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

[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.

[1714112017]

1714112017

[1714112017]

1714112017

[1714112017]

1714112017

[1714112017]

1714112017

[1714112017]

1714112017

[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.

[FreeTrade]

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).

Hmmm - smartphone mining would be a splendid feature . . . any idea how much more efficient a GPU vs a CPU setup would be - say based on the cost of purchase of most efficient GPU vs CPU setup + 1 year of electric fees. If the GPU setup was 2X more efficient, I could live with that for the advantage of a wide variety of mining equipment (phones, game consoles etc), but if it was 10X, not so workable.

[FreeTrade]

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.

Hmmm, maybe a loch-ness style distribution, with large mining rewards at the outset, followed by a dip, followed by ramping up, then a tailing off?

[tromp]

Hmmm - smartphone mining would be a splendid feature . . . any idea how much more efficient a GPU vs a CPU setup would be - say based on the cost of purchase of most efficient GPU vs CPU setup + 1 year of electric fees. If the GPU setup was 2X more efficient, I could live with that for the advantage of a wide variety of mining equipment (phones, game consoles etc), but if it was 10X, not so workable.

I have very limited data. A GTX980 with a TDP of around 160W was 5x faster than an i7-4790K with a TDP of around 80W. So the GPU appears to be between 2x and 3x more efficient in this case.
But since Cuckoo Cycle is memory bound, neither CPU nor GPU is going to be near their TDP.
So we really need to bench it with power measuring tools, which I'm lacking...

[TPTB_need_war]

And (perhaps more importantly) Ed25519 does not require a new random number on each subsequent signature, thus is deemed to less vulnerable to a faulty random number generator (or injection of virus thereof in the operating system).

Is this advantage of Ed25519 over Secp256k1 negated assuming perfect compliance in avoiding BTC address reuse (since if a faulty RNG was used the balance of the at risk address would already be 0 after every transaction)?

That perfect compliance is impossible isn't it, because how do you delete your public key from forums and other places it has been copied out-of-your-control. Don't tell me that the Bitcoin Wiki and the core devs never acknowledged this  

There is a way though to get perfect compliance which I am using in my design because I use one-time Lamport/Winternitz signatures (although I could use Merkel trees for multiple signatures at the cost of a just marginally longer signature) for the 20 times faster verification speed (at the cost of an exponential blowup in bandwidth at higher bit security), but this way is not encoded in Bitcoin so can't be used there.

See the following I wrote comparing Ed25519 and hash-based signatures (some info on the performance of Ed25519 also):

https://github.com/shelby3/hashsig/blob/master/DDoS%20Defense%20Employing%20Public%20Key%20Cryptography.md#public-key-authentication

P.S. if you see any improvement in my work, it will be because of improving health. I have some signs that my high dose herbal treatments (curcumim, moringa, bitter melon, mangosteen) might be working. I believe possibly (unfortunately self-diagnosis no blood work nor doctor visit since the 2012 doctor screwed me up) my health issue is a messed up pancreas or gall bladder possibly partially blocking my bile duct which would explain why I got so ill every time after I eat.

You all have no idea what it is like to have this sort of illness. Even bending down to scratch your foot becomes chore. Lifting your fingers to type on the keyboard takes a few deep breaths to gain the energy. Thinking about code becomes a chore and not a pleasant challenge. You really don't understand until you walk in another person's shoes. Any person who knows what they were capable of throughout their life and are unable to do because of some painful and chronic disability, is going to exhibit psychological stress and will attempt to cope either by going into depression or fighting back, both being a form of abnormality and dysfunction. I hope that is enough said.

There is a way though to get perfect compliance which I am using in my design because I use one-time Lamport/Winternitz signatures

Forcing perfect compliance through cryptography sounds great. Unfortunately I cannot pretend to understand the math and cryptography behind everything you say except on a conceptual basis.

It doesn't gain anything from an anonymity perspective (and is arguably retrogressive), if that is what you were thinking. We pay to a name instead of an address. The address can change and the name remains the same. For security it helps, and my greater motivation is eliminating lost payments (payments to addresses for which no one knows the private key) and overhead for microtransactions (and potentially IoT).

Edit: it is a usability feature for targeting the masses, and I think ShadowCoin has a similar feature but maybe not for the same motivations.

[TPTB_need_war]

Smooth please delete this. I just couldn't resist ROTFLMAO:

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.

Can you stop spamming this thread?  No one wants to read your nonsense, please stick to your own threads and if anyone is interested in discussing your musings they will surely join you there.

Have you ever heard of the concept of self-deprecating humor?

It is known to be a way to be an outlet for stress and for (mice and) men to realize they aren't as self-important as they think they need to be.

Will you ever mature and learn to be a sociable human being?

(smooth is in a difficult political position because of assholes like you but I warned him not to involve in coins that are marketed directly to speculators)

614 pages in this thread and which major facts were elucidated? The thread is mostly noise any way.

[TPTB_need_war]

Again smooth is forced to discipline the Monero Speculation thread:

Five off-topic posts were deleted. Please try to keep the thread on topic. This includes repetitive points that have already been made recently. Those are on warning that they will be deleted. If you post A, someone else disagrees with A, do not post about A again. Both sides have been presented and the reader will have to decide.

By the amount of posts you have that isn't a good sign for your cointoendallcoinsCOIN.

yeah, I'm off topic.

I already agree. And yes we are cluttering the thread now. Any more posts (that are addressing my posts) should ideally be on the facts or arguments about utility of Monero's anonymity and/or the Tragedy of the Commons around economics of mining and block size.

Or just move on to other discussion and I will stop responding.

Can you stop spamming this thread?  No one wants to read your nonsense, please stick to your own threads and if anyone is interested in discussing your musings they will surely join you there.

Smooth please delete this. I just couldn't resist ROTFLMAO:

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.

Can you stop spamming this thread?  No one wants to read your nonsense, please stick to your own threads and if anyone is interested in discussing your musings they will surely join you there.

Have you ever heard of the concept of self-deprecating humor?

It is known to be a way to be an outlet for stress and for (mice and) men to realize they aren't as self-important as they think they need to be.

Will you ever mature and learn to be a sociable human being?

(smooth is in a difficult political position because of assholes like you but I warned him not to involve in coins that are marketed directly to speculators)

614 pages in this thread and which major facts were elucidated? The thread is mostly noise any way.

Marketing an unfinished product for a unknown brand is suicide on a worldwide stage.

Somebody forgot to tell that to Satoshi.

(you are incorrect)

Satoshi never really tried to "market" bitcoin and at the time of his departure bitcoin was almost an unknown worldwide.

Irrelevant to my point. This is an example of a noise rebuttal.

Marketing an unfinished product for a unknown brand is suicide on a worldwide stage.

Somebody forgot to tell that to Satoshi.

(you are incorrect)

Satoshi never really tried to "market" bitcoin and at the time of his departure bitcoin was almost an unknown worldwide.

Irrelevant to my point. This is an example of a noise rebuttal.

Unfortunately you deleted a post where I added the information that I was already aware of his thought process and making it known that it is an irrelevant thought process. The point is that Bitcoin is still in beta and yet went from 10,000 BTC per pizza to $1000 per BTC due to marketing (who cares that Satoshi wasn't the one who did the marketing). And besides no one can know what Satoshi contemplated on the marketing or to what degree he has been involved behind the scenes.

Edit: Satoshi was marketing in the white paper. He pitched it as a better gold, obviously knowing what this would do to the overlap between Libertarian goldbugs and technophiles.

[TPTB_need_war]

ArticMine PMed me after I wrote that flaming post, and said he would reply after studying my posts. He has not yet replied. Does that mean I am correct and there is no solution for Monero. I think so.

It is fundamental. Afaics, you'd have to completely rewrite Moaneuro.

Rewrite Monero, is not necessary at all but some documentation on how the Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limits actually work is needed, especially given the formula in section 6.2.3 of the Cryptonote Whitepaper is wrong. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf. My response will come in time.

I will start by examining the Cryptonote Penalty Function for oversize blocks. This is critical to understand any form of spam attack against a Cryptonote coin. From the Cryptonote whitepaper I cited above the penalty function is:

Penalty = BaseReward (BlkSize / M_N - 1)²

The new reward is:

NewReward = BaseReward - Penalty

Where M_N is the median of the blocksize over the last N blocks
BlkSize is the size of the current block
BaseReward is the reward as per the emission curve or where applicable the tail emission
NewReward is the actual reward paid to the miner
The Maximum allowed blocksize, BlkSize, is 2M_N
The penalty is only applied when BlkSize > (1 + B_min) M_N Where 0 < B_min < 1 In the Cryptonote whitepaper B_min = 0.1.
 
The error in the Cryptonote Whitepaper was to set NewReward = Penalty

For simplicity I will define:
BlkSize = (1+B) M_N
BaseReward = R_base
Penalty (for a given B) = P_B
NewReward (for a given B) = R_B

The penalty for a given B becomes:
P_B = R_baseB²
While the new reward for a given B becomes:
R_B = R_base(1 - B²)
The first derivative of P_B with respect to B is
dP_B / dB = 2R_baseB

In order to attack the coin by bloating the blocksize the attacker needs to cause at least over 50% of the miners to mine oversize blocks and for an expedient attack close to 100% or the miners to mine oversize blocks. This attack must be a maintained over a sustained period of time and more importantly must be maintained in order to keep the oversized blocks, since once the attack stops the blocks will fall back to their normal size.  There are essentially two options here:

1) A 51% attack. I am not going to pursue this for obvious reasons.

2) Induce the existing miners to mine oversize blocks. This is actually the more interesting case; however after cost analysis it becomes effectively a rental version of 1 above. Since the rate of change (first derivative) of P_B is proportional to B the most effective option for the attacker is to run the attack with B = 1. The cost of the attack has as a lower bound R_base but would be higher, and proportional to, R_base  because miners will demand a substantial premium over the base reward to mine the spam blocks due to the increased risk of orphan blocks as the blocksize increases and competition from legitimate users whose cost per KB for transaction fees needed to compete with the attacker will fall as the blocksize increases. The impact on the coin is to stop new coins from being created while the attack is going on. These coins are replaced by the attacker having to buy coins on the open market in order to continue the attack. The impact of this is to further increase the costs to the attacker.

It at this point where we see the critical importance of a tail emission since if R_base = 0 this attack has zero cost and the tragedy of the commons actually occurs. This is the critical difference between those Cryptonote coins that have a tail emission, and have solved the problem, such as Monero and those that do not, and will in a matter of time become vulnerable, such as Bytecoin.

Afaics, the above does nothing to remove/ameliorate the Tragedy of the Commons in Satoshi's mining algorithm[1], except if viewed as short-term solution while no miners have a significant percentage of the network hash rate.

The problem is that as I explained for Ethereum, as transaction rate scales up and thus the block reward is dominated by fees, then unless there is a uniform distribution of hashrate amongst all full node miners (which is of course impossible since not everyone can locate their mining equipment next to a hydropower plant with 2 - 4 cents electricity or for that matter perhaps free subsidized electricity in corrupt environs such as China), then those miners with more hashrate will have lower costs of verification. Thus they will be more profitable and can buy more hashrate faster than the other miners. Thus mining will entirely centralize over time, because the economics are designed to centralize mining. So since mining will centralize, then attaining 51% of the mining power will be guaranteed and thus the above algorithm can do nothing to stop miners from spamming the block chain size by paying transaction fees to themselves. But of course with 51% of the hashrate, they can do anything they want, except up to the limits of what public perception will tolerate. I am assuming of course that transaction fees in a free market will reflect actual (marginal) costs and that verification cost will be significant relative to other costs such as bandwidth.

There is also afaics a math flaw in ArticMine's analysis. Unless N is very small, then a miner with a significant but less than 51% hashrate is going to win a block in most every N set, and thus they can hit the 2 * M_N hard limit every time (or what ever rate of increase they deem most cost effective according to the Penalty cost being a function of a square), gradually ramping the median block size up over time. Thus the spam attack is not avoided, rather it just takes longer. And again I had pointed out that by shorting the coin, they can potentially recover their lost block rewards and profit. And if N is very small, then the likelihood that a miner can win all N blocks with less than 51% hashrate increases. Also it is not clear to me from ArticMine's specification if N is overlapping meaning a FIFO queue? But I doubt that makes any difference to my conceptual math point (note I have not written down the equations to precisely quantify this alleged flaw).

Also the 2 * M_N hard limit means that block chain can't handle transient spikes in transaction load, e.g. such as would be required by Lightning Networks (which has sort of a garbage collection overhead which manifests has large spikes in transaction load).

Conceptually at the highest-level semantic model of the generalized essence, an anti-aliasing filter on transaction rate can't ameliorate the fact that a spam transaction is indistinguishable from a non-spam transaction.

To solve this problem we need to make the cost of what is burned when submitting a transaction greater than the cost of cumulative network verification costs. That both solves the economics of the first paragraph above and it also removes the need to limit the block size in any artificial way other than the burn cost. But in my design, I don't waste the burn cost and instead apply it to security in the form of unprofitable mining. Note that the only way to limit culmulative network verification costs is to centralize mining. And this is why I wanted to give up, because I didn't see any solution that didn't centralize mining. But then I realized the design I had for intra-block partitions can centralize while remaining controlled by decentralized PoW, thus effectively still decentralized. And this is why I say you will have to completely rewrite Monero (at least the consensus design portion of the block chain code).

[1]	I introduced this concept in 2013 in my thread Spiraling Transaction Fees and I nailed the block size as the fundamental issue in my last post in that 2013 thread.

Bumping up against the hard limit is probably wastefully expensive for this "attack"

What expense?

[...]mining equipment next to a hydropower plant with 2 - 4 cents electricity or for that matter perhaps free subsidized electricity in corrupt environs such as China[...]

You're suggesting mining is (or can be) free? That's absurd. Even if it were free, this attack still costs you the reward.

I am suggesting the State (or those corrupt who control it) can charge the cost of mining to the collective (think the Three Gorges Dam that wrecked environmental devastation downstream, upstream and derivative effects all over China). I have made this point numerous times. And apparently (after everyone said I was crazy), it came true in China and if true was a factor that enabled China to capture an estimated 67% of the mining and 51% attack Bitcoin. Documentation of these statements is in my vaporcoin thread.

If the profit from shorting is greater than the reward, then it doesn't cost you anything. The free mining cost just makes it more likely you can sustain it long enough to reap your reward. How do we know the Chinese won't milk the investors while the block reward is high (mining at near $0 cost charging it the cost to the collective) and then also profit by shorting it all the way down from $1000.

We are bunch of naive geeks who are being reamed (mined) by savvy traders and strategists. These are no different conceptually than Rothschild's and Rockefeller's methods of yore. The players and technological field change, the game remains the same. (Yeah I am crazy conspiracy theorist whose analysis is always wrong)

Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.

PoS(hit) can never be secure, because if it has a functioning markets (which it must in order to be widely adopted and liquid), then one can borrow stake, attack the coin (which requires much less than 51% to for example delay transactions by some N blocks where N is a function of percentage of coin supply held), and then pay back the borrowed coin with cheaply bought coin as the price collapses due to attacks. You could simultaneously short it (i.e. which you did when you borrowed the coins, but sell some for fiat before you attack) for profits. Alternatively borrow fiat (or other cryptocoin), buy stake and short to profit and pay back loan. Also PoS can't distribute new coins, thus eventually the coin supply shrinks asymptotically to 0.

With PoW, your borrowed mining hashrate would eventually reach end of contract and the coin would repair itself. And you'd need much closer to 51% to do damage. You would hope to be able to purchase the coin at cheap prices, wait for it to rise back up and then sell it for fiat to pay back your loan. Much less plausible.

However if you are up against the corrupt State that charges cost of PoW mining to the collective, then we're screwed with profitable PoW also, except I have the idea to use the unprofitable PoW of every person's computer in the world (with latency preventing them from farming out to ASIC), which seems might be even too much of an expense for China to hide the subsidization of.

[TPTB_need_war]

Also PoS can't distribute new coins, thus eventually the coin supply shrinks asymptotically to 0.

You are wrong here. There are PoS variants that distribute new coins.

No variants can. And the last time you debated me, I defeated you on every single point. Are we going to have to do it again?

I thought you wrote last time that you were going to be busy with your university semester beginning. I am ~51 (50.7), you are in your early 20s I presume. I have been a software developer since before you were born.

You don't defeat someone by talking wtf just discuss your shit and that's all

You missed the point. I don't have to defeat anything. The dominant stakeholders are stealing everything from you as we speak. Enjoy the ride.

And that includes Dash's masternode scheme and all of the PoS systems.

However, at this time PoW is also the same. The Chinese (professional miners) are stealing everything from Bitcoin investors (but not from Bitcoin users yet, while block rewards are still high!)

Thus the state of crypto is in crisis. So far it is a failure except some foundation work has been laid and some users have benefited from Bitcoin. Even PoS has funded some foundational work so from that standpoint I can't say it is a total failure.

I have an inkling that you really suck at politics

Yup. I will never play in that arena. It is an intentional effort to destroy politics. I detest politics with a venom. Every one of my successes was achieved without any politics whatsoever.

I believe in and want to promote meritocracy.

So all of you who are picking coins based on who is best at manipulating the others politically, I aim to destroy you. And if there is a way, I will. If there is no way, I will quit.

I may manipulate marketing wise, but not designed to siphon funds in a zero sum game. Rather to expand the pie for everyone.

What is the point of selecting a coin based on which one has the best politics?

Even if you had every single speculator from the Bitcoin universe investing in your coin, it would all be useless if you didn't have the design and marketing to gain adoption.

Bitcoin was marketed by the global elite in their MSM and they are mining you the speculators taking all your money with their zero cost mining in China.

Crypto is one big corruption to take all your money. You fools. I am trying to create a fundamental innovation and a real revolution. Just keep criticizing me and handing your money over to your slave masters.

What most intelligent people have decided is that it is much easier to play along and find a way to mine you, than to attack the much more difficult problem of a true revolution. I try against all odds and have never asked for a dime from the investing public, so therefor you don't like me because I don't want to steal your money.

Insanity.

The best design and marketing would be useless without speculators, because otherwise it will never garner the attention of most of the world's population. You include marketing, but you can't fund a sufficient marketing campaign without speculators or doing an ICO. Proper marketing is expensive.

You are apparently highly confused. I never wrote I was excluding speculators, which is in fact impossible in any coin market. You have a quite annoying bratty abrasive method for asking questions by rather asserting that you know everything.

Also, politics are necessary if a cryptocurrency has enough success. Bitcoin is finding this out now.

Bittorrent is decentralized. Bitcoin isn't. Go get an education first, then we can talk.

Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. 3. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.

3. Maybe, maybe not. You are making an absolute statement, but I haven't seen particularly convincing evidence.

Thanks.

This is an interesting point to ponder. Could a revolutionary crypto coin succeed without the MSM (e.g. Bittorrent), or would the MSM cover something which was not helping the professional miners rape the Bitcoin investors to the tune of $300 million annually?

I think all of us are somewhat unrealistic (unless we were just here to mine the speculators).

This indeed worries me. It is difficult to justify killing myself to code in order to try to create revolution and then think it could all fail just because the MSM holds all the power.

I am not sure which way I am leaning on this issue. My gut tells me "It Is Just Time" for something revolutionary to happen. But my gut is very ill. Lol.

[TPTB_need_war]

If you're willing to target recent x86 exclusively, then you can increase resistance by employing the AES-NI instruction.

That is not one but rather a group of instructions. Perhaps you just typoed the missing 's'. One of those instructions was of particular focus of mine.