Replacing Bitcoin with something less wasteful (split from Is deepbit.com stealing coins?)

[grue]

Flip Tulipcoin, I understand exactly what you're suggesting. Thus, here's a much more specific question: how would you combat the potential for a sybil attack, without the assumption that every client must be connected to the network at all times?

How close a sibling are we talking about? Would a sibling attacker have, say, private keys known only to it's sibling? I don't mean to be circular, but how a node's "identity" is defined would be some persistent property of the node when disconnected from the network and verifiable by other nodes during the time the first node is connected. Other nodes must a recollection of the identity, such as a public key, to validate a signature exchange. Consensus of all participants validating each other on an ongoing basis with changing keys would probably be a part of it, as it would make flooding the network with confederates who would validate an attacker ineffective.

Handling failure of consensus is an implementation issue I would have to break down to use cases. If there's an overarching simple answer, I'm not seeing it.

The property of identity itself need only persist between connections, not forever. Although I dislike the SecureID system for various reasons, their implementation of object authentication requires that an object's identity be "freshened" by occasional connection to the network, it is not a static property. Now if only their token database wasn't centralized maybe they wouldn't have gotten hacked so easily this past year.

so what's preventing me from creating a ton of sock puppet nodes, waiting a few moths, and launch a double spend attempt?

btw, it's sybil, not sibling
also looks like you missed a verb here:

Other nodes must a recollection of the identity

[1714900311]

1714900311

[Flip Tulipcoin]

In any case, the only practical value I see in bitcoin is as a transactional system.

WELL NO SHIT? bitcoin is all about transactions

I am sufficiently experienced to recognize that in the worst case a black box behavioral emulation of bitcoin as a transactional system could be built, perhaps out of as little as hamster wheels and rubber bands, perhaps more. Decentralized distributed data models are very common, there are many solutions to maintaining coherency in them. So on and so on. Yawn, been there, done that.

so it's ok to think centralized, but it's not ok to think decentralized? weren't you the one asking people to think outside the ox?  

A really good way to not get sucked into the paradigms of a given tool set is to start with requirements. Rather than retype the work of others, I would suggest you take at look, FOR EXAMPLE ( just like BOINC is an EXAMPLE, you dingbat ) at this refined set of proposed requirements posted elsewhere on this forum:

bionic "credits" are more for show than anything else. even then, it relies on a central server to keep tally.

Too funny! Ok, sonny, I won't trot out the string of degrees I have in mathematics, economics, and law. I won't cite my 30 years of experience in the financial services industry with 20 of that on Wall Street. I won't even discuss my role as one of the earliest implementors of the RSA cryptosystem in that industry. All that was a long time ago, I would pay people to do that stuff for me now had I not done so well as to be out of it completely. None of that is relevant in a world born yesterday.

I would like to see references to that.

inb4 you ragequit because you think it's not worth your precious time. when really, you're just afraid of losing.

Nice job beating up your straw man little girl, isn't it time for you to go jerk off in its ass? Maybe you can get enough bitcoins to buy a RealDoll someday, keep dreaming.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Flip Tulipcoin, I understand exactly what you're suggesting. Thus, here's a much more specific question: how would you combat the potential for a sybil attack, without the assumption that every client must be connected to the network at all times?

How close a sibling are we talking about? Would a sibling attacker have, say, private keys known only to it's sibling? I don't mean to be circular, but how a node's "identity" is defined would be some persistent property of the node when disconnected from the network and verifiable by other nodes during the time the first node is connected. Other nodes must a recollection of the identity, such as a public key, to validate a signature exchange. Consensus of all participants validating each other on an ongoing basis with changing keys would probably be a part of it, as it would make flooding the network with confederates who would validate an attacker ineffective.

Handling failure of consensus is an implementation issue I would have to break down to use cases. If there's an overarching simple answer, I'm not seeing it.

The property of identity itself need only persist between connections, not forever. Although I dislike the SecureID system for various reasons, their implementation of object authentication requires that an object's identity be "freshened" by occasional connection to the network, it is not a static property. Now if only their token database wasn't centralized maybe they wouldn't have gotten hacked so easily this past year.

So instead of a proof of work it is proof of identity ... in an anonymous network.   Which is easier to implement millions of fake identities or millions of megahashes?  The network would require consensus (as in 100% agreement) or majority (51%)?  Consensus in a distributed network where anyone can join?  LOLZ.  How would you deal w/ entities who made identities simply to break consensus (voting "false" on every transaction).  On the other hand 51% bad identities (even if all from a single entity) would control the network.

Handling failure of consensus is an implementation issue I would have to break down to use cases. If there's an overarching simple answer, I'm not seeing it.

Calling that a copout is the understatement of the year.  I thought it would be trivial.  

So in summary:
"Bitcoin is wasteful, and here are much better ways to do it.  I haven't got the implementation down because there is no simple answer but Bitcoin is wasteful because there are much better ways to do it."

[grue]

Nice job beating up your straw man little girl, isn't it time for you to go jerk off in its ass? Maybe you can get enough bitcoins to buy a RealDoll someday, keep dreaming.

that seems something a mature person with "degrees in mathematics, economics, and law" and "30 years of experience in the financial services industry with 20 of that on Wall Street" would say  

oh, i'm still waiting for proof of those degrees that you have.

[Flip Tulipcoin]

So, there's two requirements for Bitcoin 2.0, or the replacement for Bitcoin 1.0
1. Eliminate wasteful mining driven by computing capacity.
2. Decentralize the currency exchange function.

#1 is easy, #2 not so...

Oh, RLY? #1 is not easy. There must be proof of work to ensure the validity of blockchain.

Good thinking inside the Bitcoin Box there. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like cryptography.

Why not a capacity-based mining metric as used in the distributed project software BOINC? "Earnings" are based on your percentage of commitment of a benchmarked resource as well as total capacity contributed. If capacity is really not needed in the aggregate, you could level the playing field between the cell phone processor used at 99% and the energy-wasting dedicated red hot pig breath generator running at 99% or for that matter dial in any skewing of reward you might want to achieve.

The whole weird hack of the difficulty level makes it clear whats really going on. Set it to minimum and rework the mining block creation rate meter, which could be amenable to something as simple as a consensus-based peer to peer counter.

Who sets the capacity limit? Who make a cellphone and quad 6990 rig "level".  How do they do that?  

Now rethink this theory uses decentralized network.

Right now the mining hack is a lovely illustration of the fallacy of composition. The more it's done the less is the return to each participant for their investment. At the other end, where everyone recognizes pointlessly compute-intensive mining just costs everyone more individually so that no one should do it, bitcoins aren't created. It's a truly ludicrous situation.

Now you are just talking in circles.  Neither extreme has to exist.  Enough people mine so the network is strong enough.  If more people mine profitability declines and some people drop out restoring equilibrium.  If less people mine then profitability goes up and thus more people mine restoring equilibrium.  As economic activity of the network rises scarcity drives up the price of BTC in fiat terms increasing the revenue to the miners thus encouraging more mining and stronger network.

Well, clearly then, the return to mining is an economic inefficiency that should tend to zero over the long term, that it does seems to be the consensus. Besides, the mining capacity arms race results in equilibrium being a moving target. I seriously doubt most miners who make a hardware investment for that purpose at this point in time will ever reach break even before something better to do comes along.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Well, clearly then, the return to mining is an economic inefficiency that should tend to zero over the long term, that it does seems to be the consensus.

  Mining may be a losing proposition for those who's costs are higher than average but that is no different than any other industry.  There is no consensus that mining will trend to zero over the long run.  Mining will always be profitable for those who costs are lower than the network average.

Besides, the mining capacity arms race results in equilibrium being a moving target. I seriously doubt most miners who make a hardware investment for that purpose at this point in time will ever reach break even before something better to do comes along.

Then wouldn't the prudent decision be to .... NOT make a hardware investment at this time at least not until ... something better comes along.  The network likely is overcapacity at this point but that is no different than the auto industry being over capacity in 2008.    Lower profitability will push out the least marginal miners.  In time FPGA will make almost all GPU miners too marginal to continue mining just as GPU did to CPU miners.  

[grue]

Well, clearly then, the return to mining is an economic inefficiency that should tend to zero over the long term, that it does seems to be the consensus. Besides, the mining capacity arms race results in equilibrium being a moving target. I seriously doubt most miners who make a hardware investment for that purpose at this point in time will ever reach break even before something better to do comes along.

well hold on there. what happened to the previous arguments that you presented? they were all soundly defeated, and you just move on?

seems like a serious case of


If you can't come up with something better, shut up, and come up with something better, instead of moaning and complaining on a internet forum.

oh, did i mention i was the president of the universe? oh, and no need to ask for proof, it's not like you provided any either

[Qoheleth]

So, first off:

A really good way to not get sucked into the paradigms of a given tool set is to start with requirements. Rather than retype the work of others, I would suggest you take at look, FOR EXAMPLE ( just like BOINC is an EXAMPLE, you dingbat ) at this refined set of proposed requirements posted elsewhere on this forum:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54222.msg647423#msg647423

I looked at this proposal, and it's still missing the secret sauce. It has the idea of using "trustworthiness" on the network to determine nodes' weights in getting to sign off on a transaction having occurred or not occurred, but doesn't explain how "trustworthiness" is determined.

Now, certainly, if there was some way to establish such a thing, algorithmically, in a way that prevents both sockpuppet shenanigans and the long (but big) con, then you'd be done! You wouldn't need proof-of-work anymore! The problem would be solved!

But... that's a hard problem. That's one of the fundamental hard problems in this field, from what I understand. I've not yet heard of any algorithm to do it. And the proposal given doesn't say one word as to how it would be accomplished.



So let's put that aside for the moment. Let's take a step back and look at the requirements for a currency. To me, they seem to be:

• Multiple accounts, each with a persisted balance that cannot change except in atomic transfers
• The ability for the holder of an account, and only the holder of that account, to atomically transfer funds to another account
• Privacy of the account balance with respect to any individual account holder. (Possibly. Not sure if you care about this, although many folks around here do.)

Are there any proposals that address these requirements, of which you're aware? I should note that since reliance on a "trusted authority" would allow such a party to violate invariant 2, the solution cannot rely on one.

[Flip Tulipcoin]

Nice job beating up your straw man little girl, isn't it time for you to go jerk off in its ass? Maybe you can get enough bitcoins to buy a RealDoll someday, keep dreaming.

that seems something a mature person with "degrees in mathematics, economics, and law" and "30 years of experience in the financial services industry with 20 of that on Wall Street" would say  

oh, i'm still waiting for proof of those degrees that you have.

Notre Dame. University of Chicago. John Marshall Law School. Please hold your breath while waiting, I'll surely hurry back with more. BTW, I reserve the right to say whatever I like to a retarded child such as yourself. Sorry, you gave yourself away immediately.

[Flip Tulipcoin]

Boring, boring. It's evident bitcoin comes with blinders. Time for a snack...

[grue]

Nice job beating up your straw man little girl, isn't it time for you to go jerk off in its ass? Maybe you can get enough bitcoins to buy a RealDoll someday, keep dreaming.

that seems something a mature person with "degrees in mathematics, economics, and law" and "30 years of experience in the financial services industry with 20 of that on Wall Street" would say  

oh, i'm still waiting for proof of those degrees that you have.

Notre Dame. University of Chicago. John Marshall Law School. Please hold your breath while waiting, I'll surely hurry back with more. BTW, I reserve the right to say whatever I like to a retarded child such as yourself. Sorry, you gave yourself away immediately.

that's not proof.

Boring, boring. It's evident bitcoin comes with blinders. Time for a snack...

you get bored rather fast had too much sugar? it's only 86 seconds.

[SgtSpike]

So in summary:
"Bitcoin is wasteful, and here are much better ways to do it.  I haven't got the implementation down because there is no simple answer but Bitcoin is wasteful because there are much better ways to do it."

Somehow, I knew it would come to this.    He blames Bitcoin for having an inefficient solution, but comes up against a brick wall when trying to explain his own "solution".

Well, clearly then, the return to mining is an economic inefficiency that should tend to zero over the long term, that it does seems to be the consensus. Besides, the mining capacity arms race results in equilibrium being a moving target. I seriously doubt most miners who make a hardware investment for that purpose at this point in time will ever reach break even before something better to do comes along.

Not true.  Mining won't tend to zero over the long term.  Mining will always be present, as long as Bitcoins continue to hold value, as mining generates Bitcoins for the miners.

Yes, the equilibrium is a moving target.  Same as the equilibrium in any industry.  Every miner must make a calculated decision whether to invest in more hardware (or sell off their current hardware) based on future projections of profit and risk.  Same as profit/risk analysis in any industry.  Your point?

[Flip Tulipcoin]

So in summary:
"Bitcoin is wasteful, and here are much better ways to do it.  I haven't got the implementation down because there is no simple answer but Bitcoin is wasteful because there are much better ways to do it."

Somehow, I knew it would come to this.    He blames Bitcoin for having an inefficient solution, but comes up against a brick wall when trying to explain his own "solution".

Well, clearly then, the return to mining is an economic inefficiency that should tend to zero over the long term, that it does seems to be the consensus. Besides, the mining capacity arms race results in equilibrium being a moving target. I seriously doubt most miners who make a hardware investment for that purpose at this point in time will ever reach break even before something better to do comes along.

Not true.  Mining won't tend to zero over the long term.  Mining will always be present, as long as Bitcoins continue to hold value, as mining generates Bitcoins for the miners.

Yes, the equilibrium is a moving target.  Same as the equilibrium in any industry.  Every miner must make a calculated decision whether to invest in more hardware (or sell off their current hardware) based on future projections of profit and risk.  Same as profit/risk analysis in any industry.  Your point?

I said "the return to mining".

Your analogy fails in that Bitcoin mining isn't an industry, it's a game that serves only the claustrophobic world of bitcoin, which is itself a game. Bitcoin mining produces nothing and would not be missed if it disappeared tomorrow. Seriously.

[grue]

I said "the return to mining".

Your analogy fails in that Bitcoin mining isn't an industry, it's a game that serves only the claustrophobic world of bitcoin, which is itself a game. Bitcoin mining produces nothing and would not be missed if it disappeared tomorrow. Seriously.

no one is forcing you to use it.

[Flip Tulipcoin]

I said "the return to mining".

Your analogy fails in that Bitcoin mining isn't an industry, it's a game that serves only the claustrophobic world of bitcoin, which is itself a game. Bitcoin mining produces nothing and would not be missed if it disappeared tomorrow. Seriously.

no one is forcing you to use it.

You came on so strong to start with, now you just sound like a little pussy with hurt feelings. Did you stick out your tongue when you typed that? If you did, what were you hoping to find with it?

[grue]

I said "the return to mining".

Your analogy fails in that Bitcoin mining isn't an industry, it's a game that serves only the claustrophobic world of bitcoin, which is itself a game. Bitcoin mining produces nothing and would not be missed if it disappeared tomorrow. Seriously.

no one is forcing you to use it.

You came on so strong to start with, now you just sound like a little pussy with hurt feelings. Did you stick out your tongue when you typed that? If you did, what were you hoping to find with it?

i could say the same for you. let's see the arguments you abandoned so far:

Notre Dame. University of Chicago. John Marshall Law School. Please hold your breath while waiting, I'll surely hurry back with more. BTW, I reserve the right to say whatever I like to a retarded child such as yourself. Sorry, you gave yourself away immediately.

that's not proof.

In any case, the only practical value I see in bitcoin is as a transactional system.

WELL NO SHIT? bitcoin is all about transactions

I am sufficiently experienced to recognize that in the worst case a black box behavioral emulation of bitcoin as a transactional system could be built, perhaps out of as little as hamster wheels and rubber bands, perhaps more. Decentralized distributed data models are very common, there are many solutions to maintaining coherency in them. So on and so on. Yawn, been there, done that.

so it's ok to think centralized, but it's not ok to think decentralized? weren't you the one asking people to think outside the ox?  

A really good way to not get sucked into the paradigms of a given tool set is to start with requirements. Rather than retype the work of others, I would suggest you take at look, FOR EXAMPLE ( just like BOINC is an EXAMPLE, you dingbat ) at this refined set of proposed requirements posted elsewhere on this forum:

bionic "credits" are more for show than anything else. even then, it relies on a central server to keep tally.

let's not forget the fact that since page 2, all you have been doing is criticizing the system without providing a real solution. complaints are everywhere, solutions are not.

oh, it's not a strawman if it's a position explicitly stated by you.

edit:
moar arguments

So, first off:

A really good way to not get sucked into the paradigms of a given tool set is to start with requirements. Rather than retype the work of others, I would suggest you take at look, FOR EXAMPLE ( just like BOINC is an EXAMPLE, you dingbat ) at this refined set of proposed requirements posted elsewhere on this forum:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54222.msg647423#msg647423

I looked at this proposal, and it's still missing the secret sauce. It has the idea of using "trustworthiness" on the network to determine nodes' weights in getting to sign off on a transaction having occurred or not occurred, but doesn't explain how "trustworthiness" is determined.

Now, certainly, if there was some way to establish such a thing, algorithmically, in a way that prevents both sockpuppet shenanigans and the long (but big) con, then you'd be done! You wouldn't need proof-of-work anymore! The problem would be solved!

But... that's a hard problem. That's one of the fundamental hard problems in this field, from what I understand. I've not yet heard of any algorithm to do it. And the proposal given doesn't say one word as to how it would be accomplished.



So let's put that aside for the moment. Let's take a step back and look at the requirements for a currency. To me, they seem to be:

• Multiple accounts, each with a persisted balance that cannot change except in atomic transfers
• The ability for the holder of an account, and only the holder of that account, to atomically transfer funds to another account
• Privacy of the account balance with respect to any individual account holder. (Possibly. Not sure if you care about this, although many folks around here do.)

Are there any proposals that address these requirements, of which you're aware? I should note that since reliance on a "trusted authority" would allow such a party to violate invariant 2, the solution cannot rely on one.

mega tunnel vision much?

[Flip Tulipcoin]

I said "the return to mining".

Your analogy fails in that Bitcoin mining isn't an industry, it's a game that serves only the claustrophobic world of bitcoin, which is itself a game. Bitcoin mining produces nothing and would not be missed if it disappeared tomorrow. Seriously.

no one is forcing you to use it.

You came on so strong to start with, now you just sound like a little pussy with hurt feelings. Did you stick out your tongue when you typed that? If you did, what were you hoping to find with it?

i could say the same for you. let's see the arguments you abandoned so far:

Notre Dame. University of Chicago. John Marshall Law School. Please hold your breath while waiting, I'll surely hurry back with more. BTW, I reserve the right to say whatever I like to a retarded child such as yourself. Sorry, you gave yourself away immediately.

that's not proof.

In any case, the only practical value I see in bitcoin is as a transactional system.

WELL NO SHIT? bitcoin is all about transactions

I am sufficiently experienced to recognize that in the worst case a black box behavioral emulation of bitcoin as a transactional system could be built, perhaps out of as little as hamster wheels and rubber bands, perhaps more. Decentralized distributed data models are very common, there are many solutions to maintaining coherency in them. So on and so on. Yawn, been there, done that.

so it's ok to think centralized, but it's not ok to think decentralized? weren't you the one asking people to think outside the ox?  

A really good way to not get sucked into the paradigms of a given tool set is to start with requirements. Rather than retype the work of others, I would suggest you take at look, FOR EXAMPLE ( just like BOINC is an EXAMPLE, you dingbat ) at this refined set of proposed requirements posted elsewhere on this forum:

bionic "credits" are more for show than anything else. even then, it relies on a central server to keep tally.

let's not forget the fact that since page 2, all you have been doing is criticizing the system without providing a real solution. complaints are everywhere, solutions are not.

oh, it's not a strawman if it's a position explicitly stated by you.

edit:
moar arguments

So, first off:

A really good way to not get sucked into the paradigms of a given tool set is to start with requirements. Rather than retype the work of others, I would suggest you take at look, FOR EXAMPLE ( just like BOINC is an EXAMPLE, you dingbat ) at this refined set of proposed requirements posted elsewhere on this forum:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54222.msg647423#msg647423

I looked at this proposal, and it's still missing the secret sauce. It has the idea of using "trustworthiness" on the network to determine nodes' weights in getting to sign off on a transaction having occurred or not occurred, but doesn't explain how "trustworthiness" is determined.

Now, certainly, if there was some way to establish such a thing, algorithmically, in a way that prevents both sockpuppet shenanigans and the long (but big) con, then you'd be done! You wouldn't need proof-of-work anymore! The problem would be solved!

But... that's a hard problem. That's one of the fundamental hard problems in this field, from what I understand. I've not yet heard of any algorithm to do it. And the proposal given doesn't say one word as to how it would be accomplished.



So let's put that aside for the moment. Let's take a step back and look at the requirements for a currency. To me, they seem to be:

• Multiple accounts, each with a persisted balance that cannot change except in atomic transfers
• The ability for the holder of an account, and only the holder of that account, to atomically transfer funds to another account
• Privacy of the account balance with respect to any individual account holder. (Possibly. Not sure if you care about this, although many folks around here do.)

Are there any proposals that address these requirements, of which you're aware? I should note that since reliance on a "trusted authority" would allow such a party to violate invariant 2, the solution cannot rely on one.

mega tunnel vision much?

Back from dinner. Obviously you have been having fun playing with yourself while I was away. Sorry to see you couldn't keep up with the finer points, it makes you such a cranky child. BTW, is English not your first language? Is it perhaps a language without Latin or Greek roots?

I did get some good ideas from Qoheleth, enough to warrant further research and consideration. OTOH you may go back to pulling your pud, little girl, you are the most useless fuck I've talked to all day. Seriously.

[Flip Tulipcoin]

Last thought for the evening, I tried to look up the SIC ( Standard Industrial Classification ) for bitcoin mining, it's not there. Too bad the codes are 4 digit decimal, "1D10T" would provide an easily remembered designation  

Qoheleth, thanks again for the thoughtful input.

[Qoheleth]

Last thought for the evening, I tried to look up the SIC ( Standard Industrial Classification ) for bitcoin mining, it's not there. Too bad the codes are 4 digit decimal, "ID10T" would provide an easily remembered designation  

If you're looking for a serious response here, I'd argue it'd go under either 7379 (Computer Related Services, Not Elsewhere Classified) or 6099 (Functions Related to Depository Banking, Not Elsewhere Classified (which includes wire clearinghouses and EFT networks)).

But I suspect this is intended as a sarcastic jab, in which case I'd note that lack of an OSHA classification doesn't stop pyramid schemes from being a major industry either. Also that your habit of making such asides might be contributing to peoples' tendency to construe you as a deliberate troublemaker instead of actually taking you seriously

Qoheleth, thanks again for the thoughtful input.

Glad to help.

If you have time, I think this thread has some interesting ideas for an alternative vote-vetting system, although it's far from a complete proposal as yet (most notably, there are some significant bootstrap problems that need to be addressed).

[SgtSpike]

So in summary:
"Bitcoin is wasteful, and here are much better ways to do it.  I haven't got the implementation down because there is no simple answer but Bitcoin is wasteful because there are much better ways to do it."

Somehow, I knew it would come to this.    He blames Bitcoin for having an inefficient solution, but comes up against a brick wall when trying to explain his own "solution".

Well, clearly then, the return to mining is an economic inefficiency that should tend to zero over the long term, that it does seems to be the consensus. Besides, the mining capacity arms race results in equilibrium being a moving target. I seriously doubt most miners who make a hardware investment for that purpose at this point in time will ever reach break even before something better to do comes along.

Not true.  Mining won't tend to zero over the long term.  Mining will always be present, as long as Bitcoins continue to hold value, as mining generates Bitcoins for the miners.

Yes, the equilibrium is a moving target.  Same as the equilibrium in any industry.  Every miner must make a calculated decision whether to invest in more hardware (or sell off their current hardware) based on future projections of profit and risk.  Same as profit/risk analysis in any industry.  Your point?

I said "the return to mining".

Your analogy fails in that Bitcoin mining isn't an industry, it's a game that serves only the claustrophobic world of bitcoin, which is itself a game. Bitcoin mining produces nothing and would not be missed if it disappeared tomorrow. Seriously.

The return to mining?  You would think that someone with so many prestigious degrees would use proper terminology.  How about, "the return on mining", "the return on investment of mining", or "the profitability of mining" will tend to zero over the long term.  "The return to mining" does not mean what you were trying to say, hence my confusion.

Even then, I do not believe it to be true.  Anyone with their head on straight will only make investments when the projected return on investment (inclusive of risk) is above the real cost or opportunity cost of those funds.  In the case of a real cost, the projected return would have to exceed the cost of financing - say, 5-6% for someone with good credit on a small loan.  In the case of an opportunity cost, the projected return would have to exceed the return of other potential investments - say, 4-5% on a (virtually) risk-free CD.

So no, I do not agree that returns will tend towards zero over the long term.  Returns will tend towards the cost of funds.  No one is going to invest in hardware when the return is less than they would receive if they just threw the money into a bank CD.

My analogy doesn't fail at all.  No, Bitcoin is not an industry, but analogies don't require the items being discussed to be of the same type - analogies only require similarities to be present.  And the unspoken rules of investment for any given industry apply just as much to investments made towards Bitcoin mining.

Maybe you should have studied more while acquiring your dozens of degrees.  Then you would know what an analogy is.  

Oh, and you still haven't shown me how you would solve any of the problems that Bitcoin solves with regards to a decentralized currency.  So far, your "solution" has fallen flat on its face.  It doesn't work.  Come up with something that works, THEN come back and tell us all how Bitcoin is wrong.