Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 09, 2016, 08:19:19 AM

Quote from: Fuserleer on January 09, 2016, 02:34:53 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 09, 2016, 02:25:47 AM

Quote from: Fuserleer on January 09, 2016, 02:04:49 AM

I think ultimately you are perhaps concentrating on the issue of 2 or more partitions existing for an extended period of time.

You must be referring to monsterer's comments. I was always emphasizing that 2 or more temporary partitions can be tolerated if there is a resolution mechanism.

I was referring to you both.

No temporary partitions can be tolerated at all if the resolution of said partitions is the total destruction of one partition or another. This is the only resolution method possible if the data structure is block based with POW or POS.

If you think otherwise, explain how two blocks secured with POW (or POS) could be merged between two block chains without loss of data? You don't need details on my, or anyone's protocols to explain how this is so.

Temporary partitions can be merged if they don't contain conflicting double-spends. The advantage of creating temporary partitions in this context (what I contemplated in my design) is it afaics can both enable a form of instant transactions and also it can radically reduce the data that must be propagated as a transient spike on block announcement, thus solving the propagation delay which drives orphan rate which is one of the main issues with increasing the block size in Bitcoin and other Satoshi coins such as Monero. Note I didn't write that the temporary partitions have to use PoW or PoS; only the global resolution mechanism does.

As for your (and Iota's) idea of using a different global resolution method, I maintain that no design will be sound if it doesn't use blocks with PoW (or the inferior PoS). The reason is because there is no way to gain Byzantine consistency on double-spends. I have thought about this in great detail for months and years. I will be very stunned if you or anyone else has found an exception to this rule. It seems to be fundamental to the Byzantine Generals Problem. As I explained upthread my understanding for Iota is that if competing cliques with less than 50% of the total hash rate each, for what ever reason decide not to confirm each other's chains, then there is no mechanism in Iota's DAG without blocks to force a consensus and thus the user of the currency has to contend with forks and multiple spends on multiple partitions. Although this may not occur in the early stages for Iota, if it really gains any significant value (not just insiders buying from themselves to pump the illusion of a large market cap and trade volume) that is when it will be tested conceptually. Satoshi's PoW design in Bitcoin (Monero, etc) has already passed this crucial test but PoS and other block chain consensus designs not yet. I suspect for eMunie what you are attempting to design is some resolution based on propagation and different powers for different types of nodes in the network, and I am confident I will be able to point out to you how this is unsound once you release the details. If you want to waste your effort in this direction, who am I to discourage you. I personally don't want to waste any more effort on pie-in-the-sky failure delusion. I can't really nail down with 100% certainty if your design is a delusion until I see all the details, but I strongly suspect it is. I don't say this to be unfriendly with you. I am concerned that we are wasting a lot of effort and resources. I am trying to be very frank with myself as well.

Apologies for misspelling your username upthread.

Quote from: benthach on January 09, 2016, 03:54:29 AM

your scam idea is delusional. the purpose of bitcoin is decentralized money and bitcoin have achieved just that. all this crap scam ideas/add-on smart contracts, smart ledger, crypto 2.0, crypto 9.0 are just delusional scam idea, simple as that.

I have never seen you display in any of your posts (that I've read) any technical knowledge and thus apparently you are not able to comment with any level of sufficient technical understanding. Thus your comments are a total waste of time for readers who are technically capable. So please don't spam this thread. You seem to want to spam every thread I write for some personal reasons. If you want to try to display some technical knowledge, then go ahead and make my day.

In this thread, we have already started documenting why Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 09, 2016, 08:39:54 AM

Crypto currency is up to this point a "mining the investors" paradigm. Not even Bitcoin has achieved viability as a DECENTRALIZED ideal that brought us here in the first place!

The post linked in the above quote, explains that Bitcoin (and any other coin that uses Satoshi's PoW design) is also a "mining the investors" paradigm. In future posts, I will elaborate on the following quote from the OP:

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

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 08, 2016, 03:54:14 PM

I went off on several days of just thinking all day. I contemplated all the possible designs (including Iota's DAG, Lightning Networks, DPOS, Proof-of-Stake, Masternodes, Raiblocks/Blocklattice, etc), and I can't think of any design that uses a block chain or a DAG (or any other form of determining the longest chain of truth) which doesn't either centralize (factoring in society's ability to regulate the consistent partition) or diverge into inconsistent truths. Due to the CAP theorem it is fundamentally impossible for there to exist any block chain or consistent DAG design that won't centralize (even without regulation once you require scaling). Worse yet, it is impossible to attain any sort of end-to-end principled, decentralized scaling of transaction processing, because consistency is lost without centralization (even Proof-of-Work centralizes economically due to the Power Law distribution of capital).

Note I have proposed that including PoW with each transaction may be a solution to the flaws in Satoshi's design which causes it to drive centralization, government takeover, and oligarchy. But I need to spend some more time going over the details of that idea. Note apparently Iota may be implementing some variant of that idea, but as I explained upthread, I don't think it can be Byzantine fault tolerant on Consistency without blocks.

i said again and again, technical knowledge of altcoins = scam idea. this is the reason you never see me talk about it.
"Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed", prove it now! do it, pull the plug! all the scam artists keep saying bitcoin going to fail but it's keep running smoothly. you scammer keep poking and finding holes which never can prove or never prove, not possible. example holes, oh bitcoin taking so long, oh the 51% attack, oh.. oh.. oh.. i'm sure the taking too long is easy fix but do they want to fix? no reason to. the scammers keep bringing all these nonsense ideas just to distracting those dumb morons to fall into their many scams. heck, most of these scammers idea worth millions and some are millionaire when their idea don't even exist or have a working wallet.

i never want to talk in your crap nonsense threads, your shits is just full of it, too much nonsense. i have posts a few replied to your crap threads and you have asked them to delete, which all got deleted. i've never bother to repost or post to your nonsense crap beside this post here. you think you can prove or know something but basically nonsense crap which can prove nothing, you just want to plug in your cheap scam. anon, smart ledgers, smart contracts crap, we don't need your tech shit, mainstream don't need your tech shit. cryptocurrency = decentralized internet money/currency, simple as that, not the type of money which come with a fridge, a bath, a cat with string attached, a borrower, a fat man in a hat with big fat wallet, none of that nonsense craps. you think you can build some credentials here so you can pull a big scam and then be retired, you're talking about retirement/life saving a lot here.

also all of these scam altcoins having chance of 0.0000000000001% adoption. ask you this, what is the purpose of it when there is just 0.0000000000001% adoption?