[neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?

[monsterer]

If I understand you correctly, you are proposing to value the market cap at the total bid demand (bid price x supply offered to buy), since the remaining money supply has no bid thus is worth 0 on the market at that instant in time.

Precisely.

It would need to be some average over time, otherwise it could swing wildly.

However it doesn't accurate reflect the demand and will understate market cap, because supply can also be traded outside exchanges at merchants. It could radically understate the relative usership of the coin with high bonafide transaction volume.

Also as smooth indicated, it can be gamed by setting bids much below the market price (that the asks won't bother to meet), thus giving a much higher relative valuation to coins where the supply is more concentrated in a few manipulators.

If you take the average over a bunch of orderbooks you should be ok for variance.

If you place bids much below the market price, the actual BTC value of filling against the bid will be insignificant. Example:

price btc, quantity, btc value
0.9, 100, 90
0.8, 100, 80
...
0.01, 1000, 10

So, the 0.01 priced order is low enough so the manipulator doesn't expect to get filled, but he only increases the valuation by 10 BTC. If he places the order too high, he runs the risk of getting filled (therefore providing accidental demand).

[1714292656]

1714292656

[TPTB_need_war]

Magic Johnson (the former NBA player) on marketing:

https://youtu.be/jBqBoM_YRqI?t=748
https://youtu.be/jBqBoM_YRqI?t=1642

[monsterer]

Regarding my follow up questions, I think I'm going to have to wait for your whitepaper because looking back through the thread there are a lot of points which I need to understand and particularly how they work together. For example, whether the design relies on timestamps, or some notion of being able to identify a subjective 'first'. This is almost certainly related to the new chain scoring rule, which is also paramount to analysing in further detail.

[smooth]

It can be faked if supply is tightly controlled. There is no risk to putting whatever offers up on the book you want, particularly below the best bid, if you know that it won't be dumped into your bids.

That's the point tho - the bids *are* the demand. Coin supply is the supply, so when demand meets supply you get your market cap estimate. You can't place fake bids to raise the value of this estimate.

Let me explain why you are wrong with an intentionally-extreme example.

Let's say I own all of the supply of SmoothShitCoin.

I can place bids for millions of SSCs at 1000 BTC/SSC because I know that no one owns any, so they can't possibly sell into it.

You, as a third party observer, can look at the order book and see billions of BTC of market cap for SSC. It is obviously fake.

To make this look even more convincing, I can sell some SSCs to myself, so you see not only a large buy-side, but an active ticker. Subject of course to the caveat already mentioned about non-trivial transaction fees payable to an unrelated party. Even that may be a small and acceptable cost to maintain the fiction though.

Less extreme examples are possible of course.

[monsterer]

Let me explain why you are wrong with an intentionally-extreme example.

Let's say I own all of the supply of SmoothShitCoin.

I can place bids for millions of SSCs at 1000 BTC/SSC because I know that no one owns any, so they can't possibly sell into it.

You, as a third party observer, can look at the order book and see billions of BTC of market cap for SSC. It is obviously fake.

To make this look even more convincing, I can sell some SSCs to myself, so you see not only a large buy-side, but an active ticker. Subject of course to the caveat already mentioned about non-trivial transaction fees payable to an unrelated party. Even that may be a small and acceptable cost to maintain the fiction though.

Less extreme examples are possible of course.

Given. However, I still maintain this is better estimate than last traded price * coin supply in all other cases, and pretty much the only real metric for value.

[TPTB_need_war]

Regarding my follow up questions, I think I'm going to have to wait for your whitepaper because looking back through the thread there are a lot of points which I need to understand and particularly how they work together. For example, whether the design relies on timestamps, or some notion of being able to identify a subjective 'first'. This is almost certainly related to the new chain scoring rule, which is also paramount to analysing in further detail.

Agreed you need to know how transactions are ordered globally. Well I already sort of explained it, but it requires understanding how Dash's Evolution quorum works but then adapting it my more decentralized design of nominated verification nodes. There are no timestamps. Ordering is relative. Remember as for Iota's DAG or a PoW block chain, that a hash of a hash of a hash is ordering. Smooth was correct back in June when he (whether he realized it or not) implied that ordering is the only requirement for cryptocurrency. Well that is not comprehensive (and smooth knows this), because also need consensus on the ordering (which is where I assert that Evolution's incorporation of a quorum is inconsistent because it is intended to enable instant confirmations yet the orphaned rollbacks are a security risk).

So I think the design is sufficiently described, but pulling all those vague allusions together into the holistic design might take a lot of mental effort (and you need to make the mental leap of deducing that the hash of hash of hash are eventually recorded onto the block chain, interim while they are not recorded on the block chain because some 49 - 99% attacker then the confirmed transactions are still valid because the verifiers were nominated, and these orderings can't conflict per the logic I introduced already in our discussion), and it would be better to just wait for the white paper. And I need to focus on the marketing and implementation first, because that decentralized block chain theory won't amount to anything if I don't take care of business first.

[TPTB_need_war]

...SmoothShitCoin

Lol.

I am still rubbing the morning (3pm) cobwebs out my eyes to be sure I wasn't hallucinating. (I know you were just being humorously self-deprecating/modest)

Smoothshit is something I strive for these days. When I get the plop, plop, plop pebbled shit, I know the inflammation of the gut/colon is active.

(Hey I am still the boyish kid who liked fart jokes)

[TPTB_need_war]

Fuseleer don't engage acrimony. Just say, "the truth will be evident by what is proved in the market" and then proceed on your efforts in proving.

I am reasonably convinced you've done a lot of (afaik mostly private groups) experimentation. Hope you will be able to bring something to market eventually.

You've apparently made such a huge investment over such a long period of time. One question. How do you plan to recoup that investment if you fail to deliver an acceptable outcome with your design? In other words, do you have a plan B?

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on that both because I need to also consider that possibility on my own design and also because I am concerned for you personally at the depression that might result if you fail and don't have a plan B (as I am concerned about myself especially since I am in more dire straits than I assume you are financially and healthwise and have so much riding on the outcome of my work).

Seems is one of us succeeds and the other fails, then it is wise to contribute to the project that is succeeding and recoup all the investment in learning and experience by applying to where the most ROI can be assured.

[TPTB_need_war]

Initially, your biggest user base is going to be on this forum, I'd have thought - unless you plan not to market here and spend a fortune on advertising that is. But IMO that would be mad because you'll be fighting a war on two fronts: 1. educating people about what a crypto currency actually is, 2. getting them to use/buy yours.

Advertising is free if paid in tokens because the tokens don't cost me anything.

Yeah the educating part is the big unknown factor. So my idea is motivate them to educate the others. The education curve should be as simple as "click that, get that, do that, get that".

You're surely not creating an actual social game? I.e. you're not making candy crush, or something here are you?

The game is literally the social networking game and I literally mean social, not an arcade game.

Magic Johnson (the former NBA player) on marketing:

https://youtu.be/jBqBoM_YRqI?t=748
https://youtu.be/jBqBoM_YRqI?t=1642

I discussed my marketing plan with my filipina gf, who is a social networking addict. I explained to her Magic Johnson's correct point that there must be an existing demand for your product and that customers must come to think of your product as their own (e.g. "that is my local McDonalds"). I expressed to her my concern about whether users who uptake and do they have a demand for cryptocurrency when in the beginning when there is nearly no one accepting the currency as a medium-of-exchange.

I explained to her how a social race or competition can spread like wildfire. I explained that it doesn't matter what the exchange value is, if the currency is not viewed initially for exchange but rather as points in social status. I explained how the users themselves can be incentivized in this competition to educate the other users.

Her eyes got very big and she said she is very excited to begin. I agree with her. I don't think this will fail. Because I know social networking is mostly about gossip, social jockeying, social game theory, etc..

I told her the epitome of success would be if I go over to the local internet cafe and some 6 year old kid tells me about my token and I ponder aloud, "I wonder who created that?". Lol.

Now damnit, if someone copies my idea before I launch because I was too generous with my sharing, then that will be an explanation of why for such a long time I was unwilling to share publicly before launch. Hopefully I am close enough now.

[monsterer]

The game is literally the social networking game and I literally mean social, not an arcade game.

"the social networking game" - as in you are making farmville, or a sort of socialised referral system?

[dloghwak]

The game is literally the social networking game and I literally mean social, not an arcade game.

"the social networking game" - as in you are making farmville, or a sort of socialised referral system?

Cryptokingdom 2 - Now you can choose between Risto or Anonymint to be your King. 

[TPTB_need_war]

The game is literally the social networking game and I literally mean social, not an arcade game.

"the social networking game" - as in you are making farmville, or a sort of socialised referral system?

Cryptokingdom 2 - Now you can choose between Risto or Anonymint to be your King.  

That is good to see that even I thought I had revealed my marketing plan, that some people still didn't realize what I meant. Yes monsterer a socialized referral system. I thought from what I wrote, it would be obvious, but I guess my plan is not totally obvious. For me it seems so obvious and the only possible way to really launch a currency to the masses. I don't even think those who control the media could do it better than my plan.

If attain any significant adoption, the social distribution game will be entirely out of my control fairly quickly, because the token protocol is decentralized. Initially it is a means of distributing the software to the users as widely distributed as possible. The goal is to get between 10,000 to 100 million users within the first 6 months to a year (none of those counted from our forum). Yeah I really don't know how fast it will scale. It might be geometric in which case the upper end of the number might be plausible. But I am not pitching that as an outcome. MyVaporwareShitCoin may reach an adoption of 2 people, myself and my gf, lol. I am not pitching any outcome to speculators, nor investors. I am creating a software and attempting to give it away to users in order to get them to use it. We'll see what happens.

How many users does Cryptokingdom have?

Cryptokingdom is trying to be a vertical market game. I am not making a vertical market game. There is a difference between a horizontal (i.e. general for all uses of a currency) social networking game and a vertical (i.e. targeted to one use of currency) market game that happens to have a social component.

I think many people do not understand that using a social network such as facebook is a form of a game. There is a game theory in social interaction. Many engineers even think that social networking sites are for silly people.

Here is an example of the sort of stuff that people share on their timelines in facebook:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155807443185191&id=333770020190

I am confident that my gf and none of her 1000s of friends (who each have 1000s of friends who each have 1000s of friends) have ever heard of Cryptokingdom and in 20 years they still wouldn't hear or care about it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless about demographics and how small the reach of this forum is compared to global reach. That is not even close to what I am attempting to do (no offense to Risto but he doesn't have the experience that I have in software marketing to the masses). We can use the Alexa rank to estimate bitcointalk's daily reach at about 2% of the internet population, but that is for every forum with most interested in Bitcoin and not for this Altcoin Discussion forum. My guess is maybe 1/100 of the visitors to bitcointalk.org are even remotely interested in purchasing/using an altcoin. So that would be 1/5000th of the internet population, or roughly a few hundred thousand individuals. Even that seems to not match reality, because it rather seems that level of interest in altcoins appears to be so low that rarely do I see newbies even post in the Altcoin Discussion forum. My guess would more on the order-of-magnitude of 10,000 potential investors total. So there seems to be something wrong with the statistics. The 2% internet reach implied by Alexa would mean 40 million of the internet population. But most estimates of Bitcoin usership in the single digit millions if not lower. One thing this discrepancy may be pointing to is that there is wide gap between interested usership for decentralized money and scammy overly detailed shitcoin noise. Typically the more complex some arena is, the less interested people are. So this is one of the major insights my marketing is designed to skirt.

The ecosystem for a currency needs to be very broad and include a smorgasbord of merchants and activities. As well the creation of new activities and participants needs to be spontaneous, grassroots, and uncoordinated. Some infrastructure needs to be built by leaders, but the entire market can't be dictated to in a vertical paradigm because that scales too slowly.

[monsterer]

Yes monsterer a socialized referral system. I thought from what I wrote, it would be obvious, but I guess my plan is not totally obvious. For me it seems so obvious and the only possible way to really launch a currency to the masses. I don't even think those who control the media could do it better than my plan.

Just be aware that facebook are so draconian in their policies about what they allow app creators to share automatically, or auto fill link sharing that they have totally wiped out any built in virality that platform used to have when farmville was first launched.

When farmvile was launched it was totally ok (by facebook's policies at the time) for the game to lock content on the condition that you invited *all* your friends into the game; that's how zynga got so big so quickly. These days it's a very different story.

You'll need to create something which has uses wanting to share it with their friends; that's really the only way now.

[TPTB_need_war]

I finally issued the transfer of ion.cash to the liason selected by smooth. We had attempted a transfer to smooth's account at another registrar, but it wasn't working. So I have issued the transfer it to the assigned liason's GoDaddy account on GoDaddy. Apologies it took so long as I was ignoring private messages due to being overloaded on "too many priorities" and "sleepless brain fog". Or for a better way of stating it, feeling like a chicken with my head cut off trying to jumble (as opposed to juggle) too many things.

As an example, I spoke to my gf tonight "could you fetch me a favor" which while I was speaking it in real time I literally caught my brain autonomously merging "can I ask you for a favor to go fetch me a glass of water". We both laughed as I realized I was shortening the phrase while speaking it but was too late and so I just smiled while completing it. That is indicative of what I been dealing with time wise, mentally, feeling of pressure, health, etc.. I wonder what I will be able to recall from this stage of my life after it is done (given it is all smashed together in a mad jumble).

[TPTB_need_war]

Yes monsterer a socialized referral system. I thought from what I wrote, it would be obvious, but I guess my plan is not totally obvious. For me it seems so obvious and the only possible way to really launch a currency to the masses. I don't even think those who control the media could do it better than my plan.

Just be aware that facebook are so draconian in their policies about what they allow app creators to share automatically, or auto fill link sharing that they have totally wiped out any built in virality that platform used to have when farmville was first launched.

When farmvile was launched it was totally ok (by facebook's policies at the time) for the game to lock content on the condition that you invited *all* your friends into the game; that's how zynga got so big so quickly. These days it's a very different story.

Thanks for that information. I am aware that depending on policies of a behemoth such as Facebook is an unstable strategy. I am not creating any app on facebook.

You'll need to create something which has uses wanting to share it with their friends; that's really the only way now.

Exactly the plan.

[TPTB_need_war]

[...]Monero [...] i like a lot of what I'm hearing/researched about the coin.

Did you research my thread speculating that the technologies in Monero are a waste of time:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg13143507#msg13143507

Cryptonote (even RingCT) can't obscure your IP address. Zerocash can. That was painful for me to admit, given I had expended a lot of effort to design a technology similar to RingCT based on the more compact CCT.

None of those can do microtransactions. Even Dash Evolution's instant transaction feature is afaics highly flawed and can be reverted by an orphaned chain (where orphans are a normal occurrence in a PoW coin).

And afaik none of them have any viable plan for attaining million user adoption.

Comparing coin plans and features can turn into a war. So that is my 2 cents. I will not continue. Suffice it so say that investors are relatively blinded and uninformed, because they don't understand the technologies (which are always changing too because we are still in R&D phase of cryptocurrency).

Also, regarding bolded, you are saying this because you assume both I2P and Tor (Monero will have I2P integrated, but you can also run Monero over Tor) are "flawed" and don't protect your identity (IP).

That is one of my main reasons. Also, their designs can't protect against DDoS (at least not a microtransaction scale volume) when the sender's IP address is obscured by the mixnet. But worse than all that is simply the fact that users can't jump through those hoops regularly in perfection. And that includes you and I. It simply isn't realistic to obscure the IP address. I tried my best to find a way to perfect obscuring the IP address and then in shame I realized I was stupid for even wasting so much effort trying to. Because conceptually it (obscuring the IP address) doesn't make any sense[1] and it violates the end-to-end principle of the internet.

Okay I am stopping now. I don't want a war. And I don't really care what this forum thinks is the best coin. I am somewhat concerned about speculators being ill informed, but that isn't my job to make sure they are informed.

[1] I covered the logic on that in my recent debate with smooth which is saved in the Zero Knowledge Transactions thread.

As for a potential solution to the IP address obfuscation issue, there is a white paper that I was first introduced to by jl777 this year and now someone else has asked me about it in a PM:

http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/dissent/

http://bford.info/pub/net/panopticon-cacm.pdf

Section 3 explains very well some of the major attacks against the onion routing (OR) in Tor and I2P.

The problems with this Dissent protocol some of which they admit in the section "5. Challenges and Future Work":

• It requires N² communication for N participants. If the entire network isn't included in one grouping, then next problem results. They offer a federated server "solution" but this I believe puts jamming (and anonymity?) at risk of collusion of the servers?
• Same as for any mixnet (incluring OR and Cryptonote), if there are multiple groupings (or rings) then users can be unmasked by (a form of an intersection attack whereby) correlating which groups they participated in. This same problem results from one grouping and the fact that different users are participating at different times. This is a fundamental problem for mixnets  (including on chain mixes such as Cryptonote) that caused me to realize the problem was unsolvable.
• Anti-jamming is based on an identity. Per the criticism I made against CoinJoin in 2013, we are creating anonymity so identity can't be insured. Perhaps we could tie identities to specific UTXO and confiscate those who jam. I would need to look into the details of that change to their design, as to whether this would violate the anonymity (and I assume yes it would until shown otherwise because of what I've learned over the past 2 years).
• It has a simultaneity requirement (similar to Dash's mixing), more so than Tor or I2P.

Why use this complex mixnet stuff (that won't really work well) when Zerocash elegantly solves the problem and is entirely autononomous. To quote smooth (he was referring to Cryptonote but he should have been referring to Zerocash), "a pidgeon could carry your transaction to the block chain and it wouldn't matter". Let me rephrase that, "a truck with your name painted on the side could carry your transaction to the block chain and it wouldn't matter". With Zerocash, everything is hidden so even if you put your name in the transaction packets, it wouldn't affect your anonymity because no one can see any of the details of the transaction. All they will see is you put your name on this encrypted blob of data. So you are worried about the compromised key of Zerocash leading to a hidden inflation of the money supply (I was too), but it doesn't affect the anonymity in any case. Well even that has solutions, e.g. make multiple sets of keys and sign all transactions with more than one signature so you have more assurance that all of the keys weren't fraudulently generated. Or run Zerocash only as a mixer and net out all the coins in/out periodically to be sure it is not creating coins out-of-thin-air.

So Erik Voorhees waves the flag for Dash - so what?

A. Antonopoulos agreeing with E. Voorhees is an amazing sight. And yet they are now saying things that I was writing back in early 2014. Wonder if they got the idea from me?

Note A. Antonopoulos isn't arguing that Dash is the right answer per se, rather he is just agreeing with my bi(or multi-)furcation concept:

I am not arguing that Bitcoin won't go up in price (although it is remotely possible it could be entirely defeated by an altcoin, the more likely future is Bitcoin prospers while an altcoin might also due to a bifurcation on the principle of strong anonymity).

---8<---

And we need decentralized currency and payment in order to prevent the internet from being dominated by an advertising funding paradigm and few large corporations.

---8<---

We concluded in upthread discussion that for Bitcoin the easier attack vectors are regulation (since anonymity can easily be universally broken ex post facto with coin taint) and taking control over the few large pools.

Designing defenses against the 51% attacks is more relevant to the proposed altcoin that would be more impervious to regulation and pool centralization.

So above it appears I was also thinking about micro-transactions even though I explicitly articulated the anonymity feature. Seems after the altcoin community focused on anonymity, but meanwhile I have focused on micro-transactions also so as to compete with the advertising model of internet funding.

Below we can see I was already thinking about IPO distribution models and also how to scale decentralized mining.

So of course I think Dash, Monero, and Aeon are all behind me in terms of insight and creating the killer altcoin. Time will tell. I don't feel any great need to convince anyone on this forum of anything nor do I really care. I just don't think the arguments here in this forum about which coin is better are relevant. What is relevant is how many users your coin has and will have. Or what unique function it will serve for a smaller market if that is the intention of that altcoin (in which case arguing in this forum as if you are concerned about usershare derived from this forum is an indication that the intention is not to serve a smaller market).

See one of many famous price predictions as well:

Yes Ethereum is one of the possible serious challengers to Bitcoin, and I've been aware of it for months behind the scenes. I am doubting the economics of how they tied their scripting into the mining. I fear it may be a fundamental flaw that could cause it to fail over time. Other than that, I think contracts changes everything in the crypto-currency paradigm.

Also IMHO Ethereum's planned IPO model for starting a currency is flawed.

In the meantime, I expect something better than Ethereum will come out. Hopefully with a better name too (Etherium.com is a game, what the heck does ether mean to the average person).

I hope I am wrong about Bitcoin crashing to $300 or below, because it would be much more positive for the ecosystem of serious altcoins.

---8<---

[TPTB_need_war]

Proof that I am the real SlimShady (ahem I mean AnonyMint):

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg266700.html#msg266700

Everyone wants a free lunch, but nobody wants to pay for it.  Why shouldn't he get lifetime royalties?  Its a privatized feature and they put in the money to get it running.

I would agree with your statement if the investor is not receiving a guaranteed monopoly on the feature. Given the threat of competition, the investor would need to adjust the fees accordingly.

But will the investor allow the feature to be open sourced if the investor isn't granted a monopoly?

Someone invited me to offer to implement that feature for Bitshares for $45k. I am not yet clear if they need a programmer or not. If they do, I would consider it probably only as a plan B if my project fails.

You can confirm from AnonyMint's post history on that forum, that account is the same AnonyMint for the account that was closed (per my request) on this site.

Btw, I am unclear if this thread is asking for a programmer to help implement superior on chain anonymity, but I have designed anonymity that is equivalent to RingCT in functionality but is based on the more efficient and compact CCT. I could implement either RingCT or my Zero Knowledge Transactions for $45k.

But at this time I am working on my own coin. But if that flops in January, I would be available for programming work.

If anyone is unfamiliar with who I am, refer to these Bitcoin forum threads:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1284083.msg13264616#msg13264616

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13267804#msg13267804

Daniel remembers me from technical discussions on the Bitcoin forum in 2013.

Generally speaking if my current venture flops, I am interested in well paid programming not limited to just anonymity. But it seems that perhaps this thread about paying the existing core devs to do this work?

Daniel thanks we could get into that then if I am free to work.

I like GUI programming so that is no problem for me assuming the incentives are well aligned.

Can we have infos about Stealth vs RingCT vs ZKT ?

Differences, cons & pros.

Assuming you mean by Stealth what I think you mean Stealth Addresses, which is ECDH exchange so that the payee's address is different on each transaction (but I thought Daniel already implemented that in BTS2.0?), then I explain what the others add to that. Stealth Addresses provides unlinkability but not untraceability. Those two terms are defined in the Cryptonote (CN) white paper.

CN (one-time rings) mixes payer's identities which adds the untraceability.

CT (Blockstream's Confidential Txns) hides the values of the transactions in homeomorphic proof-of-sums and proof-of-positive small values.

CCT is another way of doing CT that appears to be about 10X smaller use of space. Note I have claimed to have eliminated the proof-of-square thus making it even more efficient but my paper is unpublished and thus not vetted yet.

RingCT combines CN and CT.

ZKT is my unpublished paper that combines CN with CCT which I claim was completed before July 15 much earlier than RingCT was invented. So I claimed to be first, but again I chose not to publish because at the time I thought I was reserving it as feature for my coin that I was working on (but since changed my mind on priorities).

I would also suggest considering offering a mixer based on Zerocash because I think that is the holygrail, because it doesn't matter if your IP address is not obfuscated because ZC (not Zerocoin) hides everything. Theoretically all the other anonymity paradigms can be unmasked by correlating IP addresses. That doesn't mean the others are useless, just not as 100% certain as Zerocash. Zerocash has some issues and I made some suggestions on how to overcome them:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290263.msg13269624#msg13269624

Hope that helps you all in your decision process.

[TPTB_need_war]

None of those can do microtransactions. Even Dash Evolution's instant transaction feature is afaics highly flawed and can be reverted by an orphaned chain (where orphans are a normal occurrence in a PoW coin).

I should clarify what I mean by this. Dash's Evolution proposes a feature where a N-of-M quorum of master nodes can instantly confirm a transaction by sending their signed confirmations to the block chain. This quorum M is chosen by using historical block chain hashes (well it was current block chain hash until I pointed out to Evan that was insecure in this Altcoin Discussion forum, and so I assume he changed his design after Illodin pointed out the improvement).

So the theory is that even if there are orphaned chains, they won't disagree (conflict) on these quorum announcements. I pointed out to Evan that if he changes the quorums on every block then there will surely be conflicts. So again I assume he altered his design to not change the quorums very frequently, thus thinking he had fixed the problem. I decided to sheepishly be silent and let him go down that direction, knowing full well that it is flawed.

As I explained to monsterer in our recent discussion, the conflict occurs at the edge of the period. So if there is an orphan at the time that the quorum assignments change, then the two orphans can conflict on a double-spend, because there can be two quorums that are valid at the same time on the two different chains.

The design Evan is implementing is highly flawed because he didn't use my innovation to fix this fundamental problem. And I only revealed my fundamental innovation in the past days. Before that it was secret (well not totally but I doubt anyone would have deduced from my obscure solution to selfish-mining which was posted a long time ago).

For Evan to fix his design would require a total reworking of the concept of master nodes because all transaction confirmations have to be made orthogonal to the PoW chain, because otherwise my innovation can't be implemented else there can be conflicts between transactions on the block chain which prevent the innovation. So I see he is stuck in mud.

Perhaps Dash can pretend their feature isn't flawed if the masternodes are all loyal. But it isn't a design that could really scale decentralized.

And as for Monero, Aeon, Bitshares, etc, afaik they would have to in large degree scrap their existing code base and start over to achieve microtransactions. Note I haven't been following the latest developments on Aeon (and for Monero only the RingCT feature). Bitshares 2.0 I analyzed a little bit at the start of this thread.

I doubt any one will beat me to market now on this block chain scaling, microtransaction, 1 second transaction innovation. On my marketing plan, yeah someone might copy and beat me to market in December. I probably shouldn't have shared my marketing plan.

This will all be explained in more clairvoyant detail in a white paper in the future.

[monsterer]

I should clarify what I mean by this. Dash's Evolution proposes a feature where a N-of-M quorum of master nodes can instantly confirm a transaction by sending their signed confirmations to the block chain. This quorum M is chosen by using historical block chain hashes (well it was current block chain hash until I pointed out to Evan that was insecure in this Altcoin Discussion forum, and so I assume he changed his design after Illodin pointed out the improvement).

So the theory is that even if there are orphaned chains, they won't disagree (conflict) on these quorum announcements. I pointed out to Evan that if he changes the quorums on every block then there will surely be conflicts. So again I assume he altered his design to not change the quorums very frequently, thus thinking he had fixed the problem. I decided to sheepishly be silent and let him go down that direction, knowing full well that it is flawed.

Isn't it much worse than that? If I own a majority of masternodes, I can have my faulty nodes agree to confirm transaction A, dump all their votes of the their mempools and then confirm a double spend B with another merchant. None of the votes will get baked into the blockchain by that point if I'm quick enough.

This turns the cost of a double spend under instant X into a constant proportional to the amount of locked collateral I have, which is far worse security than regular POW, which is super linear in the number of blocks.

[TPTB_need_war]

I should clarify what I mean by this. Dash's Evolution proposes a feature where a N-of-M quorum of master nodes can instantly confirm a transaction by sending their signed confirmations to the block chain. This quorum M is chosen by using historical block chain hashes (well it was current block chain hash until I pointed out to Evan that was insecure in this Altcoin Discussion forum, and so I assume he changed his design after Illodin pointed out the improvement).

So the theory is that even if there are orphaned chains, they won't disagree (conflict) on these quorum announcements. I pointed out to Evan that if he changes the quorums on every block then there will surely be conflicts. So again I assume he altered his design to not change the quorums very frequently, thus thinking he had fixed the problem. I decided to sheepishly be silent and let him go down that direction, knowing full well that it is flawed.

Isn't it much worse than that? If I own a majority of masternodes, I can have my faulty nodes agree to confirm transaction A, dump all their votes of the their mempools and then confirm a double spend B with another merchant. None of the votes will get baked into the blockchain by that point if I'm quick enough.

Are you assuming the masternodes have a majority of the PoW? Masternodes are orthogonal to miners.

But in another way yes the Finney attack (and you don't need a majority of masternodes, just have the next block solution hidden then send your transaction to the quorum then announce your block solution with the double-spend) and pretending they didn't receive the propagation of the instant confirmation. Yes this is another problem of allowing transactions to be confirmed by instantly by quorums and also alternatively by normal spending on the PoW block chain.

It is ambiguous which is the truth, because that scenario could genuinely happen due to propagation delays and no one knows if the miner is the double-spender so penalizing the miner is a DDoS attack hole. The attacker could do this continuously (ever 1 second or whatever) with many small transactions and force all block announcements to be double spends.

There are probably other flaws along these lines. I know that without my two fundamental innovations (1. including all chains, 2. transactions can only be confirmed by quorums or the single designate), it can't be secure in any reformulation. And I still have to convince everyone (and myself via peer review) that my innovations are secure for all the scenarios.

This turns the cost of a double spend under instant X into a constant proportional to the amount of locked collateral I have, which is far worse security than regular POW, which is super linear in the number of blocks.

Could you unpack that for me? I didn't follow your math thought.

InstantX required the funds to be presigned over to masternode. I believe the idea in Evolution is all UTXO are eligible to spend through quorums without any presigning.