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

[generalizethis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Internet is a massive public database protocol.

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

CK is in the open, that's my point, it latches onto the best anon available as a means of flowing through endless piping of executable commands and coins. You'd have to bill sony, blizzard and Microsoft for their side-gaming revenues, which you could do, but the threat of decentralization keeps Chinese control systems on blast, while you let Westerners gamble their hard earned virtual capitol.

[1714866042]

1714866042

[1714866042]

1714866042

[1714866042]

1714866042

[1714866042]

1714866042

[1714866042]

1714866042

[1714866042]

1714866042

[iamnotback]

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

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

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

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

The really strange aspect of my design is that the coin eventually becomes highly deflationary, so it should suck up investors away from Bitcoin and every other coin which doesn't pay a huge interest rate just for buying and holding.

Yet normally hoarding a token should drive it out of circulation (since the burning of fees is a discouragement to transacting versus holding), yet I argue my design will be the first that break Gresham's law. Because the loss due to transacting will be insignificant so when you need to transact you do. This doesn't preclude you holding a lot more tokens than you spend. In other words, I added degrees-of-freedom so you can both hold and spend from the same token without suffering the dilemma of Gresham's law. I think it is also known the Gresham's law only applies where there is legal tender dictated by a political force the provides the public confidence for the currency of mass circulation:

The world is not going to entrust the control of money to some cartel of mining farms in China, nor the whales who control 80% of the stake (money supply) of Steem(it).

The level of deflation automatically is adjusted by the free market in that the less who transact, the less deflation but the more incentive to transact (lower opportunity cost to not transacting) and vice versa.

I think perhaps this aspect might even be more clever and important than the way I solved the power vacuum dilemma. However, per the above quote, the decentralization is also critically needed to side-step Gresham's law.

And then there are the sub-second instant "confirmations" and the asynchronous resiliency and scaling.

Yeah so far I am proud of this design. But let's see what happens with peer review and also implementation...

[iamnotback]

I posted at this other thread with enthusiasm for the BTC price based on recent news, but I disputed this claim about it:

Core is working on a 2mb hardfork proposal, testing is in progress! Amazing news

It will help get rid of lots of the FUD going around. It will also put peoples minds at ease about all the conspiracy theories regarding blockstream.

Sorry no. Per my prior comment, the current action perfectly fits the Blockstream business plan:

http://btcmarketwatch.com/2015/08/the-blockstream-business-plan/
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c786018a8bb2d8d837abce3a4cf4e799#541-segregated-witness
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/67111f328822a36beb4cad1a5220eb33

[ArticMine]

...

ArticMine here you are again posting your inkblots. Slow down and try to understand your mistakes. Go take some quiet time and think for a while before you respond, so you don't fill up thread with useless noise.

I am saying that is as the "transaction-related costs" approach the minted block reward, then the Tragedy of the Commons in transaction fees results. This has nothing to do with a fixed per KB transaction fee, but rather the costs of actually processing the transactions. You have to factor in that costs include the fact in proof-of-work mining, that a 0.1% hashrate miner must propagate and validate 100% of the systemic transaction volume (yet he is only paid 0.1% portion of the total systemic rewards, and probably even paid less because of selfish mining and asymmetric propagation costs due to mining on the wrong chain part of time).

And any way, the entire discussion is irrelevant, because regardless, the economies-of-scale in proof-of-work dictate that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So you are just wasting your time any way arguing about the transaction fee aspect.

The inevitable mining cartel (presuming Monero becomes economically relevant) will dictate transaction fees in Monero as well, and also control the mining and all the bad impacts (censorship, deanonymization, etc) that come with it.

Sorry. Better luck next time.

Again a false assumption bold since there is no explanation how this is supposed to happen in the presence of a fixed tail emission. This assumption is up against:
1) The Equation of Exchange in economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange MV = PQ. What is being assumed here is to increase Q without a corresponding decrease in P.  Or to put it in simpler terms one cannot expect a 100x increase in the number of transactions (Q) in Monero without a corresponding increase in 1/P (purchasing power) of the tail emission in Monero.
2) The fall in real terms of the unit cost of the "transaction related costs". The best example of the latter is the credit card industry. The transaction throughput of the VISA network today would not be possible with the technology of 1949 (punched cards, tabulating machines telegraph lines etc. ) This is relevant because the business model that was conceived in 1949 for Diner's Club, retail payments of high margin luxury goods and services (Tiffany & Co.). fails today when it is applied to very low margin retail purchases of commodity items (Walmart). We do not see American Express at war with Tiffany & Co but we sure see VISA ar war with Walmart. I wonder why.

Edit 1: The only other variable in the equation of exchange that can change is V (The velocity) and changing V would require a change in use of the coin. M is set by the protocol and cannot be changed. One time changes in V and the slight increase in M due to inflation are more than compensated by the drop in real terms of the unit cost of the "transaction related costs".  

Edit 2: One cannot simply extrapolate what are valid assumptions in Bitcoin to Monero without running into some very serious problems.

I expect V to be on the order of 10 - 100 for a microtransaction coin for use on all the activities we do on the Internet. So a minted block reward in the realm of ~1% would require transaction-related costs that are less than 0.01 - 0.1%. Yet microtransaction values may be so small that actual costs may be higher than that. Most damning is my additional point which you did not respond to:

You have to factor in that costs include the fact in proof-of-work mining, that a 0.1% hashrate miner must propagate and validate 100% of the systemic transaction volume (yet he is only paid 0.1% portion of the total systemic rewards, and probably even paid less because of selfish mining and asymmetric propagation costs due to mining on the wrong chain part of time).

So for the control over mining to remain decentralized and for their to be a viable fee market, this means the 0.1% hashrate miner has to have transaction-related costs in the realm of 0.0001 - 0.001% of the tiny microtransaction values of transactions. You may argue that Monero will be a coin for high valued transactions and you don't think microtransactions are important, and I will rebut by arguing that it will not survive then as a system of money:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16969596#msg16969596
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1693466.msg16993233#msg16993233
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1685115.msg16993524#msg16993524

Also although costs will decline over the decades, transaction volumes can also increase at that rate or faster than Moore's law.

And lastly, as I said arguing about your tail reward is pointless, because it can't stop the economies-of-scale which cause proof-of-work (in Monero, Bitcoin, etc) to be a power vacuum which is a winner-take-all economic system. You didn't even address this point:

And any way, the entire discussion is irrelevant, because regardless, the economies-of-scale in proof-of-work dictate that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So you are just wasting your time any way arguing about the transaction fee aspect.

The inevitable mining cartel (presuming Monero becomes economically relevant) will dictate transaction fees in Monero as well, and also control the mining and all the bad impacts (censorship, deanonymization, etc) that come with it.

Sorry. Better luck next time.

Edit: apologies about the gloating. I am just letting out some pent up frustration about the way I felt about the way (some or most of the) Monero folk were so sure they were superior to everyone else. That had really alienated me and I admit it one of driving motivations I have. I understand the importance of building a community, but not a community that thinks that no other experimentation from outside can be valuable. Any way talk is cheap. So unless someone demonstrates a better way, then it is useless for me speculate verbally about what sort of community I would like to be a part of.

IANAL

This "refutation" is based upon the concept that if a virtual currency focuses on something other than micro-transactions it will be shut down by the the "state". Furthermore the state that is most likely to do this would be the United States. There is no doubt  that when it comes to financial regulation the United States is the most critical jurisdiction largely because the United States dollar is still the de-facto world reserve currency.

The regulatory status of virtual currencies in the United States has been very clear since March 2013 after the release of the guidance by FinCEN https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FIN-2013-G001.pdf.  There are two critical questions here:

1) Does the virtual currency qualify as  a "De-Centralized Virtual Currency" under the guidance?

2) Have the developers / creators etc., of the virtual currency engaged in money transmission?

These questions are  addressed in the guidance.

A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.

My personal comfort level with Monero is based on the following:

1) Proof of work crypto-currencies can meet this requirement provided there is no pre mine, post mine, diversion of block rewards to fund development, marketing, repayment of angel investors, etc.

2) A requirement for the creators, developers etc., to not be classified as money transmitters is that they "keep their hands out of the till" by not diverting any portion of the block reward towards a pre mine, post mine, development, marketing, repayment of angel investors, etc.

Meeting the above requirements means that the only option for funding the development of the virtual currency is donations in kind, monetary or both in a classic Free Libre Open Source Software model with no mandatory repayments of "intellectual property". This eliminates traditional market based proprietary software models, and make funding via the capital markets effectively impossible.

The reality is that with very few exceptions the vast majority of alt-coins fail the above test, largely because the initial jump-start of a FLOSS project is extremely difficult and at the same time the promised riches of the emission to compensate for the "intellectual property" are just too much of a temptation for most people. The net result of this is that most alt-coins are literally sitting ducks waiting for regulatory enforcement by FinCEN in the United States. There is also a large amount of denial in the crypto currency community over this as exemplified by comments such as "You didn't even address this point". Seriously just perform a search for "FIN-2013-G001"  on BCT to see how many times I have posted a link to the above guidance.

I will leave with the following quote from  Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director of FinCEN https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/20130613.pdf

Those offering virtual currencies must comply with these regulatory requirements, and if they do so, they have nothing to fear from Treasury

This is the reason I sleep soundly at night. I will leave it for the reader to consider what would happen to those who deliberately choose to ignore these regulatory requirements.

Edit: Monero is not even suitable for micro transactions by design, with minimum transaction fees likely to remain around or above 0.01 USD over time in real terms. This is not to say that micro transactions are not a viable market in its own right, but rather than there are likely much better suited solutions for this market. The opportunity for Monero in the micro transactions market may actually be in the on and possible off ramps for these solutions. So for a virtual currency focused on micro transactions Monero is not even a competitor.

[iamnotback]

Second, I agree w/ iamnotback that Tax Havens will soon be out of business!  Ouch!

Well we don't know that for sure. Even if so, it doesn't mean we can't minimize our taxes with venue hopping.

And how much tangible assets do we really need any way? I get a $100,000 tax exclusion because I live outside the USA more then 335 days a year. I don't even spend $30,000 a year.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that whatever NWO Digital Currency eventually gets adopted will contain "special features" (like code words for important politicians, bankers, etc.) that will allow them to hide their assets.   Who knows, but perhaps a Public Key / Private Key system (or whatever variation) may get built in to the new Rothschild World Note System...

Great, just great.  Our children or grandchildren will be Tax Donkeys...

Our kids are too fucking stupid and support all that socialist crap. So they will reap what they sow. If they wanted to put an end to that they could. Or maybe we can say our kids are smart, because they've already moved on from the physical economy to the virtual one and will embrace the Knowledge Age economy naturally. We'll see...

I am not all into worrying about my kids. They have to fight their own battles.

If I have enough money to be productive with my life and maybe improve my standard-of-living somewhat, I will be happy.

I am more interested in having a lot of assets in the Knowledge Age economy and making an impact therein.

Also I am less interested in buying inanimate objects (although spending 5 - 10% of my wealth on the tangible assets might be in order). I'd be more interested in the influence I can have by paying employees. Their taxes are not my concern.

I moreover think that by sufficiently accelerating the Knowledge Age economy, the old world bastards will become more and more irrelevant any way. Let them have their stupid SDRs for the old world physical economy, so they will own the dying portion of the economy.

We are moving to a higher plane:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg17075048#msg17075048



OROBTC, sorry man but I must tell the other tinfoil hats they just don't get it. They are stuck in some old world jail and they choose to stay in it. They wish to fight the socialism head on instead of routing around it. And they are going to be the laughing stock of us who've moved to a higher plane.

[iamnotback]

This "refutation" is based upon the concept that if a virtual currency focuses on something other than micro-transactions it will be shut down by the the "state".

My quoted logic had nothing to do with the "state".

Edit: Monero is not even suitable for micro transactions by design, with minimum transaction fees likely to remain around or above 0.01 USD over time in real terms. This is not to say that micro transactions are not a viable market in its own right, but rather than there are likely much better suited solutions for this market. The opportunity for Monero in the micro transactions market may actually be in the on and possible off ramps for these solutions. So for a virtual currency focused on micro transactions Monero is not even a competitor.

I think microtransactions are the big enchilada. And not just monetary microtransactions.

Anonymity is so incredibly unrealistic and it is fighting against the socialism. Please see my prior post which was a refutation of the tinfoil hats. I have more debate with them at the following thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1665943.0

Although I originally was a tinfoil hat and originally touted the importance of anonymity, I am now coming to the realization that we don't win by hiding from society. We win by changing the economy of society.

[iamnotback]

Ah yes I was thinking it was 500 ounces.
500 grams is much less, but I still doubt the average person owns $20,000 worth of gold.
This will still only have an effect on the very wealthy. Some might buy some Bitcoin, but I assume most are going to hide money in offshore accounts and companies outside their country.

The intended effect is that it will be impractical to use gold as form of tax avoiding cash. You can bury gold in the ground and never use it, because that it no threat at all to the government's desire to tax everything that moves. Have fun eating your gold or watching it sit there useless in the ground while the economic opportunities move on without you.

The elite are moving the tangible economy to electronic currency that is tracked for taxes.

They will use the poor as a weapon against the middle class. The poor will avidly support increased taxation because the government will promise them free things. In India, the government is recently offering a basic level of free food and medical care system support to the indigent. This is a big deal because in the past 1/3 of Indians only ate once a day.

The poor see these increased taxation as ending corruption and funding the support for the poor. They don't realize it is the laying the seeds for tax slavery.

But we in the crypto-currency currency arena can offer the poor a better deal than what the government can give them. We can offer them a job in the virtual economy where they can become independently a middle class person. And then they will hate taxes.

I am working on this now. Steem(it) was the first (failed) example. We can onboard the billions into crypto-currency by giving them currency when they do work on a social network. We can change the economy of the world.

Tinfoil hats are doing nothing. They are stuck in an unimaginative old world fight over tangible resources. Iron used to be a precious metal. Everyone needs to understand we live in an age of surplus and we are moving to a Knowledge Age:

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

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

The Rise of Knowledge <--- READ THIS
Understand Everything Fundamentally

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

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

...

[ArticMine]

This "refutation" is based upon the concept that if a virtual currency focuses on something other than micro-transactions it will be shut down by the the "state".

My quoted logic had nothing to do with the "state".

Edit: Monero is not even suitable for micro transactions by design, with minimum transaction fees likely to remain around or above 0.01 USD over time in real terms. This is not to say that micro transactions are not a viable market in its own right, but rather than there are likely much better suited solutions for this market. The opportunity for Monero in the micro transactions market may actually be in the on and possible off ramps for these solutions. So for a virtual currency focused on micro transactions Monero is not even a competitor.

I think microtransactions are the big enchilada. And not just monetary microtransactions.

Anonymity is so incredibly unrealistic and it is fighting against the socialism. Please see my prior post which was a refutation of the tinfoil hats. I have more debate with them at the following thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1665943.0

Although I originally was a tinfoil hat and originally touted the importance of anonymity, I am now coming to the realization that we don't win by hiding from society. We win by changing the economy of society.

The key here is first Fungibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility, then Privacy and only last Anonymity. One does not need to consider a war zone to understand the value of fungibility; however it is important in that scenario also. Monero delivers fungibility, Bitcoin for example does not thanks to the likes of https://www.chainalysis.com/

[iamnotback]

The key here is first Fungibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility, then Privacy and only last Anonymity. One does not need to consider a war zone to understand the value of fungibility; however it is important in that scenario also. Monero delivers fungibility, Bitcoin for example does not thanks to the likes of https://www.chainalysis.com/

I used to sort of support that argument, but I no longer do. But I will not argue it (now).

Any way, I am not vying to attack Monero and I think it is probably still undervalued.

I am sure we can agree that the best use of my time is to STFU and actually code something. It is really annoying to have someone who hasn't produced anything tangible talking incessantly from his theory soapbox.

Thanks for the discussion.

[ArticMine]

...

I used to sort of support that argument, but I no longer do. But I will not argue it (now).

Any way, I am not vying to attack Monero and I think it is probably still undervalued.

I am sure we can agree that the best use of my time is to STFU and actually code something. It is really annoying to have someone who hasn't produced anything tangible talking incessantly from his theory soapbox.

Thanks for the discussion.

I am fine with this. Thanks for the interesting and stimulating discussions

[iamnotback]

Difficult to find historic post by AnonyMint on the equation for the orphan rate in Satohi's proof-of-work:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5157380#msg5157380

It was also stated much earlier by Meni Rosenfeld (which was also very difficult to find again even though I remember finding it in 2014!) in a mathematically equivalent form given that Euler's constant e is the limit of (1 + 1/n)ⁿ as n approaches infinity:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/4953/how-will-a-massive-increase-in-hashpower-affect-orphan-rates/4958#answer-4958

A comparable derivation and equation is here:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/deb1/c04f3584a59b489e9582b244c10c7f9b20cf.pdf#page=7

And some related math here:

https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf#page=11

Another unrelated decentralization post I dug up:

Gmaxwell is definitely correct that you have to factor in many variables, and the fact that those with higher hashrate waste less hashrate on propagation and verification delay is one of the factors.

I did come to the conclusion that profitable mining will always centralize. There is no decentralized solution for as long as mining is profitable.

No one seems to talk about the fact that the Chinese mining cartel controls 65% of Bitcoin's hashrate, has vetoed every block size increase (even Classic's doubling apparently)[1], and surely their hashrate share will increase on the next halving, because marginal miners are the first to go.

Then they provably lie to us by claiming the Great Firewall of China is their justification, but they could put a pool abroad and just send hashes across the firewall. So obviously they want to fatten their oligarchy profits by forcing transaction fees up. (I am even more conspiratorial and assume they are getting free electricity charged to the collective State for a wink and a handshake). I predicted the block size issue and Tragedy of the Commons of mining (with a focus on block size) in 2013 and was routinely labeled loony.

[1] Bitcoin has already been 51% attacked then.

[iamnotback]

if you think that Ned and Dan have complete control over STEEM, then perhaps you should check out: https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitguide/steemitguide-what-is-a-exactly-is-a-steem-witness-and-why-every-user-should-vote

Dan has some errors in that video (ironically/coincidentally yesterday I was viewing that video). Sorry he is wrong too often (where it matters significantly). Here is another example of where he is wrong:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16960504#msg16960504

Errors:

0:40 - "witness are under control of the shareholders". Incorrect. They can do whatever they want until they are replaced by an election.
0:45 - "actually more secure than Bitcoin". Incorrect. I explain why in my white paper.
0:48 - "proof-of-work is ... burn most money is most secure ... proof-of-stake ... is also a scarce resource". Incorrect.
1:40 - "all systems are vulnerable to 51% attack ... no such thing as avoiding 51% attack". Incorrect. PoS is economically vulnerable to double-spends, Bitcoin is not. I explain this in my white paper. Correct that all systems have some form of 51% attack, but PoS has additional 51% attack vectors.
2:10 - "where we get the advantage over proof-of-work is that the cost of acquiring the 51% is much higher in proof-of-stake". Incorrect. Much easier to borrow or rent 51% stake than to rent 51% of mining farms. The mining farms have too much at stake. The shareholders have nearly nothing-at-stake because of their shares being an undersupplied public good. Worse yet, it may be more profitable for the whales to double-spend and short, than to sell their stake straight up.
2:20 - "because DPoS uses deterministic manner of producing blocks, we don't have to rely on random chance". Incorrect. He fundamentally does not understand resiliency and liveness. I explain this in detail in my white paper. Thus he doesn't understand why Graphene will never scale up to the world. Dunning-Kruger-esque.
3:30 - "get non-linear growth in the ability to achieve things when you concentrate capital". Incorrect. He is touting the concentration of nodes to 110 witnesses as being some advantage, because he never figured out how to otherwise solve the propagation scaling issue that plagues an unbounded number of nodes. But it doesn't follow that a concentration, bounded, and permissioned, provides resiliency and liveness. He is conflating.

I rebutted the Bitshares guy who responded to my above comments:

https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/43#issuecomment-264952505

[HCLivess]

Sweet god, how delusional are you?

[iamnotback]

Sweet god, how delusional are you?

You are in for a rude awakening to reality soon son.

Maybe you will learn to stop disrespecting people you don't know. And instead do a little research on their actual past accomplishments.

Edit: as my high-IQ younger sister would say in defiantly condescending tone, "You think?". That is what she always said to people who were incorrect but not aware of their errors. She was more succinct than me. I should learn to adopt her style.


You Think?

[iamnotback]

One last farting shot...


Has anyone told you that Side-chains are incentives incompatible and thus hopelessly, insolubly broken?

The reason is because:

http://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-reward/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16861492#msg16861492

Why is Blockstream not telling you this? Or have they?

Now it is your homework assignment to figure out why. Until you can answer this question, get off my lawn script kiddies.



You Think?



(I will back eventually to...show you how we did it in the 1980s)

[ArticMine]

The paper "On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward" http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf is definitely worth reading. Thanks for the link.

[btcusury]

Never, ever has a prosperous civilization trusted a monetary unit (or even fungible unit-of-exchange) that could be created out of thin air by everyone.

Well, never ever in the last few thousand years... But we have also been buying into lies about our real history, which goes much further back than the idea of Sumer and Egypt... And even if it really were "never, ever", there's always a first... Though a shift of such magnitude in the nature of energy tokens exchange would probably be preceeded by resistant decentralized cryptotoken systems serving as transitory devices to move away from ever-consolidating central hierarchical control. It is always only the beginning.

[iamnotback]

Afaics, side-chains have a fundamental security flaw and they can't ever work― not for Bitcoin's PoW nor for Cosmos's PoS BFT:

https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/47
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/46

Kaboom to all the known decentralized attempts at scaling. That includes SegWit and LN which I wrote about before:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c786018a8bb2d8d837abce3a4cf4e799#541-segregated-witness

And again note that without decentralization, you don't have scaling (i.e. "centralized scaling" is an oxymoronic phrase):

I wrote about this yesterday:

https://steemit.com/blockchain/@anonymint/future-of-decentralized-currency-is-not-bitcoin
https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/future-of-decentralized-currency-is-not-bitcoin-eec2e9c39a0a

At the above linked blogs I wrote, pay attention to the following quote:

The other aspect of decentralization is how to onboard the masses into a decentralized unit-of-account. Bitcoin is obviously going to own the role as the on/off ramp between crypto-currency and centralized fiat to serve the investors, i.e. the reserve crypto-currency (which will likely continue to bolster the price of Bitcoin), but as a mass adoption on-ramp that is a choke point.

Bitcoin is becoming a reserve currency and conduit for everything in the ecosystem of blockchains and crypto-currrency.

Bitcoin doesn't actually have to scale to mass volume and instant transactions itself. The altcoins and payment  channels will do that. Bitcoin is the conduit for everything...

The reason for the price rise now.


Edit: Centralized scaling (which is an oxymoron) of Bitcoin can provide some limited amount of scaling. It won't scale out to Visa scale, but it will serve the function of BTC to become the reserve currency of crypto ecosystems.

[iamnotback]

After now understanding my invention better from an academic prior art perspective, I can now conclude that my whitepaper and invention will be more important Satoshi's. It is a fundamental innovation in the family of Byzantine fault tolerant systems. It solves the problems that Satohi's didn't. "He" was on the right track though.

[sidhujag]

After now understanding my invention better from an academic prior art perspective, I can now conclude that my whitepaper and invention will be more important Satoshi's. It is a fundamental innovation in the family of Byzantine fault tolerant systems. It solves the problems that Satohi's didn't. "He" was on the right track though.

I'd like the oppinion of a mathematician or cryptographer with game theory knowledge to comment on it before I make any judgements myself... no code to look at so I'll just wait until there is.