The Ethereum Paradox

[traumschiff]

You've turned this forum into such nonsense that I am leaving. The next you will hear from me is when I replace both Ethereum and Bitcoin with technology that works.

I dare you to do this, but this is just another lie like the rest you keep throwing at this forum about your imaginary vaporware.

Do it.

Just....

Do it!

Fresh air would help your brain function again, the fact that you physically threaten people here after you cry for months that you are terminally ill is laughable (and you do that on a crypto forum). You can't go any lower. Just leave.

[wpalczynski]

Maybe thats what you get up to with all those underage boys and girls over there in the philipines

My gf's 26th bday was March 3. She monitors me 24 x 7. Any more lies (about me or Ethereum)?

So basically you're admitting you're a sex tourist, possible fugitive from the united states and probable pederast.

[bitfish]

The next you will hear from me is when I replace both Ethereum and Bitcoin with technology that works.

NATO. No action, talk only.
When a HUGE ego is obfuscating view on reality.

[TPTB_need_war]

Serenity PoC2

https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/03/05/serenity-poc2/

The error is here on slides 11 & 12:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CjD0W4l4-CwHKUvfF5Vlps76fKLEC6pIwu1a_kC_YRQ/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.gd284b9333_0_39

As I predicted:

When will the design details of the new PoS system be shared so we know how they plan to scale?

The plans are sufficiently shared already in the numerous presentations and YouTube videos. I know the limits of the range of choices they can possibly choose from. So I know they are stuck up river without a paddle. They will eventually realize this, and then either they will try to shoehorn some crap that creates a Prisoner's Dilemma and breaks Nash equilibrium (such as "transaction receipts") and/or [...]

Again a receipt instead of every validator validating breaks the Nash equilibrium and creates a Prisoner's Dilemma:

I will repeat again for the 10th time in this thread. Every validator must be able to validate the entire history of the lineage of transactions for the shard that validator is responsible for. Otherwise that validator can't be sure it is not going to lose its funds (i.e. electricity for PoW or deposit for the proposed consensus-by-betting) because it approved an invalid transaction due to some lie in the history as trusted but not validated. Combine this with the impossibility of sharding the gas as explained already to you.

[TPTB_need_war]

Vitalik has replied to your comment on the page that I linked above,
so there's some bigger game for you.

Thanks. I replied again to Vitalik:

https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/12/28/understanding-serenity-part-2-casper/#comment-2551146572

Vitalik hasn't replied.

[hv_]

Serenity PoC2

https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/03/05/serenity-poc2/

The error is here on slides 11 & 12:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CjD0W4l4-CwHKUvfF5Vlps76fKLEC6pIwu1a_kC_YRQ/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.gd284b9333_0_39

As I predicted:

When will the design details of the new PoS system be shared so we know how they plan to scale?

The plans are sufficiently shared already in the numerous presentations and YouTube videos. I know the limits of the range of choices they can possibly choose from. So I know they are stuck up river without a paddle. They will eventually realize this, and then either they will try to shoehorn some crap that creates a Prisoner's Dilemma and breaks Nash equilibrium (such as "transaction receipts") and/or [...]

Again a receipt instead of every validator validating breaks the Nash equilibrium and creates a Prisoner's Dilemma:

I will repeat again for the 10th time in this thread. Every validator must be able to validate the entire history of the lineage of transactions for the shard that validator is responsible for. Otherwise that validator can't be sure it is not going to lose its funds (i.e. electricity for PoW or deposit for the proposed consensus-by-betting) because it approved an invalid transaction due to some lie in the history as trusted but not validated. Combine this with the impossibility of sharding the gas as explained already to you.

Using a receipt is lowering security by orders of magnitude,correct?

[TPTB_need_war]

Using a receipt is lowering security by orders of magnitude,correct?

I haven't tried to model it quantitatively. It might be a long-tail distribution, thus maybe they can get away with for a while until there is failure of the Nash equilibrium and perhaps split into multiple forks that refuse to converge.

It is something for them to think about, not me. I wouldn't waste my time with that sort of design flaw. Thus I am not that interested in developing a model of its failure. Limited time and resources to do work that doesn't benefit my goals.

Just to reiterate or resummarize, if a validator of a shard has to trust the validators of other shards (for cross-shard state, e.g. the gas balance from one shard being spent to run a script that resides in another shard) then it creates a game theory which is not a Nash equilibrium but rather a Prisoner's dilemma, because the trusting validator can lose his income if the other validators lied to him (and that includes all blocks downstream from that one). Now one could perhaps reduce the probability of the other validators lying over the short-term by incentivizing them to report each other in exchange for a reward (proof-of-cheating), but I analyzed this for my own design and realized it is flawed and abandoned the idea. Because of several reasons such as those validators have an incentive to become coordinated to cheat (in some game theories whereby they can profit, e.g. shorting the coin), and it is impossible to make the reward more than any possible value that can be gained from cheating, etc...

[ilia7777]

ok guys instead of boring discussion about technology lets dive a little bit into finance. I did some calculations and what I discovered scared me a lot. Please correct me if I'm wrong because this is more important than the technical side of things at this point.

So we have 114,000,000 eth initial supply of ether plus 24,000,000 mined each year.
Using todays exchange rate this is 240,000,000 dollars worth supplied each year.

Its really hard to create economic model for something like ether but like any currency its subject to supply and demand. For this price to stabilize there should be demand for 240 mil USD worth of eth every year.

Now lets look at some current network stats:

- daily gas consumption 520 mil (this is total by the entire network correct ?)
- avg gas price 56 bil wei
- network utilization 4%

Now if I haven't made any mistake if we assume these numbers constant for a year (which of course is a false premise) the entire value of gas used in a year in the entire network is only 2336 USD dollars!
If I understand the meaning of network utilization correctly the maximum capacity of the network today is 25 times higher than what is being used. That puts the maximum cap on ethereum economy (if we assume the price of gas constant, which is wrong thing to do of course) to about 58,400 USD.

Now in 8 months the hashrate has grown 4 times. Lets assume its gonna grow 6 times in a year. So in a year we will see 350,400 USD annual gas transaction volume (a bit less because of gradual growth but not that important now)

For the real demand for ether to catch up with the current exchange rate the gas price has to increase 684 times. That will bring block processing cost to 1.27 USD
One transaction seems to take about 5 seconds. If we assume average block with 5 transactions and lets assume that your financial derivatives application generates 1000 txn per day, its going to cost you 254 dollars per day just to process it.

I make few obvious conclusions from this. First one is that the current price is not simply unsustainable its infinitely far from current fundamentals. The second conclusion is that they desperately need more miners to increase network capacity. And they going to get more miners if the price remains so high. So it has to be manipulated if it is to remain so high. The cost of manipulating the price is also quite significant. Somebody has to keep buying 240 mil USD worth of Ethereum every year. I'm not stating that the price is manipulated for sure, I simply don't know. But if mining profitability drops the network is not going to get anythere close to what it should be to have processing capacity for large number of apps that supposed to be coming. The cost of processing the apps should remain low otherwise again the whole thing doesn't make sense for the "community" seeking freedom, independence etc.

[ilia7777]

My rough estimate is that there no more than 500-1000 miners out there. Which is of course very small number. And there also between 6,000 to say 20,000 machines out there. Far from great processing power. It needs to get way bigger to really become economically justified. But there are no incentives I could think of to become part of the network other than mining. Very expensive acquisition of miners as well. The big question is who is paying for it all ? Bitcoin millionaires ? Who else is buying ether ? Investors ? Anybody has any info on that ? I think what we are witnessing right now is a birth of very unique type of the market which the world haven't seen before.

[hv_]

My rough estimate is that there no more than 500-1000 miners out there. Which is of course very small number. And there also between 6,000 to say 20,000 machines out there. Far from great processing power. It needs to get way bigger to really become economically justified. But there are no incentives I could think of to become part of the network other than mining. Very expensive acquisition of miners as well. The big question is who is paying for it all ? Bitcoin millionaires ? Who else is buying ether ? Investors ? Anybody has any info on that ? I think what we are witnessing right now is a birth of very unique type of the market which the world haven't seen before.

Biggest volume is in BTC. I wonder if in the coming down move cash out is in fiat...

[TPTB_need_war]

@TPTB_need_war as long as there are solutions,they ll find them or a workaround atleast.

Yes there is only one solution, but Ethereum has really no chance in hell of implementing it. Because the decentralized scalability solution requires user adoption marketing, which they have no clue how to do.

WOW....

all these prediction would be fit perfectly in augur... LOL  

Except that augur is nonsense, because the market is not an accurate prediction paradigm. The market speaks, but after the fact.

I could sell you idiots turds wrapped in a Snicker's bar wrapper and you'd buy it, take it home proudly, and put in your ref for safe storage without ever opening to verify it. Then later when your frig smells like shit, you go searching for some poo and never open the Snicker.

augur more like decentralized betting market,  they want us to bet on everything.  if you look at it that way, it actually make sense.

True. But we can already do that. What augur is trying to do is figure out how to record of the outcomes decentralized. But the problem is that violates the Nash equilibrium (since users have game theories to profit on reporting different outcomes). I don't expect Augur to function decentralized and expect it to diverge into chaotic disorder unless they centralize control of the recording of the outcomes (in which case they've accomplished nothing). Bitshares is centralized which enables using a price feed for the BitUSD algorithm.

There is a lot of bullshit floating around in this forum.

And to that guy shittalk,it doesnt even matter if whales dump ether,the project will go on because,compared to other cryptos like LTC or even BTC,its are not meant to be just crypto money that can be speculated on,but more.So,i really hope whales dump it and it goes down to 2$,i really do.

Except that Ethereum needs more than $200,000 per month to continue operating and they were down to $750,000 cash and 1.65 million ETH:

The foundation currently has ~1.65 million ETH, plus ~$750k in non-ETH assets. 1650000 * 6.1 + 750000 = $10,815,000. Based on our current ~$200k/month burn rate, that will last us ~54 months ~= 4.5 years. That said, we are planning some substantial expansions which will increase our expenses but also get Casper and other fun stuff out the door much faster, and we are also starting to get interest for corporate sponsorships coming in, which could secure us a more sustainable funding path in the long term.

Vitalik hasn't even understood Iota yet, which I thoroughly analyzed in the Decentralization thread:

VB: Not sure, I looked at IOTA and the block weave consensus algorithm looks interesting, but I haven’t explored it too deeply.

[TPTB_need_war]

More reasons Ethereum can't scale decentralized:

Check https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/492fse/serenity_poc2_ethereum_blog/d0okwaw and https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/492fse/serenity_poc2_ethereum_blog/d0oik7j, please. Are those centralization concerns legit? I suspect that any real criticism will be shadowbanned on sites controlled by Ethereum marketing team, so I'm asking here.

Truth is started to come out...





Also the Dapps look mostly like nonsense or they don't need Turing complete scripts:

WOW....

all these prediction would be fit perfectly in augur... LOL 

Except that augur is nonsense, because the market is not an accurate prediction paradigm. The market speaks, but after the fact.

I could sell you idiots turds wrapped in a Snicker's bar wrapper and you'd buy it, take it home proudly, and put in your ref for safe storage without ever opening to verify it. Then later when your frig smells like shit, you go searching for some poo and never open the Snicker.

augur more like decentralized betting market,  they want us to bet on everything.  if you look at it that way, it actually make sense.

True. But we can already do that. What augur is trying to do is figure out how to record of the outcomes decentralized. But the problem is that violates the Nash equilibrium (since users have game theories to profit on reporting different outcomes). I don't expect Augur to function decentralized and expect it to diverge into chaotic disorder unless they centralize control of the recording of the outcomes (in which case they've accomplished nothing). Bitshares is centralized which enables using a price feed for the BitUSD algorithm.

There is a lot of bullshit floating around in this forum.

[hv_]

More reasons Ethereum can't scale decentralized:

Check https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/492fse/serenity_poc2_ethereum_blog/d0okwaw and https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/492fse/serenity_poc2_ethereum_blog/d0oik7j, please. Are those centralization concerns legit? I suspect that any real criticism will be shadowbanned on sites controlled by Ethereum marketing team, so I'm asking here.

Truth is started to come out...





Also the Dapps look mostly like nonsense or they don't need Turing complete scripts:

WOW....

all these prediction would be fit perfectly in augur... LOL 

Except that augur is nonsense, because the market is not an accurate prediction paradigm. The market speaks, but after the fact.

I could sell you idiots turds wrapped in a Snicker's bar wrapper and you'd buy it, take it home proudly, and put in your ref for safe storage without ever opening to verify it. Then later when your frig smells like shit, you go searching for some poo and never open the Snicker.

augur more like decentralized betting market,  they want us to bet on everything.  if you look at it that way, it actually make sense.

True. But we can already do that. What augur is trying to do is figure out how to record of the outcomes decentralized. But the problem is that violates the Nash equilibrium (since users have game theories to profit on reporting different outcomes). I don't expect Augur to function decentralized and expect it to diverge into chaotic disorder unless they centralize control of the recording of the outcomes (in which case they've accomplished nothing). Bitshares is centralized which enables using a price feed for the BitUSD algorithm.

There is a lot of bullshit floating around in this forum.

I'd estimate, that 'working' DAPPs can only be nichy ones w/o any real risk exposure. Similar to bitcoin early bootstrapping with Silkroad you can start with:

Gaming, Betting, Cheating, Porn...

[TPTB_need_war]

I'd estimate, that 'working' DAPPs can only be nichy ones w/o any real risk exposure. Similar to bitcoin early bootstrapping with Silkroad you can start with:

Gaming, Betting, Cheating, Porn...

I need to spend more time thinking about it in detail. Devil is in the details.

[monsterer]

I'd estimate, that 'working' DAPPs can only be nichy ones w/o any real risk exposure. Similar to bitcoin early bootstrapping with Silkroad you can start with:

Gaming, Betting, Cheating, Porn...

The really big one is truely decentralised poker.

[hv_]

I'd estimate, that 'working' DAPPs can only be nichy ones w/o any real risk exposure. Similar to bitcoin early bootstrapping with Silkroad you can start with:

Gaming, Betting, Cheating, Porn...

The really big one is truely decentralised poker.

Hahaha yes with cheating and live stripping ... 

[illodin]

I'd estimate, that 'working' DAPPs can only be nichy ones w/o any real risk exposure. Similar to bitcoin early bootstrapping with Silkroad you can start with:

Gaming, Betting, Cheating, Porn...

The really big one is truely decentralised poker.

Decentralized poker would be infested with bots and colluders. Even online casinos with proprietary closed source poker clients scanning players' computers for suspicious activity and antifraud/security teams monitoring for botlike behaviour have a bot problem. It would be an awful user experience for a recreational player.

[monsterer]

Decentralized poker would be infested with bots and colluders. Even online casinos with proprietary closed source poker clients scanning players' computers for suspicious activity and antifraud/security teams monitoring for botlike behaviour have a bot problem. It would be an awful user experience for a recreational player.

Which is why it is so hard to solve. But not unsolvable IMO and arguably much more valuable than just another altcoin.

[TPTB_need_war]

Ethereum's financial success

What financial success? P&D scams are not success. They pull in the losers and greater fools.

$18 million wasted, still vaporware, and now doing illegal securities manipulation on illegal unregistered securities (that were offered to US citizens) to raise more money to waste because they are out-of-funds and don't have a fucking clue about the technology.

What's scammy about it?

$18 million wasted and still vaporware. Follow the relevant links...

In order to beat Bitcoin, you much provide something that Bitcoin can't do which is more popular and has greater network effects.

Bitcoin for the moment owns the store-of-value and slow-large medium-of-exchange functions of crypto currency, and that is unlikely to change unless Bitcoin so screws up the block size issue that the market is forced to choose a new block chain for these properties of money.

However, the instant-micro medium-of-exchange function of crypto currency is still wide open. Ditto on chain privacy and anonymity, which appears to be a two horse race between Monero and Z(ero)cash, but I have my doubts as to how popular/practical overt privacy and anonymity will be. Bitcoin is hoping for Lightning Networks (<-- click the Reddit link at the linked post) but LN requires large block sizes for garbage collections spikes and it realistically can't allow anyone to pay anyone, plus it is a centralization paradigm to be owned by large corporate servers. V(anilla)Cash is pitching some insecure Zero Time shit that can't scale. Bitshares and Dash are pitching some more flawed shit, and even I discovered that InstantX's white paper had a high school level math error in its security calculation which made it seem much more secure than it is.

Ethereum has no users, no chance of scaling decentralized, and no one has even shown that any Dapps are important and/or can't be done in another way. I pointed out the prior day that Augur is insecure.

Market cap is irrelevant if it is not sustained, because P&Ds are easy for whales to conduct by buying from themselves, including constructing fake buy walls.

So yes I think Bitcoin can be beat. But it won't be easy. And the chances are slim. You actually have to have a plan for stimulating instant microtransactions medium-of-exchange adoption. It won't just happen by magic and you won't be able to just employ the mass media to dazzle the gullible tinfoil speculator junkies for the userbase since Bitcoin already captured them.

on hype alone it will make a lot of people very rich; in the short term

It will make most of the speculators very poor by definition of a P&D.

[hv_]

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS  :-)   )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w