Decrits: The 99%+ attack-proof coin

[AnonyMint]

I am weary of wading through the incessant volumes of low IQ noise, such as the following. I continue to do so because there are a few posters who offer salient and useful discussion. Thus I will start to more forcefully embarrass those who continue to post nonsense. Ukigo's utter incoherence in on ignore.

page 5 - well you did study some economics - , now you have credibility in my view . {likely women will throw themselves at you}

Then both of you don't understand economics. Along with your content-free sentence above, you also bold the entire quote of Etlase2 to spam the thread. Bold should be conserved for emphasis on key words or phases. Perhaps you don't know how to click the quote button to form a quote, yet the italics you also added would have sufficed in that case.

Analysis of Quote of Etlase's OP follows:

1) Decrits is intended to be a "trickle-in" type currency, where most new currency enters the economy in a random way. The randomness ensures that those with lots of decrits can't control new money, and they can't make credit/fractional reserve/debt money more appealing than "real" decrits.

Nonsense. Any money that has value can be fractionally debased by a bank which offers loans denominated in that currency.

Neither of you apparently understand the difference between the fundamental macro-economic terms M0 and M1/M2.

When demand for new currency arises, the people are intended to make it and distribute it, so there is little incentive whatsoever to accept a bank's credit.

Random distribution of currency can't replace deterministic borrowing. If I need money within a certain timeframe, I don't wait in Decrits to have some awards trickle to me by random giveaways, rather I go to the bank and borrow what I need.

2) An expanding economy is indicated by those willing to waste resources in creating new currency to facilitate trade.

Nonsense. Individual human action is selfish, not socialist (politics is socialist). We create money when the profit we can make on mining it is greater than the cost to mine it.

If decrits could be compared to a metal that does not have much utility other than in trade, then it would be a metal commonly distributed throughout the Earth that only requires you to invest tools and time.

Yes if the Decrits you earn from mining is worth more than your cost.

3) Most of the time, enough of the currency will be in circulation so that it is not necessary to waste the effort and doing something actually productive will be much more lucrative--like a job. But if money for basic human needs is hard to come by, people will waste effort in making currency. This is the threat that all people should be able to have over the wealthy.

Yeah it is called gold mining. The difference is that an individual can not mine as efficiently as big corporation because gold is extracted most efficiently with huge economies-of-scale.

So with digital currencies, we might be able to level the playing field, but this is not yet certain.

Note that with digital currencies, mining also can generate currency that escapes the id checks of anti-money laundering laws.

4) This further encourages increasing the velocity of money because money will then be given away freely. It discourages using money--a tool, no more--as a way to control or disrupt society.

Incorrect. Human opportunity cost is not group-wise. The market is made from individualized opportunity costs. We can't influence the choice between increased economic activity (thus velocity of money) and hoarding with the characteristics of how money is created and distributed. Velocity of money contracts when interest rates are negative, because private capital goes into hoarding, speculation, or export to emerging markets that offer higher interest rates.

http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/Passing%20the%20Torch%20to%20Asia%2004-28-2011.pdf#page=6

Artificially lowering interest rates wipes out
capital formation and gives the incentive for
capital to (1) hoard, (2) flee or (3) speculate.
When interest rates were maintained at
virtually zero, the capital migrates overseas for
better returns. In Japan, the carry trade was
huge, borrowing in yen at 0.1% and buying US
government bonds at 7-8%. Today, money from
the West can be lent fully secured into India to
earn 15-17% when economic growth is 30%+.
When interest rates are kept artificially low,
there is no incentive to lend even by the banks.
Why take any risk for so little? Cash tends to
hoard as we are watching in banks reach record
levels. The elderly, who depend upon interest
income, are robbed of their income to fund
speculation and the exportation of capital with
no economic benefit to the domestic economy.
Interest rates rise in bull markets and decline in
bear markets on a natural supply and demand
basis.

[digitalindustry]

But if we continue in theory, the attack is irrelevant because it can be identified long before the attackers would be able to hurt the honest SHs. If Walmart's cartel was controlling a large portion of consensus, everyone would know that Kmart's transaction verification is very slow. Kmart would not be wise to keep something hurting its business a secret.

I am more fearful of the coming world government (or the regional blocks under an umbrella of cooperation) providing a single currency and taking action only against individuals which refuse to provide their identity on all transactions. Most people agree with this. I don't think there will be consensus to stop it.

Let's stand back and assume that we can't stop the above outcome, rather we must embrace it. So how would we design a better Bitcoin that would be more popular (and more profitable for us) that people would accept more.

If we don't have to assume the government (or the fascist combo with corporations) is going to do evil we don't want, then our attack vulnerability is much decreased.

I now think it is entirely impossible (and undesirable) to create money that is not socialized. For the technical reasons upthread, but also for fundamental theoretical reasons that stored monetary (fungible) capital is the antithesis of knowledge production:


Page 8 or 9 - and i have to comment on this one - we started asking about what i was thinking about on page 3 at page 5 - which was human motivation - Etlase kind of answered that in a way that is similar to the way i think , but i wouldn't turn around and say that this is a resolved issue - i'll keep reading .......

but to this …dear dear AnonyMint, I fear you have fallen into a trap of fear - this "world government" exists only on your TV screen , i know a fair amount about the world , enough to know that what we might call a "world government" maybe just a handful of people and what they tell you though that TV. , do you understand?

I’m not going to be arrogant - or ignorant  i saw enough of  that in the preceding 8 pages - but i will tell you , humans are far from "world government" - we have had a "World Government" we are coming out from a "world government" so i guess i see things completely opposite to you - and i am correct.





http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946&cpage=1#comment-401510
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html

Society needs an efficient fungible digital currency that the world government can adopt. What is the best design?

If it doesn't have the capacity to be debased by society, it will be destroyed or replaced. Period. Human nature and statism won't change (not since 3000 years).

We protect ourselves individually by innovating knowledge production. Money is not the solution, just as statism is not the solution. They are the aspects of human nature we have to route around with our knowledge production.

We probably should step away from this idea that humans want money , they don't. {they are just so very ignorant of what actually money is}

they want wealth - they want it easier than they have it - they want to be the best , they want to be better than the other human.

but they want to be social and interact as well, in almost = and proportional amounts , to the wealth aspect.

is it monetarily beneficial to go onto facebook and write your feelings to a crowd of your peers? {i think we don't have to answer that}

So simplifying humans to just these simple control vectors is both not actuate and simplistic.

I can make a flawed - backward Cryptocurrency ,{but still basically hold up the basic fundamental requirements of the Cryptocommunity}  but if i had privy to a couple of people on some information control vectors , say the owner of FB and some winks and nods from TV networks, I’d have a more "successful" Cryptocurrenncy than Bitcoin, { because it only had a few of those things , not much FB , but a few other friends hey ; 0 }

any of that scare you ?

forget "World Government" you government is the information control.

[digitalindustry]

{likely women will throw themselves at you}

Sounds dangerous

preferably under 59 kg. {in the new world government talk !}

[AnonyMint]

I am growing tired of your inability to use the QUOTE button and bolding everything you quote. Nobody wants a thread of all bolded words.

I am more fearful of the coming world government (or the regional blocks under an umbrella of cooperation) providing a single currency and taking action only against individuals which refuse to provide their identity on all transactions. Most people agree with this. I don't think there will be consensus to stop it.

but to this …dear dear AnonyMint, I fear you have fallen into a trap of fear - this "world government" exists only on your TV screen , i know a fair amount about the world , enough to know that what we might call a "world government" maybe just a handful of people and what they tell you though that TV. , do you understand?

Do you have selective reading comprehension? How did you manage to ignore the bolded phrase in the quote of myself above?

Let's look at how the current global crisis will be resolved with a global currency unit-of-account and the regional blocs (Asian Union, NAU, etc) or individual countries's currencies floating against this unit-of-account:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/armstrongeconomics-the-assent-of-china-the-new-face-of-china-1-25-2011.pdf#page=5

ONE WORLD RESERVE CURRENCY that will be the first step to [resolving the global sovereign debt crisis]. No nation should be the reserve currency...it can't isolate its domestic policy from the rest of the world...

Perhaps you don't comprehend how the Euro has bankrupted Europe, because there was not a separation between the currency used for debt and the currency used for foreign exchange accounting:

http://www.mpettis.com/2013/05/21/excess-german-savings-not-thrift-caused-the-european-crisis/#comment-23497

Based on my other comments, I must disagree.

Increasing consumption in Germany (via tax incentives or what ever central policy you choose) would not necessarily increase Spain’s exports and/or decrease Spain’s reliance on debt, because Spain’s relative productive competitiveness is suppressed by Germany and Spain sharing the same Euro currency. Germany’s imports could come from more competitive countries. If the central government in Spain (and Brussels) was eliminated so there could be no sovereign borrowing, then a single Euro currency would not distort relative competitiveness, because individuals would see their standard-of-living set by their productive value.

I repeat my other comments, which is in all cases centralized policy is the cause of all structural imbalances.

http://www.mpettis.com/2013/05/21/excess-german-savings-not-thrift-caused-the-european-crisis/#comment-23486

The problem is the Euro.

If Germany was using the DM, it would have appreciated and exports would be lower. And rest of Europe’s exports would be higher.

In all cases, centralized policy is the fundamental cause of all structural imbalances.

Unless the Euro is abandoned, Europe will die economically. Europe will choose to die and is planning to confiscate savings rather than abandon the Euro.

http://www.mpettis.com/2013/05/21/excess-german-savings-not-thrift-caused-the-european-crisis/#comment-23487

And this was the use of Euro to force all the less efficient countries to become debt-slaves, because without the Euro, the DM would have appreciated more lowering German exports and capital, while increasing the exports and capital of the rest of Europe. The Euro was the means for Germany to conquer and enslave Europe without an army. The Euro was sold to the rest of Europe bundled with visa-free travel and a few other things that did not necessarily require a Euro. Again the quality of “investment” is critical here, the Euro did not increase meaningful investment in the rest of Europe, because it destroyed the competitiveness of the rest of Europe by overvaluing it and undervaluing Germany.

http://www.mpettis.com/2013/05/21/excess-german-savings-not-thrift-caused-the-european-crisis/#comment-23546

The Euro (instead of national currencies) made it impossible for the less productivity-efficient countries to produce anything at a profit, so they shifted to debt and speculative capital inflows (given the implicit guarantees of a Eurozone insurance). It is as simple as that!

The only other viable alternative to national currencies would have been a Euro with stipulations of no debt and no speculative Euro inflows so that wages (priced in Euros) would have been forced down in the less productivity-efficient countries.

And this would not have worked, because of the unions and social system in the highly productivity-efficient countries of Europe, and the freedom of migration in the Eurozone would have meant emigration from the low wages to the high wages, thus causing pressure on the unions and social system.

The Euro and socialism are mathematically incompatible.

The theory that increasing wages in Germany to enable less efficient productivity in Eurozone to earn a profit, runs into the problem of global competitiveness. This is Michael’s mistake.

humans are far from "world government" - we have had a "World Government" we are coming out from a "world government" so i guess i see things completely opposite to you - and i am correct.

You are referring to the Roman empire and now that we have 100+ nation-states. You are conflating two separate simultaneous phenomenon. On the one hand, tribes have become more organized into nation-states and challenged the top-down control that was present in Rome. This was the great gift of capitalism, that Armstrong elaborates on in the document at the link above. On the other hand, fungible money is a consensus and must be accounted for with consensus agreement. See my essay:

No Money Exists Without the Majority

Individuals are becoming more free, as fungible money drives the maximum division-of-labor that for example makes slavery uneconomic (see the penal labor uneconomic example in my writings some where). Yet money is become ever more centralized and controlled. Are you not reading how the G20 plans to hunt down everyone for a wealth tax to bail-in the bankrupt socialism? Are you not reading about how the NSA is saving every communication every human in the West does in order to hunt down wealth for the coming global private wealth confiscation. There are details on this at the link above.

forget "World Government" you government is the information control.

Indeed technology is giving rise to individual freedom, but not in money. You are getting closer to some truth now. If you go read my writings, you will realize this is my thesis too.

[digitalindustry]

2034 when the 78 cycle predicts this current global crisis to bottom.

ha ha ha .

just forget that -

Hey "birdbrain" (your avatar and your Dunning–Kruger effect behavior), click on the link in the quote below and read the details to correct your ignorance:

Side note, Martin Armstrong's 78 year (i.e. 3 x 26 year human maturity generations) real estate cycle predicts that bottom in 2033. I wrote that the 26 year downhill portion of this cycle appears to repeatably correspond with massive unemployment (and a major war) due to a new technological paradigm, e.g. the early 1900s destruction of cottage industry by mass production and now the destruction of menial labor by the personal computer automation and robotics. In the 1700s, it was agricultural technology disruption of employment. The masses delay their adjustment to the new skills with debt and socialism, which thus causes the resultant financial crisis to drag on longer and be more severe.

oh my , so you wrote that ? -

"massive unemployment and a major war due to a new technological paradigm" sounds scary -
Unfortunately you have missed a very large part of the human entity out of your argument and you seem to be arguing about labor and "computer automation and robotics"
While i can understand how that gels in a standard economic equation -{i.e what you learn from school and Uni}  you have left out the a few of the benefits dear Anony -
 
I will break  it down like this: < there is nothing secret in what i say i've been saying the same thing for years, and I’ve watched it happen.

1. humans are a product of their fundamental input and output information ,

2. you might want to call this "reality", but its easier to call it "faith"

3. here is a hint , get a chart and overlay the equation of when information was the most distributed against your up and down economic Cycle -

4. you might find an interesting thing.

you see the Matrix was of course a comedy - when humans understand the least in the proportional amount , the world "seems" better - some of that becomes actual self fulfilling prophecy - {just like the dollar note in your hand has perceived value -}

this is why "money is only a confidence game" - you need to go and speak to some of the people that "Rule the world" -



...{all free of course} and some homework....

why do we have wars?

when was the last major war? where information played a part and what was the result ?

also when was the last major "Western" war in which a "western country" fought another "Western country" < can you remember it? < tell me about it

i look forward to this interesting discussion we are going to have.

And this "Crisis" is not Global its "Western" , its just that the West expanded to touch a lot of the globe with a debt money system, that worked by expansion of effective "capital" based on a singluar directional information system(s).

http://www.mpettis.com/2012/06/11/what-is-globalization/#comment-18964

Why i pull up your factually inccorrect comment , and why it is important to correct you , is becasue many nations are going to walk away with a lot of the GPD of the world in an effective "transfer of wealth", the same could be said for Cryptocurrency -

There is a transfer of wealth from people don't work (Western debt-funded consumption) to those who do work (the poor in the developing world who are slaving away). However this transfer is done in the context of debt funding for fixed capital (real estate & infrastructure) investment in the  developing world, as the developing world is massively short the dollar with dollars bond issues and dollar loans soaking up a lot of the QE from the west, since interest rates are negative in the west. Thus the bankers manage and own the transfer in the macro perspective.

ok - that's all wrong ,  the only successful "export of inflation" is now with fewer and fewer hands unfortunately for .. well i guess the people with the "wealth" - it is not "loans in the Developing world" that is soaking up QE it is pure recycling of notes and treasuries, you need to look into Japan to understand this, - nothing is being managed - the financial world ended in 2008 - its over it ended  i call this "opportunity land" that we are living in , if you can't understand that , then perhaps i can't make you understand , everything  that many people would have called "reality" ended in 2008, you might want to look at it like a plane with both engines cut off - this is called gliding. 

Do i think that it will cause a major war?  - i was 60 40 towards that - now i'm 80 20 against , i'd say not a chance - should have happened by now .

that is not to say i'm saying;  "The West , give up on it" , that's not what i'm saying , i'm saying a 78 Cycle can't predict the Internet multidimensional effect on information and it didn't predict the Television.

It sure did predict the technological revolutions that cause the massive unemployment, which cause the socialism to sustain a generation who can't make the shift to the new skills. See my link in the quote of myself above for the proof.

Be careful. I know more than you think I do. It will be revealed in onion layers as you make a public display of your arrogant ignorance, as I have done to numerous others in these threads.

Ok i'll be very careful , and i don't mean to be arrogant - I’m saying to you did it predict the effect of those particulars vectors on human information and how we process it, and the answer is of course not - because it would have to accurately predict to future to a point where it should be able to tell you , say a SHA256 hash before it was invented and not only decrypt it but describe it.

what i'm saying to you is , what is happening is actually brand new to humans -  nothing new under the sun? - humans want to be social and interact but they have never been able to do this on a mass basis , like right here , with all the key words on this forum , plus half the members , i was confident enough to ask for council from the head of the CIA, imagine how many different countries are reading what you and i write right here - then imagine if someone is interested in the subject - how many millions could read this Anon? - how long will this stay a part of the human record ? , how many seconds would it take .....:



For 30 million people to read this

What about 3 billion ?

do you see ?

[AnonyMint]

{likely women will throw themselves at you}

Sounds dangerous

preferably under 59 kg. {in the new world government talk !}

If Asia is the new center of the economic universe, that is quite obese for a 5' woman with small bone structure.

[digitalindustry]

back to the topic - i'm at page 9 - looks like we don’t have something i can download yet - my advice is - make it and let it fail - then look at why it did - if it does let AnonyMint say it was the 78 year cycle - and keep studying -

unless of course you fundamentally feel Etlas that you have a flawed design - if you more than 50% believe you do not have a flawed design , then put it into action

i have not finished reading the topic , so i missed the part where you said :  "oh shit sorry guys everything i said was wrong"

so if you didn't say that - make it - or ask people for money to help put towards what is relatively the little that will be needed to make a mockup design.   

you need to understand where you are Etlas - a lot of you guys have that human flaw - you are chatting on BITCOINtalk.org.

?

no?

[digitalindustry]

{likely women will throw themselves at you}

Sounds dangerous

preferably under 59 kg. {in the new world government talk !}

If Asia is the new center of the economic universe, that is quite obese for a 5' woman with small bone structure.

hey i never said they would be perfect ! -

as the old saying goes :

"a woman thown can not be chosen"  < i just made that up ,  sorry..

[AnonyMint]

I got a feeling, that this topic will be
 deleted someday...
So read it, while you can.

It better not be deleted, or I will protest to the moderators. I have very important analysis in this thread, that I need to refer back to.

[AnonyMint]

my advice is - make it and let it fail - then look at why it did - if it does let AnonyMint say it was the 78 year cycle - and keep studying -

I already explained why it can't work, i.e. why it would fail. The logic presented at the link below is simple and clear.

Thanks for spamming this thread with content-free (no content) hot-air, and burying my post that contained the succinct UNARGUABLE logic why MY and Etlase2's Proof-of-Consensus can't work. Did you fail to read that I also proposed a Proof-of-Consensus coin in my thread (proof-of-hard disk) and that I was saying that both of our concepts won't work (Etlase2's is Proof-of-Share, they are both subset of Proof-of-Consensus). Why would I kill my own idea if I didn't realize it can't work?

You have not made a single technical argument in the numerous posts you've made. You obviously don't understand the technology.

[digitalindustry]

 the reason i haven't read it yet is because i'm reading the pages in order - from 2 to say 8 Etlas seemed to prove to you that the functions he had would work, and you claimed you misunderstood what he was saying , yet even a binary dunce like myself understood the basics of what he was trying to express.

i will look at your post no problem.  

[aaaxn]

True. But the ability of the honest always-online node to see through 51% attack with just passive observation is already a good start.
Still the assumption of guaranteed broadcast message delivery must be taken.

And how is this always-online node knowledge relevant when it cannot prove it is true? How will another node tell honest and liars apart? Calculate 50%+ votes?

[sor.rge]

Let me try to summarize it again, and then you may tell me which part(s) you need more elaboration on.
...
2. This order needs to be randomized, otherwise it is possible to game the system.

This one please. What exactly do you mean by "randomized", and what kind of attack you imagine if this property is not present?
In cryptography "random" usually means "unpredictable", which cannot be the case here, as you say in point 1. Why can't we just let SHs sign TBs in alphabetical order of their IDs? If this is bad for some reason, there's an infinite number of other ways to do it.

3. The only way to randomize this order, is for the prospective SH peers to sign a CB, then all those who sign are eligible to be selected to sign TBs in the next CB period. The order of those selected is determined from the entropy of all those signatures on the CB. The first N closest hash keys are selected in a determined order, where N is the number of SHs peers that sign TBs per CB.

Depends on what definition you will give to randomness in this case, but in general "the only way" is always a very strong statement about an algorithm, which can practically never be true. You can only say "the only way I'm aware of currently". The "entropy of signatures" and its use to find the order has to be explained, after you explain the need for it in point 2. above.

But the problem is that there is no way to have consensus on who has signed the CB. If peers (wanting to be SHs on next CB) will separately broadcast their signatures, then who decides which were broadcast within the time limit and compiles it into a CB?

Every peer will decide for himself. Remember the assumption of bounded time guaranteed broadcast.

There is no possible solution. This is why only Proof-of-Work is viable for achieving consensus.

Even if that solution didn't work out, there is no proof of this statement.

[sor.rge]

And how is this always-online node knowledge relevant when it cannot prove it is true? How will another node tell honest and liars apart? Calculate 50%+ votes?

That node itself cannot be fooled. For example, assuming that everyone is always online, the system is perfect already (under the other assumptions, of course). It's a starting point which shows that the truth can be established at least under some assumptions. Now the next question is how to relax those assumptions, to make the system more fault-tolerant, such that loss of some messages could be compensated, for instance. Etlase2 did some steps in that direction in the detailed descriptions above.

[AnonyMint]

Let me try to summarize it again, and then you may tell me which part(s) you need more elaboration on.
...
2. This order needs to be randomized, otherwise it is possible to game the system.

This one please. What exactly do you mean by "randomized", and what kind of attack you imagine if this property is not present?
In cryptography "random" usually means "unpredictable", which cannot be the case here, as you say in point 1. Why can't we just let SHs sign TBs in alphabetical order of their IDs? If this is bad for some reason, there's an infinite number of other ways to do it.

Etlase2 and I discussed this upthread and I think he and I agreed that without randomization of the order, that there was a threat.

The threat we discussed was that evil peers could position themselves to always be the chosen SHs and thus control all signing of TBs.

Randomized in this case means the selection order can't be known a priori when prospective SH peers chose their ID.

No there are not infinite number of ways. There is either randomization or there isn't. This is fundamental to cryptography. I suggest that you are not qualified in cryptography, and are only a (n exceptionally astute) layman. Otherwise you would have known what I meant. Am I correct?

3. The only way to randomize this order, is for the prospective SH peers to sign a CB, then all those who sign are eligible to be selected to sign TBs in the next CB period. The order of those selected is determined from the entropy of all those signatures on the CB. The first N closest hash keys are selected in a determined order, where N is the number of SHs peers that sign TBs per CB.

Depends on what definition you will give to randomness in this case, but in general "the only way" is always a very strong statement about an algorithm, which can practically never be true. You can only say "the only way I'm aware of currently". The "entropy of signatures" and its use to find the order has to be explained, after you explain the need for it in point 2. above.

You fail to understand a basic premise of cryptography, which is that entropy can't come from an algorithm, it can only come from instances of uncertainty occurring in nature (e.g. how often does the bee land on your flower). Thus I can for sure say that it can only come from the outside inputs to the process. And those signatures are the only outside inputs in our system. We could also use the entropy from the transactions, but that doesn't eliminate the insoluble problem I showed.

But the problem is that there is no way to have consensus on who has signed the CB. If peers (wanting to be SHs on next CB) will separately broadcast their signatures, then who decides which were broadcast within the time limit and compiles it into a CB?

Every peer will decide for himself. Remember the assumption of bounded time guaranteed broadcast.

Ludicrous. Then there must be a fork for every observing peer. You fail to reason that the consensus CB entropy determines the signing order for the fork in the next CB period.

There is no possible solution. This is why only Proof-of-Work is viable for achieving consensus.

Even if that solution didn't work out, there is no proof of this statement.

The proof is that the only way you get the necessary entropy is by having every peer compete to be first. Everyone other form of entropy has a point of failure that there is no decision, the consensus is required ad infinitum at every point where you design it away to another point.

[AnonyMint]

And how is this always-online node knowledge relevant when it cannot prove it is true? How will another node tell honest and liars apart? Calculate 50%+ votes?

That node itself cannot be fooled. For example, assuming that everyone is always online, the system is perfect already (under the other assumptions, of course). It's a starting point which shows that the truth can be established at least under some assumptions. Now the next question is how to relax those assumptions, to make the system more fault-tolerant, such that loss of some messages could be compensated, for instance. Etlase2 did some steps in that direction in the detailed descriptions above.

Ludicrous. If everyone could see everyone in the world, then there would be no corruption due to secrets. Now how do we relax that to reality.  

At this moment 6 billion people are doing something and you have no specific knowledge (but I can bet fornication is widespread).

[sor.rge]

Randomized in this case means the selection order can't be known a priori when prospective SH peers chose their ID.

So the whole issue is based on the ability of SH to choose their IDs? Let their ID be their number in the SH sequence. So the very first SH has ID=1, the one who registers after him ID=2 and so on. Their order for signing TBs is determined by a chosen good pseudorandom number generator in [1..number of SHs at the moment], initialized with seed value of 0 at the very first TB.
Not good? Please provide an algorithm to gain significant control over your position in TB signing queue with that (good luck). We can test it right away, I'll write the program SHs have very limited control over their ID now, they can just wait until the number grows to their desired position, or fill the IDs by creating a lot of SHs, which is supposed to be costly, and your resources are limited.

I skipped the rest because it was all based on this.

[Etlase2]

I skipped the rest because it was all based on this.

I tried explaining this to him, but he adamantly refused to accept it. There is no point in arguing with him.

[bonker]

Another *new* ALt coin!

Super!

Alt coins rock!

Super!

I can nearly have as many coins as I can have Currency!

Super!

What's next?/  poocoin, aaacoin,aabcoin,aaccoin... abacoin...zzzcoin?

Super!

I hope Zack, Jeb and Bongo are mining!... i bet they are!

Super!

[sor.rge]

Ludicrous. If everyone could see everyone in the world, then there would be no corruption due to secrets. Now how do we relax that to reality.  

No, that's not so unreasonable. It's not true, of course, it's an assumption, but in a highly connected network the broadcasts are quite reliable. You can try to amuse yourself by computing the probability of a message being not received by a peer when everyone is connected to N other peers, as a function of reliability of a connection and size of the network. Imagine that everyone passes the message to all neighbors once upon receiving it.

Now with not-always-online nodes there may be problems, but again these could be addressed to minimize damage to them.