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

[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.

[1453335553]

1453335553

[1453335553]

1453335553

[1453335553]

1453335553

[1453335553]

1453335553

[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.

[TPTB_need_war]

Bitcoin "is a fucking toy" when compared to VISA and yet in it's realm it has done quite well at being better than cash for many things.  I know a guy who purchased land by taking it across international borders.  I've used it multiple times for things VISA was not useful for.

By my measure bitcoin was a success and now it's outlived it's prime.

And I never said otherwise.

Since when did "it is centralized" and "it has been 51% attacked" constitute a statement that Bitcoin had no utility 

You put words in my mouth that I never spoke, because you are trying to rationalize your investments in Monero and Ethereum. Thus you have lost your objectivity, not me.

I view Monero and Ethereum in the same light.  I'm sure you would have pointed out bitcoins flaws when it was $10 per coin and said "This will never work." out of some of the same principles you are using now.

I did point out in 2013 exactly how Bitcoin would end up failing, which I said would be game theory of centralization around mining. And I was correct.

I never wrote that Bitcoin would have no utility and in fact I wrote that the utility of Bitcoin was very inspiring. Why do you reckon I am still here in crypto if I didn't think so!

Problem Monero has is that there is very little demand for an anonymity for which the reliability is unprovable. It is a marketing utility problem, which Bitcoin doesn't suffer. Even if we did implement provable anonymity (e.g. Zerocash not Zerocoin), it still not clear if markets for anonymity would be great, especially if the decentralized, permissionless attribute isn't assured, because the government can simply take control over centralized mining and force the anonymity to be stripped off. OTOH, companies are saying that privacy is very important to them and perhaps they do not mean hiding from the NSA. And public block chains using encryption are superior conceptually to private block chains using perimeters defenses because even sneakernets fail (e.g. Stuxnet). But the things corporations want privacy on are the block chain 2.0 features that Ethereum is working on. The corporations aren't interested just in crypto currency alone as that doesn't have much utility to them. Cryptonote (especially combined with Confidential Transactions that hide values) is a very technologically interesting concept, but without any significant utility in the markets.

Problem Ethereum has is that programmable block chains are an overly ambitious clusterfuck. And it isn't clear that the major markets for block chain utility require a fully programmable block chain. And the developers of Ethereum are basically clueless and have been making it up as they go along. You are basically investing in research. That guy Vlad has changed designs numerous times and has come up with some of the most stupid ideas, as even he admits. They haven't been able to think it through from start to finish as to what design they should use. And their current direction on scaling looks to me to be another clusterfuck.

However I am also curious about smart contracts, block chain applications, and programmable block chains. And maybe I will come to different conclusions after I have more time to analyze all the issues of those extended ideas. At the moment, my research is more focused on scaling crypto currency.

You are one of those who peruse perfection and I wholeheartedly respect that.

You mistake sobering analysis for being some form of demanding perfection. I demand only that I understand the issues of a technology.

But I'm not hearing any alternatives from you.  And as you so graciously pointed out - I'm a n00b.  I can't fix all the problems you point out.  So my two choices are opt out of the market.  Or pick the least bad losers.  When I perceive them to no longer be the least bad - I will move on to whatever else is the least bad.  I know it's not your strategy - but it's mine.

Then you haven't read about the design I proposed in the decentralization thread I started this week in this Altcoin Discussion forum.

And as you so graciously pointed out - I'm a n00b.  I can't fix all the problems you point out.  So my two choices are opt out of the market.  Or pick the least bad losers.  When I perceive them to no longer be the least bad - I will move on to whatever else is the least bad.  I know it's not your strategy - but it's mine.

You are not forced to invest in cryptocurrency. An investor needs to be unbiased and flexible. For the moment, I am investing in the US dollar, until some clarity is obtained in the crypto scene.

By your standards bitcoin was fundamentally broken years ago.  But it paid off for those who picked "the least bad option."

I told rpietila back at the start of 2013 when Bitcoin was < $10, that I approved of his decision to sell $100,000 of silver and buy 10,000 Bitcoins. Unfortunately I couldn't follow him into the investment because I had been so ill since May, 2012 and had lost $75,000 in the markets during June through August. This was caused by some craziness in my life (something about my ex yanking my kids from the Philippines and my endocrine system going bezerk). So unfortunately I had to stay on the sidelines, but never did I argue against investing in Bitcoin when it was at such a low price. When Bitcoin hit $1000, I began to argue that the direction would be downwards and lately the clarity on the bottom should be < $150 in Q1 or Q2 2016.

At this point I am trying to contemplate what is going to happen to Bitcoin given these issues revolving around scaling. I don't see any technical solutions for Bitcoin other than to centralize and then raise the block size. Maybe that is what will happen. At this time, I need to be focused on coding and not trying to analyze the complex possibilities of what might happen with Bitcoin from here forward.

BTW I wasn't the one who posted your stuff on the reddit ethereum forum.

No problem I am happy we were able to discuss some of the details about Ethereum over there.

[smaragda]

I told rpietila back at the start of 2013 when Bitcoin was < $10, that I approved of his decision to sell $100,000 of silver and buy 10,000 Bitcoins.

Would you approve such decision for Ethereum today?   rpietila would only have to sell $10,000 of silver for ~10,000 ETH.

[TPTB_need_war]

My reply to the above rebuttals to my prior message basically can be summed up in this reply I made in another thread:

[...]

I view Monero and Ethereum in the same light.  I'm sure you would have pointed out bitcoins flaws when it was $10 per coin and said "This will never work." out of some of the same principles you are using now.

I did point out in 2013 exactly how Bitcoin would end up failing, which I said would be game theory of centralization around mining. And I was correct.

I never wrote that Bitcoin would have no utility and in fact I wrote that the utility of Bitcoin was very inspiring. Why do you reckon I am still here in crypto if I didn't think so!

Problem Monero has is that there is very little demand for an anonymity for which the reliability is unprovable. It is a marketing utility problem, which Bitcoin doesn't suffer. Even if we did implement provable anonymity (e.g. Zerocash not Zerocoin), it still not clear if markets for anonymity would be great, especially if the decentralized, permissionless attribute isn't assured, because the government can simply take control over centralized mining and force the anonymity to be stripped off. OTOH, companies are saying that privacy is very important to them and perhaps they do not mean hiding from the NSA. And public block chains using encryption are superior conceptually to private block chains using perimeters defenses because even sneakernets fail (e.g. Stuxnet). But the things corporations want privacy on are the block chain 2.0 features that Ethereum is working on. The corporations aren't interested just in crypto currency alone as that doesn't have much utility to them. Cryptonote (especially combined with Confidential Transactions that hide values) is a very technologically interesting concept, but without any significant utility in the markets.

[...]

That is relevant to "Monero Speculation".

As for rolling up the sleeves and hiding away in development forums and chats, I find I am more productive in coding when I talk to no one. Collaborating on Cryptonote block chain designs isn't very inspiring for me. So what would I talk to your developers about, given they are not going to be interested in talking about rewriting a block chain design from scratch. So the only input I can have is to make speculators aware of the fact that Monero doesn't fix the Tragedy of the Commons around block chain economics & scaling, and also to point out the lack of utility for unprovable anonymity combined with block chain tech which does not have the decentralized, permissionless guarantee.

It is simply that I don't see the point. I have stated numerous times that I think smooth and the other Monero devs are very smart and I love to work with smart devs when attitudes and plans are aligned. I was put off by the condescending attitude of Shen-noether though. It seems that what programmers like to see are programmers talking tech shop and making open source contributions. Well me too!

You don't know me well. There is a huge distinction between trying to form a holistic view of crypto here in the forums and hiding away doing coding. Smooth seems comfortable doing both interleaved (multi-tasking). I don't. When I code, I don't talk. So if you see me talking, I am surely not coding.

As for open source and collaboration, it is highly necessary at some point forward in a project's life. But there is also another point-of-view that says that in some nascent stage it might be more efficient to avoid the communication load especially when in holistic design mode, because it is very slow to communicate all the thoughts in one's brain to another person or especially amongst group. Design by consensus is a very arduous process and not always the best for creativity. OTOH, interacting during design process is very important in order to flesh out ideas. Since I currently don't have any group to work with, I flesh out communication and explanation here in the forums.

This should not be construed as an attempt to belittle your developers and the work that has been put into the open source. Coding requires effort and is expensive in terms of opportunity costs. That is why I argue we need to have a clear design and marketing plan BEFORE we dive into massive coding effort.

[TPTB_need_war]

I told rpietila back at the start of 2013 when Bitcoin was < $10, that I approved of his decision to sell $100,000 of silver and buy 10,000 Bitcoins.

Would you approve such decision for Ethereum today?   rpietila would only have to sell $10,000 of silver for ~10,000 ETH.

Bitcoin clearly had momentum at the start of 2013, and it was a technological concept that was so revolutionary that it was clearly going to take the world by storm.

Ethereum not. The conceptual technology isn't even threshed out yet, and they are adding more and more complexity on top.

If I am somehow wrong about some killer app that requires a programmable block chain and some way that Ethereum's complex design process is able to solidify (and for all that to occur this year), then I will be quite shocked.


We tend to get so excited about a programmable block chain because we think that implies that there are unbounded cases of apps that can be written, but as Ethereum is discovering as they go through the research process, is that so many limitations have to placed on the scripts in order to achieve scalability that I argue much of the generality is also lost. For example, scripts can't be allowed to read/write from any state that any other script could, because then commutativity of block chain ordering is lost. There is the Tragedy of Commons issue around fees (gas) that I raised. Etc..

[TPTB_need_war]

Sorry I can't resist about the "desperate" allegation, I just was informed of a 58 year old filipino man who sexed his 78 year old mother who due to her Alzheimers thought she was sexing her deceased husband.

[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

Hey Tromp, are there any altcoins implementing Cuckoo yet?

No, there is no cryptocurrency using Cuckoo Cycle as proof of work.
Btw, in absolute performance, it runs much better on GPUs than on CPUs.
But I don't know which is better in terms of performance per watt.

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.

I don't like that, since I want a predictable distribution curve.
But I'd make two changes to Bitcoin's curve.

First, rewards should ramp up slowly, only peaking after a year or two, allowing the mining software to mature and become widespread.

Second, the rewards should converge to some constant greater than zero;
making the currency non-deflationary.
You cannot avoid losing coins due to bugs, misconfiguration, typos, loss of private keys, stupidity, etc.
If we assume a yearly loss rate of 1%, then a limit reward of X per year results in an effective soft-cap of 100X, so it's still not really inflationary.

[smooth]

I would also ramp down slowly rather than halving days

[tromp]

I would also ramp down slowly rather than halving days

Agree that Bitcoin's reward halving every 4 years is way too disruptive.

Putting it on the same schedule as the biweekly difficulty adjustments
would seem to be vastly preferable...

[FreeTrade]

No, there is no cryptocurrency using Cuckoo Cycle as proof of work.
Btw, in absolute performance, it runs much better on GPUs than on CPUs.
But I don't know which is better in terms of performance per watt.

Thanks, I've been reading a bit more about it. I've been away for a while - did I miss anything in the CPU space? What do you think is the most GPU resistant PoW around now? I remember Anonymint saying he had a secret CPU PoW years ago - has he said any more?

Slowly ramping up coin distribution does seem fairer, but then a coin loses the 'goldrush' feeling that is so helpful in gaining momentum and early user adoption.

[tromp]

No, there is no cryptocurrency using Cuckoo Cycle as proof of work.
Btw, in absolute performance, it runs much better on GPUs than on CPUs.
But I don't know which is better in terms of performance per watt.

Thanks, I've been reading a bit more about it. I've been away for a while - did I miss anything in the CPU space? What do you think is the most GPU resistant PoW around now?

I've come to realize it's really really hard to resist GPUs. For portability across different CPU architectures,
I haven't seen anything more resistant than Cuckoo Cycle. If you're willing to target recent x86 exclusively,
then you can increase resistance by employing the AES-NI instruction. Replacing the underlying siphash in Cuckoo Cycle by an AES-NI based hash function would likely render it much more GPU resistant. But I don't like the idea of excluding vast markets of potential hashing power (like smartphones while charging overnight).

Slowly ramping up coin distribution does seem fairer, but then a coin loses the 'goldrush' feeling that is so helpful in gaining momentum and early user adoption.

That's not so much user adoption as miner adoption, and does little to the long term staying power...

[TPTB_need_war]

I've come to realize it's really really hard to resist GPUs.

Remember I told you that would be the case.

I still have my PoW hash from late 2013 (or was it early 2014 I forget) which is yet unreleased. I took an entirely different approach after realizing that memory hard hashes weren't really a resistance to GPUs nor ASICs.

Edit: I wasn't aiming for the CPU hash to be as efficient as the ASIC, but at least hopefully within 2 orders-of-magnitude so that my design for having payers mine unprofitably holds that mining is unprofitable even for ASICS. In theory, I can adjust the parameter of debasement rate to expected CPU/ASIC efficiency ratios to attempt to mitigate with the ratio of total payers PoW difficulty/debasement.

[TPTB_need_war]

No, there is no cryptocurrency using Cuckoo Cycle as proof of work.
Btw, in absolute performance, it runs much better on GPUs than on CPUs.
But I don't know which is better in terms of performance per watt.

Thanks, I've been reading a bit more about it. I've been away for a while - did I miss anything in the CPU space? What do you think is the most GPU resistant PoW around now? I remember Anonymint saying he had a secret CPU PoW years ago - has he said any more?

Slowly ramping up coin distribution does seem fairer, but then a coin loses the 'goldrush' feeling that is so helpful in gaining momentum and early user adoption.

I believe there is a way to get both ('goldrush' and a delay for the open source to mature), and it is also integrated with my marketing plan. I have actually explained what this is and I see no reason to repeat it and make it more clear for my competitors. Those who were paying attention already have the information.