Anonymity isn't free.
It can be cheap though.
The government will not allow fiat to be converted into an anonymous system. You can't make it so cheap to do so, else the system will be walled off from fiat. And thus the system will fail in the free market. PERIOD.
And I suspect that will prove that anonymity isn't free, because such a system will be rabidly attacked by the governments. There won't be any plausible denial (or valid legal use case) defense.
Sure there will. People don't want anyone who can associate their account number with them to be able to determine every single purchase they've ever made. That is insanity. Use your account # 123 to pay Amazon, and now Amazon has access to your entire transactional history if you do not use some measures to unhinge this ability. I have also come up with an even better idea in regards to this, but I'll save it for now.
Anonymity of transactions is not the same as subverting AML laws. The minting is currently exempted from AML laws, and thus it an important way of avoiding them. That was my point.
I have many subtle ideas that should make it difficult for anyone to peg where transactions or transaction blocks are coming from. I originally had designed it where shareholders were also the connection points, but this is a DoS vulnerability. That is why they are completely separate systems now.
Please describe the DoS vulnerability and your solution.
The DoS vulnerability is having the people who secure the network (SHs) be the same people who distribute the network (now CNPs). To ensure quick propagation of network data, there must be some system for propagating that data. Ad-hoc, like bitcoin, is the worst possible way to do it. It can only result in the longest possible propagation time, and it is easier for the network to become segmented with choke points.
Please provide a proof of (or at least evidence supporting) this assertion.
The mining peers in Bitcoin have an incentive to propagate as efficiently as they can, because otherwise they are doing useless work and destroying their ROI on their hardware investment. This economic incentive is much more dynamically powerful than any adhoc, static, top-down architected propagation because the mining peers will adjust to conditions and try to find clever ways to optimize propagation.
But, if SHs and CNPs are the same entity, then there is a direct point of attack against who is providing the network's security via even simple attacks like packet overloading. The solution to this is to make the network data propagators (again, CNPs) completely irrelevant to overall system security, and allow SHs to remain in the background, using CNPs as if they are any other network node.
I don't understand what prevents DoS from overloading the CNPs or any communication node in the system?
My understanding is that the key to squelching DoS is to have make it very inefficient to achieve DoS. With Bitcoin, it is nearly impossible to DoS the winning peer because you don't know who is the winning peer until it has already been propagated, and it is unrealistic to DoS all the mining peers. K.I.S.S.
With some slightly more complex anonymity measures, such as using Shadow Peers or tor as an initial starting point for SHs to distribute their TBs, remaining completely anonymous in terms of IP address->SH public key should be very easy. The same goes for everyday transactions without the need for the MUTE obfuscation and bandwidth overhead requirements.
How do we trust the Shadow Peers or the injection peers for Tor?
A robustly designed system must assume any peer can be a trojan.
Humanity owns more hard drive storage than the governments and power elite, and certainly any smaller shark.
Humanity already possesses this asset.
Humanity does not own more money then the power elite.
But I have already addressed for you how it will be difficult for the power elite to obtain any sort of control over the decrits currency. This is linked with its distribution scheme.
As far as I know, I have refuted it, c.f. the next post.
Buy lots of GPUs/hard disks with fiat? The minting system distributes the vast majority of currency to people other than those minting. Buy lots of decrits on the exchanges? The supply of decrits is very limited at any given point in time (and much less still will be available on exchanges), and this will cause an increasing price that will result in new currency being created and freely distributed among the users of decrits.
Buying a currency gives it away for free to existing holders of the currency? I will never support such a system of socialism; neither will any free market.
If I don't understand, then please feel free to explain more.
Humanity might own more hard drive space than the power elite, but it is silly to believe that a large portion of them are required to waste it to secure the currency.
Most of the storage space on $50 my terabyte hard drive is unused. I would expect similarly for most desktops these days.
I also thought we might be able to store real data there, and use to create a decentralized cloud storage. After all, we simply want them to prove they have the asset, in return for a share of the minting.
This is a poor design in terms of scalability and it leaves a fledgling network open to attack by anyone with a lot of hard drive space.
We've already agreed upthread that such a network is resistant against the 99+% attack. Only a 100% attack can in theory stop all transactions.
Humanity has too much hard drive storage, no evil entity can get 100% of it.
Additionally, not only does using hard drive space waste resources, it is less wasteful of resources if you scale the design as an intended move to take power over the network. It is much more efficient to run storage arrays than it is personal computers. This gives a significant advantage to an attacker who will do so. Same problem as ASICs.
It is not the same threat vector at all to ASICs and Bitcoin, for numerous reasons not the least of that Bitcoin is subject to a 51% attack. We had these discussions already upthread.
I am not at all worried about the threat of attack based on control over large # of peers, with either proof of share or proof of hard disk, because we already realized that both are impervious to the 99+% attack.
I am more concerned now about the economics. Proof of share appears to be socialism.
The PC is not less efficient than the mainframe. Decentralization yields degrees-of-freedom and flexibility and the ability to do more than one thing at a time. This outflanks efficiencies-of-scale (i.e. mass).
On top of all this, any currency used to take power over the network is locked and cannot be used for anything else that money can be used for. A hard drive is not as useful for trade as a dollar bill or a decrit. So while power over the network may increase for an attacker, he pays a large opportunity cost by no longer having the utility value of decrits. Governments can always print fiat to buy the hard drives, then print more fiat to retain control over the fiat money supply.
You assume that Decrits are more difficult to obtain with fiat than hard disks are. I question this assumption, because as I explained it doesn't make any sense mathematically, c.f. my next post. If indeed you suceed in making Decrits hard to obtain with fiat, you kill Decrits in the free market, because you've made it some kind of "give away my money" system.
If I am missing some aspect of the design, then explain and refute.
As far as I know, this is incorrect. If they don't propagate the consensus then they too are wasting their hardware resources searching for the next solution that might be for the non-consensus block. They have a very selfish reason to cooperate.
Of course a mining pool has an incentive to propagate the consensus. How many mining pools are there again? The intermediate nodes have no incentive though except for altruistic reasons.
Wrong. My understanding is if they don't propagate, then the entire pool will suffer and that mining pool will under perform, thus their share will suffer too.
As the bandwidth load of the network increases, it will become more difficult for people to remain altruistic in these matters, and they will stop transmitting. If they are paid to do this by the network,
They are paid by the minted coins. They have an incentive to do so, else they can't get minted coins. If the bandwidth rises, less peers will participate and thus difficulty will decrease until the ROI is sufficient.
Seems you don't understand very well Bitcoin's fundamentals.
many more people have the opportunity to be transmitting nodes. It is far more decentralized now and into the far future. And by using a small but significant deposit to be a public transmitting node, it also requires a heavy investment in the currency to attempt to attack this aspect of the network. In bitcoin, a government/ISP can make millions of nodes and get people "hooked" on them, then turn evil and do nefarious things. They cannot do this in decrits unless they also own a very large amount of decrits.
You are conflating differences. Agreed the 99+% attack improvement over Bitcoin is a plus, as we agreed upthread. Disagree that you've clearly shown how Bitcoin is more centralized.
And again, this money is locked, so there is a very large opportunity cost in attempting this attack. There is also a pseudo-identity associated with those funds, and clients can choose to ignore them and render that deposit useless from an attacking standpoint. This is not the case when an ISP can just create more IP addresses to fool more people.
Again I disagree with your economic assumptions about advantages of Decrits, c.f. above and next post.
Do you mean all peers get a share of the 50% and in that case is that a sufficient incentive and why (given a total analysis of the system, which I can't do because I don't know what the system design is)?
All peers that put a deposit down to become a CNP will receive a weighted portion of that 50%, yes. It is described in section 2. Whether or not it is sufficient is only partially relevant. It scales up with transaction volume, and it is magnitudes better than absolutely no incentive, as is the case with bitcoin.
In bitcoin the minting incentive scales with difficult and economics automatically. The problem with Bitcoin is the 51% attack vector and that minting stops in 2034.
And it is highly sybil-resistant because it requires the currency itself as a deposit, which cannot be printed at will and whatnot.
You depend on not making fiat convertible to Decrits then, c.f. next post there is no mathematical way around it.
As I told you from the beginning of my participation in this thread, you can't create a walled garden. Coase's theorem says the free market will route around you the obstruction as if it is a disease.
What ends up being "sufficient" depends on what the likelihood is of someone making a directed attack at this portion of the network. This depends on how much it actually costs to run a CNP and how big transaction fees are.
Regardless, there is no p2p system that could ever be as sybil-resistant as this one that is not a copy of this one. There is no design that exists besides this one that can take proof-of-work tokens (decrits) that are in limited supply and use them as the collateral for protecting the network. It costs real and significant amounts of money that can be obtained nowhere else except from within the network, which means anyone attacking the network is at the mercy of those who use the network. The design can only be modified to make it more or less likely as a factor of transaction fees.
How can any other p2p, completely decentralized network compete with this? I believe that there is no design that currently exists that can, and I do not think that there can be anything better than slight modifications to this one in the future. At least presuming the situation of the internet as it roughly exists today.
If we separate the economic assumption that fiat is not readily convertible to Decrits, then the above quoted comment can be seen as an architectural point, then please see my reply above where I said Bitcoin dynamically adjusts to attacks because the peers have an economic incentive to propagate and protect their ROI.
I don't understand much of what you write about details of your proposal, because you have so many details that have never been succinctly explained in one coherent document.
So ask questions on areas where you are unclear.
I don't know enough to ask questions, because your CNPs and Shadows etc design is completely opaque to me. No where have I see a concise, comprehensive, coherent explanation. If there is, point me to it.
You have some major catching up to do if you want to be involved in a project that massively reduces the impact of any viable attack vector. Everything has a deep purpose and thought process behind it. Drop some ideas because they are too complex and you begin to tear down the protections of the system. These are not ideas that are all that complex to code, but they are more complex to first invent then explain the reasoning behind each.
You expend too much verbiage talking about how we should just trust your omniscience and too little verbiage on explaining the specifics of your design in a concise, coherent document.
I don't trust you as I don't trust everyone. I have proven to myself numerous times in life that most people (including myself) make a lot of big mistakes, especially when they don't communicate well and test their thinking against other peer review.
I don't have time to wade through pages upon pages of discussion to build up your design in my head. It should be explained in one coherent document.
A wiki will make things easier. But the depth and breadth of all the systems described here can't be explained in one post. It is a leap forward in currency and network design that draws very little from existing systems to compare it to for reference.
Ah the "it is too advanced to explain" excuse. I have seen a lot of BS in my 30 years of programming. "TALK IS CHEAP, SHOW ME THE CODE"-- Linus Torvalds. At least show me the concise, coherent details sufficient to have a peer review.
Did you forget that we had a discussion upthread about the malicious fork (that excludes transactions) being clearly malicious because it will have less transactions.
You are confusing consensus with transactions. An evil network split can produce as many transactions as it wants--it cannot produce the signatures of honest SHs.
You are confused. The good branch will include all the evil transactions to prove it is the good branch by having the most transactions. You've forgotten what we agreed to upthread!
If you are going to forget key points of agreement then how can I trust that you have this very apparently (who knows?) complex nondescribed design correct.
But that is not the point any way. The point is I don't know what is the incentive to propagate "the" consensus. I don't even understand the design well enough to load it in my head.
Everyone's getting
paid, yo. It does not preclude the network from all-encompassing attacks, but it makes them orders of magnitude more difficult than any system that currently exists or is proposed.
I am not clear on the design of the propagation and payment scheme. So I can't compare to Bitcoin.
I understand you plan to distribute 50% of tx fees to peers who participate, but it is not clear how this is proven and thus what the incentive is to propagate widely or narrowly and otherwise how that can be gamed. The devil is in the details.
How, pray tell, do you plan on distributing new currency?
To those who provide resources to keep the system running-- capitalism.
Free money steals from someone.
Then what do you call it when a miner creates a bitcoin for $5 and sells it for $6? Isn't that stealing money from those who are more willing to pay $6 than to pay $5 in mining costs? Because that $1 is "free" money for the miner. Oh wait, you call it capitalism. What about the early adopter who mined a bitcoin for 0.000001 cent and sells it for $260? Is that capitalism too?
If (
?) you are a socialist pig (
?), thus you will never succeed. Go on twirling your thumbs for another 2 years.
That is called risk and ROI.
Additionally, the difficulty is always scaling, they are not guaranteed a profit. They have to supply their knowledge to the network and compete cleverly in terms of their decisions on which hardware, how much, etc..
You are also under the flawed presumption that some proof-of-wasted-resources is required to secure the network. This notion must be dropped for the sake of sanity. Miners keep the bitcoin network running, presumably your proof of harddisk miners would be little different. While using hard disks would require less electricity, there is still the incentive that "hay if I own more drives, I can make more monehhh!" which results in hard drive shortages and an epic fail waste of resources. Just because the resources may be relatively abundant does not mean they are infinite or free.
We can use that hard disk storage for cloud storage. No waste.
To avoid wasting additional resources, a large portion of money is given away because unless you have the pyramidal distribution scheme of bitcoin, the only way for value to enter the system as it is demanded is to waste resources on creating new currency, or to allow for massive bouts of deflation. Both are horrific from the standpoint of any sane currency or respect for mother Earth. However, money is only given away if some resources are being wasted. This is the metric for determining that the price of money is too high.
I don't trust your mumbo-jumbo (can't even understand how you plan to accomplish whatever the above really means). I can already see you have some socialist fantasies about economics.
Now if you give that money away to the decrit-rich, you keep their power firmly entrenched over the system. If you give it away as a result of transaction activity at the lowest levels, money trickles in to the supply where it is being used. Something QE and existing monetary systems have no concept of doing and is the reason why economies do not recover even after billions of dollars have been created from nothing.
You are referring to some scheme to give away money for free so some others?
or if the money has trickled to the top in such a way that the general population is suffering
Ah socialism! NO way Jose!
Money only trickles back down when there is a technology that enables individuals to produce more than top-down capital can. Redistribution schemes don't reward production and are socialist failure.
