Decentrally mined currency has failed so far

[phillipsjk]

You apparently don't understand how mining shares work? The hasher sends the share no matter how much below the required share difficulty, thus if low enough it is a block solution. The Secret only obfuscates (from the hasher's view) how far below the target difficulty the share is, but it doesn't change the fact that all the difficulty remains on the miners who are sending shares.

The secret doesn't partition the probability space.

OK, I was misunderstanding that algorithm I was under the impression that the secrethash was calculated first (Extrahash is calculated first).

I bolded your misunderstanding. To be fair, it is also present in the paper referenced. Miners do not submit low difficulty shares because at modern hash-rates, each miner would be getting (using the Bitmain  453GH/s S3 as an example): about 106 shares/second. This uses a lot of bandwidth, while possibly loading the CPU of a busy pool.

• Every block will have 3 additional field associated with it – SecretSeed, ExtraHash and

SecretHash.

• ExtraHash must be the hash of SecretSeed.
• ExtraHash will be a part of the block header and will be one of the fields used in the

calculation of the block hash.

• SecretHash must be the hash of the concatenation of the block hash and SecretSeed
• For the block to be valid: Instead of requiring that the block hash is less than

2 256 /(2 32 D), it is required that the block hash is less than 2 256 /2 32 and that SecretHash
is less than 2 256 /D.
[/list]
The pool operator will choose SecretSeed and keep it secret. He will calculate ExtraHash and
provide it to miners along with the other fields that go into the block hash. The miners can
calculate the block hash and see if it is less than 2 256 /2 32 (which happens with probability
2 −32 ) and in this case submit it as a share. They do not know if this is a valid block
because they don’t know SecretSeed and cannot calculate SecretHash. The operator knows
SecretSeed, calculates SecretHash, and if it is less than 2 256 /D (with probability p) this is a
valid block and it is broadcast to the network.

It is not clear to me that the submitted share difficulty can be effectively adjusted.
On second thought, I am having my doubts this algorithm can find high-difficulty shares without 2^32 times the hash-power. (But Because my SINAD ratio is so low today, maybe I am just too tired to see it.)
Edit: I think it is UnunoctiumTesticles that does not understand PoW. The above algorithm appears to move the job of finding a low enough high-difficulty hash (SecretHash) from the hashers with specialized hardware to the Pool operator's CPU. Specialized hardware does not help as the network would be the bottle-neck.

Edit2: The Pool operator can use specialized hardware by treating the Secret seed (never disclosed) as a nonce. This implies that P2Pool can make use of the algorithm as well (by having each node make up their own secret). I think UnunoctiumTesticles said something about how unnecessary complexity should be avoided though. Nevemind, ExtraHash fixes the seed.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

James, I never said the shares are not below the required difficulty for shares. I said they are not required to not be much further below the required difficulty, thus a share can be low enough to be block solution. You simply don't understand proof-of-work. Sorry this thread is not a Bitcoin 101 class.  I really need to stop. Good luck.

[Flashman]

Here's how I understand it. Imagine block solution is in range 1-100 at some random point. 1-10 are "easy" shares, but it's more likely 90% that it's above 10. BUT, to find solution every single one has to be checked. Ergo, a low diff share from a pool may occasionally solve a block.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Please vote:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=880088.0

[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.

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

The author is a better writer than me.

His conceptual point is spot on, but a fantasy because the reality is the government can control Bitcoin, so the conceptual point is invalid.

Implement the improvements I suggested, maybe his conceptual point could come closer to reality.

[ArnoldChippy]

I must be missing something.

What's the point of an altcoin if it could be blocked by government anyway - I mean, you seemed to be saying earlier that the US government could pull the plug on the internet backbone if things got desperate enough for them?

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

I must be missing something.

What's the point of an altcoin if it could be blocked by government anyway - I mean, you seemed to be saying earlier that the US government could pull the plug on the internet backbone if things got desperate enough for them?

I said it is much more likely they would just filter protocol of crypto-currency.

In the logic of escalation as needed, the threat of blackout I think would first be used to induce a country to comply.

See the distinction is the threat is something the national government can address by complying. Whereas, with the improvements I suggested, the government could not comply because the pools are anonymous.

If the powers-that-be blacked out a country that had tried to comply but couldn't possibly comply since technologically impossible, that would backfire.

[jyakulis]

Yes you can. Unless you consider JPM and Goldman Sachs and all the cronies they enrich innocent people.

[cbeast]

I must be missing something.

What's the point of an altcoin if it could be blocked by government anyway - I mean, you seemed to be saying earlier that the US government could pull the plug on the internet backbone if things got desperate enough for them?

I said it is much more likely they would just filter protocol of crypto-currency.

In the logic of escalation as needed, the threat of blackout I think would first be used to induce a country to comply.

See the distinction is the threat is something the national government can address by complying. Whereas, with the improvements I suggested, the government could not comply because the pools are anonymous.

If the powers-that-be blacked out a country that had tried to comply but couldn't possibly comply since technologically impossible, that would backfire.

You've given no incentive to comply with your lawgivers. Confiscation can be easily deterred by real world decoys. No hacker worth his salt will work for a dictator so their lackeys will be easily spoofed. Iron Gloves and Jack Boots are so 20th Century. Your criminal secret police will be exposed to the world and your trade will be tariffed, firewalled, or blockaded. Unless you can give a strong moral reason to regulate Bitcoin more than cash, you have no moral authority for your argument. Without moral authority, your people will rebel. America is already past that point and is shutting down. They don't even have the budget or manpower to shut down the criminal marijuana stores.

[johnyj]

I must be missing something.

What's the point of an altcoin if it could be blocked by government anyway - I mean, you seemed to be saying earlier that the US government could pull the plug on the internet backbone if things got desperate enough for them?

I said it is much more likely they would just filter protocol of crypto-currency.

In the logic of escalation as needed, the threat of blackout I think would first be used to induce a country to comply.

See the distinction is the threat is something the national government can address by complying. Whereas, with the improvements I suggested, the government could not comply because the pools are anonymous.

If the powers-that-be blacked out a country that had tried to comply but couldn't possibly comply since technologically impossible, that would backfire.

Chinese government filtering out youtube and google, facebook etc... but you can get around those limitations by simply using a VPN. And I think VPN will be a more common setup for average house hold in future to improve the security

[johnyj]

Would that be current debt that's built upon a fraud by any chance?  

Yes it is. You still can't erase it without hurting innocent people.

That's true, so keep it for the already trapped innocent guys, but people can select to not become the victim since now on, it will take generations for the shift to happen

Actually the collapse of the old system requires just a drop in confidence, which is much easier to happen now since the removal of gold backing: A currency that is backed by debt is actually backed by the ability of the government to borrow more currency to payback that debt, it is a loop without any value creation involved. If there is consensus that the currency's value is going to crash, then even if the government can borrow more,  it is meaningless

Anyway, no matter what monetary system, the ultimate goal is to find the motivation to drive the economy. Fiat model drive the economy from the top, seems not a good idea long term wise, a one generation deal

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

I must be missing something.

What's the point of an altcoin if it could be blocked by government anyway - I mean, you seemed to be saying earlier that the US government could pull the plug on the internet backbone if things got desperate enough for them?

I said it is much more likely they would just filter protocol of crypto-currency.

In the logic of escalation as needed, the threat of blackout I think would first be used to induce a country to comply.

See the distinction is the threat is something the national government can address by complying. Whereas, with the improvements I suggested, the government could not comply because the pools are anonymous.

If the powers-that-be blacked out a country that had tried to comply but couldn't possibly comply since technologically impossible, that would backfire.

You've given no incentive to comply with your lawgivers. Confiscation can be easily deterred by real world decoys. No hacker worth his salt will work for a dictator so their lackeys will be easily spoofed. Iron Gloves and Jack Boots are so 20th Century. Your criminal secret police will be exposed to the world and your trade will be tariffed, firewalled, or blockaded. Unless you can give a strong moral reason to regulate Bitcoin more than cash, you have no moral authority for your argument. Without moral authority, your people will rebel. America is already past that point and is shutting down. They don't even have the budget or manpower to shut down the criminal marijuana stores.

As a young man I was able to separate my idealism from rational reality. I see many Bitcoiners have not made that shift from cartoon-land to reality.

You assume the masses aren't manipulated in terms of their priorities on morality. They are concerned about for example gay marriage and political corruption. National identification and financial transparency is important to them to stop terrorists, control immigration, track down the bank fraudsters, jail the banksters who created the debt crisis we have, etc.. Also people have many pet issues, so divide-and-conquer and needing the State (the powers-that-be) to be the referee (i.e. people are naturally never able to totally agree, thus you always need a cop, judge, government to hold the power else you have chaotic fighting-- the natural tendency of man is war not peace).

What you fail to comprehend is that powers-that-be have always been able to get the masses to blame the wrong cause in order to make solutions which favor the powers-that-be.

And that will NEVER change. Again re-read my post upthread, that the majority is ALWAYS wrong.

When I made that realization as a younger man, that golden rule formed the crux of my political philosophy for the rest of my life. This is why I am an anarchist and not a Libertarian. I never trust the collective majority to be a sane paradigm (even though members of that majority can be acting rationally in Ayn Rand's model of self-interest).

Some of you think the tide is turning and the masses all over the world are waking up to the abuses of the USA government and other manifestations of the powers-that-be.

The greatest mistake anyone can make is to assume the majority will ever do the right thing. They never do. The majority is always wrong. If that were not the case, then evolution would stop functioning.

Any one who plans for the future based on hope in the system and the majority, is a sheeple cow and will prosper when society does and suffer when society does.

We westerners have experienced an amazingly long period of prosperity in the world and especially in the Western nations. This has been propped up by central banks which never allow any debt defaults to correct excesses and misallocations. Thus we've amassed a huge debt bubble that is going to pop with horrific implications on society-at-large.

The powers-that-be are well aware of how to manipulate this "awakening". As always, they turn idealism into fury and collective outcomes which empower their designs. They infiltrated the Black Panters during the Vietnam protest era. They helped to fuel the "free sex, free drugs" destruction of the boomers and western society. They were instrumental in the Bolshevik Revolution, etc.

They will unleash an economic implosion contagion, social unrest, violence, and upheaval. You will be so busy trying to survive all the crap that is hitting you in your daily life, that you won't have any time to sit down and produce anything. All your pontifications about you can do this and that, will fly out the window when you are too busy trying to avoid the daily violence and secure your food.

The growing hatred of the USA and the angst that will be spread, is fuel for the fire of burning the nation-state system to the ground, after which the weary burned out fury will welcome the one world governance savior to restore order.

The masses love chaos when they've been cooped up too long in a well controlled order. Let them fight for a while and grow weary then they will beg for order again and to be managed like the compliant sheeple they really are.

You are safe within the herd until the herd stampedes over a cliff or stampedes over you.

Because the majority are not leaders. The majority are sheeple and I think that includes you reader.

[Gosroth]

This is so ridiculously hilarious. It's like designing a tank to be usable in space when there is almost zero likelihood that such a situation could actually happen.

Yes, that's all well and good we think some magically powerful, incredibly strong entity might be able to coerce decentralized pools and miners to accept its ultimatum that it be regulated under the statutes it deems acceptable or be seized, but there is near zero possibility that it could happen. You see, even the strongest government lives in a situation of checks and balances against not only the people that are complicit in its bullshit system, but the other governments worldwide that exist and hold power.

Should classical government come to the conclusion that mining pools act as "Money Transmitting Businesses," there is effectively zero initiative and zero precedent for any governmental or intergovernmental agency to act upon it. In fact, it would be a significant disadvantage to the "powers that be aka USA" to take such a hostile position to an asset class that could potentially find itself useful worldwide.

Mr. testicles (so hilariously named that if his testicles WERE made of this unusually heavy element they would almost instantaneously disintegrate, leaving him with zero malehood) has an unusually strong belief that some kind of new world order immune to global checks and balances would be able to control and pose a threat to individual miners. This is simply not true if you look at the present state of the world powers.

Many other arguments ("why are you posting on a forum instead of developing solutions" "why are you responding and allowing insufficiently technical discussions to further increase your own intelligence and credibility when there are apparently critical issues to take care of") also elude to his one-sided, egoistic view of the world.

I guess all I can say is I'm glad he's here endlessly contributing to ridiculous theories on forums instead of actually contributing to effective software which might be less effective due to his biased inputs.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

even the strongest government lives in a situation of checks and balances against not only the people that are complicit in its bullshit system, but the other governments worldwide that exist and hold power.

As I explained in my prior post, all the people of the world are deluded (or at least divided and multifaceted priorities) in ways that hand the power to the powers-that-be. You don't seem to grasp or be aware of the undeniable fact of Iron Law of Collective Political Economics.

Have fun with your ideological idealism, but it has no basis in history or actual outcomes. You pontificate without fact checking.

Thus your opinions are useless ideological ranting. Erect a soap box and blabber to yourself while pedestrians ferry by you unfazed, oh the drool. Meanwhile serious business folks and software developers will remain focused on reality as it actually is.

Should classical government come to the conclusion that mining pools act as "Money Transmitting Businesses,"

They can also rule they (mining pools and Bitcoin itself) act as "Money Laundering" vehicles, because one can use cash to buy mining equipment and then convert that into Bitcoins, or buy Bitcoins directly with cash. Thus AML (Anti-Money Laundering) law can be applied. One of the requirements for AML is KYC (Know Your Customer). So this means every user has to be identified.

Can you please stop the bullshit? Do you enjoy deluding yourself?

They would not want to move very fast on regulation, because they want all of you to remain deluded for as long as possible, and so will act only when it is time to take all your wealth (when the shit hits the fan global collapse ensues[1]).

[1]	http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/12/01/the-government-know-sovereign-debt-defaults-are-coming/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/12/01/changing-bankruptcy-laws-for-banks/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/12/02/can-money-just-be-devalued-creating-deflation-as-a-solution/

there is effectively zero initiative and zero precedent for any governmental or intergovernmental agency to act upon it.

Fuck were you born yesterday. Seriously man, have you not observed how KYC is applied every where in the world today, when it wasn't applied before 9/11.

Mr. testicles (so hilariously named that if his testicles WERE made of this unusually heavy element they would almost instantaneously disintegrate, leaving him with zero malehood)

The name has worked perfectly to induce you to sign up a newbie account to hide your original forum identity, so as to reveal the EGO insecurity you have. So who has testicles?

Many other arguments ("why are you posting on a forum instead of developing solutions"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=880088.msg9715392#msg9715392

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg9692846#msg9692846

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=880088.msg9715758#msg9715758

"why are you responding and allowing insufficiently technical discussions to further increase your own intelligence and credibility when there are apparently critical issues to take care of")

EGO insecurity.

You are apparently technically incapable of perceiving the level of technical acumen on display (not only by me, e.g. I can't take credit for Armstrong's work, smooth's help on understanding ring signatures, and gmaxell's help on understanding Winternitz optimization).

also elude to his one-sided, egoistic view of the world.

Ignore Armstrong's ECM model's predictions at your peril. See the Mad Max thread in Politics and Society forum for details.

[ArnoldChippy]

Would that be current debt that's built upon a fraud by any chance? 

Yes it is. You still can't erase it without hurting innocent people.

More importantly, you can't pay it without hurting many more innocent people for generations into the future.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Would that be current debt that's built upon a fraud by any chance?  

Yes it is. You still can't erase it without hurting innocent people.

More importantly, you can't pay it without hurting many more innocent people for generations into the future.

Correct and astute. Debt writedowns have to come. But I am just saying you can't write them down without hurting any innocent people, which seemed to be what you were implying originally.

Well managed debt writedowns involve spreading the pain over a decade or more so that the dislocation doesn't plunge society into a Dark Age. Armstrong was interested to help to design such. But instead we have the central banks continuing to increase the debt problem. Thus we are much more likely to get a chaotic dislocation and head into a radically abrupt downspiral.

Global contagion ETA is 2016 according to Armstrong's ECM model.