Quote from: monsterer on January 20, 2016, 08:25:31 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 20, 2016, 01:11:49 AM

Quote from: monsterer on January 17, 2016, 10:06:42 AM

Why is it not enough to find one global sequence for all transactions ever made?

There doesn't exist such a sequence.

Nonetheless, the answer is 'yes' is it not?

Because 'find' is insufficient. As I have stated in my prior posts (which again you seem to ignore or lack reading comprehension), there must also be a way to enforce that all participants agree on that global ordering. Since I (and user 'enet') have explained that any global (i.e. total) ordering will be arbitrary, then the only way to force all participants to agree is the longest chain rule.

You can try to dream up other methods such as voting, but when you work through it you will realize there is no unambiguous enforcement mechanism (there is always some game theory around the assumptions made). And this lack of enforcement mechanism on the rule that participants must use, is the reason a DAG is inconsistent and I conjecture will diverge (unless there are centralized servers implementing consistent rules and thus it is no longer decentralized).

Please don't make me explain this again. Every since we started discussing Iota, you have continued to repeat this same myopia over and over and over and over and over and over again. It is very redundant and it is cluttering the thread with noise. Whoever can't understand this very simple concept by now, isn't likely to ever understand it.

Quote from: monsterer on January 20, 2016, 08:25:31 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 20, 2016, 01:11:49 AM

Profitability of mining has nothing to do with the miner's economics of double-spending.

I'm afraid it has everything to do with it:

In bitcoin the recipient of a transaction knows that they can wait for 1 block to safely accept up to 25 BTC*, because the double spending miner might as well just take the block reward rather than bother with the double spend. If you remove the block reward, it becomes very difficult to judge when it is ok to accept a transaction because you have removed the honest miner's incentive and therefore part of the game theory.

Incorrect. You completely failed to comprehend the explanation I made in my prior post. Try reading it again and again and again until you can comprehend.

The payers must send a PoW with their transaction. They will selfishly choose to sign the block which will include their transactions. To double-spend (other than Finney attack which is an error of payees) requires more PoW hashrate than the hashrate of the selfishly-honest payers. And the attacker won't be able to sustain this mining equipment with any profit or even recover significant income, because mining is unprofitable.

Quote from: monsterer on January 20, 2016, 08:25:31 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 20, 2016, 01:11:49 AM

It seems to me you lack the imagination and creativity to paradigm shift the problem space, hehe.

It seems to me that your design is likely to be broken because you have not elected to peer review your work before implementing it.

You have shown no such weakness in my current design. Yeah I found flaws in my prior designs. So what. I made it very clear in the past that those designs were still under study and that I was not announcing the details until I was satisfied with my internal review.

This thread is not for FUD based on uninformed guessing. If you have a concrete flaw, then discuss. Spilling FUD about my design before a white paper is even released will degrade this thread into a pissing match.

I know very well what the weaknesses are in my design and I will be explaining those shortly.

Quote from: monsterer on January 20, 2016, 08:33:32 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 20, 2016, 01:11:49 AM

Whereas, a DAG (or any tree with multiple branches) can't unambigously define an ordering in its data structure.

I've already shown you why this statement is incorrect. If you'd like me to go into more detail, I will.

No you have not! Damn it, you make me repeat the same explanations over and over and over and over again. My time is very limited. Please be respectful of the fact that I have too much to do and not enough time. I am in a desperate financial condition, and we need to implement solutions for crypto asap because time is slipping away. Please try to upgrade the level of your comprehension. This post consumed 30 - 40 minutes of my time,

What you showed is that if you had some master in charge of the entire DAG then he could identify an ordering in the data structure, That master would benefit from a master clock and order the transactions chronologically. But I have already explained that the universe can't be synchronous (even if you built that centralized master funnel, it wouldn't interopt with the world and scale and be trustless). Thus you completely fail to consider that you also need an unambiguous rule which enforces your graphed ordering on all participants.

Since there is no (there can't be a) master clock in a DAG, then the only way to order the transactions is with a probabilistic assessment, but this assessment can't even be forced on all the participants. Thus the chaos and divergence will result. In other words, a DAG is Partition tolerant, therefore the Consistency is lost. The CAP theorem has so held.