gives you local instant confirmation. But once you submit these into a chain of work, the selection rule means you can still get orphans.

Be sure I have considered orphaned chains. I mention it in the rough draft of the white paper. Yes please let's not dig into the details of this yet. I need to be further along in the implementation before giving any more hints. Sorry to put out a teaser when not ready to publish, but mainly I just needed to get some feedback on the name and also start showing some coding progress to build some confidence (and perhaps synergies with other developers) in the community. I wish I was ready to publish the design today. I am moving as fast as I can.

[ion.cash]

I wrote the following post:

The thread's opening post is reasonable but I didn't have time to check all the detailed points for absolute correctness. You will need to add my Delegated Transaction Consensus algorithm once it is published.

DPoS - Delegated Proof of Stake (Bitshares)

...

H) Anonymity functions in progress:  http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17687.30.html

The first few seconds of this interview with bytemaster (Daniel Larimer) explains they hide both the values and whom you are sending to (i.e. the payee):

https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-stealth-confidential-transactions/

In other words in the terminology of the Cryptonote white paper, they have unlinkability but not untraceability.

He admits this at 13:45 mins point and (in his non-analytical summary) he highly understates the block chain analysis that can be done with traceability because they have not hidden the payer. For another thing he completely discounts the possibility that the adversary is gaining access to some of the hidden values because the payer and payee both know the transferred value, which then rapidly breaks down his other assumptions. The merging of balancing he is suggesting at 21:00 will break untraceability.

They accomplished the easy part. It is combining that with untraceability that seemed nearly impossible to achieve without Zerocash's flaws. But finally after many days of brain stumping I did figure out how to do it.

Well I have them beat. In July I wrote a white paper where I can hide the values, the payee, and the payer. Thus I also have untraceability. And I don't have any of the setup issues that plague Zerocash! I invented the holy grail of on chain anonymity.

My white paper is entitled Zero Knowledge Transactions.

P.S. About the 9 min point, bytemaster is explaining that payees can't anonymously scan for their Stealth (unlinkable) transactions, which means they even break the unlinkability. Very sloppy. Yes he is correct that it breaks scalability which is one of Monero's issues. I have solved this issue also!

Again another hint was the white paper written by Vitalik about an abstract partitioning the network, which is conceptually similar. I as TPTB_need_war posted about that some weeks ago. You can find that post and quote it in this thread so everyone can have the link to that paper. I don't have time to go dig my archives for it. It appears he published that white paper about the same time (maybe a month after) I had discovered this scheme.

Any chance you can give us a link; trawling through your old posts trying to find the one you mean is boring.

Source: http://www.coindesk.com/vitalik-buterin-on-public-and-private-blockchains/

I have developed a design that has all the advantages Vitalik describes for private block chains, but on a public block chain.

The scalability white paper he linked to in that article is a more abstract and generalized description of the scalability design I had also invented around the time he  published this paper. This is the first time I've seen this research.

Afaics his abstract paper does not deal with some of the intricacies of the economics that have to be solved in order to make the design actually work in the real world. Also he apparently hasn't realized that it is possible to filter out a 51% attack.

Vitalik's sample-and-fallback scheme appears to be well less well defined than mine. His on quick glance appears to be more heuristic, but I need to take more time to study his paper.

I can assure you that my white paper is much simpler to digest. And more direct to the point.

[OROBTC]

...

Following.  "Ion" name is good.  If you find something better, well OK.  It's your coin!

Keep us posted!

[Fuserleer]

IMO there is too much focus on 100% anonymity (not just here, but crypto in general) and I don't believe it is needed for a crypto to become mainstream for a number of reasons.

I used to be of the same mindset, but came to a few conclusions that led to the realization that providing the anonymity was as good, or slightly better, than what Bitcoin offers, then there isn't any real point to spend large amounts of time chasing 100% it down.  Of course, if a solution should show up right in front of your nose, then take advantage of it by all means, but I think you should consider following

1.  There has to be a trade off at some point of anonymity vs some other factor.  Be it the size of the transactions, the speed which they can be processed, or functionality limitations later on.  

2.  TPTB will fight against any crypto that is truly anonymous, preventing it to gain any significant mass market adoption with the usual rhetoric of drugs etc....

3.  Nor will any infrastructure you need to build on allow you to use it to get it out there.

4.  The general public doesn't give 1 single thought to anonymity on a daily basis, most people don't care that the governments read their email/sms/web activities etc.

Anonymitys main purpose in a mass market targeted crypto IMO is to guard against criminals figuring out what you own and who you are, second to that is privacy.

If mass market adoption is your goal, I would seriously consider the above because it WILL come and bite you in the ass if you don't implement it wisely.  

On the other hand, if you simply want to take over the worlds black market, then full steam anon is the way to go  

As for the other claims, some seem suspect but I'm going to hold off on those until later.  Despite your attitude around here sometimes you certainly do have some skill, so while I'm skeptical of some of them I'm not going to waste time "guessing" with no details.

[ion.cash]

Delegated is not the same as decentralized.

Nor is it necessarily an antithetical concept. Delegated can be decentralized and effectively as trustless as Satoshi's design is (with some differing assumptions that have differing tradeoffs).

I haven't noticed the word trustless anywhere - is this design trustless?

Yes and in some respects more so than Satoshi's design, but there is a change in the security model assumption.

You've actually hit upon the key distinction between my design and Satoshi's design. Almost everything else follows from it. But still even if I share with you this, there are many details that you'd still have to invent to get a holistically sound design.

I will excerpt from the rough draft of the white paper and bold the relevant phrases...

1   Decentralized transaction consensus

A Byzantine fault is defined as a disagreement by system participants on the state of the system. A centralized system is inherently Byzantine fault tolerant because it doesn’t disagree with itself. Such faults are only system failure if decentralized agreement on system state is required.

For example, the Byzantine fault of differing opinions of voters is not a failure if democracy by majority rule is acceptable. Systemic failure results from obstruction of voting, undetected ballot box stuffing, or purchased votes. These are respectively denial-of-service (DoS), Sybil, and resource-capture attacks.

Protection against the double spending of an account balance is an example of a contract that depends only on the relative order of spend events, and not on the events’ timestamp. The latter spend must be discarded otherwise the first payee would be defrauded.

In a decentralized network of observers of spend events, a majority vote on event order would fail due to DoS, Sybil, and resource-capture attacks on the observers.

• DoS attack on relayed events over the network.
• Sybil attack creating unlimited observers or network relay peers.
• Resource-capture of any resource required to be an observer.

These attacks can be squelched if for observers and peers their system function is verifiable truth, they can prove a trusted reputation, or they can expend or risk sufficient resources which exceed the gain from cheating.

2   Non-delegated transaction verification by longest chain of proof-of-work

In Satoshi Nakamoto’s longest chain of proof-of-work decentralized consensus system[Nak09], the participant nodes are distrusted and not capable of independently verifying the event order. They risk proof-of-work resources in exchange for block rewards with low probability of gain from cheating, unless the adversary possesses greater than 50% of the total network proof-of-work resources, or 25 - 33% in the case of selfish mining[ES13].

In addition to this Byzantine failure due to capture of at least 25 - 50% of the system resources, Satoshi Nakamoto’s system has other weaknesses.

• Reliability of the event order requires a proof-of-work confirmation to prevent a double spend due to the Finney attack[Fin11] or gaming of differing mempool heuristics[Hea15]; yet remains unreliable if there is network fragmentation or with too few confirmations given a significant orphan rate combined with some network propagation opacity.
• Variance of mining[Ros11] incentivizes a limited number of pools of nodes thus concentrating the control of system resources.
• The scaling tradeoff that all nodes incur the bandwidth and processing load to relay and verify all system-wide transactions, otherwise they delegate to pools which concentrate the control of system resources.
• Satoshi’s protocol doesn’t verify if pools implement getblocktemplate to enable a node to insert transactions into its winning block to mitigate the pools’ power to censor transactions.
• Satoshi’s design depends on concentrated control and monolithic network coherence—which sacrifices censorship resistance and network fault tolerance—in order to provide scalability and reliable instant transactions.

Concentrated control accruing naturally or via a resource-capture attack could alter the protocol— such as increasing the money supply of cryptocurrency (even gifting the debasement to any publicly acceptable entity such as government¹) or only validating events which accompany some KYC (know your customer) proof of identification. Some argue that a political outcry would move away from such an attack on the protocol, but in reality the preoccupied masses tend to continue to the use the clients they are told to use and are accustomed to such as popular web clients Coinbase, Blockinfo, etcetera. The masses didn’t abandon the dollar in spite of its malevolent holistic effects. Most people would not agree the dollar is malevolent.

The security model of the longest chain of proof-of-work in Satoshi’s system is ultimately founded on the principle that each participant minion will act unselfishly in the short-term to protect the long-term collective benefits of trustless consensus— yet this has proven not to be the case throughout all recorded human history when the individual selfish incentives are great enough.

¹ Some influential people such as Martin Armstrong have simultaneously outlined an expectation of a one-world currency monetary reset solution to the current prolifergate nation-states sovereign debt crisis; and called for (a world?) government to tax the money supply instead of income taxes[Arm08].

3   Delegated transaction verification by longest chain of proof-of-work

To overcome the weaknesses in Satoshi’s design, we delegate the verification of event order to _________ nodes which provably record their system functions in the longest chain of proof-of-work.

Delegating to these _________ nodes is harmless because these nodes obey the fundamental end-to-end principle of networks in the sense that they make no discretionary choices of significance, persist the minimum state possible, are fungible with each other, and can’t be monopolized. _________ nodes do set the transaction fee they charge which is based on transaction data size and not value since transaction values may be concealed.

...

3.10   Security model

The security model assumption of Satoshi’s design is that every miner—whether alone or in collusion with other miners—has a greater opportunity cost when mining on an incorrect or shorter block chain. Additionally unlike other reputation-based or proof-of-stake schemes, it is implausible to game the order of block solutions because the source of the entropy for proof-of-work is external thus an open instead of closed thermodynamic system. Also each miner can verify the entire history of the block chain, including every transaction.

The security model weaknesses of Satoshi’s design detailed in the prior sections derive from the generative essence that miners can’t autonomously determine the correctness of the longest chain w.r.t. to double spends, censorship resistance, mining centralization, collusion, and selfish mining.

Our security model retains the assumption of greater opportunity cost when mining on incorrect or shorter correct block chain, while adding objectivity to the correctness of double spends and censorship resistance. The model is founded on the principle that published data can’t be unpublished and that nodes listening for compliance will need to do so for other reasons, such as _________ nodes maximizing the efficiency which payers can send non-instant transactions...

Although block chain miners don’t verify for themselves every transaction in the chain of hashes for each hash stored on the block chain, the nodes listening and checking for compliance insure that the block chain is verified against the distributed and independent _________ nodes.

Any entity that downloads an archive of all the historic distributed data could perform a full verification to attain the same security as a full node that downloads the entire block chain in Satoshi’s design. The distinction from the security model in Satoshi’s design is that if the compliance checking nodes fail to report cheating, the cheating will become nearly implausible to revert. This is why the incentives offered to compliance checking nodes are lucrative and compliance checking node membership is permissionless. Compare the odds that no party will avail of the profit incentive to the security assumptions in Satoshi’s design:

• Network fragmentation never occurs.
• The masses will politically take time from their preoccupied lives en masse to fork away from an insidiously (perhaps undetectably so) malevolent 25 - 51% attack, e.g. one that requires KYC or adds some debasement to fund social welfare in a world government or collaboration of regional governments such as EU, G7, G20, Asian Union, and Mercosur.
• Pools with different names, IP addresses, and servers aren’t controlled by the same entity, i.e. Sybil attacked.
• Scaling transaction volume and zero confirmations by centralization is secure.

Choose your poison. I think the security assumptions in my design are much more robust because decentralized, permission-less opportunity is inherent more reliable than centralized control. I would guesstimate the odds of a serious problem arising in my security model on the order of an asteroid striking your house, while the odds of the Bitcoin algorithm failing (to remain decentralized, permission-less, not just a fiat) due to any of those listed items at the end is very palpable.

[ion.cash]

IMO there is too much focus on 100% anonymity (not just here, but crypto in general) and I don't believe it is needed for a crypto to become mainstream for a number of reasons.

Let's see if everyone is still of that mind set when the governments are potentially expropriating every dime after 2017.

Anonymity is not only about moving money, but about being able to continue to do commerce when the government bans you from doing commerce, i.e. they regulate everything and we all become slaves to Facebook and Google.

As the Moneronistas often point out, it is also about fungibility to prevent coin blacklists, whitelists, and redlists.

However, I am hedging my bets which is why I have decided to make the anonymity orthogonal and let others implement my anonymity breakthrough. Because maybe it is possible that non-anonymous Knowledge Age can innovate so fast that the slow moving gubermint don't even understand what is going on even if it is not anonymous.

So let's do both. But let me work on the non-anonymous parts, so I can be out of harms way and push the coin in the mainstream channels. I already did the holy grail anonymity whitepaper, so I already made my career exclamation mark there.

But I will agree with you that enabling commerce is the highest priority. Everyone should be using crypto-coin when they use social networking. Bitcoin is scaling way too slowly for this to come to fruition fast enough to keep up with how fast the Knowledge Age is accelerating.

I used to be of the same mindset, but came to a few conclusions that led to the realization that providing the anonymity was as good, or slightly better, than what Bitcoin offers, then there isn't any real point to spend large amounts of time chasing 100% it down.  Of course, if a solution should show up right in front of your nose, then take advantage of it by all means, but I think you should consider following

1.  There has to be a trade off at some point of anonymity vs some other factor.  Be it the size of the transactions, the speed which they can be processed, or functionality limitations later on.

The trade-offs appear so far to have become insignificant in my designs, but let's wait for it all to come together with all the pedantic implementation issues, before we make final conclusions. You may end up being correct.  

2.  TPTB will fight against any crypto that is truly anonymous, preventing it to gain any significant mass market adoption with the usual rhetoric of drugs etc....

That might just make adoption grow faster. Let's not assume we know the state of the world as it wakes up to the reality that the world is in a massive default on $227 trillion of debt, $quadrillion of derivatives, defaulting socialism as a dying paradigm, and thus all profit opportunity moving into Knowledge Age work. Humans have a way of suddenly realize the tide is turning and they all move to the other side of the boat at once. That Minsky Moment could be upon us soon.

3.  Nor will any infrastructure you need to build on allow you to use it to get it out there.

Base infrastructure is sorely lacking, such as Tor and I2P are not anonymous against national security agencies that can see all network packets. I invented a simple solution to this problem a couple of weeks ago. Was a spontaneous discovery when I was helping one of the Nxt developers.

4.  The general public doesn't give 1 single thought to anonymity on a daily basis, most people don't care that the governments read their email/sms/web activities etc.

Ahem. Did you not see the applause that Rand Paul got on this point at the first Republican convention. It was the only point where he was resoundingly cheered.

The public is starting to wake up and we are in the early innings yet. When the government starts doing more shit like Spain fining you for taking a photo of a police car parked in a handicapped parking space, then the people start to smell a rat.

Anonymitys main purpose in a mass market targeted crypto IMO is to guard against criminals figuring out what you own and who you are, second to that is privacy.

Yes that too. And thus hiding all three of payer, payee, and values is beneficial, even if you do give your viewkey to the authorities to KYC compliant. But that assumes the rule of law doesn't entirely breakdown and the government is actually the criminals (which appears to be a potential outcome).

If mass market adoption is your goal, I would seriously consider the above because it WILL come and bite you in the ass if you don't implement it wisely.

The anonymity will be as orthogonal as possible if and when it gets done. People can choose if they want to use it or not.

On the other hand, if you simply want to take over the worlds black market, then full steam anon is the way to go  

It is another market. Why not go after it, for as long as it is orthogonal. I am attempting in my design to make it impossible to control which format users want to use for transactions. Thus the government can't claim we put anonymity in the coin. The users did. They can put any feature they want in the coin. It will out-of-our-control. But wait to see if I can really achieve this. Some of these finer details I am still working through.

[THX 1138]

Seems like I'm a late arrival to the party. I'm currently hovering somewhere between a "somewhat" and a "yes" (though can't vote anyway as a newbie). The name initially struck me as being a little bland and corporate, but it's growing on me. Certainly snappy and memorable.

Exciting to see this actually starting to happen after following events for so long.

I'm wondering if the timing of the launch will be connected at all with prevailing prices of BTC, gold etc; seeing as they are possibly reaching their lows around next spring?

Anyway, good luck!

[ion.cash]

I'm not sure how it can be "delegated" and not require trust in some form or fashion.

You didn't pay close attention to the phrases "verifiable truth" and "they make no discretionary choices of significance, persist the minimum state possible, are fungible with each other" I bolded in the generous excerpt that I quoted from my white paper draft.

If I delegate to you, but you have no choice in how you execute the delegated task, then I don't have to trust you.

I will not tell you the precise inventions of how I do that. Absolutely no hints will be given on that for now. Sorry.

These attacks can be squelched if for observers and peers their system function is verifiable truth, they can prove a trusted reputation, or they can expend or risk sufficient resources which exceed the gain from cheating.

Also DASH solved the last problem with an entry barrier of 1k DASH for masternodes.

You refer to the game theory of the bounded entropy of buying influence a verifiable truth.   I refer you back to the opening post:

...while retaining proof-of-work as unbounded entropy[1]:

...

[1] My position until I am convinced otherwise is that all non-proof-of-work consensus systems have a bounded entropy (e.g. the total stake and/or any initial seeds used for randomization) and thus their attributes (e.g. decentralization, censorship resistance, DoS resistance, Sybil attack resistance, impartiality) is subject to a game theory which is potentially undiscovered. Whereas, the entropy of proof-of-work is unbounded because it is externally added and the game theory is well defined.

I prefer the objectivity of Satoshi's trustless entropy, especially since I rendered pools and ASICs economically irrelevant in my design.

[Fuserleer]

I'm not sure how it can be "delegated" and not require trust in some form or fashion.

You didn't pay close attention to the phrases "verifiable truth" and "they make no discretionary choices of significance, persist the minimum state possible, are fungible with each other" I bolded in the generous excerpt that I quoted from my white paper draft.

If I delegate to you, but you have no choice in how you execute the delegated task, then I don't have to trust you.

I will not tell you the precise inventions of how I do that. Absolutely no hints will be given on that for now. Sorry.

On the surface it sounds a little like our old "hatcher" process, where transactions were delegated to a 3rd party of the clients choice.  No trust was required as the output from a hatcher would either be correct, the minimum state as you put it, or not.  If the latter, it would be apparent to everyone and that work would be rejected along with the transaction.

There were "issues" with this approach that I wasn't happy with and found myself running around in circles. So I dropped it, quite recently in-fact (past 6 months or so) and replaced it with a network wide solution we have now.

[ion.cash]

If I delegate to you, but you have no choice in how you execute the delegated task, then I don't have to trust you.

Not exactly. If I delegate to you, and your actions have no effect whatsoever on the system, then I don't have trust in you.

I didn't frame my response systemically. I wrote if "I" then "I". Yes of course for a node in a Byzantine fault tolerant system, the node can't deviate from the objective verifiable truth that is Byzantine fault tolerant. Precisely. Then the system doesn't have to trust that delegate.

Even that is not entirely sufficient. The node has to also be fungible, replaceable, and not able to monopolize its function.

And that node must not be capable of influencing the verifiable truth by collusion or any other means.

Actually it is not correct to state "no effect whatsoever". Even miners in Satoshi's proof-of-work have an effect; it is just that the effect is objective verifiable truth and Byzantine fault tolerant (within the tradeoffs of Satoshi's design).

[Fuserleer]

A point worth considering:  If the delegated set is fixed over a prolonged period of time, then its not trustless.  If the delegate set changes constantly as the result of some random function, then it may be trustless depending on how large the source set is.

Interesting point.

How does it change the issue of trust even if the delegating parties change randomly?

The delegating parties themselves for iteration n still are to be trusted right?

It reduces the exposure of the system to dishonest nodes, as providing that the function output that determines the set selection is random, these dishonest nodes will never know when they will have an opportunity to be dishonest.

This then requires these nodes to be online constantly in the chance that they do get selected in the next round of delegates.  If the selection set is sufficiently large, and the function output is random (or close to), then the time between subsequent selection may be quite long, thus acting as a discouragement due to costs.

Furthermore, if the selected set of delegates is short lived, then any disruption caused by selecting a dishonest nodes in the previous set will be minimal, as transactions that failed which are deemed legitimate can simply be re-presented a short time later against a new set of delegates.

You can increase resilience further if you delegate the work to ALL selected delegates instead of just one or a few of them.  Then they all perform the same work and you can think about using the output from that as a basis for consensus.

You have to consider Sybils and other things too, but the basic philosophy is as above.

Did I explain clearly? :|  Not sure lol

[ion.cash]

You have to trust that the person/node will do the task otherwise there is no point in delegating in the first place. Please see my quoted definition of the word DELEGATED.

You continue to ignore information which has already been stated. I have emphasized upthread that the nodes are fungible, replaceable, and unable to monopolize their function. A node that continuously doesn't do its function will simply have removed itself from the network giving way to the other nodes which are doing their function.

I think you ought to just wait until I publish the entire white paper, so the whole thing can make sense to you.

I don't know why you incapable of reading a dictionary properly.

del·e·gate
noun
ˈdeləɡət/
1.
a person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.

[monsterer]

Furthermore, if the selected set of delegates is short lived, then any disruption caused by selecting a dishonest nodes in the previous set will be minimal, as transactions that failed which are deemed legitimate can simply be re-presented a short time later against a new set of delegates.

The higher the frequency of delegate election, the worse the service they can provide - at one extreme, the service is completely trust based and very efficient and at the other extreme there is no advantage at all to having delegates but they are completely trustless.

[Fuserleer]

Furthermore, if the selected set of delegates is short lived, then any disruption caused by selecting a dishonest nodes in the previous set will be minimal, as transactions that failed which are deemed legitimate can simply be re-presented a short time later against a new set of delegates.

The higher the frequency of delegate election, the worse the service they can provide - at one extreme, the service is completely trust based and very efficient and at the other extreme there is no advantage at all to having delegates but they are completely trustless.

I disagree, so long as there is a reliable method to allow everyone to know who the delegates are at any moment in time present or past, then selection could happen at 1 second intervals or less.

[ion.cash]

A point worth considering:  If the delegated set is fixed over a prolonged period of time, then its not trustless.  If the delegate set changes constantly as the result of some random function, then it may be trustless depending on how large the source set is.

And those are not the only two possible ways to structure the period of delegation. In fact, the delegation membership paradigm in my design is one of my key epiphanies which makes it Byzantine fault tolerant.

There were "issues" with this approach that I wasn't happy with and found myself running around in circles.

Indeed there were key epiphany inventions I discovered which eliminated those circles. That is why I felt what I revealed today isn't enough for someone to figure out my design, unless they can have the same holistic design epiphanies.

Furthermore, if the selected set of delegates is short lived, then any disruption caused by selecting a dishonest nodes in the previous set will be minimal, as transactions that failed which are deemed legitimate can simply be re-presented a short time later against a new set of delegates.

The higher the frequency of delegate election, the worse the service they can provide

True (for various reasons such as ratios relating to propagation, denial-of-service, etc).

And you were correct to follow up with this post which I will delete:

I disagree, so long as there is a reliable method to allow everyone to know who the delegates are at any moment in time present or past, then selection could happen at 1 second intervals or less.

Network latency prevents everyone knowing who the elected delegates are once you drop below 10 second intervals.

But...

- at one extreme, the service is completely trust based and very efficient and at the other extreme there is no advantage at all to having delegates but they are completely trustless.

False assumptions galore.

Wait for the white paper. Amazing to me that what I invented seems so obvious in hindsight yet it isn't obvious to you all. Interesting.

All discussion about delegation should stop now. Otherwise I will be forced to delete some posts. We are cluttering this thread with too much detail.

Wait for the white paper then you will all understand.

It reduces the exposure of the system to dishonest nodes, as providing that the function output that determines the set selection is random, these dishonest nodes will never know when they will have an opportunity to be dishonest.

This then requires these nodes to be online constantly in the chance that they do get selected in the next round of delegates.  If the selection set is sufficiently large, and the function output is random (or close to), then the time between subsequent selection may be quite long, thus acting as a discouragement due to costs.

Furthermore, if the selected set of delegates is short lived, then any disruption caused by selecting a dishonest nodes in the previous set will be minimal, as transactions that failed which are deemed legitimate can simply be re-presented a short time later against a new set of delegates.

You can increase resilience further if you delegate the work to ALL selected delegates instead of just one or a few of them.  Then they all perform the same work and you can think about using the output from that as a basis for consensus.

You have to consider Sybils and other things too, but the basic philosophy is as above.

Did I explain clearly? :|  Not sure lol

This is a relativistic, probabilistic way of framing objectivity. It is more difficult to prove and argue than what my design attempts. It is perhaps a useful technique and it is an interesting discussion, but we should move it to another thread. We can probably improve our designs by incorporating more discussion along these lines. But any way, I am overloaded right now just to try to get what I have already designed implemented. So for me K.I.S.S. is important right now.

[trollercoaster]

The name has grown on me, ion cash.. sounds good 

[klee]

The name has grown on me, ion cash.. sounds good  

cashion?

EDIT: i-ON

[r0ach]

Since this is exactly like reading Fuserleer's thread where a few details are given, but not enough to analyze the finer points, let's talk about a different subject.  Who do you think the competitors to absorb this code will be if it actually functions?  

As I mentioned in my thread that you linked to earlier in the post, it seems like Bitcoin might be inflexible to change due to a myriad of reasons.  It sounds like someone at BTC core would have to have the balls to scrap everything, admit they've not been able to come up with anything useful in the last several years, then transfer the entire ledger over to a code base from someone probably universally hated by core devs, Anonymint.  Is this possible?

I imagine Darkcoin would cannibalize anything useful from it extremely fast since Duffield isn't afraid to slap some experimental code on a few million market cap userbase.  Bitshares would probably also easily integrate anything useful.  Fuserleer, hey, that's one sneaky guy.  And we all know John Connor isn't afraid of borrowing a little code.

[ion.cash]

My suggestion is to lock the thread and bump it when you have substantive updates.

I thought I didn't have the lock topic button, as I tried to find it earlier and didn't see it. Now I see it very small at the very bottommost left of the thread. I will lock if there is another raging (unintentional) thread jack spawning.

Again I did write in the opening post that I might eventually delete posts and resummarize them into the one condensed post or into the opening post, if I have time to do so.

I do understand the extreme curiosity and interest in discussing such an important topic about how to improve upon consensus attributes such as scalability. I tried to entertain that curiosity by revealing some of the basic principles I've used to solve that design issue without revealing the specific inventions that make such a holistic design conform to those principles. So I did provide some substantive response to FUD and myopia, but it is also true that it will just cause more confusion because obviously if they can't see the entire solution in detail, their misconceptions of issues are what are preventing them from inventing the solution in the first place. So it is best to just not discuss it at all, if we are not going to reveal all the details. This was my intent from the opening post, but I again I tried to appease the curiosity somewhat, but it is just not going to work. We have to shutdown the discussion on the consensus design until our implementation is near finished and we are ready to publish the white paper.

Interestingly bytemaster (Bitshare's Daniel Larimer) discusses the Vitalik white paper I mentioned upthread pertaining to scalability of the transaction rate at the 33 min point of this audio interview:

https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-stealth-confidential-transactions/

Notice how at the 35:25 min point, Daniel quickly glosses over the issue that the network bandwidth and latency are the actual limiting factor because if you want decentralization then you have to allow for great disparity in ISP connections around the world and also be tolerant to network fragmentation and degradation scenarios. Then he admits at 36:45 min that actual measured maximums are in the 40 - 500 transactions per second range and the latter figure is only on a idealized testnet so I take that as not representative of the real world networks in harsh environments such as my fabulous 1 Mbps connection here in the Philippines. Another thing he is glossing over is the issue of who is mining and are they full nodes and if not are the relying on pools and what does this do to centralization, hence censorship resistance, etc, etc, etc. Daniel doesn't seem to appreciate that Vitalik's point may be that in order to scale within the context of real world networks, there needs to be a fundamentally different network design. Daniel seems to think the partitioning is only to divide the CPU load up, but that isn't the real bottleneck (as he admitted for 5 seconds and didn't mention again).

This consensus network stuff is very holistically detailed and it can't be well discussed in this format. The white paper is very long for a reason. There are a lot of details that have to be covered. And it needs to be precise.

P.S. Daniel makes a great implied point at the 41:45 min point that decentralized exchanges will require much higher transactions per second throughput (certainly higher than Bitcoin can handle at this time and remain widely decentralized). Daniel claims Bitshares can do it, and I think to the extent this is a true claim and not just a testnet idealization, this might be true only because DPoS (Delegated Proof-of-Stake) isn't really well decentralized, but I need to go study it in more detail before I can make a detailed comparison.

[ion.cash]

r0ach, I think it is impossible Bitcoin adopts such a radical change in consensus network, because it is changes the security model. If any coin was going to supplant Bitcoin then it would do so at such an adoption rate that Bitcoin couldn't possibly make the change fast enough (e.g. if decentralized exchanges caught on like wildfire). Just look at the debate over block size increase and imagine the debate over changing the entire model.

I could see Blockstream potentially doing a side chain, so counter measures may have to be taken but it is also not yet clear if side-chains are going to be trusted and used.

Bitshares has too much investment (vested "stake") in proof-of-stake to shift quickly and their small market cap would be overrun well before they could act. Besides I think they believe in their solution. Their coin appears to be more like a cooperative or corporation than a decentralized open source deal. Rather I could see them making tweaks to their own design to try emulate any of the best attributes and I would need to study DPoS in more detail to see where if any limitations for them might lie.

Dash wouldn't be able to technically shoehorn something of this sophistication adequately fast enough if not forever. There is so much deep stuff in this, it isn't going to be something you just implement over the weekend. We'll have a few months lead going in and if we continue innovating, they will never catch up. For one thing, the Dash people aren't even going to understand the code because it (at least the portions I write) is written in Scala.   It is possible some of it will be written in Java, but I am hoping not. Of course some optimizations of critical paths may be written in C and assembly. And yes I am full aware that Java libraries suck (remember the Android BitcoinJ RNG bug) and have many security vulnerabilities and thus I am for the most part not using them.

For example, the anonymity design I did requires a larger EdDSA curve (e.g. ed41417) than is implemented in any standard crypto libraries. If that is coded in Scala, then how are these C++ coders going to grab that and translate it quickly. Scala is a 3 month learning process for people who know some Java and probably longer for those who never did Java programming.

You are always best just joining the leader rather than trying to steal from the leader. You only co-opt the leader if the leader is incompetent, such as what Monero had to do to bitmonero and Bytecoin. If my designs are correct, then I expect other top developers to eventually join in. The best developers like to work with the best developers and on the most interesting and leading efforts. I think it is important to demonstrate that quality early on. I'll be publishing some code soon so we can get the ball rolling on the level of sophistication and quality in this project.

Who is going to trust someone who steals code and designs? The community is going to invest in who has proven he can create quality solutions. So that is the point of starting this thread is to start showing some code. Of course the best exhibits will be usable software with easy-to-use, clean user interfaces, etc..

Right now one of the big problems in crypto is there is so much that isn't implemented and fully refined. I will certainly be challenged in this regard being only one person. Getting other developers to join is very important eventually. But still the lead has to really lead and do a herculian output, otherwise the project doesn't fly.

[ion.cash]

Bitshares has too much investment (vested "stake") in proof-of-stake to shift quickly and their small market cap would be overrun well before they could act. Besides I think they believe in their solution. Their coin appears to be more like a cooperative or corporation than a decentralized open source deal. Rather I could see them making tweaks to their own design to try emulate any of the best attributes and I would need to study DPoS in more detail to see where if any limitations for them might lie.

One thing about the Bitshares people is they seem pretty willing to undertake new initiatives and switch direction. If they saw a reason to want to do something different I don't think it would necessarily have to be on the same coin platform at all.

Hey if Daniel is willing to give up all the collectivism crap about shares in MLM, interest bearing accounts, etc (and all that I don't bother to understand about Bitshares), then as a coder I'd explore working with him. I know he is a talented coder. And I see there are other talented coders over there in his community (some guy pulled a Javascript implementation of ECC out of his hat in 30 hours the other day so they can accelerate their web wallet implementation of the new anonymity features).

But alas, I remember from the deep debates I as Anonymint had with Daniel in 2013, that he is inherently socialist and I am inherently anarchist. I recently exhanged a few posts with his brother and still the same attitude difference seems to persist between us. So I think he will always be looking at problems and solutions more top-down than I am. Meaning I will be looking to encourage the market of network effects for development momentum as early as feasible. I'd rather make aspects orthogonal so others can build and profit, rather than try to build my own well contained, feature complete, crypto kingdom as Bitshares Corporation appears to do. Give more opportunities to others.

So I am confident that what ever he does with my designs, he will sufficiently screw them up that I don't have to worry too much.  

But let me reserve my final judgement until I complete my evaluation of DPoS to see what he has done technically.

I am more worried about Vitalik (and separately Blockstream and with their significant resources). That guy appears to be a beast of an intellect. Wish I could get him on my team and rein him in to focus sufficiently on achieving realized designs and implementations. Or maybe I should wish he will go to the competitor and tie them up in forever research and R&D.

Look I can't worry about this. I need to code and see where the chips fall. Let everyone do what they will.

Edit: here at 53:30 Daniel explains they are licensing their code:

https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-stealth-confidential-transactions/

They are building a business model around building software for the coin ecosystem. This is very top-down and non-network effects thinking. It is far too slow. We need 1000s of developers working in an ecosystem not the developers of the coin taking a preferential position crowding out the rest of the potential competition within the ecosytem.

The developers should not be competing with their own ecosystem!!

I am confident the Larimer brothers will screw up despite being technically competent.

Crypto-land requires a very diverse mix of skills.

Edit#2: I was just shaking my head at the end of the audio interview with Daniel. They are paying their community to listen to his interview! How much more top-down micromanager could you possibly be.

I am all about using my brain to make big paradigm shifts and then let the market sweep me away.

Now you all get to observe if there is a significance difference... stay tuned...

[ion.cash]

I wrote this...

That's clearly not the case since the block rewards go to zero and the bigger question is whether there would even be enough PoW, not whether there would be too much.

The concern over PoW going gray goo over all the world's power is based on the bizarre premise of moonstruck fanatics that it becomes the world reserve currency tomorrow, despite not even being able to figure out how to scale above 5-7 tps. After a few more block halvings this would not be the case at all.

This is why being able to objectively filter 25 - 33% selfish mining attacks and 51% attacks is so critical. Satoshi's design can not do it. Mine can.

With that key improvement, then one can change the way mining is done so that those who are sending transactions are doing the mining, but they don't care about their profitability so then you drastically reduce the electricity used, yet simultaneously make it uneconomic to run an ASIC farm. And pools become irrelevant because no one is mining for profit, rather because they must mine to send a transaction.

So then you have the unbounded entropy of proof-of-work that insures its model of security and game theory, without any of the drawbacks.

TADA.  

[ion.cash]

Edit: here at 53:30 Daniel explains they are licensing their code:

https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-stealth-confidential-transactions/

They are building a business model around building software for the coin ecosystem.  This is very top-down and non-network effects thinking. It is far too slow. We need 1000s of developers working in an ecosystem

It seems like a smart idea to prevent a large corporation or financial institution from taking all the work, not utilizing the original system to give it value, and instead building their internal network, exchange, etc, with it.  Anytime you read coin news about banks, they don't seem very interested in doing things like buying coins from miners, they seem interested in taking the work, building their own system on top of it, or selling the coins to you.  I think people are underestimating the highly refined banker initiative to screw everyone over as much as possible.

The correct solution is invent a decentralized ecosystem coin that will be used by millions of people every day.

Aiming lower is slower, lower, and not my style. Then you worry about being pecked off by a larger small bird.

I have produced million user software back when the internet population was 1/10 of its current size.

Sorry arguing that top-down is a correct solution for decentralized crypto-currency is an oxymoron to me. Either we do this right, or why bother even doing it at all.

Besides that is not the reason Daniel is doing it. He is doing it because he philosophically believes in control (and/or like every good socialist he wants to mask his lack of confidence and milking of the market under the guise of forming a cult of "sharing" for as long as all such taxes course through him ... and he probably believes in socialist organization philosophically as if he can give a better result if he can control it more). Steve Jobs was a control freak and his iOS walled garden got destroyed by the more open Android as the following chart shows...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/World_Wide_Smartphone_Sales_Share.png


I've been discussing the issues raised by r0ach and smooth in private messages. And I want to share something I wrote in a private message.

Also remember I want to use this coin. Which means I want to go create services in the ecosystem and earn money on those. Even if for example my designs get implemented by Blockstream, at least I can go create the types of decentralized services and sites that can earn me $millions.

But while getting this coin to the point where it will scale out, I can't be targeting measily $20k to leech on my ecosystem for server infrastructure. If I create a product in my ecosystem later, it will shoot big B2C (to drive more usership to the coin helping the entire ecosystem), not vertical market B2B in a small developer market.

I see marketing idiots throughout this space. This is going to be as easy as taking candy from a baby for me from a marketing standpoint.

 The name vote is already a reflection of my marketing instincts. I will however need to not get in debates, as it interferes with my marketing and causes people to perceive me as overbearing. Rather I think it would be more accurate to say there is too much work to do and it is much more amicable to be relating on production instead of these debates. I simply can't allow myself to get sucked into long discussions. I am the only programmer on the project right now. So my overbearingness is a function of necessity. Let's be realistic. Does anyone have any idea how much work is head of me!

My greatest successes in the past were when I was implementing software because I wanted to use it and solve a problem I had with existing software for my own personal use. I guess because I am very passionate about it when that is the case and I am up close and personal with the issues I am trying to solve.

[Fuserleer]

I've been discussing the issues raised by r0ach and smooth in private messages. And I want to share something I wrote in a private message.

...Does anyone have any idea how much work is head of me!...

I do, and I'll tell you exactly how much....a proverbial shit ton!  And once you've shoveled through that, expect a few more!

If your ambition includes a desire to do it right and there are no actual deadlines (only self imposed ones), then you'll under-estimate the time required for everything.  This is due to you over-estimating your ability to do it in a timely manner and to exacting standards by a large factor.

Personally I think this is fine, a while ago now I accepted that it was going to take time to do this right.  Not only for the quality of the product, but also so I could sleep at night without the concern of "Am I going to awake in the morning and some poor person has lost their life savings due to a stupid bug!", thus I stopped giving estimated launch dates and its now purely moving on "Valve Time" and IRWIR

I too have worked on million+ user projects, but crucially, the failure of which rarely results in the loss of someones livelihood, so corners can (and are constantly) cut.  Even in the case that it could effect some users life in a negative manner, there is usually some form of insurance in place either by way of actual policies held by the producing organization, or the organization itself has deep enough pockets to mitigate any issues as such.

We don't have the safety net above, nor the same as most others cryptos do.  That is, they base a large amount of what they are doing on Satoshi's ideas and have seen that it works and is of sound theory.  We are pushing the frontier with these new ideas and I'd be mortified if something went wrong and I knew I'd cut corners just to rush it out the door.

[ion.cash]

I continue to tease with damned facts...

Any block chain has the problem that a few big players can collude, whether they are large stakeholders or large hashpoolers.

That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude

My white paper will be the first to show the above are false assumptions.

I am telling you I am going to shock the world.

I don't do small things. I rock the Titanic.

Call this hype without details. Fine. But I can't let you write fallacious statements without pointing them out.

[OROBTC]

...

ion

Medium-sized ego OROBTC asks (begs) to K.I.S.S.!  Simplicity (relative) is the key to mass-adoption.

[Fuserleer]

More damned facts to correct big egos with big mouths...

Anyone who trust their coins to (very) high level languages like Java (and and its hopeless VM model) deserves to lose all their money.

Anyone who trusts your FUD deserves to lose all their money when you conflate the secure JVM with the flaky Java libraries and flaky Java security model especially the grotesque web browser sand box model:

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=YMQqZoc6L3EC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&ots=82VUnh-Gfy#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://threatpost.com/javas-losing-security-legacy/102176/

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2610267/security/patching-has-failed--so-it-s-time-for-java-to-go.html

One doesn't have to use the flaky aspects of Java when using the JVM. For example, the BitcoinJ Android bug was due to an error in the random number generator Android Java library. It had nothing to do with the JVM (virtual machine).

This sort of error proves that at best you are a very junior level programmer, or probably not even a programmer.

Also, you apparently don't understand programming enough to understand that many errors originate from the lack of semantic clarity and high level semantic invariants static type checking that isn't done in low level languages such as assembly, C, and C++. And C++ is one of the most complex, grotesque languages ever with perhaps only Perl and Brainfuck making it look good. And take this from someone who wrote a million user application in C++ and another one in C. I estimate you don't even know what sort of improvements in correctness pure functional programming can provide.

Get off my lawn kid!

Yeah this annoys me greatly!

People regularly confuse Java with JavaShit, and claim the security of Java is rubbish because JavaShits is.  In fact the 2 are VERY different languages, and the only common ground between them is some syntax similarities (but then Java and C++ share a lot of that), and the damn name.

Any and all languages are insecure if the skills of the developer are not up to par.

In fact a very large portion of the worlds banking applications are written in Java, on the front and back end....so go figure.

[ion.cash]

For constant time crypto code, you'd ideally want to go low level. Also for performance critical sections. Use the correct tool for the job. For high level semantic code that doesn't have those those other low level requirements, use a high level language.

You wouldn't dig trenches with spoons. Use a backhoe when you don't need to carve out small areas around sensitive pipes.

[ion.cash]

I missed your excerpt.

Perhaps you should repost that "generous" portion in the OP so everyone doesn't have to DIG for it and play this moving target game with you.

Perhaps you will learn RTFM.

Reading 2 pages of a thread is too much for a prima donna, that is no excuse for you to blame me for not putting the entire thread in the opening post.

I can see we are going to have significant problems with political trouble makers, who have nothing better to do but be lazy and disruptive— apparently intentionally so.

[ion.cash]

You have to trust that the person/node will do the task otherwise there is no point in delegating in the first place.

You continue to ignore information which has already been stated. I have emphasized upthread that the nodes are fungible, replaceable, and unable to monopolize their function. A node that continuously doesn't do its function will simply have removed itself from the network giving way to the other nodes which are doing their function.

I think you ought to just wait until I publish the entire white paper, so the whole thing can make sense to you.

Yup waiting  

Perhaps you should publish all of the available information (without revealing your entire system) to the OP as opposed to cherry picking what you want to disclose and then doing a dance as people's questions come into this thread.

One thing I despise is a moving target in a discussion.

Please make everyone's reading and understanding a little easier by presenting the information at the beginning of this thread instead of as you see fit.

Again you ramp up the pressure even more trying to blame me for you inability to be able to read. You can't even read a dictionary:

You have to trust that the person/node will do the task otherwise there is no point in delegating in the first place. Please see my quoted definition of the word DELEGATED.

You continue to ignore information...

I don't know why you incapable of reading a dictionary properly.

del·e·gate
noun
ˈdeləɡət/
1.
a person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.

[ion.cash]

Oh so now Smoothie has filed a bogus trust claim on my username to try to get revenge. (Click the "Trust" next to my username to the left)

It won't help him escape from the reality of this day.

When a person frames their argument with Freudian words such as "immaturity" and "not humble", they speak about themselves. They attempt to project their passive aggressive psychological illness on others.

It is rather sick to observe. (pun intended)

Edit: appears this behavior of abusing the Trust ratings is being sanctioned by the mods as they deleted my positive rating with counter argument from my long standing username TPTB_need_war.  Perhaps Smoothie has been the one sanctioned to do a demolition job on my coin by the powers-that-be that favor Bitcoin and own this forum. This was expected and it won't help them.

My long explanation.

[LiQio]

kinda like "ion"

added the topic to my watchlist

[suda123]

Recently I announced my rationale to develop my coin non-anonymously, with any anonymity features to be added by other developers later.

The proposed name of the coin is Ion with a capitalized first letter when it can be written with a serif font, e.g. Ion— otherwise ion instead of Ion. For me ion connotes a thing that can conduct a current and be zapped to a destination.

Formerly AnonyMint et al, I expended 2+ years thinking about anonymity designs and recently formalized an unreleased white paper which I think is the holy grail of on chain anonymity. This will be offloaded to other developers, so I can work non-anonymously on this coin.

The current focus of my development on this coin is to complete a novel consensus network design which has proposed the following fixes to flaws in Satoshi’s design while retaining proof-of-work as unbounded entropy[1]:

• Censorship resistance even if mining is entirely centralized.
• Attack-free instant zero confirmation instantaneous transactions.
• Impervious to selfish mining and 51% attacks.
• Transaction rates virtually unbounded by block chain bandwidth and size.
• Resilient against network fragmentation.
• Decentralization of pools and ASICs by making them uneconomic.
• Non-heuristic Sybil and DoS resistance.

None of the above is a joke nor exaggeration. I am entirely serious. My programming background and expertise is documented in the archives of my prior usernames.

Currently unreleased white papers will not be published until this coin is nearer to release to insure these designs are released first in our coin. Thus for the time being I may not be providing more details on how the above features are accomplished.

Soon I will be uploading some code to the internet and will update this opening post and bump the thread. I will also be announcing some bounties in coins for those who want to do development on this coin. I will also later add some information on the targeted launch date and other details on the coin supply and distribution.

So that new readers can digest this thread from start to finish, I will be removing your posts sometimes to incorporate what was discussed into this opening thread post. I will also remove posts which are redundant or otherwise don't add anything useful information. Constructive critical discussion is welcomed.

The future goal is to have a Wiki and incorporate all discussion there. All posts would remain viewable in the Wiki history as they are removed from current versions of the Wiki pages and the outcome of discussion incorporated into the current versions of the Wiki pages. The point again is so new readers can access the information they need.

You are welcome to make an unmoderated thread, but do not expect me to comment there. Bring any issue in this thread if you want me to address it.

[1] My position until I am convinced otherwise is that all non-proof-of-work consensus systems have a bounded entropy (e.g. the total stake and/or any initial seeds used for randomization) and thus their attributes (e.g. decentralization, censorship resistance, DoS resistance, Sybil attack resistance, impartiality) is subject to a game theory which is potentially undiscovered. Whereas, the entropy of proof-of-work is unbounded because it is externally added and the game theory is well defined.

name sounds good senpai!



how to vote pls

also Ion, and I-on thats really clever mmhmm

[ion.cash]

I am sure Oracle.Sun.Java's crypto primitives work very well (until they don't, because 'Oops ZeroDay LOL').

I am not using Java's bloatware crypto libraries! I am writing all my stuff from scratch to make sure it is correct, concise, elegant, clean, and kick ass. You don't realize you are talking to a prolific programmer.

And I already ported Ed25519 from Java to Scala (I2P code).

[Fuserleer]

People regularly confuse Java with JavaShit, and claim the security of Java is rubbish because JavaShits is.  In fact the 2 are VERY different languages, and the only common ground between them is some syntax similarities (but then Java and C++ share a lot of that), and the damn name.

Any and all languages are insecure if the skills of the developer are not up to par.

In fact a very large portion of the worlds banking applications are written in Java, on the front and back end....so go figure.

Please elaborate for us semi-non-specialists.  Are you talking about Mono or what?

I am sure Oracle.Sun.Java's crypto primitives work very well (until they don't, because 'Oops ZeroDay LOL').

For non-performance critical applications in FinTech, Java has a lot of benefits.

Generally its performance for regular operations isn't that far behind C, memory management is much easier and there is no risk of overflows, development turn around is generally faster, it can be securely sand-boxed (if you know what your doing) and it is of course multi-platform in the most general sense.

A lot of the top tier financial institutions spend great effort to ensure that the libraries are clean and bug free....its hardcore.  They generally run custom library repositories that are based on the standard Java, but with improvements where required (the crypto and math libs for example are way ahead of what is in the standard package).  A lot of these improvements are fed back to Oracle/Sun and so make it into subsequent releases.

The guys that work on this stuff are the best of the best, some of which are paid $1000+ per day, which is a small price to pay for the exposure received if something should screw up.  If Java was inherently insecure, it wouldn't be used for anything.

I think some of the misconception comes from the fact that the infrastructure topology is dated, but the software that runs within is very solid.  There are exceptions I'm sure, but what I've seen working in this field in the past, its very clinical.

[arielbit]

i like this guy, he's an artist  ... make an obra meastra

i'd rather boost anonymint's ego than attact it (some people become better in what they do if their ego is boosted - i think he is one them)

we will know the results anyway when Ion is released. and i prefer to be on the positive side.

[asdf55]

Can you reveal distribution plans? You mentioned billions of coins or more, will it be like larger block and than halving after some time or something nethash/diff related?

[traumschiff]

These attacks can be squelched if for observers and peers their system function is verifiable truth, they can prove a trusted reputation, or they can expend or risk sufficient resources which exceed the gain from cheating.

Already asked this, but it didn't get a response, so here it goes again. How are you solving the problem (on zero confirmation transactions) which is bolded in the quote?

[ion.cash]

Can you reveal distribution plans? You mentioned billions of coins or more, will it be like larger block and than halving after some time or something nethash/diff related?

What I appreciate is the interest that has been shown, as it helped to confirm to me that the crypto market is not dead despite the price being down (and I think headed lower before bottoming). Because this has enabled me to gain more confidence that I am not wasting my time coding.

And I have already been contacted by an experienced crypto Java developer, so that meets my goals along with getting feedback on the name.

Other than those welcome successes, I feel shame for the discordant attention this thread has drawn (both shame for myself and for the other parties where we can't have mutual respect) and I want to delete everything and close this thread. I am trying to restrain myself, so I will just lock the thread now and go about deleting my recent posts in the other threads because I feel I have nothing to gain from parading myself around like a clown in a circus.

As for the distribution, I think it doesn't help at all to go into details like that so prematurely. It can surely just lead to more things for people to gossip or attack about and I think it is better that when we are ready to distribute we just do it. The market will tell us if we done our job correctly and if the markets feels we have made the honest and most network effects building choices w.r.t. to distribution.

I think I started this thread because I was excited to share my excitement and find some others to work with. I guess I was originally thinking it would be a community spirit where I would check in every few days and update published code and get some positive feedback loop going with the community. When I played team sports it wasn't politics, but about who could do the best job at each position. We competed to make each other better. We learned to have mutual respect. But I remember that was a difficult adjustment process. At the start, all the guys had some kind of attitude adjustment we had to go through in order to truly appreciate each other and work together as one. I just don't think a community here can work like that. It would need to be more a cult and zombie or speculative pump mass mania effect.

Now I rather feel like hiding under a rock and showing up one day da bomb. Wasting too much time on very draining communication. I think its better to communicate through non-interactive channels, e.g. white paper, website, and wiki.

These attacks can be squelched if for observers and peers their system function is verifiable truth, they can prove a trusted reputation, or they can expend or risk sufficient resources which exceed the gain from cheating.

Already asked this, but it didn't get a response, so here it goes again. How are you solving the problem (on zero confirmation transactions) which is bolded in the quote?

It isn't so simple to explain and would basically tell you major aspects of my design and I already said I am not going to reveal that at this early stage. So I think I just need to disappear for a while. I already got the feedback I needed. Thanks and I apologize for nothing being able to give the complete information now.

[klee]

Don't worry, this is all good if this is about to succeed - it will strengthen the project.
Of course you are only human and you should try to manage your interactions because everything has it's price.

[ion.cash]

Basically it was this young punk who was disrupting everything:

I)  A common complaint of DPoS is that it can't be decentralized because it has the word "delegated" in the title...

Just like when I delegate the transfer of my internet packets to my ISP and all the router hops along the way, thus my participation in the internet is no longer decentralized.  

That is the fabulous logic of Smoothie which he tried to ram down our throat 5 or more times.

As I tried to explain to that young punk several times, if the routers are fungible, replaceable, and can't be monopolized, then the packets find their way to the destination, without need to trust or centralize. Delegation should not be conflated with centralization, nor trust. We told him this 5 or more times, yet he still insisted.

And he claims to be a software developer. I wouldn't let him any where near my code.

By my own profession (software developer)

[macsga]

@ion.cash: If I may, here's a nice advice for you. If you don't like someone's behavior, you can build up a story as you see fit in order not to get frustrated (ie: your girlfriend dumps you - you explain it as "you had incompatible personalities"; NOT as "she found someone better"). In any case, since our time here is limited, don't waste your time into meaningful debates and oppressive thoughts.

I usually try to let my actions speak for me. From what I can tell, you're a "DO-er" not just a "Talker". Get your project going and I'm sure whoever has issues with your personality, brains potential, or scientific capabilities, they will get their answer in time...

PS:
Just to make things a bit funnier, here's a nice logo for you. It's my wife's favorite chocolate.

[patmast3r]

Is there any ETA on when whitepaper or even just a general explanation of how you're archieving all those wonderfull things ?
I know you want to be very secretive about this and you prob have good reasons but at some point you're gonna have to tell people what's going on in order for them to trust your project.

[TPTB_need_war]

Yes seriously I don't have time to waste here on talk. We need action.

You all carry on, I am leaving the thread open. I'll delete anything that gets obnoxious.

Yeah of course I know what action is required to embarrass the fuck out of young punks.

[TPTB_need_war]

I have given r0ach a private message with a very strong hint as to how I accomplish my design.

[tromp]

And C++ is one of the most complex, grotesque languages ever with perhaps only Perl and Brainfuck making it look good.

Your mention of Brainfuck is quite off the mark,
as it is one of the simplest programming languages imaginable

(that fact that writing programs in Brainfuck is anything but simple
is a consequence of the language being simplified to an extreme).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

[TPTB_need_war]

And C++ is one of the most complex, grotesque languages ever with perhaps only Perl and Brainfuck making it look good.

Your mention of Brainfuck is quite off the mark,
as it is one of the simplest programming languages imaginable

(that fact that writing programs in Brainfuck is anything but simple
is a consequence of the language being simplified to an extreme).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

Hi tromp. Good to hear from you again.

Communicating in an overly simplistic language that is not semantically expressive is thus more complex.

It never ceases to amaze me how linear most people think. People latch onto to one perspective on an issue and lose the ability to see over the forest.  Whether it be conflating 'delegation' with 'trust' and 'centralization'. Or in this case conflating simplicity of syntax and operational semantics, with overall semantics.

[tromp]

There appears to be a lot of overlap between your design and Sergio's DagCoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177633.0

[TPTB_need_war]

There appears to be a lot of overlap between your design and Sergio's DagCoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177633.0

Your post there is much closer to what I've been thinking. Note I am still looking at issues and trying to further improve what I have in mind.

One of the keys is that it must be impossible to censor a transaction based on UXTO.

[ion.cash]

Mining will be unprofitable if we achieve that technical design goal. Only users that send transactions or who don't count their insignificant electricity cost will mine.

Did you just reveal that mining has a proof of burn involved because I don't see any other way for that statement to work otherwise.

I already told you that if users are required send PoW with each transaction and they don't care about their insignificant electrical cost then PoW will be unprofitable, especially if the CPU-only hash has been well designed to be within an order-of-magnitude of the potential ASIC optimization. In my recent archives (July?), smooth and I estimated this order-of-magnitude for Cryptonite at between 1 and 2, and I believe mine may be slightly better than Cryptonite.

There is your first example of me doing something technical you formerly thought is impossible. And there will be many more such cases. Stay tuned...

Not sure what thread is now the right place to post technical questions, so gonna post here:

* If there is no mining incentive, why mine the chain?

* If difficulty is low enough for joe public to mine their own transactions (and assuming only the sender can mine his own transactions), doesn't that open the chain to attack by server farms under the control of one individual?

1. There is a mining requirement because transactions sent without proof-of-work mining share would form a rejected block, thus will not be accepted by any block.

2. The sender of the transaction doesn't need to win a block to send a transaction. I claim a 51% attack is impossible in my design. The specifics on how I accomplish that protection is not going to be discussed now. It hinges on objectivity which Satoshi's design doesn't have. Sincerely I feel bad for not being able to discuss the specifics on that now (I am eager to of course, because I am proud of my design even if it is not perfect because nothing is perfect) but please do not drag me into another argument because that particular feature is my intellectual property. I am trying to accelerate my coding so I can get the white paper and code released into the open source asap so we can open discussion on the specifics.

[monsterer]

1. There is a mining requirement because transactions sent without proof-of-work mining share would form a rejected block, thus will not be accepted by any block.

2. The sender of the transaction doesn't need to win a block to send a transaction. I claim a 51% attack is impossible in my design. The specifics on how I accomplish that protection is not going to be discussed now. It hinges on objectivity which Satoshi's design doesn't have. Sincerely I feel bad for not being able to discuss the specifics on that now (I am eager to of course, because I am proud of my design even if it is not perfect because nothing is perfect) but please do not drag me into another argument because that particular feature is my intellectual property. I am trying to accelerate my coding so I can get the white paper and code released into the open source asap so we can open discussion on the specifics.

For 1, I was more asking why a miner would be incentivised to mine a chain with no block reward.

I can see how a 51% would be impossible in a system where only you can mine your transactions, but it looks like this is not your design. In the system I was musing about, the 51% attack was replaced with the attacker only having to outpace the recipient of the transaction, which is much worse than only having to outpace the network.

[ion.cash]

1. There is a mining requirement because transactions sent without proof-of-work mining share would form a rejected block, thus will not be accepted by any block.

2. The sender of the transaction doesn't need to win a block to send a transaction. I claim a 51% attack is impossible in my design. The specifics on how I accomplish that protection is not going to be discussed now. It hinges on objectivity which Satoshi's design doesn't have. Sincerely I feel bad for not being able to discuss the specifics on that now (I am eager to of course, because I am proud of my design even if it is not perfect because nothing is perfect) but please do not drag me into another argument because that particular feature is my intellectual property. I am trying to accelerate my coding so I can get the white paper and code released into the open source asap so we can open discussion on the specifics.

For 1, I was more asking why a miner would be incentivised to mine a chain with no block reward.

I can see how a 51% would be impossible in a system where only you can mine your transactions, but it looks like this is not your design. In the system I was musing about, the 51% attack was replaced with the attacker only having to outpace the recipient of the transaction, which is much worse than only having to outpace the network.

Okay I admit you don't know my design yet. You'll see why I say the objectivity is different and allows identifying the 51% attack as distinct from the honest chain once I release the white paper. Whether you will find a flaw or not remains to be seen. And again I need to get back to coding. Hope we can do that evaluation and peer review soon. Thanks.

[ion.cash]

I disappeared for longer than expected due to health issues which were preventing me from having any mental energy for working. I have detailed this over the past days under my other username TPTB_need_war.

I am on the 4th consecutive day of continuous reasonably pain-free health and somewhat reasonable energy level (still not ideal, but not always zombified). I was able to run 2.25 kms at 8:30 mile pace in the hot tropical sun each of the past 3 days (will attempt again after writing this), got one barbell and basketball shoot around workout in those 3 days also, and 2 of those days I exceed 4 kms with a second run later in the day. I also finally got my driver's license renewal (which is critical for being able to get daily errands done efficiently) which had represented a big hurdle due to the unwillingness of the LTO (land transportation office) to issue a driver's license with night time driving privilege to someone blind in one eye (as I am). I had to get a medical certificate from an ophthalmologist which was a struggle to accomplish due to the low energy I was experiencing, as well very difficult to find one who wasn't on vacation.  Then my uncorrected eye sight had declined from 20/40 to 20/70 just since early August (perhaps due to the 10 day fasting I attempted as a cure in late August, but I don't know). My vision should improve as my overall health does, since it is hypothesized (but not clinically verified yet) that the gut dysbiosys is driving the autoimmunity which is attacking my visual cortex.

In any case, a big change in diet to focus on live probiotics, wild grown green leaves, raw tuna, and restarted my vitamin D3 supplementation but at a more subdued level of 20,000 IU daily, so far has me in an improving state-of-health over the past 4 days.

As of today, I have completed both the single-threaded and multi-theaded coding for the linear probe hash table which is a central component of the algorithm I am developing. Here is the heading comment for the multi-threaded version of it. I still intend to post some open source code soon to demonstrate progress. My health has been really debilitating and I have done Herculean effort to try to cure it. I don't think words could describe the minute-by-minute struggle I have been fighting.

Code:

package collections.hashed

/*
TODO: in Scala 3 we can require KEY, VAL, and CNT to be Int or Long, since we
      can express a first-class disjunction type.
*/
trait LinearProbe[@specialized(Int,Long) KEY, @specialized(Int,Long) VAL, @specialized(Int,Long) CNT] {
  def count: CNT
  // Whether entry was inserted. Value ‘0’ will return ‘false’ (internally ‘0’ values denote an empty entry).
  def insert(key: KEY, value: VAL): Boolean
  // Whether entry was removed.
  def remove(key: KEY): Boolean
  // Value that matches the given key, else ‘0’.
  def value(key: KEY): VAL
}

/*
Thread-safe LinearProbeLongInt optimized for ‘insert’, ‘find’, and ‘value’ (but not ‘remove’).
Do not employ more threads than hardware threads.

Writers are sequentially synchronized, and readers run asynchronously. Writers
wait for all active readers to complete, and readers wait for all queued writers
to complete. Non-blocking coordination is employed because a context-switch
costs a thousandth to a hundredth of a millisecond, i.e. 100,000 - 1 million
operations per second. Whereas, the critical sections of the ‘insert’, ‘find’,
and ‘value’ have a throughput in excess of 10 million operations per second.

The lines of code added to make this class thread-safe are tagged with /**/
*/
class ThreadedInsertLinearProbeLongInt(bits: Byte, lsr: Byte) extends LinearProbe[Long, Int, Int] {

I do not expect to post often. I'll post when there are significant developments.

[TPTB_need_war]

I had to come back to post something very important. Seems Monero is attempting to duplicate my invention. I will be posting this on the Ion thread as well.

The brand new Ring Confidential Transactions for Monero appears to me to be broken:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cvzval5

[macsga]

I had to come back to post something very important. Seems Monero is attempting to duplicate my invention. I will be posting this on the Ion thread as well.

The brand new Ring Confidential Transactions for Monero appears to me to be broken:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cvzval5

There's only one thing that proves your excellence: To be imitated/copied. I'd be very glad if I were you. I might even join their efforts like a valuable advisor...

Edit: This is a serious advice. Your ideas may transform XMR to what you're trying to accomplish by your own.

[TPTB_need_war]

I had to come back to post something very important. Seems Monero is attempting to duplicate my invention. I will be posting this on the Ion thread as well.

The brand new Ring Confidential Transactions for Monero appears to me to be broken:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cvzval5

There's only one thing that proves your excellence: To be imitated/copied. I'd be very glad if I were you. I might even join their efforts like a valuable advisor...

Edit: This is a serious advice. Your ideas may transform XMR to what you're trying to accomplish by your own.

If they offer enough money, they can receive my white paper. No one has contacted me.

[macsga]

I had to come back to post something very important. Seems Monero is attempting to duplicate my invention. I will be posting this on the Ion thread as well.

The brand new Ring Confidential Transactions for Monero appears to me to be broken:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cvzval5

There's only one thing that proves your excellence: To be imitated/copied. I'd be very glad if I were you. I might even join their efforts like a valuable advisor...

Edit: This is a serious advice. Your ideas may transform XMR to what you're trying to accomplish by your own.

If they offer enough money, they can receive my white paper. No one has contacted me.

I wouldn't expect it so fast. I just learned this from your post that they want to implement this feature; on the other hand, why don't you lay the first hand? Maybe they never heard of ion so far! Ask somebody from their dev-team and talk about your achievements. The post you typed on reddit is very minimal - how would they know if you're for real?

If I were you I'd propose a tit-for-tat deal. Maybe (just maybe) they will listen to you and offer you money to confront your health situation. I know some people there will certainly have open ears for your story.

I'd go for it! It's probably the best deal!

[TPTB_need_war]

they all know who I am. they know how to send me a private message if they are interested. Instead I am certain they will go try to invent it themselves. Monero apparently doesn't have significant funds to pay developers because they didn't sell any coins. Everything was mined. Any way, I was always willing to work for those who would pay me well. I've never received an offer to be well paid for my efforts in cryptoland.

[myagui]

I had to come back to post something very important. Seems Monero is attempting to duplicate my invention. I will be posting this on the Ion thread as well.

The brand new Ring Confidential Transactions for Monero appears to me to be broken:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cvzval5

^{[emphasis mine]}

I've been quietly following this thread, but I see that perhaps I missed something very important along the way.
Where can this invention of yours be seen? Was there some whitepaper draft or something posted that I missed?

Edit: Btw, just expressed my vote. I really like the (ion) name.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

they all know who I am. they know how to send me a private message if they are interested. Instead I am certain they will go try to invent it themselves. Monero apparently doesn't have significant funds to pay developers because they didn't sell any coins. Everything was mined. Any way, I was always willing to work for those who would pay me well. I've never received an offer to be well paid for my efforts in cryptoland.

We (the Monero community) certainly know who you are, but we don't know what you want. You say "enough money" but that doesn't give anyone even a ballpark expectation. We've already crowdfunded development work and other initiatives and could certainly attempt to raise money, but your vagueness implies your work can't ever be afforded.

If you don't think that's the case, then name your price and we'll see who contributes. I get that you don't want to show your hand, but if you're waiting for Smooth or Fluffypony to PM you and make you an offer, I wouldn't expect that to happen, because that's not really how decisions get made on this project. That doesn't mean you can't get what you want, however.

[stellargratis]

It is Good coin name...
where is have it....?? 

[macsga]

they all know who I am. they know how to send me a private message if they are interested. Instead I am certain they will go try to invent it themselves. Monero apparently doesn't have significant funds to pay developers because they didn't sell any coins. Everything was mined. Any way, I was always willing to work for those who would pay me well. I've never received an offer to be well paid for my efforts in cryptoland.

We (the Monero community) certainly know who you are, but we don't know what you want. You say "enough money" but that doesn't give anyone even a ballpark expectation. We've already crowdfunded development work and other initiatives and could certainly attempt to raise money, but your vagueness implies your work can't ever be afforded.

If you don't think that's the case, then name your price and we'll see who contributes. I get that you don't want to show your hand, but if you're waiting for Smooth or Fluffypony to PM you and make you an offer, I wouldn't expect that to happen, because that's not really how decisions get made on this project. That doesn't mean you can't get what you want, however.

Aside from what people think about Anonymint, he's quite good at what he does. He's extremely intelligent, good coder and maybe what he claims to be true, actually really is. What I'd propose is that the XMR community to listen to what he has to offer; and if he proves that his work actually is real and could be integrated, I'd be happy myself to donate an amount of my XMRs to him in order to promote the new tech to it. The way I see it, it's a win-win situation.

@Anonymint: Under no circumstances, you could manage to fulfil what is required to deliver the coin by yourself (maybe yes, if you were healthy). You need the help of a team of talented coders in order to make it happen in a usable and quick way. The idea is brilliant; they know it; you know it. It took to you what? Six months to implement? What are the chances they cannot manage to do it by themselves? Maybe not in 6 months, but in 1y, 1.5y?

My point is that, you could claim a position in that team. Most of us there are the ones that we first involved with BTC in the early years. I'm sure the community will not leave you alone and we could certainly help crowdfunding an amount for your health issues. I know this is not what you might wanted for this stupefying project of yours, but you are facing an adiexodo here. We, as species managed to be here because we evolved. Evolution means the ability of one to adapt.

Do the right thing. Adapt.

[TPTB_need_war]

Fyi, I just responded over at Reddit and it also addresses Johnny Mnemonic's post (see also my posts in the Ion thread, just click my profile to see my latest posts):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cvzval5

I may have one more post about my health, because something rather crucial became more clear to me as I was researching to make sure the NAC I am taking is not an excitotoxin.

Regarding the posts in this thread, first I need to see if the Monero cryptographer has already solved the design.

And also my anonymity white paper "Zero Knowledge Transactions" is unpublished because it was going to be used first in Ion, and it has had no peer review so it is possible it has an error, but I combed over it numerous times and so I don't think so (but it is possible and that is what peer review is for).

As for price, I haven't thought about it yet and will do. I expended some weeks on that. I assume I am at smooth's caliber (although I think he is more active lately in coding because he is younger and not ill) in terms of my experience and past compensation, thus something on the order of $100-300 per hour. In 2001, I was earning $30,000 per month i.e. $90,000 monthly inflation-adjusted, so that is roughly $563 per hour as my opportunity cost inflation-adjusted (at a factor 3.63x since 2001 according to Shadowstats.com). Plus you have to consider the opportunity cost of retaining it for exclusivity for "first mover" advantage. It will be interesting to see if Monero's donation funding model can support hiring the developers at the true rate they earn. There is a large difference in compensation between the top paid developers and the junior developers.

As for my health and whether I can still lead Ion, this is in an unanswered question. Although the past 3 years and recent chaotic health since August would tend to concur with macsga's conclusion, a new wrinkle entered the picture last night which also might be quite shocking to macsga. So I just don't know for sure yet. In any case, at the right price, it may make sense to go ahead and give my solution to Monero well before I could ever implement it myself in my own project.

Thanks for continued voting (feedback) on the ion name.

[OROBTC]

...

Keep at it TPTB.  Focus on what's really important.

You may have to employ someone who knows what they are doing (ie someone who really knows math & programming).  I would think that this forum would have programmers you could strike up a deal with.

Think about ways to lock in you Intellectual Capital that you have worked on.  Maybe you could just SELL IT to the right parties.

Would rpietila be of help finding a proper tech buyer?

[TPTB_need_war]

Again if the community wants to see my Zero Knowledge Transactions paper published earlier so that it could be implemented by Monero (and presumably others unless Monero folk want to see it only privately and fund it that way but wouldn't it be better for the community-at-large to see it and get competition rolling on implementing it), then I guess we'd need to make Kickstarter page to meet my minimum funding objective and to state the parameters, i.e. what happens if a flaw is found in my design and w.r.t. if it such a flaw is fixable or not.

Besides integrating rings and homomorphic sums, I also claim to have fixed Compact Confidential Transactions so that it no longer needs a huge (non-existent) elliptic curve in order to prove the hidden committed value is not negative. That requirement for a huge curve (computational speed I think degrades exponentially) was the major problem with using that Compact and superior method.

A benefit for me is that if my research paper is correct after peer review, then more people will trust that I am legit. So there is some motivation for me, but I will not give up exclusivity of "first mover" advantage unless I can be fairly compensated for what I think that exclusivity is worth (factoring in my likelihood of completing my project given my health issue and also factoring in that given enough time eventually someone else may discover the epiphany that lead to my invention).

Note the anonymity feature was not the only planned innovation for Ion (i.e. ion), thus giving up first mover advantage on it would not be the end of Ion.

As as community, ultimately all of us are going to be wealthier if we advance the best technology. Competing altcoins help advance efforts. Because technology is not enough. You need also the synergies of development team, community, and market (and features thereof).

So I say if there is a way to compensate developers and get technology out there, then that is positive for all of us.

[iCEBREAKER]

Again if the community wants to see my Zero Knowledge Transactions paper published earlier so that it could be implemented by Monero (and presumably others unless Monero folk want to see it only privately and fund it that way but wouldn't it be better for the community-at-large to see it and get competition rolling on implementing it), then I guess we'd need to make Kickstarter page to meet my minimum funding objective and to state the parameters, i.e. what happens if a flaw is found in my design and w.r.t. if it such a flaw is fixable or not.

Besides integrating rings and homomorphic sums, I also claim to have fixed Compact Confidential Transactions so that it no longer needs a huge (non-existent) elliptic curve in order to prove the hidden committed value is not negative. That requirement for a huge curve (computational speed I think degrades exponentially) was the major problem with using that Compact and superior method.

A benefit for me is that if my research paper is correct after peer review, then more people will trust that I am legit. So there is some motivation for me, but I will not give up exclusivity of "first mover" advantage unless I can be fairly compensated for what I think that exclusivity is worth (factoring in my likelihood of completing my project given my health issue and also factoring in that given enough time eventually someone else may discover the epiphany that lead to my invention).

Note the anonymity feature was not the only planned innovation for Ion (i.e. ion), thus giving up first mover advantage on it would not be the end of Ion.

As as community, ultimately all of us are going to be wealthier if we advance the best technology. Competing altcoins help advance efforts. Because technology is not enough. You need also the synergies of development team, community, and market (and features thereof).

So I say if there is a way to compensate developers and get technology out there, then that is positive for all of us.

You are welcome to pitch the ideas at https://forum.getmonero.org/6/ideas.

If they are funded, you'll have a nice pile of XMR, which should appreciate in proportion to the value ZKT/CCT adds.

[TPTB_need_war]

I think finally we got to the bottom of the flaw in the Monero cryptographer's attempt at what I had invented:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cw1knrw

In my haste I had an error in identifying where the flaw lies, even though I knew from my prior efforts that there must be a flaw because something crucial appears to be missing in that white paper. I might still be wrong. Await the reply of the author of the white paper.

[TPTB_need_war]

Ah that Monero attempt is totally broken:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cw1lwm8

[CoinThug]

Good to know. I will kept in touch with this.

[asepticskeptic]

Well its either some awful name, Orion.

See what I did there?

I did just realize the excellent idea behind openalias last week some time. Neat service. Obviouslykinda unrelated. Just felt like sharing, because I'm a sharing kinda fella.

[papa_lazzarou]

Well its either some awful name, Orion.

See what I did there?

I did just realize the excellent idea behind openalias last week some time. Neat service. Obviously unrelated. Just felt like sharing, because I'm a sharing kinda fella.

It's not totally unrelated because it's a system developed by the Monero team.

[asepticskeptic]

I know papa, monero is always related and on-topoc.

Boy do I know. I've edited the remark.

[languagehasmeaning]

This tech could work well with Aeon.

If there are parts of the implementation that have serious security risks, testing it on Aeon or Boolberry first actually makes a lot of sense.  Monero has a much larger market cap so has more reason to be cautious.

[BitcoinForumator]

TPTB quote:

"As a lead developer I want to enter at $100,000 market cap. The earlier investors should enter at < $1 million market cap."

In Aeon I think the market cap is even lower. You could also get a nice chunk of the Aeon pie. And working with Smooth could be a good combo.

And "aeon" is close to "ion" 

[TPTB_need_war]

I registered some domains today for a new name:

Cybit

Cybit.space
Cybit.me
Cybit.news
Cybit.info
Cyberbit.space
Cyberbit.me
Cyberbit.news
Cyber.fyi

Alternative name is:

Cyber

Any comments are welcome. I will run a poll on it some other time, assuming it is well received.

Although Ion was short, techie, and perhaps connotative of a micropayment ion exchange, I felt it wasn't really specific enough to money, networked information, new paradigms in cyberspace, etc. Also it was a bit too close to Aeon and I didn't want to feel I was ripping off their name.

I wanted a name that could both represent a fast zapped micropayment, and also referring to digital assets and programmable block chains in general. That would also work as a unit as well as a name, e.g. "send 5 cybits". I definitely wanted a brandable name, e.g. no permutations of "___Coin". I was a bit jealous of the new Iota (which was a name we had thought of in 2014 and not used). Although nubits is a permutation of "__Bits", I believe "Cyber+bits" is a more powerful connotation. Cybits seems to roll off the tongue much better than Bitcoin. Cyber.gold was available but my gf made a comment that cyber as complete two syllables connotates for her as the negatives of "cybersex" and "cyberchat". Whereas obscuring the full "cyber" in "cybits" lost the negative association for her. Cyber.gold, just seemed to confusing. How does a gold chain get into the the cyber realm? I asked her which term she would most let to utter when asking for a friend to send some over FB so she could fun a game. Cybits was her choice over both Cyber.gold and netgold. Also Bitcoin was a bit ambiguous in that it could mean "bit of a coin", instead of "bit of information coin". The "Cyber bit" doesn't seem to have that potential misinterpretation.

cy·ber
adjective
of, relating to, or characteristic of the culture of computers, information technology, and virtual reality.
"the cyber age"
synonyms:   electronic, digital, wired, virtual, web, Internet, Net, online
"our relationship was more cyber than face-to-face"


bit
noun
a unit of information expressed as either a 0 or 1 in binary notation.

bit
noun

1
:  a unit of computer information equivalent to the result of a choice between two alternatives (as yes or no, on or off)
2
:  the physical representation of a bit by an electrical pulse, a magnetized spot, or a hole whose presence or absence indicates data


I was also inspired by the portion of the video linked from the following quoted post.

Definition of Bitcoin in the Evolution of Money

Watch the linked video. He nails this. Gold and silver are dinosaur relics now, as well paper, platforms, and institutions.

Andreas Antonopoulos makes the point that what distinguishes decentralized crypto-currency from other forms of money, including digital money, is that it is a decentralized protocol, i.e. a language and not centralized platform or institution. Since I agree 100% with this definition and especially how he explains it in the context of the history of money, it appears to coincide with my view that the securities law applies to managed platforms and institutions and not to decentralized, unmanaged protocols. Thus if some group is controlling the protocol, I think they could be argued to be the managers of the "investment securities" which are the coins.

Thus I agree with the voter who voted that all crypto-currencies which have a group managing the protocol are thus "investment securities", regardless whether they sold the coins or not.

I highly recommend listening to that presentation by Andreas.

[funnyman21]

I registered some domains today for a new name:

Cybit

Cybit.space
Cybit.me
Cybit.news
Cybit.info
Cyberbit.space
Cyberbit.me
Cyberbit.news
Cyber.fyi

Alternative name is:

Cyber

Any comments are welcome. I will run a poll on it some other time, assuming it is well received.

Although Ion was short, techie, and perhaps connotative of a micropayment ion exchange, I felt it wasn't really specific enough to money, networked information, new paradigms in cyberspace, etc. Also it was a bit too close to Aeon and I didn't want to feel I was ripping off their name.

I wanted a name that could both represent a fast zapped micropayment, and also referring to digital assets and programmable block chains in general. That would also work as a unit as well as a name, e.g. "send 5 cybits". I definitely wanted a brandable name, e.g. no permutations of "___Coin". I was a bit jealous of the new Iota (which was a name we had thought of in 2014 and not used). Although nubits is a permutation of "__Bits", I believe "Cyber+bits" is a more powerful connotation. Cybits seems to roll off the tongue much better than Bitcoin. Cyber.gold was available but my gf made a comment that cyber as complete two syllables connotates for her as the negatives of "cybersex" and "cyberchat". Whereas obscuring the full "cyber" in "cybits" lost the negative association for her. Cyber.gold, just seemed to confusing. How does a gold chain get into the the cyber realm? I asked her which term she would most let to utter when asking for a friend to send some over FB so she could fun a game. Cybits was her choice over both Cyber.gold and netgold. Also Bitcoin was a bit ambiguous in that it could mean "bit of a coin", instead of "bit of information coin". The "Cyber bit" doesn't seem to have that potential misinterpretation.

cy·ber
adjective
of, relating to, or characteristic of the culture of computers, information technology, and virtual reality.
"the cyber age"
synonyms:   electronic, digital, wired, virtual, web, Internet, Net, online
"our relationship was more cyber than face-to-face"


bit
noun
a unit of information expressed as either a 0 or 1 in binary notation.

bit
noun

1
:  a unit of computer information equivalent to the result of a choice between two alternatives (as yes or no, on or off)
2
:  the physical representation of a bit by an electrical pulse, a magnetized spot, or a hole whose presence or absence indicates data


I was also inspired by the portion of the video linked from the following quoted post.

Definition of Bitcoin in the Evolution of Money

Watch the linked video. He nails this. Gold and silver are dinosaur relics now, as well paper, platforms, and institutions.

Andreas Antonopoulos makes the point that what distinguishes decentralized crypto-currency from other forms of money, including digital money, is that it is a decentralized protocol, i.e. a language and not centralized platform or institution. Since I agree 100% with this definition and especially how he explains it in the context of the history of money, it appears to coincide with my view that the securities law applies to managed platforms and institutions and not to decentralized, unmanaged protocols. Thus if some group is controlling the protocol, I think they could be argued to be the managers of the "investment securities" which are the coins.

Thus I agree with the voter who voted that all crypto-currencies which have a group managing the protocol are thus "investment securities", regardless whether they sold the coins or not.

I highly recommend listening to that presentation by Andreas.

I like cybit and cybit.info

[bigtimespaghetti]

cybit is a strong name, I think it works.

[trollercoaster]

Cybit, I like it.

[othe]

Cybit sucks,
the reason is https://www.cybits.de/en/

They are doing KYC etc and payment verification, so it´s too similar.

[TPTB_need_war]

Cybit sucks,
the reason is https://www.cybits.de/en/

They are doing KYC etc and payment verification, so it´s too similar.

Thanks for the heads up. It depends on if they can get wide adoption and awareness, versus if the coin can. I lean towards they can't.

Then again "Cy" almost sounds like "Spy". I am conflicted by the term "cyber" because it seems to carry negative and positive connotations, e.g. "cyberterrorism", "cyberstalking", "cybersex", "cyborg", "cyberspace", "cybernetics".

I registered those just after when my eyes had fallen asleep sitting upright watching the Andreas Antonopolous presentation on YouTube. I was asleep while operating the computer, almost literally. I vaguely remember the actions including making the post above.

Pushing too hard.

[othe]

They already have, they are a german company doing KYC for banks like Fidor, ICICI etc.
and for mail providers like gmx,web.de etc... financial products like Paysafecard etc.... betting providers like Admiralbet....internet providers like 1&1...

[thatbluedude]

They already have, they are a german company doing KYC for banks like Fidor, ICICI etc.
and for mail providers like gmx,web.de etc... financial products like Paysafecard etc.... betting providers like Admiralbet....internet providers like 1&1...

Fidor bank is partnered up with bitcoin.de, a german bitoin exchange. I like the name but imo it's to risky lawsuit wise.

[TPTB_need_war]

They already have, they are a german company doing KYC for banks like Fidor, ICICI etc.
and for mail providers like gmx,web.de etc... financial products like Paysafecard etc.... betting providers like Admiralbet....internet providers like 1&1...

Fidor bank is partnered up with bitcoin.de, a german bitoin exchange. I like the name but imo it's to risky lawsuit wise.

Yes I agree. I am dropping any consideration to use Cybit. There are other names. No need to incur that risk.