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

[TPTB_need_war]

Edit: the idea I proposed as a solution is also flawed.

I will be starting a new unmoderated thread to discuss in detail all the flaws in crypto currency.

So this can be explained well so that everyone can understand what they are investing in.

[1713273015]

1713273015

[1713273015]

1713273015

[1713273015]

1713273015

[1713273015]

1713273015

[Come-from-Beyond]

Edit: the idea I proposed as a solution is also flawed.

I will be starting a new unmoderated thread to discuss in detail all the flaws in crypto currency.

So this can be explained well so that everyone can understand what they are investing in.

If you start this drama all trolls will fly there. Make the thread moderated to keep minimal level of sanity.

[Fuserleer]

Edit: the idea I proposed as a solution is also flawed.

I will be starting a new unmoderated thread to discuss in detail all the flaws in crypto currency.

So this can be explained well so that everyone can understand what they are investing in.

I'm confused.

One second you're stating you have the holy grails, the next you are starting a thread to point out there aren't any? :|

[TPTB_need_war]

Edit: the idea I proposed as a solution is also flawed.

I will be starting a new unmoderated thread to discuss in detail all the flaws in crypto currency.

So this can be explained well so that everyone can understand what they are investing in.

I'm confused.

One second you're stating you have the holy grails, the next you are starting a thread to point out there aren't any? :|

As you wrote, temporary (doublespend) chargebacks (inconsistent channels a.k.a. partitions) can be allowed and resolved with a proof-of-work scheme. Any other resolution schemes you are contemplating won't work and I will tear them apart once you detail them.

They can not be resolved in a DAG scheme (e.g. Iota) without some centralized control.

Proof-of-work is centralized at 51% control, and for example mining can be regulated if the internet can be regulated (look to China and Russia as an example of our future). This encourages the nation-states to organize into cooperation on regulation of the internet in order to regain control over money. Governments and society will not give up this control and will instead decide to cooperate so the system described below can control to move us towards the 666 system which is rapidly taking form. Bitcoin is designed to drive us towards a world governance.

Centralized control is loss of permissionless principle. It means the government takes control (because the Power law distribution of capital always drives a collusion amongst government and big capital in a winner take all paradigm).

Guys we are wasting time on things that won't work out in the end. It is one big fucking delusion.

[Fuserleer]

Edit: the idea I proposed as a solution is also flawed.

I will be starting a new unmoderated thread to discuss in detail all the flaws in crypto currency.

So this can be explained well so that everyone can understand what they are investing in.

I'm confused.

One second you're stating you have the holy grails, the next you are starting a thread to point out there aren't any? :|

As you wrote, temporary chargebacks (inconsistent channels a.k.a. partitions) can be allowed and resolved with a proof-of-work scheme. Any other schemes you are contemplating won't work and I will tear them apart once you detail them.

They can not be resolved in a DAG scheme (e.g. Iota) without some centralized control.

Proof-of-work is centralized at 51% control. This encourages the nation-states to organize into cooperation on regulation of the internet in order to regain control over money. Governments and society will not give up this control and will instead decide to cooperate so the system described below can control to move us towards the 666 system which is rapidly taking form. Bitcoin is designed to drive us towards a world governance.

Centralized control is loss of permissionless principle. It means the government takes control (because the Power law distribution of capital always drives a collusion amongst government and big capital in a winner take all paradigm).

There is no POW required to secure a CL (channeled ledger), nor is it a block chain, or a DAG. Neither are there any charge backs in a CL design because the state of truth and the ability to resolve any truth inconsistencies never gets to a point where you have to revert to chargebacks and transaction reversals to resolve them....which also means the risk of any centralization required to resolve said issues is mitigated and next to nil, the network can always resolve itself as should be apparent from the consensus primer I posted.  

If block chains or DAGs or Ripple style ledgers could do what a CL allows, well, I wouldn't of wasted 3 years reinventing the wheel and tearing it apart myself and starting over.

Guys we are wasting time on things that won't work out in the end. It is one big fucking delusion.

And don't you dare give up on us!  You may be a total pain in the ass sometimes (and I mean that respectfully!) but at least you have the right passions, motivations, and commitment!  

Compromising isn't failure, its knowing the limits.

[TPTB_need_war]

Edit: the idea I proposed as a solution is also flawed.

I will be starting a new unmoderated thread to discuss in detail all the flaws in crypto currency.

So this can be explained well so that everyone can understand what they are investing in.

I'm confused.

One second you're stating you have the holy grails, the next you are starting a thread to point out there aren't any? :|

As you wrote, temporary chargebacks (inconsistent channels a.k.a. partitions) can be allowed and resolved with a proof-of-work scheme. Any other schemes you are contemplating won't work and I will tear them apart once you detail them.

They can not be resolved in a DAG scheme (e.g. Iota) without some centralized control.

Proof-of-work is centralized at 51% control. This encourages the nation-states to organize into cooperation on regulation of the internet in order to regain control over money. Governments and society will not give up this control and will instead decide to cooperate so the system described below can control to move us towards the 666 system which is rapidly taking form. Bitcoin is designed to drive us towards a world governance.

Centralized control is loss of permissionless principle. It means the government takes control (because the Power law distribution of capital always drives a collusion amongst government and big capital in a winner take all paradigm).

There is no POW required to secure a CL (channeled ledger), nor is it a block chain, or a DAG. Neither are there any charge backs in a CL design because the state of truth never gets to a point where you have to revert to them to resolve inconsistencies...which also means the risk of any centralization required to resolve said issues is next to nil, the network can always resolve itself.  

If block chains or DAGs or Ripple style ledgers could do what a CL allows, well, I wouldn't of wasted 3 years reinventing the wheel and tearing it apart myself and starting over.

The truth of each channel still has to be a consensus. It doesn't change the fundamental issues of how to prove consensus about double-spends within the partition. Even there are chosen nodes who are signatories for determining the truth of the channel, this then not permissionless because the government can attack those specific nodes.

Detail your design and I will rip it to shreds.

Not intending to be unfriendly, but I am tired of bullshit (especially bullshitting myself because I don't want to waste any programming effort). I have done all these designs in my head.

If there is a design that can improve upon Bitcoin, then I want to work on programming it. If not, then I want to not waste effort. It would be better for me to make some fast transaction addon for Bitcoin than to waste effort on designs that won't improve upon what is.

[TPTB_need_war]

I created that other discussion thread (forgot to make it moderated, oh well...).

Fuseleer replied there:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13488479#msg13488479

[TPTB_need_war]

I am still searching for the flaws in another idea I have for an improvement to Proof-of-Work. I had mentioned this is in a prior discussion with monsterer in my thread.

The idea is every transaction must include a PoW share.

There are many details to getting this correct and I believe it ties in with enabling instant transactions as well. But I need to write this all down and make sure there isn't a flaw.

My helicopter perspective thoughts are that it can force the difficulty high enough that mining becomes unprofitable (assuming debasement is a small fixed percentage say 1%). This will drive away the professional miners and thus stop the dumping of coins which drives the price down. It will also limit the electricity cost per transaction to some minuscule amount and not Bitcoin's $16 per transaction electricity cost. I see now my 2013 thread Spiraling Transaction Fees concept is finally getting serious attention.

Thus hopefully it can make it much more difficult for the government to regulate mining.

This is probably my last attempt at a solution. Seems I was thinking about this in the past and I thought it was flawed because servers have to aggregate data for transaction signers and I thought these could be targeted by the government or otherwise centralized. But what remains true is that if the transaction signers have more PoW hashrate than any miners the government can regulate/control, then the permissionless principle seems to hold.

Since mining becomes unprofitable then selfish mining attacks don't matter.

I think this is the most promising direction that still remains for me. Everything else looks like a waste of time.

There are ways to achieve instant transactions and scaling with blocks.

Without violating CAP? How?

Temporarily allow inconsistency where the risk is very low and/or limit access to a single partition for each UTXO (different UTXO limited to different partitions). Then full resolution at block confirmation time. Also by employing partitions interblock, the data that needs to be propagated on block announcement is radically reduced, thus the block period can be significantly reduced without driving up the orphan rate to unacceptable levels.

The thing was halting my programming lately is I wasn't satisfied that I had solved the permissionless and decentralization principles. But I think sending PoW with each transaction solves it, but I need to go over all the details again to make sure I haven't missed something.

If I feel I have the Bitcoin killer and something that can really help the world, then I will be motivated to program. I don't want to waste my effort. I am in extremely bad situation in my life and I can't afford to go down any nonproductive forks at this juncture of my life.

Edit: for me if there isn't a very viable chance of maintaining decentralization, then I am not motivated to code it. I feel with near certainty that Bitcoin (and other coins that employ Satoshi's PoW design, e.g. Monero) is headed towards centralization and 51+% control (even if the block size isn't increased). And for the reasons stated upthread, I view PoS (and DPOS) as non-viable direction to invest my effort long-term (they have served some transitionary role in crypto given Satoshi's design is also flawed).

...POW ensures permissionless behaviour

PoW doesn't insure permissionless nor decentralized if mining is inherently centralizing.

There are many reasons that Satoshi's design is centralizing. One is for example that mining is profitable, thus there is a competition to drive difficulty higher and higher such that EACH transaction costs ~$10 in electricity (which is currently paid by mining the investors as professional miners who have loans from the oligarchy+banksters mine with huge farms near hydropower at $50 per BTC cost and sell all that they mine). Even if no debasement was paid to miners, they have a monopoly on transactions added to blocks, so they can charge what ever transaction fees they want if they control 51% of the hashrate. It begs for a oligarchy on mining to develop (which is the direction it appears to be headed and normally government steps in with regulation to aid the oligarchy).

And increasing the transactions per block also forces centralization, thus furthering a trend towards oligarchy control, so saying cost per transaction will fall as transaction rate increases is only true if the resultant oligarchy decides to go for market share first (perhaps as a longer-term strategy of 666 enslavement and world government trend).

Also since mining is only done for profit, then pools are required to deal with huge variance of winning a block for typical (non oligarchy) miners. Pools centralize mining, even if we argue that miners can switch pools, the government can more easily target the pools even if miners switch since by definition there will never be as many pools as miners (not even close).

There are many flaws in Satoshi's design which make it entirely broken from my view. I can't support Bitcoin (nor Monero). I support things that I feel enthusiastically could work out well for mankind and be successful. Bitcoin will succeed only because it is fitting in well with the existing oligarchy's (e.g. Peter Thiel) plans for world domination (and that includes that an illusion of decentralization will persist long enough for the centralization to finally take hold).

It seems like you have hit an impasse, but without knowing the details of the problem

I had thought so, but I think I explained in this thread how to break the impasse I thought I had hit. But I reiterate I will go over all the details when I am offline to see if I haven't missed something in my thought process while I am writing here online.

[TPTB_need_war]

Marketing type thoughts:

You don't have enough scale to drive a crypto currency.

One of the main properties of money is it be widely accepted so it is fungible for many types of products and services. Without that feature, it is not desirable to hold it, other than as a pump & dump speculation which is why you see most altcoins declining after an initial hump of pumping (often insiders buying from themselves to pump up the value causing fools to buy).

Your best bet is to find an altcoin that will reward your signups and usership some how feeding value back to you for that effort. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any altcoin design to do that yet. This was one of the aspects of my marketing plan for my planned altcoin (which was temporarily stalled because of some rethinking I am going through about the idealism of crypto currency).

I think it would be best if you don't have to do anything other than some simple integration by your offshore programmer. And it would be best that you find a way to profit on a greater movement for an altcoin than to try to invent an altcoin and scale it yourself. You don't even have the slightest clue how much is required. You could not afford to do it correct, other than to clone an existing altcoin but that wouldn't be 1/100 of the work needed to accomplish a movement that will lead to a successful altcoin.

I think you should be talking to me if I decide to proceed on my altcoin and if I feel confident I can still do it. I am doing a lot of deep thinking right now.

I've had a lot of success in the past in developing and marketing to millions of users. The key is integrating into some existing need. For example, when I created CoolPage(.com) web page editor software in 1998, it incorporated 1-click instant publishing to free hosting sites Geocities, FortuneCity, etc.. This was before we had Friendster (the first FoF social network). That drove a million downloads (back when the internet was 1/10 the population) and 335,000 confirmed websites (altavista had a feature for counting these back then).

So you need to think this way of partnering with greater economies-of-scale than you can do by yourself. Otherwise you will surely fail.

Edit: this was assuming your goal is not just another pump and dump to speculators. I was assuming you want to earn money some how by monetizing your app, not by finding greater fool investors.

As far as #1 is concerned. We don't need another altcoin. New coins are met with disdain and distrust these days.

You may be better served partnering with an established altcoin. One that has talented developers and tech and, more importantly, credibility already existing. Good luck.

I don't want to be an innovator. I just need an out-of-the-box solution ideally. The value of our coin wouldn't be based on being some sort of unique coin, it would be based on its integration with our app. If the app is a disaster, the coin is a disaster.

Invert that, since the coin will be a disaster than so will be the app.

If your financial incentive to continue developing, marketing, and improving your app rely on the success of you creating a copycoin, then your plan is already dead-on-arrival (DOA).

The copycoin era is dying (or at least until another massive run up in speculative fever for Bitcoin reignites if it does and who knows when that will be, probably not until fall 2016 at the earliest).

You don't have enough scale to drive a crypto currency.

That is true at the moment because the app has not been released or promoted yet, so we have 0 scale. However, in the event that the app takes off, I think our concept could be a great way to introduce people to the world of cryptocurrency.

Yes but you are not going to create enough diversity of uses and acceptability of your coin to scale up. Bitcoin had all the media in the world and also all the tech people wetting their pants and begging retailers to accept Bitcoin. And there was a massive speculative fever in Bitcoin in 2013.

You need to be partnered with many others who are doing similar and diverse kinds of apps and services with crypto currency. Thus you need to partner with a crypto currency which is capable of driving such a diverse interoption. This will also make the cryptocurrency aspect more enticing for your users.

Unfortunately I don't know of any serious altcoin (that has serious innovation that can challenge Bitcoin) which has some sort of partnership program like this. Perhaps Bitshares. I think I read something about an affiliation program, but I will warn you that I think Bitshares is a flawed technological direction. Afaik, NXT doesn't have anything that can help you.

Currency or other units of value can be used to purchase things as you say. But they can also be held as an investment, particularly if you have reason to believe they could increase in value (as might be the case where coins are indirectly linked to rapid stock appreciation foristance).

Without driving the currency adoption, you are just repeating the gimicks of other copycoins. Perhaps if you can get 100,000 verified users, you can gain a speculative frenzy and cash out and run. But it is very, very unlikely you can drive this to widespread adoption because it will require being able to code all the aspects of a crypto currency to make opportunities available to others who want to do what you are doing. You can't just make your own little world of copycoin and expect to achieve any ongoing network effects.

Also creating an altcoin that has something significant enough to compete with Bitcoin is a very significant effort. I'd say 100 times more work than creating an app. And a lot of specialized knowledge that for example an expert developer such as myself took 3 years to assimilate.

If we are sucessful in aquiring the millions of downloads we envision, and we incorporate the coin into our app in a compelling way, I think community interest with spring out of that, particulary if the value of the coin is linked to the success of the app.

Thank you for responding:)

If you start with the word "millions", then I think you don't have any plan B and are not doing due diligence marketing. You should instead have a plan to monetize your app even if you only get 100-1000 users per month. So that you don't put yourself in such a "do" or "die" proposition.

Another thing is that you should focus on the value your app provides to users. The crypto currency can be a way users can vote (they pay microtransactions). This adds value to your app.

But much better you could tie your scaling to 100 other developers who are also tying their scaling to yours. You should not create your own private copycoin, if you are really serious about this.

If you are just deluded or doing a pump & dump, then let me not waste any more of your or my time.

Since you are talking shares anyway, why not simply issue so many common stock shares that they are tiny value per share, comparable to a cryptocurrency value per coin or maybe less since shares have no decimal-places they are whole things, integer things; issue the shares on an existing platform such as HORIZON or NXT or Ethereum or the like, and use the API of that platform from your app to let people earn shares.

-MarkM-

Issuing shares means he can go to jail for issuing unregistered investment securities.

Thanks. To answer, I have zero interest in a pump and dump. In fact, all coins would be distributed to users and the company would own none.

If you were working within the marketing plan I contemplated for my altcoin, your company could also get some coins too. So that is another way you monetize your app in addition to any other ways you already planned.

In terms of tipping other users, I believe that should be enabled but not directly associated with voting because that would act as a disincentive to upvoting. Instead, the company would be the original fount of all coins.

Yes you should be a faucet for coins, but these coins should not be just for your app, but for many 100s of apps (done by others). More faucets, more scaling.

Dogecoin was apparently successful with users tipping. I am not sure if tipping is a disincentive to voting. Seems to correlate well to upvoting and disincentivizes vote spamming. If you want votes to more accurately reflect value, IMO they shouldn't be free and thus users need coins to vote (but of course do what you think is best if you feel that interferes too much with your usership ... remember I don't know your entire model so I can't access details like that within your overall model for this app).

In terms of millions of users, that's the long-term goal. In fact, you are exactly right about the 1000s of users being the correct short term goal, as we will be location-based.

Again a perfect fit to the marketing plan I was contemplating. Exactly what I was thinking that some apps would be more specialized (e.g. location based), thus aggregating many apps through one coin would provide network effects to all those apps plus the coin. Again I think you should take this private messages with me, because I don't want to discuss all my plans in public yet (and also not sure about my plans).

As long as the coin works, I'm perfectly happy to fork litecoin or whatever. I see no shame in the term "copycoin", imitation being the highest form of flattery.

Seems I can't get you to appreciate the value of interopting on scaling through a common coin with other apps. And I can't get you to appreciate to focus on your core competency and not try to do everything yourself. If we can't make headway on this understanding, then I need to invest my time else where. Thanks for the discussion.

[Hueristic]

Hey man, I'm not sure but it looks like you may be entering a manic phase. I'd suggest you step back for a few and slow down. Have a beer and do a self check.

In truth I am having a hard time following you guys but it is good reading.

[AlexGR]

Could a blockchain* be invented that deals with balances and not coins? If you don't have to track coins you can only update the newest balances. That would probably scale because all you have to do is update new balances in every network "refresh" when money movement took place - and if you have, say, 1bn accounts, you'll still have 1bn accounts after 10 days of transactions - only the balances will be different in them. So, practically, it doesn't get more bloated. I can consider several problems but are they insurmountable?

* It doesn't need to be a blockchain per se. It could well be something like a paypal-type database but decentralized/distributed that has network consensus on what the balances are.

[TPTB_need_war]

Hey man, I'm not sure but it looks like you may be entering a manic phase. I'd suggest you step back for a few and slow down. Have a beer and do a self check.

In truth I am having a hard time following you guys but it is good reading.

Definitely 3+ years of fighting an illness (every DAMN DAY is a struggle!) which is much worse than readers may be able to comprehend if they've never been sick with cancer or Multiple Sclerosis (or other chronic illness with severe debilitation issues), can have effects like that. I really don't want to talk about my health in public, because I need to man up and deal with it. I have increased my exercise to every day intensity and I fight pain in my abdomen and head (especially the latter half of a run), but this seems to be giving me clarity of thought that caused me to realize how much effort I have wasted and be much more frank with myself about needing to produce an income and stop hoping for pie-in-the-sky outcomes.

There is something seriously broken inside my body. I think my pancreas is not functioning correctly. When you can't get the nutrients into your body because the bile is blocked and leaking out into the abdomen, then life is a hell. I can't afford to get medical treatment abroad and I don't trust the expertise here in the Philippines.

I hope I will say for the last time that I am gritting my teeth when I run and just the hell with the pain. I seem to be making a bit of progress with this fight-like-hell demeanor. I feel much stronger than September. Also not spending days here in this forum (the break I took from Jan 3 to today), seems to also help a lot. The pain is more on a limitation of performance and not a sharp excruciating pain. Perhaps I can characterize it feels like a combination of heat stroke (but I get it even when run in middle of night), and pain/weakness in gut/legs (which can also manifest in the head as well). The pain isn't sharp like a knife but the overall effect is imagine trying to force yourself to run while under heat stroke where you body wants to collapse and couple that with pain that increases as the athletic activity proceeds. This malaise also strikes when I am sedentary, and in  most days of Aug/Sept I was just reduced to collapsing in the bed with very bad feelings all over my body and head was in throbbing pain coupled with a overall body feeling that is like I would prefer to not be inside this body!

Any way, never mind about me personally. I am a man. I have to deal with it.

I am posting to work through the understanding of where we are with crypto currency. And this is to help me determine if I continue with an altcoin or not, and also to help readers understand the technical issues.

I view this forum as most useful for getting clarity on ideas and technical discussions. It could also possibly be a place to make contacts for B2B dealings. But I do not view this forum as an advertising vehicle to "mine the investors". If I launch an altcoin, it will be launched directly to the users. This forum would not be my advertising vehicle.

I am doing a rethink on everything and then decide my direction. If I have a viable design that can really solve the CENTRALIZATION built into every crypto design thus far, then I will probably continue with my altcoin. If not, then I need to decide how to proceed and survive financially as well as health wise. But that isn't relevant for readers, so I will try to not mention my health, just bear in mind I am fighting every day and did seem to gain some strength with recent demeanor coupled with all the supplements I started since early October. I even added VitC and Moringa in Nov/Jan, so I continue to try to fight my way forward. If I have a slow developing tumor on my pancreas, then perhaps I can beat it naturally. I am not sure what I have because I have not expended any $ on diagnosis. I don't have enough $ for that. I am in dire straits. I reserve capital I have to complete what ever is my next phase of work/income.

When I say I am in dire straits, it is a combination of being financially depleted and having no income potential (at least not where I am located now and being likely unwilling to return to the USA to work). And couple that with an illness that can make it very difficult to think and be productive. Also factor in my age of nearly 51 and my declining eye health (blind in one eye since 1999 and my other eye was getting very blurry but this seems to have improved with the intense exercise regimen). But counter-balance that characterization, with even though my illness was horrible in Aug/Sept, I have of late had some inspiring athletic moments and over all seems I have been getting consecutive days of no issues with my ability to think and work. And even as ill as I am inside, I can still when i am feeling okay go do athletics with guys half my age. But I also I fight abdominal pain (and even sometimes my legs are entire numb) even when I am running and I don't have the level of performance any where near to what I was accustomed to before I got ill some years ago.

Also recently trying to think of ways I could attempt to have a business that didn't involve computer programming, caused me to study how crowded the opportunities outside of tech are becoming. For example here in Davao, there is a gas station every 200 meters. If you put up any successful business, it will be copied. There is too much capital that can't find a way to be invested productively. Manufacturing is very difficult because China can undercut you on price and China is becoming more adept at producing varied consumer goods (check out aliexpress.com, dhgate.com, and dx.com). If you do produce any innovation on a manufactured good (e.g. I was looking a portable speaker design), then China can just copy your intellectual property and produce it cheaper. The way forward is looking very bleak with the world being controlled by oligarchy, taxed to hell by government and the rest of us just slaves.

You there in in the West may not yet realize how dire this is becoming, because your debt economies haven't imploded yet and thus the governments are still supplying your economies with loads of debt so your standard-of-living is high and you feel not so worried (as the government will always take care of you). Once this comes crashing down 2017 or so, then you understand the urgency I feel about needing to find productive directions.

Wasting your money investing in delusional crypto is going to be a major regret for many of you. If we can really design crypto that will remain decentralized and provide a fundamental improvement over the current direction of the world, then perhaps our ideals and investment goals can be satisfied. But I am very skeptical (yet I will continue if my frank assessment passes the bullshit test).

I hope I can find one more career project that I can work on in computer programming and help a lot of people and also save my nest egg for retirement. I will be 51 in June and I have 0 for retirement and I am ill. I refuse to become a dependent of the USA government. I would rather live simply on a farm here.

I do much of what I do for ideological reasons. I am old and stubborn.

[TPTB_need_war]

Could a blockchain* be invented that deals with balances and not coins? If you don't have to track coins you can only update the newest balances. That would probably scale because all you have to do is update new balances in every network "refresh" when money movement took place - and if you have, say, 1bn accounts, you'll still have 1bn accounts after 10 days of transactions - only the balances will be different in them. So, practically, it doesn't get more bloated. I can consider several problems but are they insurmountable?

* It doesn't need to be a blockchain per se. It could well be something like a paypal-type database but decentralized/distributed that has network consensus on what the balances are.

Sorry No, not in anything that will be DECENTRALIZED. I went through all these sort of design diversions and found flaws in all of them.

I appreciate of course that everyone is still interested in finding solutions. We all know we need a solution. But if there is no solution, we have to accept the laws of physics. Please see the other thread I started for more detailed discussion on ideas and what I (and others) think works and doesn't work.

[AlexGR]

Could a blockchain* be invented that deals with balances and not coins? If you don't have to track coins you can only update the newest balances. That would probably scale because all you have to do is update new balances in every network "refresh" when money movement took place - and if you have, say, 1bn accounts, you'll still have 1bn accounts after 10 days of transactions - only the balances will be different in them. So, practically, it doesn't get more bloated. I can consider several problems but are they insurmountable?

* It doesn't need to be a blockchain per se. It could well be something like a paypal-type database but decentralized/distributed that has network consensus on what the balances are.

Sorry No, not in anything that will be DECENTRALIZED. I went through all these sort of design diversions and found flaws in all of them.

I appreciate of course that everyone is still interested in finding solutions. We all know we need a solution. But if there is no solution, we have to accept the laws of physics. Please see the other thread I started for more detailed discussion on ideas and what I (and others) think works and doesn't work.

If we had a 99.9% compression algorithm*, that is able to fold data again and again, reducing a 2mb file to 4kb, but requires a CPU tradeoff for all this folding/unfolding, would that work for scaling?

* http://www.theserverside.com/feature/Has-a-New-York-startup-achieved-a-99-compression-rate

[TPTB_need_war]

Could a blockchain* be invented that deals with balances and not coins? If you don't have to track coins you can only update the newest balances. That would probably scale because all you have to do is update new balances in every network "refresh" when money movement took place - and if you have, say, 1bn accounts, you'll still have 1bn accounts after 10 days of transactions - only the balances will be different in them. So, practically, it doesn't get more bloated. I can consider several problems but are they insurmountable?

* It doesn't need to be a blockchain per se. It could well be something like a paypal-type database but decentralized/distributed that has network consensus on what the balances are.

Sorry No, not in anything that will be DECENTRALIZED. I went through all these sort of design diversions and found flaws in all of them.

I appreciate of course that everyone is still interested in finding solutions. We all know we need a solution. But if there is no solution, we have to accept the laws of physics. Please see the other thread I started for more detailed discussion on ideas and what I (and others) think works and doesn't work.

If we had a 99.9% compression algorithm*, that is able to fold data again and again, reducing a 2mb file to 4kb, but requires a CPU tradeoff for all this folding/unfolding, would that work for scaling?

* http://www.theserverside.com/feature/Has-a-New-York-startup-achieved-a-99-compression-rate

Video has a lot of redundant data because of high frame rates and many objects are static or just displaced with rotation, which can perhaps be modeled in 3D.

But even if we can compress the block chain to nothing, that doesn't really solve the fundamental problems such as:

• economics of mining
• economics of blocks

[AlexGR]

Could a blockchain* be invented that deals with balances and not coins? If you don't have to track coins you can only update the newest balances. That would probably scale because all you have to do is update new balances in every network "refresh" when money movement took place - and if you have, say, 1bn accounts, you'll still have 1bn accounts after 10 days of transactions - only the balances will be different in them. So, practically, it doesn't get more bloated. I can consider several problems but are they insurmountable?

* It doesn't need to be a blockchain per se. It could well be something like a paypal-type database but decentralized/distributed that has network consensus on what the balances are.

Sorry No, not in anything that will be DECENTRALIZED. I went through all these sort of design diversions and found flaws in all of them.

I appreciate of course that everyone is still interested in finding solutions. We all know we need a solution. But if there is no solution, we have to accept the laws of physics. Please see the other thread I started for more detailed discussion on ideas and what I (and others) think works and doesn't work.

If we had a 99.9% compression algorithm*, that is able to fold data again and again, reducing a 2mb file to 4kb, but requires a CPU tradeoff for all this folding/unfolding, would that work for scaling?

* http://www.theserverside.com/feature/Has-a-New-York-startup-achieved-a-99-compression-rate

Video has a lot of redundant data because of high frame rates and many objects are static or just displaced with rotation, which can perhaps be modeled in 3D.

But even if we can compress the block chain to nothing, that doesn't really solve the fundamental problems such as:

• economics of mining
• economics of blocks

Complex problems require breaking them down and tackling the issues one by one. Surely we can't expect one solution for one problem to fit all problems.

If, say, scaling can be solved by compression, and other aspects of crypto still remain problematic, then you just try to find the corresponding solutions to the remaining problems.

From what I've read over the years, it seems like compression, and especially very large compression ratios, like 99.9%+, are of extremely high government interest, similar to encryption. Apparently taking 1GB and making it 10KB is something of extremely strategic value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Sloot
http://www.endlesscompression.com/ (around the middle of the page, there are various patents or stories of various inventors / programmers etc)

The fact that some of it concerns video is not very important because, from what I understand, these are not techniques concerned with removing redundant repetitions of same color that isn't changing in the next frame. It's more like a totally different approach. If you can fit GB movies in 10kb, for example, then you can do the same with text, because text, too, can be displayed as a movie stream. A movie at 30fps is still 108.000 pictures per hour, and you can fit a lot of text (like blockchain data) in those pictures, especially in HD or 4k.

And there are some other compression schemes I've read about, where data is compressed again and again, not based on repeating patterns (like a book that says 1000 times the word "and" - which can be replaced by a single symbol - a method which has a limit on savings) but rather pre-arranged tables of data sequences that act like keys. So you shave a few % each round and then repackage, repackage, repackage etc, until you get to a very small size.

A good intellect that would like to tackle the issue of near-100% compression and make it available to the masses could make a global breakthrough far greater than cryptocurrency or even the web, but, incidentally, would also help cryptocurrency to scale.

[TPTB_need_war]

Getting this topic back on track, I have a question:

* If mining rewards cause centralisation, how do you handle distribution fairly in a system with no mining rewards?

Mining rewards can still be paid to PoW and it can still be unprofitable if the level of difficulty rises too high because every transaction is including a PoW share. Transactions just keep growing and growing while the debasement rate is a constant percentage. If the value of the currency grows as fast as the transaction rate, well then I guess that is a great problem to have.   

If mining farms are dumping their coins while the price is rising that fast, they are leaving all that money on the table for us.  Meaning the banksters are shrinking their relative net worth.

I assume you are referring to ongoing (a.k.a. tail) emission. For initial distribution, then profitability of mining appears to not be a flaw. I would argue that distribution to HODLers is a market failure plan though. I'd prefer to initially distribute to users than investors. Let the investors buy from the users in secondary markets such as your metaexchange. I would prefer if earliest investors have to work even harder to get coins early by creating businesses which accept the coins from the users. So the early investors add even more value to the ecosystem. As I had explained to you in my vaporcoin thread, I think users would have no idea what an exchange is and how to access it, thus earliest investors would have to work harder to source coins in volume. And that IMO is the way it should be. It shouldn't be so easy to invest as an early adopter, that all you need to do is buy an IPO. There is no capital created from such an activity, unless you can argue that these investors work on improving your coin (but they seem to mostly just clog up the forums with shrilling). At least with Kickstarter, your customers who are your early investors actually help you design and refine your product.

Think out of the box.

[TPTB_need_war]

i recommend integrating an existing altcoin or even 4.

I think he wants to add value for users by giving them some coins for free. So he would need to partner with an altcoin that has that sort of partnership opportunity available. Afaik, none do. It is one of the marketing ideas I was going to pursue with my coin. Obviously Aeon and other coins which are distributed via PoW or are already fully distributed for PoS can't qualify for his needs.

And you all think I was joking when I said I had many tricks up my sleeve on marketing. This wasn't the only one.

use ones with a strong existing infrastructure that means you can get away with minimal requirements to support your usage.
you will not even need to run nodes, just use their existing api's
and many such api's are generic between coins, so won't require too much work between coins.

also if you use existing popular coins, it will be an encouragement for those coin users to use your app,

He is naive if he thinks he can manage his own coin. But let him learn the hard way.

if your app is awesomely used and popular, then you could consider adding an in-house currency which you could distribute through the app itself.
personally i'd recommend PoS as it's easier to protect the network by holding a % of premine in house staking wallets, rather than putting it at risk to the amount of random rogue hash or even legitimate coin-switching pools.

Choosing an inferior consensus model in order to create an inferior copycoin is of low value to his users.

[TPTB_need_war]

Based on your writings here and other posts, it appears you believe critical mass adoption still lies at the blockchain level instead of apps built upon a blockchain?  Seems all the "2.0" chains are going more for apps (marketplaces, exchanges, social interaction, etc...).

Based on where this began with Bitcoin and where we are now, I am not sure if the average Joe will care about the underlying technology.  We see this everyday with consumer perception and marketing instead of performing due diligence into competitive products.  Unfortunately, average Joe's just want a simple app on their smart mobile phones and cars that drive themselves

First two quotes:

1. So the decentralized database is a block chain?

2. Does the browser need to run Java applets to do wallet level operations?

3. What is the advantage for the user of a decentralized block chain storage for their tweets? The data is open to display/access to anyone and thus isn't owned by Twitter, so tweets can be displayed by any client, not just through an API authorized by Twitter. Talk about how this creates advantages that users care about? Sounds like it will be used by terrorists so then the government has an incentive to shut it down.

4. How can this remain decentralized if the mining becomes centralized? Seems the same centralization problems that plague crypto currency thus hang over the head of any current block chain design.

5. Why should we think a product that is breaking SEC regulation by selling shares has any long-term future? The government can make an example out of you with SEC action.

Society will converge one one fungible unit. It always works that way. We are not creating apps here. This is money. I realize all the altcoins so far are not really money, but just delusional projects. But if we are talking about widepread adoption, then there will be only one.

Those who deny how history has already shown that there can only be one outcome for money (which is unification on one fungible unit), are in delusion.

Edit: note I am referring to money above. There could end up being multiple viable projects for block chain 2.0 features that are not money.

The entire point of DECENTRALIZED contracts, apps, databases is that they are permissionless. If we don't need the permissionless (End-to-End) principle, then a corporation/government can nearly always do that feature more efficiently and provide more robust servers to the users (e.g. have you scrolled the Facebook timeline lately and see all videos, games, and mesmerizingly addictive content that loads as you scroll it ... it is like a TV with 1000 channels).

DECENTRALIZATION is a threat to the Corporations (and they are the government), thus if a DECENTRALIZED paradigm becomes popular, the government is going to attack it the same as they did Napster.

Thus if your block chain design is not truly permissionless, then you've accomplished nothing.

Ethereum, BitShares, etc are Napsters. Daniel can't figure out how to make something truly decentralized so he argues that we substitute politics and governance for protocol. Sorry I am not inspired by that.

We are still waiting for someone to invent the Gnutella of crypto.

After that we can use that technology to go make the correct block chain for all these 2.0 features.

True DECENTRALIZATION enables the End-to-End Principle which enables grassroots wildfire viral adoption, because developers and others who invest in it are confident that no one owns it (i.e. just like open source, their investment doesn't depend on any third parties), as that is embodied in the definition of the End-to-End Principle.

And besides I've been thinking (since 2013 or 2014 when I first read gmaxwell's Coin Witness thread) the only way to do programmable block chain scalably is ZK-SNARKS. But first I want to perfect the block chain.

Sometimes the turtle and not the hare wins the race.

[HCLivess]

how do you get this much attention is beyond my grasp