|
iamnotback
|
 |
November 17, 2016, 02:27:58 AM
Last edit: November 17, 2016, 03:20:57 AM by iamnotback |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
btcusury
|
|
November 17, 2016, 04:45:27 AM |
|
Hey iamnotback, do you still feel that Bitcoin and cryptocurrency was invented by deep state operators hoping to de-physicalize money and slowly but assuredly gain control by mining centralization in China? (Or some similar idea) I thought it was absurd when I first read this idea from you, but now I realize that the Chinese elite are merging with the American elite (who are currently scrambling in desperation and trying to regroup and restrategize to face the unexpected Trump Train), so centralizing control in China doesn't now seem to be outside of the idea of the deep state / shadow government / dark budget / military-industrial complex. I still think it's unlikely, but not absurd/impossible. So you think bitcoin.pdf was stage 1 of a much larger plan? How might such plan look? And that is the essence of how I found a way to reorient the Byzantine agreement technical challenge with a paradigm-shit. Freudian slip? (No idea if it is, just bringing it to your attention.) A sampling of my other posts and writings which provided insight into the physics of our Universe on the requirement for impossibility of a total order for unbounded systems (and towards a Theory of Everything that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics), and its correspondence with the computer science concepts of Byzantine fault tolerance and the unbounded nondeterminism of Hewitt's Actor model. I think the most important question in regards to the idea of a TOE is this: Are you making the distinction between "small TOE" and "big TOE"? If not, check out physicist Tom Campbell's work. Campbell's creation of the distinction between small TOEs and big TOEs (objective vs. subjective reality TOEs, or consciousness as primordial vs. epiphenomenological TOEs) by itself creates a (meta)paradigm gap that renders all small TOE models as historical curiosities akin to pre-Copernican epicycling, as physicist Peter Russell puts it. IMO, the Small TOEs that have been produced within the artificial parameters of the "authority"-bound mainstream scientific community are essentially a joke when compared to Campbell's Big TOE -- and I think his is also excessively assumptive, although much less than the more mainstream attempts. |
|
|
|
CoinHoarder
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1026
In Cryptocoins I Trust
|
|
November 17, 2016, 05:10:37 AM |
|
Teaser from my white paper: Proposed Improvement Overview
The key design innovations are:
1. [redacted]
2. [redacted]
3. [redacted]
a) [redacted]
b) [redacted]
c) [redacted]
d) [redacted]
4. [redacted]
This design rectifies all the major flaws of DPoS and Satoshi's proof-of-work.
----|-PoW-|-DPoS-
#1 | #2 | #2
#2 | #1 | #1
#3 | #3a | #3a
#4 | #3d | #3d
#5 | #1 | #4
#6 | #3b | _
#7 | #3 | _
#8 | #3 | _
What are the 8 major flaws you perceive (keep it concise, please)? Then, we can try to guess what the key design innovations are.  |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
November 17, 2016, 02:22:24 PM |
|
What are the 8 major flaws you perceive (keep it concise, please)? Then, we can try to guess what the key design innovations are. They are not exactly the same between PoW and DPoS even though I used the same numbering for both. I will not write the ones for DPoS at this time. For PoW, they are: Satoshi’s Proof-of-Work
1. Permissionless free market to stand up a consensus ordering (i.e. mining) node. <--- not a flaw, but it is a flaw of DPoS
2. Power-law mining distribution is unstable trending toward winner-take-all devolution.
3. Transaction fees are not a free market because of the block size, regardless whether block size is fixed or variable.
4. No asynchronous concurrency of transaction ordering for enhanced scaling and throughput (although resilency and liveness are provided by miners competing to produce the next block). Only the node that produces the next block may add transactions during the block period.
5. Long range retroactive chain forks (aka long-con attack) if quantum computers appear.
6. 51% attack on minority blocks can’t be objectively observed.
7. Orphans blocks. High transaction confirmation latency. Confirmation only probabilistic, never final. Burning must exceed double-spend value.
8. Wasteful and inefficient.
There is a clever twist in my design on Byzantine agreement. PoW is unbounded participation but never final, only probabilistic. Byzantine agreement is bounded participation and final. Both can be stalled indefinitely by 51% attack, and both have failure modes (loss of Nash equilibrium) with a 33% attack. My design combines both concepts but doesn't need PoW (formerly I had unprofitable PoW but hence replaced it with something better)! That is a very strong hint for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
November 17, 2016, 06:47:05 PM
Last edit: November 17, 2016, 07:01:51 PM by iamnotback |
|
I have revised significantly the first sections of the whitepaper, here is a sample portion: [Redacted Title]
Shelby Moore III* Abstract: This paper posits that prior consensus ordering systems are winner-take-all power vacuums† without a stable decentralized equilibrium. Satoshi’s proof-of-work (aka “PoW”)¹ and Bitshares’ Delegated Proof-of-Stake (aka “DPoS”)² are examined in some detail as plausible examples of this theory. The paper describes a consensus ordering system which is designed to eliminate the Nash equilibrium violations and disrupt the asymmetrical benefits of economies-of-scale which are posited to create the said power vacuum. The proposed system eliminates wasteful proof-of-work and empowers the decentralized participants to act as an objectively informed, countervailing collective force against any centralized control which is deleterious to the permissionless, meritocratic, collaborative, impartial, level-playing-field attributes intended by protocol of this system. This is intended to form a Nash equilibrium on adherence by all participants to the one collaborative game theory strategy envisioned by the protocol. The analysis of the proposed system is simultaneously agnostic to any hypothetical vulnerability due to theories of external political economics which posit that consensus via democracy is an insoluble power vacuum that can always be manipulated,³ and a conjectured⁴ improvement to the allegedly insoluble dilemma. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------† Power vacuum in the context of this paper means the system has no viable mechanism to maintain an equilibrium of decentralized control and limit the snowballing effect of a vicious cycle feedback loop where influence (centralized control) in the system due to concentrated wealth and economies-of-scale, increases the concentration of the wealth and economies-of-scale in the system.* If you would like to support this research, you may donate Bitcoin BTC to 1F6vxYWHeTT6jymNdWtz175PU7dVUHVf7i.Byzantine Fault Tolerance & Space-time Ordering... [redacted] ... References----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------¹ Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. The Cryptography and Cryptography Policy Mailing List at metzdowd.com, November 1, 2008. ² Daniel Larimer, Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS). Bitsharetalk.org, April 3, 2014. Also https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=558316.0. Current synopsis at Bitshares.org. ³ Eric S. Raymond, Some Iron Laws of Political Economics. Armed and Dangerous blog, May 27, 2009. ⁴ Shelby Moore III, Linus’ law and the analogy of a Wiki. Bitcointalk.org, 2014 - 2016. ... [redacted] ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
November 17, 2016, 07:23:10 PM |
|
@HugoStone is ignored for not understanding what double-spend means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RAJSALLIN
|
|
November 17, 2016, 07:23:22 PM |
|
Thanks. Seems interesting. Will try and sit down tomorrow and really read through it. Right now I'm not really grasping it at first glance. R |
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
November 17, 2016, 07:25:20 PM |
|
Thanks. Seems interesting. Will try and sit down tomorrow and really read through it. Right now I'm not really grasping it at first glance.
There is nothing worth grasping. Just nonsense. He doesn't prevent double-spends in his system. If we have a system where everybody can lie about the value of money, then money loses its key properties of fungible unit-of-exchange. |
|
|
|
|
HugoStone
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
November 17, 2016, 08:44:23 PM |
|
There is nothing worth grasping. Just nonsense. He doesn't prevent double-spends in his system.
If we have a system where everybody can lie about the value of money, then money loses its key properties of fungible unit-of-exchange.
No, you have not read my proposal properly. If you read the PDF version then you'll see that I've questioned the need for 'bitcoin' to exist at all. Even so, in a system whereby everyone can perform the function currently performed by banks (i.e. creation of bank credit money with a push of a button) and bitcoin miners, the very concept of a 'double spend' becomes completely irrelevant. See my other comment: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140793.msg16896845#msg16896845It is not, as you call it, a 'lie'. Rather, it is recognising that existing monetary systems (Bitcoin included) are illusions that serve the interest of a minority. The solution is to replace the existing illusion with an illusion that serves the interests of everybody. This is what Bitcoin is: "Those familiar with the work of Marshall McLuhan will no doubt already recognise that bankers are living in a rear-view mirror reality. They function as if they inhabit an 18th century world in which gold sovereigns must be pushed from one side of the ledger to the other in order to balance the financial Scales of Justice. In point of fact, the 'value' of these metallic tokens was as illusory as our digital tokens are today. The creation of money and the need to 'balance the books' is just a numbers game and there is no need to treat it as anything but." "The concept of "rear-view mirrorism" refers to the way we think about (and thus perceive) modern technology in a way that relates to the technology that preceded it. In other words, we are looking at the digital world through the eyes of the old analogue world. Bitcoin itself is a prime example, i.e. by recreating the coin in virtual form Bitcoin has duplicated the 'rear-view mirror' perceptual error of the bankers described above. Bitcoin has reinvented the wheel in digital form, and a digital wheel is merely a symbol which, unlike the wheel itself, has no real-world application. Transferring bitcoin from one person to another has all the utility of handing a picture of oxygen to someone deprived of air. Bitcoin itself is like a simulation of goldfish in a bowl, a simulation which stipulates that a) the non-existent water needs to be oxygenated to prevent the fish asphyxiating, and b) that the fish themselves need to earn this non-existent oxygen. It does not need to be earned (or issued as a debt to be 'paid back') though. Why? Because it is merely a simulation." Bitcoin (and all other modern monetary systems) is a digital simulation of money and nothing more. Pretending that it is real, and that the digital tokens we exchange have 'value' and that this 'value' needs to be protected against 'devaluation', is like sitting in front of Microsoft Flight Simulator pretending that you are flying a 'real' plane and pretending that it actually matters whether you fly your non-existent plane into a mountain. HS |
|
|
|
|
kiklo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 17, 2016, 11:13:43 PM |
|
My system would be an illusion, just as the existing system is also an illusion. The difference is that my illusion works to everyone's advantage.
HS
Hmm, Your system appears to grant every person the right to print money by their merely being present. This will fail, for the following reason, unless when present, you trade food, water, entertainment , or something else of worth , then you being present have no value and only becomes a deduction in my potential trading value. Example, (True Story) Feed Store accepts credit from everyone that buys from them, Everyone that pays them uses only their credit, Feed Store runs out of Product , and goes to buy more, their vendors deny any more product on credit and require something of actual worth, which the Feed Store owner is unable to give them. So the Feed Store operator goes out of business and the deadbeats that used his free credit never pay him. (I know a guy this happened too, at some point in the game items of worth are required, and this illusion breaks.) Yes, Banks are a scam, by trading multiple times the value of their deposits, and the more multiplies they go beyond their true worth, the closer they get to collapse. In the US , the Majority of the Banks would have already collapse, however using the politicians they owned , they have stole Value from the Citizens to prop up their corruption , which is why many currencies are now on the verge of collapse. The more illusion, the faster a system will fail.  At some point the services or products added to the system by real people are unable to make the illusion believable enough to work. In other words, The Illusion is Shattered, and only real tangible goods or services to that individual are all that will be accepted.  |
|
|
|
|
HugoStone
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
November 18, 2016, 12:11:49 AM |
|
Hmm, Your system appears to grant every person the right to print money by their merely being present. No, nothing is being 'printed' and this is not mere semantics on my part. This will fail, for the following reason, unless when present, you trade food, water, entertainment , or something else of worth , then you being present have no value and only becomes a deduction in my potential trading value. Again, no. Bitcoin and all modern digitised monetary systems are merely simulations. There is no 'value', only the perception of 'value', which is itself a misperception based on the belief that things (and unreal digital abstractions of things) can become something more than what they are simply by an act of faith. Feed Store accepts credit from everyone that buys from them, Everyone that pays them uses only their credit, Feed Store runs out of Product , and goes to buy more, their vendors deny any more product on credit and require something of actual worth, which the Feed Store owner is unable to give them. What is this 'credit' you're referring to? Is it any different from the credit people use all the time to purchase goods and services? What do you think you are doing when you use a credit or debit card to 'pay' for a product? You are simply moving a digital representation of a number from a digital abstraction called 'your account' to another digital abstraction associated with the business owner. There is nothing of real value or worth being transferred and yet business owners are perfectly happy to let you 'pay' in this manner. Why? Because of the perception/misperception that the number that appears in their bank account has 'value', primarily because it's prefixed with a symbol (£/$) that people associate with the term 'money'. What makes you think they would not be equally happy under my system? If a business owner receives 100 'credits' under the existing system and 100 'credits' under my system then what's the difference? The difference (and it's the only difference) lies in how those credits are generated: as a debt under the existing system, as a gift under my system. How on earth do you think the existing debt based system came into existence? Do you think we all collectively woke up one morning and said "I think it would be a great idea to surrender control of the money supply to organisations called 'banks' and allow them to issue something called 'money' as a debt that we have to pay back?" If such a system did not exist today and you were asked to sanction its approval then what would you say? I submit that your response would be something along the lines of "f**k off, that's a scam", and yet here you are today using just such a system and accepting its illusion of 'value'. Why? Don't tell me it's because you don't have a choice, because you do have a choice. I'm giving you one right now. The more illusion, the faster a system will fail. How can a digital simulation of money become more illusory than it already is? Simulated money will always be an illusion, but because it is a simulation we do not have to accept the 'rules' coded into it as if they are the Ten Commandments. Instead, we can select the relevant sections of source code, hit the delete button, and start over. HS |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
November 18, 2016, 12:43:29 AM |
|
How can a digital simulation of money become more illusory than it already is? Simulated money will always be an illusion, but because it is a simulation we do not have to accept the 'rules' coded into it as if they are the Ten Commandments. Instead, we can select the relevant sections of source code, hit the delete button, and start over.
You apparently do not understand that money has value because of consensus of CONFIDENCE. The community will not allow the code to be changed in a way which destroys that CONFIDENCE. You can't build any CONFIDENCE in a system which does not enforce the global ledger. If you think otherwise, then state your reason explicitly and with less useless verbal diarrhea. Afaics, you are spamming this thread with utter and complete nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
HugoStone
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
November 18, 2016, 02:22:55 AM |
|
I agree only in the sense that what we call 'value' is an act of collective belief - an illusion. The problem that arises is this: over time, people come to think that merely believing that something has 'value' really does confer 'value' on that thing. When that happens, they tend to become obsessed with the concept of 'value' and the numbers/symbols that represent it. People are so accustomed to thinking in terms of protecting the 'value' they think they possess, and so concerned about 'losing' that illusory 'value', that they can only think in terms of what they stand to lose (nothing whatsoever with my system) rather than what they (and everyone else) stand to gain. The community will not allow the code to be changed in a way which destroys that CONFIDENCE. Are you 'the community'? Do you speak for it? Is the community forever closed to new ideas? Is the code Holy Writ to be worshipped and maintained as it is for all time? Has Bitcoin become a cult? You can't build any CONFIDENCE in a system which does not enforce the global ledger. Are you saying that the global ledger is the solution and the only means by which confidence in a system can be established and maintained? Tell me why. If you think otherwise, then state your reason explicitly and with less useless verbal diarrhea. Afaics, you are spamming this thread with utter and complete nonsense. My proposal is publicly available to anyone who wishes to read it. Have you read it? I mean actually read it and thought about it, not just skimmed through it dismissively because it's not consistent with your existing belief system? As for my comments, if you do not like them then do not read them. HS |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
November 18, 2016, 03:36:31 AM
Last edit: November 18, 2016, 03:46:40 AM by iamnotback |
|
There is nothing worth grasping. Just nonsense. He doesn't prevent double-spends in his system.
If we have a system where everybody can lie about the value of money, then money loses its key properties of fungible unit-of-exchange.
No, you have not read my proposal properly. If you read the PDF version then you'll see that I've questioned the need for 'bitcoin' to exist at all. Even so, in a system whereby everyone can perform the function currently performed by banks (i.e. creation of bank credit money with a push of a button) and bitcoin miners, the very concept of a 'double spend' becomes completely irrelevant. See my other comment: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140793.msg16896845#msg16896845Rebutted: If this sounds like madness to you then consider what happens when you walk into a bank and ask for a mortgage. The bank pushes a button, transfers a number to your account, then tells you that this number represents a 'debt' and that you must spend the next 20 years paying off that debt. Who would possibly accept such a system?
My system would be an illusion, just as the existing system is also an illusion. The difference is that my illusion works to everyone's advantage.
There is a profound difference between the two "illusions". The first one is not an illusion because it is stabilized by a power-law distribution of wealth, i.e. a power vacuum has been filled so that society can function. Whereas, yours is commonly known as communism where "we can give away from free, what is not free" which results in the end of all production and megadeath. STFU idiot. You are not smart. You are spamming us with offers of megadeath. Thanks a lot!
Have you read it? I mean actually read it and thought about it, not just skimmed through it dismissively because it's not consistent with your existing belief system? As for my comments, if you do not like them then do not read them.
Please stop thinking you have an original idea. Karl Marx beat you to the concept by a few generations. |
|
|
|
|
HugoStone
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
November 18, 2016, 04:09:37 AM |
|
If this sounds like madness to you then consider what happens when you walk into a bank and ask for a mortgage. The bank pushes a button, transfers a number to your account, then tells you that this number represents a 'debt' and that you must spend the next 20 years paying off that debt. Who would possibly accept such a system?
My system would be an illusion, just as the existing system is also an illusion. The difference is that my illusion works to everyone's advantage.
There is a profound difference between the two "illusions". The first one is not an illusion because it is stabilized by a power-law distribution of wealth, i.e. a power vacuum has been filled so that society can function. Whereas, yours is commonly known as communism where "we can give away from free, what is not free" which results in the end of all production and megadeath. STFU idiot. You are not smart. No, this is a complete misrepresentation. My proposal is for a decentralised currency that eliminates the need for banks (central or otherwise) but still relies on a free market system based on open competition. It's no more an example of 'communism' than Bitcoin itself. Have you ever heard of the open source movement at all? Doesn't its existence contradict your unqualified assertion that my proposal will result in the "end of all production and megadeath"? Hundreds of millions of people donate their time and energy freely each and every day. Are they 'communists'? Are you saying that people who love to design new buildings will stop designing new buildings? Are you saying that people who love using their hands to build or grow things will stop building or growing things? What on earth is the matter with you? Your hyperbole is so ridiculous that it really doesn't deserve a response at all. Please stop thinking you have an original idea. Karl Marx beat you to the concept by a few generations. Not at all. Marxism is a bit beyond the scope of this thread, but if you care to PM me then I'd be happy to discuss the subject. HS |
|
|
|
|
kiklo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 18, 2016, 04:33:37 AM |
|
Hmm, Your system appears to grant every person the right to print money by their merely being present. No, nothing is being 'printed' and this is not mere semantics on my part. This will fail, for the following reason, unless when present, you trade food, water, entertainment , or something else of worth , then you being present have no value and only becomes a deduction in my potential trading value. Again, no. Bitcoin and all modern digitised monetary systems are merely simulations. There is no 'value', only the perception of 'value', which is itself a misperception based on the belief that things (and unreal digital abstractions of things) can become something more than what they are simply by an act of faith. Feed Store accepts credit from everyone that buys from them, Everyone that pays them uses only their credit, Feed Store runs out of Product , and goes to buy more, their vendors deny any more product on credit and require something of actual worth, which the Feed Store owner is unable to give them. What is this 'credit' you're referring to? Is it any different from the credit people use all the time to purchase goods and services? What do you think you are doing when you use a credit or debit card to 'pay' for a product? You are simply moving a digital representation of a number from a digital abstraction called 'your account' to another digital abstraction associated with the business owner. There is nothing of real value or worth being transferred and yet business owners are perfectly happy to let you 'pay' in this manner. Why? Because of the perception/misperception that the number that appears in their bank account has 'value', primarily because it's prefixed with a symbol (£/$) that people associate with the term 'money'. What makes you think they would not be equally happy under my system? If a business owner receives 100 'credits' under the existing system and 100 'credits' under my system then what's the difference? The difference (and it's the only difference) lies in how those credits are generated: as a debt under the existing system, as a gift under my system. How on earth do you think the existing debt based system came into existence? Do you think we all collectively woke up one morning and said "I think it would be a great idea to surrender control of the money supply to organisations called 'banks' and allow them to issue something called 'money' as a debt that we have to pay back?" If such a system did not exist today and you were asked to sanction its approval then what would you say? I submit that your response would be something along the lines of "f**k off, that's a scam", and yet here you are today using just such a system and accepting its illusion of 'value'. Why? Don't tell me it's because you don't have a choice, because you do have a choice. I'm giving you one right now. The more illusion, the faster a system will fail. How can a digital simulation of money become more illusory than it already is? Simulated money will always be an illusion, but because it is a simulation we do not have to accept the 'rules' coded into it as if they are the Ten Commandments. Instead, we can select the relevant sections of source code, hit the delete button, and start over. HS OK, let me rephrase for you "Created from Nothing", which is why it is so stupid, even the corrupt banking system has a requirement of only lending out a Multiple of what they hold in Deposits. Your System has no such limits. It would fail dramatically. Value comes when you trade the token for something you need , such as food or water or heating or cooling or medicine. That is where the value lies in what can you trade it for. Your Imaginary system basically makes everyone wealthy , it is utter nonsense. Since you failed to understand the feed store example, it shows me you have never run a business and have no realistic concept of economics. How on earth do you think the existing debt based system came into existence? Exiting debt system came in effect , like this People used to trade food directly, later as farms became bigger they started storing wheat & corn in Silos, Farmer would run to the silo and get the corn to trade with the Bar owner, carrying the product became a pain in the ass. So the Farmer would write a Note and sign it, saying that 7 bushels of corn was now the Bar Owner, and just give that to the bar owner. Bar Owner would redeem the note at the Silo and collect his corn. The Silo Owner figured out that not everyone would request all of the food stored there at the same time, so he began writing notes to buy things for himself. All of the Silo Owners did this , and eventually one got into trouble by not having enough food for the notes that came in. He called a Meeting of all of the Silo Owners and they all agreed to form a cooperative to bail out each other , they also agreed to pay a % into a fund, so they would always be able to cover a debt if there was a run on 1 of the Silos. The Silos Owner cooperative became the Banking Industry, and they have been screwing the populace ever since. Dude, you are not giving me a choice, you're giving me a delusional rant. Don't get me wrong, I love a good rant, but yours has no basis for even the pretense of believably. If you are dead set on spewing this nonsense, I suggest you create your own topic, and go all out in it. But I have run a business and your concept will fail. (Because True Value & Physical Resources are not Imaginary, and will be included in any economic system.) (In other words , People can't eat your Illusion , you can only use your Illusion to steal real items of Value from the unaware.) |
|
|
|
|
CoinHoarder
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1026
In Cryptocoins I Trust
|
|
November 18, 2016, 04:51:36 AM |
|
They are not exactly the same between PoW and DPoS even though I used the same numbering for both. I will not write the ones for DPoS at this time. For PoW, they are: Satoshi’s Proof-of-Work
1. Permissionless free market to stand up a consensus ordering (i.e. mining) node. <--- not a flaw, but it is a flaw of DPoS
2. Power-law mining distribution is unstable trending toward winner-take-all devolution.
3. Transaction fees are not a free market because of the block size, regardless whether block size is fixed or variable.
4. No asynchronous concurrency of transaction ordering for enhanced scaling and throughput (although resilency and liveness are provided by miners competing to produce the next block). Only the node that produces the next block may add transactions during the block period.
5. Long range retroactive chain forks (aka long-con attack) if quantum computers appear.
6. 51% attack on minority blocks can’t be objectively observed.
7. Orphans blocks. High transaction confirmation latency. Confirmation only probabilistic, never final. Burning must exceed double-spend value.
8. Wasteful and inefficient.
There is a lot of assuming/guessing here, but here it goes...    1. (this flaw only applies to dPoS). From what I have gathered (very limited time), your solution is a hybrid, but is still similar to dPoS. It seems you are referring to the PoW part of your design, which is much more permission-less than DPoS?* 2. The mining of all forms of PoW (as they currently exist) can be exploited due to economies of scale, which tends towards winner take all. Agreed. That means you have conceived a new PoW consensus algorithm that is immune to economies of scale? Interesting... 3. Since your model is a PoW/dPoS hybrid, I assume your model pays transaction fees evenly to stakeholders and/or destroys transaction fees so everyone benefits in additional equity (the latter of which is exactly what dPoS does, so that would make sense)? Miners can still be compensated by competing for blocks and earning a subsidy when they do find a block. 4. If the network's nodes can agree that a transaction happened by a majority consensus and the sender paid a sufficient transaction fee, then there is no reason why you could not allow multiple stakeholders/miners to put transactions into blocks (rather than just the person who found the block, if they refused to do so)? 5. TPoS? 6. I got nothing... 7 & 8. Enter the DPoS aspect of the hybrid... On 7 you even said " Burning must exceed double-spend value," which perhaps validates the assumption I made on the latter half of #3. ... The destruction of transaction fees for the betterment of all stakeholders in DPoS is referred to burning. * I still argue PoW is not permission-less, but can concede it is much more permission-less than all forms of PoS. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
November 18, 2016, 07:44:31 AM |
|
* I still argue PoW is not permission-less, but can concede it is much more permission-less than all forms of PoS.
You aren't even close to guessing my design. I am going to turn your entire understanding of tradeoffs between PoW and DPoS upside-down. For example, I make a non-PoW design more permissionless than PoW. With many new cryptocurrencies sprouting in the net, is it possible that bitcoin can be overtaken as a top digital currency in the future? Is ethereum or other well known cryptocurrencies can be a threat to bitcoin dominance?
Maybe yes or maybe no,crypto currency is evolving,another inovation in crypto currency may come tomorrow Not tomorrow but the "Bitcoin killer" is coming... The technical innovation of this paper combines the unbounded participation of [redacted] with the bounded election of [redacted]; and which entirely ameliorates the power-law distribution’s otherwise deleterious ability to dictate transaction fees (or analogously the distribution of minted dilution as a substitute for transaction fees), double-spend, and/or censor transactions.
Note I should add that even a 100% attack can't double-spend nor censor transactions. This will sound loony to those who are knowledgeable, but it is only because they don't yet understand the paradigm-shift. |
|
|
|
|
HugoStone
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
November 18, 2016, 12:36:57 PM |
|
OK, let me rephrase for you "Created from Nothing", which is why it is so stupid, even the corrupt banking system has a requirement of only lending out a Multiple of what they hold in Deposits. Your System has no such limits. It would fail dramatically. Nothing is being lent out. It is a simulated monetary system (just as Bitcoin is a simulated monetary system) and the 'limits' that Bitcoin (and other monetary systems) impose are completely artificial. No limits are required. Don't just say "it would fail dramatically" - tell me why in a way that does not merely pretend that the numbers we are talking about are actually real. Value comes when you trade the token for something you need , such as food or water or heating or cooling or medicine. That is where the value lies in what can you trade it for. Your Imaginary system basically makes everyone wealthy , it is utter nonsense. You say that, and yet under the existing imaginary system people are perfectly happy to exchange food or water or heating or cooling or medicine in return for a number displayed in their bank account - simply because they believe that number means something. Don't just make an unqualified assertion, i.e. "Your Imaginary system basically makes everyone wealthy, it is utter nonsense." Tell me why everyone can't be equally wealthy. Put this grasp of economics you claim to possess to work and tell me why my proposal would fail. Since you failed to understand the feed store example, it shows me you have never run a business and have no realistic concept of economics. Quite the opposite. Why don't you go find a homeless person on the street and explain your "realistic concept of economics" to them? (In other words , People can't eat your Illusion , you can only use your Illusion to steal real items of Value from the unaware.) Yet all existing monetary systems are also illusions. They are illusions that people have agreed upon and come to believe in. My proposal is also an illusion (just as Bitcoin is) and it is one that people could also decide to agree upon and come to believe in. A bank triggers an algorithm, moves a number to your account, and tells you to spend the next X number of years paying that number back. Are you seriously suggesting that this isn't an example of stealing the only thing that really does have value - our time and energy? HS |
|
|
|
|
|
