Why a ledger? Why not actual encrypted strings as tokens?

[prodoxx]

I just got thinking about this. Why use a ledger that just changes numbers when we could have used encrypted string tokens to represent a currency and also contain other information within the string. Such string(token)'s ownership can be transferred and encoded within the encrypted string?

I'm just curious. It might be a dumb question but you know, I just started thinking of this.

[1714781548]

1714781548

[1714781548]

1714781548

[1714781548]

1714781548

[1714781548]

1714781548

[1714781548]

1714781548

[DannyHamilton]

I just got thinking about this. Why use a ledger that just changes numbers when we could have used encrypted string tokens to represent a currency and also contain other information within the string. Such string(token)'s ownership can be transferred and encoded within the encrypted string?

The blockchain provides byzantine fault tolerance.

It provides a way to prevent "double-spending" without needing an centralized clearing house.

[Anti-Cen]

I just got thinking about this. Why use a ledger that just changes numbers when we could have used encrypted string tokens to represent a currency and also contain other information within the string. Such string(token)'s ownership can be transferred and encoded within the encrypted string?

You are half way to creating an autonomous unit of currency here and could even include signatures from
trusted servers (Dirty name I know) in the string so all we need now is someway of stopping file-copy from
working and me and you could both be rich.

Maybe something like deeds are used with property would work where possession is 9/10th of the law but you
need deeds to sell property on so maybe this could be made to work but as crazy as I try to be even I could never have come up with mining
coins as a concept.

[prodoxx]

I'm looking at it in a proof of stake kinda way. Why not encrypted unique strings that match a trusted person (such as the way Bank Identification Numbers serve a purpose). Encrypted strings that contain info like, where was this token created(BIN), who has current ownership etc. The string is only valid for use by the current owner

Something like this:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WRj-CG165SW2GYSx8kcAdcRan-Q-X94G

Don't know but...... thesis :v

I'll get back to this when I get more info.

[DannyHamilton]

I'm looking at it in a proof of stake kinda way.

Right.

Proof of (resource), regardless of whether that resource is "Work" or "Stake" or anything else, exists as a method to reach distributed consensus about ownership.

Why not encrypted unique strings that match a trusted person (such as the way Bank Identification Numbers serve a purpose).

The concept of decentralized crypto currencies is that they do NOT need a "trusted person".

If you want to have a trusted entity, then you do not need a blockchain.  Everyone can just ask the trusted entity about the current state of ownership.

Encrypted strings that contain info like, where was this token created(BIN), who has current ownership etc.

But changing ownership requires some method for everyone to agree on who the new owner is.

The string is only valid for use by the current owner

If two identical tokens have different owners, how do you determine which owner is the "real" owner?  You either need a trusted entity that can tell you, or you need a blockchain.

Something like this:
- image removed -

It's a pretty picture, but it doesn't explain ANYTHING about how you are going to reach consensus about ownership.

Don't know but...... thesis :v

I'll get back to this when I get more info.

Yes.  Go think about it a bit.  Think about how a scammer might take advantage of your system if they want to.  Think about what the "trusted entity" can do if they are not trustworthy.

[Anti-Cen]

Everyone can just ask the trusted entity about the current state of ownership

Entity sounds like singular, corporate control and all that but we do have middle ground here by using clusters of
coordinators, say 250 dedicated servers that are not allowed access to change data by the design of the system.

Forget about the 51% fog that gets thrown up because I am sure that I can take down nodes in the Lightning Network
if we are looking for perfection and lets say all these 250 servers have to deposit $1000 as a form of PoS in a side chain
much like one of the ledgers used in lightning but it's public and has redundancy built in.

No trust taken to the extreme is not working and miners get to vote but users don't unless they jump ship. 

 

[DooMAD]

While I don't want to derail prodoxx's thread, it's only fair to warn you that Anti-Cen is a certified lunatic and you would do well not to include them in any of your future endeavours.  Best of luck, though.  I trust that you'll recognise the problems that need to be overcome and realise it's actually not an easy problem to solve (unlike the aforementioned and decidedly unhinged individual).  

You are half way to creating an autonomous unit of currency here and could even include signatures from trusted servers (Dirty name I know) in the string so all we need now is someway of stopping file-copy from working and me and you could both be rich.

Yeah, you just need to solve that one, tiny, insignificant problem.  Simple, right?  

But if you do it with "trusted servers", that's been done already and isn't anything new.  It also creates central points of failure.  Considering how much you've been ranting about those lately, it seems like you might just be a bit of a hypocrite.  It's also far more centralised than Lightning could ever be.  

Even if there was a way to make it completely decentralised and trustless, along with being more resource efficient than proof-of-work, it's 100% not going to be discovered by a demented crackpot like you.  Either you sacrifice some of the decentralisation for more efficiency, change the trust model for more efficiency, or do something else that has some drawbacks in exchange for more efficiency.  People immeasurably smarter than you have tried to do better.  All they can manage is a compromise where you have to give up one good feature to implement another.  

Let me know when this finally sinks in to your empty head and you're ready to admit your numerous mistakes and false allegations.

[Anti-Cen]

While I don't want to derail prodoxx's thread, it's only fair to warn you that Anti-Cen is a certified lunatic and you would do well not to include them in any of your future endeavours.  Best of luck, though.  I trust that you'll recognise the problems that need to be overcome and realise it's actually not an easy problem to solve (unlike the aforementioned and decidedly unhinged individual).  

Are we back to the paid motor gobs being send in again and when I give back as good as I take then I get a ban ?

I have no time for your waffle since you cannot act like an adult so keep on preaching to the converted and think of me smiling
my socks off each time when I see you having to resort to childish name calling 

NICE FOOTER ADVERTS, HOW MUCH THEY PAYING YOU ?

[DooMAD]

Are we back to the paid motor gobs being send in again and when I give back as good as I take then I get a ban ?

I have no time for your waffle since you cannot act like an adult so keep on preaching to the converted and think of me smiling
my socks off each time when I see you having to resort to childish name calling  

NICE FOOTER ADVERTS, HOW MUCH THEY PAYING YOU ?

I'd happily do it for free.  Head over to the 'Serious discussion' subforum where signatures aren't displayed and posts aren't paid.  Start a thread there about how centralised Lightning supposedly is and how you genuinely believe you're capable of creating something better.  You can tell us all about your grand ideas there.  But if those involve "trusted servers", don't bother, because DannyHamilton already nailed it with this:

If you want to have a trusted entity, then you do not need a blockchain.  Everyone can just ask the trusted entity about the current state of ownership.

You know, like a bank.  One of those other things you've been raving about lately.  So again, this isn't me "calling you names" like "hypocrite", it's you fulfilling the definition of the word all by yourself, without any help from me at all.  And before you go talking about adding "250 dedicated servers" or even 2500, it's not the number involved, it's about how you keep them honest and maintain consensus.

[Anti-Cen]

I'd happily do it for free.  Head over to the 'Serious discussion' subforum where signatures aren't displayed and posts aren't paid.  Start a thread there about how centralised Lightning supposedly is and how you genuinely believe you're capable of creating something better.  You can tell us all about your grand ideas there.  But if those involve "trusted servers", don't bother, because DannyHamilton already nailed it with this:

How about you heading over to Zero Hedge without mummy where we can see who's after pocket money instead
and since your talking about trusted servers, single point of failure instead of server clusters like you keep ignoring
then be ready to defend your dear lightning network won't you. 

oh the merit system is broken here, trust no one because I only run a second account when I am banned but others are
running duel accounts and then sending themselves merits but us none believers don't get that option and this is why the views
here between new accounts and old account are radical different so dead right, lets have a level playing field.   

[DannyHamilton]

Discussion in this thread is quickly wandering off topic.

If you two want to talk about:

• Zero Hedge
• Pocket Money
• Lightning Network
• Merit System
• Ban Evasion
• Signature Ads
• Serious Discussion Subforum
• Being a hypocrite
• Name calling

Please start your own thread elsewhere.

Any additional off-topic nonsense will be reported to the moderator.