Bitcoin Forum
March 30, 2020, 07:47:34 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ... 64 »
  Print  
Author Topic: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?)  (Read 90840 times)
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 08, 2016, 11:49:59 PM
 #21

Well I agreed with Fuseleer that Partitions can be created, but this doesn't change the problem that consensus still needs to be attained within each Partition and a global consensus is still needed for those who wish to spend to another partition; and consensus will always require PoW or PoS. So afaics you haven't disagreed with what I wrote.

Did I miss your point?

You can still obey CAP and produce a viable, decentralised cryptocurrency IMO. Losing partition tolerance is the lesser of three evils, but like I say, how can you agree with someone you've never spoken to?
Best Rates For Exchanging Cryptocurrency Buy Crypto With Credit Card Smooth Exchange Multiple E-Payment Systems Check Now Check Now
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 08, 2016, 11:53:35 PM
Last edit: January 09, 2016, 12:17:23 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #22

Well I agreed with Fuseleer that Partitions can be created, but this doesn't change the problem that consensus still needs to be attained within each Partition and a global consensus is still needed for those who wish to spend to another partition; and consensus will always require PoW or PoS. So afaics you haven't disagreed with what I wrote.

Did I miss your point?

You can still obey CAP and produce a viable, decentralised cryptocurrency IMO. Losing partition tolerance is the lesser of three evils, but like I say, how can you agree with someone you've never spoken to?

I agree with Fuseleer it is possible to have temporary partition tolerance, which apparently is in essense what Iota is doing (but I am contemplating that it can be done another way with blocks that I think might have superior qualities). But you still need a global longest chain rule (or the inferior PoS rule) to resolve interpartition activity (which afaics DAG+PoW=Iota seems to lack?) and thus no unbounded partition tolerance (only temporary). Apparently Fuseleer, CfB, and myself all discovered the same conceptual insight.

P.S. I edited my prior post. CfB I also edited the post you replied to.

monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 08, 2016, 11:59:00 PM
 #23

I agree with Fuseleer it is possible to have temporary partition tolerance, which is in essense what Iota is doing (but I am contemplating that it can be done another way with blocks that I think might have superior qualities). But you still need a global longest chain rule to resolve interpartition activity and thus no unbounded partition tolerance (only temporary). Fuseleer, CfB, and myself all discovered the same conceptual insight.

P.S. I edited my prior post. CfB I also edited the post you replied to.

Sure - partition tolerance I was referring to is the extreme case where an island of connectivity emerges, separate from the main consensus group. Of course there must be a way to objectively merge the two groups together should they be united, and bitcoin's longest chain rule is as good as any model I have heard of.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 12:11:32 AM
Last edit: January 09, 2016, 12:26:15 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #24

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

Without violating CAP? How?

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

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

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

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

monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 12:26:17 AM
 #25

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

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

It seems like you have hit an impasse, but without knowing the details of the problem, we are powerless to assist. In principle, if only you can mine your own transactions, then decentralisation increases and sticking with POW ensures permissionless behaviour - is there some related subtlety that you have encountered?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 12:34:04 AM
Last edit: January 09, 2016, 08:59:05 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #26

...POW ensures permissionless behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 12:57:37 AM
 #27

I agree with Fuseleer it is possible to have temporary partition tolerance, which is in essense what Iota is doing (but I am contemplating that it can be done another way with blocks that I think might have superior qualities). But you still need a global longest chain rule to resolve interpartition activity and thus no unbounded partition tolerance (only temporary). Fuseleer, CfB, and myself all discovered the same conceptual insight.

P.S. I edited my prior post. CfB I also edited the post you replied to.

Sure - partition tolerance I was referring to is the extreme case where an island of connectivity emerges, separate from the main consensus group. Of course there must be a way to objectively merge the two groups together should they be united, and bitcoin's longest chain rule is as good as any model I have heard of.

But there is no way longest chain can merge partitions that have double-spends without reversing transactions that were long ago confirmed. Which includes reversing all the derivative transactions. Our (Fuseleer, myself and apparently CfB) point is partitions can only be tolerated with clearly defined resolution of a well defined temporal condition (and I think this requires blocks but seems Cfb and Fuseleer are attempting to escape from blocks but I think those designs will be found to be unsound[1]).

[1] Which I can say with more confidence than in the past, because I think now I have envisioned every possible design and found issues with all the designs (except perhaps the improvement I mentioned). But readers should note I have not seen a detailed description of eMunie's protocol, so I could possibly be wrong but I will put a very very low chance of that.

arielbit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1012


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 01:16:20 AM
 #28

maybe an invention of an algorithm or formula could get things done...thinking out of the box...a game changing idea...

a four wheeled vehicle would not make it to real world application without the invention of the steering wheel(including mechanisms). because in the real world you have to deal with cross roads and curves.
Fuserleer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1005



View Profile WWW
January 09, 2016, 01:45:25 AM
Last edit: January 09, 2016, 02:12:35 AM by Fuserleer
 #29

I agree with Fuseleer it is possible to have temporary partition tolerance, which is in essense what Iota is doing (but I am contemplating that it can be done another way with blocks that I think might have superior qualities). But you still need a global longest chain rule to resolve interpartition activity and thus no unbounded partition tolerance (only temporary). Fuseleer, CfB, and myself all discovered the same conceptual insight.

P.S. I edited my prior post. CfB I also edited the post you replied to.

Sure - partition tolerance I was referring to is the extreme case where an island of connectivity emerges, separate from the main consensus group. Of course there must be a way to objectively merge the two groups together should they be united, and bitcoin's longest chain rule is as good as any model I have heard of.

Correct with regard to your first scenario where 2 partitions never talk to each other in the future, you dont need to consider it.   If they do talk to each other in the future, and have to merge, this is where Bitcoin, blocks, POW and longest chain rule falls on its arse.  Only one partition can exist, there is no merge possibility so the other has to be destroyed.   Even if the 2 partitions have not existed for an extended period of time you are screwed as they can never merge without a significant and possibly destructive impact to ALL historic transactions prior to the partition event, so you end up with an unresolvable fork.  I feel this is a critical design issue which unfortunately for Bitcoin imposes a number of limitations.

CAP theorem certainly doesn't imply you can't ever fulfill C, A and P, as most of the time you can at least enough to get the job done.  What it does state is that you cant fulfill all 3 to any sufficient requirement 100% of the time, as there will always be some edge cases that requires the temporary sacrifice of C, A or P.  This isn't the end of the world though, as detecting an issue with P is possible once nodes with different partitions communicate, at which point you can sacrifice C, or A for a period of time while you deal with the issue of P.

If you structure your data set in a flexible enough manner, then you can limit the impact of P further.  Considering CAP theorem once again, there is no mandate that prohibits most of the network being in a state that fulfills C, A and P, with a portion of the network being in a state of partition conflict.  For example, if there are a network of 100 nodes, and 1 of those nodes has a different set of data to everyone else and thus is on its own partition, the remaining 99 nodes can still be in a state of CAP fulfillment.  The rogue node now has to sacrifice C or A, in order to deal with P while the rest of the network can continue on regardless.

All of this can be done without blocks quite easily, the difficulty is how to deal with P in the event of a failure, which is where consensus algorithms come into play.

Bitcoins consensus of blocks and POW doesn't allow for merging as stated, even if the transactions on both partitions are valid and legal.  

DAGs and Tangles DO allow merging of partitions but there are important gotchas to consider as TPTB rightly suggests, but they aren't as catastrophic as he imagines and I'm sure that CfB has considered them and implemented functionality to resolve them.

Channels also allows merging of partitions (obviously thats why Im here), but critically it allows a node to be in both states of CAP fulfillment simultaneously.  For the channels that it has P conflicts it can sacrifice C or A to those channels, for the rest it can still fulfill CAP.

Radix - DLT x.0

Web - http://radix.global  Forums - http://forum.radix.global Twitter - @radixdlt
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 01:58:31 AM
 #30

maybe an invention of an algorithm or formula could get things done...thinking out of the box...a game changing idea...

a four wheeled vehicle would not make it to real world application without the invention of the steering wheel(including mechanisms). because in the real world you have to deal with cross roads and curves.

I think I already stated it in this thread and it maintains the concept of a block chain and attempts to fix the issues with Satoshi's design (but I reserve to declare a flaw as I think more in detail the specific ideas I shared in this thread).

Also I think I explained recently during the Monero vs. Dash debate that the only entirely anonymous and permissionless block chain will be Zerocash. And afaics, you need a block chain consensus to implement Zerocash.

In any case, if CfB or Fuseleer think they have something worthwhile in what they are doing, then I don't want to say I am omniscient. For example, there may be tradeoffs in every design and also as CfB wrote, there are also marketing factors. My goal in this thread was speak frankly on which designs if any are going to remain decentralized. I can't really speak about eMunie because I am lacking detailed information on its design. As for Iota, my understanding was stated but I am not up close with every aspect of Iota, and I am not prepared to write a white glove paper on it so my comments should be taken as information sharing but not authoritative nor canonical.

The upthread comments on Proof-of-Stake (a.k.a. Proof-of-Share) were well vetted recently by smooth, monsterer, and myself.

Fuserleer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1005



View Profile WWW
January 09, 2016, 02:04:49 AM
 #31

I think ultimately you are perhaps concentrating on the issue of 2 or more partitions existing for an extended period of time.

There is no consensus algorithm now or in the future, which can solve that issue without the destruction of data or entire partitions.  Not POW, POS, POI, trust models or anything else.

If the partition duration is short, the more likely it is that you can merge and resolve P with no data loss.  It is my opinion based on fact and research that blockless data structures can achieve better results and less data loss than block based ones.

Radix - DLT x.0

Web - http://radix.global  Forums - http://forum.radix.global Twitter - @radixdlt
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1041


Monero Core Team


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 02:14:19 AM
 #32

...POW ensures permissionless behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First I  do agree that Satoshi's design is flawed for the following two reasons:
1) Mining cannot be paid for entirely by fees, so a tail emission is a must. The reason is that a fee market cannot properly develop in the absence of a block subsidy. One has either a fixed blocksize with a mining oligarchy and infinite fees or an infinite blocksize where competition between miners drive fees to zero.
2) In order to have a permission less system on needs an opaque blockchain where censorship is impossible or at least very expensive.

There is a cost to censorship which has already been demonstrated in Bitcoin. It is manifested in the opposition to an increase in the blocksize by those miners that are based in China. The reason for this is the latency introduced by the Great Firewall of China puts a centralized data centre in China at a significant disadvantage with respect to say a residential connection in Canada. The irony here is that if Bitcoin had allowed for larger blocks earlier on this situation would not have developed since the Chinese ASIC manufacturers would have been forced to sell their devices for export leading to a much more decentralized Bitcoin mining situation. The lesson from Bitcoin is that a small blocksize can actually lead to mining centralization by accommodating censorship rather than the other way around. The second factor of PoW that must be taken into account is PoC (Proof of Cold). The key is that in a situation where electricity is used for space heating the marginal cost of mining is zero; however the heat is only valuable if it is decentralized. The key here is that one can easily distribute electricity but not heat forcing decentralization. This in effect gives the small player a very significant cost advantage over the large centralized operation.

The reality is that it is very premature to dismiss a true second generation PoW coin such as Monero over what are very valid failures in the original Satoshi design. As with many technological innovations the first generation is not the one that eventually gains prominence.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
Fuserleer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1005



View Profile WWW
January 09, 2016, 02:18:29 AM
 #33

The reality is that it is very premature to dismiss a true second generation PoW coin such as Monero over what are very valid failures in the original Satoshi design. As with many technological innovations the first generation is not the one that eventually gains prominence.

Lots of good point in your post but this stood out.....mainly because only half an hour ago I was considering exactly this (for the millionth time).  

Bitcoin is not the Google, Facebook, or Amazon of crypto....its the Yahoo, Myspace or Pets.com and it will get usurped at somepoint.  The best bits will live on, the others will be improved.

Radix - DLT x.0

Web - http://radix.global  Forums - http://forum.radix.global Twitter - @radixdlt
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 02:25:47 AM
 #34

I think ultimately you are perhaps concentrating on the issue of 2 or more partitions existing for an extended period of time.

You must be referring to monsterer's comments. I was always emphasizing that 2 or more temporary partitions can be tolerated if there is a resolution mechanism.

If the partition duration is short, the more likely it is that you can merge and resolve P with no data loss.  It is my opinion based on fact and research that blockless data structures can achieve better results and less data loss than block based ones.

 I think only PoS or PoW with blocks can be that mechanism. I will have to wait for details of your protocol to point out why.

Fuserleer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1005



View Profile WWW
January 09, 2016, 02:34:53 AM
 #35

I think ultimately you are perhaps concentrating on the issue of 2 or more partitions existing for an extended period of time.

You must be referring to monsterer's comments. I was always emphasizing that 2 or more temporary partitions can be tolerated if there is a resolution mechanism.

I was referring to you both.

No temporary partitions can be tolerated at all if the resolution of said partitions is the total destruction of one partition or another.  This is the only resolution method possible if the data structure is block based with POW or POS.

If you think otherwise, explain how two blocks secured with POW (or POS) could be merged between two block chains without loss of data?  You don't need details on my, or anyone's protocols to explain how this is so.


Radix - DLT x.0

Web - http://radix.global  Forums - http://forum.radix.global Twitter - @radixdlt
benthach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
January 09, 2016, 03:54:29 AM
 #36

your scam idea is delusional. the purpose of bitcoin is decentralized money and bitcoin have achieved just that. all this crap scam ideas/add-on smart contracts, smart ledger, crypto 2.0, crypto 9.0 are just delusional scam idea, simple as that.

i had never done any transaction on bitcointalk and never will, i scam no one. the scammers just don't like my posts.
CoinHoarder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1025

In Cryptocoins I Trust


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 04:54:47 AM
 #37

I agree with your statement "decentralized crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion".

This is a quote by Dan Larimer that has stuck with me for a while and was part of the reason I got into supporting alternatives to PoW:
Quote
All systems tend toward centralization whether planned or unplanned. DPOS gives the end user as much control over that centralization as possible, where as in the other systems the small player has less control.

This is part of the main ideology behind dPoS... all consensus algorithms eventually tend towards centralization, so it provides for a method for shareholders to decide who produces blocks (ideally whoever best benefits stakeholders.) A few articles you might find interesting:

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2015/01/12/Decentralization-Scalability-and-Fault-Tolerance-of-Bitcoin/
https://web.archive.org/web/20150428162046/http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/bitshares/2015/01/04/Delegated-Proof-of-Stake-vs-Proof-of-Work/

This is a similar issue along the same lines involving cryptocurrency trading, the centralization of liquidity/volume, where trading eventually centralizes around the exchange(s) with the most volume and liquidity: http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2015/01/05/The-Future-of-Crypto-Currency-Exchanges/

I think Bytemaster has some of the most sound ideological blog posts on consensus algorithms, and is one of the reasons why I originally got into Bitshares.. sorry to plug Bitshares but I feel the things I brought up are applicable to the conversation.

I will start to detail the flaws in each type of consensus system.

Proof-of-Stake

  • there is no way to distribute new coins (must distribute proportional to stake in order to be fair thus effectively no change in coin distribution)

I feel like there may be some way to do this using oracles and recurring auctions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=675333.0
Spoetnik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1010


FUD Philanthropist™


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 05:34:05 AM
 #38

Interesting ..i read *some of your comments and will have to come back later OP Wink

"They" need to be centralized ?
I think i get it..

And i say it already is to some extent.
And this is a bigger problem with a less popular coin where no one is watching the code.
Compared to Bitcoin for example.

But i don't say any digital currency as decentralized.
Take that DVC topic on here.. we see users trapped by the guys who hold the keys.
So who has the Monero Github login details or the web site domain etc ?
ALL of these are run by a central authority.. guys with agenda's and a long history of 100 previous coins.
Later at any time they can do what ever they want.
i Seen Shakezulu post a compiled wallet with a keylogger in it for example on his official CENT site.
NONE of these coins are really decentralized.
So..
What should be done maybe is to just bite the bullet and make a centralized authority of some kind ?
And no i don't mean like Ripple.. or ETH or StartCoin etc LOL

I also formally call bullshit on idiots like Moenro dev's who claim Monero is secure and Untraceable (as printed on their Merch)
These are wild claims that can never be backed up.
And not only that it's shooting yourself in the foot for adoption.
Coin dev's should be trying to be MORE compliant not more secretive !

No coin is going to live with out FIAT.. because Fiat is not going anywhere for 100+ years easily.
So it has to worked with not working against it.
And trying to tack on pseudo anon features to BTC etc is just going to enrage the world economy / Fed reserve etc.
A stupid move on coin dev's part.. that will drastically hamper potential adoption.
All that will happen is you will get it abused like crazy by SilkRoad types..
The coin will get a reputation just like Bitcoin has right now across the world..
And again just like BTC we will have average users not interested in some digital crime currency.
This is already a massive problem with Bitcoin RIGHT NOW !
And isn't the point of Altcoins to solve a problem and improve Bitcoin ..NOT make it worse ? ROFL

No Altcoins have improved anything.
All we see is a slew of features etc that make a coin that is worse than Bitcoin.
And all these feature altcoin dev's tack on are really just a gimmick for them to have fun with and profit from.
Some anon IPO coin is making a better version of Bitcoin ?
Flash mining a coin is some how a better version of BTC ?
Try coming up with a non-scammy method of initial distribution guys and lose the Anon bullshit.

FUD first & ask questions later™
skywave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


"to endure to achieve"


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 05:44:57 AM
 #39

Quote
Try coming up with a non-scammy method of initial distribution guys

..shall be served to you soon sir! Wink

Radix - Just Imagine  Financial Freedom   ...coming soon, to a network near you...!
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 09, 2016, 08:19:19 AM
Last edit: January 09, 2016, 09:04:56 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #40

I think ultimately you are perhaps concentrating on the issue of 2 or more partitions existing for an extended period of time.

You must be referring to monsterer's comments. I was always emphasizing that 2 or more temporary partitions can be tolerated if there is a resolution mechanism.

I was referring to you both.

No temporary partitions can be tolerated at all if the resolution of said partitions is the total destruction of one partition or another.  This is the only resolution method possible if the data structure is block based with POW or POS.

If you think otherwise, explain how two blocks secured with POW (or POS) could be merged between two block chains without loss of data?  You don't need details on my, or anyone's protocols to explain how this is so.

Temporary partitions can be merged if they don't contain conflicting double-spends. The advantage of creating temporary partitions in this context (what I contemplated in my design) is it afaics can both enable a form of instant transactions and also it can radically reduce the data that must be propagated as a transient spike on block announcement, thus solving the propagation delay which drives orphan rate which is one of the main issues with increasing the block size in Bitcoin and other Satoshi coins such as Monero. Note I didn't write that the temporary partitions have to use PoW or PoS; only the global resolution mechanism does.

As for your (and Iota's) idea of using a different global resolution method, I maintain that no design will be sound if it doesn't use blocks with PoW (or the inferior PoS). The reason is because there is no way to gain Byzantine consistency on double-spends. I have thought about this in great detail for months and years. I will be very stunned if you or anyone else has found an exception to this rule. It seems to be fundamental to the Byzantine Generals Problem. As I explained upthread my understanding for Iota is that if competing cliques with less than 50% of the total hash rate each, for what ever reason decide not to confirm each other's chains, then there is no mechanism in Iota's DAG without blocks to force a consensus and thus the user of the currency has to contend with forks and multiple spends on multiple partitions. Although this may not occur in the early stages for Iota, if it really gains any significant value (not just insiders buying from themselves to pump the illusion of a large market cap and trade volume) that is when it will be tested conceptually. Satoshi's PoW design in Bitcoin (Monero, etc) has already passed this crucial test but PoS and other block chain consensus designs not yet. I suspect for eMunie what you are attempting to design is some resolution based on propagation and different powers for different types of nodes in the network, and I am confident I will be able to point out to you how this is unsound once you release the details. If you want to waste your effort in this direction, who am I to discourage you. I personally don't want to waste any more effort on pie-in-the-sky failure delusion. I can't really nail down with 100% certainty if your design is a delusion until I see all the details, but I strongly suspect it is. I don't say this to be unfriendly with you. I am concerned that we are wasting a lot of effort and resources. I am trying to be very frank with myself as well.

Apologies for misspelling your username upthread.



your scam idea is delusional. the purpose of bitcoin is decentralized money and bitcoin have achieved just that. all this crap scam ideas/add-on smart contracts, smart ledger, crypto 2.0, crypto 9.0 are just delusional scam idea, simple as that.

I have never seen you display in any of your posts (that I've read) any technical knowledge and thus apparently you are not able to comment with any level of sufficient technical understanding. Thus your comments are a total waste of time for readers who are technically capable. So please don't spam this thread. You seem to want to spam every thread I write for some personal reasons. If you want to try to display some technical knowledge, then go ahead and make my day.

In this thread, we have already started documenting why Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed:

Crypto currency is up to this point a "mining the investors" paradigm. Not even Bitcoin has achieved viability as a DECENTRALIZED ideal that brought us here in the first place!

The post linked in the above quote, explains that Bitcoin (and any other coin that uses Satoshi's PoW design) is also a "mining the investors" paradigm. In future posts, I will elaborate on the following quote from the OP:

I went off on several days of just thinking all day. I contemplated all the possible designs (including Iota's DAG, Lightning Networks, DPOS, Proof-of-Stake, Masternodes, Raiblocks/Blocklattice, etc), and I can't think of any design that uses a block chain or a DAG (or any other form of determining the longest chain of truth) which doesn't either centralize (factoring in society's ability to regulate the consistent partition) or diverge into inconsistent truths. Due to the CAP theorem it is fundamentally impossible for there to exist any block chain or consistent DAG design that won't centralize (even without regulation once you require scaling). Worse yet, it is impossible to attain any sort of end-to-end principled, decentralized scaling of transaction processing, because consistency is lost without centralization (even Proof-of-Work centralizes economically due to the Power Law distribution of capital).

Note I have proposed that including PoW with each transaction may be a solution to the flaws in Satoshi's design which causes it to drive centralization, government takeover, and oligarchy. But I need to spend some more time going over the details of that idea. Note apparently Iota may be implementing some variant of that idea, but as I explained upthread, I don't think it can be Byzantine fault tolerant on Consistency without blocks.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ... 64 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!