Re: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?)
Satoshi's single longest chain PoW design insures there can only be one winning perspective on the ordering and thus there is no competing ordering with ambiguously ordered double-spends. Whereas, a DAG (or any tree with multiple branches) can't unambigously define an ordering in its data structure. I know you will think we can order these in time, but I already explained upthread that there is no global clock to timestamp these nodes of the tree with. Thus the only ordering is the structure of the graph.
I'm lost in all these "orderings", looks like you call different things with the same word.
A DAG has multiple chains (branches) of partial orders. This is not a global or total ordering such that we know which transactions occurred in which order relative to each other, when those transactions are on separate branches of the DAG (i.e. separate Partitions).
To simulate a total ordering, Iota uses a math model that it expects all participants to adhere to. Problem is afaics this model can't be enforced, the game theories are unbounded in terms of which model of the total ordering is dominant (in terms of defining double spends), this I conjecture (expect) chaos and divergence of Consistency (i.e. inconsistency a.k.a. lack of global agreement about double-spends and thus which downstream branches of transactions are valid).
A more formal mathematical elucidation would be more unassailable than my English language explanations. Yet I am confident (conjecture) that those who are expert enough can judge my statements to be correct or at least a strong concern.
The problem is without Consistency I expect the DAG to diverge into a chaos of disagreement. You are relying on participants using clients that adhere to the mathematical model you want them to use when choosing which tree branch to append their transactions to (and which acceptance model to use for declaring a transaction is probabilistically confirmed), but given the inconsistency that will arise and the game theories thereof, I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of the thing not blowing up unless you are able to maintain control over what participants do, and then it is no longer decentralized.
My point is there is no equilibrium of just a low rate of double-spends, but rather divergence. I haven't shown this formally (as in a math proof with equations) but I can already see it conceptually.
My point is there is no equilibrium of just a low rate of double-spends, but rather divergence. I haven't shown this formally (as in a math proof with equations) but I can already see it conceptually.
Considering that this point has been made clear several times in the thread, is this something we will just have to wait and see in real time or have I missed the rebuttal?
Please point me/us to an existing rebuttal (not lazy; it will help other readers too), if any. If there isn't one, I would like to request those with sufficient knowledge on the subject to rebut. Trust me, it will be highly appreciated by many of us peasants!
I think we may not see the true risks in the early stage of Iota's launch, because my understanding is they are using some centralized servers in the ramp up phase. So perhaps the payers delegate their math model to these servers. I haven't studied their code to know.
Wait I will try to locate CfB's first reply to my line of argument on this point and come back here and post a link. Hopefully also my posts today have added further weight and/or clarification of my conceptualization.
Here is a link to CfB's post to start reading from (not sure if it is the only or best one):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13536310#msg13536310
Try reading forward in chronological thread order from that post until at least the following:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13542612#msg13542612