IDEAL: no ICOs, no proof-of-work, no proof-of-stake, no governance, and no forks

[iamnotback]

This thread is not intended to be about any specific crypto project, nor claim that these ideals are the only way forward. Because for one reason, no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible.

I just want to explain my reasons for setting these ideals as the goals from my crypto work and open these goals to discussion. Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals. The following summaries are not intended to be exhaustive nor present counter arguments. This thread is unmoderated, so you all can add your thoughts.

One of my motivations for creating this post, is to gather the past couple of weeks of my discussion into one coherent post, for my own future reference.

Readers should click all the links in this OP, to get the full flavor behind these summaries.

1.	No ICOs: ICOs enable insiders to buy from themselves, creating a non-free market distribution of the money supply, thus manipulating all the market parameters and effects creating a controlled, non-free market. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686
2.	No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work: Proof-of-work concentrates the money supply, economic profits, and control to the mining farms (esp. those with electricity subsidies). Meet your new central bank masters, the mining cartel. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. Since all the debasement ends up with the rich via mining, the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public. Proof-of-work launches provide no funding for the core developers, unless they are accomplished with premine, instamine, stealthmine, or non-optimized proof-of-work function deceptions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15342314#msg15342314
3.	No Proof-of-Stake: The brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) applies. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. No changes of the ICO token distribution share can be accomplished via mining, thus the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public.
4.	No governance: Foundations and governance are just bringing the brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) to what should be permissionless, trustless. If democracy was going to save us, why has it never done so in 6000 years. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15352261#msg15352261
5.	No forks: no one, not even miner's should have the brutality-of-the-majority power to break the Nash equilibrium and vote on a fork: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520678.msg15335354#msg15335354 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.msg15285558#msg15285558
6.	No Marginable Exchanges: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526067.msg15363845#msg15363845 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526067.msg15376776#msg15376776

So maybe you have your own ideas how to launch a coin and make money. If you have new approaches, good for you.

No comment.  

Yes smooth I have some new magic¹ for launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer. Not an ICO, not proof-of-work, and not some obfuscation of an ICO which has the negative implications of an ICO I enumerate in #1 above.

Note I don't see any need to eliminate having a set of core developers, as I don't see how any development can proceed without them. I would encourage those developers to not cultivate nor employ their political clout to facilitate forks. Note ecosystem development can proceed without the need for a fork.

¹ “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”— Arthur C. Clarke

[1715256810]

1715256810

[1715256810]

1715256810

[old fart]

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

[jjacob]

The best initial distribution of an alt is to take the snapshot of bitcoin blockchain at a particular point of time and enable holders of these bitcoins to receive this altcoins, in proportion to their bitcoin holdings.
No ICO is good, but what is the initial distribution proposed?

[BigSirko]

Although you posted a disclaimer that your topic should not be about a single cryptocurrency, I'ld have to point out NEM is the one which fulfills all your criteria and it is currently in the top 5 of currencies on coinmarketcap. 

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/

Sounds like OP either wants to launch his own crypto, which most failure, or is theorizing when his dream coin is real and out there.


1. NEM was a wide distribution to 1000s of stakeholders and only around 65 BTC was collected.  When R0ach and Spoetnik call ICOs scams, they're almost always referring to stuff which collects millions of dollars and is distributed to a few.
2. NEM is Proof-Of-Importance
3. Proof-Of-Importance
4. NEM does not have a voting system.  At one time NEM considered it, but there were a lot of disasters then with other people's implementation and even now.  Bitshares' issue was it was very hard to kick out apathetic / inactive delegates.  DAO, before the hack, was only able to get around 20% participation.
5. Proof-Of-Importance.  



These are threads I have seen a lot on Bitcointalk.  People saying we need a fair distribution or an alternative to PoW/PoS.  NEM already had you all beat since 2014 and now it's a top 5 currency.  NEM is still cheap so the time to buy is now.

[iamnotback]

1. NEM was a wide distribution to 1000s of stakeholders and only around 65 BTC was collected.

I don't believe the insiders didn't get a lot of tokens. Prove it with math and/or the block chain. How were these "stakeholders" selected? Why were they able to coins but not others? How do we know these "stakeholders" are not Sybils identities for the insiders?

Almost always there is some deception that enriches the insiders and always the market to manipulated (which may explain NEM's rising price if the supply was largely concentrated into a few hands). Not an accusation, but I will assume it is true until shown otherwise, because every single altcoin launch has had some deception.

2. NEM is Proof-Of-Importance

Which I had explained in the past is just Proof-of-Stake under an obfuscation.

Someone else seems to have figured it out also:

XEM's 'Proof of Importance' is Pagerank Fused With Proof-of-Stake

4. NEM does not have a voting system.

Proof-of-Stake is inherently a voting system.

NEM already had you all beat since 2014 and now it's a top 5 currency.  NEM is still cheap so the time to buy is now.

Please don't gloat. I was aware of NEM since last year. jabo38 used to be in my inner circle in 2014. He already knows that I refuted a lot of the bogus claims about Proof-of-Importance. He and I agreed to not argue about it. But since you seem to want to claim that PoI is a panacea for everything, then I guess I am going to have to deal with this now.

Edit: I will redo/refresh my study of Proof-of-Importance, then expound on this.

Edit#2: Proof-of-Importance is just Proof-of-Stake. Sorry BigSirko, but you have no technical knowledge about what you are writing. NEW hasn't solved the IDEALs in this thread. Not even close.

the POI algorithm, albeit unique, is not a huge amount different than a regular POS algorithm, the only difference being that it takes into consideration how many transactions you make.

If you think it can easily be cheated, well i guess all you need to do is move your funds across different accounts constantly.

Thanks for confirming it is just proof-of-stake with some weighting by the transaction graph. That is my read also:

http://nem.io/NEM_techRef.pdf#section.7

As for whether it's security could be gamed (leading to The DAO like failure), well I would argue that the risk is nonzero (given that anyone can make a lot of transactions) until it has been properly peer reviewed. You can't trust one guy to do this sort of analysis.

[iamnotback]

The best initial distribution of an alt is to take the snapshot of bitcoin blockchain at a particular point of time and enable holders of these bitcoins to receive this altcoins, in proportion to their bitcoin holdings.

That is Proof-of-Burn (PoB) or Proof-of-Sign.

Neither raise any funds for development of the ecosystem.

Proof-of-sign duplicates Bitcoin's corrupt distribution controlled by mining farms who mine at perhaps $50 cost (some of us even think they get free subsidized electricity in China paid for by the State) while we pay $600 cost.

For those who want to duplicate Bitcoin's distribution, they may prefer this. I should not judge for them what they want. I am just explaining why it wouldn't fit my ideal.

[iamnotback]

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

I have such technology under development.

[twunkle]

Specifying an ideal by specifying the absence of whatever properties does not mean much to me tbh, it is all secondary and/or irrelevant.
Your only ideal specified here is "launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer." which is very very vague to me. If that is all it is, then I would say just code something that someone wants to pay you for. Software industry is not bad to be in - in terms of pay - and still absorbing more and more devs  .

[electronicash]

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

I have such technology under development.

so you wanna be funded?
you may wanna just join a team instead and with their existing coin if possible, you wouldn't need more funds but just an update to the coin. and you still have the legacy still.

[iamnotback]

Specifying an ideal by specifying the absence of whatever properties does not mean much to me tbh, it is all secondary and/or irrelevant.
Your only ideal specified here is "launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer." which is very very vague to me. If that is all it is, then I would say just code something that someone wants to pay you for. Software industry is not bad to be in - in terms of pay - and still absorbing more and more devs  .

Thank you for your post, as you enabled me to see where I have not communicated to those who lack background understanding of the issues.

The ideal specified in the OP is to have a consensus+distribution system that:

• doesn't centralize
• doesn't allow voting or consensus to drive a fork, which violates the permissionless, trustless requirement (the entire reason that block chains exist otherwise we could use corporation and a database)
• doesn't create a manipulated money supply distribution
• doesn't end up as just another fiat system because it is controlled
• doesn't end up implementing MIT's CoinAnchor which will force us all to present our 666 id when we transact
• doesn't create the moral hazard of and complete loss of trust in the block chain by bailing users of the system, e.g. Ethereum forking to bailout the Too Big To Fail DAO.

Have you been sleeping under a rock while the Ethereum/DAO fiasco has occurred?

You seem to not understand how the ideals specified in the OP pertain to avoiding a fiasco like that. I suggest you click all the links in the OP and get the full flavor of what is driving these ideals.

Sorry to speak to you this way and apologies if I am overreacting to your erroneous use of the words "secondary", "irrelevant" and "your only ideal", but it is amazingly frustrating when instead of asking a question about the relevance of the OP, you make smug (and frankly speaking, slightly condescending although you did admit it is all "vague" to you) statements which are clueless as if you don't even understand anything about why Satoshi invented a block chain.

We seriously need someone to launch a Block Chain University. There are far too many speculators who are ignorant about what they are speculating on.

[iamnotback]

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

I have such technology under development.

so you wanna be funded?
you may wanna just join a team instead and with their existing coin if possible, you wouldn't need more funds but just an update to the coin. and you still have the legacy still.

Well this thread is not supposed to be just about my plans, instead in general.

In general, joining any existing coin would take on all their already flawed distribution (ICOs and deceptions) or lack of developer funding (e.g. fair launch proof-of-work).

Besides, who ever solves these ideals has achieved the Holy Grail of block chains, and can expect to raise a lot of funds on their own. If that were not the case, then there is no hope for block chains to ever achieve the ideals we originally had.

[twunkle]

Specifying an ideal by specifying the absence of whatever properties does not mean much to me tbh, it is all secondary and/or irrelevant.
Your only ideal specified here is "launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer." which is very very vague to me. If that is all it is, then I would say just code something that someone wants to pay you for. Software industry is not bad to be in - in terms of pay - and still absorbing more and more devs  .

Thank you for your post, as you enabled me to see where I have not communicated to those who lack background understanding of the issues.

The ideal specified in the OP is to have a consensus+distribution system that:

• doesn't centralize
• doesn't allow voting or consensus to drive a fork, which violates the permissionless, trustless requirement (the entire reason that block chains exist otherwise we could use corporation and a database)
• doesn't create a manipulated money supply distribution
• doesn't end up as just another fiat system because it is controlled
• doesn't end up implementing MIT's CoinAnchor which will force us all to present our 666 id when we transact

Have you been sleeping under a rock while the Ethereum/DAO fiasco has occurred?

You seem to not understand how the ideals specified in the OP pertain to avoiding a fiasco like that. I suggest you click all the links in the OP and get the full flavor of what is driving these ideals.

Sorry to speak to you this way and apologies if I am overreacting to your erroneous use of the words "secondary", "irrelevant" and "your only ideal", but it is amazingly frustrating when instead of asking a question about the relevance of the OP, you make smug (and frankly speaking, slightly condescending although you did admit it is all "vague" to you) statements which are clueless as if you don't even understand anything about why Satoshi invented a block chain.

We seriously need someone to launch a Block Chain University. There are far too many speculators who are ignorant about what they are speculating on.

Ow, you seem offended. I truly am sorry. Serious.
Although you - to my surprise - do not approve of the form, in fact I did raise some questions. It is up to you what you do with it.

The words "secondary" and "irrelevant" are not intended as an insult, the intention is to indicate I cannot interpret that without a better description of what your ideal or vision is. Saying "your only ideal" should be explained as a tease to get you to give more information about it. Instead you go meta immediately.


As to why Satoshi did anything will forever be unknown to us, unless one of us would be him.

So lets not go there, as it would just be an argument without end. Unless of course, I should understand it in such a way that you are pursuing (what you think is) the same ideal satoshi is/was?

[iamnotback]

Specifying an ideal by specifying the absence of whatever properties does not mean much to me tbh, it is all secondary and/or irrelevant.
Your only ideal specified here is "launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer." which is very very vague to me. If that is all it is, then I would say just code something that someone wants to pay you for. Software industry is not bad to be in - in terms of pay - and still absorbing more and more devs  .

Thank you for your post, as you enabled me to see where I have not communicated to those who lack background understanding of the issues.

The ideal specified in the OP is to have a consensus+distribution system that:

• doesn't centralize
• doesn't allow voting or consensus to drive a fork, which violates the permissionless, trustless requirement (the entire reason that block chains exist otherwise we could use corporation and a database)
• doesn't create a manipulated money supply distribution
• doesn't end up as just another fiat system because it is controlled
• doesn't end up implementing MIT's CoinAnchor which will force us all to present our 666 id when we transact

Have you been sleeping under a rock while the Ethereum/DAO fiasco has occurred?

You seem to not understand how the ideals specified in the OP pertain to avoiding a fiasco like that. I suggest you click all the links in the OP and get the full flavor of what is driving these ideals.

Sorry to speak to you this way and apologies if I am overreacting to your erroneous use of the words "secondary", "irrelevant" and "your only ideal", but it is amazingly frustrating when instead of asking a question about the relevance of the OP, you make smug (and frankly speaking, slightly condescending although you did admit it is all "vague" to you) statements which are clueless as if you don't even understand anything about why Satoshi invented a block chain.

We seriously need someone to launch a Block Chain University. There are far too many speculators who are ignorant about what they are speculating on.

Ow, you seem offended. I truly am sorry. Serious.

I am not offended as much as frustrated. I don't know how to teach all of you what I know. I try but it seems there is a never ending stream of newbies or misunderstandings.

Also I did thank you and I did apologize in advance if I was overreacting.

It is really just about us being able to understand each other. If we can articulate coherently any disagreement and if it makes sense for us to have two opinions, then I am okay with that. What frustrates me is when I perceive that readers lack the background understanding of the issues and so thus we are unable to communicate to each other.

Hopefully we can rectify that now in this instance between us.

Although you - to my surprise - do not approve of the form, in fact I did raise some questions. It is up to you what you do with it.

Yes I did realize the value, which is why I thanked you.

The words "secondary" and "irrelevant" are not intended as an insult, the intention is to indicate I cannot interpret that without a better description of what your ideal or vision is. Saying "your only ideal" should be explained as a tease to get you to give more information about it. Instead you go meta immediately.

I admit I wrote the OP as the tersest possible summary for myself to refer back to and used the links off to prior discussion as the means by which the reader should become familiar. I realize readers need a tldr; up front.

As to why Satoshi did anything will forever be unknown to us, unless one of us would be him.

So lets not go there, as it would just be an argument without end. Unless of course, I should understand it in such a way that you are pursuing (what you think is) the same ideal satoshi is/was?

No Satoshi says in his white paper what his ideals and objectives are where he criticizes existing financial systems and credit card methods of payment.

He made it clear that he was removing the need to trust any corporation. He says it. Go read the white paper. That is required Bitcoin 101 education.

[electronicash]

gee dude you really read whitepaper? i really thought it was just for formality sort of a standard procedure and that the real aim is to squeeze every penny from investors 
whatever algo that you think is a better than what we call decentralized as of now would be great! right on!

[twunkle]

As to why Satoshi did anything will forever be unknown to us, unless one of us would be him.

So lets not go there, as it would just be an argument without end. Unless of course, I should understand it in such a way that you are pursuing (what you think is) the same ideal satoshi is/was?

No Satoshi says in his white paper what his ideals and objectives are where he criticizes existing financial systems and credit card methods of payment.

He made it clear that he was removing the need to trust any corporation. He says it. Go read the white paper. That is required Bitcoin 101 education.

Ok, fair enough. You pursue the ideal that is described in the bitcoin whitepaper and consider that the current bitcoin failed to deliver on that because of the list of you already supplied.

[kiklo]

The ideal specified in the OP is to have a consensus+distribution system that:

• doesn't centralize
• doesn't allow voting or consensus to drive a fork, which violates the permissionless, trustless requirement (the entire reason that block chains exist otherwise we could use corporation and a database)

[/li]
[/list]

Hmm,
OK, as far as the 1st two.
Here is an idea.
IBM used to make a network topology called Token Ring,

The way it was explained was each token ring card address was a bus stop and the Token was a Bus,
So the Bus travels to each Bus stop to pick up information/passengers and moves on to the next stop.

So for an updated version
The Bus is the next Block in the Blockchain
Each online wallet have some type of Identifier/Address and is able to only generate a block only when the Bus is at their stop.
(Which means their should never be any orphans as their is no conflict on between blocks.)
Once the Bus leaves that stop it has to service every other stop before that one can create a new block.
If the wallet is not online when the Bus hits it's stop , the Bus just marks the block area blank and moves on to the next.
Also you could place some type of maximum limit on rewards per stop, to spread out rewards over a longer period.
And at some time if you need to add negative feedback, have the Bus skip their stop in 1 rotation.

 

[iamnotback]

Ok, fair enough. You pursue the ideal that is described in the bitcoin whitepaper and consider that the current bitcoin failed to deliver on that because of the list of you already supplied.

Thanks for understanding.

Contrary to Satohi's ideals in the Bitcoin white paper, Satoshi sort of admitted in mailing list discussion that mining would become centralized by corporations. So it is as if the Bitcoin white paper pitched the ideal as a goal or marketing gimick (or both?).

[iamnotback]

So for an updated version
Each online wallet have some type of Identifier/Address and is able to only generate a block only when the Bus is at their stop.
Once the Bus leaves that stop it has to service every other stop before that one can create a new block.
If the wallet is not online when the Bus hits it's stop , the Bus just marks the block area blank and moves on to the next.

You just reinvented Proof-of-Stake. Unless you mean no stake is required, then you just invented a Sybil attack.

Leave this design to me. I already figured out how to solve it. Unless that is you have a serious design and write a white paper on it to convince yourself that you thought through all the details.

[twunkle]

I am not so sure of the no-fork thing. Yes ok, in the todays sense, but to achieve decentralization it means to have a choice. So maybe 'forks' should actually be part of it, a protocol of many coins. The interpretation of value outside of the system that manages it. Freedom to move my value elsewhere at any point along those that think alike.

[kiklo]

So for an updated version
Each online wallet have some type of Identifier/Address and is able to only generate a block only when the Bus is at their stop.
Once the Bus leaves that stop it has to service every other stop before that one can create a new block.
If the wallet is not online when the Bus hits it's stop , the Bus just marks the block area blank and moves on to the next.

You just reinvented Proof-of-Stake. Unless you mean no stake is required, then you just invented a Sybil attack.

Leave this design to me. I already figured out how to solve it. Unless that is you have a serious design and write a white paper on it to convince yourself that you thought through all the details.

Actually not Proof of stake, as coin amount or # of confirmations will not determine which one makes the next block.
The address order determines the next potential block maker , the amount of coins or processing power would not matter, so no advantage could be obtained by buying more coins or by buying ASICS. 

Using a coin address as an identifier that could not be counterfeit, so you would not need to worry about Sybil (that shameless hussy).

Any way , just my OCD playing with ideas since you put the forum up, I am personally happy with Proof of Stake. 

Later,
 

[iamnotback]

Actually not Proof of stake, as coin amount or # of confirmations will not determine which one makes the next block.
The address order determines the next potential block maker , the amount of coins or processing power would not matter, so no advantage could be obtained by buying more coins or by buying ASICS.  

Using a coin address as an identifier that could not be counterfeit, so you would not need to worry about Sybil (that shameless hussy).

Sorry you can Sybil attack that by splitting your holdings into the smallest unit allowed (e.g. if it is a satohi).

Seriously I've thought of all those designs that you would contemplate and realized why they don't work. I was working on this since 2013.

I literally sat on the sofa and thought, perhaps a cumulative of 1000s of hours about every possible design. I thought through all the minute details of every possible design. I studied every design in crypto and dozens (probably 100s) of white papers.

[sdp]

I have thought about this too.  It would be nice if everyone could get an equal distribution.  Now with any idea I have come up with, and including this Bus system idea, the users can create a sybil attack. 

Distribute 10 Y coins every ten minutes to the users of bitcointalk.  What would happen?  More sock puppet accounts!  Every facebook account?  The same.

Distribute 10 Y coins every ten minutes to IPv4 addresses.  One company owns 1/256 of all the IP addresses.  Nearly everyone on the Internet would get some this way.  Maybe that is the closest thing to the IDEAL here, I will think of for some time.  Some people share IPv4 addresses, some have many.

sdp

[cabron]

isn't it decentralized already as we now have a lot of coins some are even useless and its up to you if you use it or not. isn't this decentralized already or fucked up?  

The ideal specified in the OP is to have a consensus+distribution system that:

• doesn't centralize
• doesn't allow voting or consensus to drive a fork, which violates the permissionless, trustless requirement (the entire reason that block chains exist otherwise we could use corporation and a database)

[/li]
[/list]

Hmm,
OK, as far as the 1st two.
Here is an idea.
IBM used to make a network topology called Token Ring,

The way it was explained was each token ring card address was a bus stop and the Token was a Bus,
So the Bus travels to each Bus stop to pick up information/passengers and moves on to the next stop.

So for an updated version
The Bus is the next Block in the Blockchain
Each online wallet have some type of Identifier/Address and is able to only generate a block only when the Bus is at their stop.
(Which means their should never be any orphans as their is no conflict on between blocks.)
Once the Bus leaves that stop it has to service every other stop before that one can create a new block.
If the wallet is not online when the Bus hits it's stop , the Bus just marks the block area blank and moves on to the next.
Also you could place some type of maximum limit on rewards per stop, to spread out rewards over a longer period.
And at some time if you need to add negative feedback, have the Bus skip their stop in 1 rotation.

 

i can't imagine how old are you lol you learned this on CISCO class?

[CoinHoarder]

no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible

....

Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals.

Well, well... Anonymint is still living in fantasy land, but at least he can admit it now.

Here he is spewing some false ideal ideology that no one can hope to achieve.

Meanwhile, tearing down other people's genuine effort/experiments/innovations, because they are flawed based on the unrealistic ideologies he concocted.

A wise man once said "those that can't do teach", and it is easy to see that applies here.

[NattyLiteCoin]

I'm a proof of work guy. Initiating excursions from SN's fundamental premise is ridiculous in my mind, but it's amongst us. That's what's with wrong with today's society's pride, let's the initial seed grow rather than bastardize it to this level of ridiculous we see each day. Motherfuckers need to see the forest through the trees. You are given something beautifu, but believe you are a snowflake and can may it even better when it doesn't have to be. Let that shit be and use it. Sorry to be such a Luddite, but I can use my iPhone6 for the next 30 years and be happy with it.

I agree with you all other points for the implentation of crypto.

/royal "you"

[iamnotback]

Well, well... Anonymint is still living in fantasy land, but at least he can admit it now.

Here he is spewing some false ideal ideology that no one can hope to achieve.

Meanwhile, tearing down other people's genuine effort/experiments/innovations, because they are flawed based on the unrealistic ideologies he concocted.

A wise man once said "those that can't do teach", and it is easy to see that applies here.

Hello Bitshares' DPOS (proof-of-stake) supporter. Your bias is obvious. I just wish you'd make a technical argument, instead of attacking a person to defend your Bitshares. You must love Bitshares more than the truth.

I had hope people wouldn't bring specific coins into this thread and turn the thread into a flame war.

Is it even possible to have a rational discussion on Bitcointalk?

[iamnotback]

I'm a proof of work guy.

Me also. Note the OP says "No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work". I've invented a new system of proof-of-work which I claim doesn't have the flaws of Nakamoto proof-of-work:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg15137236#msg15137236
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520678.msg15340104#msg15340104
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15352029#msg15352029

Initiating excursions from SN's fundamental premise is ridiculous in my mind, but it's amongst us.

The Model T was the best car every designed  

I agree with you all other points for the implentation of crypto.

Thanks. Yes Satohi's design is unfortunately flawed and needs to be improved.

[tmzn32]

This thread is not intended to be about any specific crypto project, nor claim that these ideals are the only way forward. Because for one reason, no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible.

I just want to explain my reasons for setting these ideals as the goals from my crypto work and open these goals to discussion. Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals. The following summaries are not intended to be exhaustive nor present counter arguments. This thread is unmoderated, so you all can add your thoughts.

One of my motivations for creating this post, is to gather the past couple of weeks of my discussion into one coherent post, for my own future reference.

Readers should click all the links in this OP, to get the full flavor behind these summaries.

1.	No ICOs: ICOs enable insiders to buy from themselves, creating a non-free market distribution of the money supply, thus manipulating all the market parameters and effects creating a controlled, non-free market. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686
2.	No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work: Proof-of-work concentrates the money supply, economic profits, and control to the mining farms (esp. those with electricity subsidies). Meet your new central bank masters, the mining cartel. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. Since all the debasement ends up with the rich via mining, the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public. Proof-of-work launches provide no funding for the core developers, unless they are accomplished with premine, instamine, stealthmine, or non-optimized proof-of-work function deceptions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15342314#msg15342314
3.	No Proof-of-Stake: The brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) applies. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. No changes of the ICO token distribution share can be accomplished via mining, thus the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public.
4.	No governance: Foundations and governance are just bringing the brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) to what should be permissionless, trustless. If democracy was going to save us, why has it never done so in 6000 years. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15352261#msg15352261
5.	No forks: no one, not even miner's should have the brutality-of-the-majority power to break the Nash equilibrium and vote on a fork: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520678.msg15335354#msg15335354 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.msg15285558#msg15285558

So maybe you have your own ideas how to launch a coin and make money. If you have new approaches, good for you.

No comment.  

Yes smooth I have some new magic¹ for launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer. Not an ICO, not proof-of-work, and not some obfuscation of an ICO which has the negative implications of an ICO I enumerate in #1 above.

Note I don't see any need to eliminate having a set of core developers, as I don't see how any development can proceed without them. I would encourage those developers to not cultivate nor employ their political clout to facilitate forks. Note ecosystem development can proceed without the need for a fork.

¹ “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”— Arthur C. Clarke

[iamnotback]

Hahaha. Good one!

Btw, as I mentioned in the OP, I intend to demonstrate how to raise money for the development without the scam of an ICO and where the pricing is set by the market.

I am hopefully going to turn the entire altcoin arena upside down, and inside out.

I hope we can get back to discussing the IDEALs in the OP, irrespective of my plans. Thanks.

[iamnotback]

Here is follow-up on the "No ICO" ideal:

According to escrow agreement the funds have to be transferred from the escrow address.

Where can we read this escrow agreement? Direct link please.

How can we be sure you are not paying back a BTC loan that was used to buy WAVES tokens from yourself during the IPO?

Sasha still hasn't answered.

OP https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1387944.0
Section Escrow.
as for the other question, what reasons do you have for these accusations, I'm sorry?

Thank you sasha for the answer. Please see my logic on how ICOs can be manipulated with loans:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159

Please explain how you can prove you haven't taken out a loan to buy the ICO from yourself, for the following purpose:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1483658.msg15362517#msg15362517

Please do not conflate ICO coins with premined, instamined, or stealthmined coins. If the ICO coins were distributed at the market price then that is not a premine. The problem is that ICO pricing is never set by the market and ICOs can be manipulated as follows.

Apparently they need to include WAVES in the "significantly premined". Please note that every ICO is likely "significantly premined" because the issuers can borrow BTC to buy the ICO from themselves, then pay back the loan (with the BTC they paid themselves) giving themselves free ICO tokens and giving the illusion that they raised more money than they really did:

Instead please continue growing the platform. People just love to waste time in here.

Please don't try to cover up the truth. Let him answer.

The same question will be asked of Rise and Lisk.

They already distributed 9 million coins to themselves. That's plenty of coins to manipulate the market when the supply is set at 100 million, with no more to ever be created. They are also using 1K of ICO funds to buy back even more coins. Interesting how the market appears to be suppressed now. They also distributed 4 million coins to "strategical partners and backers."

Thank you for the information. I hope someone can document that, so it is a fact and not a hearsay.

I hope he also answers my question.

I am not here to play altcoin police. So I will not harp on this. Speculators should be free to do what ever they want and decide to use trust instead of trustless paradigms if they so desire.

I've asked the questions. Cheers.

The bolded part in your response is exactly what ETH/DAO is. Not to say these maniacs can't push the price much higher in the future but the con will only last so long.

The way the insiders manipulate the market with these premined tokens is explained, and note the high leverage employed which means if they run out of tokens to margin with, it is like a house-of-cards and will implode to 0 in a heartbeat:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159

They siphon off BTC for as long as they can and high as they can pump it, then game over and they walk away with BTC and the fools walk away with empty bags.

Also some (including the Daoattacker) allege that the USGovt + MIT (university) are complicit in the ETH pump:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686

And the price of Ether has been manipulated by classic, r/BTC, etc since day one.  So the price alone is not an accurate gauge.  BTW, I was telling people to buy up ETH since its ~$.30 lows.  Follow the big money cause they always have a plan...or a clever exit scam.  

Are you sure that final decision won't be reverted too?

Excellent point.  Ethereum is one big game; I'm really curious to see what they have planned next.  Cause I do think it's all a plan, an insider job with a scope and goal.

I am planning to demonstrate a way to raise money without an ICO wherein the market sets the price and the distribution is fair and the scam of getting a loan to buy the ICO from yourself is not plausible. You can read more about that:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526067.msg15362605#msg15362605

So my serious question to this forum is, with a fair distribution is it impossible for the price to go up? Monero was fairly distributed and the price went up and they have no serious means of attaining adoption (who cares about anonymity).

Is launching a project the honest way, with a serious plan for massive adoption and challenging Bitcoin technologically, going to be rewarded by our community or can only insider pumps succeed?

Serious question. Please feedback.

Serious question. Please feedback.

Define "fair distribution" first.

Market determined pricing. Free market competition to acquire the tokens. The insiders can't amass a large proportion of the tokens via deception, such as taking out a loan to buy their own ICO.

Market determined pricing.

What kind of market? Perfect market?

I already described the parameters of the market:

1. Competitive, i.e. the price not set by the insiders.

2. Insiders can't via deception amass large proportion of the tokens.

I should add a third:

3. Does not require tying the mining to centralization indefinitely, e.g. Zcash's plan to have the miners pay 10% to its foundation indefinitely (does theirs decline to 1% tail, I've forgotten?).


Ah maybe this is becoming a thread jack. Apologies. The opportunity popped up to ask a question. I was just hoping to get some feedback.

[iamnotback]

I am going to add "No Marginable Exchanges" to the OP.

Apparently the first and most immoral aspect of crypto work that needs to be addressed is how centralized exchanges are turning the entire ecosystem into a criminal enterprise:

The probable reason that whales (insiders) don't want DEX (decentralized exchange) is because then they can't do their "print demand out of thin air" margined premine manipulation pumps:

r0ach your allegation about ETH being manipulated is starting to resonate on this board:

The bolded part in your response is exactly what ETH/DAO is. Not to say these maniacs can't push the price much higher in the future but the con will only last so long.

The way the insiders manipulate the market with these premined tokens is explained, and note the high leverage employed which means if they run out of tokens to margin with, it is like a house-of-cards and will implode to 0 in a heartbeat:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159

They siphon off BTC for as long as they can and high as they can pump it, then game over and they walk away with BTC and the fools walk away with empty bags.

Also some (including the Daoattacker) allege that the USGovt + MIT (university) are complicit in the ETH pump:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686

[ttookk]

Just for fun, I'll throw in this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505815.0

A parasitic coin piggybacking on other blockchains.

[AZwarel]

Just two things came to my mind reading (most) this.

1. There can not be equal distribution. Because we are not the same (may i say equal), and if any coin represents economic value, the economic activity made through it will instantly "unbalance" the equal distribution of itself by the users, based on the different skill levels they can contribute to other people's needs. See, same reason why communism can not work.

2. I do support PoW, because it is secure. You have to burn those Mgwatts, and spend the TIME. Mining has to provide security on a technical level - NOT minting coins -, and big datacenters with low electricity cost are the most economic, you can not avoid this, ever, with any "ideal solution"*. Forking, or "evil miners do evil plots" scenarios can not be solved by any technical/software/genious invention solution, because, they are social problems (which means they derive from human action, which is always subjective, non-deterministic, and can not be expressed in 1s and 0s).
Also, that is why miners will not do anything against the network, ever. The moment they do, their own reward (coins) value collapses, and the network just fork, and we can again mine on laptops for a short while :-)

*if you can evade economic scaling (like CPU-only mining) that means it is highly vulnerable to anyone, who wants to destroy the network regardless of cost(!), which is what ASIC PoW protect us against. It is the lesser evil so to speak.

[iamnotback]

Just two things came to my mind reading (most) this.

1. There can not be equal distribution. Because we are not the same (may i say equal), and if any coin represents economic value, the economic activity made through it will instantly "unbalance" the equal distribution of itself by the users, based on the different skill levels they can contribute to other people's needs. See, same reason why communism can not work.

Agreed. When I write "fair distribution", I do not mean uniform distribution. Uniform distribution is some idealistic nonsense that doesn't even exist in socialism or communism either.

Fair distribution means a level playing field of a free market as per what I quoted upthread:

Market determined pricing.

What kind of market? Perfect market?

I already described the parameters of the market:

1. Competitive, i.e. the price not set by the insiders.

2. Insiders can't via deception amass large proportion of the tokens.

I should add a third:

3. Does not require tying the mining to centralization indefinitely, e.g. Zcash's plan to have the miners pay 10% to its foundation indefinitely (does theirs decline to 1% tail, I've forgotten?).

I will add a 4th requirement:

4. The distributed (mined or paid for) tokens are freely tradable instantly (newly mined coins typically aren't spendable unitl after some block confirmations for security reasons). No lockups and holdbacks. In a free market, no one should delay your money and hold it from you.

2. I do support PoW, because it is secure. You have to burn those Mgwatts, and spend the TIME. Mining has to provide security on a technical level - NOT minting coins -, and big datacenters with low electricity cost are the most economic, you can not avoid this, ever, with any "ideal solution"*. Forking, or "evil miners do evil plots" scenarios can not be solved by any technical/software/genious invention solution, because, they are social problems (which means they derive from human action, which is always subjective, non-deterministic, and can not be expressed in 1s and 0s).
Also, that is why miners will not do anything against the network, ever. The moment they do, their own reward (coins) value collapses, and the network just fork, and we can again mine on laptops for a short while :-)

*if you can evade economic scaling (like CPU-only mining) that means it is highly vulnerable to anyone, who wants to destroy the network regardless of cost(!), which is what ASIC PoW protect us against. It is the lesser evil so to speak.

I have solutions to all of these, even including the excessive power consumption problem. You may think it is impossible. Just like everyone thought decentralized electronic currency was impossible (even Chaum's ECash had been tried and failed), yet Satoshi surprised everyone. Even Gregory Maxwell and Adam Back were surprised by Satoshi's solution.

And I am preparing to surprise all of you.

I disagree and encourage users to consider any & all ICO coins as "100% premined"

What is the difference between paying for electricity to mine Bitcoin or Monero, and paying for coins directly?

The only relevant differences are when the latter creates a non-free market. Otherwise they are equivalent.

Thus not all paid for coins are necessarily a premine, otherwise mining would be premining by your incorrect conceptualization.

[kiklo]

isn't it decentralized already as we now have a lot of coins some are even useless and its up to you if you use it or not. isn't this decentralized already or fucked up?  

The ideal specified in the OP is to have a consensus+distribution system that:

• doesn't centralize
• doesn't allow voting or consensus to drive a fork, which violates the permissionless, trustless requirement (the entire reason that block chains exist otherwise we could use corporation and a database)

[/li]
[/list]

Hmm,
OK, as far as the 1st two.
Here is an idea.
IBM used to make a network topology called Token Ring,

The way it was explained was each token ring card address was a bus stop and the Token was a Bus,
So the Bus travels to each Bus stop to pick up information/passengers and moves on to the next stop.

So for an updated version
The Bus is the next Block in the Blockchain
Each online wallet have some type of Identifier/Address and is able to only generate a block only when the Bus is at their stop.
(Which means their should never be any orphans as their is no conflict on between blocks.)
Once the Bus leaves that stop it has to service every other stop before that one can create a new block.
If the wallet is not online when the Bus hits it's stop , the Bus just marks the block area blank and moves on to the next.
Also you could place some type of maximum limit on rewards per stop, to spread out rewards over a longer period.
And at some time if you need to add negative feedback, have the Bus skip their stop in 1 rotation.

 

i can't imagine how old are you lol you learned this on CISCO class?

LOL,

I went to grade school with Methuselah.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah

Actually set some token ring networks up when they were first came out.
But used mostly Arcnet topology in the early days of networking.
Ethernet eventually crushed all of the other network topology.
LOL, I remember when ethernet did not even use a switch.
It ran on coax cable that went in a circle to each PC and you had a T connector on each network card and a terminator at each end.
One break in the cable or a bad terminator killed the entire network back then.  
(Years before Cisco was even a thought bubble in someone's brain)

 

FYI:

Definition - What does Attached Resource Computer Network (ARCNET) mean?

Attached Resource Computer Network (ARCnet) is a type of LAN protocol that provides network services to 255 nodes at data rates of up to 2.5 Mbps. ARCnet is similar to token ring and Ethernet network services.

ARCnet was fast, reliable and cheap, and it allowed different transmission systems to be merged and implemented on same network. ARCnet was the first simple networking based solution that provided for all kinds of transmission regardless of the transmission medium or the type of computer. ARCnet was also the first widely available networking system for microcomputers. Although a new ARCnet specification, ARCnet Plus, has been developed to deliver data transfer rates of 20 Mbps, ARCnet is still used in the embedded systems market.

[MarketMagic]

This thread is not intended to be about any specific crypto project, nor claim that these ideals are the only way forward. Because for one reason, no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible.

I just want to explain my reasons for setting these ideals as the goals from my crypto work and open these goals to discussion. Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals. The following summaries are not intended to be exhaustive nor present counter arguments. This thread is unmoderated, so you all can add your thoughts.

One of my motivations for creating this post, is to gather the past couple of weeks of my discussion into one coherent post, for my own future reference.

Readers should click all the links in this OP, to get the full flavor behind these summaries.

1.	No ICOs: ICOs enable insiders to buy from themselves, creating a non-free market distribution of the money supply, thus manipulating all the market parameters and effects creating a controlled, non-free market. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686
2.	No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work: Proof-of-work concentrates the money supply, economic profits, and control to the mining farms (esp. those with electricity subsidies). Meet your new central bank masters, the mining cartel. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. Since all the debasement ends up with the rich via mining, the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public. Proof-of-work launches provide no funding for the core developers, unless they are accomplished with premine, instamine, stealthmine, or non-optimized proof-of-work function deceptions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15342314#msg15342314
3.	No Proof-of-Stake: The brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) applies. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. No changes of the ICO token distribution share can be accomplished via mining, thus the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public.
4.	No governance: Foundations and governance are just bringing the brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) to what should be permissionless, trustless. If democracy was going to save us, why has it never done so in 6000 years. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15352261#msg15352261
5.	No forks: no one, not even miner's should have the brutality-of-the-majority power to break the Nash equilibrium and vote on a fork: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520678.msg15335354#msg15335354 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.msg15285558#msg15285558
6.	No Marginable Exchanges: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526067.msg15363845#msg15363845

So maybe you have your own ideas how to launch a coin and make money. If you have new approaches, good for you.

No comment.  

Yes smooth I have some new magic¹ for launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer. Not an ICO, not proof-of-work, and not some obfuscation of an ICO which has the negative implications of an ICO I enumerate in #1 above.

Note I don't see any need to eliminate having a set of core developers, as I don't see how any development can proceed without them. I would encourage those developers to not cultivate nor employ their political clout to facilitate forks. Note ecosystem development can proceed without the need for a fork.

¹ “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”— Arthur C. Clarke

My new favourite thread on BCT.

[iamnotback]

Some discussion about how ICOs may be converting altcoin investing into a criminal enterprise. Please read the following linked post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526730.msg15372116#msg15372116

[iamnotback]

My new favourite thread on BCT.

Thank you. May I suggest you sample all my posts, because I am trying to keep them focused and on point lately:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=851556;sa=showPosts

[iamnotback]

We are just fools:

It seems that a corrupted exchange is an essential ingredient for pumping a crypto currency to $billion nosebleed mcaps, so apparently not only is demand being created out-of-thin-air using margined coins the insiders deceptively obtained from the ICO by buying from themselves (taking out a BTC loan and paying it back after the ICO)...

...but likely also that some high volume exchange is also creating tokens literally out-of-thin-air and is another Mt.Gox or Cryptsy waiting to default when there is a run to withdraw.

A likely essential ingredient in BitCON's rise from $10 to $1200 was because Mt.Gox was creating coins out-of-thin-air and handling most of the BTC volume, so this provided more coins for everyone to leverage and create fake demand with.

So this huge pump in ETH likely means another high volume exchange will end up stealing all your coins again soon.

The way this criminal enterprise crypto-currency enterprise works is that the insiders create tokens out-of-thin-air on the exchanges, then when the ponzi scheme implodes, the "hackers" or owners of the exchange are blamed instead of blaming the real manipulators behind the curtain.

We apparently have criminal gangs in the crypto-currency ecosystem. The DAO attacker says the UGGovt + MIT/Cornell universities are complicit. Others say Goldman Sachs is in this. Probably also Russian criminals, etc..

That is likely why there is no enforcement from the SEC. Because the SEC is owned by the criminal gangs.

Nothing has changed! We have not defeated fiat. We have not defeated the same banksters bastards who are always enslaving us.

We're just fools.

[iamnotback]

More details on my plan for an alternative to an ICO launch:

Fair number of coins kept by dev

(Please click the links, as they are essential to understanding this post.)

This is a very important question.

This is a difficult question to answer, because developers need to be funded if we expect any realistic chance of actually fixing our F.U.B.A.R. crypto ecosystem within any rapid timeframe.

Also we'd like the developers to have a vested interest in improving the ecosystem. Ideally every token hodler would be a developer also, but that isn't realistic so we rely on developers.

Yet when the insiders control a significant portion of the tokens (and/or the tokens trade on a corrupt exchange), the price and market cap can be manipulated in a way that transfers all the gains to the insiders and leaves most of the speculators holding an empty bag at the end.

Ideally we'd prefer not to rely on trust, because trust is a honeypot that attracts those who will break the trust. And thus trust replaces "the code is the law" with "politics is the law".

There will exist no perfected solution. For example, Monero claims they launched what I define to be a "fair", competitively mined, free market distribution, but this just handed all their funding to utility companies because paying for electricity for mining is financially equivalent to paying for tokens and/or to those who amassed economies-of-scale cost advantages such as mining farms (even stolen cloud cloud computing accounts) with cheap (even stolen) electricity. Thus proof-of-work launches are not trustless either, and they throw all the funding into the garbage can.

I plan to offer a fair, competitively priced, free market alternative to aforementioned disadvantages of an ICO or proof-of-work launch, which can fund the developer while mathematically placing an upper bound of the percent of the launch tokens the developer can possibly own. While this can't guarantee that the percentage is less than 2% (more realistic guarantees are 10 - 20%) of the launch money supply, it can guarantee (under reasonable assumptions) that the percentage is less than 2% of the long-term money supply (assuming there is an ongoing tail distribution block reward). So while this can't entirely eliminate the possibility of the insiders owning enough coins to do some short-term manipulation to drive the price and market cap higher, it does at least provide some reasonable bounds. And the advantage is the developers are funded. So my conceptual innovation, will offer the speculator a choice to have a mathematically bounded balance between trust and trustless, with the advantage being the developers are funded. Note again, proof-of-work launches are not trustless either, and they throw all the funding into the garbage can.

I plan to use this new conceptual way to launch, to offer speculators to invest some small portion of their net worth in a project and developer(s) they feel will be good for the long-term development of our crypto ecosystem. A long-term holding for ideological reasons, not just monetary return on investment but also ideological accomplishment return on investment. Note again, proof-of-work launches are not trustless either, and they throw all the funding into the garbage can.

If you read my threads, you will know I am against trust and politics of trust (being I am a minanarchist leaning full blown anarchist). I would prefer a launch that has no trust, but I can't think of a way to fund development without any trust whatsoever. But at least the produced token software will be a trustless protocol. So some trust and some leadership is necessary to produce the trustless end. The end justifies the means.

Perfection is for incapable dreamers who handicapped themselves with their perfectionist delusion. The real world requires a balancing act. Let's get the balance right.

POW is the LEAST dirty way of generating coins in a fair manner since anyone in the world can mine on virtually the same ground

You can't prove how many people weren't mining with stolen cloud computing as I pointed out:

...even stolen cloud cloud computing accounts...

Monero and Bitcoin can never prove their distribution was any more fair than any other.

Sorry. Monero has no more "holier than thou" bullshit excuse for their lack of leadership and rapid development.

[iamnotback]

I am not so sure of the no-fork thing. Yes ok, in the todays sense, but to achieve decentralization it means to have a choice. So maybe 'forks' should actually be part of it, a protocol of many coins. The interpretation of value outside of the system that manages it. Freedom to move my value elsewhere at any point along those that think alike.

If you want to fork, offer a proof-of-burn. Let's each token hodler decide independently from the others. Degrees-of-freedom = freedom and decentralization. Binding us all together in one knot is politics, centralization, corruption, and failure.

[CoinHoarder]

Well, well... Anonymint is still living in fantasy land, but at least he can admit it now.

Here he is spewing some false ideal ideology that no one can hope to achieve.

Meanwhile, tearing down other people's genuine effort/experiments/innovations, because they are flawed based on the unrealistic ideologies he concocted.

A wise man once said "those that can't do teach", and it is easy to see that applies here.

Hello Bitshares' DPOS (proof-of-stake) supporter. Your bias is obvious. I just wish you'd make a technical argument, instead of attacking a person to defend your Bitshares. You must love Bitshares more than the truth.

I had hope people wouldn't bring specific coins into this thread and turn the thread into a flame war.

Is it even possible to have a rational discussion on Bitcointalk?

It is cute how you tried to change the topic. Please show me where in my post that I mentioned Bitshares. I will resize the text back to normal to help you out.

[iamnotback]

It is cute how you tried to change the topic. Please show me where in my post that I mentioned Bitshares. I will resize the text back to normal to help you out.

Likewise, show me where I stated you mentioned Bitshares. Likewise, it is cute how you try to change the topic. Refer to my reply to you again.

[balu2]

have to add: one needs to make a distinction between a cryptocurrency (higher inflation for circulation in business) and a cryptocommodity (lower inflation for value storage with less volume in the markets and less circulation). These are two different valid money-animals in their own right. Apart from that these other (ico)toycoins and tokens shouldn't be looked at as real currency or commmodity because most will be gone in a few weeks and nobody can remember them.

Bitcoin isn't a currency; it's a commodity btw.

The community really needs to discuss what makes a coin a valid money and what properties and requirements and also priorities money has. This crypto-thing is about value store and medium of exchange; it's not about "innovation going nowhere", "adding more features", "good marketing and roadmap" and "littering the landscape with abandoned projects"

Please make crypto great already! No more ponzi-presale-scams! Fuck overrating of innovation - it's broken 'innovation' in 99,99% of cases (aka 'no innovation at all')

Ultimately a simple, resilient, viable and fair coin is to prefer to a complex, hyped, new and broken coin for the longterm investors.  People need to use the brain more.
This is software based on math that needs to be secure and new tech needs vetting and auditing - and a lot of that,this is not dishwashers or radios where more features are always better and simple to roll out.  


edit: don't see a problem with margin-exchange. It just adds a little more volatility but won't affect the overall valuation of the coin. It's just more noise, no issue with that.

edit2: governance is only possible through consensus - in the literal sense of the word, not only machine-consensus; a majority vote is not that. Projects governed by 50%+1 majority votes will 100% fail in the long run. Yes, 100%.
The only way of governance is by consensus or 90% majority-votes. Why it is this way is a topic for a large article about history of mankind and money and dynamics in power aswell as observations in politics.
It's not as easy as people think. People aren't aware of the pitfalls of majority votes. They will have to fail for 10 or 20 years in these coins before understanding what some know already. Such is life

[CoinHoarder]

no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible

....

Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals.

Well, well... Anonymint is still living in fantasy land, but at least he can admit it now.

Here he is spewing some false ideal ideology that no one can hope to achieve.

Meanwhile, tearing down other people's genuine effort/experiments/innovations, because they are flawed based on the unrealistic ideologies he concocted.

A wise man once said "those that can't do teach", and it is easy to see that applies here.

Exhibit A...

In the OP you admit that no one has been able to solve the ideals you claim as being ideal.

Then, you go on to crucify any cryptocurrency that doesn't meet these unobtainable ideals by trolling Bitcointalk.

Since no one is willing to waste as much time as you are by defending their points, you "win" by default.

Exhibit B...

Since your ideal list of cryptocurrency "must haves" is not achievable, it is akin to me saying "all cryptocurrencies should solve world hunger" or "all cryptocurrencies should have the ability to time travel".

Then, imagine that I go around trolling all cryptocurrencies that do not have these features.

That is in essence what you have been doing for the past year(s) on here.

Exhibit C...

There is no such thing as a fair cryptocurrency distribution.

What is fair to someone (for example, you) would not be considered fair by someone else (enter some random person here).

You may think you have obtained some state of enlightenment, and been able to solve the problem no one has been able to solve, but you are fooling yourself.

I cannot wait for you to release your plans for an "ideal" distribution so that I can point out all of the ways it will be considered unfair by random current and future participants.

[iamnotback]

In the OP you admit that no one has been able to solve the ideals you claim as being ideal.

Then, you go on to crucify any cryptocurrency that doesn't meet these unobtainable ideals by trolling Bitcointalk.

I didn't crucify any project. I wrote these are my ideals, i.e. goals.

I did point out where existing projects don't yet accomplish these idealistic goals, which just makes facts, not crucifixion. If nothing yet meets my ideal goals, that doesn't mean I am crucifying the others.

Since no one is willing to waste as much time as you are by defending their points, you "win" by default.

Outlining idealistic goals and shooting to achieve them, is a win for everyone that cares and shares my vision about the value and idealistic outlook for our crypto block chain ecosystem.

Perhaps you didn't realize this thread isn't pumping any projects. Just because I didn't pump your favorite investments, doesn't mean you didn't win. Unless you are just a selfish Hitler "assimilate or die" retard. I already know from your prior stalking of me, that you are 20-something guy at the university with a chip on your shoulder. Hopefully you come to maturity senses after reading this, and chillax. But something tells me your bruised tardbutt ego is going to go ballistic instead of taking this mild "for you own good' educational spanking and realize you are just acting like a jealous asshat again.

Since your ideal list of cryptocurrency "must haves" is not achievable, ...

I will later prove it is achievable; thus your assumption is incorrect.

But even presuming you are correct (which you aren't), it is still okay for some of us to have idealistic R&D goals.

...it is akin to me saying "all cryptocurrencies should solve world hunger" or "all cryptocurrencies should have the ability to time travel".

I did not state any where in this thread that anyone should stop their involvement in existing projects in the interim time until my goals are attained. Nor did I state they should abandon other projects and choose my idealism if ever my ideal goals were attained. Every person should decide for themself.

Then, imagine that I go around trolling all cryptocurrencies that do not have these features.

You used to troll other coins while trying to promote the features of Bitshares.

And I didn't troll any CCs in this thread. You are trolling my thread and attacking me. So don't be surprised by my reaction. Grow up kid.

That is in essence what you have been doing for the past year(s) on here.

Do you have my photo taped on your dorm room door and throw darts at it while studying?

Chillax bro and focus on making your own accomplishments. Stop stalking my coattails, because you are jealous when I have any readership. Otherwise you just waste time & effort you could apply to making your own accomplishments.

(I'd refer you to threads over the past month where I did extensive mea culpas about being wrong for harping about scams and taking strong-willed sides about which projects are worthy, but I don't think you are sincerely interested in the power of reformation and improvement)

There is no such thing as a fair cryptocurrency distribution.

What is fair to someone (for example, you) would not be considered fair by someone else (enter some random person here).

The definition I am using was provided upthread. What you've written is not my definition. You are free to not ascribe to my definition of a fair, free market, competitively priced launch distribution. And others are free to ascribe to my ideals.

You may think you have obtained some state of enlightenment, and been able to solve the problem no one has been able to solve, but you are fooling yourself.

I cannot wait for you to release your plans for an "ideal" distribution so that I can point out all of the ways it will be considered unfair by random current and future participants.

You are so sure of yourself. Cocky enough to troll your off-topic attacks. Remember how when we were teenagers and we thought our parents were stupid. And you are a 20-something "know it all" now disrespecting a 51-year computer programmer with 37 years of coding experience. It doesn't mean a 20 year old doesn't have anything useful to say. Rather it means don't go gun blazing, when you are not even not wrong, but rather off-topic. If you want to start a "I hate AnonyMint" thread, then go ahead. There is actually already such a thread about AnonyMint that got move to Reputation. Your personal attacks on me are off-topic to this thread subject.

I am going to ask you one time nicely to please not troll this thread with nonsense bickering, back and forth flame wars.

[iamnotback]

edit: don't see a problem with margin-exchange. It just adds a little more volatility but won't affect the overall valuation of the coin. It's just more noise, no issue with that.

I added that after writing the OP, based on learning that one way to manipulate the coin's price and market cap is to control many of tokens (such as perhaps via an ICO buying from yourself as the issuer), then use margin to create more buy or sell demand.

If the distribution of the token is thought to be reasonably competitive, transparent/free market (i.e. "fair"), then I also don't see a problem with margin trading. It actually adds more information to the ecosystem.

[iamnotback]

Don't tell me the current Satoshi proof-of-work is any where near a fair, competitive free market distribution scheme:

Remember ZIRP-pusher Larry Summers (the same guy alleged to have gone to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union to arrange the transfer of nationalized assets to newly anointed oligarchs), is on the board of 21 Inc.

As an example of the potential power of its pool, 21's mining operations generated approximately 5,700 BTC in 2013 and 69,000 BTC the following year, according to the document.

By the time its chips were to be embedded into Internet of Things (IoT) devices, 21 projected its cost to produce 1 BTC could be as low as $7.45.

So we pay $600 per BTC, and 21 Inc. will pay $8.

[CoinHoarder]

In the OP you admit that no one has been able to solve the ideals you claim as being ideal.

Then, you go on to crucify any cryptocurrency that doesn't meet these unobtainable ideals by trolling Bitcointalk.

I didn't crucify any project. I wrote these are my ideals, i.e. goals.

I did point out where existing projects don't yet accomplish these idealistic goals, which just makes facts, not crucifixion. If nothing yet meets my ideal goals, that doesn't mean I am crucifying the others.

Certainly, in this thread you have not crucified any projects. However, in many other threads there is evidence of such. I am confident that forum members that have been paying attention can understand what I mean by that.

Since no one is willing to waste as much time as you are by defending their points, you "win" by default.

Outlining idealistic goals and shooting to achieve them, is a win for everyone that cares and shares my vision about the value and idealistic outlook for our crypto block chain ecosystem.

Yes, but you are claiming to have solved at least one of these ideals, but not revealing the solution. Meanwhile, you are tearing down other cryptocurrencies' reputations because of them. You provide no proof of you having solved these issues. Pointing out a problem is one thing, but claiming to have solved it, and any cryptocurrency that hasn't to be a "dead end" or "eternally broken", is another.

Perhaps you didn't realize this thread isn't pumping any projects. Just because I didn't pump your favorite investments, doesn't mean you didn't win. Unless you are just a selfish Hitler "assimilate or die" retard. I already know from your prior stalking of me, that you are 20-something guy at the university with a chip on your shoulder. Hopefully you come to maturity senses after reading this, and chillax. But something tells me your bruised tardbutt ego is going to go ballistic instead of taking this mild "for you own good' educational spanking and realize you are just acting like a jealous asshat again.

I see that you still haven't realized this since we last debated. It is a shame for a self-proclaimed genius, and "jack of all trades". You are pumping a project.... yours. Your statement:

Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals.

Since your ideal list of cryptocurrency "must haves" is not achievable, ...

I will later prove it is achievable; thus your assumption is incorrect.

This is a pump in and of itself. Your posts throughout the past years have been pumping a cryptocurrency... yours. You are no different than the "scammers" that you intend to crucify by written word, daily. You argue these unrealistic ideals are ideal, and that any cryptocurrency that doesn't meet them is a dead end or broken (evidenced by your statements in many other threads), then pretend like you have solved all these issues. It is on you to provide proof. If you have such ground-breaking solutions, then please reveal them. Until then, you are simply blowing hot air and spreading FUD.

Effectively, all of your attacks on any other cryptocurrency can be viewed as pumping your yet-to-be-released info-yet-to-be-published super-duper-awesome coin that solves all of cryptocurrencies' existing problems.

But even presuming you are correct (which you aren't), it is still okay for some of us to have idealistic R&D goals.

Yet, you claim them as being "must haves", and attack any other cryptocurrency that can't solve your unsolvable problems. Again, as evidenced in many other threads and posts of yours.

...it is akin to me saying "all cryptocurrencies should solve world hunger" or "all cryptocurrencies should have the ability to time travel".

I did not state anywhere in this thread that anyone should stop their involvement in existing projects in the interim time until my goals are attained. Nor did I state they should abandon other projects and choose my idealism if ever my ideal goals were attained. Every person should decide for themself.

You do not implicitly state it in this thread, but you imply it... which has the same effect as explicitly stating it. Not to mention all the other threads where you explicitly argue these principals.

Then, imagine that I go around trolling all cryptocurrencies that do not have these features.

You used to troll other coins while trying to promote the features of Bitshares.

You mean Nubits? That is because Bitshares' Smartcoins are a better design than Nubits. That is evidenced by Nubits' recent crash and burn. Nubits are worth $0.22 now, meanwhile bitUSD is worth $1.06. bitUSD, after two years of trading, has more closely tracked the value of the US dollar than Nubits. Please, enlighten me how I was wrong? The evidence (market data history) proves that my claims were correct.

And I didn't troll any CCs in this thread. You are trolling my thread and attacking me. So don't be surprised by my reaction. Grow up kid.

This thread is simply a microcosm of your previous posts/threads trolling other cryptocurrencies. Considering the body of evidence, evaluating this thread without considering all your other posts/threads would be silly.

That is in essence what you have been doing for the past year(s) on here.

Do you have my photo taped on your dorm room door and throw darts at it while studying?

Chillax bro and focus on making your own accomplishments. Stop stalking my coattails, because you are jealous when I have any readership. Otherwise you just waste time & effort you could apply to making your own accomplishments.

(I'd refer you to threads over the past month where I did extensive mea culpas about being wrong for harping about scams and taking strong-willed sides about which projects are worthy, but I don't think you are sincerely interested in the power of reformation and improvement)

You always complain about "character assassination" while performing character assination yourself. Pot meet kettle.

You are so sure of yourself. Cocky enough to troll your off-topic attacks. Remember how when we were teenagers and we thought our parents were stupid. And you are a 20-something "know it all" now disrespecting a 51-year computer programmer with 37 years of coding experience. It doesn't mean a 20 year old doesn't have anything useful to say. Rather it means don't go gun blazing, when you are not even not wrong, but rather off-topic. If you want to start a "I hate AnonyMint" thread, then go ahead. There is actually already such a thread about AnonyMint that got move to Reputation. Your personal attacks on me are off-topic to this thread subject.

I am going to ask you one time nicely to please not troll this thread with nonsense bickering, back and forth flame wars.

Remember, it is on you to prove that you have solved the unsolvable. Until then, you are simply blowing hot air and spreading FUD.

[iamnotback]

Certainly, in this thread you have not crucified any projects.

Exactly.

Pointing out a problem is one thing, but claiming to have solved it, and any cryptocurrency that hasn't to be a "dead end" or "eternally broken", is another.

You said it, not me.

You are pumping a project.... yours.

Impossible because there is no project to pump. Where can it be purchased? It can't.

Btw, I answered a question.

You are a jealous troll.

Please go pump your investments in other threads and stop trolling my thread.

[Moneroman88]

Why do you believe that you know what is ideal? How can you be so sure of what you say?

Do you think you're (a) god?

[ICOcountdown.com]

You need basic proof of work to even launch a blockchain in the firstplace? 

[iamnotback]

Why do you believe that you know what is ideal? How can you be so sure of what you say?

Do you think you're (a) god?

I stated these are my ideals. I didn't state that everyone must agree with my ideals.

You need basic proof of work to even launch a blockchain in the firstplace?  

I believe (based on my private work) Satohi's proof-of-work isn't the only kind of proof-of-work block chain possible.

[Moneroman88]

Why do you believe that you know what is ideal? How can you be so sure of what you say?

Do you think you're (a) god?

I stated these are my ideals. I didn't state that everyone must agree with my ideals.

Okay I see, that makes sense and that's perfectly legit of course. Interesting topic!

[ICOcountdown.com]

Why do you believe that you know what is ideal? How can you be so sure of what you say?

Do you think you're (a) god?

I stated these are my ideals. I didn't state that everyone must agree with my ideals.

You need basic proof of work to even launch a blockchain in the firstplace?  

I believe (based on my private work) Satohi's proof-of-work isn't the only kind of proof-of-work block chain possible.

Maybe I have misunderstood but it states you want no proof of work in the title of this thread?

[iamnotback]

You need basic proof of work to even launch a blockchain in the firstplace?  

I believe (based on my private work) Satohi's proof-of-work isn't the only kind of proof-of-work block chain possible.

Maybe I have misunderstood but it states you want no proof of work in the title of this thread?

I couldn't fit "(Satoshi's)" into the title:

2.

No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work: Proof-of-work concentrates the money supply, economic profits, and control to the mining farms (esp. those with electricity subsidies). Meet your new central bank masters, the mining cartel. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. Since all the debasement ends up with the rich via mining, the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public. Proof-of-work launches provide no funding for the core developers, unless they are accomplished with premine, instamine, stealthmine, or non-optimized proof-of-work function deceptions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15342314#msg15342314

[twunkle]

would it be possible you think to do a DEX type thing with actual (not-middle-man) token trading. maybe some kind of pow that saves you transaction cost but not more than that if you run a node but can also take another transaction fee? Or something like that

pow of work using the pow of the others? the powowcoin, only one never to be had

Dont mind if someone makes it then

[CoinHoarder]

Certainly, in this thread you have not crucified any projects.

Exactly.

However, in other threads there are many examples of you doing this. Should I just omit a large portion of evidence (all your previous accounts/posts/threads) just so you can be right?

Pointing out a problem is one thing, but claiming to have solved it, and any cryptocurrency that hasn't to be a "dead end" or "eternally broken", is another.

You said it, not me.

Again, you are either losing your memory, or not taking into account your actions and words in previous posts/threads.

You are pumping a project.... yours.

Impossible because there is no project to pump. Where can it be purchased? It can't.

Come on, a self-proclaimed genius ought to be able to figure this out. Whether or not it is intentional, you are pumping your details-yet-to-be-published super-duper-awesome-coin that may-never-come-to-fruition, because you-spend-too-much-time-trolling-Bitcointalk, and you cant-release-any-details-so-we-can't-evaluate-whether-your-claims-are-true. By attacking other coins (their communities, their developers, and their technology) relentlessly, you are creating hype about your coin that you are supposedly "developing" which supposedly "solves" all these problems, but you can't tell us all how. Your brain must be that of a pea to not be able to understand that vaporware can be pumped. Even though you cannot buy it right now, you will be able to buy it at some point, and you are constantly hyping it on these forums. Since you cannot buy it right now, all you are doing is building hype and suspense. That is the textbook definition of pumping.

Hyping = Pumping
Spreading FUDing Competitors = Pumping
Hyping Vaporware = Pumping
Vaporware = Pumpable

Got it, genius?  

Here you are pumping in your own words (and this is only one of numerous examples:)

no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible ... Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals.

BAM. Another example of you pumping your details-yet-to-be-released that-may-or-may-not-exist-or-come-to-fruition vaporware:

I believe (based on my private work) Satohi's proof-of-work isn't the only kind of proof-of-work blockchain possible.

You are a jealous troll.

Please go pump your investments in other threads and stop trolling my thread.

It's nice to see you are still in denial. You will probably ignore me again and write me off a troll, meanwhile continuing to ignore reality, but really all I am doing is pointing out the obvious. I am sure that the forum members can see and agree with the points I am making here. A self-proclaimed genius ought to be able to as well.  

All that you need to do is admit that you are pumping vaporware, and then I will leave you alone. You have only your pride to lose. You do after all criticize others for pumping their tokens, and then turn a blind eye when you yourself do it. You are just as guilty as everyone else. Yes, I pump coins that I believe in and am invested in... just like everyone else does. You are similarly invested into your coin intellectually, through many hours of hard work, and because you care about your reputation. You also have a financial interest if it is successful. You can unknowingly pump cryptocurrencies and vaporware while still having good intentions. The outcome is still the same.... pumping. I can admit it, I have pumped coins (with good intentions because I believed they would be valuable), but you (the genius) can't admit that? Whether any random person has good or bad intentions, they can still knowingly and unknowingly pump any certain cryptocurrency by posting both positive and negative remarks.

[twunkle]

some ppl are just ignorant of powows 

[MarketMagic]

shelby knows his stuff even even when he is trolling.

[CoinHoarder]

some ppl are just ignorant of powows 

I'm all for "powows", but if you are going to promote vaporware and claim to have solved all of crypto's problems, then you need to:

1. Produce proof
2. Produce a working product
3. Produce source code

Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air and there is no way to validate your claims.

Anonymint might as well say that he has developed a cryptocurrency that will solve world poverty. It would be no more untrue than his claims to have "solved" PoW and "solved" distribution and "solved" (the list goes on and on). He can't and won't prove any of those statements. His designs and plans lack peer review, no matter how smart and thorough you are, there is likely something that will be missed while working alone on such complex issues.

I posit that he is likely overstating his developments, and there is a reason why he won't provide proof of his work- more so than the obvious economic one.

[CoinHoarder]

shelby knows his stuff even even when he is trolling.

Maybe you can live in fantasy land with Shelby? I hear it has the worlds-best-super-duper everything.

no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible ... Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals.

[twunkle]

hm being a nasty character eye ego and all that. boring... well I can be like that too if you want; you are saying nothing interesting on a topic to think about, its all and only about how much someone seem to suck. what good is that? Tell me does it make you feel better, what is your problem? Try some other style one time or do you have only one, is that your only face. Maybe I can bribe Spoetnik to turn on you, then at least it will be funny. Is that possible? Your telling me to sod off because supposedly I say nothing while you are saying nothing?

Leave me be dude Im tired, come back when you have a sense of humor 

[CoinHoarder]

hm being a nasty character eye ego and all that. boring... well I can be like that too if you want; you are saying nothing interesting on a topic to think about, its all and only about how much someone seem to suck. what good is that? Tell me does it make you feel better, what is your problem? Try some other style one time or do you have only one, is that your only face. Maybe I can bribe Spoetnik to turn on you, then at least it will be funny. Is that possible? Your telling me to sod off because supposedly I say nothing while you are saying nothing?

Leave me be dude Im tired, come back when you have a sense of humor  

I am sure you are just someone's sock puppet, but you are kind of new here, only a few months, so maybe you don't understand AnonyMint like I do? I don't like hypocrites like AnonyMint.

1. He condemns pumpers whilst pumping vaporware himself.
1a. Meanwhile, not admitting that he is doing so.
2. He champions his "private work" (without showing proof) over other project's work that has been publicly released.
2a. It is an unfair FUD battle.
2a1. His yet-to-be-published and developed vaporware versus developed, released, peer reviewed, and open sourced cyptocurrencies. It is like Mike Tyson on a baby... of course he is going to win, but it was never a fair fight to begin with. He has complete information about his adversaries, and his adversaries have incomplete information on his claims. There is no way for the other cryptocurrencies to debate the other side. Therefore, he considers them all as being dead ends and broken, and since there's no way to debate the other side (his pros and cons), he wins by default. Every aspect of every protocol/cryptocurrency/distribution/etc has BOTH pros and cons. There WILL be pros and cons to Shelby's design. That is a certainty. How can we weigh the pros and cons against other cryptocurrencies since we have incomplete information? Are we supposed to just take his word for it? You do realize that this is the cryptocurrency community, and there are a lot of liars, scammers, and thieves?

He would like you to think I am off topic, but this thread is a microcosm of his relentless FUD and PUMP attempt for his vaporware.

[twunkle]

I love vaporware better
Thinking I am someones sock puppet, sad man

[CoinHoarder]

Thinking I am someones sock puppet, sad man

It is definitely a possibility. I am not saying that you are, and I am not saying that you aren't a sock puppet. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them here, so much so that it is hard to tell the difference.

I only use one account, because I am not attempting to deceive anyone.

[twunkle]

Ok good. Lets see

[b0art]

I love ico's and crowdfunding. Easy 20-100% gains upon launch.

[iamnotback]

I love ico's and crowdfunding. Easy 20-100% gains upon launch.

And I acknowledge your free-will to invest in ICOs:

Copy-cat ICO Schemes Unleashed:
You call stayed silent on that and we seen an explosion of copy cat ICO schemes unleashed..
And we seen the greedy profiteer dregs go along with it all so they could profit off them all.

When i asked the dev of BlockNET why he needed a million dollars in Bitcoin
He told me word for word, "to ensure it's a success"

Crypto-Minimum Wage Increase ?
When i started this coin devs would work on projects for FREE.. mostly.
Satoshi did not put his hand out and say i want a MILLION DOLLARS first before i release anything..

It is true that the ICOs aren't really providing any funding for development that matters. It is just the insiders cashing out.

That being said, no top notch s/w developer will work on a risky project that might net him $0, if he can't at least generate $250,000 per year of effort. And that is really on the low end since most of them can make that much (and more with stock options) in a job in silicon valley.

For example, I have been doing research and basically "working" in crypto since 2013. If I launched a project, I would expect to recover those years of investment.

But I also wouldn't waste all the funds on nonsense development of pie-in-the-sky fantasies.

But any way, I am not going to ask anyone to give me an ICO money. Mined distribution is clearly the fair way to launch a coin.

But just keep in mind if the developer is receivng a $million for years of effort, it is really just about break even, if he is a top developer. Please be respectful of the opportunity cost of top developers.

Also even the developers have a right to seek higher ROI. Speculators invest and risk to get a big payoff. When developers invest their time/effort and risk to get a big payoff, this is capitalism.

Having said that, afaik most of the developers of altcoins are not top developers. Afaics, most of them have nearly no experience as employed software developers before their work in crypto. This is excluding the Bitcoin core devs of course. There are experienced developers in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The DAO is only 2080 lines of source code. And it can never be "fixed" or "finished" any more than it already is, because it is a flawed concept and I have difficulty believing Tual doesn't realize it.. It probably wasn't intended to grow into something great. It was probably a quickie rush to latch on to the euphoria about ETH and so those looking to cash out of ETH at the double-top at $15, had another option The DAO. It was probably a timing and marketing product decision and not an engineering or long-range focus. I could understand your criticism of something like that. But it is a free market and you can't stop them.

[iamnotback]

His designs and plans lack peer review, no matter how smart and thorough you are, there is likely something that will be missed while working alone on such complex issues.

This thread is about IDEALS. It is not about implementation of those IDEALS.

I merely answered a question, when someone asked if there was any potential to reach these IDEALS, I stated I am working on such designs.

I may not be the only person or group working on such IDEALS.

Please stay on topic and stop trying to turn this thread into your private troll box about how much you hate me.

Is it even possible to have unmoderated threads, when some trolls have no shame or mutual respect for at least staying on topic. I already referred you to the pre-existing thread about my reputation. Please post your ad hominem drivel there.

[iamnotback]

This is off-topic, but required in order to illustrate the illogical trolling of CoinHoarder since he has decided to filibuster my thread and fill it up with off-topic drivel:

1. He condemns pumpers whilst pumping vaporware himself.

I guess you missed where I've been promoting your beloved Bitshares' DEX lately and where I had explained to smooth he was short-sighted when he convinced me that Bitshares was likely a failure or scam:

Why does no one use the BitShares Exchange DEX?

Because we are just fools:

It seems that a corrupted exchange is an essential ingredient for pumping a crypto currency to $billion nosebleed mcaps, so apparently not only is demand being created out-of-thin-air using margined coins the insiders deceptively obtained from the ICO by buying from themselves (taking out a BTC loan and paying it back after the ICO)...

...but likely also that some high volume exchange is also creating tokens literally out-of-thin-air and is another Mt.Gox or Cryptsy waiting to default when there is a run to withdraw.

A likely essential ingredient in BitCON's rise from $10 to $1200 was because Mt.Gox was creating coins out-of-thin-air and handling most of the BTC volume, so this provided more coins for everyone to leverage and create fake demand with.

So this huge pump in ETH likely means another high volume exchange will end up stealing all your coins again soon.

The way this criminal enterprise crypto-currency enterprise works is that the insiders create tokens out-of-thin-air on the exchanges, then when the ponzi scheme implodes, the "hackers" or owners of the exchange are blamed instead of blaming the real manipulators behind the curtain.

We apparently have criminal gangs in the crypto-currency ecosystem. The DAO attacker says the UGGovt + MIT/Cornell universities are complicit. Others say Goldman Sachs is in this. Probably also Russian criminals, etc..

That is likely why there is no enforcement from the SEC. Because the SEC is owned by the criminal gangs.

Nothing has changed! We have not defeated fiat. We have not defeated the same banksters bastards who are always enslaving us.

We're just fools.

And especially after he had basically talked me out of thinking that Bitshares might be a credible team to partner with.

I don't remember ever discussing Bitshares with you or anyone else. It seems unlikely because with one small exception I have always been entirely ignorant about Bitshares, something that even today puts me at a disadvantage in understanding Steem (since it is based closely on Bitshares). The exception is that I was pretty sure their original model of pegged assets was catastrophically unstable and would not work. They later added a price feed, which improved it somewhat.

It may be that I made some general remarks that could be interpreted as arguing against the success of Bitshares model, but I don't know.

Thanks for the explanation.

I'll refresh your memory.

It was after I had announced Zero Knowledge Transactions and it was clear that Monero had a competitive solution RingCT and I was shopping ZKT around to potentially BBR and also I approached Bitshares briefly. Thus that must have been roughly Aug or Sept. There is a post from AnonyMint user name at the Bitshares forum as evidence.

I was discussing with you in private about the merits of ICOs and making money from launching a coin in what ever means. And you were trying to tell me that there is basically no money in it and that is why Monero's plan is the best, because the XMR devs just do it as a hobby or labor of love and don't take it too seriously as a way to generate income. You were always in general coaxing me away from any concept of making money from developing and launching CC, and to the open source hobbyist Monero way.

And I mentioned Bitshares as an example with their significant marketcap which had been as high as $40 million at one point for afair the ProtoShares. And had also mentioned Dash. That is when you instructed me about how all the mcaps are fake and you made me aware that insiders buy from themselves to make it appear that the volume is real.

I said okay maybe for Dash, but Bitshares seems to have legit technology and theirs might be real. And you said that look how Bitshares is trying to sell services (at that time in 2015) because they are basically cash strapped and aren't earning hardly anything from creating CCs.

In short, you were trying to discourage me from pursuing making a CC if I expected to earn any $ from doing so. That is not to say you were discouraging me from creating a CC if not for expectation of a payday. That is not to say you were wishing for me to fail if I did attempt to. I think you felt you were just giving sound feedback.

To be fair, you were aware of my illness and perhaps you were concerned and felt I might be better off to take employment, get medical insurance, and have a more stable and less risky source of potential income and funding for health care.

But I just know that before that discussion, I never thought about the altcoin market as being one giant scam and being entirely fake. I really bought into your take on that. But now in hindsight, I think you are not entirely correct. Seems people who have produced less technology than I am working on, having reaped some significant paydays.

Waves raised ~$15 million and referred to IOHK's open source without apparently having developed anything at all. It was apparently purely a marketing campaign. Heck I never expected even a $million, so with better tech than they have, why shouldn't I be able to get my $500,000 and also do some good for the CC community.

When I respect someone, it means I listen intently to what they have to say.

CoinHoarder probably gets pissed off when I write about Bitshares' DPOS consensus system (CoinHoarder if you want to refute the following post, please do it in the quoted thread, not here! Damnit!):

1. Since the chosen single node for each block is deterministic, then in theory it could be very vulnerable to botnet DDoS attack. More generally it lacks fault tolerance, which is critically needed in real world systems. A redesign to have simultaneous disjoint blocks from multiple delegates can't be allowed because there could be double-spends in the presumed disjoint blocks.

2. For DPOS, this is not decentralized control, because the minority has to accept the will of the majority on the election of delegate DPOS nodes, i.e. the permissionless attribute can be lost such as ChainAnchor being planned for ButtCON. No one can just standup a full node at-will. This also means there isn't really competition in terms of a free market rate for transaction fees.

Btw, Bitcoin-NG accomplishes basically the same deterministic node per block and with decentralized control over the selection of the delegate in real-time employing PoW, yet with chain reorganization issues.

3. The maximum speed (minimum delay) of confirmations is lower bounded by the slowest latency of block propagation to every DPOS node, because otherwise some nodes can't keep up. This can be reasonably fast say several seconds if you've got a very organized set of delegate nodes (but then you really don't have decentralized control), but this is not fast enough for some types of instant microtransactions.

4. Zero-confirmation double-spend transactions (aka Finney Attack) are even more plausible, because a colluding delegate node knows deterministically when it will win the block. Note block periods can be reasonably fast in DPOS, so 0-conf is probably not needed although not fast enough for some types of instant microtransactions, although such probably wouldn't be Finney attacked due to their small values.

5. Proof-of-stake is not a secure consensus algorithm, because for example the nothing-at-stake problem. We compiled a laundry list of flaws in proof-of-stake. Note I recently made a suggestion to jl777 and we mutually designed how to record check points for DPoS coins in a PoW block chain.

I am glad you are back youarenotback! Mostly I don't understand all you're saying, but at least your posts challenge me to try to learn new things. Thanx!

Let me try to unpack those points a bit for laymen:

1. Full nodes in DPOS are elected delegates. With Satoshi's PoW, we don't know which node will win the next block. So an attacker wouldn't know which node to jam with a DDoS attack. Any node attacked would simply not participate in competing to produce the next block, but this wouldn't harm the system at all. Whereas, when we designate the node that will decide what goes into the next block, then an attacker knows which node to attack. As well, a node knows when it will control the next block, and thus it can attack the network by withholding (although it would probably get voted out of being a delegate node soon, although it might be difficult to prove when it was a legitimate network hiccup or when it was intentional). I believe Bitcoin-NG may have an analogous weakness.

2. For me, this is the other huge weakness. With DPOS, the set of nodes which process blocks is static until the next voting. And even after voting, standing up a full node is not something an individual can choose to do by himself. There is always politics and centralization involved. The ideologically great thing about Satoshi's design is that anyone at any time can go standup a full node and process his/her transactions on any block he/she wins. The problems of course with Satoshi's design is that it doesn't scale and also that PoW economics of SHA256 means an individual can no longer win a block nor prevent the centralization of mining over time due to it being 100 to 1000X more profitable for the ASIC farms and because scaling can't work without centralization. So DPOS doesn't really gain anything that we can't get by centralizing Satoshi's design other than saving electricity.

I have another solution which I think is a better compromise than both of those. But I won't describe it, because surely others will start to figure out my design if I describe it further. I need to release it asap, so the discussion of its merits can be open sourced.

3. If one full node's block period is say 5 seconds, but the propagation to another of the full nodes is 10 seconds, that latter node will not be able to receive the new block from the former and produce another new block within its 5 second allocation. Thus the block period has a lower bound which is dictated by the slowest propagation on the network of full nodes. And 5 seconds confirmation is too slow for certain types of microtransactions. Imagine you want to start listening to a song, and you have it set to pay a microtransaction automatically, but you have to wait 5+ seconds everytime you want to click to listen to a new song you have not yet paid for. Or similarly when using microtransactions instead of a CAPTCHA. Even 1 second might be too slow! Vcash's Zerotime can't even get close to being fast enough. Probably Lightning Networks won't be fast enough either, not to mention it doesn't scale well.

5. DPOS (delegated proof-of-stake) is still POS with all its flaws. My desire is to attain Satoshi's security model, but with 100% decentralization, massive scaling, 1 second confirmed transactions, and no economic trend towards centralization!


Edit: Steemit is pioneering combining PoW and DPOS in another way, and do take note that this doesn't seem to fix the issues I enumerated above although it mitigates somewhat issue #2 except doesn't solve the economics of centralization of PoW issue:

Consensus in Steem

...

With Steem, block production is done in rounds. Each round 21 witnesses are selected to
create and sign blocks of transactions. Nineteen (19) of these witnesses are selected by
approval voting, one is selected by a computational proof-of-work, and one is timeshared
by every witness that didn’t make it into the top 19 proportional to their total votes. The 21
active witnesses are shuffled every round to prevent any one witness from constantly
ignoring blocks produced by the same witness placed before.

This process is designed to provide the best reliability while ensuring that everyone has the
potential to participate in block production regardless of whether they are popular enough
to get voted to the top. People have three options to overcome censorship by the top 19
elected witnesses: patiently wait in line with everyone else not in the top 19, purchase
enough computational power to solve a proof of work faster than others, or purchase more
SP to improve voting power. Generally speaking, applying censorship is a good way for
elected witnesses to lose their job and therefore, it is unlikely to be a real problem on the
Steem network.

Because the active witnesses are known in advance, Steem is able to schedule witnesses to
produce blocks every 3 seconds. Witnesses synchronize their block production via the NTP
protocol. A variation of this algorithm has been in use by the BitShares network for over a
year where it has been proven to be reliable.

Mining in Steem

Traditional proof of work blockchains combine block production with the solving of a proof
of work. Because the process of solving a proof of work takes an unpredictable amount of
time, the result is unpredictable block production times. Steem aims to have consistent and
reliable block production every 3 seconds with almost no potential for forks.
To achieve this Steem separates block production from solving of proof of work. When a
miner solves a proof of work for Steem, they broadcast a transaction containing the work.
The next scheduled witness includes the transaction into the blockchain. When the
transaction is included the miner is added to the queue of miners scheduled to produce

blocks. Each round one miner is popped from the queue and included in the active set of
witnesses. The miner gets paid when they produce a block at the time they are scheduled.
The difficulty of the proof of work doubles every time the queue length grows by 4. Because
one miner is popped from the queue every round, and each round takes 21 * 3 = 63 seconds,
the difficulty automatically halves if no proof of work is found in no more than 21 * 3 * 4 =
252 seconds.

[iamnotback]

All that you need to do is admit that you are pumping vaporware, and then I will leave you alone.

Again it is impossible to pump up the price of a token or ICO that does not exist.

I have a right to make a thread and discuss the IDEALS I am shooting for. It doesn't give you the green-light to filibuster (drown and bury) this thread with off-topic drivel about my posts in other threads. Go to those other threads and post your rebuttals.

1. He condemns pumpers whilst pumping vaporware himself.

I've made a post just for you in my Reputation thread, which samples many of my recent posts wherein I make it very clear that I am no longer on a crusade to identify which coins are scams. I have stated very clearly that we should allow speculators to have their free will. I wish you would also do the same. I will offer my analysis and ask tough questions¹ from time-to-time, but I won't harp on other coins and try to filibuster to dictate public opinion (as your trolling here is attempting to do).

Please post your further rebuttals to the aforementioned Reputation thread.

1	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526614.msg15363691#msg15363691 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1437428.msg15389393#msg15389393

[MarketMagic]

shelby knows his stuff even even when he is trolling.

Maybe you can live in fantasy land with Shelby? I hear it has the worlds-best-super-duper everything.

no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible ... Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals.

Sounds great

[twunkle]

Thank you for digging that up
Can you not shard miners unpredictably and do lightweight difficulty pow, one transaction at a time (also being the elector) or just have my own node offer solution directly after finding it. But I guess I could find that

[axismundi]

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

There is a way to power a blockchain without proof of work or proof of stake, and we're doing it on the Carboncoin

It's not the perfect solution, because as the op is well aware, a perfect solution does not exist

We have demonstrated our ethos and trustworthiness by operating without security breach for over 2 year. This becomes more valuable the longer it goes on.

Anyone can hash on the network but they wont be rewarded with enough coins to make it worthwhile to do that in anything other than the most effective way.

I have my "ideal" structure for a coin, which will be implemented on the carboncoin project at some stage in the future but in the meantime we have been able to add approximately 500 non crypto users since we started (who have bought coins coming from the market), and that is without any significant fundraising or resources for marketing or development.

The funding is now happening, so we will see where it goes. I would very much like to engage this community and find fellow innovators to work with on the ideal currency application of the blockchain - Carboncoin continues to be my best effort

[axismundi]

The best initial distribution of an alt is to take the snapshot of bitcoin blockchain at a particular point of time and enable holders of these bitcoins to receive this altcoins, in proportion to their bitcoin holdings.
No ICO is good, but what is the initial distribution proposed?

What about manually distributing from a market with total holdings limited to prevent oligarchy - we've grown a new network of 500 non bitcoin users this way with no marketing spend

[axismundi]

Although you posted a disclaimer that your topic should not be about a single cryptocurrency, I'ld have to point out NEM is the one which fulfills all your criteria and it is currently in the top 5 of currencies on coinmarketcap. 

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/

Sounds like OP either wants to launch his own crypto, which most failure, or is theorizing when his dream coin is real and out there.


1. NEM was a wide distribution to 1000s of stakeholders and only around 65 BTC was collected.  When R0ach and Spoetnik call ICOs scams, they're almost always referring to stuff which collects millions of dollars and is distributed to a few.
2. NEM is Proof-Of-Importance
3. Proof-Of-Importance
4. NEM does not have a voting system.  At one time NEM considered it, but there were a lot of disasters then with other people's implementation and even now.  Bitshares' issue was it was very hard to kick out apathetic / inactive delegates.  DAO, before the hack, was only able to get around 20% participation.
5. Proof-Of-Importance.  



These are threads I have seen a lot on Bitcointalk.  People saying we need a fair distribution or an alternative to PoW/PoS.  NEM already had you all beat since 2014 and now it's a top 5 currency.  NEM is still cheap so the time to buy is now.

Ok granted I'm plugging my currency too, but what is proof of importance in 2 sentences?

[axismundi]

The best initial distribution of an alt is to take the snapshot of bitcoin blockchain at a particular point of time and enable holders of these bitcoins to receive this altcoins, in proportion to their bitcoin holdings.

That is Proof-of-Burn (PoB) or Proof-of-Sign.

Neither raise any funds for development of the ecosystem.

Proof-of-sign duplicates Bitcoin's corrupt distribution controlled by mining farms who mine at perhaps $50 cost (some of us even think they get free subsidized electricity in China paid for by the State) while we pay $600 cost.

For those who want to duplicate Bitcoin's distribution, they may prefer this. I should not judge for them what they want. I am just explaining why it wouldn't fit my ideal.

There is a real world analogue in the conventional financial system for raising funds while growing the ecosystem - can you guess which coin's been using it all along?

[axismundi]

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

I have such technology under development.

so you wanna be funded?
you may wanna just join a team instead and with their existing coin if possible, you wouldn't need more funds but just an update to the coin. and you still have the legacy still.

Help wanted

[MarketMagic]

You could take over some coin that is already trading on a good exchange that needs a developer and has a way of funding development as the price rises.I know of one that has been community ran from day one without 1 cent raised for development yet has traded on poloniex for over 2 years and continues to be developed by the community.They also have a fund that stakes coins that autonomously allows the coin to pay for its own development and it switches from pos to pow if nescessary.It is also ran over tor and has messaging in the wallet and are looking to develop a mobile version but they cant get anyone who is able to do the messaging etc on android.Any developer would have a free reign to experiment and the coin already has a good ticker and name.Just an idea of course.

[twunkle]

To be honest, I actually disagree with all of OP points. The only thing what is missing, is the free secured (unforked, tamperproof) trade between them that is not item of speculation or profit, manipulation, ownership etc itself. Unfortunately that seems impossible to me, but obviously I know very little about it also or in any case or whatever  

[brekyrself]

@iamnotback I do not want to quote your large DPOS statement however I do have a few questions.  You understand code and crypto better then most of us.

The BitShares website states that the block witnesses are shuffled based on two different criteria.  "The slate of active witnesses is updated once every maintenance interval (1 day) when the votes are tallied. The witnesses are then shuffled, and each witness is given a turn to produce a block at a fixed schedule of one block every 2 seconds. After all witnesses have had a turn, they are shuffled again. If a witness does not produce a block in their time slot, then that time slot is skipped, and the next witness produces the next block."

Is there something in the code or explorer that would let us know exactly which witness is set to produce the next block ahead of time?  Even with a DDOS, a witness should have multiple instances ready to take over on different physical machines/locations.  That should mitigate that attack vector.  Granted if EVERY witness were unable to produce a block, the network would come to a halt and users would not be able to cast a vote (transaction) to vote in new witnesses.  The chances of that happening I would believe are very slim.  According to the documentation stake holders can increase the number of witnesses by vote.

You do have a home run point about PoW in that anyone at anytime can setup a full node etc...  Hurry up and code!!!

[iamnotback]

@iamnotback I do not want to quote your large DPOS statement however I do have a few questions.  You understand code and crypto better then most of us.

The BitShares website states that the block witnesses are shuffled based on two different criteria.  "The slate of active witnesses is updated once every maintenance interval (1 day) when the votes are tallied. The witnesses are then shuffled, and each witness is given a turn to produce a block at a fixed schedule of one block every 2 seconds. After all witnesses have had a turn, they are shuffled again. If a witness does not produce a block in their time slot, then that time slot is skipped, and the next witness produces the next block."

Is there something in the code or explorer that would let us know exactly which witness is set to produce the next block ahead of time?  Even with a DDOS, a witness should have multiple instances ready to take over on different physical machines/locations.  That should mitigate that attack vector.  Granted if EVERY witness were unable to produce a block, the network would come to a halt and users would not be able to cast a vote (transaction) to vote in new witnesses.  The chances of that happening I would believe are very slim.  According to the documentation stake holders can increase the number of witnesses by vote.

You do have a home run point about PoW in that anyone at anytime can setup a full node etc...  Hurry up and code!!!

DPOS is an innovation. I am not trying to imply it has no worth. It may be the best for scaling that is available right now.

Since the ordering of the nodes which can produce each block (aka 'witnesses') is known a priori, then yes this information must be public otherwise the other nodes (even non-witness nodes) wouldn't know which witnesses has the right to produce that block.

I agree that a witness could in theory set up many IP addresses on many hosts to absorb DDoS attacks, but this is very expensive if every witness has to duplicate all this infrastructure. And so naturally it force the witnesses to collude to share costs, so then you no longer have a decentralized, permissionless system.

Also PoS (including DPoS) is basically a permissioned, centralized system, because the whales will control it.

If we just wanted a centralized, persmissioned system, then we don't need block chains. We could do that more efficiently. We have it already, it is named Paypal.

The only way you scale this globally, is if nobody owns it. This is why Paypal can't disrupt the existing financial structure of the world. Too many vested interests fighting turf battles.

So yes, you will need my design.

I already know what I have. The only issue is my health. I am fighting very hard to overturn a chronic health condition. 3 hours nonstop in the gym yesterday, then running in the evening, then running again this morning. Had my entire body coated in 25% oregano oil, turned red. Totally exhausted in the evening, slept like a rock could barely move. Jumped out of bed full of energy. Age 51, my eyes totally blurred when I get off the computer can't even see anyone's face. Got off the computer for 2 days and  could start to see again.

So I won't be posting much. I am in a battle right now and the only thing that matters now is action. I don't know if this old body, eyes, health of mine is going to perform or not. But now I am just going to be off this forum and fighting for it with 110% effort.

Thx.

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

There is a way to power a blockchain without proof of work or proof of stake, and we're doing it on the Carboncoin

5 posts in a row pumping your shitcoin in this thread.

[axismundi]

Not pumping, just lots to discuss. Didn't mean to offend you, but shitcoin pretty offensive! Actually asked you if it was ok in our pm conversation, you didn't object - you probably should have

[iamnotback]

Ethereum hard forks and violates the entire raison d'être of block chains:

Finally we can move on!

Nope. There is no moving on from violating the only reason we even want block chains— which is that we don't have to trust anyone that our contracts will be honored.

Agreed. The disgusting vile FUD that's been spread by the haters has been pathetic. If you don't hold ETH you don't get a say in how it's run so why spread FUD? The ETH community has spoke in a landslide consensus.

It is not FUD. It is just our opinion of the point of block chains. Those who agree with you that block chains should be permissioned ledgers like a fiat system or Paypal, will stay with ETH.

But as others are pointing out to you, violating the raison d'être of block chains is very likely to cause you to lose most of the community support. You'll only be left with idiots, R3 bankers, and the whales who've been allegedly pumping this token by manipulating the float on Poloneix and Krakan.

Wow 2% of the ETH voted and that is supposed to be mandate  

Utilizing the blockchain, a transparent and non-gameable voting method shows that out of more than 1.5 million eth, 97%, valued currently at $15 million, are in favor of the fork, with only just above 40,000 eth against.

Even if 100% had voted, my reaction would remain as follows...

Long live fiat! Hurray!

This is absolutely momentous day for it validates everything I am have been working on¹.

Also PoS (including DPoS) is basically a permissioned, centralized system, because the whales will control it.

If we just wanted a centralized, persmissioned system, then we don't need block chains. We could do that more efficiently. We have it already, it is named Paypal.

The only way you scale this globally, is if nobody owns it. This is why Paypal can't disrupt the existing financial structure of the world. Too many vested interests fighting turf battles.

1	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg15137236#msg15137236 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15507348#msg15507348

But I will forward your concerns on to the relevant department.

Ah so Ethereum is a governed token system now with actual departments? This is sounding awefully similar to the government structures that are collapsing all over the world due to corruption and special interests capturing the power vacuum.

I was being facetious. Sorry it needed pointed out.

Freudian slip, because you were actually telling the truth for a change.

[DemetriusAstroBlack]

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

There is a way to power a blockchain without proof of work or proof of stake, and we're doing it on the Carboncoin

It's not the perfect solution, because as the op is well aware, a perfect solution does not exist

We have demonstrated our ethos and trustworthiness by operating without security breach for over 2 year. This becomes more valuable the longer it goes on.

Anyone can hash on the network but they wont be rewarded with enough coins to make it worthwhile to do that in anything other than the most effective way.

I have my "ideal" structure for a coin, which will be implemented on the carboncoin project at some stage in the future but in the meantime we have been able to add approximately 500 non crypto users since we started (who have bought coins coming from the market), and that is without any significant fundraising or resources for marketing or development.

The funding is now happening, so we will see where it goes. I would very much like to engage this community and find fellow innovators to work with on the ideal currency application of the blockchain - Carboncoin continues to be my best effort

Says the so called dev of a copy paste clone that recently had the chain stop for hours!!!  His shitcoin has a block time of 100 seconds and he cant explain this:

643809   2 hours 18 minutes
643808   2 hours 23 minutes
643807   11 hours 56 minutes
643806   12 hours 30 minutes
643805   13 hours 10 minutes
643804   13 hours 11 minutes
643803   13 hours 35 minutes
643802   13 hours 52 minutes
643801   18 hours 57 minutes

[b0art]

ICO's are the best to make money on in crypto. Most of my ico investments have done 2x or more.

[iTradeChips]

how about a distribution model using captchas or something similar?

[kiklo]

how about a distribution model using captchas or something similar?

You just reinvented the Free coin Faucet. 
Only variable is how much you seed the faucet with.
http://cryptoguru.tk/Faucet/index.php?Currency=ZEIT

 

[kiklo]

Says the so called dev of a copy paste clone that recently had the chain stop for hours!!!  His shitcoin has a block time of 100 seconds and he cant explain this:

643809   2 hours 18 minutes
643808   2 hours 23 minutes
643807   11 hours 56 minutes
643806   12 hours 30 minutes
643805   13 hours 10 minutes
643804   13 hours 11 minutes
643803   13 hours 35 minutes
643802   13 hours 52 minutes
643801   18 hours 57 minutes

Hmm,
1st I have ever heard of this carbon coin , but
It seems to be Proof of Work using scrypt algo

Difficulty   0.00972089  at Block Height 643807  Date/Time= 2016-06-23 10:35:59
Difficulty    0.00972089 at Block Height  643808  Date/Time= 2016-06-23 20:09:03

At the current post time there are only 10 connections Network Clients seen in the last 24 hours
However at current post time there is Only 1 Active Pool/Miner
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/carbon/#!extraction

Easy Answer their were 0 PoW miners active or the miners did not have enough processing power to overcome the difficulty level, during the block gap.
Also would speculate that there is not enough Hash Power being used with this coin to keep a 100 second block time at its current difficulty level.

After a closer look at the difficulty #s , carboncoin's difficulty only changes every 11 or 12 blocks .
So its basically needs more mining power or the dev needs to set the difficulty to update every single block instead of every ~12 blocks.
Signs of a dying PoW coin, IMO .

 

[DemetriusAstroBlack]

It has been dead.  It just got delisted for lack of volume from ccex and is only on one exchange that just had a period of 48+ hours of no transactions.  There is 0 buy orders and there is no pairing for a lower value coin.  The original ANN is shutdown and DEV is delusional.  I called him out for his coin being ran by a single raspberry pi but he denied it.  CARB is supposed to be about carbon offsetting but he really cant back up any claims on how this is done at all. He has a picture of some trees planted on farm land and claims it's a forest that was paid for with these coins.

[iamnotback]

how about a distribution model using captchas or something similar?

You just reinvented the Free coin Faucet.  
Only variable is how much you seed the faucet with.
http://cryptoguru.tk/Faucet/index.php?Currency=ZEIT

 

The solutions to the catpchas can't be decentralized. Someone has to create them. If you created them publicly (e.g. randomized entropy from the proof-of-work mining), then no one needs to solve them.

[MarketMagic]

ICO's are the best to make money on in crypto. Most of my ico investments have done 2x or more.

quote from OP:

ICOs enable insiders to buy from themselves, creating a non-free market distribution of the money supply, thus manipulating all the market parameters and effects creating a controlled, non-free market.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686

[Carboncoin Trust]

After a closer look at the difficulty #s , carboncoin's difficulty only changes every 11 or 12 blocks .
So its basically needs more mining power or the dev needs to set the difficulty to update every single block instead of every ~12 blocks.
Signs of a dying PoW coin, IMO .

 

You're seeing signs of a self funded startup, over two years in, distributed at low value to people who agree with the ethos, providing the equivalent level of security of funds as other crypto-currencies on next to no energy consumption.

This is a real world evolution of the technology - it's not perfect, but it is doing the best we could as pragmatically as possible with what was available to us - and it is that fact which has clear synergy with what is proposed in this discussion.

We have the same security as PoS but there is no extra chainsize burden. It's not the number of people hashing it's the fact that they can hash that is important.

Troll's account is used for one purpose and one purpose only. He's been able to demonstrate no achievements whatsoever, and after countless attempts to appease and reason with him we have had no option other than to ignore him and continue to delete his arbitrary posts on our thread.

Do drop by: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1131250

[iamnotback]

Do drop by: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1131250

STOP spamming my thread with your nonsense shitcoin promotion. If you have something specific to say about the OP, please post. Otherwise please do not post again in this thread.

[raphma]

no ICOs, no proof-of-work, no proof-of-stake, no governance, and no forks

so, no coin at all? should we just stay with FIAT then?
lol

if you are completely against this system, you should have a better solution, shouldnt you?

[iamnotback]

My analysis of Paul Sztorc's blog post about oracles, smart contracts, and side-chains is relevant to this thread.

[DemetriusAstroBlack]

Have you heard about carbon coin?  The best part is that amost no one uses it.  It is part of our model to stay green.

[iamnotback]

Have you heard about carbon coin?  The best part is that amost no one uses it.  It is part of our model to stay green.

WTF  I asked you idiots to stop spamming your off-topic shitcoin in this thread. Your post has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

[fartbags]

I have an idea for IDEAL. It is basically a decentralized "App store".

My idea is a box that runs open source software. This software allows you to validate for any coins that you chose. Anyone can create any coin and anyone can use any coin. Some coins may fork and others may not. You can not use any coins if you do not own a box. Coins select the reward you get for processing its transactions.

[iamnotback]

Proof-of-Stake Isn't Trustless Because It Has No Time Objectivity.

[StinkyLover]

FUD ALERT
*********

I think you've taken on an unbeatable challenge. As long as the token is to be used by human beings, and used on this planet, there will always be winners and losers, whales and minnows, speculators and users (unless it's a non-tradeable entity so really has no value to any traders). I just don't see you breaking that fundamental human law no matter what you release.

The people you will code to treat fairly in distribution will sell their portion to the highest bidder (as soon as they can - as is their right). And that's when the imbalance will start to take root. The early adopters (whether they care about the new tech and concepts embedded within it or not) will be expecting massive profits, and quickly.

If they don't get that, then you are in trouble. Fact. Read the boards.

Maybe I'm just too cynical.

I wish you luck.

[iamnotback]

I think you've taken on an unbeatable challenge. As long as the token is to be used by human beings, and used on this planet, there will always be winners and losers, whales and minnows, speculators and users (unless it's a non-tradeable entity so really has no value to any traders). I just don't see you breaking that fundamental human law no matter what you release.

I didn't intend to write anything in this thread that is contrary to your expectation. What did you read that indicated to you otherwise?

I believe in a meritocracy, so why would you think I am not expecting winners and losers?

The people you will code to treat fairly in distribution will sell their portion to the highest bidder (as soon as they can - as is their right).

I didn't mention doing a coin drop. I do not agree with giving people coins for nothing. I agree they will sell immediately.

I think you need to rather understand for example the problem with instant distributions versus mined distributions:

PoW and Proof-of-Burn are the only way to distribute coins that doesn't centralize the expenditure of the resource to a designated set of people (as in an ICO). So in that respect, the waste of expenditure on electricity is justified by the lack of centralization of the resources expended. Also instant distributions (ICOs and coin drops) are antithetical to developing a critical mass and a successful coin (Ethereum avoidedslightly mitigated this by adding PoW mining distribution to follow their ICO).

And that's when the imbalance will start to take root. The early adopters (whether they care about the new tech and concepts embedded within it or not) will be expecting massive profits, and quickly.

If they don't get that, then you are in trouble. Fact. Read the boards.

Maybe I'm just too cynical.

I wish you luck.

I am expecting profit quickly too.  

Why you don't like profit  

What did I write in this thread that caused you to think that I don't like a token that rises in exchange price?

[MarketMagic]

I think you've taken on an unbeatable challenge. As long as the token is to be used by human beings, and used on this planet, there will always be winners and losers, whales and minnows, speculators and users (unless it's a non-tradeable entity so really has no value to any traders). I just don't see you breaking that fundamental human law no matter what you release.

I didn't intend to write anything in this thread that is contrary to your expectation. What did you read that indicated to you otherwise?

I believe in a meritocracy, so why would you think I am not expecting winners and losers?

The people you will code to treat fairly in distribution will sell their portion to the highest bidder (as soon as they can - as is their right).

I didn't mention doing a coin drop. I do not agree with giving people coins for nothing. I agree they will sell immediately.

I think you need to rather understand for example the problem with instant distributions versus mined distributions:

PoW and Proof-of-Burn are the only way to distribute coins that doesn't centralize the expenditure of the resource to a designated set of people (as in an ICO). So in that respect, the waste of expenditure on electricity is justified by the lack of centralization of the resources expended. Also instant distributions (ICOs and coin drops) are antithetical to developing a critical mass and a successful coin (Ethereum avoidedslightly mitigated this by adding PoW mining distribution to follow their ICO).

And that's when the imbalance will start to take root. The early adopters (whether they care about the new tech and concepts embedded within it or not) will be expecting massive profits, and quickly.

If they don't get that, then you are in trouble. Fact. Read the boards.

Maybe I'm just too cynical.

I wish you luck.

I am expecting profit quickly too.  

Why you don't like profit  

What did I write in this thread that caused you to think that I don't like a token that rises in exchange price?

If you are doing all this work on crypto community behalf to better things you are entitled to be rewarded for your work.Many scammers have profited with hyped shitcoins and then when profit run with funds leaving community to try to rescue project but developers who are genuinely working at important ideas and innovations that will give better choices and services to all need to be properly funded and incentivised so yes profit is nescessary.Words do not feed the baby or pay the bills no matter how nice they sound.

[iamnotback]

If you are doing all this work on crypto community behalf to better things you are entitled to be rewarded for your work.Many scammers have profited with hyped shitcoins and then when profit run with funds leaving community to try to rescue project but developers who are genuinely working at important ideas and innovations that will give better choices and services to all need to be properly funded and incentivised so yes profit is nescessary.Words do not feed the baby or pay the bills no matter how nice they sound.

Thank you. And you will not be disappointed. I was awake for 28 hours and had a lot of energy. So my health should be fine enough by now. Been having many days like this lately.

I am busy first trying to figure out exactly what Bitshares/Steemit is up to. I want to see where they are headed before I get back on my work, because depending on whether they are doing some valid or not, it might impact my priorities and plans.

[iamnotback]

I think you are just misdirecting your intellect, which seems above average, on a wild-goose chase.
Power distributions are a fact of nature, whichever system you will build, if it is valuable to humans, power over it will be unfairly distributed. If it isn't, that just means there is a power vacuum waiting to be claimed by someone with the means to.
But I suspect you know this already and you might be on some high level trolling or something.

Bottom-up organization is also an aspect of nature, because if it was not then it would require that a top-down omniscience was possible, which is impossible because it would require an non-finite speed-of-light, which would collapse the future and the past into nothingness (read two pages of my posts following the linked one in order to capture my complete reasoning).

There are systems in nature which have successfully resisted top-down organization thus are not power vacuums, e.g. sexual reproduction. Their key trait is that they can't be top-down organized, because they have a local, real-time environment relevance that can't be managed nor captured by the top-down organizer. This was essentially the key fundamental insight of my famous essay about the Rise of Knowledge being that individually empowered (by the Internet) knowledge creation is individually serendipitous and accretive, not capable of being captured by top-down finance:

Economic Devastation

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
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.

Edit:
This thread is now over 100 pages and too long to realistically expect a reader to cover from start to finish. There have been multiple requests for a roadmap or guide. In response to the latest request I wrote the following roadmap.

...

Satoshi's design was an attempt to create such a permissionless, trustless system, that unlike fiat and democracy, would not be captured by any top-down oligarchy. Unfortunately his design is a power vacuum that fails to power distribution of control (e.g. Bitcoin = ChinaCoin) due to economies-of-scale in profitable proof-of-work mining.

I have conceived of a design for unprofitable proof-of-work mining which I believe has the necessary trait to not be a power vacuum.

Note that even phenomena which are not currently a power vacuum, can later become one. CoinCube has been arguing that human reproduction is soon to come under the control of the State or Corporations due to advances in technology for reproduction such as In Vitro Fertilization and other factors. I don't completely recall his reasoning off the top of my head.

[iamnotback]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP4Chk8g7A#t=213

Charles I disagree about putting explicit governance in the block chain. Instead I think governance should be made implausible and block chains should remain trustless and immutable. As for you concern about external data feeds, I have written something about that when I analyzed Paul Sztoric's blog.

Fork and do a proof-of-burn if you want to change the features. The market will vote with its money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP4Chk8g7A#t=802

Giving the users the democratic power to vote is always a power vacuum so you will get no improvement if you add governance by democracy. Power-law distributions are a fact of nature. See my recent reply to someone who argued that power-law distributions can never be avoided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP4Chk8g7A#t=1143

Decentralized, trustless is the most important use case, because it is the one thing we can change most efficiently through code.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP4Chk8g7A#t=1440

I will soon attempt to demonstrate that your claim is incorrect about Paxos being orders-of-magnitude better in efficiency and throughput than proof-of-work. You are basing your assumption of the way Satoshi structure proof-of-work, which isn't the only way to structure the block chain. I note you did mention work being done on potentially improvement proof-of-work block chains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP4Chk8g7A#t=1734

Charles frankly you were incorrect and the younger guy was correct that you are conflating inflation with transaction fees.

Both are you incorrect, the correct term is not 'inflation' but rather 'debasement' (or I guess 'monetary inflation' as Mark Lamb clarified). Inflation is due to changes in the value of money. Debasement is the process of dilution of the quantity of the money supply.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP4Chk8g7A#t=2700

Charles explains why miners should not have any power other than to implement (validate) the protocol.

[klbax381]

No pow - i dont think it is possible.
POS is far more centralized than pow and it is not fair.

To make good decentralized coin we must solve 2 things:
1. Absolutely no pools. Pools can collude and make any changes into blockchain using free computation power(as we can see that happening with ethereum where 3 pools - dwarf,ether and f2pool controlling whole network). Algo must prevent pool creation. Such algo exists in SpreadCoint and Steem
2. Solo mining must not have big variance for small miners. We should solve this task and then our coin will be truly decentralized.

and of course no premine

[brekyrself]

If you are doing all this work on crypto community behalf to better things you are entitled to be rewarded for your work.Many scammers have profited with hyped shitcoins and then when profit run with funds leaving community to try to rescue project but developers who are genuinely working at important ideas and innovations that will give better choices and services to all need to be properly funded and incentivised so yes profit is nescessary.Words do not feed the baby or pay the bills no matter how nice they sound.

Thank you. And you will not be disappointed. I was awake for 28 hours and had a lot of energy. So my health should be fine enough by now. Been having many days like this lately.

I am busy first trying to figure out exactly what Bitshares/Steemit is up to. I want to see where they are headed before I get back on my work, because depending on whether they are doing some valid or not, it might impact my priorities and plans.

Why not contact Dan?  Crypto does not have to be you vs me mentality, I'm sure talented people can find common ground and work together...

[iamnotback]

No pow - i dont think it is possible.

Who wrote "no PoW"? Did you read the OP:

2.

No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work: Proof-of-work concentrates the money supply, economic profits, and control to the mining farms (esp. those with electricity subsidies). Meet your new central bank masters, the mining cartel. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. Since all the debasement ends up with the rich via mining, the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public. Proof-of-work launches provide no funding for the core developers, unless they are accomplished with premine, instamine, stealthmine, or non-optimized proof-of-work function deceptions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15342314#msg15342314

And the thread:

I'm a proof of work guy.

Me also. Note the OP says "No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work". I've invented a new system of proof-of-work which I claim doesn't have the flaws of Nakamoto proof-of-work:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg15137236#msg15137236
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520678.msg15340104#msg15340104
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15352029#msg15352029

[iamnotback]

...

I am busy first trying to figure out exactly what Bitshares/Steemit is up to. I want to see where they are headed before I get back on my work, because depending on whether they are doing some valid or not, it might impact my priorities and plans.

Why not contact Dan?  Crypto does not have to be you vs me mentality, I'm sure talented people can find common ground and work together...

I wrote about that:

[1]

Dan's development group does have considerable coding production. And they have produced functional block chains, functional market driven asset pegs, apparently a functional decentralized exchange, and a DPoS innovation that has some better performance characteristics as compared to Peercoin's PoS. Frankly if they had my design skills matched with their coding production, in an ideal synergy great things could be accomplished. But unfortunately when I tried to discuss with Dan in these forums in 2013, I realized he was incorrigible. Even Charles found that out the hard way. The Mythical Man Month makes is difficult enough to get coding done when the developers are philosophically in sync, but if the developers are disagreeing over fundamental concepts such a PoS versus PoW, then working together would be a clusterfuck of arguments. This is why I haven't bothered to pursue working with them.They are headstrong young guys who want to try their own experiments. They have more raw coding resources at their disposal right now than I do. I am also stubborn about the principles of design that I think I know are valid. So it would pointless for me to work with them. I thought about it last year, then I realized "Just no". But coding production does not equal success. Just go ask all the startups that have failed. Most startups fail, because getting all those decisions economically, marketing, psychologically, and technologically correct is difficult and requires expertise and experience.

smooth may I ask what is the incentive for you to promote steem? Are you now affiliated with the Larimers?

It is bizarre given when we first spoke about the state-of-altcoins some many moons ago in 2015, and I had stated that maybe Bitshares and Dan Larimer were credible and you tried to convince me that their mcap was all manipulation and to discourage me from taking them seriously.

Now suddenly you jump on their boat and I've noted you stated some where you were able to mine 1+% of the coins during the stealth mining phase.

I respected you and followed your lead to admonish ICOs, premines, instanmines, and I would assume that would include stealthmining launches. But in the end, all this did was mess up my own degrees-of-freedom to make my project come to fruition because I was trying to bend over backwards to find a way to fit into that impossible set of requirements. And now after all that, it ends up you don't even follow your own ethics.

Hey I am happy with letting the altcoin market be free of Sheriffs. So more power to your newly discovered ethics. I just feel slightly jaded for receiving bad advice from you. I am sorry to bring this out in public, and I must presume you have a good explanation. So I'll await to read your take on this. Thanks.

Edit: more discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1513252.msg15226165#msg15226165

Basically I am thinking that Dan and I would argue about everything and that he wants to always be in control. I think he would take my ideas and then kick me out of the project, same as he did to Charles.

Also I do not like the type of design decisions Dan makes. For example, the decision to use a quadratic weighting in Steem was done purposefully to cause users to do more work than they would be compensated for. This was a conscious decision to cheat the users. That sort of ethics does not belong in s/w from my perspective. I want to do something to help the users. He is thinking the ends justify the means, but even his expected ends appears to me to be a miscalculation.

[brekyrself]

I will read the post again later with your links however:

A simple conversation with him would be worth MUCH more compared to arguing with the trolls on here.  Time is a limited commodity, make the best use of it.

[iamnotback]

I will read the post again later with your links however:

A simple conversation with him would be worth MUCH more compared to arguing with the trolls on here.  Time is a limited commodity, make the best use of it.

Unfortunately or not, I know inside info of what went down during Charles' ouster that would make it nearly impossible for me to trust Dan's word.

I will not repeat that information to anyone, nor allude to its content. I will not mention it again.

I'm almost tempted to pick up the phone, but I've never had something like that work out well. All my successes have come from my programming keyboard, not from my mouth. He doesn't need me. Why should he want to give me a large role. They are busy on Steemit. I should not interrupt their focus.

Are they the only people worthy to collaborate with. I hope not.

[BigSirko]

I will read the post again later with your links however:

A simple conversation with him would be worth MUCH more compared to arguing with the trolls on here.  Time is a limited commodity, make the best use of it.

Unfortunately or not, I know inside info of what went down during Charles' ouster that would make it nearly impossible for me to trust Dan's word.

I will not repeat that information to anyone, nor allude to its content. I will not mention it again.

I'm almost tempted to pick up the phone, but I've never had something like that work out well. All my successes have come from my programming keyboard, not from my mouth. He doesn't need me. Why should he want to give me a large role. They are busy on Steemit. I should not interrupt their focus.

Are they the only people worthy to collaborate with. I hope not.

No offense brah but you're sounding so beta.

[iamnotback]

I will read the post again later with your links however:

A simple conversation with him would be worth MUCH more compared to arguing with the trolls on here.  Time is a limited commodity, make the best use of it.

Unfortunately or not, I know inside info of what went down during Charles' ouster that would make it nearly impossible for me to trust Dan's word.

I will not repeat that information to anyone, nor allude to its content. I will not mention it again.

I'm almost tempted to pick up the phone, but I've never had something like that work out well. All my successes have come from my programming keyboard, not from my mouth. He doesn't need me. Why should he want to give me a large role. They are busy on Steemit. I should not interrupt their focus.

Are they the only people worthy to collaborate with. I hope not.

No offense brah but you're sounding so beta.

I am probably beta w.r.t. to this at this current juncture. Not because I think Steemit will succeed (well I am still waiting to confirm the adoption data to make a final determination on that stance).

If I am alpha w.r.t. this, you won't be reading any words from me.

I expect that troll kiklo to come into this thread since I locked the other thread.

So unfortunately I am locking this thread for now.

[iamnotback]

Clarification about the OP:

... think Anonymint has painted himself into a corner here with the whole "you can never fork the chain" mentality.  If he actually attempts to create some social network coin like this, he's going to forget to cover numerous variables like the example I just stated.  He'll then end up forking probably dozens of times to fix them.  Or you'd just have to sit back and observe Steem for something like a year to see what works, but by that time, Larimer might have already forked Steem 9000 times into something that works good.

I am confident you have access to a dictionary, so your bolded phrase (emphasis added by myself) is inapplicable.

i·de·al
īˈdē(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: ideal

    1.
    satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
    2.
    existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality.

noun
noun: ideal; plural noun: ideals

    1.
    a person or thing regarded as perfect.

I was referring to IDEALS to shoot for (not a guarantee those IDEALS can be achieved in every case) and my points there were more focused on not forking w.r.t. to reverting history especially money matters such as the rearranging the balances of a crypto-currency. The ALL CAPS word "IDEALS" is the first word in the subject of that thread.

Complex voting and content publishing on-the-blockchain game theory wasn't even in my mind when I started the above linked thread.