Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[thezerg]

its a puzzle and you took the expected path into the maze and that is why you did not solve it. Epiphanies are like that. Yes I will have to elaborate but I am not going to give away such a valuable insight for free. I'd rather implement and profit. Wouldn't you?

No actually.  trying to get seed capital and forming a startup is the wrong approach if you really want to make a difference.  Otherwise pressure for corporate profits will poison the coin.  And the ability of external entities to apply pressure to a corporate entity (see Ripple) could destroy it.  

Publish your insight for the rep, good jobs will follow.

Also if you aren't going to describe your ideas, don't gloat about them endlessly -- there is no information content in most of your posts.

Since you are not sharing your ideas and consider that we are not intelligent enough to contribute to them, I think you should ask yourself why you bother posting at all.  What do you get out of it?  Wouldn't your time would be better spent implementing your ideas?  You need help seeing yourself...

And finally, you might consider that many people here are fighting great hardship yet you will likely not know about it until you read their "so long and thanks for all the fish" post.  I am sorry that you do not have others, closer to you to share these troubles.  Today I heard a sermon about a guy who could wish for anything so he imagined a luxury mansion, cars, gourmet food and the like... and he ended up with what he wished for -- an empty house.  Maybe you should start by sharing here to fill that house.  Check out http://www.reddit.com/r/raisedbynarcissists/ it may help you.

[1713445464]

1713445464

[1713445464]

1713445464

[TPTB_need_war]

its a puzzle and you took the expected path into the maze and that is why you did not solve it. Epiphanies are like that. Yes I will have to elaborate but I am not going to give away such a valuable insight for free. I'd rather implement and profit. Wouldn't you?

No actually.  trying to get seed capital and forming a startup is the wrong approach if you really want to make a difference.  Otherwise pressure for corporate profits will poison the coin.  And the ability of external entities to apply pressure to a corporate entity (see Ripple) could destroy it.

That is why I only want to deal with 1 - 3 individual investors who are altruistic and want to get possibly rich on their investment.  

Publish your insight for the rep, good jobs will follow.

Interesting point. Don't you think it would be more fun to get rich at the same time of saving the world? Unrealistic maybe. I am evaluating.

I feel I am a person who could do much great things for the world with capital. I think the universe should entrust large capital with me. Perhaps I am mistaken. I am evaluating.

Also if you aren't going to describe your ideas, don't gloat about them endlessly

Fair enough. I won't mention my solution again then. No additional hints will be given then. Satisfied?

-- there is no information content in most of your posts.

Obviously false. Please retract the emotional statement.

Since you are not sharing your ideas and consider that we are not intelligent enough to contribute to them

I did not say you are not intelligent enough. Your username rings a bell and I haven't looked, but I seem to recall you are person of significance in the development of Bitcoin (or Scala?). Perhaps I am mistaken. So far, your posts have been interesting to me and I am preparing to look at your latest idea and either mea culpa or refute it.

, I think you should ask yourself why you bother posting at all.  What do you get out of it?  Wouldn't your time would be better spent implementing your ideas?  You need help seeing yourself...

Perhaps because I like to see you get all ego twisted like this?

Naw. Rather I am trying to point out what is futile and get some interest to invest in my solution. Isn't that obvious enough?

And finally, you might consider that many people here are fighting great hardship yet you will likely not know about it until you read their "so long and thanks for all the fish" post.

I know some of them and they know I empathize with them. I can't empathize with those who haven't told me.

I only reacted with my personal plight due to the disingenuous attempts to character assassinate me when the antagonists had lost the logical point (or simply didn't pay attention because they wanted to attack me).

If the discussion stays on technicals and civility, then so do I.

I don't know what to do about the fact that you don't agree that I don't give my ideas away for free in every instance. I guess you demand I be a Communist. And I an reticent. I am evaluating what is the wisest way to proceed.

I am sorry that you do not have others, closer to you to share these troubles.  Today I heard a sermon about a guy who could wish for anything so he imagined a luxury mansion, cars, gourmet food and the like... and he ended up with what he wished for -- an empty house.  Maybe you should start by sharing here to fill that house.  Check out http://www.reddit.com/r/raisedbynarcissists/ it may help you.

Well so we see that your entire post was a yet another jealous veiled character assassination against all those who are reticent to Communism and groupthink.

Kudos.   (wasting more of our time)

[solex]

On a different topic (as cypherdoc says), the first thing I thought of when I read up on IBLT's is that they could be a marvelously efficient way to communicate info needed to ensure that transaction blocks were correctly formed in a number of ways.  One biggie would be that they contained only 'authorized' transactions and/or did not contain 'unauthorized' ones.  Such a thing would be necessary and necessarily efficient in order to implement whitelisting or blacklisting.  To this day I have seen nobody comment about this (potential) 'feature' of such a development.

I can put your mind at rest there.
What you describe as "authorized" is really "50+% consensus", i.e. that an unconfirmed transaction is acceptable by the majority of nodes.
Consider the existing blockchain. It is full of confirmed tx which were accepted by at least 50+% of the hashing power. There were many orphan blocks which a minority of nodes might have accepted, but were discarded by the majority.

One of the powerful aspects of IBLT is that it creates consensus on unconfirmed tx. It makes the Bitcoin protocol function more closely to how all its users expect it to work.

Right now there are several thousand users who expect their transaction(s) to get confirmed in the next block, and thousands of nodes who have a very similar view of those transactions. Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

[tvbcof]

An attack I thought of years ago would be to formulate UTXO's systematically to chain blocks together in such a way that 1) their count would stress the working database (currently implemented in RAM most often) and 2) verifying them would touch as many blocks as possible making rendering of much of the actual blockchain itself require for many transactions.  I'm sure there is a name for such an attack.  If not, call it the 'tvbcof attack' I suppose.

Something like this was brought up on reddit. Why not have higher fees for these kind of "tvbcof transactions"? (Higher fees in proportion to how much they scatter the UTXOs. And perhaps lower or zero fees for transactions that consolidate UTXOs.)

A spotlight has gone onto the UTXO because it is bloating, e.g.

...

I would phrase things "A spotlight has gone onto UTXO because they are bitcoins."  Nothing comes closer to an accurate explanation to what a bitcoin is in my opinion.

I would take issue with the idea that 'UTXOs are bloating.'  They are doing so to a much lesser degree than I would have imagined years ago.  The reason for this, I believe, is that off-chain work has come to the rescue (in the ugly form entities with counter-party risk for the most part and the associated thefts that come with such) and many many BTC are tucked away into deep storage as the equivalent of $100,000,000 bills UTXO-wise.  That is the genie which comes out of the bottle when you guys realize your dream of a one-size-fits-all everything-to-everyone exchange currency for the masses.  Not sure if you are still in that camp solex...you seem a little more bright or flexible or something than most here.

[TPTB_need_war]

One of the powerful aspects of IBLT is...

IBLT is pie-in-the-sky that won't work. I studied it. I elaborated somewhere. I will have to dig for it and refresh my memory.

[thezerg]

I don't know what to do about the fact that you don't agree that I don't give my ideas away for free in every instance. I guess you demand I be a Communist. And I an reticent. I am evaluating what is the wisest way to proceed.

No man, I am certainly demanding nothing of you, and am the last to desire Communism.  This is a strategy to actually maximize your returns.  Look at current altcoins; if you or your investors poison your coin you'll get nothing.  If you do not poision it, you and a small number of people will be the first to mine the next new thing and you may actually get help implementing it -- help which seems to be needed because haven't you been talking about this for over a year now?

I am sorry that you do not have others, closer to you to share these troubles.  Today I heard a sermon about a guy who could wish for anything so he imagined a luxury mansion, cars, gourmet food and the like... and he ended up with what he wished for -- an empty house.  Maybe you should start by sharing here to fill that house.  Check out http://www.reddit.com/r/raisedbynarcissists/ it may help you.

Well so we see that your entire post was a yet another jealous veiled character assassination against all those who are reticent to Communism and groupthink.

Kudos.   (wasting more of our time)

Please consider my possible reasons for "jealous veiled character assassination".  Look at my post history to see if I'm a troll.  I have none of these motivations.  Consider that you applied a pejorative -- a negative emotional reaction -- to the idea of narcissism, not me.  Consider that you always manage to get into these endless ad hominem postings, not me.   I'm actually trying to help you where I think you most need help; read some of those posts. How are you similar?  How are you different?

But that will be all I say or read on this subject; by the time I read this thread next these messages will be buried too deeply for me to see.

[cypherdoc]

So that is one argument that can be made against the pool's having control. Note it doesn't impact my other upthread (and very on topic) point that larger blocks favor centralization because higher orphan rates do.

larger bloat blocks have a higher chance of being orphaned

I reiterate my upthread point that higher orphan rate favors larger pools because they will be better connected (don't forget the NSA has direct taps on major trunk lines and the high-speed traders on Wall Street have this superior connectivity too) and thus mine on orphaned chains less, thus have high profits for their miners, thus driving more miners to them and making the smaller pools go bankrupt. This is a variant of the selfish mining effect.

Thus I will repeat again that larger blocks = centralization.

I hope that is clear now, since apparently you didn't get it the first time and apparently ignored or didn't understand me?

(if you did ignore before, covering your ears won't help you)

My radical re-design totally eliminates the issue of orphans and the critical advantages of connectivity latency. It is a radical paradigm shift that solves the problem that Bitcoin was designed to be centralized and there is nothing you can do within Bitcoin's current design to stop that! (I will elaborate soon)

Add: and the key point of distinction is that in Bitcoin in order to get a transaction to have a confirmation then it must be put into a block. In my novel new design, transactions don't have to be put in blocks in order to be confirmed. That is a very strong head scratching hint for you!

well that'll be a trick b/c the blockchain is Satoshi's fundamental contribution to tx security that was missing for all these decades of digital money formation.  each block cements the tx's into the chain via POW.  

you need to elaborate on your purported innovation to have any meaningful discussion.

its a puzzle and you took the expected path into the maze and that is why you did not solve it. Epiphanies are like that. Yes I will have to elaborate but I am not going to give away such a valuable insight for free. I'd rather implement and profit. Wouldn't you?

You'd be crazy not to invest.

Yes it is a trick. The key insight is into how to make things orthogonal with a clever twist. I must admit, the more I think about it, the less obvious it is. I do have the antithetic weakness of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, "Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.".

For $10,000 investment and promise of secrecy, you can find out now.

Note my Bitmessage is not functioning on my new ISP, so anyone that wants to talk with me should PM me then we will go into encrypted webchat (very easy just load a webpage and chat).

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  

[TPTB_need_war]

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  

Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today.

And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses.

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken.

[Peter R]

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

Can you explain why adding IBLT support would be a hard fork?

[TPTB_need_war]

I believe I know how to solve that.  There are 3 innovations that form the core of a microtxn coin -- a problem I've been keen to solve because like I said years ago i think there are room 4 3 coins:
BTC: first mover for holding and large txns.
AnonCoin: maybe MRO
MicroCoin: undefined.

The 3 innovations are:
1. UTXO oriented protocol and storage.  (Merkle UTXO trees that I discussed previously)
2. UTXO size consolidation.  There are various approaches.  The previously mentioned idea for addtl fees if outputs > inputs is not quite there.  Better is addtl fee for every not-previously seen address and UTXO merkle is changed to be address-with-balance merkle tree.  Other ideas are to make address creation expensive (like vanity addresses) and address consolidation txn gets fee rebate.
3. Transformation of blockchain to scale.

What was the upthread name and link to Russel's (recently hired by Blockstream sheesh I can remember that but not the name) summary of the off-chain proposal ("lighting" something) for real-time transactions employing a payment channel (you dedicate some BTC to a particular recipient which you can dole out in real-time)?

Some real-time txs are micropayments and some micropayments are real-time, but not all real-time txs are micropayments and not all micropayments are real-time. Thus you are addressing an orthogonal need to scale the blockchain for higher tx volume.

Recall upthread one of my several reasons for stating that getblocktemplate will lose efficacy is because miners won't be able to process a million or billion txs per second.

What do you mean by point #3?

Afaics, it appears you are proposing to compress the UXTO, but you are not addressing the scaling problem. (Bounded) compression doesn't solve scaling (they are different complexity levels).

The only solution for microtxns that scales is to remove the UXTO entirely! (You've said you are not restricting me from mentioning my solution, so I mention it again!)

Anyway hoping to lay out my microcoin in a doc soon but I can't wrap my head around how to play nice with bitcoin... sidechain altcoin etc... what would you guys do?

The solution is going to be so radically different, I don't think it is going to work as a side or merge-mined chain. But I reserve final judgment after working through all the finer details.

[tvbcof]

On a different topic (as cypherdoc says), the first thing I thought of when I read up on IBLT's is that they could be a marvelously efficient way to communicate info needed to ensure that transaction blocks were correctly formed in a number of ways.  One biggie would be that they contained only 'authorized' transactions and/or did not contain 'unauthorized' ones.  Such a thing would be necessary and necessarily efficient in order to implement whitelisting or blacklisting.  To this day I have seen nobody comment about this (potential) 'feature' of such a development.

I can put your mind at rest there.
What you describe as "authorized" is really "50+% consensus", i.e. that an unconfirmed transaction is acceptable by the majority of nodes.
Consider the existing blockchain. It is full of confirmed tx which were accepted by at least 50+% of the hashing power. There were many orphan blocks which a minority of nodes might have accepted, but were discarded by the majority.

One of the powerful aspects of IBLT is that it creates consensus on unconfirmed tx. It makes the Bitcoin protocol function more closely to how all its users expect it to work.

Right now there are several thousand users who expect their transaction(s) to get confirmed in the next block, and thousands of nodes who have a very similar view of those transactions. Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using a whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision.
Also, standard blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

That does not particularly put my mind to rest.

I am concerned about 'consensus' being an AND operation involving protocol legality and political legality.

Implementationally, if unconfirmed transactions are time sequence ordered, it would be practical to build a work set as a checkmarked list of legal transactions in forming work units (to be distributed if one is running a pool or ground on if one is mining within one's own farm.)  This could be accomplished more efficiently if with an system like IBLT to communicate with a tainting authority.  The miner and the tainting authority would only need to communicate the out-of-bounds transactions and the count of these could be fairly small...at least initially...

I should think also that legal transactions which took some time to verify (within the taint authority's system) could be grouped as a initial chunk onto the next block.  A side-channel could transmit this list (for a fee) to miners who are clients.  With miners operating at the pleasure of the state and compelled to utilize the services of a chartered tainting authority in order to protect us and our children from ISIS and such, the tainting authority(s) with a charter should not lack for business.

[TPTB_need_war]

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

Can you explain why adding IBLT support would be a hard fork?

If it is not, I mea culpa. I will need to go dig back into what I concluded about IBLT and I decided not to comment further on IBLT today so I don't say something stupid. I remember I saw a flaw that had to do with the assumption about small set differences and the proposed use of the invertible bloom filter or something like that. I forget exactly. Will dig in soon...

[cypherdoc]

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  

Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today.

And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses.

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken.

we have no proof that large pools are directly connected more so or to the disadvantage of small pools.  you haven't even given a definition of both.  but even assuming that they are, which i'm not, i've still given plenty of reasons why they shouldn't want to create attacking bloated blocks to try and torment smaller miners. 

[TPTB_need_war]

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  

Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today.

And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses.

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken.

we have no proof that large pools are directly connected more so or to the disadvantage of small pools.  you haven't even given a definition of both.  but even assuming that they are, which i'm not, i've still given plenty of reasons why they shouldn't want to create attacking bloated blocks to try and torment smaller miners.  

The government (NSA, CIA, DEEP STATE, banksters) has the incentive and the capability.

Did we forget who the enemy is?

We need a more anti-fragile (simplified!), resilient and robust protocol that is immune to all this fragile complexity (IBLT, latency, etc).

[cypherdoc]

I reiterate my upthread point that higher orphan rate favors larger pools because they will be better connected (don't forget the NSA has direct taps on major trunk lines and the high-speed traders on Wall Street have this superior connectivity too) and thus mine on orphaned chains less, thus have high profits for their miners, thus driving more miners to them and making the smaller pools go bankrupt. This is a variant of the selfish mining effect.

Thus I will repeat again that larger blocks = centralization

you do realize this view directly contradicts current behavior?  large miners do not build 1MB blocks repeatedly and instead construct the smallest blocks possible to limit latency transmission across the network.  if all "large" miners were hooked up as directly as you imply, they should today be constructing 1MB to maximize fees and try and torment small miners.

[cypherdoc]

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  

Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today.

And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses.

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken.

we have no proof that large pools are directly connected more so or to the disadvantage of small pools.  you haven't even given a definition of both.  but even assuming that they are, which i'm not, i've still given plenty of reasons why they shouldn't want to create attacking bloated blocks to try and torment smaller miners.  

The government (NSA, CIA, DEEP STATE, banksters) has the incentive and the capability.

Did we forget who the enemy is?

i don't believe large miners = NSA, CIA, DEEP STATE, banksters

[TPTB_need_war]

I reiterate my upthread point that higher orphan rate favors larger pools because they will be better connected (don't forget the NSA has direct taps on major trunk lines and the high-speed traders on Wall Street have this superior connectivity too) and thus mine on orphaned chains less, thus have high profits for their miners, thus driving more miners to them and making the smaller pools go bankrupt. This is a variant of the selfish mining effect.

Thus I will repeat again that larger blocks = centralization

you do realize this view directly contradicts current behavior?  large miners do not build 1MB blocks repeatedly and instead construct the smallest blocks possible to limit latency transmission across the network.  if all "large" miners were hooked up as directly as you imply, they should today be constructing 1MB to maximize fees and try and torment small miners.

We can conclude that large pools today are possibly not yet co-opted (compromised, controlled) by the DEEP STATE and we have no evidence of them doing an active attack.

That tells us nothing about the future.

i don't believe large miners = NSA, CIA, DEEP STATE, banksters

Where there is a vacuum, entropy will flow. That is an undeniable fact of the Second Law of Thermo.

[TPTB_need_war]

This is a strategy to actually maximize your returns.  Look at current altcoins; if you or your investors poison your coin you'll get nothing.  If you do not poision it, you and a small number of people will be the first to mine the next new thing and you may actually get help implementing it -- help which seems to be needed because haven't you been talking about this for over a year now?

I am not going to do something stupid about investors. I refused $100,000 in investment in 2014 for 25% of a 10% premine.

I was sick with M.S. all of 2013 and 2014. I could barely code. I tried my best every single day and I had investors in waiting (I've been self-funded) who were following me daily. But I couldn't perform despite my valiant attempts, because M.S. is particularly debilitating in the head (you may not realize how intense concentration is when you are coding, you keep 100 variables in your mind, you only realize when lose the ability to concentrate that you used to take for granted).

My former ideas revolved around attempting to make the PoW CPU only and I did devise an algorithm which leverages the ASIC built into every CPU. So that will still be reused. But that in hindsight isn't really a complete solution to anything.

This latest idea is only recent. The genesis was a couple of months ago and the realization that it doesn't have pitfalls finally gelled about 3 days ago. I've been coding 18 hours a day on a new social network, so I just hadn't been thinking about crypto, then someone pinged me and asked why I couldn't get rolling on crypto so I thought about it for few minutes and realized it (healthy mind now I guess the M.S. is fading).

I should add that another orthogonal aspect of my ideas is about 6 months aged. And that is how to drive tx volume to the coin. And it is intimately related to how to solve the anonymity properly (Monero is incomplete). I have written about it in detail publicly but no one seems to pay attention (except for one very respected member here who commented in this thread within the past 24 hours I will not name who discussed this with me in Bitmessage months ago).

[cypherdoc]

Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack".  also it's solution.

[TPTB_need_war]

Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack".  also it's solution.

I hadn't read that.

That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism.

I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads!  

Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA.

The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons.

When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions.

As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution.

As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry.