Decentrally mined currency has failed so far

[cbeast]

Anyone who has their transactions "banned" by pools will simply pay enticing enough fees to have other miners include their transactions. OP seems to ignore financial incentives when speaking about banning Bitcoin. If there is money to be made, people will route around any regulations. This has been proven over and over again in the history of the world.

A few questions.

If people have to pay high fees to get their transactions confirmed, why would they use Bitcoin rather than some competing form of money transfer?

If the the hashrate of miners including blacklisted transactions shrinks to insignificance vs. those who adhere to the blacklist, surely it doesn't matter how high the fees are? Those transactions could take weeks/months/years to confirm, depending on what percentage of the overall hashrate the adhering farms represent.

Actually they would never confirm, because the 50% hashrate could blacklist the minority hashrate. This hints at franky1's logic error.

50% of whom? The mining businesses that don't want higher fees?

The mining business that doesn't want to be raided by the authorities and have their computers and ASICs farms confiscated.

As long as they are paying their taxes and bills, why would any authority do this?

For not complying with an AML (Anti-Money Laundering) regulation requiring them to blacklist transactions and mining pools which don't require identity for all transactions, e.g. all transactions must originate from Peter Thiel's Coinbase, BitPay, Paypal, Facebook, etc.. where the user has provided the necessary KYC (Know Your Customer) documentation.

My gosh it is only 13 years since 9/11 and all the Patriot Act crap which has spread to every country under USA pressure ("you are either with us or against us", POTUS Bush), and you guys are still clueless at the modus operandi for how the powers-that-be are taking control of everything via the terrorism false flag paradigm.

Yeah I forgot about 911. Now I feel fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Don't they make pills for that?

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Yeah I forgot about 911. Now I feel fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Don't they make pills for that?

Yes.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

if miners are putting in millions of shares thinking they will get paid. but a pool owner doesnt submit a winning result to the pool. the miners will not get paid. after all... the funds have to come from somewhere.

and when people dont get paid.. they move

...

You don't see your logic error?

It is not exactly clear what you are referring to, but in any case, miners don't want their earned block rewards to be blacklisted, because then what ever they earned would be worthless. So they will be sure to mine on government approved pools.

[phillipsjk]

Why do you claim that I2P is only a low-latency mix-net?

i2pbote supports randomized message delays.

But operating over I2P can be thought of as a back-up or fail-safe for I2P-Bote, as it has another trick up its sleeve. I2P-Bote includes a system where-in the user can select a number of nodes through which the messages will be bounced around before going to the distributed hash table to be stored (more on that later). But this alone isn't much different from how I2P works in the first place, therefore I2P-Bote also integrates a delay between each node as the message is bounced around. This delay can be set to a random interval within a range (for example, a random amount of time between 1-60 minutes per bounce). Thus, not only are the emails bounced around between nodes, but the time that the email itself was sent is obfuscated by a randomized delay. This makes it possible to send a message, log off, and have it arrive some time later without any correlation between the time that you were logged onto I2P and the time the message arrived. The combination of the I2P network protocol and the way in which I2P-Bote routes messages provides a robust and redundant anonymization strategy.
...
So far we've established how secure I2P-Bote is due to its default use of end-to-end encryption, and how much anonymity it can provide through its use of relay nodes on top of the I2P network, but the last great feature of I2P-Bote is its resilience. Standard email services are centralized. When a three-letter agency decides to attack one of them (Lavabit) it usually succeeds, causing users to lose their email service, lose access to their previous emails, and have the privacy of those emails compromised. This isn't a problem with I2P-Bote. As mentioned previously, I2P-Bote is decentralized and stores messages in a Distributed Hash Table (DHT). In simple english, this basically means that messages are stored in a database that is spread across I2P-Bote users, making it so that there is no clear target for attack. The messages remain in this hash table for 100 days, during which the recipient is able to download them. The added benefit of storing the messages throughout the network is that it obfuscates your use of I2P-Bote. For example, by relaying, storing, and serving messages, an attacker who is watching your internet connection isn't able to know when you're actually sending a message rather than just contributing to the network.

BTW, the block withholding attack shows up as bad pool luck. As long as honest hash-power out-performs the with-holders, P2Pool can still be useable if you can find a fat enough pipe.

Edit: The delay option is mentioned in the "Future Work" section here.

The Garlic Message mechanism is very flexible and provides a structure for implementing many types of mixnet delivery methods. Together with the unused delay option in the tunnel message Delivery Instructions, a wide spectrum of batching, delay, mixing, and routing strategies are possible.

[franky1]

I think you, franky1 et al fail to appreciate that an ASIC farm is a fixed position investment, with a lot of fixed capital infrastructure. You don't move these without being seen nor without losing some of your capital (downtime, loss of favorable electricity connection, favorable rent lease, etc).

It is as if you guys are living in some Bugs Bunny fantasy world and have never actually run a business.

now thats funny.
i do thank you for realising the difference between the code and physical/human issues. where by you are seemingly running out of arguments concerning the code and now moving onto talking about a physical building and the way humans choose to mine in a certain location, so again thank you.

now that your worrys of the code being broke seem to be subsiding and now the worry of physical location. this too has been talked about a hell of alot over the last few years, and again it does not mean decentralised mining is broke or unrescuable.

i think you have to have a few more pokes in the right direction to see that bitcoin as a whole and decentralized mining as a whole will continue for decades and that the only worry is human choices in regards to how they hide themselves physically(location), identifiably(online data revelations), financially. you will see that those things have nothing to do with the mining software or bitcoin. and are all human choices.

so lets poke you a bit in the direction..
1. if regulation was to come about people WILL move. as such people are already moving out of new york now. EG bitcoin foundation is now in london
2. regulations take time. months infact. more than enough for someone to recode their network software to be more stealthy. more than enough time to ship devices abroad and set up
3. even if one large farm gets shut down due to lack of care, other people will continue to mine on different pools. in short bitcoin wont die if 1 mining farm gets shut down
4. the whole bases of being decentralized is actually better then your worrying scenario's. because you are talking as if every bitcoin miner is in a centralized location. thus meaning centralized/solo mining is dead and cant be rescued. not decentralized.
5. if someone had the choice to continue running a mining farm in NY when its regulated fully. risking getting shutdown for good. OR lose 1 weeks potential income to move everything.. they will choose to move.
6. even if you continue to mine in NY, its easy to say that your a remote mining host for users. and that you are not the one in receipt of the 25btc per block.

nothing needs to be changed on the protocol, just how humans interact and make choices is the only thing that needs to change.

all of your worries (which you cant simply stick to one worry before its slapped to the ground) have been talked about multiple times, and solutions, idea's, concepts. predictions etc have all come from it.

and too be honest im starting to think you are now playing a game that has 3 parts
1. make people panic over nothing
2. mention hubris as many times as possible (must be your word of the week)
3. mention coinjoin as many times as possible.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

phillipsjk,

I2P may or may not have some random delay at the node, I've never found a specification for I2P, nor is there is abundant research on I2P. Thus I can't trust what I can't know.

And there remains the problem that the relay nodes can be Sybil attacked (and we'd never know it). I have outlined a solution to that problem.

Also I don't trust I2P because it is operating at a very low-level in the network protocol stack, so I don't know how to characterize all potential de-anonymization correlations that can occur higher up the protocol stack.

Your logic is incorrect on P2Pool because miners will move to a pool that has less leakage of profits.

[phillipsjk]

Your logic is incorrect on P2Pool because miners will move to a pool that has less leakage of profits.

You were claiming that "regulated" pools would take-over. Such pools would cause profit leakage by black-listing addresses: hurting the fungibility of Bitcoin. Taking a 50% hit on profit may be worth it if it means that Bitcoin remains viable.

Edit:

I2P may or may not have some random delay at the node, I've never found a specification for I2P, nor is there is abundant research on I2P. Thus I can't trust what I can't know.

Do your distrust the things labeled "specification" in this page for some reason?

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

franky1 is just playing political spin games now, trying to spin public opinion and deflect away from the fact that I have completely refuted his nonsense.

franky1, you also continue to be wrong about the Bitcoin protocol. It is broken:

1. It can't support fast transactions on chain, thus encourages off chain, which leads right into the lap of AML and KYC as I explained.

2. It doesn't have ring signatures thus it can't support untraceability and unlinkability. CoinJoin isn't a solution as it can be jammed by an adversary.

3. Its PoW algorithm is hopelessly out-of-the-reach of "download client and mine" for the masses.

Etc..

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Your logic is incorrect on P2Pool because miners will move to a pool that has less leakage of profits.

You were claiming that "regulated" pools would take-over. Such pools would cause profit leakage by black-listing addresses: hurting the fungibility of Bitcoin. Taking a 50% hit on profit may be worth it if it means that Bitcoin remains viable.

So you mean Bitcoin forks and the blacklisted addresses go off into a separate currency that ignores the block solutions from the approved pools fork?

The fork won't have enough hashrate, because the large farms will need to go on approved pools to minimize risk of confiscation. Thus the government can easily sabotage the feeble fork with double-spends.

No fungibility will be lost for those who comply, thus the majority will comply in the interests of maintaining value and fungibility.

None of that applies to the logic of P2Pool though, because even on the feeble fork, it will be more profitable to mine on a regular pool that can't be subject to mining share withholding (assuming the Rosenfeld oblivious shares fix is implemented).

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

1. if regulation was to come about people WILL move. as such people are already moving out of new york now. EG bitcoin foundation is now in london

You can't move and escape FATCA. I explained why upthread. The control the USA has will catch up to all jurisdictions. You forget that the debtor is slave to the lender. The entire globe is short the dollar, because of massive dollar loans due to QE. The powers-that-be planned very well. The USA will be the strongest of the world for another decade or so, just long enough to complete all the confiscation of the world's wealth before they do the monetary reset and new world order peace in 2032.

2. regulations take time. months infact. more than enough for someone to recode their network software to be more stealthy. more than enough time to ship devices abroad and set up

I am talking now about designing a solution and you are arguing against it. Just stay with Bitcoin everything is fine. We just need more of people like you to be sure regulations move faster than we can.

3. even if one large farm gets shut down due to lack of care, other people will continue to mine on different pools. in short bitcoin wont die if 1 mining farm gets shut down

One large example is enough to teach the others how to protect their investment, i.e. don't fight with City Hall.

4. the whole bases of being decentralized is actually better then your worrying scenario's. because you are talking as if every bitcoin miner is in a centralized location. thus meaning centralized/solo mining is dead and cant be rescued. not decentralized.

For you the entire world's problems can resolved in church by singing "decentralized halleluiah". Never mind actually preparing and implementing. Just a word and a lot of erroneous fantasy (e.g. category error conflation, "decentralization means piratebay and marijuana is same as Bitcoin" yahooyahoo) is enough for your flock.

6. even if you continue to mine in NY, its easy to say that your a remote mining host for users. and that you are not the one in receipt of the 25btc per block.

"Show us your proof. Uh no proof, okay we are confiscating everything, here is your receipt to show up in court", says the authorities.

[jonald_fyookball]

Your logic is incorrect on P2Pool because miners will move to a pool that has less leakage of profits.

You were claiming that "regulated" pools would take-over. Such pools would cause profit leakage by black-listing addresses: hurting the fungibility of Bitcoin. Taking a 50% hit on profit may be worth it if it means that Bitcoin remains viable.

So you mean Bitcoin forks and the blacklisted addresses go off into a separate currency that ignores the block solutions from the approved pools fork?

The fork won't have enough hashrate, because the large farms will need to go on approved pools to minimize risk of confiscation. Thus the government can easily sabotage the feeble fork with double-spends.

No fungibility will be lost for those who comply, thus the majority will comply in the interests of maintaining value and fungibility.

None of that applies to the logic of P2Pool though, because even on the feeble fork, it will be more profitable to mine on a regular pool that can't be subject to mining share withholding (assuming the Rosenfeld oblivious shares fix is implemented).

No, bitcoin wouldn't fork if pools became regulated.  
I don't think anyone is suggesting that, and that
wouldn't fix anything anyway as there is nothing
in the protocol to force inclusion.  (If you can solve
forced inclusion in a way that works, everyone
would love to know).  In other words, the same
problem of blacklisting could happen again on the
new coin.

However, if regulated pools started supporting blacklists and threatened fungibility,
people would (I hope) recognize that this is unacceptable and simply leave those pools.

[phillipsjk]

None of that applies to the logic of P2Pool though, because even on the feeble fork, it will be more profitable to mine on a regular pool that can't be subject to mining share withholding (assuming the Rosenfeld oblivious shares fix is implemented).

The eligius pool has been going in the opposite direction.

They encourage miners to build their own blocks using the getblocktemplate protocol.

I am not sure I would trust a pool that makes it impossible to verify they are not attacking the network.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

None of that applies to the logic of P2Pool though, because even on the feeble fork, it will be more profitable to mine on a regular pool that can't be subject to mining share withholding (assuming the Rosenfeld oblivious shares fix is implemented).

The eligius pool has been going in the opposite direction.

They encourage miners to build their own blocks using the getblocktemplate protocol.

I am not sure I would trust a pool that makes it impossible to verify they are not attacking the network.

I am not able to grasp your logic. Please clarify what is your point?

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

However, if regulated pools started supporting blacklists and threatened fungibility,
people would (I hope) recognize that this is unacceptable and simply leave those pools.

That would be true for you guys, but the problem is Bitcoin is being pushed now to the masses on Paypal, etc..

Once the powers-that-be (e.g. Peter Thiel) have a critical mass of sheeple on Bitcoin, they can move forward with the regulation.

I've been able to clearly see their plan way before they started to implement it. I tried to warn but nobody listens to me.

[phillipsjk]

Oblivious shares mean that the block contents are not disclosed to the hasher. The hasher may be working on a malicious branch of the chain without even knowing about it. They may even be crushing start-up alt-coins, or embeding prayers in the block-chain.

[franky1]

franky1 is just playing political spin games now, trying to spin public opinion and deflect away from the fact that I have completely refuted his nonsense.

franky1, you also continue to be wrong about the Bitcoin protocol. It is broken:

1. It can't support fast transactions on chain, thus encourages off chain, which leads right into the lap of AML and KYC as I explained.

2. It doesn't have ring signatures thus it can't support untraceability and unlinkability. CoinJoin isn't a solution as it can be jammed by an adversary.

3. Its PoW algorithm is hopelessly out-of-the-reach of "download client and mine" for the masses.

Etc..

You either admit your errors or you soon go on ignore. I admit when I am wrong and I don't have time for fools whose ego is 10X larger than their intellect.

you have had 5 pages of trying to say how decentralised mining is broke.. but then talk about centralised mining and amlkyc of centralised exchanges... try to stick on topic or realise your wrong about your topic. so which is it regulations hurt the big centralised mining farms and exchanges. or regulations cant stop decentralised exchanges and microfarms

but lets answer your numbered points.
1a. i do fast on-chain transactions and trades everyday.. so do hundreds of thousands of others. much much faster then the centralised banking system that can take upto 3-5 days.
1b. AMLKYC is only for fiat based transactions. EG exchanges that only do crypto (not fiat) dont need amlkyc. but if new york becomes the first area that attempts to make bitcoin part of their jurisdiction, then people will just trade elsewhere. its not a fault of bitcoin, thats a fault of humans choice to not lobby for such rules to be abolished.

2. bitcoin doesnt need ring signatures, there are plenty of ways to move funds without anything more than bitcoin-core. put short, move funds to a different address and if anyone asks tell people you gave it to dick, jane and harry. then move funds again into new addresses. bitcoin doesnt need anything new. just human choice on how they reveal real life info to a bitcoin address.

3. PoW algorithm is not out of reach. infact out of 7 billion people we still have not even got to 1 million people to even try yet. so you are trying to cook the gg before its even been laid. just wait until the top 50 organizations take bitcoin on, you will see that instead of maybe 5 big players, you will see 50+ big players and each of those will separately have ways to allow their smaller clients to get their share. thus making decentralisation stronger, not weaker.

you have not even seen bitcoins potential yet or understood the strengths.. certainly not when your topic talks about decentralisation being broke but then you meander to talk about solo mining farms not being able to hide or avoid regulation due to masses of rigs they cant move. you are contradicting yourself..

i can easily set up a mining farm in japan, a mining farm in europe and one in australia i can then either keep them as separate entities and mine separate to each other, or combine the hashpower to point to one server IP
with that said. that one location is just a pool manager software tool on a single server that receives all information from around the world. thus if the authorities track my IP and it happen to be in new york for instance.. all they will find is a server.. they shut down the server and all my rigs across the world hop over to another server in seconds and continue mining.

i do not need the bitcoin-core devs to change a thing.
and with that analogy i am proving that decentralisation is not broken. but infact PEOPLE are not choosing to be decentralised enough. for instance Ghash can keep their hash power, but scatter the rigs across different locations. making decentralisation the cure to your worries. and not the worry itself.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Oblivious shares mean that the block contents are not disclosed to the hasher. The hasher may be working on a malicious branch of the chain without even knowing about it. They may even be crushing start-up alt-coins, or embeding prayers in the block-chain.

I believe oblivious shares can be implemented using a public hash of the block data. The secret can be independent of the compilation of the contents of the block.

[jonald_fyookball]

However, if regulated pools started supporting blacklists and threatened fungibility,
people would (I hope) recognize that this is unacceptable and simply leave those pools.

That would be true for you guys, but the problem is Bitcoin is being pushed now to the masses on Paypal, etc..

Once the powers-that-be (e.g. Peter Thiel) have a critical mass of sheeple on Bitcoin, they can move forward with the regulation.

I've been able to clearly see their plan way before they started to implement it. I tried to warn but nobody listens to me.

I hear what you're saying, but I just can't see it playing out like that.
"They" will have to have one hell of a propaganda machine to give
the masses Bitcoin while keeping them ignorant of the virtues of
decentralized networks, decentralized money, and everything that goes along with it.

Keeping the wool pulled over the eyes of the sheeple will be unsustainable.
But we can agree to disagree on that if you think otherwise.

By the way, what do you think of this article:

http://blog.oleganza.com/post/93767945708/bitcoin-is-not-compatible-with-the-state

[cbeast]

Who is "They?" America? Russia?, China? Will they all submit to your imaginary authority?

[phillipsjk]

Oblivious shares mean that the block contents are not disclosed to the hasher. The hasher may be working on a malicious branch of the chain without even knowing about it. They may even be crushing start-up alt-coins, or embeding prayers in the block-chain.

I believe oblivious shares can be implemented using a public hash of the block data. The secret can be independent of the compilation of the contents of the block.

As I understand it, the secret can be an arbitrary length: that is the whole point of a hash function.
With oblivious shares, block manipulations possible with getblocktemplate are impossible: since a hashed header implies a read-only block.