Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 08, 2016, 07:34:52 PM

Quote from: Fuserleer on January 08, 2016, 07:17:48 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 08, 2016, 06:58:11 PM

The truth of each channel still has to be a consensus. It doesn't change the fundamental issues of how to prove consensus about double-spends within the partition. Even there are chosen nodes who are signatories for determining the truth of the channel, this then not permissionless because the government can attack those specific nodes.

Detail your design and I will rip it to shreds.

You forget one critical thing which everyone forgets as soon as they read my consensus document.

The chosen nodes are ever changing in very short time windows (minutes) and are not static. The fluidity of those nodes is critical to preventing exactly the problem that you are highlighting.

Furthermore the IP addresses of the chosen nodes are never known to the network so malicious agents, government or otherwise, are going to have a real hard time keeping abreast of not only who the next signatories are to resolve consensus issues, but also where to point their attack.

On top of that after a number of growth years there may be 100s or 1000s of signatories voting on consensus, and an attacker would have to take out at least 50% of them to cause even mild disruption. The worst case is transaction processing halts for a few minutes until the next set of nodes are eligible and the network continues operating. In the mean time an attacker has to identify who the next m voters are, locate n of them and take them out....rinse, repeat a few minutes later.

What I have discovered with all my years of attempting crypto designs, is that adding complexity just obscures the fact that there is a flaw in the design.

Until you provide more detail of your eMunie design, it is impossible to identify the flaw, but I am quite confident that you can not have consensus without Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake. There has to be some resource applied and 50% (or less in some attack scenarios) control of that resource will determine the unambiguous consensus.

Either you are relying on propagation to resolve consensus, which monsterer and I already discussed in my thread (and other threads) as being fundamentally unsound, or you are relying on PoW/PoS to elect signatories. Yes it is possible to change the signatories on a clock (and that clock can be ticked by PoW or PoS), but the problem is that signatories can be lie and be Sybil attack and again the only way to resolve that is with PoW/PoS (which are also centralizing). It always comes back to the same conclusion.

You must use PoW or PoS and thus the problems of centralization and government control are the end result of all of what we are doing here. And helping to force a world government cooperation of regulating the internet, encryption, and Bitcoin mining. Bitcoin is a Trojan Horse that weakens the nation-states and traditional banks, which must fight back by cooperating with a world governance regulation of the internet and Bitcoin mining.

Remember I predicted this when I first joined this forum in March 2013. I tried for the past years to develop a solution and it is quite frustrating to realize the 666 system can't be stopped.

Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch

Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch

Yea but that's the plan, bitcoin was made by the goverment LOL, IMA BE RICH BOIIIIII