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

[TPTB_need_war]

In the case of 4, well, its just a disaster. Blocks can be replaced all the way back to the last checkpoint potentially and all transactions from that point could be destroyed.

You aren't capturing the realistic effect of a 51% attack. Society is not going to allow all historic blocks to be replaced. Politically impossible. Instead the viable attack is insidiously changing the protocol going forward, such as censoring transactions which violate some government edict, e.g. forcing every transaction to be stamped with its government KYC identification number (a la 666).

In any event its disastrous due to the agreement being based on resource expenditure and not the data set.

The 51% attack is allowed to go unchecked = centralized
Reliance on developer inserted checkpoints = centralized
Government intervention = centralized

Your design will also be FUBAR under a 51% level attack on the consensus.

Also there is no design yet for crypto currency that is valid which doesn't consume a resource. I summarized (from prior discussion with monsterer et al in my vaporcoin's thread last month) upthread that Proof-of-Stake is more flawed than Proof-of-work, because the resources is consumed only once and is not ongoing consumption.

You will not be able to find a solution that doesn't consume a resource. I nearly 99.9% guarantee that. These attempts to use propagation (e.g. VanillaCoin) as a consensus are doomed.

Rather I am aiming (if I am satisfied with the tradeoffs I enumerate in my design as I continue to reanalyze it) to improve upon the way the resource consumption is organized, so the economics of mining and blocks are improved for the properties we desire (e.g. see my point about the ability to fork away from the dumb masses). Also to enable instant transactions.

[1714944835]

1714944835

[1714944835]

1714944835

[1714944835]

1714944835

[1714944835]

1714944835

[1714944835]

1714944835

[1714944835]

1714944835

[Fuserleer]

In any event its disastrous due to the agreement being based on resource expenditure and not the data set.

Resource expenditure is the only sybil resistant ordering yet invented. If you've found another one, let's hear it

I agree with that statement of resource expenditure, but POW is not the only way to skin the Sybil cat.

POW based resource expenditure is too decoupled from the entity it is regulating because there is zero correlation between the result of the POW and the data it is guarding.

[TPTB_need_war]

In the case of 3, which is by far the most difficult to resolve, the partition tolerance reduces proportional to the duration of the partitioned state, and becomes more difficult to resolve without consequence in any system, as there may be conflicting actions which diverge the resulting state of all partitions further away from each other.  These partition events will always become unsolvable at some point, no matter what the data structure, consensus mechanisms or other exotic methods employed, as it is an eventuality that one or more conflicts will occur.

The fact is that DAGs/Tangles and our channels have a better partition resolution performance in the case of event 3 as the data structures are more granular.  An inconsistency in P doesn't affect the entire data set, only a portion of it, thus it is resolvable without issue more frequently as the chances of a conflict preventing resolution is reduced.

But afaics they also don't resolve to consensus. There is no rule that forces partitions to merge. Thus they can diverge. Frequent forking is chaos death to a coin.

Now, you haven't provided any detail on exactly how you imagine a data structure that uses blocks that could merge non-conflicting partitions, let alone conflicting ones.  In fact I see no workable method to do this with blocks that may contain transactions across the entire domain.  Furthermore, who creates these "merge" blocks and what would be the consensus mechanism to agree on them?  In the event of a conflict, how do you imagine that would be resolved?

When it comes to partition management and resolution where block based data structures are employed, Satoshi has already given you the best they can do in the simplest form.  Trying to do it better with blocks is IMO a goose chase and you'll get nowhere other than an extremely complicated and fragile system.

My helicopter perspective is I can improve on Satoshi. He didn't give us the best we can do. Allow me to think more about the tradeoffs in my design before I reveal it. Also allow me to think about if I can gain any important advantage (for making it a success in the market, not meaning I want to be selfish) by not revealing every detail until I do some more development work on it.

I am still not yet 100% certain that my design doesn't have some flaw that makes it worse than Satoshi's design or not significantly better in some paradigmatic way. I will need to get away from posting and go spend quiet time thinking.

Let me just drop a hint that you appear to be thinking that the temporary intrablock partitions would be using blocks, but I already wrote upthread that isn't the case. The blocks are only for the global consensus that merges the partitions. So I don't use a block data structure intrablock.

[Fuserleer]

In the case of 4, well, its just a disaster. Blocks can be replaced all the way back to the last checkpoint potentially and all transactions from that point could be destroyed.

You aren't capturing the realistic effect of a 51% attack. Society is not going to allow all historic blocks to be replaced. Politically impossible. Instead the viable attack is insidiously changing the protocol going forward, such as censoring transactions which violate some government edict, e.g. forcing every transaction to be stamped with its government KYC identification number (a la 666).

In any event its disastrous due to the agreement being based on resource expenditure and not the data set.

The 51% attack is allowed to go unchecked = centralized
Reliance on developer inserted checkpoints = centralized
Government intervention = centralized

Your design will also be FUBAR under a 51% level attack on the consensus.

Also there is no design yet for crypto currency that is valid which doesn't consume a resource. I summarized upthread that Proof-of-Stake is more flawed than Proof-of-work, because the resources is consumed only once and is not ongoing consumption.

You will not be able to find a solution that doesn't consume a resource. I nearly 99.9% guarantee that. These attempts to use propagation (e.g. VanillaCoin) as a consensus are doomed.

Rather I am aiming (if I am satisfied with the tradeoffs I enumerate in my design as I continue to reanalyze it) to improve upon the way the resource consumption is organized, so the economics of mining and blocks are improved for the properties we desire (e.g. see my point about the ability to fork away from the dumb masses). Also to enable instant transactions.

As will anyone's, except with regard to eMunie consensus at least, the absolute critical difference is that the data BEFORE the attack is still valid and can be trusted as a true record.

Bitcoin can not provide that assurance as an attacker can rewrite history which is my major gripe with hash POW.

[TPTB_need_war]

Bitcoin can not provide that assurance as an attacker can rewrite history which is my major gripe with hash POW.

I thought I already made a strong argument that is not the attack vector anyone needs to be worried about. The real worry is the Bitcoin is INSIDIOUSLY centralizing.

insidious

adjective
1.
intended to entrap or beguile:
an insidious plan.
2.
stealthily treacherous or deceitful:
an insidious enemy.
3.
operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect:
an insidious disease.

[monsterer]

I agree with that statement of resource expenditure, but POW is not the only way to skin the Sybil cat.

So, let's hear your idea for a better way?

[Fuserleer]

Bitcoin can not provide that assurance as an attacker can rewrite history which is my major gripe with hash POW.

I thought I already made a strong argument that is not the attack vector anyone needs to be worried about. The real worry is the Bitcoin is INSIDIOUSLY centralizing.

insidious

adjective
1.
intended to entrap or beguile:
an insidious plan.
2.
stealthily treacherous or deceitful:
an insidious enemy.
3.
operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect:
an insidious disease.

These attack vectors are part of the problem that enables Bitcoin to potentially be insidious in the first place.

Plus you wanted to talk about solutions that are potentially superior to Bitcoin and other cryptos so here we are, talking about them.

I agree with that statement of resource expenditure, but POW is not the only way to skin the Sybil cat.

So, let's hear your idea for a better way?

I already posted up thread that I would get to this later and why.  

Or is there some entitlement bestowed upon you that I am unaware of, that warrants me putting other tasks and people further up the queue on hold for the rest of the day while I do it?

[TPTB_need_war]

These attack vectors are part of the problem that enables Bitcoin to potentially be insidious in the first place.

Plus you wanted to talk about solutions that are potentially superior to Bitcoin and other cryptos so here we are, talking about them.

I believe the only way to apportion the resource consumption such that control remains in the hands of the users is for the users to supply more than 50% of the resource being consumed.

This can't be done if PoW is profitable, because profitable PoW is always more profitable for the usury-based mining farms operating on hydropower and for Larry Summer's 21 Inc to get stupid sheep to mine for him so his mining costs are lowest. Remember Anthony Sutton documented that Larry Summers was the bonehead bankster who was over in Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain who helped to insure the privatized assets (oil industry, etc) ended up in the hands of oligarchy loyal to the global elite (George Soros et al). And yet fools in this forum think (the former head of the KGB, the counter part to Daddy Bush who was former head of the CIA) Putin is their saviour.  

What I mean is it appears you are (may be) focusing on the non-problems and not focused on the problems. You will also need to burn a resource. And you need make sure that resource is supplied by the users.

I'd prefer we not waste our effort. If you are a talented programmer I'd prefer to lead you in the right direction so you don't waste effort. We up against a very powerful adversary and we need to work smarter.

[monsterer]

I already posted up thread that I would get to this later and why.  

Or is there some entitlement bestowed upon you that I am unaware of, that warrants me putting other tasks and people further up the queue on hold for the rest of the day while I do it?

You are using this thread to make wild claims about your own coin in development, you ought to be able to answer a simple question about your sybil resistant transaction ordering method without writing an entire white paper on the subject.

[Fuserleer]

I already posted up thread that I would get to this later and why.  

Or is there some entitlement bestowed upon you that I am unaware of, that warrants me putting other tasks and people further up the queue on hold for the rest of the day while I do it?

You are using this thread to make wild claims about your own coin in development, you ought to be able to answer a simple question about your sybil resistant transaction ordering method without writing an entire white paper on the subject.

WOW.  Do you even read bro?

I'll come back to this later as I'll have to compress core elements of a 40+ page unfinished white paper into a forum post.  That will take some time to do.

...If you are a talented programmer I'd prefer to lead you in the right direction so you don't waste effort...

Double WOW.

I'll be back later once this sickly taste of force induced ego in my mouth has dispersed.

[skywave]

TPTB, monsterer
Are you guys completely lost?
I thought this is a very interesting and sober thread, but now it has turned into personal stuff, again..!
Fuserleer did state above that he will post his paper extract.
He is the developer and he will tell you as much or as little in here as he sees fit, without jeopardizing his project.
He has promised you to post a paper, he always sticks to his promises!
So please - wait for it ISO insulting his talent.
BTW - Fuserleer needs no leading/guiding in any direction - he knows exactly which direction he needs to go.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am not affiliated with monsterer in any way, other than appreciating the free analysis he gives. And respecting his intellect. At the time of writing this, we have never had nor have dealings in private nor any financial nor development relationship. Thus we are not colluding nor conspiring. He is expressing his personal view and I mine.

I have not attacked Fuserleer nor eMunie.

I will wait until he releases all the details.

Fuserleer if you are a better designer of models than me, then prove it. If I am better than you, I should prove it. I don't care about ego. I care about a damn solution the problems I outlined in this thread. Bold claims without any details is all we've gotten from you for 3 years. I also made some delusional claims over these past years but I have also been very frank about the flaws I found in my own designs. You have also abandoned many previous designs you discovered to be flawed. I suggest you share your current design with monsterer and myself so we can save you a lot of wasted effort, as I am quite confident we can quickly explain to you the flaw in your design. In the 0.0001% chance there is no flaw in your design, then I would commend you. I would promise not to copy your design if it is not the same as the last design I am contemplating (my last attempt). If you have the solution I want, then I would support your efforts because you would have demonstrated to me that you are better designer of crypto than me.

But don't feel pressured to do that. I did not pressure you to release more details now. I am just fairly confident that you can not design something that doesn't use PoW that isn't flawed. Not because you are inept, but because my abstract conceptual understanding appears to be so deep that I know what can't be done even without seeing your design. Your ineptness would only be in the area of being too stubborn or myopic to see that you still have a flaw because what you are trying to design is IMPOSSIBLE (violates physics).

Any way, I fairly certain what the outcome will be. Good luck and please let's not worry about our egos. Let's try to solve the problems enumerated in this thread. More power to whomever can. I will be there supporting who ever does. Note for me to support a coin will require they distributed the coin to at least a million users, not just a distribution to small set of speculators in this forum. At HODLer coin is useless to me in my goals to make apps and other uses of cryptocurrency (might as well just accept Bitcoin then since it is more widely known). Also the coin would need to truly solve the fundamental problems of concern to me.

I think you are perhaps a productive programmer. I prefer not to see interested and talented people wasting their best years on failed projects. This applies to myself as well. When I say lead you, I think it is because I have at this point seem to have attained a very broad scope holistic view of all possible crypto issues and designs. My knowledge set runs the gamut from inventing Zero Knowledge Transactions across the board to being able to write a thread like this. If you can lead me, prove it.

This is not disrespect.

[skywave]

Alrighty then
I'll look forward to read more from all of you experts and your elaborations over the future currency systems.
This is an excellent thread!

[Fuserleer]

I am not affiliated with monsterer in any way, other than appreciating the free analysis he gives. And respecting his intellect. At the time of writing this, we have never had nor have dealings in private nor any financial nor development relationship. Thus we are not colluding nor conspiring. He is expressing his personal view and I mine.

I have not attacked Fuserleer nor eMunie.

I will wait until he releases all the details.

Fuserleer if you are a better designer of models than me, then prove it. If I am better than you, I should prove it. I don't care about ego. I care about a damn solution the problems I outlined in this thread. Bold claims without any details is all we've gotten from you for 3 years. I also made some delusional claims over these past years but I have also been very frank about the flaws I found in my own designs. You have also abandoned many previous designs you discovered to be flawed. I suggest you share your current design with monsterer and myself so we can save you a lot of wasted effort, as I am quite confident we can quickly explain to you the flaw in your design. In the 0.0001% chance there is no flaw in your design, then we would commend you. I would promise not to copy your design if it is not the same as the last design I am contemplating (my last attempt). If you have the solution I want, then I would support your efforts because you would have demonstrated to me that you are better designer of crypto than me.

But don't feel pressured to do that. I did not pressure you to release more details now. I am just fairly confident that you can not design something that doesn't use PoW that isn't flawed.

Any way, I fairly certain what the outcome will be. Good luck and please let's not worry about our egos. Let's try to solve the problems enumerated in this thread. More power to whomever can. I will be there supporting who ever does. Note for me to support a coin will require they distributed the coin to at least a million users, not just a distribution to small set of speculators in this forum. At HODLer coin is useless to me in my goals to make apps and other uses of cryptocurrency (might as well just accept Bitcoin then since it is more widely known).

I dont wanna derail this thread too much as its a good one and it should be continued...but like TPTB I'm not one to shy from speaking my mind, so I'm going to say it, and then we can move on.

You say you don't care about ego, yet you consistently and frequently belittle anyone that challenges you or your opinion with statements that are egoistic in nature.  Whether these are intended or not makes no difference, but the net result is that it frustrates people to high heaven and also makes you look weak and vulnerable.  

I've tried to coach you on this before, and I highly respect the fact that you are not afraid to have opinion and say it.  I certainly don't respect how you present your opinion on most occasions, which frequently includes statements pertaining to a view of inflated self worth, which I see as an attempt to railroad people into submission justified by historic success in some venture.

You need to reign that shit in and get a handle on it if it truly isn't intentional, because even those of us with the most placid of demeanor will at some point bite.

There is a saying that goes "The loudest guy in the room is the weakest", and you sir are LOUD!  You aren't the only one mind, this forum is a room packed full of loud people and no one has any idea what the other is saying.

I don't doubt for a second that you are extremely smart, and that you certainly have as much ability as anyone here to come up with a solution even though I, like you do me, think that your current thinking is wrong. But the difference between us is that I most certainly wouldn't finish off by making belittling or egoistic sounding comments akin to yours.

So instead of standing in the middle of the room and shouting over everyone else, come and sit in the corner with us quieter folk and lets have a decent, adult conversation without the off-cuff passive aggressive insults.

Humility is your friend, and if you can embrace it, you'll find that a lot more people listen.

[TPTB_need_war]

I want a solution. Period. Who ever provides it will get my respect. If I was an independent observer, I would say both you and I have failed for 3 years, so I would say we are both full of shit until we prove it with details. In other words, if we have tried and failed for 3 years, the likelihood that we will find a solution that escaped us for 3 years is not good odds.

You may be correct about some of my behavior. I engaged the forum too much. Getting off the forum for 2 weeks helped my sanity. I also have been dealing with daily illness since May 2012 that you likely have no clue of what it feels like. These sort of pressures can change the behavior of a person. I don't want to make excuses.

[Fuserleer]

I want a solution. Period. Who ever provides it will get my respect. If I was an independent observer, I would say both you and I have failed for 3 years, so I would say we are both full of shit.

And thats why you won't succeed.

You see it as we're full of shit, I see it as we're evolving, maturing and improving.

You see failure as the end, I see it as the beginning of something better.

You see failure as a lack of knowledge, I see it as a learning experience

You see the glass half empty, I see it half full.

Get it yet?

[Fuserleer]

In other words, if we have tried and failed for 3 years, the likelihood that we will find a solution that escaped us for 3 years is not good odds.

Better stop spending all that money on solutions for other real world problems that are difficult and taking time to solve then.  Like cancer and AIDS for example.

[TPTB_need_war]

I want a solution. Period. Who ever provides it will get my respect. If I was an independent observer, I would say both you and I have failed for 3 years, so I would say we are both full of shit.

And thats why you won't succeed.

You see it as we're full of shit, I see it as we're evolving, maturing and improving.

You see failure as the end, I see it as the beginning of something better.

You see failure as a lack of knowledge, I see it as a learning experience

You see the glass half empty, I see it half full.

Get it yet?

What I get is that I need to reach a conclusion. Eventually I learn all the possibilities and realize the fundamental truths. I have a very abstract conceptual intellect and eventually it comes to the point where I understand what is possible and not possible. I might be wrong, but any way we are derailing the thread.

Let's talk specifics on technology. Talking about my personality and whether I am too negative is off topic. If I for example have some further insightful comments to make, they should be taken on the merits of the technological points I make.

I am not entirely pessimistic. I am just trying to be realistic. I have lost 3 years. Three fucking years to this shit. I want to drill down now to the conclusions. Going on and on isn't necessary for me, because I have now the holistic view of all this. Again you will say I am being egotistical if I claim that. So again let's just stay on topic of specific technical points. Until you reveal the details of  your design, I can't make specific technical comments on it.

Btw I don't dislike you. And I am not a person who is unfriendly. I just hate losing time. I am 51. I have many problems to solve. No time to lose...

[monsterer]

Getting this topic back on track, I have a question:

* If mining rewards cause centralisation, how do you handle distribution fairly in a system with no mining rewards?

[TPTB_need_war]

In other words, if we have tried and failed for 3 years, the likelihood that we will find a solution that escaped us for 3 years is not good odds.

Better stop spending all that money on solutions for other real world problems that are difficult and taking time to solve then.  Like cancer and AIDS for example.

Those solutions are not (as far as we know now) limited by physics. Thus they may be worth continued effort to solve. Crypto has certain limitations imposed by entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics specifically) which are inviolable. Being able to state this taxonomy is an example of a highly abstract conceptualization.

For example, zero knowledge proofs can't be done without a trap door. Thus they can never be information theoretic security. There are many other examples of inviolable truths.

Knowing when the end of the inviolable rope has been reached is a high IQ trait. If my IQ was 160 I would have perhaps sorted it out a year ago. (or maybe if I wasn't so ill doing much of the past 3.5 years)

Also I played for example football (the one with the helmet) and other very intense sports. So I also attained a demeanor in life that bullshit walks and performance talks. I am hard on myself this way too. But when I am in relax mode, I am very amiable, joker, smiling to everyone, etc.. I have two modes. Even my gf says she feels terror from eyebrows when I am in "compete and get shit done" serious mode. Sorry. I prefer to do that alone.