Decrits: The 99%+ attack-proof coin

[Etlase2]

No, you can't comment because you don't know how networks can be designed to be efficiently anonymous. This is not an area of your expertise.

Make a citation then to prove your claim that I am suffering from canonical ignorance.

MUTE does not work as a system for a decentralized network that needs to be extremely resilient. The property of having a decentralized list of peers allows for a MUTE-like property to easily be added to the system.

This, however, reduces network efficiency and opens up DoS/spam vulnerabilities that may or may not be correctable with smart peer banning. But, take this example:

There are three nodes, A, B, and C. C is connected to B and knows A's encryption key because it is public. This would be akin to searching for some illegal music file on a MUTE network and getting the location as some address hash that B knows the route to.

C can repeatedly send garbage, encrypted information, and B can not know this because he does not possess the decryption key and cannot prove a fee paying transaction. So A has to either tell B to stfu, rendering the protocol useless, or A has to ban B because A doesn't know if it is B or some other node being stupid. There is *zero* cost in performing this attack, meaning the eventual result is it will be disabled if someone is intent on disrupting the network.

MUTE works because it relies on a "pull" system--someone is requesting data. This must be a "push" system by its nature, where data is sent anonymously to someone who must retrieve it.

Additionally, if we could presume this protocol is used mostly honestly, any node that is in the chain from A->C must see double the data for every transaction encrypted this way. It reduces the network bandwidth efficiency. First it sees the encrypted transaction having no idea what it is, then it must see it again unencrypted. With the downsides already mentioned in using this protocol, this further solidifies it as a complete waste of time. For every node that sees it, bandwidth efficiency is reduced. The more nodes that use it, the more the efficiency of the network as a whole is reduced, resulting in higher transaction fees and less transactions that are able to be processed.

And why would you bother at all when Tor already provides this functionality?

[1446676160]

1446676160

[1446676160]

1446676160

[1446676160]

1446676160

[1446676160]

1446676160

[AnonyMint]

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.

The mining pools have incentive to propagate to each other and that's about it. All bitcoin non-mining nodes could be just fine by connecting to 1 or 2 mining pools for its view of the network. The mining peers have no say in what transactions are included, and are not relevant when it comes to propagating the winning blocks. Why even bother with propagation nodes when the view of the network comes entirely from a small subset of mining farms or pools?

The TBs are being propagated to all the mining peers, so the system is working. If it wasn't being propagated, the mining peers would leave the pool(s). The selfish economic incentive to cooperate (on propagation) has motivated them to aggregate for efficiency reasons, but hasn't eliminated their veto on non-propagation.

I agree with your orthogonal complaint about there not being a good incentive to include transactions in Bitcoin, but that has nothing to do with the centralization of propagation.

The key about decentralized propagation is not whether peers get together for efficiency, but whether they've lost the veto power against attacks that disrupt propagation. Don't conflate decentralization with inefficiency. Decentralization can exist in a veto power, and thus not required to be an inefficient physical architecture.

I don't understand what prevents DoS from overloading the CNPs or any communication node in the system?

Nothing, but it isn't a critical attack vector. Presuming propagation nodes are incentivized like in decrits, there will be many of them--decentralization. If there are 100k SHs, there might be 500k CNPs. How many of those can you DoS? How often have bitcoin pools been DoSed in its short history?

I need the details on your design before I can compare meaningfully.

The number of peers does not guarantee decentralization of control. It depends on the details of the design.

As an abstract example, everyone can vote in a democracy, but no one has decentralized control over the result:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402555 (read upthread from the linked comment also)

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.

Mining peers themselves are DoSed when the mining pool is DoSed. They can no longer mine and this reduces network security and increases transaction times. You have not passed your bitcoin history course. Only the pools have to be DoSed, not the peers. This is a significant vulnerability.

Indeed, but peers have a veto over the risk vs. reward. If DoS hurts their ROI relative to their other options (mine independently, other pool, or decentralized pool), they will leave the (centralized) pool(s).

Have you pass your history class upthread on how many times you have insulted me and had to eat your erroneous arrogance?

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.

Tor does not have "injection peers". Using onion addresses, data is encrypted from end to end, and unlinked via the hops in between. It is not an absolutely perfect system, but it is designed for low-latency and it is going to be better than anything that can be layered on top of a currency protocol. There is no point in reinventing the wheel, unless maybe you have some notion that the wheel is illegal to use.

The inner-most onion sees the IP of the entity that submitted the request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)#Weaknesses

This is elemental.

Granted the inner-most onion does not know it is the inner-most, unless there is a distinction between bridge relays and clients. If we don't connect to dedicated bridge relays, but instead every peer in the Tor network agrees to be a relay, then inner-most hops can not be easily identified. This is the same idea we are both proposing (see below). So we are both on the right track for solving anonymity of injection.

You don't have to trust the shadow peers, you just have maintain some level of incoming/outgoing network activity so that an outside observer must control all of the nodes you are connected to to determine with accuracy any transactions you have created. As long as there is some node that isn't controlled by the monitor that you maintain activity with, they cannot prove that you created a transaction because all of the connections are encrypted (this is not the case with bitcoin currently).

This is same as my MUTE idea. So why the heck were you insulting me. See if you actually wrote down your design, we wouldn't be wasting as much time here.

If you are worried still, again the solution is to relay some Tor data, to which anyone monitoring you cannot be sure if the tx activity was sent to you in that data or if it was just random noise and you created a transaction.

Except for the issue with Tor above. But agreed, I like to think about ways to make sure there is always data from many peers moving around to obscure things.

So why the heck are you accusing me of being ignorant of network anonymity concepts?

There are only so many things that can be done here without vastly changing network dynamics to be less efficient. Bitcoin provides very little in the way of transaction association security without being forced to use tor.

Agreed.

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.

But lol this is exactly what bitcoin does, and you must resolve this issue too with proof of hard disk. Bitcoin early adopters get value for nothing. I don't think you deny this. Instead of limiting the profitability to those early adopters,

This issue is making sure everyone can mine at the start.

The Bitcoin early adopters deserve what they got because they believed when no one else did. They invested their capital. This is capitalism.

Now everyone will want to be an early adopter due to the proven success of Bitcoin, but the problem is that an ASICs proof-of-work requirement would make it less accessible. The hard disk proof would make it accessible to everyone, just download the client and run.

decrits proposes to spread out this profitability via transaction activity to incentivize a much greater number of people and to provide commodity price stability.

By treating someone who buys 1/10000000000000000000000 of a coin as capital equivalent as someone who buys 10000000000000000 coins.

Theft. Socialism. Fail.

You have not answered how you propose to solve this problem. Is it vast bouts of deflation that are only assuaged by a 2% money supply increase per year? (vaguely based on some things you have said) 2%? I don't want to go off on a tangent debating a position you may or may not have espoused. However, as of yet you have not given me one to debate, you have only derided mine. When are you going to respond to this question? This is a dishonest line of argumentation on your part until you do.

Allowing everyone to use their existing capital to mine maximizes capitalistic distribution.

Stealing capital as your propose, destroys capitalization and thus minimizing capitalistic distribution.

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.

We've agreed that my proof of consensus is, there has been no such agreement in regards to proof of hard disk. I have shown that it requires an exponential amount of currency of the network to embark on a 90+% attack. Your paper only shows that this attack becomes easier the more resources an attacker throws at it.

It has nothing to do with the capital that is thrown into the attack. We have decided upthread that every peer gets a turn within a period of CBs, thus transactions can not be delayed forever except by 100% attack (which is exponentially impossible in both proof-of-share and proof-of-hard disk).

What we share is that everyone peer gets a turn on schedule, unlike in Bitcoin where peers must do work all the time to compete to get a turn.

See my immediately prior post on the differences between Bitcoin and consensus designs.

Humanity has too much hard drive storage, no evil entity can get 100% of it.

You have not clearly provided anywhere near enough evidence to make the assertion that any significant portion of "hard disk space control" matters.

We already agreed upthread that only 100% of all peers can stop transactions in a consensus design.

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.

When did this happen?

Ditto above.

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.

How can you call me "wrong" when you are clearly not confident in your understanding? Otherwise you would have stated it as a fact. There is again no reward for altruism. Mining pool peers will be sufficiently connected to other mining pool peers to handle any of the necessary block propagation. Bandwidth load will gradually become more and more difficult for no reward, and clients will rely on direct connections with mining pools rather than a distributed network. This mechanic has been predicted to occur in bitcoin by many different people, notably originated by Dan Kaminski. It is a problem of incentivization, of which there is little to none in bitcoin for merely propagating the network. And mining peers still have absolutely zero control over what they mine.

Wrong. The TB has to be propagated otherwise they don't get paid the minted coins. I am not going to say this again! Peers will drop out if profitability declines, then difficulty will decline, then profitability will return.

You are conflating that including transactions is not incentivized (I agree).

Seems you don't understand very well Bitcoin's fundamentals.

Seems you're awfully defensive of bitcoin when I realize that you intend on borrowing most of its tragedy properties in your effort at changing it.

Nonsense. See the comparisons to bitcoin and our proposals uppost and upthread.

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.

The mining incentive is irrelevant to the propagation incentive.

What?!!! Wrong! See comments above.

You depend on not making fiat convertible to Decrits then, c.f. next post there is no mathematical way around it.

This is a strawman.

You make no point.

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.

You have little idea of the economic incentives behind bitcoin. This is abundantly clear. Unless you are pro-centralization and I missed that point among your incessant rambling about cartelization.

You make no point.

[AnonyMint]

Never attempt to design something that will make the masses perfect, as this is inherently a failed design because the center and lower-half of the bell curve are failure.

Instead design something that appeases the masses, while giving the highly motivated capitalists and freedom-lovers the opportunity to escape from the socialism of the masses. It is these technologies that enable individual productivity that cause the major wins for mankind throughout history.

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.

I maintain that the opportunity cost is greater. You deride the "give away my money" system, but yet you want separation from fiat, do you not?

No we can never separate entirely from fiat, humanity demands more loans than exist supply of savings. This will never change.

I am trying to design a system that gives us more anonymity and can't be suppressed so much by fiat that we can't get our anonymous transactions to process. I am interested in that 0.1% window that the 99+% can't destroy (in the worst case scenario).

The masses' socialism will leave us 0.1% alone, so we can continue to innovate and improve the world, while they continue their lives as well-fed cows.

Which is it? Allow fiat to have as much power as it is able, or incentivize the creation of money via trade? Do we want the same people currently in power to have power over the new system? What does that accomplish? Does the distribution of new wealth among users of the currency not decentralize the very power of this currency? The link that provides the internal security to the network. If that power is widely distributed, is the network not more decentralized? Even when a new wealthy class of innovators emerge, which will certainly not be financial institutions, would they attempt to manipulate the money supply when they know the people can upset the balance again?

Exactly. I am not trying to change human nature as you are. All socialists fall into this idealism and it fails every time. Sorry to say. I don't mean it as an insult.

This is another line of questioning you ignore. Cryptocurrency is in the wild. Consolidating power will incentivize clones that are easy to adapt to with existing infrastructure. You must encourage the widest array of people to use the currency, or they will end up using something else that does not ignore them. Unless you have come up with some incentive system better than the wheel-a-clones that bitcoin has come up with? Value has to enter the system some how. What is your proposition?

I am don't want to create "SocialistCoin". I don't care if most people never use my coin, as long as those of us who need freedom from the socialism can use it.

I think a lot of people are going to be running from socialism from 2016 to 2033 at least.

I am not worried about getting enough adopters. I don't expect to replace fiat and replace the socialism of the masses. Never can be.

[Ukigo]

on "AnonyMint" issue :

I am don't want to create "SocialistCoin". I don't care if most people never use my coin, as long as those of us who need freedom from the socialism can use it.

I guess, will be DCR "SocialistCoin" or not
 depends from what percentage of decrits
 created will be distributed "for free" and
 "for money" ?

I am trying to design a system that gives us more anonymity and can't be suppressed so much by fiat that we can't get our anonymous transactions to process. I am interested in that 0.1% window that the 99+% can't destroy (in the worst case scenario).

The masses' socialism will leave us 0.1% alone, so we can continue to innovate and improve the world, while they continue their lives as well-fed cows.

Usual elitist's ... on-people deposit.
BTW. where is your system and why are you spending your mega-valuable time here, instead of developing your system in your Wall-street
 office ?

[AnonyMint]

I am leaning now more to the concept of individuals being able to mint their own coins.

And have registered a new name:

selfcoin.me

Here is my thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.msg2347913#msg2347913

Ukigo, most dolts think socialism helps them, but it actually enslaves them. I am desiring to create a currency that gives every motivated person freedom, without attempting to do the impossible, which is the impossibility of protecting dolts from destroying themselves (with socialism and debt). Or by protecting them from competition and the need to compete to be successful.

I am expending effort here, because the consensus aspects are similar and beneficial. It is the redistribution of capital in Decrits that is socialism and not in what I want to do.

[Ukigo]

It is the redistribution of capital in Decrits that is socialism and not in what I want to do.

Oh, no...
Socialism is about concentration of capital
 in the hands of few elitists, and not about
 it's redistribution.
So, Decrits likely won't be SocialistCoin

Ukigo, most dolts think socialism helps them, but it actually enslaves them. I am desiring to create a currency that gives every motivated person freedom, without attempting to do the impossible, which is the impossibility of protecting dolts from destroying themselves (with socialism and debt). Or by protecting them from competition and the need to compete to be successful.

Nice.New prev. unknown word for me. Thank You !

Dolt :
A mental retard who is clueless not only about current events, but also has the IQ level of a rock. "Dolt" may be the most sophisticated insult in the English language. Dolts commonly populate such stereotypes as jocks, nerds, fruits, bookworms, and dorks.
You're a dolt.

The causes why unwashed masses still exist on the planet are not debt or socialism.
High-horse elitists of the world grow and on purpose
don't educate them,
 for enslavement and exploitation.

Decrits IMHO will try to establish more
 equal rules of the currency game, and not
to protect stupid from his mistakes.

[Etlase2]

The TBs are being propagated to all the mining peers, so the system is working. If it wasn't being propagated, the mining peers would leave the pool(s). The selfish economic incentive to cooperate (on propagation) has motivated them to aggregate for efficiency reasons, but hasn't eliminated their veto on non-propagation.

You still are not getting the point. Bitcoin, and anything that does not reasonably incentivize propagation, will result in a narrowing group of peers that maintain the full network state. This is a centralizing, attackable mechanic unless it is fixed. Some programmers from Microsoft even wrote some complex scheme for incentivizing the propagation nodes in a whitepaper. There are many people who believe that this is a very real attack vector on the bitcoin network, and it has been reasonably addressed with decrits.

I agree with your orthogonal complaint about there not being a good incentive to include transactions in Bitcoin, but that has nothing to do with the centralization of propagation.

That wasn't my complaint, though it is another. Centralization of the network is incentivized in bitcoin as a cost-saving measure and as a factor of the "luck" bitcoin requires for security. You were complaining you did not understand the purpose of CNPs, I have shown you why they are critical as a whole, but useless as an attack vector for a highly decentralized system, while also increasing anonymity. These are several significant and incentivized benefits to using the network.

The key about decentralized propagation is not whether peers get together for efficiency, but whether they've lost the veto power against attacks that disrupt propagation. Don't conflate decentralization with inefficiency. Decentralization can exist in a veto power, and thus not required to be an inefficient physical architecture.

Efficiency does matter if inefficiency (decentralization) is not rewarded as it must be for a very robust system.

Indeed, but peers have a veto over the risk vs. reward. If DoS hurts their ROI relative to their other options (mine independently, other pool, or decentralized pool), they will leave the (centralized) pool(s).

But you are still presuming that some option other than a centralized pool will exist. Using any form of hardware to distribute power will result in efficiency gains via wasted resources directed at centralizing the network to where it can no longer be profitably decentralized. But your argument against that is "hard drives are decentralized". Yet you have not shown any mechanic that actually keeps this decentralization viable, I have with regards to using currency instead.

Granted the inner-most onion does not know it is the inner-most, unless there is a distinction between bridge relays and clients. If we don't connect to dedicated bridge relays, but instead every peer in the Tor network agrees to be a relay, then inner-most hops can not be easily identified. This is the same idea we are both proposing (see below). So we are both on the right track for solving anonymity of injection.

We are both on the right track? I have been on the right track and you will adopt any idea that you begin to understand the reasoning behind. Unless it gets in your way, of course.

This issue is making sure everyone can mine at the start.

I thought the issue was making sure everyone can *always* mine?

The Bitcoin early adopters deserve what they got because they believed when no one else did. They invested their capital. This is capitalism.

Wow. Total, manipulative monetary control over the currency is what they deserve? Or it is what anyone who amasses a lot of control over the currency deserves? Have you read at all about how fractional reserve might exist with bitcoin? It is, in my opinion, heavily incentivized just as gold was due to the extreme scarcity of the currency concentrated into the hands of a few. FRB allows for an expansion of the money supply unnaturally. Alternatively...

Now everyone will want to be an early adopter due to the proven success of Bitcoin, but the problem is that an ASICs proof-of-work requirement would make it less accessible. The hard disk proof would make it accessible to everyone, just download the client and run.

Except everyone can not be an early adopter. This is silliness. Sure early adopters should be well rewarded, but it cannot be some pyramidal distribution scheme that affords millions of percent ROIs. People will say fuck off and create a clone. Where is your disincentive for making a clone and rendering your currency obsolete?

Allowing everyone to use their existing capital to mine maximizes capitalistic distribution.

Stealing capital as your propose, destroys capitalization and thus minimizing capitalistic distribution.

Oh, you haven't one. You presume the idea that taking value off the backs of others is the way forward.

How can you call me "wrong" when you are clearly not confident in your understanding? Otherwise you would have stated it as a fact. There is again no reward for altruism. Mining pool peers will be sufficiently connected to other mining pool peers to handle any of the necessary block propagation. Bandwidth load will gradually become more and more difficult for no reward, and clients will rely on direct connections with mining pools rather than a distributed network. This mechanic has been predicted to occur in bitcoin by many different people, notably originated by Dan Kaminski. It is a problem of incentivization, of which there is little to none in bitcoin for merely propagating the network. And mining peers still have absolutely zero control over what they mine.

Wrong. The TB has to be propagated otherwise they don't get paid the minted coins. I am not going to say this again! Peers will drop out if profitability declines, then difficulty will decline, then profitability will return.

You are conflating that including transactions is not incentivized (I agree).

You are not getting the point. You are ignoring the point and presuming I'm talking about transaction inclusion when I am not, it is only a secondary vulnerability. This is the vulnerability you wish most to address because it is a significant problem of the centralizing nature of bitcoin that is inherently solved by having as decentralized a protocol as possible which is encouraged in many different ways in decrits. You are ignoring the actual vulnerability I am describing (the profit motive of centralizing the network due to the properties of using hardware as a security mechanic) because you either don't see it as a vulnerability or don't care about the vulnerability because you seem to be only interested in what the network can do for you.

What?!!! Wrong! See comments above.

Still missing the point and assuming that I am the one missing it. See above.

Never attempt to design something that will make the masses perfect, as this is inherently a failed design because the center and lower-half of the bell curve are failure.

Instead design something that appeases the masses, while giving the highly motivated capitalists and freedom-lovers the opportunity to escape from the socialism of the masses. It is these technologies that enable individual productivity that cause the major wins for mankind throughout history.

The masses' socialism will leave us 0.1% alone, so we can continue to innovate and improve the world, while they continue their lives as well-fed cows.

:rofl: Decrits is intended to create a dynamic between the rich and the middle/poor where the rich can not exert nearly as much control over the masses as is possible under the fiat system, the bitcoin system, and presumably your system as well. I apparently have a much higher opinion of what humanity can accomplish when it is not being oppressed. I am not trying to change human nature, I am trying to give it an opportunity. The currency may trickle in via the masses, but this does not prevent the accumulation of wealth for those who innovate. Using some new currency first or having more bits than someone else is not innovation, it's luck that is heavily biased in favor of some few over the many. In fact people are incentivized to provide real innovation in decrits, not some financial bullshit. They will not be able to "innovate" via subjugation or by abusing some monetary system mechanic or by bribing politicians. It seems obvious now that subjugation is precisely what you want, because I guess you deserve it for whatever reason that makes you "0.1%".

This is another line of questioning you ignore. Cryptocurrency is in the wild. Consolidating power will incentivize clones that are easy to adapt to with existing infrastructure. You must encourage the widest array of people to use the currency, or they will end up using something else that does not ignore them. Unless you have come up with some incentive system better than the wheel-a-clones that bitcoin has come up with? Value has to enter the system some how. What is your proposition?

I am don't want to create "SocialistCoin". I don't care if most people never use my coin, as long as those of us who need freedom from the socialism can use it.

Well great then. You and your 0.1% buddies can pay to mow each others' lawns while the rest of us do something productive. I can't believe how you have totally spiraled outside of logic and reason in this corner of the debate. Wait, you are also the one who makes wild predictions for the future and states it as some inarguable fact. "World War 3 by 2033." I don't know what has happened to make you so completely disillusioned, but you have a very poor attitude. If there's no hope for humanity, what's the point of even discussing this?

[AnonyMint]

It is the redistribution of capital in Decrits that is socialism and not in what I want to do.

Oh, no...
Socialism is about concentration of capital
 in the hands of few elitists, and not about
 it's redistribution.
So, Decrits likely won't be SocialistCoin

Your understanding is egregiously myopic.

Socialism is about giving the masses free things such as free debt, free health care, free education, etc., which does end up concentrating the power and money amongst the elite, due to the power vacuum of political economics.

Read the following blogs to begin to educate yourself about statism, socialism, political & regulatory capture, and the power vacuum.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984 (Some Iron Laws of Political Economics)

Read all of "JustSaying"'s comments in the following blogs (that is me):

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402555
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4934

Also read all of "Shelby"'s comments in the following blogs (that is me):

http://mpettis.com

The tsuris of reading the above blogs won't be enough. It will probably require many months if not years of autodidact focus to obtain an erudite state-of-mind.

Ukigo, most dolts think socialism helps them, but it actually enslaves them. I am desiring to create a currency that gives every motivated person freedom, without attempting to do the impossible, which is the impossibility of protecting dolts from destroying themselves (with socialism and debt). Or by protecting them from competition and the need to compete to be successful.

Nice.New prev. unknown word for me. Thank You !

I gifted you several more above.

The causes why unwashed masses still exist on the planet are not debt or socialism.
High-horse elitists of the world grow and on purpose
don't educate them,
 for enslavement and exploitation.

You are getting dangerously close to the dolt classification with such myopic assertions. I have been careful to not say you are dolt, and you are being given my patience and my help. But don't push it...

Decrits IMHO will try to establish more
 equal rules of the currency game, and not
to protect stupid from his mistakes.

Decrits as has been described to me, is a system that attempts to prevent capital from concentrating, by destroying capital. One thing a dolt does not understand is that redistributed capital is the same as destroying the capital. Why? Because dolts don't know how to grow capital, that is why they don't have any. They waste the capital. For example, give blacksmiths tools to a pregnant women. The tools have been wasted.

You see life is a competition. The elite exist because the dolts don't know how to manage their own lives and this creates a political power vacuum.

But I couldn't possibly begin to explain it to you here in one post. You can either start to study or remain ignorant. It is your freewill and your choice.

[Anon136]

So basically you purchase the right to mint transaction blocks from the protocol its self instead of winning that right in a competition of hashes. If you, as a shareholder, try to mint a block that doesn't conform to the rules and standards of the system it is rejected by the network (you just make a tiny little fork with only you on it).

do i have atleast that part right? lets talk in abstracts here not technical specifics.

[AnonyMint]

The TBs are being propagated to all the mining peers, so the system is working. If it wasn't being propagated, the mining peers would leave the pool(s). The selfish economic incentive to cooperate (on propagation) has motivated them to aggregate for efficiency reasons, but hasn't eliminated their veto on non-propagation.

You still are not getting the point. Bitcoin, and anything that does not reasonably incentivize propagation, will result in a narrowing group of peers that maintain the full network state. This is a centralizing, attackable mechanic unless it is fixed.

You are still not getting the point. If such attacks come, the mining peers can leave the pools or consider decentralized pools.

Why do I have to say this 3 or 4 times over and over? It doesn't do any good to repeat your illogic if you have not shown why the mining peers have lost their freedom to leave centralized pools at-will.

Some programmers from Microsoft even wrote some complex scheme for incentivizing the propagation nodes in a whitepaper. There are many people who believe that this is a very real attack vector on the bitcoin network, and it has been reasonably addressed with decrits.

Irrelevant pontification because the peers are free to leave the pools any way.

I agree with your orthogonal complaint about there not being a good incentive to include transactions in Bitcoin, but that has nothing to do with the centralization of propagation.

That wasn't my complaint, though it is another. Centralization of the network is incentivized in bitcoin as a cost-saving measure and as a factor of the "luck" bitcoin requires for security. You were complaining you did not understand the purpose of CNPs, I have shown you why they are critical as a whole, but useless as an attack vector for a highly decentralized system, while also increasing anonymity. These are several significant and incentivized benefits to using the network.

Benefits are not additive in the design of complex systems. As the private msg poster explained (and I think other posters have mentioned too), complexity breeds fragility.

K.I.S.S.

Bitcoin is elegant on this issue. It needs to say nothing about propagation as the correct economic incentive is built in. We need to be as elegant, while achieving other significant improvements that really make huge difference and wildly embraced by the capitalistic free markets:

* 99+% vs. 51% attack vector
* no 10 min delays for transactions
* incentivize transactions to be included (and/or let anyone easily be their own transaction processing peer and get a turn often)
* any one can easily & realistically mint and earn currency (no ASICs or GPUs required) without passing through anti-money laundering laws id checks
* allow more inclusive minting so currency is more widely distributed (but not stealing+destroying capital as a mean of widely distributing)
* don't end the minting and debasement in 2034

The key about decentralized propagation is not whether peers get together for efficiency, but whether they've lost the veto power against attacks that disrupt propagation. Don't conflate decentralization with inefficiency. Decentralization can exist in a veto power, and thus not required to be an inefficient physical architecture.

Efficiency does matter if inefficiency (decentralization) is not rewarded as it must be for a very robust system.

You conflated again. Inefficiency is not always required for a robust system. See my retort above.

Indeed, but peers have a veto over the risk vs. reward. If DoS hurts their ROI relative to their other options (mine independently, other pool, or decentralized pool), they will leave the (centralized) pool(s).

But you are still presuming that some option other than a centralized pool will exist.

Mining peers can mine independently (outside a pool) at any time if they wish to.

Are you asserting that pools are refusing to propagate to independent mining peers who don't have enough processing power to generate a solution often?

Using any form of hardware to distribute power will result in efficiency gains via wasted resources directed at centralizing the network to where it can no longer be profitably decentralized.

Please justify this nearly unintelligible, all encompassing generalization; how does hardware proof-of-work always result in irreversible centralization of propagation?

I do agree that in Bitcoin that capital can be wasted to drive the difficulty to unprofitable levels to bankrupt the other peers. But this is an orthogonal issue to propagation.

But your argument against that is "hard drives are decentralized". Yet you have not shown any mechanic that actually keeps this decentralization viable, I have with regards to using currency instead.

W.r.t to propagation, what ever you have is what I could use with proof-of-hard drive. But I don't yet understand what you are proposing, as I have said, I don't know the details of how you achieve propagation and whether I agree it is as good as Bitcoin's economic incentive for propagation.

W.r.t. to driving peers bankrupt or 99+% attack (2 separate items), at a last resort (as I mentioned in a prior post so I am getting tired of repeating myself), both of our proposals give very transaction peer a turn in reasonable period of time. Thus as a last resort, a sender of a transaction can run his/her own transaction peer. So we have an advantage over Bitcoin.

Granted the inner-most onion does not know it is the inner-most, unless there is a distinction between bridge relays and clients. If we don't connect to dedicated bridge relays, but instead every peer in the Tor network agrees to be a relay, then inner-most hops can not be easily identified. This is the same idea we are both proposing (see below). So we are both on the right track for solving anonymity of injection.

We are both on the right track? I have been on the right track and you will adopt any idea that you begin to understand the reasoning behind. Unless it gets in your way, of course.

Your ego is amazingly inflated. I proposed that form of anonymity in my thread before coming to this thread.

This issue is making sure everyone can mine at the start.

I thought the issue was making sure everyone can *always* mine?

Logic 101 fail.

The above two sentences are not mutually exclusive.

The Bitcoin early adopters deserve what they got because they believed when no one else did. They invested their capital. This is capitalism.

Wow. Total, manipulative monetary control over the currency is what they deserve?

Yes because the market likes it. You may not like it, but unless you make something better that wins market share from Bitcoin and do it quickly, then you are a loser.

Now everyone will want to be an early adopter due to the proven success of Bitcoin, but the problem is that an ASICs proof-of-work requirement would make it less accessible. The hard disk proof would make it accessible to everyone, just download the client and run.

Except everyone can not be an early adopter. This is silliness. Sure early adopters should be well rewarded, but it cannot be some pyramidal distribution scheme that affords millions of percent ROIs.

An equal distribution is death and static. Nothing can change. If every color was the same, we would see no shapes.

You socialists are so detached from reality.

Not everyone can be first, but many many people can be in early if they choose to be.

A few earliest adopters won't be able to amass even 10% of the long-term money supply, probably not even 1%.

Why are you so jealous if someone gets a million pennies after investing a penny? That is nothing like having 20% of the world's money supply.

People will say fuck off and create a clone. Where is your disincentive for making a clone and rendering your currency obsolete?

No they won't because of installed mass and inertia and the fact that they can not do any better.

Your socialist system can not do any better, because it will flop in the market. Capital will run away from your socialist money system.

Allowing everyone to use their existing capital to mine maximizes capitalistic distribution.

Stealing capital as your propose, destroys capitalization and thus minimizing capitalistic distribution.

Oh, you haven't one. You presume the idea that taking value off the backs of others is the way forward.

Off the backs? Cripes you really suffer the socialist disease. Read my rebuttal of Ukigo in the prior post.

Never attempt to design something that will make the masses perfect, as this is inherently a failed design because the center and lower-half of the bell curve are failure.

Instead design something that appeases the masses, while giving the highly motivated capitalists and freedom-lovers the opportunity to escape from the socialism of the masses. It is these technologies that enable individual productivity that cause the major wins for mankind throughout history.

The masses' socialism will leave us 0.1% alone, so we can continue to innovate and improve the world, while they continue their lives as well-fed cows.

:rofl: Decrits is intended to create a dynamic between the rich and the middle/poor where the rich can not exert nearly as much control over the masses as is possible under the fiat system, the bitcoin system, and presumably your system as well. I apparently have a much higher opinion of what humanity can accomplish when it is not being oppressed. I am not trying to change human nature, I am trying to give it an opportunity.

Read my rebuttal of Ukigo in the prior post.

Study the linked blog posts.

Learn that the masses demand what they have, because of the power vacuum.

You can't eliminate the power vacuum at the level of money, because that is not where it derives. It derives in the ability of the government to project force over individual rights. Only technology which makes it impossible for the government to control individual rights is able to eliminate the power vacuum. Read my linked blog posts to come to speed on understanding.

This is another line of questioning you ignore. Cryptocurrency is in the wild. Consolidating power will incentivize clones that are easy to adapt to with existing infrastructure. You must encourage the widest array of people to use the currency, or they will end up using something else that does not ignore them. Unless you have come up with some incentive system better than the wheel-a-clones that bitcoin has come up with? Value has to enter the system some how. What is your proposition?

I am don't want to create "SocialistCoin". I don't care if most people never use my coin, as long as those of us who need freedom from the socialism can use it.

Well great then. You and your 0.1% buddies can pay to mow each others' lawns while the rest of us do something productive. I can't believe how you have totally spiraled outside of logic and reason in this corner of the debate.

To the ignorant, logic may appear to be illogical. The references have been provided for you if you want to learn.

As for the 2016 start of global collapse, and the 2033 bottom, it comes from:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/

There is a 78 cycle which I explained in my thread on this forum:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.msg2133290#msg2133290

[AnonyMint]

Apologies I have an error in my recent posts, but it doesn't change my conclusions.

I asserted that in both of our proposals (as contrasted with Bitcoin) that we would at least always be insured that in a worst case our own transaction processing peer (SH) would get a turn in reasonable and specific maximum duration.

Now I remember that upthread we replaced that (due to potential network overload) with the ability to randomize the order of selection of SH (by modulating the SH chosen key by the leave/join entropy).

However, what makes our proposals 99+% resistant is that when ever an honest peer gets a turn (even if it is not ours), it will include all the transactions from the dishonest fork as well as the transactions that the dishonest fork was not processing. The fork with the most transactions is clearly the honest one.

Given the randomization, it is very unlikely that there won't be at least one honest peer in every reasonable period (say a CB). This applies to both proof-of-share and proof-of-hard disk.

Penalizing the dishonest fork by eliminating its proof-of-share capital is thus not necessary. And the penalization either could cause deflation or requires the socialistic model of destroying capital. Thus proof-of-hard disk is an acceptable replacement that has some orthogonal benefits.

Tangentially I don't think you can differentiate between a transaction that is a conversion from fiat and a purchase. Thus I am unclear how you would even achieve your proposal to dilute incoming fiat capital?

[Ukigo]

On AnonyMint issue-2

I decided not to waste my time in "talks"
with "him".
There are many useful things i can do in my spare time instead of  engaging in these boring rhetoric  exercises with someone who have broken logic and in fact aren't discussing
 anything with others. :PpPpP
It does not matter who or what "he" is.
If someone doesn't talk to you, don't reply
 to him ...

So-called "AnonyMint" is the biggest obstacle
for development of Decrits at the moment.
"He" would be proud of this ?!
With all his imagined IQ at level ~667 MU
Let's call this "stupidity of geniuses".

[AnonyMint]

To eliminate the deflation caused by penalizing rogue peers, their capital could be redistributed to honest peers.

This would make your point below valid, without incurring the socialist aspect of destroying capital to prevent concentration of capital.

So the proof-of-share has this advantage over proof-of-hard disk.

The disadvantage of proof-of-share is can't be used for minting. I think proof-of-hard disk is preferred for minting than ASICs proof-of-work.

Penalizing the dishonest fork by eliminating its proof-of-share capital is thus not necessary. And the penalization either could cause deflation or requires the socialistic model of destroying capital. Thus proof-of-hard disk is an acceptable replacement that has some orthogonal benefits.

Shares secure the network because people are putting currency of the network on the line to protect the network. This money can be destroyed if you do something malicious. GPUs, hard drives, and other resources that are derived from anything other than the network currency can not be controlled by the network; they cannot be destroyed, which means they can be repeatedly used to attack the network. Destroying currency is a *powerful* and painful and permanent disincentive for attacking the security of the network.

This is ALMOST a valid point.

It stands orthogonally to your (apparently socialist) ideas of currency redistribution, except that an attacker could in theory buy up Decrits and cause deflation by destroying the money, unless you have offsetting debasement. However, your proposed offsetting debasement can't be total, else there is no conversion from fiat to Decrits as I explained in my prior post. Thus the disadvantage of this penalty is that it can be deflationary.

And the other disadvantage is that if you do debase to minimize deflationary impact, then it means that obtaining share is not capitalism.

So the final conclusion is you really can't destroy what you think you can, unless you destroy capitalism and then of course the system won't function in the free market.

So sorry this point is invalid in the total analysis.

[AnonyMint]

I did not say I wanted to create a currency that only helps 0.1% of the people. My point is even if 99.9% of the people are hoodwinked by socialism and willing to support destroying productivity with anti-money laundering laws, confiscation of savings to bailout banks, and government takeover of our currency, etc.. then at least a currency that is resistant to 99+% attack allows some of the producers to escape unscathed, will thus benefit ALL OF MANKIND.

Let me expound a bit on socialism and the ilk.

Although it is true that some (perhaps even most) very wealthy people misallocate capital, so one might think it is better to redistribute to the masses, redistribution that is not able to distinguish productive from parasitical entities, thus destroys productivity with no clear gain in transfer between parasites.

The reason wealthy people misallocate capital is for the same reason that top-down centralized polices can't anneal (optimize) local opportunities. I wrote extensively about this math at the following linked blog comment:

http://www.mpettis.com/2013/05/21/excess-german-savings-not-thrift-caused-the-european-crisis/#comment-23309

Also see what I wrote today in another blog.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402781

@Monster:
Rather I think we elect leaders to make decisions, because we disagree and there exists a power vacuum that enables such leaders to have power to force us to agree (and this is why when the misallocation implodes economically, the pent up resentment can explode into violent civil war).

The key factor that enables this deferral of responsibility is the power vacuum due to the top-down capacity to control individual actions. Where technology is able to eliminate the ability to control individual actions (e.g. the 3D printer example upthread), the government has no malicious function (government could still try to compete with private industry to provide services more efficiently as Jessica Boxer astutely pointed out). I had expounded upthread as follows.

I add to Michael Hipp’s points (i.e. political action does not adequately empower individual choice and representation), that the power vacuum is only resolved in favor of (all) the individuals where technology exists to empower the individuals to route around top-down control. Political action can purport to empower certain groups, maybe even the majority, but this is obfuscated [in] mutual self-destruction, e.g. see my prior post. Is the current regulatory capture of the state by the banks not sufficient evidence that the individual is not protected from the power vacuum?

Winter pointed out upthread that government exists where it can enforce a (partial) monopoly on force, and I noted it can only do so where that force can generate funding to sustain the force against and "free" gifts (misallocative self-destruction) for its constituency.

The government hides its funding in our short-term myopia on the ramifications of debt, taxes, and social promises (unfunded liabilities). In short, the government can over promise an unrealistic nirvana (which the masses readily embrace) and then has the power to make us pay for the misallocation of resources.

I have been making the point to a group who desires to make an anarcho-currency (I named it "SocialistCoin") designed to redistributes capital to prevent it from concentrating, that the power vacuum does not derive from the fiat (fractional reserve) money system (and thus can't be eliminated by eliminating fiat or capital concentration in a currency); rather this is just one of the means of obscuring the theft that arises from the fundamental power vacuum. I also made the point that redistributing capital from producers to non-producers destroys the capital, analogous to that we can't redistribute an auto mechanic's tools to a nurse and expect them to be utilized.

Thus the conclusion is that the only changes that improve the condition of mankind are technologies that enable individuals to be free from top-down control.

These eliminate facets of the power vacuum (people have to tolerate or able to route around their disagreement), thus improving the annealing (optimization) of the economy to local opportunities and generating more prosperity for all. I posit that all sustained prosperity (gains in standard-of-living) has been due to such individual-freedom enabling technologies, e.g. the automobile, the telephone, the computer, the coming 3D printer, open source, etc..

Thus the main technological benefit of anarcho-currencies is the elimination of top-down control over the movement of capital so that producers are not harmed by coming implosion of global socialism, i.e. the anonymity and the lack of centralized control (e.g. over debasement, acquisition, and transfer). Thus the relationship between anti-money laundering laws and an anarcho-currency is important.

And this ties into the theoretical existance of a 78 year (3 x 26 maturity generations) technology disruption cycle I have mentioned numerous times, where the socialism incentivizes the masses to not adjust to technological shift, wherein the masses are being funded by government and debt to continue chasing opportunities in antiquated technological skills and jobs.

All those who want a gold standard or to pull a French Revolution on the heads of banksters, are not even close to recognizing what drives prosperity for the masses.

[Ukigo]

All socialism-related stuff is off-topic
 in this thread.
In the proposed Decrits design there is no
 government of the few wealthy by robbery
 socialist "leaders".
So all "AnonyMint"'s illogical constructions don't make sense.
-------------------
Please stay on YOUR topic : to deface this topic

[AnonyMint]

In the proposed Decrits design there is no
 government of the few wealthy by robbery
 socialist "leaders".

Now you are a confirmed dolt.

Read the prior the post.

The problems of mankind don't derive from the leaders but from a power vacuum that (enables them and) can not be fixed with a currency. Thus Decrit's redistribution of capital to prevent capital concentration serves no useful purpose, other than to transfer from productivity to non-productivity (thus destroying capital). Socialism is defined as the collective ownership of production, i.e. redistributing money from producers to the all the (even non-productive) members of society. That there are no leaders in Decrit entirely misses the point. Try re-reading the prior sentences over and over until you get it.

Remember money is a claim on productive labor, thus it is a number that has no value if the productivity it claims has been destroyed.

If your brain can't be wrapped about this logic, then you will continue spouting useless noise.

If you think I am not addressing your statements, it is because your brain is incapable of recognizing the logic that has refuted what you have written.

Btw, I was ignoring this thread for some days (had even posted that I was too busy on life issues), then Etlase2 provoked me with a very rude and condescending private message that called my expertise into question.

I decided I had tolerated Etlase2's arrogant style of berating innuendo (and extreme sensitivity to any criticism of this 2 year baby) for too long and returned here to address his challenge in a more forceful tone. For how many weeks he has been berating me in this thread and I have been calming and patiently trying to do logical peer review (and express my opinion that for example design complexity and multi-year deadlines for implementation are non-starters in the real world).

Etlase2 does have some useful and innovative ideas. There is something good that could come from this. I have complimented him on both his solution for obtaining randomness from leave/join order and recently on the merits of a proof-of-share for the transaction processing portion (not for the minting). Thus his separation of transaction processing from minting.

Etlase2 would be wise to consider be cooperative and amicable, because if I implement say the 50% of his proposal that I like, he would be able to use my open source as a starting point for adding what ever he wants.

Team work. And stop the berating. We are adults.

[Ukigo]

That theoretical "socialism" of your sweet
 dreams does not exist in the REAL world.
You don't understand what real, practical
 socialism is (cuz you are constrained by
 your IQ).
Again, both of them are NOT the parts of DCR
 proposal.
We can discuss this with you, when you'll
 grow a bit (that is never , cuz you don't wish to become responsible adult... )

Etlase2 would be wise to consider be cooperative and amicable, because if I implement say the 50% of his proposal that I like, he would be able to use my open source as a starting point for adding what ever he wants.

Team work. And stop the berating. We are adults.

Very nice words.
After you claimed Etlase is 2 years old.He'll w/o any
 doubts give you his hand of cooperation.
Maybe both hands...

Or maybe you only admited this interesting
 fact for yourself ? Then i am stunned...

And who are "adults" then ? Your masters ?
---------
------------
Broken logic, broken game;
May i find someone to blame ?

Broken rhymes'n'broken chess,
time to end bullshit contest...

AnonyMint is so funny with all his propaganda of elitism ...
Please don't leave this thread alone. :pPpP

[AnonyMint]

The hopelessly ignorant Ukigo has been placed on ignore.

The following is relevant about how the leaders are not in control:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/02/new-world-order/
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-402737

[Ukigo]

I won "mental chess" match !
Thank you , sir AnonyMint

And ,please, place Etlase "on ignore" too !
Then leave Decrits thread ...

[mobodick]

In the proposed Decrits design there is no
 government of the few wealthy by robbery
 socialist "leaders".

Now you are a confirmed dolt.

If your brain can't be wrapped about this logic, then you will continue spouting useless noise.

If you think I am not addressing your statements, it is because your brain is incapable of recognizing the logic that has refuted what you have written.

Btw, I was ignoring this thread for some days (had even posted that I was too busy on life issues), then Etlase2 provoked me with a very rude and condescending private message that called my expertise into question.

I decided I had tolerated Etlase2's arrogant style of berating innuendo (and extreme sensitivity to any criticism of this 2 year baby) for too long and returned here to address his challenge in a more forceful tone. For how many weeks he has been berating me in this thread and I have been calming and patiently trying to do logical peer review (and express my opinion that for example design complexity and multi-year deadlines for implementation are non-starters in the real world).

Etlase2 would be wise to consider be cooperative and amicable, because if I implement say the 50% of his proposal that I like, he would be able to use my open source as a starting point for adding what ever he wants.

Team work. And stop the berating. We are adults.

I think you need to see this from other peoples point of view.
To other people it looks much more like you came into this discussion, formed your own personal opinions, attacked the op as if your opinion was the bestest and only possible idea or path, in effect trying to dominate the topic, started to tie everything into your paranoias and then whine and abuse people for not liking you.
Your definition of cooperation seems to be of the category: "Do what i say because i'm smarter, shut up, i am".
Did you ever consider that it is your blind arrogance that leads people to react to you the way they do?
I'm pretty sure that despite what you have to say you are not taken seriously because of your dismissive and berating tone towards other people. In short, everyone thinks you're such an asshole that they don't want to exchange ideas with you. There are many people with many ideas here but you have effectively shut the door.

What else is obvious is that you have an inferiority complex. You apparently often feel the need to remind people of your supposedly superior intelligence when they don't agree with you outside parameters defined by you. If you care to look around on these fora you will notice that people in general don't hold paranoia exposés that they defend by claiming the audience is too dumb to follow. That is because such behaviour make you look dumb and paranoia.

Seriously, if you were even half as smart as you pretend to be you would not be here on these fora telling people how smart you are.
So let me give you a hint:
When you first show no less than five examples of beratement you cannot seriously follow that by calling for team work or a stop of berating. You can also not claim to be an adult anymore because you have clearly demonstrated your juvenile brain.
Well, of course you can, but, as is the case now, no one would tollerate you or your opinions.