Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on November 06, 2015, 10:21:45 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on November 06, 2015, 10:16:46 PM

I expect that when you do finally issue a white paper, the weakness is going to be the economic model will be gameable such that there is either a loss of Consistency, Availability, or Partition tolerance.

I believe Availability will always be nine nines for any decentralized cryptocurrency and Consistency will always be eventual, so Partition tolerance is the only toy we all can play with.

I have already argued to you in your Iota thread that your definition of Availability has no relevant meaning (propagation to across the peer network is not a semantic outcome). Rather a meaningful Availability is the ability to put your transaction into the concensus. In Bitcoin, that availability is limited in several ways:

Confirmation is only every 10 minutes.
Inclusion is in a block is dependent on the whims of the node which won the block, and on the maximum block size.
One who has sufficient hashrate power, has higher availability.
51% of the network hashrate power can blacklist your Availability.

It is my stance, that the holistic game theory analysis of Availability in Iota, eMunie, and "block list" is much more muddled thus far. The multifurcated tree of Iota appears to be multiple (potentially inConsistent) Partitions, so Availability to create a new tree branch doesn't appear to be meaningful Availability since there is no confirmation of consensus.