Quote from: TPTB_need_war on August 10, 2015, 11:04:42 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on August 10, 2015, 10:14:37 AM

Quote from: cbeast on August 10, 2015, 06:48:07 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on August 10, 2015, 06:26:01 AM

Afaics his abstract paper does not deal with some of the intricacies of the economics that have to be solved in order to make the design actually work in the real world.

You see that often in unseasoned theorists.

Someone asked me in a PM for my opinion of VanillaCoin. I just expended 15 minutes studying it for the first time:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=977245.0

The DarkPP stuff is vaporware and no details are available.

It claims some efficiency improvements over Bitcoin and Peercoin. Appears the developer is a seasoned P2P networking programmer. If I had to venture a guess, he probably was a former developer of a Bittorrent client.

The main feature of significance is the zero confirmation time research which attempts to gain a faster consensus. Unfortunately he seems to entirely forget any game theory analysis. The Byzantine fault tolerance in proof-of-work consensus is due to game theory incentives given by the proof-of-work rewards. He expects these peers to behave a certain optimum way when they are not being paid to do so. Many faults will be found in his design because of this. I don't have time to go outline the faults.

Satoshi was a lot more astute than many people might realize. If you are going to improve upon Satoshi's work, you need to be very sharp.

satoshi also assumed price will consistently remain above cost of production, which once a its listed on traded markets will not always be the case (admittedly something satoshi did add is a passing disclaimer), if such occured for an extended period guess what; "He expects these peers to behave a certain optimum way when they are not being paid to do so" Kiss