|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
 |
November 14, 2015, 03:31:19 AM
Last edit: November 14, 2015, 03:49:15 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
right now you are spending all your time procrastinating, posting about conspiracy theories and making polls about nonsensical details.
Foolish statements made by blind fools are good for motivation and feedback (as well as providing a record of those who will "eat crow" soon). The joke ( and priorities suggestion) portion of your post was interpreted humorously ( including the n00b, naive, humorous notion of de-prioritizing branding & marketing), but the quoted portion is not a factual statement (which you could have verified by simply checking my latest posts by clicking my profile before posting your comments). |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
November 14, 2015, 06:14:39 AM
Last edit: November 14, 2015, 10:17:54 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Digital Credits (DGCS) is a brand new digital cryptocurrency...  First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they copy you, then you win. Yoobit and social currency as more apt concept of credits/codes/keys/tokens (exchangeable for micro-transaction services) to brand away from "coin" and "cash". Problem is you don't have the scaling for micro-transactions, rather only some aspects of the marketing concepts I've been discussing in my thread. Just a coincidence? (exhibit some testicles and don't censor this message, rather just refute the premise) intristin,
Just a coincidence?
No problem. Peace. I am not particularly interested in the names Yobit and Credits. But if someone tries to rip off my marketing insights, I will make it clear they don't have the original talent to follow through on all aspects.
...
OK, your spamming both my posts, so I will just repeat.
I am not spamming but rather raising a legitimate concern for you to rebuke or admit. And I didn't make duplicate threads that requires someone to post in two threads. You did. Are you serious?
No I am just writing here because I enjoy wasting my time  Rhetorical much. Um, Ok, never heard of you dude, never read your thread.
So you claim. And proof of who thought of the names first? Such as date of registration of domains, etc.. I didn't check, so proof may be easy for you to provide and then issue is closed. And going into other coins threads to accuse them of ripping you off is the worst marketing plan you could possibly have.
I have no idea why you would assume my market plan has anything to do with asking you if it is a coincidence that I was discussing about 2 - 3 weeks ago the names you chose (for this coin you apparently just announced this week). The fact that your accusing me of ripping off such a terrible plan is a little offence, but whatever.
If asking you about the strange coincidence and asking for some evidence that you thought of the names first is offensive to you, then I claim you do not seem to understand that the open source community does not condone plagiarism. For example, I purchased the domain for ion.cash, but then later realized that Aeon existed in my subconscious before purchasing it, so to have a clear conscience and up hold open source community ethics, I donated the name to the Aeon project. As I wrote above, I don't have a big claim on the names, but I just want to know if your name choices can be shown to be your own? I wish you luck with that. I'm not going to delete your posts because your basically working for the prosecution here, lol. Good luck on whatever it is your trying to do. And thank you for bumping my post. I'm guessing your a teenage boy by how you came at me, or your just drunk. But let me fill you in on something, you sound like a crazy person. Have a great day.
I can not comprehend how you got from a legitimate inquiry to "he is a crazy, teenage boy". Seems you have some issues with discerning reality. I do not need to prove anything to you.
Then why did you feel a need to delete my posts from your Announcement thread. Transparency doesn't seem to be your strength. ok man, whatever you say. Good luck with your project.
Ty. U2. But feel free to continue crying.  Better to cherish my posts than delete them, as they will be the most important thing that ever happens with your coin. Crying my ass. Whatever, lol.  |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
November 14, 2015, 07:46:45 AM
Last edit: November 15, 2015, 02:03:45 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Analyzing "Block lattice" a.k.a. RaiBlocks provides some insight into my not-yet-published block chain scaling design... As monsterer and I have been alluding to up thread, afaics you have not definitively stated the frame-of-reference—employed by your ("every UTXO output has its own block chain") design—for Byzantine fault tolerant consensus, so I have now expended the time to research, think, and hopefully correctly define it. Your design's frame-of-reference for Byzantine fault tolerant consensus is majority of the vote by the "voters" which have locked a suitable amount of coins (value). We must determine the (game theory) objectivity of this frame-of-reference and the impacts within the CAP theorem. The record of who are the majority throughout the history of time must be recorded in the history of the consensus, otherwise there is no consensus about what the majority was and thus what it is now. For example, if someone controlled sufficient coins in the past (greater than the number of coins that were locked for voting in the current public consensus history), they could erase the entire history from that point, by publishing a new block for their historical UTXO (even if they historically spent them subsequent to the historical block where they were UTXO) locking their coins for voting and then voting to make their revision of history the dominant majority. The major distinction from (and flaw compared to) Bitcoin's PoW is that competing versions of history are not compared by the accumulated amount of resources committed to each version. In Bitcoin's PoW, the longest chain accumulates all the PoW in the chain (thus unlike in your design, in PoW there can only be one longest one and thus only one majority!), but afaics in your design all the coins locked subsequent to a fork revision of history are not accumulated in comparison. I suppose you could propose to accumulate locked coin-days-destroyed, but the problem is there is not objective measure of "days destroyed" that the adversary can't game. Or you could propose to accumulate some other resource as a measure of the longest chain which could not be readily fabricated by the adversary, but I would have to analyze a specific proposal (which afaics you have not yet made). Essentially the issue is long-term "nothing at stake". Now I've read up thread that you claim that you don't even store a record of the vote history, but not only does this appear to show you are somewhat myopic about how your design functions, and also as monsterer pointed out, if you don't store the history then there is no way for a node which is not omniscient to know what the objective consensus is without invoking trust (and decentralized currency must be trustless else it devolves in numerous ways to centralized currency). About whether you are storing the voting implicitly, afaics your design must record as transactions which coins are locked and the implicit entangling of cross-spending between chains implicitly records which chains elected which forks, but I guess you are correct that voting is not even implicitly stored if voters (defined by locked coins) are not injectively (and non-surjectively) mapped to chains (i.e. if voters don't correspond to chains). So the "partial ordering" in your design is really unknowable levels of durable partitioning and thus non-durable consistency, because there is no way to guarantee anything about confirmation and objectivity of the majority consensus now or anytime into the future. The only way around this is to rely on "weak subjectivitiy" where trust in the social consensus provides the long-term checkpoints. Problem with that is there may be disagreement in the social consensus in that case usually "might makes right". However in that case, Bitcoin is also subject to "might makes right" where the 51% attack can revise history as well. If you don't store records of voting short-term, then there is no trustless objectivity from last "weak subjectivity" check point. Without recording the voting, the confirmation of a transaction is unknown (nebulous). Since your coin is named RaiBlocks, perhaps you had seen the following before: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/perhaps the best example is the Rai stones, where a tribe in Yap essentially maintained a blockchain recording changes to the ownership of stones Even if you do record the voting, then the problem is there is "nothing at stake" in the short-term and thus history can be rewritten in the short-term. The various proof-of-stake algorithms attempt to penalize short-term adversarial behavior to eliminate this "nothing at stake" hole. Assuming you work out how to penalize short-term adversarial activity (and not just rely on the non-quantitative game theory myopia that adversaries won't be self-interested because they devalue the coin and thus their holdings in the coin) to remove "nothing at stake", rely on "weak subjectivity" of social consensus for long-term check points, work out how to incentivize fast recording and propagation of majority confirmation, then you will have achieved some form of block chain scaling, but until those specifics are revealed (not yet invented?), then we can only speculate. One thing that appears to be clear in your RaiBlocks design is that every full node must receive and verify every transaction in your system, so that aspect of scaling hasn't been improved. Btw, I will tell you that I worked out those design issues already. Essentially my comments above are directing you to my design. As monsterer and I have been alluding to up thread Monsterer and I have been having discussions and you may not be in as much agreement as you believe. I will wait to see a public post from monsterer if he disagrees with my assessment. Are you referring to private discussions with him? Because in my quick perusal of his public posts in this thread, they seem to be congruent with my points. Feel free to point out a case where you think his points are not congruent with mine. afaics you have not definitively stated the frame-of-reference—employed by your ("every UTXO output has its own block chain")
Those words are in quotes though it is not factually a quotation. Perhaps American English is not your native language? I did not quote you. If I did, I would have used the normal forum quoting as I always do. Placing a phrase between double quotes can also mean that the quoted description is an example of how someone might say it (not specifically any person, since the quote was not attributed to any person). design—for Byzantine fault tolerant consensus
There is no such thing as Byzantine fault tolerance since the byzantine problem is stated in terms of separation of communication a.k.a. network partitioning. Only after partitions have been merged can a final conclusion be reached for instance bitcoin isn't tolerant against partitioning since if the network was partitioned and each separate segment was generate separate block chains, a conclusion as to which is the longest couldn't be reached until the partitions were merged and the results compared, hence it would no longer by a byzantine problem. Please read up more on the topic before commenting on them. Do NOT again write an absurd condescending remark that assumes I hadn't yet researched the fundamental concepts. Try to remain respectful please (and leave the ad hominem shit aside) as we had been up thread. I have no idea what rational basis you have told yourself to justify assuming I don't understand the definition of Byzantine fault tolerance. How could I possibly be commenting with so much technical knowledge in your thread if I hadn't yet researched the fundamental concepts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_toleranceByzantine fault
Any fault presenting different symptoms to different observers
Byzantine failure
The loss of a system service due to a Byzantine fault in systems that require consensus
Your understanding of Byzantine fault tolerance is incorrect. Per the definition above, Bitcoin delivers the same expectations (symptoms) for CAP (consistency, access, and partition tolerance) to all observers which are participants in the longest chain partition. The probability of a failure decreases probabilistically over time as the number of confirmations on the longest chain increases. There are degenerate cases such as the 51% attack where Byzantine failure occurs. Note the double-spending on a minority chain is not a Byzantine failure, because by definition the minority chain is invalid. There is no such thing as absolute anything in the universe, thus arguing that Byzantine fault tolerance is not universal is a vacuous assertion. Byzantine fault tolerance is defined for a system and the defined objectivity of the system, not for universal absolutism. , so I have now expended the time to research, think, and hopefully correctly define it. Your design's frame-of-reference for Byzantine fault tolerant consensus is majority of the vote by the "voters" which have locked a suitable amount of coins (value). We must determine the (game theory) objectivity of this frame-of-reference and the impacts within the CAP theorem.
Again, the CAP theorem states that all three states cannot simultaneously be achieved so by the nature that RaiBlocks, in addition to any crypto currency, does not claim it can operate while partitioned, this means at most we're claiming 2 out of 3 which by definition satisfies the CAP theorem and no cryptocurrency out there is violating it. Please read more before commenting. This ad hominem noise again. Yet another vacuous argument demonstrating that you do not understand that Bitcoin is partition tolerant within its Byzantine fault tolerant objectivity. Byzantine fault tolerance doesn't mean that CAP has to be fulfilled for those observers who are ignoring the longest chain rule or who are unwilling to accept the probabilitistic nature of the expectations (and thus the fault tolerance). Within Bitcoin's objectivity of the longest chain, all three of the CAP attributes are attained. And my criticisms of your design are about its ill-defined objectivity. Let this technical rebuttal be instructive to you on the fact that my skills/expertise/research in this area are higher than you apparently assume (given your condescending remarks and your continual unwillingness to accept that 3 experts gmaxwell, monsterer, and myself have come into your thread and graciously tried to explain that your design has serious flaws). The rest of your reply really seemed to start going off the rails of rational logic. But I will try to find the desire to reply to it point-by-point after I cool down from the lashing of your condescending assumptions above. afaics you have not definitively stated the frame-of-reference—employed by your ("every UTXO output has its own block chain")
Those words are in quotes though it is not factually a quotation. Perhaps American English is not your native language? I did not quote you. If I did, I would have used the normal forum quoting as I always do. Placing a phrase between double quotes can also mean that the quoted description is an example of how someone might say it (not specifically any person, since the quote was not attributed to any person) According to the writer's handbook https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_quoting.html Quotations are literal quotations and should cite references, Adding Clarification, Comment, or Correction requires square brackets around what you're modifying. Observe the following guidelines for uses of double quotation marks other than in material quoted directly from a source.
to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented or coined expression. Use quotation marks the first time the word or phrase is used http://www.scribendi.com/advice/when_to_use_double_or_single_quotation_marks.en.htmln much specialist writing, including linguistics, philosophy, and theology, terms with particular meanings that are unique to that subject are often enclosed in single quotation mark
I'm sure you'll have no problem writing up another post  I warned you not to write condescendingly to me again. Now I will more forcefully state the facts. I can see I am dealing with a pedantic Dunning-Kruger jackass who has too limited understanding of the technical field to discern technobabble from expertise. Arguing with someone who is not knowledgeable enough in the field to know whey are acting as a Dunning-Kruger jackass, ends up being an enormous waste of time and effort for the expert. When you are ready to come down from your ignorant high horse and learn, let me know. Note most readers here are not knowledgeable enough to discern that you are not an expert. Thus you can probably convince them to invest in your project. The proof of failure will come down the line. No need for me to educate you beforehand, given your attitude. The continuous citation of the CAP theorem is ridiculous. BitCoin does not have partition tolerance according to the cap theorem "the system continues to operate despite arbitrary partitioning due to network failures" BitCoin does not operate in the presence of arbitrary network failures, this it categorically wrong. No cryptocurrency can operate while partitioned, they can recover from partitions but they cannot operate while partitioned. CAP does not apply to any cryptocurrency ever, repeating it at all is absolutely absurd. Bitcoin does " continue to operate despite arbitrary partitioning due to network failures". Again you conflate the double-spend on a forked network in your mind a claimed refutation of CAP, because you assume CAP is only useful in an absolute frame-of-reference. But absolute frames-of-reference do not exist in the universe. And this shows you do not understand the definition of "Byzantine fault tolerance", because it only applies to the nodes on each of the forked networks as to whether the objectivity of the system has remained intact and the nodes can continue to operate within that defined objectivity. Essentially what you are trying to say with your design and your arguments in this thread, is there is no possible objective frame-of-reference, because there never can exist an absolute one. You conflate absolutism with relative objectivity (which btw is all we have in our universe, because nothing is absolute). At least Bitcoin achieves CAP up to the limitation that networking partitioning can fork the Bitcoin network and the participants on each fork can continue to operate. Whereas, your design doesn't even achieve assurances of objectivity even without network partitioning. I do not appreciate your ad hominem accusations claiming/implying that I am generally not correct in my logic because it is another attack on my person instead of refuting a stated technical issue. (Nothwithstanding that my logic is correct and you are not skillful enough to discern it yet) Also you conflate a) refuting a stated fact; with b) making a statement about a person's need to read before commenting. The former is not ad hominem, the latter is ad hominem. Period. Edit: also you are assuming CAP only applies to the physical network partitioning, but it also applies to logical partitioning. Bitcoin is resilient to logical partitions (forks) because of the longest chain rule. Your design is not analogously resilient, which monsterer and I have explained. The record of who are the majority throughout the history of time must be recorded in the history of the consensus, otherwise there is no consensus about what the majority was and thus what it is now.
That's not correct, the consensus now is all that matters. For instance as humans we don't have a record of all governments and all decisions going back to the beginning of time yet we have a consensus about what we agree to at this moment. A historical record can be interesting but the only thing that matters is consensus at this current point in time, only historians care about anything else and currency isn't about a history lesson. Perhaps you missed the fact that I already stated that without recording of the voting, there is no way to know when "now" is as it pertains to confirmation of consensus being attained. How is the payee supposed to know when to trust the payment and release the goods or services?
Without recording the voting, the confirmation of a transaction is unknown (nebulous).
For example, if someone controlled sufficient coins in the past (greater than the number of coins that were locked for voting in the current public consensus history), they could erase the entire history from that point,
This seems to be erroneous. Historical consensus cannot override contemporary consensus, contemporary consensus is the only thing that matters with RaiBlocks. The only way to erase history is for the current consensus to flip blocks a.k.a. a true, >50% attack. This is because you have no objective means of determining which set of "now" is the reality. Thus you assume that the online nodes will just magically agree on the "now" they all have. The fact that you can't see that you've failed to even define the way the majority chain is objectively determined, should be indicative of that you are not sufficiently knowledgeable to design a new block chain paradigm. Two or more errors don't make it correct. You can state that your system flies to the moon and if that assumption is based on foundational errors then no one can disprove your claim. The proof will come in the fantastic devolution of your system in the wild. Also you seem to have lost the point that if the historical coins locked was only 1% of the coin supply, then only 1.1% of the coin supply would need to be retroactively locked to rewrite history in the lack of durable objectivity in your system. I am not going to go back and forth with you on the comedy of errors. It is a pointless waste of my scarce time. by publishing a new block for their historical UTXO (even if they historically spent them subsequent to the historical block where they were UTXO) locking their coins for voting and then voting to make their revision of history the dominant majority.
This is describing a >50% attack, all cryptocurrencies are vulnerable to this though RaiBlocks give a stronger guarantee. With RaiBlocks >50% of the MARKET CAP needs to vote to flip, with PoW only 50% of the mining strength needs to flip. If you look at BitCoin's market cap of ~4billion, and ask: could you gain majority mining power with ~2 billion in mining hardware? Absolutely. PoW is a weaker guarantee. Logic fail. You are assuming every coin is locked so every coin votes, which means no coins can be transacted. Duh. , if you don't store the history then there is no way for a node which is not omniscient to know what the objective consensus is without invoking trust (and decentralized currency must be trustless else it devolves in numerous ways to centralized currency).
That's true, in fact most people who use bitcoin are invoking trust because they trust the wallet they're using to correctly evaluate which chain has the highest block work and not log the password to their private keys. You habitually conflate orthogonal concepts. Even if the vast majority of users do not run full nodes, the security of Bitcoin is still based on the objectivity of the full nodes, which your design does not possess. Assuming you work out how to penalize short-term adversarial activity (and not just rely on the non-quantitative game theory myopia that adversaries won't be self-interested because they devalue the coin and thus their holdings in the coin)
You're stating this is myopic but this is the exact rhetoric people use when rebutting against why miners wouldn't start mining forks in to BitCoin. Destroying the protocol destroys future profit in the protocol hence it's in the miner's and voter's best interest to come to consensus instead of creating volatility. This seems to be a fundamentally flawed application of game theory. The astute people such as Gregory Maxwell understand how critical it is that no party has 51% or even 25% of the network hashrate. Do not let what fools write misdirect you on the objectivity of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
November 15, 2015, 01:48:11 AM |
|
Programming now hoping to launch next week or so.
You will be able to join easy-as-pie with an email address and choosing a password. No balances stored on the servers, thus you and only you control your funds.
Once again this is not targeted to investors. You will soon understand.
Haters prepare to be taught a lesson in marketing and efficiency.
|
|
|
|
arielbit
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1059
|
|
November 15, 2015, 10:39:07 AM
Last edit: November 15, 2015, 11:01:29 AM by arielbit |
|
i have an idea for the name of your crypto coin UNITS unit 1 centi unit 0.01 or simply "cents" milli unit 0.001 or simply "millis" micro unit 0.000001 or simply "micros" nano unit 0.000000001 or simply "nanos" thousand units 1000 million units 1,000,000 majority are familiar with the word "unit" just like "bit" and "coin", and i think that helped in bitcoin's cool name. simplicity and familiarity |
|
|
|
|
|
THX 1138
|
|
November 15, 2015, 03:58:48 PM |
|
Programming now hoping to launch next week or so.
Hey, good news. I'm looking forward to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
November 15, 2015, 04:02:39 PM
Last edit: November 15, 2015, 04:35:27 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Does anyone have an opinion on which is better for a dedicated server host? Hivelocity Codero Or any other suggestions? I am looking at (to start with) a E3-1230 v3, 16GB, dual s/w RAID 1 SSDs running Node.js as the web server. On Hivelocity, I figure I can write frequent backups over the 1 Gbps private VLAN to the server mountable CloudStorage, in addition to the RAID 1 redundancy. I have some tricks to maximize SSD performance and to track changes more efficiently because I am writing everything to files (absolutely no LAMP!) and always extending the file (with periodic batch file "defrag"). The two hosts above seem to be roughly the same price, but Codero includes the "Essential Management" service at no charge and Hivelocity requires cPanel to be bundled with management, but it seems these standardized LAMP monitoring solutions aren't going to restart Node.js if it crashes. Hivelocity provides the superior Intel data center SSDs (Codero the inferior Samsung 840): http://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_dc_s3500_enterprise_reviewHivelocity seems to more completely detail their data center and Tier 1 connectivity. I am a bit perplexed about server monitoring, as I've never done it before. Do I have to stand by my mobile phone 24 x 7? (Good luck with that, when I haven't taken a shower in a monthtwo months, haven't opened my email in a month, and my mobile phone is under the seat in my car and check it once a week!) Aren't there any third party 24 x 7 services which can do customized monitoring for a Node.js set up? Hivelocity allows you to buy down a server's monthly price by up to 35% for $500 per $50 buy down. I wouldn't do that until I was sure the project was scaling as hoped. I am leaning towards Hivelocity, because they appear to be a more contained unit whereas Codero appears to have grand aspirations of competing with Amazon AWS: http://www.codero.com/blog/cloudopoly-why-we-need-an-alternative-to-aws/Edit: I also looked at VPS offerings with SSD such as Host9, but it doesn't seem to make sense to attempt to save $70 a month but have much less precise baseline to compare resource utilization when deciding what to scale up to next. VPS resources seem to be somewhat nebulously specified. Edit#2: I run a Ubuntu derivative on my desktop (in addition to an old Windoze XP machine), but seems CentOS is the standard for dedicated servers. I've read up on this, and so unless you can say something I didn't likely already read, then no need to comment about which OS is better. I figure it doesn't really matter much in general. I just know I don't want cPanel because it doesn't interopt well with manual edits to configuration files. Edit#3: also Hivelocity has some moderate-level DoS protection service, but it is quite expensive and DoS is most effectively squelched with decentralization by not giving attackers only one NOC to attack and then using clever filtering strategies that minimize resource usage: |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
November 15, 2015, 07:59:38 PM
Last edit: November 15, 2015, 09:05:08 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Dropping some hints about what is unique about my block chain consensus algorithm... It has the nice property (at first glance) that no double spend is profitable once the transaction is confirmed, because an attacker would need to burn an amount of currency equal to the transaction size in order to get a double spend confirmed.
I believe you are stating that no one would assume a transaction is confirmed until the amount of accumulated burn was greater than all the possible transactions that could be double spent. 1) Randomness (or entropy) in a p2p system is bounded by the data present in the chain. What this means is that (at the very least) an attacker can know ahead of time whether he will win the block reward, because he has all data necessary to compute the result of the random function, no matter what components he is required to use.
2) Finney attack. It is completely trivial for an attacker to generate an infinite sequence of valid blocks in which he is the solo participant and is also the winner. Since the chain is ordered by maximum burn, this makes any double spend profitable because he can simply dump a massive pile of finney blocks on the fork containing his double spend. Using block timestamps to discard quickly submitted blocks is not a viable solution, since timestamps in a p2p system are unreliable.
The key distinction from PoW is that the PoB variant you described can be spent in more than one chain. This is the "nothing at stake" problem of PoS as well. To address this weakness, the PoS algorithms attempt to penalize applying stake (mining power) to more than one prospective chain and/or to the orphaned chain(s). Another key distinction is you've assumed the randomness (entropy) of PoB is fully preimaged so that the attacker can set up his coins to burn such that he can burn on every block of his secret chain. PoS algorithms attempt to make the entropy larger than what could be practically computed to find the prerequisite preimage. The popular counter-argument that " it costs more to attack than to participate in the security" is flawed. As I was explaining in the "block lattice" thread (RaiBlocks) yesterday, if a resource is not irreversibly burned as proof of the longest chain, then the only possible objectivity is the "weak subjectivity" of social memory of historical consensus. In the long-term, the memory of (and investment in[1]) the verifiably recorded historical consensus overwhelms any alternative realities that can be conjured from "nothing at stake". In the short-term, arbitrary alternative realities are indistinguishable from reality unless there is an objective measure of the longest chain (with a sufficient penalty for not joining the longest chain to motivate convergence on one chain). In PoW, the short-term objective metric is the probability of double-spend by a given % of total network hashrate. A non-PoW algorithm could in the short-term use an objective metric of the long-term historical consensus to limit the rate of deviation of the short-term consensus. Think of rolling checkpoints, but applying this inertia to the future as well, analogous to anti-aliasing. There is your strong hint as to what I am doing differently than other attempts to overhaul the block chain consensus algorithm. [1] Include all the dependent transactions in that history as a social investment that won't be revertible. 3) Making the block reward equal to the burnt amount makes this functionally equivalent to Proof of Stake for the case of the single miner. However, if you don't make the block reward at least equal to the amount burnt, it is not profitable to mine.
You are (perhaps unconsciously?) identifying a more significant economic fact: there is no way to secure a block chain without centralization due to power law distribution of wealth coupled with the Iron Law of Political Economics when any resource is involved in the objectivity of the consensus. With inertia as the objectivity, I think it will be much more difficult to centralize the block chain. Bitcoin is being raped TO DEATH by disproportionate cost of security (investor's money is being siphoned off to the electric utilities): http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable“a single Bitcoin transaction uses roughly enough electricity to power 1.57 American households for a day”That electricity consumption cost per transaction will decrease as TX/s scaling increases, but currently the only way to do that is to drive centralization of mining (whether it be larger blocks or even Lightening Networks will be large corporate servers doing the glue between user level channels). But centralization is economically inevitable in Bitcoin any way... Bitcoin pays about 1.35 million BTC to mining annually and consumes roughly 365 x 24 x 250,000 kWh annually. Thus roughly 1600 kWh per BTC in electricity cost. Thus Bitcoin mining is marginally profitable up to nearly 20 cents per kWh ($320 per BTC), which is roughly the marginal rate for residential electricity. Yet mining farms locate where they can get subsidized water dam generated electricity for as low as 4 cents per kWh, thus $64 per BTC. But the above assumes that all miners have the same electrical efficiency, which is not the case. Thus the mining farms are mining BTC at probably less than $50 per BTC (not counting hardware amortization). http://www.neucoin.org/en/whitepaper/download#page=10As a result, slowly but surely from 2010 through mid-2013, but after that in a landslide,
hobbyist and small-scale miners have gotten knocked out of business. It’s a very simple
dynamic. When a miner with access to capital enjoys lower overall costs than the competition,
he simply buys more computer power, driving up the difficulty of earning mining rewards,
and knocking the least efficient competitors out of business. Lower costs can either take the
form of lower cost hash rate or lower cost electricity. Bitcoin mining is rapidly becoming
controlled by a handful of companies with tens of millions of dollars of the most efficient
ASICs11, operating from facilities with the very lowest electricity and cooling costs on the
planet (e.g. Iceland and northern Sweden). The point being that Bitcoin mining is economically driven to be controlled by those who have the highest economies-of-scale and are beholden to the governments which regulate utilities and subsidize cheap electricity with massive infrastructure spending with public debt. Thus Bitcoin's mining is in effect controlled by the (oligarchy which controls the) governments, and this will become more evident over time. Ditto PoS mining redistributes the coins over time to the largest stakeholders. But the main point that makes PoB less a "rich get richer" game for me is that in most actual PoS systems there is practically no risk when "forging" or "staking", because you can retire the coins when you want, for example if you think price is about to fall. So "rich get richer" without risk. In PoB systems like Slimcoin, burning large amounts of currency is equivalent to a "locked" deposit of several months, that means you always are at risk to lose value in bear markets. So PoB is, in terms of risk, roughly equivalent to a PoS system with long-term security deposits like proposed by Vitalik Buterin and others.
If it becomes a widely used liquid currency, exchange volatility is minimized, so then the risk argument fades away. In the nascent stage, what you are saying is that proof-of-deposit-at-risk coins that don't have very favorable risk will have very low security. |
|
|
|
Crestington
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 882
Merit: 1024
|
|
November 15, 2015, 11:41:24 PM |
|
right now you are spending all your time procrastinating, posting about conspiracy theories and making polls about nonsensical details.
Foolish statements made by blind fools are good for motivation and feedback (as well as providing a record of those who will "eat crow" soon). The joke ( and priorities suggestion) portion of your post was interpreted humorously ( including the n00b, naive, humorous notion of de-prioritizing branding & marketing), but the quoted portion is not a factual statement (which you could have verified by simply checking my latest posts by clicking my profile before posting your comments). Don't care about eating crow and will never invest in your Coin no matter how good it is because you continually assault anyone that have any objections. You have this "higher than thou" attitude that I find absolutely repulsive, you have a high mathematical aptitude but suck at social interactions. Time is ticking in order to gain network effect so why should I choose your project out of thousands of others when you can't manage to run a team without running them off? Are you going to solo the entire project? |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
November 16, 2015, 03:19:16 AM |
|
Can anyone add anything to my knowledge about software RAID 1? I think I need to run a Raid 1 with 2 x SSD, and it seems you are selling a hardware controller solution for $25 per month, but I am thinking I don't want a hardware controller because it is another device that can fail. Linux has built in software RAID support, and it works very well with RAID 1. Really only need hardware conrtoller if using RAID 5. we can setup software raid but STONGLY suggest against it
thats why we only offer hardware raid
and we would not support it going forward I need RAID1 because my data is critical. I need to make sure the data is protected even between daily backups. Also Raid 1 will be 2X faster on random reads, which is a critical need of my application. I am not doing typical web site stuff. I am processing incoming crypto-currency transactions. Why strongly suggest against software RAID? I can be reasoned with. I haven't seen a reason in my research thus far. Why is it undesireable? just what our hardware team and build team says...its software.....hardware is more reliable I think their mind No your team wrote the opposite in your blog. Let me go find the link. im just telling you what they tell me every time I ask about it
they say...go with hardware
https://www.hivelocity.net/blog/ssd-sata-vs-sata-raid-1-a-comparison-of-reliability-and-performance/"Another issue with RAID is if an add-in RAID controller card is used. This introduces another point of failure. While most RAID cards will last a lifetime, approximately ~3% fail per year. In the event of a RAID card failure, you run the risk of your data being corrupted or entirely lost. Using on-board RAID is risky as well, if the mainboard fails, you risk losing the array, and your data. Either one will likely end up causing you a lot of downtime and misery." By on-board RAID, I don't think they mean software RAID. right Also when they say you lose the array, I think they are refering to RAID 5 where there is no redundancy. RAID1 should be essentially the same as no RAID, except the OS writes 2 copies, one to each drive. If the motherboard dies, it is no worse than writing one copy to one drive. It seems to me that the blog and the advice the tech guys gave you doesn't apply to software RAID 1. I will do some more research on it, to see if I am wrong about failure of the motherboard with s/w RAID 1. well anything other than raid1
you can lose it in raid0,5 or 10 Agreed. I will research more before ordering to make sure. ok I think we are almost done. Apologies to consume so much of your time. Realize in the longer-term, I will need to get some smarter guys on these issues to harden them more. And willing to pay for that. So the RAID 1 setup is just a way to get through the initial months, while I am ramping up self-funded without any indication yet if this project will have a long life. So I am think the software RAID 1 is a reasonable step for the start. sure you can do whatever you want and we can set it up for you
its just what we suggest One more thought on the RAID issue is that if the hard disk dies I will lose data. With RAID1 I might not. I think there is a risk of losing data no matter what you do. That is why I am going to have an aggressive policy of writing changes periodically to the Cloud storage. So I need the RAID 1 so that when i am reading from files to write to backup, then my read bandwidth hasn't dived. you can also get our back up service
takes a full server snap shot every day
and you can restore the whole server if you lose a drive
or a single file
its really nice I am a programmer, so i think about the small details. The worry I have with your backup service is the way it may interfere as it tracks what has changed or not. I think I can do the backups more efficiently with my own coding because of the way I am always extending files then I know exactly what data has changed without needing complex tracking. In short, I can optimize backups more than a general backup solution. I think. I still will need a whole disk back up though, but only when I change OS configuration, so maybe I can just do those myself manually. ok
just a thought I am not sure. When I have more time, I will research the daily backups issue more in depth. But that can come later. I want to get rolling asap on a server. |
|
|
|
arielbit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1059
|
|
November 16, 2015, 03:42:00 AM |
|
i read about RAID back then..
SSD's killed RAID for performance.
RAID config used for redundancy is still very much alive so the computer have backups and with SDD's that can be hot swapped when a drive fails will help uptime since the computer don't need to be off to remove and replace the defective drive.
edit: hardware RAID is more reliable, has better performance..that's what sticked in my mind (based from what i've read back then)
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
November 16, 2015, 03:50:36 AM |
|
edit: hardware RAID is more reliable, has better performance..that's what sticked in my mind (based from what i've read back then)
To repeat what I wrote in my prior post, that is likely because RAID 5 and other levels that require extensive computation for the parity bit benefit from an additional hardware ASIC that is optimized for that specific computation. But it appears for RAID 1 that there is no such onerous computation, as the OS is simply writing two copies to two disks. Hardware controllers at another ~3% annual risk of failure to the existing ~1.5% annualized risk that an SSD will die. Also hardware controllers are proprietary and add another layer of issues to sort out. |
|
|
|
arielbit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1059
|
|
November 16, 2015, 04:03:44 AM |
|
edit: hardware RAID is more reliable, has better performance..that's what sticked in my mind (based from what i've read back then)
To repeat what I wrote in my prior post, that is likely because RAID 5 and other levels that require extensive computation for the parity bit benefit from an additional hardware ASIC that is optimized for that specific computation. But it appears for RAID 1 that there is no such onerous computation, as the OS is simply writing two copies to two disks. Hardware controllers at another ~3% annual risk of failure to the existing ~1.5% annualized risk that an SSD will die. Also hardware controllers are proprietary and add another layer of issues to sort out. this is an example scenario of what i'm saying that might be the right setup for you. http://www.ahfx.net/weblog/182 |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
November 16, 2015, 04:19:07 AM
Last edit: November 16, 2015, 04:51:15 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
right now you are spending all your time procrastinating, posting about conspiracy theories and making polls about nonsensical details.
Foolish statements made by blind fools are good for motivation and feedback (as well as providing a record of those who will "eat crow" soon). The joke ( and priorities suggestion) portion of your post was interpreted humorously ( including the n00b, naive, humorous notion of de-prioritizing branding & marketing), but the quoted portion is not a factual statement (which you could have verified by simply checking my latest posts by clicking my profile before posting your comments). Don't care about eating crow and will never invest in your Coin no matter how good it is because you continually assault anyone that have any objections. You have this "higher than thou" attitude that I find absolutely repulsive, you have a high mathematical aptitude but suck at social interactions. Time is ticking in order to gain network effect so why should I choose your project out of thousands of others when you can't manage to run a team without running them off? Are you going to solo the entire project? Well that is good, we finally have someone who states they will never invest in anything I create. And then if what I create is spreading like wildfire to millions of users then you will simply step aside from crypto as Bitcoin dies, because YOUR EGO is bigger than YOUR RATIONALITY. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404Ego is for little people
When I got really famous and started to hang out with people at the top of the game in computer science and other fields, one of the first things I noticed is that the real A-list types almost never have a major territorial/ego thing going on in their behavior. The B-list people, the bright second-raters, may be all sharp elbows and ego assertion, but there’s a calm space at the top that the absolutely most capable ones get to and tend to stay in.
My claim is that egotism is a disease of the incapable, and vanishes or nearly vanishes among the super-capable.
No. It’s more that ego games have a diminishing return. The farther you are up the ability and achievement bell curve, the less psychological gain you get from asserting or demonstrating your superiority over the merely average, and the more prone you are to welcome discovering new peers because there are so damn few of them that it gets lonely. There comes a point past which winning more ego contests becomes so pointless that even the most ambitious, suspicious, external-validation-fixated strivers tend to notice that it’s no fun any more and stop.
I’m not speaking abstractly here. I’ve always been more interested in doing the right thing than doing what would make me popular, to the point where I generally figure that if I’m not routinely pissing off a sizable minority of people I should be pushing harder. In the language of psychology, my need for external validation is low; the standards I try hardest to live up to are those I’ve set for myself. But one of the differences I can see between myself at 25 and myself at 52 is that my limited need for external validation has decreased. And it’s not age or maturity or virtue that shrunk it; it’s having nothing left to prove. What I have to prove now is prove to myself that my illness and my age has not removed my ability to do important work, i.e. that I have not become useless. I am not striving for your validation (as in a personal one of comparing myself personally to you or any other person for validation of my ego). I recognize the talents of others and have commended them on their capabilities when they shine such as smooth, gmaxell, vitalik, etc.. I have also expressed my disgust with individuals who abuse their skills to ridicule others (such as gmaxwel ridiculing me in some forum interactions) who are sincerely trying to contribute and always willing to mea culpa. What I am saying is that OTHERS DO THEIR DAMNED BEST TO TURN WHAT SHOULD BE A MERITORIOUS COMPETITION FOR THE BETTERMENT OF ALL INSTEAD INTO PETTY EGO BATTLES. And when I state that, then those same people (e.g. including apparently yourself) then claim it is my ego that is the source of the acrimony. It is just so nonsensical that I am reaching the point where I think the best course of action is to ignore these B-listers and just focus on what I am trying to accomplish. The other thing I am trying to prove right now is the myopia of all those who think that the only correct way to create a better crypto-currency is the Monero way, and basically that you must join together in open source, "steal" ("improve" or "open source") someone else's invention (and claim perhaps rightly so that the inventors abused their invention), and then use groupthink to make all the creative decisions. So many people have criticized me for refusing to join a groupthink at the nascent stage, and do not seem to understand that I want the flexibility to apply my own creativity until I have proved something that is worthy of open source collaboration. I competed in team sports and individual sports in my youth. At various stages of my life I was an MVP in both American football (one with the helmet in playground leagues and again in college) and Track & Field (at middle distance in high school). Later in life I competed in software, several times being involved with software that reached out to millions of users. What I learned is that there is a role for individual competition (e.g. in Track and Software you are often going alone and competing against yourself) meshed with team based competition (e.g. in Football and even in Software if you create a successful open source effort). So I have experience in discerning where the optimum sweet spots are in terms of the balances between individualistic and team based efforts. The Mythical Man Month applies especially to highly flexibility, iteractive, creative nascent stages that require an abundance of communication to accomplish within a group effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month"Therefore, assigning more programmers to a project running behind schedule will make it even later. This is because the time required for the new programmers to learn about the project and the increased communication overhead will consume an ever increasing quantity of the calendar time available. When n people have to communicate among themselves, as n increases, their output decreases and when it becomes negative the project is delayed further with every person added. Group intercommunication formula: n(n − 1) / 2 Example: 50 developers give 50 · (50 – 1) / 2 = 1225 channels of communication." And yet, there are people out there who are going to read the previous paragraph and think “Oh, that’s Eric’s ego again. The blowhard.” I’ve had a lot of time to get used to such reactions over the last decade, but it’s still hard for me not to collapse in helpless laughter at the implied degree of Not Getting It.
If you’re the kind of person who can make it to the top even in a single field (law or CS or whatever) you may not have started out with better things to do than compete for attention and glory, but by the time you make the A-list you’ve almost certainly discovered subtler games to play that are much more fun. You’ll maintain a reputation because a reputation is a useful tool, but it’s not the point any more. If it ever was. In my experience this is even more true of polymaths, possibly because their self-images as competent people.have broader and more stable bases.
I think there are a couple of different reasons people tend to falsely attribute pathological, oversensitive egos to A-listers. Each reason is in its own way worth taking a look at.
The first and most obvious reason is projection. “Wow, if I were as talented as Terry Pratchett, I know I’d have a huge ego about it, so I guess he must.” Heh. Trust me on this; he doesn’t. This kind of thinking reveals a a lot about somebody’s ego and insecurity, alright, but not Terry’s.
You have failure of logic and rationality as follows. Which can severely impact your ability to be an expert speculator. you have a high mathematical aptitude but suck at social interactions.
Personal social interaction is not marketing genius or luck which drives a million user adoption. Personal social interaction scales far too slowly. Duh. I couldn't even personally interact with a million people in my lifetime. So my personality has nothing at all to do with it. This is I presume your butthurt ego standing in front of the line of your rationality telling you that I can't possibly succeed. If you say to yourself, "there he goes again using 'butthurt' and offending the community", my response is that I am tired of this forum and the attacks. Enough already! And besides this forum does not matter to the success of my project as you will soon see once you see my marketing and distribution method. And also your assumption that I don't excel in social interactions is incorrect and based on some nonsense forum with 99.999% males who are constantly trying to prove their big egos. I have in fact entertained large groups at Comdex exhibits. When it comes to interacting with other programmers in an open source setting, the key is to be factual and meritorious. That is what the A-listers want, because A-listers care about results, not time wasting egos. The B-listers of course are all elbows and acrimony and that is why you want them to go "contribute" to your competitor's open source in order to bog their project down in molasses and least common denominator groupthink. That means every eyeball is helpful and welcome, but even Linus Torvalds said he has about 5 people who he trusts and everyone else is an idiot. He is very outspoken this way, yet runs the largest and most successful open source project on the planet. Time is ticking in order to gain network effect so why should I choose your project out of thousands of others when you can't manage to run a team without running them off? Are you going to solo the entire project?
1. Time is ticking. 2. I never ran off a team, I chose not to grab the opportunity to collaborate with others who offered, because flexibility is more important in the nascent stage. And because I didn't want to suck others into my grand experiment and make them suffer for any failure on my part. A team makes much more sense when they can contribute on their own volition to something that already has a demonstrated position. To organize a team when everything is a projection, requires a partnership in risk and binds people in ways that means I really can't lead 100% without taking responsibility for the effects of my decisions on others who have staked their future on their investment (contribution of effort and time). 3. I am solo right now, because it made the most sense after all considerations. But of course no one who is serious about long-term viability is going to remain solo on an open source crypto-currency any longer than it is beneficial to do so, which is a very short nascent stage when flexibility of leadership is a higher priority than the shared resources of open source. Note that if I had an ongoing software engineering relationship experience with another or others, then it is possible I would have made the decision to leverage teamwork during the nascent stage, because I would have had confidence from past experience with those individuals that we possessed the working synergy to make it work at the stage where the ideas around the designs and the issues are changing so fast. Even just working in the same building so able to talk at-will instead of working virtually could have impacted that decision. But given the situation I have and the time criticality of releasing something asap, the decision was made that the quickest result would be to not involve any others in the programming and engineering. I have involved the community in the naming and marketing conceptualization in this thread. Another failure of logic is to assume that a team of 3 guys could scale a crypto-currency any better than a solo developer. Unless you can get the project to the point where many, many people are contributing, then 3 programmers can't scale it by themselves. That is why it is irrational to conclude that a project with 2 devs is somehow more likely to succeed than a project with 1 dev. A project with 3 devs might be more likely to fail, because more opportunities for the 3 devs to cheat each other and cause a devolution of the project. The only thing that brings stability is long-term popularity of the project. |
|
|
|
arielbit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1059
|
|
November 16, 2015, 04:57:05 AM |
|
edit: hardware RAID is more reliable, has better performance..that's what sticked in my mind (based from what i've read back then)
To repeat what I wrote in my prior post, that is likely because RAID 5 and other levels that require extensive computation for the parity bit benefit from an additional hardware ASIC that is optimized for that specific computation. But it appears for RAID 1 that there is no such onerous computation, as the OS is simply writing two copies to two disks. Hardware controllers at another ~3% annual risk of failure to the existing ~1.5% annualized risk that an SSD will die. Also hardware controllers are proprietary and add another layer of issues to sort out. this is an example scenario of what i'm saying that might be the right setup for you. http://www.ahfx.net/weblog/182RAID 5 has known issues that I think don't apply to RAID 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Standard_levelsUpon failure of a single drive, subsequent reads can be calculated from the distributed parity such that no data is lost. RAID 5 requires at least three disks.[11] RAID 5 is seriously affected by the general trends regarding array rebuild time and the chance of drive failure during rebuild.[22] Rebuilding an array requires reading all data from all disks, opening a chance for a second drive failure and the loss of entire array. In August 2012, Dell posted an advisory against the use of RAID 5 in any configuration on Dell EqualLogic arrays and RAID 50 with "Class 2 7200 RPM drives of 1 TB and higher capacity" for business-critical data.[23] yeah. RAID 1 is simple, and the more simple the mechanism the more reliable it is.. - hot swappable + redundant power supply + redundant server + UPS (can be redundant too) = no downtime. and...standby generator and backup internet link |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
November 16, 2015, 10:18:16 AM |
|
I registered:
inertia.social ($12)
inertias.net ($9)
inerti.us (only $4)
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
November 16, 2015, 12:08:46 PM
Last edit: November 16, 2015, 02:34:23 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
More hints about what is unique in my design for block chain consensus... A non-PoW algorithm could in the short-term use an objective metric of the long-term historical consensus to limit the rate of deviation of the short-term consensus. Think of rolling checkpoints, but applying this inertia to the future as well, analogous to anti-aliasing. There is your strong hint as to what I am doing differently than other attempts to overhaul the block chain consensus algorithm.
Interesting. I'm not sure what you're describing here, although it reminds me of an old idea I had about DPOS: throw away the stake elected delegates and replace them with POW elected delegates. That way, delegates become permissionless, you still get to keep the fast block times and it kind of adopts a checkpoint-alike system since the POW frequency would be lower than the block generation frequency. Note afaics (?) PoS isn't inherently lacking the permissionless attribute, but rather it is ill-defined as to what threshold of adversarial strategy does it break, because the "something to stake" isn't consumed because for example there are a myriad of strategies such as shorting against your own stake so you have "nothing at stake". Perhaps someone can quantify the breakage thresholds of all the myriad of adversarial strategies precisely, but I doubt it. For example, I started to read the 40 page Neucoin white paper, but there is so much verbiage to wade through as compared to Satoshi's concise elucidation. PoW election of delegates (i.e. Bitcoin-NG except with multiple simultaneous leaders) still retains the Satoshi weaknesses that 51% can destroy the permission-less quality and the centralization directed economics of the longest chain (refer to my up thread post). The permissionless breakage point is more well-defined than PoS, nevertheless Satoshi's PoW doesn't appear to have a decentralized future. I originally also contemplated this method, as superior to stake deposits but dissatisfied that the permissionless attribute would not be durable as the network becomes more centralized. I did have one idea for battling centralization of PoW by not offering any rewards for PoW and making it required, but this still meant that the inertia of popular delegates with 51% could form an censorship clique which I wasn't totally satisfied with (although willing to attempt as an improvement over what we have now with Bitcoin and more well-defined than PoS). My idea for "inertia" is how I think the permissionless attribute can be impossible to break unless the adversary has near to 100% of the inertia. The relevant form of inertia should have the property of a virus in that if you can't block all of it, it eventually infiltrates the other 99.9% of the inertia as kryptonite against the power of the censorship. DAG (Iota) and similar explorations (e.g. RaiBlocks block lattice) have been essentially trying to capture permissionless "inertia" but I believe they missed some key insights. One of the key insights comes from the entropic force and the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics insures us that nature is always trying to route around inefficient Coasian barriers. Conceptually PoW is a Coasian barrier attempt to control inertia rather than recognize that inertia is an emergent phenomenon of the entropic force and structures itself. So I believe Iota and RaiBlocks are attempting to force non-emergent structure because they haven't identified that which is emergent and removed all the other unnecessary controlling structure which afaics renders their designs unable to provide the objective reality within the CAP theorem (interpreted with a higher level ontology as I have described in my discussions with the devs of those two coins). Another insight derives from the fact that the world must be relative, because if everyone was forced to hold the same perspective, then no entropy could emerge. Nothing would exist. In other words, if everything is the same, then nothing exists (nothing is distinguishable). So I was searching for a way that there could simultaneously be virtual Partitions of consensus (allowing different relative perspectives), yet impossible to have multiple or ambiguous objective realities about validity (i.e. not losing global Consistency, except by absolute physical network partitioning, which is very unlikely since we do have permissionless global communication with for example shortwave radio and degrading functionality more precisely in that physical partitioning scenario). Accessibility could be forsaked on some virtual partitions for as long as it is not lost on every partition, because on the internet every partition is reached (unless there is no physical connectivity or perhaps if the anti-DoS is flawed). So essentially I think Satoshi's PoW is inflexible on gradations of tradeoffs between C, A, and P (in my ontology of that CAP theorem), thus it loses centralization (permissionless) durability because it can't model the actual inertia. In my abstract conceptualization, Iota is essentially trying to capture the same conceptual direction, but I think they missed the insight of what the key emergent phenomenon that is the inertia, thus afaics their design suffers from conflating some other structure which I am currently thinking makes it weaker (but more precise analysis awaits after they've released a product and finalized their design and ditto me as well). For example, afaics I believe their first fundamental mistake was to introduce longest tangles of PoW as the metric of objectivity. Afaics this just mucks up capturing the true metric of inertia. PoW forces giving control to the longest chain or no objectivity, but the longest chain may deviate (centralize due to its economics) from some other more permissionless durable measure of inertia. Another key insight is that afaik all PoS penalization mechanisms are based on the concept that it is "more expensive to attempt to cheat", which unfortunately are theoretically broken by strategies such as shorting the coin. Whereas, the inverted concept that "it is too expensive to not check for cheating" transforms the onus from the one with stake to the one who needs inertia. This is an example of the powers of discernment that recognize that "nothing at stake" is distinct from "something to stake". We should consider all the possibilities of abstraction in order to broaden our ability to discern. Referring to the prior two paragraphs and the following self-quote, note that the incentive to be on the longest chain in PoW conflates the incentive to not be on a invalid chain with the requirement to have only one virtual partition.
with a sufficient penalty for not joining the longest chain to motivate convergence on one chain
You are (perhaps unconsciously?) identifying a more significant economic fact: there is no way to secure a block chain without centralization due to power law distribution of wealth coupled with the Iron Law of Political Economics when any resource is involved in the objectivity of the consensus. With inertia as the objectivity, I think it will be much more difficult to centralize the block chain. I look forward to reading your whitepaper  Thanks. I am trying my best to rush, and hopefully cutting corners in implementation won't end up blowing up in my face. The white paper will be less abstractly opaque. I have to be somewhat opaque at this point, otherwise I simply spill the beans entirely. Afaics this just mucks up capturing the true metric of inertia. PoW forces giving control to the longest chain or no objectivity, but the longest chain may deviate (centralize due to its economics) from some other more permissionless durable measure of inertia.
What is the definition of inertia in the context of consensus, though? We have POW because of the sybil problem... I guess, in idealised terms, inertia in cryptocurrencies would be directly proportional to the number of unique individuals in the voting process? Inertia is an interpretation of the (history of the) UTXO. It it is the context in which it is interpreted that gives rise to my design. Sure anyone can make transactions to themselves and even avoid TX fees if they are also the confirmation delegate to Sybil attack the UTXO, but... Inertia is an interpretation of the (history of the) UTXO. It it is the context in which it is interpreted that gives rise to my design. Sure anyone can make transactions to themselves and even avoid TX fees if they are also the confirmation delegate to Sybil attack the UTXO, but...
I don't have enough info to reason about this I'll have to wait for your doc I was purposeful too vague and abstract  . Just because someone can Sybil attack the UTXO, doesn't necessarily follow they can Sybil attack the "inertia" which an interpretation (a chronological, partitioned structuring) of the UTXO. Someone could send a zillion transactions to their Sybil addresses (if they can recoup the TX fees by running their own full node), but if the rest of the inertia doesn't consume those UTXO, then it isn't inertia and it is a private, virtual "subnetwork" of the attacker. I have mentioned the long-term inertia limits the rate of change in the near-term (a form of anti-aliasing) so that objective reality in the near-term moves into the long-term history before the rate of change could enable a double-spend by "replacing the 51% of delegated authority". It is not possible for collusion of delegates to prevent even very small percentages of the inertia from being confirmed by an ever spreading percentage of the inertia, thus the colluding delegates implicitly remove themselves from the system by censoring the growing inertia. Unlike with PoW, there is no way to stomp out all permission-less activity as it acts more like a virus that spreads. The only way to be congruent with the virus-like quality of the inertia is to not censor any portion of the inertia. During battles over perspective, there can be partial orders (partitions) in terms of consensus, but there can't be invalidity because of the anti-aliasing. The payee only has to fear that a particular partition will complete die, but due to the way inertia infects itself, this is extremely unlikely. I think I read that all of us are connected by on average only 5 degrees-of-acquaintances. Again consensus systems are probabilistic. Just like with Bitcoin, the probability of an orphaned virtual partition declines over time. One difference from Bitcoin is there isn't the requirement of not more than one virtual partition (just one longest chain), yet convergence is probabilistically inevitable. If you conceptually combined DPOS and Iota, you'd be closer to my design. The inertia is in control. It is a force of the users. It is what we idealistically thought PoW was supposed to be as a decentralized vote. The incentive of the user to be able to transaction freely (with any human at any time, not just some portion of the UTXO) is the inertia. One of the important aspects of making this work correctly is going entirely against the concept that Bitcoin should be only for a reserve currency for the large stake holders. To make my design work, the users of currency must be the determinants of the inertia. Micro-transactions and the need to transact widely with any one at any time without any Lightning Network corporate servers building "harvestwalls" (or however data harvesting is employed to extract profit) or other means of the rich continuing to parasite on and interfere/throttle/limit the individuals (the entropic force) that is the real economy. I think that will be enough hints for now. Edit: one more point is that if there are multiple long-term histories, the most objective one is the one which has all the (valid) transactions, i.e. combine the multiple histories if no one else has yet. In my analysis thus far, I have not found an ambiguity in the objectivity. The key design insight was employing anti-aliasing to make validity unambiguous. |
|
|
|
Crestington
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 882
Merit: 1024
|
|
November 16, 2015, 11:28:35 PM |
|
right now you are spending all your time procrastinating, posting about conspiracy theories and making polls about nonsensical details.
Foolish statements made by blind fools are good for motivation and feedback (as well as providing a record of those who will "eat crow" soon). The joke ( and priorities suggestion) portion of your post was interpreted humorously ( including the n00b, naive, humorous notion of de-prioritizing branding & marketing), but the quoted portion is not a factual statement (which you could have verified by simply checking my latest posts by clicking my profile before posting your comments). Don't care about eating crow and will never invest in your Coin no matter how good it is because you continually assault anyone that have any objections. You have this "higher than thou" attitude that I find absolutely repulsive, you have a high mathematical aptitude but suck at social interactions. Time is ticking in order to gain network effect so why should I choose your project out of thousands of others when you can't manage to run a team without running them off? Are you going to solo the entire project? Well that is good, we finally have someone who states they will never invest in anything I create. And then if what I create is spreading like wildfire to millions of users then you will simply step aside from crypto as Bitcoin dies, because YOUR EGO is bigger than YOUR RATIONALITY. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404Ego is for little people
When I got really famous and started to hang out with people at the top of the game in computer science and other fields, one of the first things I noticed is that the real A-list types almost never have a major territorial/ego thing going on in their behavior. The B-list people, the bright second-raters, may be all sharp elbows and ego assertion, but there’s a calm space at the top that the absolutely most capable ones get to and tend to stay in.
My claim is that egotism is a disease of the incapable, and vanishes or nearly vanishes among the super-capable.
No. It’s more that ego games have a diminishing return. The farther you are up the ability and achievement bell curve, the less psychological gain you get from asserting or demonstrating your superiority over the merely average, and the more prone you are to welcome discovering new peers because there are so damn few of them that it gets lonely. There comes a point past which winning more ego contests becomes so pointless that even the most ambitious, suspicious, external-validation-fixated strivers tend to notice that it’s no fun any more and stop.
I’m not speaking abstractly here. I’ve always been more interested in doing the right thing than doing what would make me popular, to the point where I generally figure that if I’m not routinely pissing off a sizable minority of people I should be pushing harder. In the language of psychology, my need for external validation is low; the standards I try hardest to live up to are those I’ve set for myself. But one of the differences I can see between myself at 25 and myself at 52 is that my limited need for external validation has decreased. And it’s not age or maturity or virtue that shrunk it; it’s having nothing left to prove. What I have to prove now is prove to myself that my illness and my age has not removed my ability to do important work, i.e. that I have not become useless. I am not striving for your validation (as in a personal one of comparing myself personally to you or any other person for validation of my ego). I recognize the talents of others and have commended them on their capabilities when they shine such as smooth, gmaxell, vitalik, etc.. I have also expressed my disgust with individuals who abuse their skills to ridicule others (such as gmaxwel ridiculing me in some forum interactions) who are sincerely trying to contribute and always willing to mea culpa. What I am saying is that OTHERS DO THEIR DAMNED BEST TO TURN WHAT SHOULD BE A MERITORIOUS COMPETITION FOR THE BETTERMENT OF ALL INSTEAD INTO PETTY EGO BATTLES. And when I state that, then those same people (e.g. including apparently yourself) then claim it is my ego that is the source of the acrimony. It is just so nonsensical that I am reaching the point where I think the best course of action is to ignore these B-listers and just focus on what I am trying to accomplish. The other thing I am trying to prove right now is the myopia of all those who think that the only correct way to create a better crypto-currency is the Monero way, and basically that you must join together in open source, "steal" ("improve" or "open source") someone else's invention (and claim perhaps rightly so that the inventors abused their invention), and then use groupthink to make all the creative decisions. So many people have criticized me for refusing to join a groupthink at the nascent stage, and do not seem to understand that I want the flexibility to apply my own creativity until I have proved something that is worthy of open source collaboration. I competed in team sports and individual sports in my youth. At various stages of my life I was an MVP in both American football (one with the helmet in playground leagues and again in college) and Track & Field (at middle distance in high school). Later in life I competed in software, several times being involved with software that reached out to millions of users. What I learned is that there is a role for individual competition (e.g. in Track and Software you are often going alone and competing against yourself) meshed with team based competition (e.g. in Football and even in Software if you create a successful open source effort). So I have experience in discerning where the optimum sweet spots are in terms of the balances between individualistic and team based efforts. The Mythical Man Month applies especially to highly flexibility, iteractive, creative nascent stages that require an abundance of communication to accomplish within a group effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month"Therefore, assigning more programmers to a project running behind schedule will make it even later. This is because the time required for the new programmers to learn about the project and the increased communication overhead will consume an ever increasing quantity of the calendar time available. When n people have to communicate among themselves, as n increases, their output decreases and when it becomes negative the project is delayed further with every person added. Group intercommunication formula: n(n − 1) / 2 Example: 50 developers give 50 · (50 – 1) / 2 = 1225 channels of communication." And yet, there are people out there who are going to read the previous paragraph and think “Oh, that’s Eric’s ego again. The blowhard.” I’ve had a lot of time to get used to such reactions over the last decade, but it’s still hard for me not to collapse in helpless laughter at the implied degree of Not Getting It.
If you’re the kind of person who can make it to the top even in a single field (law or CS or whatever) you may not have started out with better things to do than compete for attention and glory, but by the time you make the A-list you’ve almost certainly discovered subtler games to play that are much more fun. You’ll maintain a reputation because a reputation is a useful tool, but it’s not the point any more. If it ever was. In my experience this is even more true of polymaths, possibly because their self-images as competent people.have broader and more stable bases.
I think there are a couple of different reasons people tend to falsely attribute pathological, oversensitive egos to A-listers. Each reason is in its own way worth taking a look at.
The first and most obvious reason is projection. “Wow, if I were as talented as Terry Pratchett, I know I’d have a huge ego about it, so I guess he must.” Heh. Trust me on this; he doesn’t. This kind of thinking reveals a a lot about somebody’s ego and insecurity, alright, but not Terry’s.
You have failure of logic and rationality as follows. Which can severely impact your ability to be an expert speculator. you have a high mathematical aptitude but suck at social interactions.
Personal social interaction is not marketing genius or luck which drives a million user adoption. Personal social interaction scales far too slowly. Duh. I couldn't even personally interact with a million people in my lifetime. So my personality has nothing at all to do with it. This is I presume your butthurt ego standing in front of the line of your rationality telling you that I can't possibly succeed. If you say to yourself, "there he goes again using 'butthurt' and offending the community", my response is that I am tired of this forum and the attacks. Enough already! And besides this forum does not matter to the success of my project as you will soon see once you see my marketing and distribution method. And also your assumption that I don't excel in social interactions is incorrect and based on some nonsense forum with 99.999% males who are constantly trying to prove their big egos. I have in fact entertained large groups at Comdex exhibits. When it comes to interacting with other programmers in an open source setting, the key is to be factual and meritorious. That is what the A-listers want, because A-listers care about results, not time wasting egos. The B-listers of course are all elbows and acrimony and that is why you want them to go "contribute" to your competitor's open source in order to bog their project down in molasses and least common denominator groupthink. That means every eyeball is helpful and welcome, but even Linus Torvalds said he has about 5 people who he trusts and everyone else is an idiot. He is very outspoken this way, yet runs the largest and most successful open source project on the planet. Time is ticking in order to gain network effect so why should I choose your project out of thousands of others when you can't manage to run a team without running them off? Are you going to solo the entire project?
1. Time is ticking. 2. I never ran off a team, I chose not to grab the opportunity to collaborate with others who offered, because flexibility is more important in the nascent stage. And because I didn't want to suck others into my grand experiment and make them suffer for any failure on my part. A team makes much more sense when they can contribute on their own volition to something that already has a demonstrated position. To organize a team when everything is a projection, requires a partnership in risk and binds people in ways that means I really can't lead 100% without taking responsibility for the effects of my decisions on others who have staked their future on their investment (contribution of effort and time). 3. I am solo right now, because it made the most sense after all considerations. But of course no one who is serious about long-term viability is going to remain solo on an open source crypto-currency any longer than it is beneficial to do so, which is a very short nascent stage when flexibility of leadership is a higher priority than the shared resources of open source. Note that if I had an ongoing software engineering relationship experience with another or others, then it is possible I would have made the decision to leverage teamwork during the nascent stage, because I would have had confidence from past experience with those individuals that we possessed the working synergy to make it work at the stage where the ideas around the designs and the issues are changing so fast. Even just working in the same building so able to talk at-will instead of working virtually could have impacted that decision. But given the situation I have and the time criticality of releasing something asap, the decision was made that the quickest result would be to not involve any others in the programming and engineering. I have involved the community in the naming and marketing conceptualization in this thread. Another failure of logic is to assume that a team of 3 guys could scale a crypto-currency any better than a solo developer. Unless you can get the project to the point where many, many people are contributing, then 3 programmers can't scale it by themselves. That is why it is irrational to conclude that a project with 2 devs is somehow more likely to succeed than a project with 1 dev. A project with 3 devs might be more likely to fail, because more opportunities for the 3 devs to cheat each other and cause a devolution of the project. The only thing that brings stability is long-term popularity of the project. Can I quote without reading? Totally didn't read it. A whole book for a 2 sentence reply? Give me like 5 sentences or less why your project is going to be a game-changer and why. |
|
|
|
|
|
bitsire
|
|
November 19, 2015, 01:01:36 AM |
|
Don't care about eating crow and will never invest in your Coin no matter how good it is because you continually assault anyone that have any objections. You have this "higher than thou" attitude that I find absolutely repulsive, you have a high mathematical aptitude but suck at social interactions.
+1, my sentiments exactly. I wouldn't invest in this "coin" even if Giselle Bundchen came over and blew me every time I made a transaction. Not that it would ever happen... can't make a transaction with vapour  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
