Bitcoin problems are pushing me to Dash ! Thanks Amanda Johnson

[iamnotback]

@qwizzie, I can't keep my side of the truce, if Dash doesn't keep its side. The lies which attempt to steal my market concept force me to respond as follows:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739268.msg18048987#msg18048987

@charleshoskinson, you of all people should be aware of the EXTENSIVE research which shows that all fungible resources become power-law or exponentially distributed. Why on God's earth would it be different in the case of Dash, especially starting from the admitted instamine "bug" (and using their control over the money supply to vote not to restart the launch without the bug). Surely you understand the power of ROI compounding w.r.t. to insider control over voting and masternode revenue (and also there were I heard instances where only a minority of vote was necessary to form a quorum on budget proposals). Also you should know that democracy is a Tragedy of the Commons power vacuum which is always filled by a strongman:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984

Are you naive? Oh come on now, are you trying to pretend also? Your statement is incredulous as if you are naive 5 year old, which you obviously are not.

I know you've been working towards decentralized governance as one of themes of interest at your IOHK, but decentralized governance is impossible. The absence of governance is what we want for a blockchain.

[1714236169]

1714236169

[1714236169]

1714236169

[dinofelis]

Good philosophical argument but those that get lied to and deceived and subsequently lose greatly financially may wish to disagree with you.

I'm sorry, but that is similar to going in the arena where one "fights without rules" and then complain that the fight wasn't fair, because you got seriously hurt by the guy with a sledge hammer.

Trustlessness is the principle where one tries to set up systems that avoid being broken in an environment where all players try to break the system.  Don't cry if you used a system that turned out to be broken and don't accuse people of having broken the system, right ?

I don't think we should seek to create a place where if a deception/trick with negative impact is conducted we can't say its a bad thing and try to prevent it happening again.

Of course you can "try to prevent it" by building systems that, well, make it impossible to do so.  But you cannot "try to prevent it" by complaining about it.  Because if you do so, then you leave the notion of trustlessness.  And from that point on, you don't NEED a lot of cryptography, and you don't need "consensus algorithms resistant to 51% attack", and you don't need distributed ledgers.   But then you need "points of trust", those who can intervene in order to prevent it.  And these points of trust accumulate power, and accumulate wealth.  And at some point, maybe they cannot be trusted, after all.  And we have a fiat system ; or something in between, like DASH, with its more or less centralized "points of trust" and the wealth that flows to the centralized controllers.  And if that is what one wanted, after all, DASH is finally not a scam.  It is a kind of fiat system, with "points of trust" that will look after the functioning of the system, and get (take) a lot of power and wealth in return.

Someone lies and deceives you and the result is negative to you. 99% or great of people will agree its a bad thing. There will be exceptions but if you live life based on the exceptions then you will find it hard to be part of society really.

I agree it is a bad thing, but that was the game: make systems that are *resistant* to bad things.

I think the only place the word scam is not applicable is a place where lies,deception and trickery are not able to have any impact on the outcome of events.

Well, that is exactly what is the goal of a trustless system: where lies, deception and trickery are not able to have any impact on the outcome of events.  In as much as it works, the system as a trustless system, failed.  If you invested in a system of which you convinced yourself that it was trustless, and it failed, then there's nothing wrong with you losing your entire investment: you made a big mistake.

You can say: yes, but they ASSURED ME that it was a correct trustless system.  But that is exactly part of what you should verify, because this deceiving is what the system should be resistant against.  If this deception works out, it means that the system didn't resist, and hence was a bad trustless system.  So again, it means you invested in a broken concept, which means that it is perfectly normal that you lose your input.

[dinofelis]

I know you've been working towards decentralized governance as one of themes of interest at your IOHK, but decentralized governance is impossible. The absence of governance is what we want for a blockchain.

Triple Amen.

This is exactly why I dislike DASH.  Although I understand that the technology used by DASH needs governance in order to have trusted mixers.  DASH is the best one could do for anon without advanced crypto tech like ring signatures or zero knowledge proofs, but it meant the end of decentralisation.  As such, DASH did what it had to do: build a fiat-like system.

It should change its name to DIAT: digital fiat.

[STT]

steal my marketing concept ("Bitcoin Killer"),

Bitcoin is going to have to kill itself is my take on that concept.   I think it will have to fail and neglect to adapt or evolve beyond its drawbacks.       Something better might come along but then you have to ask why would bitcoin stay still and not enable features required for the general population to use it.

There will be specialities that bitcoin does not cover, that would be a parallel crypto standard and a friendly situation possibly.  Im sure Ive heard it mentioned that some anticipate bitcoin to key into other coins, I thought that was a pretty smart direction and open minded idea.

The future is bigger then all of us and we are all just pebbles on the beach as the tides of change wash over us      chill out a bit, mistakes will prove themselves wrong also we dont need to stop anyone in their opinions.

[iamnotback]

This is exactly why I dislike DASH.  Although I understand that the technology used by DASH needs governance in order to have trusted mixers.  DASH is the best one could do for anon without advanced crypto tech like ring signatures or zero knowledge proofs, but it meant the end of decentralisation.  As such, DASH did what it had to do: build a fiat-like system.

It should change its name to DIAT: digital fiat.

I wasn't going to mention this recent speculation of mine, but since you mention that...

I had thought that I had pushed Evan to the masternode concept (our own egos get in the way of our objectivity, but I think I just wasn't that interested to research more and accepted the easiest assumption). Someone dug up my post from back during the beginning of the Darkcoin.

But based on what I read recently about some statements Evan made during the XCoin stage before Darkcoin (c.f. the link @arielbit provided upthread), I am now speculating that Evan knew exactly that CoinJoin would require the scheme Dash became. I am thinking Evan wasn't this bumbling half-smart, amiable programmer I took him to be (i.e. not quite idiot and not quite sophisticated is what I thought), and instead had already devised a masterplan and my post was what he was waiting for, so he immediately after that suddenly had the idea for masternodes to prevent the jamming issue with CoinJoin. I haven't really delved into the forensic evidence to try to build a strong case. I don't have time (nor mental energy) for that diversion.

Note even Monero needs to trust mixnets, because if the IP address (or other metadata) can be correlated, then it can aid in unmasking the Cryptonote rings. Monero offloads this issue onto the users and Tor or I2P. So it remains an unsolved (probably intractable) problem in general. Anonymity will never be 100% ironclad. So it isn't a valid justification to corrupt the blockchain (as Dash does) for that which can't be solved. The distinguishable characteristic of ring signatures is that you can mix the inputs autonomously and provably (i.e. without needing to trust any nodes or servers or anyone), then you could (as @smooth once quipped) have a pigeon carry your transaction to the blockchain. In other words, Cryptonote rings make transport anonymity orthogonal to input/output mixing anonymity. So in short, Cryptonote is superior to CoinJoin-like except afaics it won't allow you to prove in homomorphic zero knowledge the sum of the inputs you've spent (not sure about the outputs you've received and I will need to study RingCT again). Yet Dash doesn't even have homomorphic zero knowledge technology. Dash is the lowest-tech Pong of anonymity tech.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm really curious why there is such a strong Dash is a scam sentiment among some in the BTC community. Is it because you disagree with the distribution, conduction of the leaders or believe the technology is in some way flawed? We actually did a very comprehensive study of Dash's treasury (https://iohk.io/research/papers/dash-governance-system-analysis-and-suggestions-for-improvement/) and while significant issues were found, they at least appear to be trying to create a decentralized funding mechanism.

I cannot comment on initial distribution nor if any of the founders have a past history of bad actions. I will point out however that despite initial distribution if coins flow to a larger group over time from the founders that the project does become fairly decentralized. For example, Nxt has one of the worst distributions ever and now I suspect coins are fairly well distributed. Of course, Nxt isn't doing so well so maybe its a moot point 

"Fairly decentralized?"  Is that like being fairly cancer-free or using fairly robust encryption?  Or being fairly liberal with use of weasel words?   

Your curiosity regarding the origin of "such a strong Dash is a scam sentiment among some in the BTC community" may be satisfied by watching this video.



Dash can be decentralized, or Dash can artificially raise its CONOP to ~$40,000.  They only get to PICK ONE.

I really can't be bothered to download your .pdf (it's 2017 FFS) but here is what it should say, in good old plain text.

http://daia.group/2017/03/02/review-dash/

Potential risk-factors

Before re-branding to Digital Cash, DASH was launched as XCoin and then shortly later re-branded to DarkCoin (DRK) due to its focus on anonymity.

During the initial launch, the XCoin blockchain got stuck and a relaunch was scheduled. Although DarkCoin was launched with no premine, there was a massive instamine of nearly 2 million DRK within the first day. With a current supply of ~ 7,100,000, this means that 28% of all DASH currently in existance was mined in a single day.

This presents obvious concerns:

   - High possibility that DASH supply is heavily centralized due to instamine
   - Due to MNs earning 40% of block rewards, centralization of supply is only more likely to have increased
   - If MNs are heavily centralized, DASH’s alleged privacy features are at the mercy of whoever is operating majority of MNs

There is no way to verify or guarantee that each masternode is operated by a unique individual making DASH masternode system highly susceptible to forms of sybil attack.

After the instamine, DRK block emission was lowered from 500 DRK to 5 DRK and maximum supply was reduced from 80m to 20m.

Although centralization of supply does present risks, there are some resulting benefits in regards to price. Nearly 4000 MNs are active which means majority of the current DASH supply is ‘locked up’ resulting in lower amounts of DASH being available for exchange. This would allow DASH to have a more ‘inflated’ valuation per coin.

Dash is one man's hobby coin.  Duffield makes ALL the decisions.  He decided to not relaunch and keep his Instamine, he decided to cut emission and exacerbate the Instamine, and he decided to rebrand to Darkcoin and then to Dash.

He also decided to ignore the Masternodes who voted to raise max_block_size to 2mb, just like he decided to abandon his promises for Masternode blinding and ring signatures.

Dash IS whatever Evan DOES.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll close with the post former Darkcoin dev vertoe made explaining why she left the project.

i left because i disagree darkcoin or however it will be called next year is not a decentralized entity.

it never was but i ignored it as long as darkcoin was following the same path i was following. the path to total financial privacy. and thats why i am so upset about how this currency is lead by a single person. darkcoin is like an old conservative company with strong hierarchical comamnd structures and a single person on the top of the pyramid. evan duffield.

the rebranding using a detergent name was just a step forward in creating something like apple or paypal. fuck this i tell you.

what we need is a trustless, decentralized and anonymous currency. darkcoin is not decentralized as it still relies on a single person. and this reaches deep into the code base.

the core devs were just a bunch of volunteers exploited for the big thing. the extended darkcoin team was the same with even a lower place to sit on that pyramid. and what was the darkcoin foundation again? right, something to reserve some rights on some names and collect money. who nominated and voted for the foundation board? who does even know who are these guys? how did we learn about the foundation? from local news papers! the team listings kept counting names of people nobody ever noticed before. and they never committed anything visible to the community or the repository. and i was spending 25 hours a day monitory everything that happened in the darkcoin community for more than a year.

the things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity.

i will get out and and will contribute to something decentralized and anonymous. i always hoped darkcoin could fill that void. i cant blame anyone to stay with this project. you are probably investors trying to win a gold donkey. or you are simply trying to exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space. whatever. you are not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be.

if you disagree with my statement above, i dont care, but answer that simple question: what if evan duffield suddenly announces he quits the project tomorrow morning?

good luck

To answer vertoe's question, if Evan suddenly quits (or gets hit by a bus) the Dash project simply grinds to a halt.  There is no way to replace Dash's dictator for life; there is no plan for succession and even if there was it would be controversial enough to fragment the community.

[iamnotback]

Good philosophical argument but those that get lied to and deceived and subsequently lose greatly financially may wish to disagree with you.

I'm sorry, but that is similar to going in the arena where one "fights without rules" and then complain that the fight wasn't fair, because you got seriously hurt by the guy with a sledge hammer.

And if we need to form a governance system to stop the "scam", then we've just created another "scam" because all governance systems are Tragedy of the Commons power vacuums which will always end up controlled by a strongman.

So we must win by finding a decentralized model which trumps the centralized models in the free market.

That is why I've stated lately that the only way to beat the "mining the speculators" paradigm (e.g. Dash and Ethereum and the 100s of useless tokens ICOs that smart contracts spawns) is to beat them with 100 million users adoption. Because speculators can inexorably be induced to join the model of mining the greater fools.

One of the reasons I don't join Monero is that a significant part of that community thinks you don't need to make blockchains popular and you can hide out in tiny community of illegal anonymity (hoping to stay under the radar of collapsing governments) orthogonal to the NWO. Sigh.


Edit: however speaking up on forums in a decentralized manner is part of the free market. I suggested to consider the benefits of using more apt terminology such as "not trustless" or "permissioned" instead of "scam", although I realize most readers don't understand the implications of those more precise terms.

[Piston Honda]

pics of amanda?

[cryptohunter]

Good philosophical argument but those that get lied to and deceived and subsequently lose greatly financially may wish to disagree with you.

I'm sorry, but that is similar to going in the arena where one "fights without rules" and then complain that the fight wasn't fair, because you got seriously hurt by the guy with a sledge hammer.

I don't see it is like that. Nobody agrees the entire enviroment has no rules at this point or is trustless at this point. That is the eventual game plan but as yet we are not at that point. A better analogy would be we are trying to all build together a tank. This tank will be immune to any other weapon upon completion. Whilst sitting inside you offer me an apple which turns out to be a grenade that blows up taking off both my arms . I say that was a bad thing to do and you tell me " well you should not be trusting this tank will protect you against all weapons should you,". I mean you took this risk to believe this tank is impervious to all weapons now deal with it.

Or if you use your no rules fighting example. When the fighters are ready there will be a no rules fight. Whilst gearing up for the fight at the gym one fighter pulls out this sledgehammer and kills the other guy and says why agree to have a no rules fight if you want rules. Crypto will be assumed trustless at a later date. Then if the code that ensures us we need no rules works or is assumed to work for a long period your point i think will become valid. However saying people should research before they assure themselves of the trustless nature is probably unreasonable due to the fact you need to be phd math and conceptual design expert to gain this self assurance.



who says the entire arena at this point is trustless? who else says the exchanges and the devs are meant to be trustless at this point. To me they are still accountable and can be called out for deception,lies and wrong doing that cause loss to the individual. The only part of crypto that is trustless right now is the code of the actual tokens right?

Trustlessness is the principle where one tries to set up systems that avoid being broken in an environment where all players try to break the system.  Don't cry if you used a system that turned out to be broken and don't accuse people of having broken the system, right ?

this point is therefore invalid if you try to apply to the entire crypto system as it is? this could apply perhaps to an attack like you mention on the code of a coin I don't think it can apply to the actions of a person upon whom we are forced to trust if we want to participate in crypto at the sections that are not yet trustless. I mean if there was no accountability at all at these junctions (exchanges,escrows,devs birthing these coind and deciding distributional methods... then nobody would dare enter crypto at all and there would be no progress.

I don't think we should seek to create a place where if a deception/trick with negative impact is conducted we can't say its a bad thing and try to prevent it happening again.

Of course you can "try to prevent it" by building systems that, well, make it impossible to do so.  But you cannot "try to prevent it" by complaining about it.  Because if you do so, then you leave the notion of trustlessness.  And from that point on, you don't NEED a lot of cryptography, and you don't need "consensus algorithms resistant to 51% attack", and you don't need distributed ledgers.   But then you need "points of trust", those who can intervene in order to prevent it.  And these points of trust accumulate power, and accumulate wealth.  And at some point, maybe they cannot be trusted, after all.  And we have a fiat system ; or something in between, like DASH, with its more or less centralized "points of trust" and the wealth that flows to the centralized controllers.  And if that is what one wanted, after all, DASH is finally not a scam.  It is a kind of fiat system, with "points of trust" that will look after the functioning of the system, and get (take) a lot of power and wealth in return.

dash is without doubt a scam. we are working to the point of a trustless system but it is nowhere near there yet. You seem to be saying dash the code is not a scam...fair enough. I am saying that evans the person who said fair pow launch protocol (this is not  yet trustless) scammed everyone at launch.

Someone lies and deceives you and the result is negative to you. 99% or great of people will agree its a bad thing. There will be exceptions but if you live life based on the exceptions then you will find it hard to be part of society really.

I agree it is a bad thing, but that was the game: make systems that are *resistant* to bad things.

I'm glad you agree dash did a bad thing. Yes that is the end game we have not reached that stage as yet, when we reach that stage your argument becomes more valid

I think the only place the word scam is not applicable is a place where lies,deception and trickery are not able to have any impact on the outcome of events.

Well, that is exactly what is the goal of a trustless system: where lies, deception and trickery are not able to have any impact on the outcome of events.  In as much as it works, the system as a trustless system, failed.  If you invested in a system of which you convinced yourself that it was trustless, and it failed, then there's nothing wrong with you losing your entire investment: you made a big mistake.

You can say: yes, but they ASSURED ME that it was a correct trustless system.  But that is exactly part of what you should verify, because this deceiving is what the system should be resistant against.  If this deception works out, it means that the system didn't resist, and hence was a bad trustless system.  So again, it means you invested in a broken concept, which means that it is perfectly normal that you lose your input.

You point will be valid when end to end the entire system is assumed trustless until it is not.


I'm sorry if i'm not understanding you fully. That could be my limited understanding of so many things. However I can only see it from my perspective here and have replied obviously from that pov.

I don't know how you quote little bits of text so i just put mine in red.

[dinofelis]

And if we need to form a governance system to stop the "scam", then we've just created another "scam" because all governance systems are Tragedy of the Commons power vacuums which will always end up controlled by a strongman.

So we must win by finding a decentralized model which trumps the centralized models in the free market.

Indeed.

One of the reasons I don't join Monero is that a significant part of that community thinks you don't need to make blockchains popular and you can hide out in tiny community of illegal anonymity (hoping to stay under the radar of collapsing governments) orthogonal to the NWO. Sigh.

I didn't know I was part of the monero community and I think that many in the monero community think it will be THE coin everyone is using, but I have no illusions.  Monero is way, way better than bitcoin, but it is still lacking a lot of features to hope to become tomorrow's currency for millions of people.  I don't see a single currency becoming tomorrow's currency.  I see potentially a web of gazillions of currencies, connected by gazillions of distributed exchanges.  That ever changing environment, with no single protocol, with no single dynamics, with currencies rising and collapsing, with continuously different technologies, would be a true decentralized, and uncentralizable entity.

[iamnotback]

I don't know how you quote little bits of text so i just put mine in red.

Could you please edit your post and use blue color instead? The psychometrics of color says that red is for shouting, thus IMO should be reserved for extreme emphasis (when required). Blue is also annoying but less so. Just retype the 'red' with 'blue' manually (you can can even use copy+paste and double-click the word 'red', then Ctrl+V for paste)

Here is how to do the quoting:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+quote+portions+with+PHPBB

[dinofelis]

You point will be valid when end to end the entire system is assumed trustless until it is not.

I'm sorry if i'm not understanding you fully. That could be my limited understanding of so many things. However I can only see it from my perspective here and have replied obviously from that pov.

I understand that you think that, and this must also be what people think when they ask for "crypto regulation" and crypto law and so on.  But I think there's a fundamental problem when you do that.

There's simply no point in *partial trustlessness* even though in practice, there CAN only be partial trustlessness, but that is nothing else but risk taking, which is unavoidable.
Because if there is partial trustlessness, it means that there is partial trust.  If there is partial trust, there is a trusted party, or there are trusted parties.  Once you have trusted parties, you can USE that trust to "lock in" the trust on anything else, and you can use a centralized system, ultimately controlled by that trusted entity, or those trusted entities, to impose the "trustability" in a top-down hierarchy of trust.
And then, there's simply NO REASON any more to have anything distributed and trustless, because all systems can be trusted, or can be made trustworthy in a top-down hierarchy, deriving their trust from the initially trusted entities which were assumed to exist.

And that's exactly, exactly, how our modern fiat systems work.  That's also how DASH works.  And it is way, way, way simpler to do things.  Once you have a trusted entity on which you can build an entire hierarchy of centralized trust, essentially all difficulties crypto is facing are gone.  Instead of block chains and miners, you use swift and central banks.  Instead of master nodes, you use commercial banks and audits by trusted inspectors.  Etc.

Trustlessness, and decentralized crypto, are simply meaningless from the moment there are trusted entities.

[iamnotback]

I see potentially a web of gazillions of currencies, connected by gazillions of distributed exchanges.

I used to think that. I even offered an idea and discussed (in the Bitcoin Technical discussion forum) with @TierNolan and @jl777 how to deal with the jamming (Sybil attack) problem of his atomic cross-chain exchange protocol.

Decentralized exchange singular (not distributed exchanges as that is what we have now) won't ever be adopted because speculators want the highest liquidity, the lowest spreads, the fastest trades, and the most accurate aggregate trading statistics. I have instead switched my focus to a payment channel invention I have which can make it impossible for centralized exchanges to lose coins (i.e. the user never gives up the private key control).

Gazillions of currencies won't work because there are huge losses for businesses and individuals when not having the same unit-of-exchange as the unit-of-account. Hedging just the major currencies is already a major headache for international corporations. This is why Germany created the Euro so they could charge the cost of the appreciation of the German mark (due to Germany's higher industrial productivity) to the PIIGS.

I think that many in the monero community think it will be THE coin everyone is using, but I have no illusions.

Yeah by creating dark markets.  

[Spoetnik]

I don't know how you quote little bits of text so i just put mine in red.

Could you please edit your post and use blue color instead? Red is for shouting. Blue also annoying but less so. Just retype the 'red' with 'blue' manually (you can can even use copy+paste and double-click the word 'red', then Ctrl+V for paste)

Here is how to do the quoting:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+quote+portions+with+PHPBB

WOW the nerve of this guy........... again.
He had that same exact chip on his shoulder that i said Risto has 2.5 years ago.

RED is for shouting then lectures you on how to post here ?
He just finished accusing me and others here or railing on with some ego shit
and i just finished pointing out the parody topic i made 2 years ago in 2014 of Risto and his "rules"

WOW cocky fucking blow hard idiots here stomping around doing nothing with a massive chip on their shoulder as usual.
Maybe King shit here and the other king shit should pool their resources together and make the Mighty grand Bitcoin Killer they say is coming ?

I told you all for 2 years this fucking guy was positioning himself to loiter around here bashing the living shit out of ALL ICO coins leaving room always to launch his own.. THEN he fucking admitted it !
I was right and ....he had previously denied it profusely.
But i am smarter than him and his ego is a joke (i see through him like water)
He just spent 2 year puttering around here trolling ICO coins saying they were all shit..
UNLESS.... HE MAKES ONE !

Why ?
Because he NEEDS money for HIS coin he wants to launch..... one day.
So ?
Risto has the money and the smug fucking attitude.
Those two would make a great tag team couple here LOL

And get this.. they are already looooooooooooooooooooong time old friends as it is.

LOL

ALL OF YOU little cock suckers better realize who the fucking smart one is here.
I don't need proof i have magical penguin powers and can pull bunnies right out of my hat on demand.
I have a gift.
I can smell your bullshit from a million miles away.

I know what you are all gonna do before YOU DO !

Kind of funny Mr. "Early 2017" is going to release his Bitcoin Killer.. then rattled off woe is me excuses as to why he has no code written for his new ICO coin.. yeah the ONLY legit one LOL
Me ?
I have looooooooooooots of fucking problems and it took me about 20 minutes to install Visual Studio the other day and make some code and upload binaries of it.
And yeah i have health problems coming out of my ass and massive personal problems to boot.

Point being is he has PLENTY of time to post here like crazy with his NOT banned accounts (many of them)
But ZERO time to make his Bitcoin Killer ICO Coin he said was coming out "Early 2017"
Funny part is if he is so sure that HIS COIN is going to be better why is he worried about what coins you all decide to trade right now ?

AND..
I also had to bitch at Shelby over the "Does he have the Bitcoin Killer" topic..
Reminding him the topic was not made FOR HIM.. it was made asking US a question.
Yet he kept demanding it be closed because he felt he had the final word.
Example 10 billion of the same cocky asshole bullshit here from the same idiots.

Put up or shut up assholes.

PS:
I don't have colors.. every page is black & white with a Greasemonkey script.
If you see RED here you are a fucking noob (probably using Google Chrome)
Learn how to computer dipshits  

[dinofelis]

I see potentially a web of gazillions of currencies, connected by gazillions of distributed exchanges.

I used to think that. I even offered an idea and discussed (in the Bitcoin Technical discussion forum) with @TierNolan and @jl777 how to deal with the jamming (Sybil attack) problem of his atomic cross-chain exchange protocol.

Distributed exchanges (plural as a form of decentralized exchange singular) won't ever be adopted because speculators want the highest liquidity, the lowest spreads, the fastest trades, and the most accurate aggregate trading statistics.

We don't want speculators, do we ?  Nothing stops them from trading IOU on centralized exchanges.

Gazillions of currencies won't work because there are huge losses for businesses and individuals when not having the same unit-of-exchange as the unit-of-account.

That's nevertheless what is currently the case in the fiat world.  How many national currencies exist ?  And in a certain way, every single bank has its own currency (usually denominated in its national bank currency, but it is not the same).  There are value tokens for meals, there are value tokens in super markets,....  Of course, many of them are tied together.  Nothing stops currencies from tying together.

My idea is that a web of relatively small, relatively new, relatively local currencies has no point of failure, and can never be taken down, centralized, put under any control what so ever, because by the time TPTB try to get the control of one, it has already collapsed and has been replaced by 10 others.

But in fact, maybe our two ideas are closer than we think.  What I call "a currency" might very well be simply a "payment channel", and what I call a small distributed exchange, might just as well be a link with a block chain type of currency.

If I share a 'currency' with 10 trading partners and that's about the scope of the currency, which is then linked to a few "neighbouring currencies" on a few local distributed exchanges kept running by some of us, and some other people, this is maybe similar to the 10 of us sharing a payment channel, and a "distributed exchange" being a kind of lightning node style of link to a block chain currency.

What is important to me, is that the protocols, the technology, the emission schemes, and all that are all different and change all the time.

[iamnotback]

I see potentially a web of gazillions of currencies, connected by gazillions of distributed exchanges.

I used to think that. I even offered an idea and discussed (in the Bitcoin Technical discussion forum) with @TierNolan and @jl777 how to deal with the jamming (Sybil attack) problem of his atomic cross-chain exchange protocol.

Distributed exchanges (plural as a form of decentralized exchange singular) won't ever be adopted because speculators want the highest liquidity, the lowest spreads, the fastest trades, and the most accurate aggregate trading statistics.

We don't want speculators, do we ?  Nothing stops them from trading IOU on centralized exchanges.

IMO the "my way or the highway" attitude is why you are not Mark Zuckerberg.

Gazillions of currencies won't work because there are huge losses for businesses and individuals when not having the same unit-of-exchange as the unit-of-account.

That's nevertheless what is currently the case in the fiat world.  How many national currencies exist ?

Before the Internet, consumers never transacted outside their national currency.

Now we must move to a global unit-of-exchange and account. Why do you think Rothschilds created Bitcoin!

You can't go backwards. Sorry.

What is important to me, is that the protocols, the technology, the emission schemes, and all that are all different and change all the time.

You are not aligned with the trend of the entropy to maximum. The national currencies are a Coasian cost that must now end, as we move to globalized B2B, B2C and even P2P commerce.

Q: Why are there so many alternative cryptocurrencies?

A: Because all crypto-currencies to-date are speculative "investments" (gambles), not currencies.

The demographics of crypto-currencies are currently speculative gamblers, not currency users. Thus there is always a demand for a new speculation which can be purchased earlier and cheaper. If someone ever creates a currency, then the users will demand there only be one, because having one unit-of-account means currency users aren't stressed with exchange volatility. Exchange volatility actually decreases currency use, because users have an incentive to not spend when the price is lower than their entry price, and not sell when the price is going higher.

Btw, the reason we are moving to a global currency is because currency users are beginning to transact globally more often, e.g. ordering online from Alibaba or DHgate, migrant workers remittances, etc..

[Spoetnik]

pics of amanda?

You are not aligned with the trend of the entropy to maximum !!!!!1111ONE

[dinofelis]

IMO the "my way or the highway" attitude is why you are not Mark Zuckerberg.

I will take that as a compliment

[r0ach]

This thread is fake news.

[iamnotback]

You point will be valid when end to end the entire system is assumed trustless until it is not.

I'm sorry if i'm not understanding you fully. That could be my limited understanding of so many things. However I can only see it from my perspective here and have replied obviously from that pov.

I understand that you think that, and this must also be what people think when they ask for "crypto regulation" and crypto law and so on.  But I think there's a fundamental problem when you do that.

Thinking about this some more, I think @cryptohunter is correct.

The "scam" of regulation can only destroy the "scam" of faux decentralization, because real decentralization can't be regulated.

So bring on the SEC! Then we will find out what is truly decentralized.

Tada.  

Good philosophical argument but those that get lied to and deceived and subsequently lose greatly financially may wish to disagree with you.

I'm sorry, but that is similar to going in the arena where one "fights without rules" and then complain that the fight wasn't fair, because you got seriously hurt by the guy with a sledge hammer.

And if we need to form a governance system to stop the "scam", then we've just created another "scam" because all governance systems are Tragedy of the Commons power vacuums which will always end up controlled by a strongman.

So we must win by finding a decentralized model which trumps the centralized models in the free market.

Operation ShitCODE Cleanout.

Enough of these C++ coins.

All coins not coded in Brainfuck are hereby on notice of their imminent demise.