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

[TPTB_need_war]

Maybe. Or maybe they are just doing it because it suits their economic interests to keep blocks small, as TPTB said. I consider that quite plausible, I'm surprised you don't.

We are being raped by the Chinese because we are too stupid to design and adopt a better block chain consensus design:

The Chinese are siphoning off our speculator money with their $50 per BTC mining costs:

Anyone know what proportion of BTC is produced in China/held in China/sold out of China ?

Without this info I don't know that I can put too much store in this theory Jorge.

There is practically no reliable info on the bitcoin economy, in particular on the flow and ownership of bitcoin by country. (This is a serious problem for would-be investors.)

We can only note that more than 67% of all new bitcoins are mined by Chinese pools, which probably comprise mostly Chinese miners; and that bitcoin has practically no use inside China, except as an instrument of speculative trading inside the exchanges.  Until last October, variations of trading volume at those exchanges did not seem to be reflected in the USD transaction volume, which may mean that there was little deposit and withdrawal at those exchanges.  

There is efficient arbitrage between the Chinese and non-Chinese exchanges. If Chinese miners sold their coins only in Chinese exchanges, that would tend to depress the price there.  Then the arbitragers would immediately move those excess coins to non-Chinese exchanges, until the prices got equalized.

So, I would guess that it does not matter where the Chinese miners sell: the net effect is that a large fraction (if not most) of the bitcoins mined in China are eventually bought and hoarded by non-Chinese investors.

@TPTB you can't really have it both ways. Either the miners hold the upper hand or the developers do. I think it is a former, and given that you don't need overwhelming consensus, there is no 'design by consensus'.

Now if Bitcoin actually worked in a more fully decentralized manner then miners would not hold the upper and and then you might get something closer to design by consensus.

EDIT: What satoshi was shooting for by his own words was neither changes at the whim of a mining cabal nor by an overwhelming consensus of developers, it was "set in stone". It wasn't even close to achieved.

Yes we must redesign the block chain protocol so that the miners are the payers and so they don't have any centralized control.

On the likelihood of fixing Bitcoin:

The problem is that the cost [ of validating a transaction ] grows like N^2 for N inputs.

By the way, there is no excuse for the cost to be quadratic.  That is one of the many crocks in the BitcoinCore implementation, that will take more crocks to work around.  Like the Segregated Witnesses proposal,  malleability and its partial patches, blockchain voting to increase the limit, etc..

There you have another possible failure mode for Bitcoin: runaway code crockification (RCC).  As the code gets more complicated and ugly, fewer competent people will be willing to work on it.  Their place will be taken by incompetent pople, who will add even more crocks -- and so on until the code will fail and there will be no one capable of fixing it in time.

Just a possibility; but after seeing the malleability problems,  the Fork of July fiasco, the "fee merket" plans and the RBF hack, the Seg Wit proposal -- I fear that the RCC may be already underway...

[smooth]

That's a good story. If you support the status quo, that's the story you tell. But it isn't accurate.

If you have any kind of rough consensus, or even just lack of strong consensus to oppose a change, then support of the majority of miners is sufficient to make any change you want. That's the reality.

Yes, that's true. But the miners here are not changing things right now. They are sticking with the 1MB version which exists since the days of Satoshi because

Maybe. Or maybe they are just doing it because it suits their economic interests to keep blocks small, as TPTB said. I consider that quite plausible, I'm surprised you don't.

With the existing game theory? Nah.

Just because the limit will go to 2-4-8-20, doesn't mean they *have* to mine >1mb, or even >10kb. There is nothing stopping them from mining 0-tx blocks even if blocks go to 10MB tomorrow morning. Some are mining zero tx blocks right now.

Wrong. Increasing that limit allows miners elsewhere (Bitfury, KnC, 21.co, etc.) to overcome their competitive advantage, and to even drive Chinese miners off the network altogether by mining larger blocks that China can't support.

[AlexGR]

That's a good story. If you support the status quo, that's the story you tell. But it isn't accurate.

If you have any kind of rough consensus, or even just lack of strong consensus to oppose a change, then support of the majority of miners is sufficient to make any change you want. That's the reality.

Yes, that's true. But the miners here are not changing things right now. They are sticking with the 1MB version which exists since the days of Satoshi because

Maybe. Or maybe they are just doing it because it suits their economic interests to keep blocks small, as TPTB said. I consider that quite plausible, I'm surprised you don't.

With the existing game theory? Nah.

Just because the limit will go to 2-4-8-20, doesn't mean they *have* to mine >1mb, or even >10kb. There is nothing stopping them from mining 0-tx blocks even if blocks go to 10MB tomorrow morning. Some are mining zero tx blocks right now.

Wrong. Increasing that limit allows miners elsewhere (Bitfury, KnC, 21.co, etc.) to overcome their competitive advantage, and to even drive Chinese miners off the network altogether by mining larger blocks that China can't support.

I don't understand. Let's say Chinese adopt software that SUPPORTS large blocks, but configure it in a way where it mines zero-tx blocks on purpose, or very high fee txs that are top-priority for the senders, something like <50kb in txs per block. How will others "drive them out"? With what mechanism?

[smooth]

That's a good story. If you support the status quo, that's the story you tell. But it isn't accurate.

If you have any kind of rough consensus, or even just lack of strong consensus to oppose a change, then support of the majority of miners is sufficient to make any change you want. That's the reality.

Yes, that's true. But the miners here are not changing things right now. They are sticking with the 1MB version which exists since the days of Satoshi because

Maybe. Or maybe they are just doing it because it suits their economic interests to keep blocks small, as TPTB said. I consider that quite plausible, I'm surprised you don't.

With the existing game theory? Nah.

Just because the limit will go to 2-4-8-20, doesn't mean they *have* to mine >1mb, or even >10kb. There is nothing stopping them from mining 0-tx blocks even if blocks go to 10MB tomorrow morning. Some are mining zero tx blocks right now.

Wrong. Increasing that limit allows miners elsewhere (Bitfury, KnC, 21.co, etc.) to overcome their competitive advantage, and to even drive Chinese miners off the network altogether by mining larger blocks that China can't support.

I don't understand. Let's say Chinese adopt software that SUPPORTS large blocks, but configure it in a way where it mines zero-tx blocks on purpose, or very high fee txs that are top-priority for the senders, something like <50kb in txs per block. How will others "drive them out"? With what mechanism?

By creating large blocks that take a long time to reach China. As a countermeasure, China can SPV mine, which they do already, but it is risky and puts them at a further disadvantage.

Secondarily, it means that more translation fees would flow to miners outside China. That's not a big factor now, but will become significant after the halving in a few months. Transaction fees are already over 1% of mining income, and will likely be over 2% after the halving, potentially much higher if Bitcoin's usage grows over the next few years.

It's pretty silly to suggest that a group of miners with lousy connectivity they can't fix are not favored by small blocks.

[TPTB_need_war]

I don't understand. Let's say Chinese adopt software that SUPPORTS large blocks, but configure it in a way where it mines zero-tx blocks on purpose, or very high fee txs that are top-priority for the senders, something like <50kb in txs per block. How will others "drive them out"? With what mechanism?

Because all full node miners have to verify all transactions and all blocks. But they could relocate their pools offshore (if they aren't already), so that only hash that needs to be computed is propagating across the Great (Internet) Wall of China.

So this shows the Chinese miners have another motivation for wanting small block sizes. (They are lying about bandwidth being the problem)

I think it is because they want to force transaction fees higher to maintain the block reward on the next block halving. Chinese are notoriously selfish and short-sighted (which is perhaps why they require a totalitarian govt to discipline them). For example, here in the Philippines they have the reputation of being misers and counting every penny and even firing a good employee if 1 penny is missing (or charging normal losses in a business to the employees, e.g. customer complains the food was incorrect and so the food has to be discard and redone).

[TPTB_need_war]

China can SPV mine, which they do already, but it is risky and puts them at a further disadvantage.

Why? They can control the pool abroad.

Secondarily, it means that more translationtransaction fees would flow to miners outside China. That's not a big factor now, but will become significant after the halving in a few months.

Bingo!

[smooth]

China can SPV mine, which they do already, but it is risky and puts them at a further disadvantage.

Why? They can control the pool abroad.

A pool abroad is a loser. It just adds latency.  Also likely easier to block and less reliable. The mining gear itself is pretty dumb. It wants to connect to some reliable (pool) address (or small set of pools) at low latency. That's why they have pools in China at all.

[AlexGR]

That's a good story. If you support the status quo, that's the story you tell. But it isn't accurate.

If you have any kind of rough consensus, or even just lack of strong consensus to oppose a change, then support of the majority of miners is sufficient to make any change you want. That's the reality.

Yes, that's true. But the miners here are not changing things right now. They are sticking with the 1MB version which exists since the days of Satoshi because

Maybe. Or maybe they are just doing it because it suits their economic interests to keep blocks small, as TPTB said. I consider that quite plausible, I'm surprised you don't.

With the existing game theory? Nah.

Just because the limit will go to 2-4-8-20, doesn't mean they *have* to mine >1mb, or even >10kb. There is nothing stopping them from mining 0-tx blocks even if blocks go to 10MB tomorrow morning. Some are mining zero tx blocks right now.

Wrong. Increasing that limit allows miners elsewhere (Bitfury, KnC, 21.co, etc.) to overcome their competitive advantage, and to even drive Chinese miners off the network altogether by mining larger blocks that China can't support.

I don't understand. Let's say Chinese adopt software that SUPPORTS large blocks, but configure it in a way where it mines zero-tx blocks on purpose, or very high fee txs that are top-priority for the senders, something like <50kb in txs per block. How will others "drive them out"? With what mechanism?

By creating large blocks that take a long time to reach China.

Somehow I doubt that they can't figure a solution out (in the networking sense). You could have 4-5 nodes spread all around the world, in pretty well connected data centers, to send you everything you need in a few seconds at most - or do it through elsewhere.

If the chinese miner has a good electric bill advantage, good equipment, the ability to mine 0-tx blocks (to gain a broadcast advantage / fast propagation compared to others who transmit a few mb worth of blocks) and he only gets delayed a bit when receiving large solved blocks by others (if he is not doing network work-arounds), I think he still has the edge.

[TPTB_need_war]

China can SPV mine, which they do already, but it is risky and puts them at a further disadvantage.

Why? They can control the pool abroad.

A pool abroad is a loser. It just adds latency.

That doesn't add any latency that they wouldn't have already with small blocks.

The Chinese are lying about their motivation.

The Chinese are extremely devious/clever about political leverage, and they hide it well.

[smooth]

China can SPV mine, which they do already, but it is risky and puts them at a further disadvantage.

Why? They can control the pool abroad.

A pool abroad is a loser. It just adds latency.

That doesn't add any latency that they wouldn't have already with small blocks.

Yes it does. Block is solved in China. If it is sent to a mining pool in China, that mining pool and the other ones in China receive it right away. If it has to go over GFW twice, as would be the case with a pool node outside China, then there is added latency.

[smooth]

The Chinese are lying about their motivation.

That's clearly true. They are saying they want developers of Bitcoin Core to decide for the best of Bitcoin or some such doubletalk, but clearly they know that means blocks will remain small, which is what they want.

I think it is because they want to force transaction fees higher to maintain the block reward on the next block halving. Chinese are notoriously selfish and short-sighted (which is perhaps why they require a totalitarian govt to discipline them). For example, here in the Philippines they have the reputation of being misers and counting every penny and even firing a good employee if 1 penny is missing (or charging normal losses in a business to the employees, e.g. customer complains the food was incorrect and so the food has to be discard and redone).

I also agree with this too. Another way to say that is that the miners are on the side of wanting to support the "fee market".

Bottom line, the miners in China want small blocks, so that's what we are getting.

[smooth]

Somehow I doubt that they can't figure a solution out (in the networking sense). You could have 4-5 nodes spread all around the world, in pretty well connected data centers, to send you everything you need in a few seconds at most - or do it through elsewhere.

A few seconds is a huge deal. The block time is 600 seconds. Three extra seconds by itself means 1/2% extra loss. As TPTB said, they may be concerned about small costs, but this isn't even that small as mining goes. Miners frequently optimize for less.

If the chinese miner has a good electric bill advantage, good equipment, the ability to mine 0-tx blocks (to gain a broadcast advantage / fast propagation compared to others who transmit a few mb worth of blocks) and he only gets delayed a bit when receiving large solved blocks by others (if he is not doing network work-arounds), I think he still has the edge.

Why do you think it is binary, or that China's advantage is necessarily so durable? Competing miners outside of China also have good electric bill advantages, have good equipment (arguably Bitfury's equipment is better at the moment), could also mine 0-tx blocks if they wanted to, etc.

The one thing that is absolutely unique to China is the GFW. It makes no sense to assume that the unique properties of the GFW don't factor in Chinese miners' thinking here. Hearn was just stating the obvious.

[TPTB_need_war]

China can SPV mine, which they do already, but it is risky and puts them at a further disadvantage.

Why? They can control the pool abroad.

A pool abroad is a loser. It just adds latency.

That doesn't add any latency that they wouldn't have already with small blocks.

Yes it does. Block is solved in China. If it is sent to a mining pool in China, that mining pool and the other ones in China receive it right away. If it has to go over GFW twice, as would be the case with a pool node outside China, then there is added latency.

Incorrect. The pool still has to propagate the block solution to the block chain which means all block solutions have to propagate across the GFW (so it always double for incoming/outgoing block solutions regardless whether the pool is inside or outside China's wall). The size of the blocks is irrelevant as I said.

The block solution can be propagated directly to others inside of China even if the pool is also outside.

[smooth]

China can SPV mine, which they do already, but it is risky and puts them at a further disadvantage.

Why? They can control the pool abroad.

A pool abroad is a loser. It just adds latency.

That doesn't add any latency that they wouldn't have already with small blocks.

Yes it does. Block is solved in China. If it is sent to a mining pool in China, that mining pool and the other ones in China receive it right away. If it has to go over GFW twice, as would be the case with a pool node outside China, then there is added latency.

Incorrect. The pool still has to propagate the block solution to the block chain which means all block solutions have to propagate across the GFW (so it always double for incoming/outgoing block solutions regardless whether the pool is inside or outside China's wall). The size of the blocks is irrelevant as I said.

The block solution can be propagated directly to others inside of China even if the pool is also outside.

They would have to build a custom solution to do that, and then deal with maintaining it and potentially being exploited in some manner. If forced, they will likely do exactly that, but they would prefer not to.

I'm not referring to what is theoretically possible (maybe, if there aren't some non-obvious ways to exploit it) but what is readily deployable using existing tools.

BTW, aren't many of the "Chinese miners" actually in Mongolia? Is that inside or outside the GFW? I think outside, but I'm not sure.

[TPTB_need_war]

China can SPV mine, which they do already, but it is risky and puts them at a further disadvantage.

Why? They can control the pool abroad.

A pool abroad is a loser. It just adds latency.

That doesn't add any latency that they wouldn't have already with small blocks.

Yes it does. Block is solved in China. If it is sent to a mining pool in China, that mining pool and the other ones in China receive it right away. If it has to go over GFW twice, as would be the case with a pool node outside China, then there is added latency.

Incorrect. The pool still has to propagate the block solution to the block chain which means all block solutions have to propagate across the GFW (so it always double for incoming/outgoing block solutions regardless whether the pool is inside or outside China's wall). The size of the blocks is irrelevant as I said.

The block solution can be propagated directly to others inside of China even if the pool is also outside.

They would have to build a custom solution to do that, and then deal with maintaining it and potentially being exploited in some manner. If forced, they will likely do exactly that, but they would prefer not to.

I'm not referring to what is theoretically possible (maybe, if there aren't some non-obvious ways to exploit it) but what is readily deployable using existing tools.

1,312,500 BTC mined per year @ $300+ profit = $400 million annually (assuming the very low < $50 costs for mining for 2 cents hydropower and latest ASICs). Chinese are mining an estimate of 67% of that apparently.

They can afford to build that custom software solution.

The Chinese miners are lying.

Expect corruption at the highest levels. Probably are getting subsidized electricity for free. Etc.

Bitcoin has already been 51% attacked. End of story.

We MUST eliminate profitable mining (my design)!

Edit:

Maybe those Chinese miners are puppets for corrupt Chinese ministers?  Maybe due to the crackdown on corruption, electricity for Bitcoin is more stealthily than transferring bank money?

That was also one of my thoughts about the possibilities.

But also consider that the core devs of Bitcoin can't be this dumb. Surely they also know about this and have covered it up.

[smooth]

Only a small portion of the mining gear at any given time is the latest ASICs. If it were not so, then depreciation costs would be huge.

I doubt that actual average mining costs across the population of miners is anywhere near $50. We know of course that the marginal miner has a cost of 1 BTC (currently $385). For the average to be $50 it would have to be like a step function from $50 to $385. Very doubtful.

The Chinese miners are lying.

Expect corruption at the highest levels. Probably are getting subsidized electricity for free. Etc.

Bitcoin has already been 51% attacked.

Agree with this.

End of story.

Not really. One of the nice things about PoW is that attacks are never permanent.

MUST eliminate profitable mining (my design)!

Implement, write publish a paper, do something. I'm close to just joining the group that ignores you as a useless talker for years. Not quite there yet, but getting there.

[tromp]

We MUST eliminate profitable mining (my design)!

That's exactly what I argued for in my comment on "The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment" at
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=tromp

[TPTB_need_war]

We MUST eliminate profitable mining (my design)!

That's exactly what I argued for in my comment on "The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment" at
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=tromp

Afair, you argued that (or was it submitting a PoW with each transaction?) in one of my older threads from 2013. I also had the idea at that time. I remember you were perhaps the only other person to mention it to me back then.

write publish

Haha nice catch.

Of course smooth. No argument from me.

[TPTB_need_war]

TPTB, if you are just going to troll the Monero and Aeon threads with how much better your vaporware coin is, go away please.

What does that have to do with the discussion of the facts about Monero (and Bitcoin) being broken for Tragedy of the Commons scaling issues and more or less useless for anonymity?
 
Is ad hominen your version of discussion of the facts. Attacking me or my vaporshit plans is irrelevant to the point I made.

Your coin doesn't exist, and even if it did, judging by the names you are proposing for it, you are so deeply out of touch with the realities of modern culture that it will likely never catch on.
  
You received valuable advice in your thread which you disregarded: no single person or personality can launch a technology these days.  This is not the garage computing era of the 1970's.  Even Bitcoin did not succeed as a result of one person.  Your effort, despite being sincere, is misguided.  
  
Your best bet would be to throw your hat into the ring with Cryptonote developers instead of going it alone and creating a "Pegasus Coin".  
  
As is, you are the equivalent of me, going into the Game of Thrones forums and telling them all they are wasting their time - I am writing a fantasy epic that will make Thrones look like a fucking Mickey Mouse cartoon: get on board, or get left behind.  
  
And you expect to create a 'movement' with such tactics?  
  
Come to your senses.  

You are 100% certain correct? I would like to have you on record please. 100% certain? Yes or no?

Cryptonote can not be fixed. I don't see any Cryptonote devs willing to stop working on what is useless and start working on the future. If they are, my Inbox is open.

Have you ever considered that my goal is not to convince investors of investing in me, but rather to fool everyone into thinking I am no threat to them. Of course you wouldn't think of this, because you think cryptocurrency is only about the speculators at the early stages. But what if there was a different way...

You are starting to sound desperate by coming here.

My only point was to inform the community that Monero is claiming to have fixed things that it has not. Also to see if anyone could point out an error in my analysis.

I don't see how having community discussion is desperate.

I continue to make the point that what ever you might think of me and my plans, that is irrelevant to the point that I made some factual statements.

The continued attacks of me (my person) and on my vaporshit, shitplans shit, seems more desperate. Better to ignore me entirely right. Or respond to the facts.

Any way, it seems our community is always about fighting. Smoothie you in the past were very focused on truth, but when you don't like the facts, then you don't want to talk about truth and instead want to attack my reputation.

My reputation has nothing to do with any of it. It has nothing to do with whether the facts I explained are correct. It has nothing to do with the outcome of my vaporized shit shit shit. The result of my life will not come from my reputation but from my actions and the serendipity of life.

Okay I think we are done here. I don't expect we can elevate our discussions to a mature level.

[FreeTrade]

We MUST eliminate profitable mining (my design)!

That's exactly what I argued for in my comment on "The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment" at
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=tromp

Hey Tromp, are there any altcoins implementing Cuckoo yet? I'm working on a 'lil old project and casting about for a suitable CPU PoW.

To eliminate profitable mining, how about block rewards that are inversely proportional to chain difficulty? Only those who can mine at a (someone elses) loss will mine.

Anonymint, hello, always a pleasure.