DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?)

[alkan]

I just posted a proposal to decouple mining profit and control over the transactions in order to decentralize the power over the block chain:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702796.0

I'm not sure if the outlined models are flawed or not (they probably are).

[sidhujag]

If you ignore gambling, you'll probably never get "why?"

And if you ignore increasing layers of complexity, you'll never get "how?"

And if you never examine how social structures act in the same rationalization structures as a single brain architecture, then you'll never get "neither."

(someday, someone will get this joke, and that's the bet)

I can attest to that last sentence and add that entire cities mock corporations in an organic pattern that in which they are born they depress they innovate or die... the recessions are required for innovation.. this is why qe wont work and why any form of central bank targeting has been can kicking experiment because its still not ideal money as framed by late dr nash

[jbreher]

Life requires flaws. It is precisely flaws that make us unique and alive. If everything was predetermined (flawless), then nothing would exist. The past and future would collapse into indistinguishable (the light cones of special relativity would collapse onto each other). Life requires that real-time omniscience is impossible, which is a conceptual analogy of flaws (i.e. that not all of our actions can be congruent always in real-time).

Heaven....
Heaven is a place
A place where nothing ....
Nothing ever happens.
- David Byrne

[iamnotback]

Copying this from r0ach's thread, because very relevant here:

What you say here might hold water if there was only one cryptocoin. The fact is there are hundreds and there will be thousands upon thousands of them in the coming years. Decentralization comes from every one having an easy way to create their own money/token and embed usefulness in it, to work to make it valuable. Some will succeed in this endeavor, most will fail, it doesn't matter. Decentralization is in breaking monopoly of state on creation of money and having everyone and their mother create some sort of loyalty points with value that others are willing to work for. This will be the end of state monopoly on money, this is what decentralization is about.

If all the altcoins are just the same power vacuum failure, then no diversification is attained.

[generalizethis]

Copying this from r0ach's thread, because very relevant here:

What you say here might hold water if there was only one cryptocoin. The fact is there are hundreds and there will be thousands upon thousands of them in the coming years. Decentralization comes from every one having an easy way to create their own money/token and embed usefulness in it, to work to make it valuable. Some will succeed in this endeavor, most will fail, it doesn't matter. Decentralization is in breaking monopoly of state on creation of money and having everyone and their mother create some sort of loyalty points with value that others are willing to work for. This will be the end of state monopoly on money, this is what decentralization is about.

If all the altcoins are just the same power vacuum failure, then no diversification is attained.

And my answer, still relevant:

Do they distribute LSD along with Crypto Kongdung.

I'll dumb it down for you: two things you can't stop in this world, gambling and progress.

I'll dumb it up metaphorically for you: diversification of steel rolly pollies is an oxymoron.

Talk to the quants who modeled diversification of hedge funds before the collapse of LTCM.

repair industry is the winning bet here

You don't seem to understand that prediction markets fail when their boards are all sinking in the same quicksand (i.e. the same light bulb behind the star cutouts in your upthread metaphor).

Currency doesn't function fragmented. There is no relativity of multiple currencies. Currency is a loss of degrees-of-freedom paradigm.

The winner is the one who scales a new currency. There is no long-term panacea.

Huh?

There's no long term solution to the knowledge problem (how do you run out of questions to study?), but that doesn't stop academics from spending their whole life to studying one question--why? We gamble that our life has some purpose--it's irrational, yeah, but people do it every day--anyone who's jumped off a cliff or skydives know it feels good to be alive--and no amount of game theory is going to change that risk assessment.

Technologies evolve, and a lot of technologies die along the way, my point is the human desire to exit the current system is the thing that keeps decentralization going--systems reach critical mass points and KABOOM! We're left realigning the jenga pieces of value scattered on the floor of civilization. But if you had gotten this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg17013410#msg17013410 (don't worry; I bolded the point), we could go back to creating exit points for wealth acquired through wealth--once we stop being able to do that, we are indeed something other than human.

[iamnotback]

Technologies evolve, and a lot of technologies die along the way, my point is the human desire to exit the current system is the thing that keeps decentralization going--systems reach critical mass points and KABOOM! We're left realigning the jenga pieces of value scattered on the floor of civilization.

Should I congratulate you for repeating what I wrote two and three years ago about "frontiers":

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=site%3Abitcointalk.org+AnonyMint+frontiers

I told this is nothing like the French Revolution nor the Great Depression. This is more like the fall of Rome. This is the death of stored capital and the rise of the Knowledge Age (individual brain as capital) as the new frontier.

The last sentence is true, but not for the reason Armstrong was thinking.
If it were possible that the globalists wouldn't exist, then coordination
and globalist agendas would be reduced to chaos as various governments
would act selfishly in random (probabilistically independent, i.e. maximum
entropy) ways and thus globalist enslavement agenda would in theory cease.
National enslavement would continue, but we'd have other orthogonal
nations as escape frontiers to use against the nation that was trying to
enslave us. However, the last sentence remains true because the power
vacuum would always demand the existence of a global elite. For example,
clearly you can see that national governments would have an incentive to
cooperate so their respective slaves (citizens) can't escape to other
nations as frontiers (e.g. to escape unjust taxation). Thus a global elite
would come into existence in order to manage the coordination of such.

There is no solution that can come from reforming government, because the
power vacuum is the entire reason government exists in the first place.
How do we get a large group of people to (i.e. a society) to be organized
when people are diverse and have many diverse competing ideals, ideas,
priorities, pet issues, etc?? Thus we elect a government to resolve this
by force according to Max Weber's canonical definition of government
(which has never been improved upon).

As I have tried to explain to Martin, the only solutions for freedom have
always come from the technological means for individuals to escape to
frontiers wherein they can outproduce the cancerous society.

Originally that meant the technology to travel to new geographical
locations. But now the entire world is in unison on the globalist
enslavement agenda, thus travel is no longer a frontier. Even the
globalists with their false-flag terrorism have checkpoints on every
practical travel technology.

Thus the only frontier now is the internet and cryptography which allows
us to produce and be completely invisible to the taxation authorities.

I don't know why it is taking Martin such a long time to come to this
conclusion. It is obvious. And so now you know why the Bible says they
will throw their gold and silver into the streets. It is because tangible
assets are becoming completely controlled (or will be illiquid because of
need to avoid taxation when traded).

Technology is always the frontier. Technological unemployment coincides
with the end of Martin's 78 year real estate cycle. The internet has
created the means to track everyone globally and eliminated tangible cash
(possibilities for trade are orders-of-magnitude less when physical
exchange is required). But this also introduced cryptography for everyone.
We have no choice, we must bring that cryptography technology to the
masses in order to level the playing field and restore frontiers and
anonymity of cash.

But if you had gotten this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg17013410#msg17013410 (don't worry; I bolded the point), we could go back to creating exit points for wealth acquired through wealth--once we stop being able to do that, we are indeed something other than human.

And you still haven't understood that I got your point a looooong time ago and determined that it was irrelevant and you apparently still haven't understood why, even I have told you many times.

Gambling doesn't help you preserve stored wealth, when the currency which is gambled with goes off the board into a Dark Age. That is a reset.

There is no such thing as diversification of currency. Currency is a public-wide, political phenomenon. If the global currency system collapses due to a political demand that everyone should suffer equally, then no diversification of speculations is going to help you, because all off ramps are confiscated (your alt-currency actually has to have value and use case without off ramping into the debt capital system which is dying).

There is a reason that Dark Ages last on average 600 years. It is because they are self-inflected, political vortex from which nothing can escape. In the past, these Dark Ages were limited to geographical areas. Now we can move at will across the globe, so now we are being locked in by capital controls and police states so that we won't be able to move our capital to frontiers. The capital will die (because it was already dead and was backed by debt and that includes everything you and I own and invest).

It was always the case you could carry your physically transportable possessions out of the failing Rome, but then you faced warlords and ambush.

Risto's gambling fantasies aside, the only possible way out of this mess is to try to create technological rebirth on a massive scale which also is a currency that is popular. That is what I am attempting to do. I have been writing about this prospective Knowledge Age since 2013.

In other words, we have to create new capital (a new monetary system based in the Knowledge Age, something about microtransactions and social networking possibly). Gambling with debt capital is just fooling yourself.

[generalizethis]

No. As long as you can show work, you can create an honest value assessment. You're arguing too many things at once--stick with understanding how value escapes, then focus on how that value is reconfigured for the knowledge age. Value is an abstract beholden by real work, the signifier will carry it to the exit point and what reemerges is just a virtualization that escapes traditional banking controls.

Or at least that is the bet--the very fact that you are arguing its worth should tell you something though.

And you may be right about 600 years, but we get back to it, and I'm betting the other way--because who wants to live with people who want to live in the dark?

[iamnotback]

No. As long as you can show work, you can create an honest value assessment. Your arguing too many things at once--stick with understanding how value escapes, then focus on how that value is reconfigured for the knowledge age. Value is an abstract beholden by real work, the signifier will carry it to the exit point and what reemerges is just a virtualization that escapes traditional banking controls.

You are just repeating what I wrote in 2013, wherein I explained that finance can't own Knowledge:

You will probably need a week or two of studying the thread slowly.

I will be the first to admit I needed a week to fully absorb the following works of AnonyMint.

The Rise of Knowledge
Understand Everything Fundamentally

Together these are quite simply the most insightful piece of economic theory I have ever read.

If the author is right and I think he is we are all in the midst of a tragedy of epic proportions.  It is sad unstoppable and will devastate the lives of much of humanity.

Indeed we can transfer our knowledge out of the broken monetary+political system. But that is not a fungible unit-of-value which can be gambled on with such fungible units of stored capital.

But I wrote the prior post referring specifically to "stored monetary capital". In that respect, my prior post is correct.

And you may be right about 600 years, but we get back to it, and I'm betting the other way--because who wants to live with people who want to live in the dark?

I am trying to create a fungible outlet for Knowledge to escape through, because non-fungible systems are very inefficient. And that is (one reason) why Dark Ages are so devastating.

Maybe eventually we reach such a surplus that we no longer need fungible capital (we compete on Knowledge creation and reputation), but getting from here to there may be more quickly attained if the process of change is efficient...

...is the most efficient to burn fungible capital to the ground with no alternative? I.e. is a Dark Age the most efficient interlude?

[generalizethis]

I got where you got in 2013 with just some CAN and a Faulkner quotation.

Jking aside, once people gather that abstract value, is well, abstract, then they move headlong into the waters of a healthy understanding that authority is the dude at the end of the rainbow.

If those google employees who can't work near their headquarters (1.4-6? million average home estimate), start using game worlds to store virtual assets, then you know you're wrong.

There's the bet. How much you in for? I've got everything riding on it

[iamnotback]

Indeed we can transfer our knowledge out of the broken monetary+political system. But that is not a fungible unit-of-value which can be gambled on with such fungible units of stored capital.

But I wrote the prior post referring specifically to "stored monetary capital". In that respect, my prior post is correct.

And you may be right about 600 years, but we get back to it, and I'm betting the other way--because who wants to live with people who want to live in the dark?

I am trying to create a fungible outlet for Knowledge to escape through, because non-fungible systems are very inefficient. And that is (one reason) why Dark Ages are so devastating.

Maybe eventually we reach such a surplus that we no longer need fungible capital (we compete on Knowledge creation and reputation), but getting from here to there may be more quickly attained if the process of change is efficient...

...is the most efficient to burn fungible capital to the ground with no alternative? I.e. is a Dark Age the most efficient interlude?

Anyone who builds a successful improvement on the Steem concept has to be somehow enabling people to more efficiently create knowledge and receive a reputation boost. That is really more important than the monetary side of it.

The enticement has to be that people are becoming more efficient at knowledge creation, not just bribing them with get rich quick.

The part of Steem that was so intriguing to people was that maybe they could afford to quit their boring jobs and do knowledge creation that inspires them. Now if someone can actually make that viable, then they've got a Bitcoin killer.

[iamnotback]

If those google employees who can't work near their headquarters (1.4-6? million average home estimate), start using game worlds to store virtual assets, then you know you're wrong.

That may be true that smart people will figure out how to store value in game assets, perhaps with complex derivative/gambling schemes.

But my point is that Crypto Kingdom will just become another game in the ecosystem I want to create.

My point is that my (or similar) project(s) subsumes Crypto Kingdom.

Or you might argue that CK will exist on multiple such platform ecosystems. I will retort that CK will be only one of a plurality of game offerings.

[generalizethis]

If those google employees who can't work near their headquarters (1.4-6? million average home estimate), start using game worlds to store virtual assets, then you know you're wrong.

That may be true that smart people will figure out how to store value in game assets, perhaps with complex derivative/gambling schemes.

But my point is that Crypto Kingdom will just become another game in the ecosystem I want to create.

My point is that my project subsumes Crypto Kingdom.

Game on

[iamnotback]

Game on

Absolutely no way that Risto can build a software ecosystem. It isn't within his set of skills.

The world will choose the software ecosystem that is the most widely used.

Economies-of-scale are needed which we can't get by focusing so narrowly as CK is.

[generalizethis]

Game on

Absolutely no way that Risto can build a software ecosystem. It isn't within his set of skills.

The world will choose the software ecosystem that is the most widely used.

Economies-of-scale are needed which we can't get by focusing so narrowly as CK is.

Narrow focus? So a continual fire of deployment mechanisms, won't interfere with every market? He made an actual use case with MK as to it being a viable db for from-the-ground-up organizations--that's crazy, and that was the first one out.

SEMI-CORRECTION: PGC was the first corporation out, so if we are talking strictly portals (and not distinguishing political organizations), then that would be the first.

[iamnotback]

Narrow focus? So a continual fire of deployment mechanisms, won't interfere with every market? He made an actual use case with MK as to it being a viable db for from-the-ground-up organizations--that's crazy, and that was the first one out.

Broad is a set of tools for others to create software with, not a specific implementation of software. For example a widely popular protocol or programming language.

A useful metric is probably the number of software developers investing in your toolchain.

And we want to broaden that to include knowledge creation of every form, not just software.

[iamnotback]

I think we must distinguish two things:
#1 Can an attacker obtain enough private keys (for transactions) to forge the block chain?
#2 Will the forged block chain be accepted by the current stake holders?

#1 Despite the game theoretic incentive described by Vitalik, it is not plausible to assume that such an attack can be carried out in practice if the initial coin distribution is appropriately decentralized.

Agreed.

#2 I'm not sure if the resistance is sufficient in any case. What happens if an attacker builds an alternative block chain that rewards the majority of current stake holders with a (somewhat) larger stake, while double-spends the minority to gain an undue advantage?  In such a scenario, the majority has an incentive to accept the forged chain.

You might even argue that in my design of burning transaction fees that since the attacker could recover the 99+% of the money supply that had been burned, he could definitely entice current stake holders to take a bribe.

But you are arguing that the attacker doesn't need a majority of the historic private keys (to overcome TaPoS), so therefor the number of attackers are unbounded. Thus there is no objectivity between unbounded forks. Thus of course the current stake holders must refuse, lest their entire stake be worthless.

Yet the attacker who controlled the private keys for the only quantity of historic stake larger than all the historic stake burned (when that uniqueness scenario presented itself) could do a long-range chain attack by double-spending more than all burned historic stake, because there would only be one attack which could objectively burn more transaction fees than the honest chain. Yet not only is this event going to have to be an extremely long-range attack which makes it a rare possible event, but makes it entirely implausible that the community will accept it because it would crash the value of the tokens. How does the ecosystem want a bribe that destroys the ecosystem? Not all of those bribed can short simultaneously. It is implausible to attack an ecosystem in a public manner like this. It is analogous to saying the Federal Reserve could print money and bribe every dollar holder to accept a bribe denominated in dollars that would destroy the dollar. It is an attack that can't be hidden, because some participants will squeal.

3.2.2 Statistical Detection
Transactions can reference blocks belonging to the canonical blockchain, thus implicitely signing the chain. An attacker attempting to forge a long reorganization
can only produce transactions involving coins he controlled as off the last checkpoint. A long, legitimate, chain would typically show activity in a larger fraction of the coins and can thus be distinguished, statistically, from the forgery.

This family of techniques (often called TAPOS, for “transactions as proof of stake”) does not work well for short forks where the sample is too small to perform a reliable statistical test. However, they can be combined with a technique dealing with short term forks to form a composite selection algorithm robust to both type of forks.

Agreed. That is why TaPoS is a viable security mechanism against long-range attacks. Statistically the current stake holders will choose the most objectively correct one, not the attacker's long-range attack chain.

I'm not sure if I understand this. How can the burned fees approach 100% of the stake? Without new money supply, the money would finally disappear if all the fees are burned. Or are you rather referring to some sort of statistical detection as quoted below?

If fees are a percentage and the tokens are infinitely divisible, then the money supply will never be exactly 0.

I am doing something somewhat analogous to the following for storing token amounts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_summation_algorithm

[generalizethis]

Narrow focus? So a continual fire of deployment mechanisms, won't interfere with every market? He made an actual use case with MK as to it being a viable db for from-the-ground-up organizations--that's crazy, and that was the first one out.

Broad is a set of tools for others to create software with, not a specific implementation of software. For example a widely popular protocol or programming language.

A useful metric is probably the number of software developers investing in your toolchain.

And we want to broaden that to include knowledge creation of every form, not just software.

Where does a "safe" DB and quality API figure into the tool set?

Secondary question: What if all things are merging towards a chaos point, and ideas are the only things that have enough velocity to survive an event horizon--they get to us scrambled, but through some time-saving schizoanalysis, we can reconfigure the ideas through multiple languages? And then it becomes a question of who's interpretation is correct, and the circle of life can renew then only quest it ever knew--survival

[iamnotback]

Narrow focus? So a continual fire of deployment mechanisms, won't interfere with every market? He made an actual use case with MK as to it being a viable db for from-the-ground-up organizations--that's crazy, and that was the first one out.

Broad is a set of tools for others to create software with, not a specific implementation of software. For example a widely popular protocol or programming language.

A useful metric is probably the number of software developers investing in your toolchain.

And we want to broaden that to include knowledge creation of every form, not just software.

Where does a "safe" DB and quality API figure into the tool set?

If the database is to be publicized then it can't be obfuscated. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Hide private organization?

[generalizethis]

Narrow focus? So a continual fire of deployment mechanisms, won't interfere with every market? He made an actual use case with MK as to it being a viable db for from-the-ground-up organizations--that's crazy, and that was the first one out.

Broad is a set of tools for others to create software with, not a specific implementation of software. For example a widely popular protocol or programming language.

A useful metric is probably the number of software developers investing in your toolchain.

And we want to broaden that to include knowledge creation of every form, not just software.

Where does a "safe" DB and quality API figure into the tool set?

If the database is to be publicized then it can't be obfuscated. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Hide private organization?

The Db setup is a back-up of all the market events in the game, so it's more of a score keeper than anything, since it's only game money, it only counts when you leave the virtual deck

[iamnotback]

Narrow focus? So a continual fire of deployment mechanisms, won't interfere with every market? He made an actual use case with MK as to it being a viable db for from-the-ground-up organizations--that's crazy, and that was the first one out.

Broad is a set of tools for others to create software with, not a specific implementation of software. For example a widely popular protocol or programming language.

A useful metric is probably the number of software developers investing in your toolchain.

And we want to broaden that to include knowledge creation of every form, not just software.

Where does a "safe" DB and quality API figure into the tool set?

If the database is to be publicized then it can't be obfuscated. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Hide private organization?

The Db setup is a back-up of all the market events in the game, so it's more of a score keeper than anything, since it's only game money, it only counts when you leave the virtual deck

But my point ever since the start of our debate has been that databases (and thus currencies) have to be globally public for them to have mass effects.

The Internet is a massive public database protocol.

Those who put it behind obfuscated paywalls reduce its beneficial network effects.