IOTA - Permissioned ledger Russian extortion scheme

[r0ach]

Nobody understands every interlocking element about crypto, whether it's the obscure differences in elliptic curves, economic theories, the legal system, whatever.  One thing that's generally agreed upon by the people who spend a lot of time deciphering these elements is, they can all be categorized into one of two systems:  permissioned ledger and permissionless.  The fallacy of many of these crypto analysts is, they assign these two distinctions solely at a protocol level, if it's possible or not to interact with the system at all.  In the case of IOTA, the economic variables alone can cause the same permissioned ledger distinction to take effect.

Yes, it is true, I can technically "interact" with IOTA on a "permissionless" level, but that interaction has no purpose unless you're first able to acquire the native token of the protocol.  It doesn't really matter if you can interact with it in some meaningless way if you're not spending native coins.  Since it's a currency and not a theoretical object on a drawing board, the interaction is required to be economically motivated in order for the permissionless attribute to apply.  In this case, it is not a permissionless system because I cannot acquire native tokens in a permissionless manner...just like proof of stake.

Where do the native coins come from?  Issued with the wave of a hand, for profit, just like central bankers do to enrich the issuer of course!  

Many will likely not want to accept this conclusion, but I believe this is a shockingly obvious flaw of unprofitable PoW, to be relegated into the same permissioned ledger status as proof of stake.  Because you're not circulating native coins in a permissionless manner, the external entropy to attempt to secure the underlying protocol, completely abstracted from coin creation and distribution layer, is kind of meaningless to begin with.

This is in addition to all the other issues of IOTA, such as limits of practical application concerning CAP Theorem, how the chain could find convergence without centralization or actually be secure at all without a huge tipping point of adoption, unprofitable PoW being easier to attack, the likelihood checkpoints would be required forever, etc.  

TLDR version:

The purpose of mining (in bitcoin) is to create a permanent decentralized exchange peg, which thus results in a permissionless system.

The permanent peg is absent in IOTA.  It's not a decentralized currency or permissionless system.

But on another note, why is the word "extortion" in the title?:

Please tell me, who throughout history has issued currency for profit besides central bankers?  No wonder Come from Beyond wants to remain anonymous, because he wants to profit by impersonating a central banker and the legal system will eventually annihilate people doing such things.  

PoS is a closed loop, recursive, permissioned ledger.  I can just corner the market on coins and if anyone requires them, I can now extort them because there is no entry point into the system besides the extortioners.  IOTA shares a similar fate.  With unprofitable mining and no block rewards, you just issue the coin supply yourself, effortlessly create a monopoly out of thin air, attempt to pump the price, and now if anyone requires IOTA for some particular reason, you now get to extort them.  In this regard, IOTA is also a permissioned ledger because there's no entry point into the system besides the extortioners.

In PoW, the coins are constantly being recycled by transaction fees acting as mining reward, meaning there is always a permissionless entry point.  There is no permanent rich get richer scheme with interest or cornered supply and extortion scheme from day one like IOTA.

Point two:

If people wanted to be paid in IOTA, they will in some way have to go through the Come from Beyond Russian extortion scheme, directly or indirectly.  He is impersonating a central banker after all and cornered the market on day one.  There is no way around that fact.  We might as well call him Czar from Beyond.

The value of currency is denominated entirely by network effect.  If only one person owns it, the value is zero.  If only two or two hundred people own it, the value is still only slightly above zero.  Given the fact that for the value to increase, it requires millions of participants to willingly submit to an extortion scheme, the whole thing becomes a joke.

Whether it's a central banker power grab scheme or not probably hinges entirely on whether the coins are distributed by a single entity or the protocol itself.

You have to give credit where credit is due, Russia is the leader in creating the two biggest, for personal profit schemes in cryptoland so far.

[kiklo]

Who cares. By the time the chinese imbalance ends Bitcoin can be long gone when all it takes to shut it down is 'asking' two chinese guys. You're not solving the problem of Bitcoin with fuding altcoins, all you're doing is pumping it for personal gains and dumping on unsuspecting n00bs. Shame on you.

PoS is a closed loop, recursive, permissioned ledger.  I can just corner the market on coins and if anyone requires them, I can now extort them because there is no entry point into the system besides the extortioners.  IOTA shares a similar fate.  With unprofitable mining and no block rewards, you just issue the coin supply yourself, effortlessly create a monopoly out of thin air, attempt to pump the price, and now if anyone requires IOTA for some particular reason, you now get to extort them.  In this regard, IOTA is also a permissioned ledger because there's no entry point into the system besides the extortioners.

In PoW, the coins are constantly being recycled by transaction fees acting as mining reward, meaning there is always a permissionless entry point.  There is no permanent rich get richer scheme with interest or permanently cornered supply and extortion scheme from day one like IOTA.

Ok,

So you're saying PoS is a permissioned ledger and PoW is permissionless legder.

Sorry , calling Bullshit on that.

You act like the Proof of Stake guy will just Hoard it and never spend any.
All that does is make the remaining Proof of Stake coins more valuable and makes everyone else holding , hold tighter.
But they can still spend their Staked rewards and leave their principle untouched.
So their staked rewards flow out into the populace, where they can be purchased and staked again.
So permissioned ledger theory. BUSTED!!!!

As to your comment : PoW is permissionless legder
That is a Real Joke.
Economics make PoW mining harder to enter into than PoS staking even now.

Proof of stake buy the coin from the exchange, transfer to personal wallet and let Stake, Easy and done.

Proof of Work ,
1. Buy a warehouse
2. Spend 1 million dollars buying ASICS
3. Spend thousand of dollars on electricity & IT Support Staff
4. Setup Website and system so others can buy shares into your BTC mining operation, because you make more money from the suckers that buy cloud mining than you do from mining BTC itself.
(If that does not make a lightbulb in your head Light up, well there's no hope for you.)
5. Pray for a Miracle , so the next halving does not end your Business models , because you can't afford to keep upgrading the ASICS 

There is no Proof of Stake coin, that I cannot enter at this point in time.

You could not enter the BTC mining for less than ~1 million bucks.
You can claim , that you could be 1 of the suckers that goes into PoW cloud mining,
keyword suckers , they don't even Break even before the difficulty makes their mining shares sterile.

  

FYI:
Some of the comments you guys make, kills me  .
As if it is so easy to corner a market or so easy to short sell a coin.
1. The more you try and corner a market the more impossible it becomes as you increase the cost of whatever you are buying.
2. Short Selling can destroy a coin, LOL. TRY IT. 
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-you-should-never-short-sell-stocks-2015-11-19

[kiklo]

Has Come-from-Beyond actually released IOTA yet?

Or is it still imaginary?


 

[smooth]

it is not a permissionless system because I cannot acquire native tokens in a permissionless manner...just like proof of stake

Agree.

Bitcoin is dangerously close to that as well. The pricing of SHA2 ASICs is basically an extortion scheme.

[kiklo]

it is not a permissionless system because I cannot acquire native tokens in a permissionless manner...just like proof of stake

Agree.

Bitcoin is dangerously close to that as well. The pricing of SHA2 ASICs is basically an extortion scheme.

Still calling BS on Proof of Stake Claims.
Which Proof of Stake coins are you unable to Acquire?

 

[r0ach]

it is not a permissionless system because I cannot acquire native tokens in a permissionless manner...just like proof of stake

Agree.

Bitcoin is dangerously close to that as well. The pricing of SHA2 ASICs is basically an extortion scheme.

Yea, but it's just like any real free market in that there's no guarantee other's won't find a competitive advantage over you, survival of the fittest.  Whether that advantage is building a factory with Chinese peasant slave labor, or operating an unlicensed nuclear reactor on the bottom of the ocean floor.  As long as you can perform the hash function on a CPU that existed before Bitcoin was even releaesd, the fact remains that it is a permissionless ledger.

[smooth]

it is not a permissionless system because I cannot acquire native tokens in a permissionless manner...just like proof of stake

Agree.

Bitcoin is dangerously close to that as well. The pricing of SHA2 ASICs is basically an extortion scheme.

Yea, but it's just like any real market in that there's no guarantee other's won't find a competitive advantage over you, survival of the fittest.  Whether that advantage is building a factory with Chinese peasant slave labor, or operating an unlicensed nuclear reactor on the bottom of the ocean floor.  As long as you can perform the hash function on a CPU that existed before Bitcoin was even releaesd, the fact remains that it is a permissionless ledger.

In theory yes. In practice it closer to permissioned. You remember USB dongles for copy protection? Much the same as Bitcoin ASICs. They're not an absolute barrier to copying of course (which if possible would make use only by permission), but they put up a wall. In theory you could hack a stakeholder and steal their stake, making it permissionless. But the wall is there.

[smooth]

Which Proof of Stake coins are you unable to Acquire?

All of them, without permission from an existing stakeholder (hacking exception from previous post noted)

[kiklo]

Which Proof of Stake coins are you unable to Acquire?

All of them, without permission from an existing stakeholder (hacking exception from previous post noted)

You can go to an exchange and buy some, instead of making up stories.
If BTC owners don't sell their coins , you can't buy them either, so your Logic is Flawed.  

You act like people are sealed in a bubble, fact is there is always something someone else has, that someone else wants, and to get those services & goods, we must trade with each other. IE: Food , Water , Healthcare, Companionship, Entertainment , New Cars, all of this require you give something up, the idea that someone can live without trading anything is beyond fantasy.

Because you still have to buy the asics or cloud mining from someone, so without their permission, you can't get BTC.  

In other words you have to get permission from the ISP, Hardware Manufacturers, and electric company , before you can even attempt mining,
so this permission verses permission less theory is really just a load a BS.


 

FYI:
So in other words For any System to Work Requires Permission from someone, which totally destroys your Argument.  

[generalizethis]

Which Proof of Stake coins are you unable to Acquire?

All of them, without permission from an existing stakeholder (hacking exception from previous post noted)

You can go to an exchange and buy some, instead of making up stories.
If BTC owners don't sell their coins , you can't buy them either, so your Logic is Flawed.  
You act like people are sealed in a bubble, fact is there is always something someone else has, that someone else wants, and to get those services & goods, we must trade with each other. IE: Food , Water , Healthcare, Companionship, Entertainment , New Cars, all of this require you give something up, the idea that someone can live without trading anything is beyond fantasy.

Because you still have to buy the asics or cloud mining from someone, so without their permission, you can't get BTC.  

In other words you have to get permission from the ISP, Hardware Manufacturers, and electric company , before you can even attempt mining,
so this permission verses permission less theory is really just a load a BS.


 

So the world has to conspire to take away electricity  (that can be used for anything), hardware (that can be used for anything) and ISP (which can be used for anything) in order for POW to be equally permission-based as a POS coin? WTF, dude.

[kiklo]

Which Proof of Stake coins are you unable to Acquire?

All of them, without permission from an existing stakeholder (hacking exception from previous post noted)

You can go to an exchange and buy some, instead of making up stories.
If BTC owners don't sell their coins , you can't buy them either, so your Logic is Flawed.  
You act like people are sealed in a bubble, fact is there is always something someone else has, that someone else wants, and to get those services & goods, we must trade with each other. IE: Food , Water , Healthcare, Companionship, Entertainment , New Cars, all of this require you give something up, the idea that someone can live without trading anything is beyond fantasy.

Because you still have to buy the asics or cloud mining from someone, so without their permission, you can't get BTC.  

In other words you have to get permission from the ISP, Hardware Manufacturers, and electric company , before you can even attempt mining,
so this permission verses permission less theory is really just a load a BS.


 

So the world has to conspire to take away electricity  (that can be used for anything), hardware (that can be used for anything) and ISP (which can be used for anything) in order for POW to be equally permission-based as a POS coin? WTF, dude.

If you going to make weak theories , don't be surprise when you're called on it,
or can you build an asic from stuff out of your yard?  

 

FYI:
You still need Permission from the electric company and an ISP?

FYI2:
Better & Funnier Yet.  
Prove me wrong, go out in the wilderness and create a BTC miner that can actually mine BTC , and then post the pics so we can be in AWE at you.
You can't buy ASICS, you can't pay a ISP, And you have to make your own Electricity, so that no one gives you permission.

FYI3:
You know even if you pull all of that off, You Still Need Permission from an Exchange to sell your BTC,  SO EPIC FAIL!!!

FYI4: Regarding Electricity , in your Hubris you believe everyone has access to it, Think Again.

An estimated 79 percent of the people in the Third World -- the 50 poorest nations -- have no access to electricity, despite decades of international development work. The total number of individuals without electric power is put at about 1.5 billion, or a quarter of the world's population, concentrated mostly in Africa and southern Asia.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electricity-gap-developing-countries-energy-wood-charcoal/

[generalizethis]

Which Proof of Stake coins are you unable to Acquire?

All of them, without permission from an existing stakeholder (hacking exception from previous post noted)

You can go to an exchange and buy some, instead of making up stories.
If BTC owners don't sell their coins , you can't buy them either, so your Logic is Flawed.  
You act like people are sealed in a bubble, fact is there is always something someone else has, that someone else wants, and to get those services & goods, we must trade with each other. IE: Food , Water , Healthcare, Companionship, Entertainment , New Cars, all of this require you give something up, the idea that someone can live without trading anything is beyond fantasy.

Because you still have to buy the asics or cloud mining from someone, so without their permission, you can't get BTC.  

In other words you have to get permission from the ISP, Hardware Manufacturers, and electric company , before you can even attempt mining,
so this permission verses permission less theory is really just a load a BS.


 

So the world has to conspire to take away electricity  (that can be used for anything), hardware (that can be used for anything) and ISP (which can be used for anything) in order for POW to be equally permission-based as a POS coin? WTF, dude.

If you going to make weak theories , don't be surprise when you're called on it,
or can you build an asic from stuff out of your yard?  

 

FYI:
You still need Permission from the electric company and an ISP?

FYI2:
Better & Funnier Yet.  
Prove me wrong, go out in the wilderness and create a BTC miner that can actually mine BTC , and then post the pics so we can be in AWE at you.
You can't buy ASICS, you can't pay a ISP, And you have to make your own Electricity, so that no one gives you permission.

Or how about I divert the electricity from my toaster to my computer to run on the same isp that I download porn with? My point was that no one monitors the first two and the third is barely monitored and I can move to a different service whenever I feel like it. But maybe with IOT I'll need to get permission from my toaster to use its electricity, but we're on good speaking terms, so it's probably cool.

[smooth]

Which Proof of Stake coins are you unable to Acquire?

All of them, without permission from an existing stakeholder (hacking exception from previous post noted)

You can go to an exchange and buy some, instead of making up stories.
If BTC owners don't sell their coins , you can't buy them either, so your Logic is Flawed. 

You act like people are sealed in a bubble, fact is there is always something someone else has, that someone else wants, and to get those services & goods, we must trade with each other. IE: Food , Water , Healthcare, Companionship, Entertainment , New Cars, all of this require you give something up, the idea that someone can live without trading anything is beyond fantasy.

Because you still have to buy the asics or cloud mining from someone, so without their permission, you can't get BTC. 

In other words you have to get permission from the ISP, Hardware Manufacturers, and electric company , before you can even attempt mining,
so this permission verses permission less theory is really just a load a BS.


 

FYI:
So in other words For any System to Work Requires Permission from someone, which totally destroys your Argument.  

Your argument is terrible. Nearly all of the things you mention (excluding new cars perhaps) are inherently available from many different sources. Food, water, etc. Go to probably millions of distinct habitable locations on earth and you will find them. Companionship is available from billions of people, healthcare from millions of providers, etc.

In nearly all existing proof-of-stake systems, the stake is highly concentrated by anywhere from a handful to possibly a few thousand people, in the latter case a group which likely has large internal concentration.

Moreover, the nature of paper wealth is that it is not subject to physical constraints of space or crowding and therefore tends to reach extraordinary concentration. Nearly all of the paper wealth (trillions or quadrillions) that exist in the world are controlled by a handful of banks, or in turn collude via entities such as central banks and the IMF. That control over the bulk of wealth allows them to extend that control all the way down to banning weed stores from getting bank accounts and encumbering nearly all physical wealth in a web of debt.

Any system based on control of notional wealth is in practice permissioned.

Systems based on control of physical devices such as computers or even physical phenomenon such as electricity may become permissioned (as I would suggest Bitcoin largely has at least for the moment), but they have a fighting chance in a way that wealth-based systems such as proof of stake do not.

[kiklo]

Or how about I divert the electricity from my toaster to my computer to run on the same isp that I download porn with? My point was that no one monitors the first two and the third is barely monitored and I can move to a different service whenever I feel like it. But maybe with IOT I'll need to get permission from my toaster to use its electricity, but we're on good speaking terms, so it's probably cool.

You still need permission from the Electric company to have electricity in your home.
Don't pay your light bill for 3 months, and you will see them deny you permission.  


 

[smooth]

Or how about I divert the electricity from my toaster to my computer to run on the same isp that I download porn with? My point was that no one monitors the first two and the third is barely monitored and I can move to a different service whenever I feel like it. But maybe with IOT I'll need to get permission from my toaster to use its electricity, but we're on good speaking terms, so it's probably cool.

You still need permission from the Electric company to have electricity in your home.
Don't pay your light bill for 3 months, and you will see them deny you permission. 

No you don't. https://www.google.com/search?q=off+grid+electricity

And beyond that there are many, many, different electric companies throughout the world, all largely equivalent in terms off the service they provide. To the extent that they are centrally controlled that is through a paper wealth system (i.e. fiat proof of stake).

[kiklo]

Your argument is terrible. Nearly all of the things you mention (excluding new cars perhaps) are inherently available from many different sources. Food, water, etc. Go to probably millions of distinct habitable locations on earth and you will find them. Companionship is available from billions of people, healthcare from millions of providers, etc.

In nearly all existing proof-of-stake systems, the stake is highly concentrated by anywhere from a handful to possibly a few thousand people, in the latter case a group which likely has large internal concentration.

Moreover, the nature of paper wealth is that it is not subject to physical constraints of space or crowding and concentrates to an extraordinary degree. Nearly all of the paper wealth (trillions or quadrillions) that exist in the world are controlled by a handful of banks, or in turn collude via entities such as central banks and the IMF. That control over the bulk of wealth allows them to extend that control all the way down to banning weed stores from getting bank accounts and encumbering nearly all physical wealth in a web of debt.

Any system based on control of notional wealth is in practice permissioned.

Systems based on control of physical devices such as computers or even physical phenomenon such as electricity may become permissioned (as I would suggest Bitcoin largely has at least for the moment), but they have a fighting chance in a way that wealth-based systems such as proof of stake do not.

My Argument is better than yours,
yours required a person be enclosed completely in a sealed system. (Complete Fantasy)

Stake has to be traded , if the owner want to buy anything with it, if not why do they even bother to stake.

Any Wealth paper or otherwise has no point if it is not traded, how many rich people do you know that don't spend a penny of their money for food , if nothing else, therefore guaranteeing they are not in a sealed system and destroying your premise.

 

[kiklo]

Or how about I divert the electricity from my toaster to my computer to run on the same isp that I download porn with? My point was that no one monitors the first two and the third is barely monitored and I can move to a different service whenever I feel like it. But maybe with IOT I'll need to get permission from my toaster to use its electricity, but we're on good speaking terms, so it's probably cool.

You still need permission from the Electric company to have electricity in your home.
Don't pay your light bill for 3 months, and you will see them deny you permission.  

No you don't. https://www.google.com/search?q=off+grid+electricity

And beyond that there are many, many, different electric companies throughout the world, all largely equivalent in terms off the service they provide. To the extent that they are centrally controlled that is through a paper wealth system (i.e. fiat proof of stake).

LOL, you then need permission from the Credit Card company and a Shipping Company and the Hardware Reseller.
Without their permission you don't get your little toy.

 


FYI:
You also needed permission from the ISP to even place the order.

 

[r0ach]

You can go to an exchange and buy some (PoS coins), instead of making up stories.

That's called an extortion scheme, and it's not a permissionless ledger either.  The extortion blueprint is:

1)  Create PoS or IOTA tokens out of thin air with most or all residing in a genesis block which you control.

2)  Attempt to convince or force others to require them for some purpose

3)  Since you cornered the market already on day one by design, everyone is now required to go through you and your associates to be extorted at will


That covers the extortion part.  As for the second part, for it to be a permissionless ledger, there has to be a constant turnover of coins accomplished in one of two ways, either finite coin count and TX fees in block reward, or permanently inflationary mining where outsiders can acquire them without being forced to go through the original holders, exchanges, or other parties.

While IOTA is both a permissioned ledger and extortion scheme, the original PoS coin, Peercoin, attempted to not be an extortion scheme by having coins issued via mining, yet it fails in the aspect that it still is a permissioned ledger by being a recursive, closed entropy system.

[smooth]

Your argument is terrible. Nearly all of the things you mention (excluding new cars perhaps) are inherently available from many different sources. Food, water, etc. Go to probably millions of distinct habitable locations on earth and you will find them. Companionship is available from billions of people, healthcare from millions of providers, etc.

In nearly all existing proof-of-stake systems, the stake is highly concentrated by anywhere from a handful to possibly a few thousand people, in the latter case a group which likely has large internal concentration.

Moreover, the nature of paper wealth is that it is not subject to physical constraints of space or crowding and concentrates to an extraordinary degree. Nearly all of the paper wealth (trillions or quadrillions) that exist in the world are controlled by a handful of banks, or in turn collude via entities such as central banks and the IMF. That control over the bulk of wealth allows them to extend that control all the way down to banning weed stores from getting bank accounts and encumbering nearly all physical wealth in a web of debt.

Any system based on control of notional wealth is in practice permissioned.

Systems based on control of physical devices such as computers or even physical phenomenon such as electricity may become permissioned (as I would suggest Bitcoin largely has at least for the moment), but they have a fighting chance in a way that wealth-based systems such as proof of stake do not.

My Argument is better than yours,
your required a person be enclosed completely in a sealed system. (Complete Fantasy)

Stake has to be traded , if the owner want to buy anything with it, if not why do they even bother to stake.

Wealth accumulates wealth. Large stakeholders will earn large returns, and spend a little. Small stakeholders will live paycheck to paycheck and spend whatever they earn.

Furthermore, most proof-of-stake systems have in-built mechanisms that exacerbate this phenomenon. For example, a quieting time before you can stake. If you transact a lot (say from working and buying food) then you never stake. If you sit on your wealth you stake all the time, thus your return is higher. So more accumulation.

And we haven't even gotten to superlinear returns on unequal voting power. I'll leave that to someone else because I'm bored of you.

[kiklo]

You can go to an exchange and buy some (PoS coins), instead of making up stories.

That's called an extortion scheme, not a permissionless ledger.  The extortion blueprint is:

1)  Create PoS or IOTA tokens out of thin air with most or all residing in a genesis block which you control.

2)  Attempt to convince or force others to require them for some purpose

3)  Since you cornered the market already on day one by design, everyone is now required to go through you and your associates to be extorted at will


For it to be a permissionless ledger, there has to be a constant turnover of coins accomplished in one of two ways, either finite coin count and TX fees in block reward, or permanently inflationary mining where outsiders can acquire them without being forced to go through the original holders, exchanges, or other parties.

While IOTA is both a permissioned ledger and extortion scheme, the original PoS coin, Peercoin, attempted to not be an extortion scheme by having coins issued via mining, yet it fails in the aspect that it still is a permissioned ledger by being a recursive, closed entropy system.

Really do you go to the Supermarket and claim it is extortion, when you buy food?
Buy it don't buy it your Choice.