Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 18, 2016, 10:07:47 AM

Quote from: sandiman on February 18, 2016, 09:13:56 AM

This redudancy + partionning paradox is extremely hard to understand for a newbie who's native language is not even english...

It would be really appreciated if someone could rephrase this paradox summing up with easy terms what is the issue and its consequencies Grin

I am years ago of your computer science knowledge and I may stay years ago of your knowledge in this field for the rest of my life since it isn't my study field.

Thank you in advance. Grin

Hopefully r0ach and others can offer their laymen's summaries.

What you need to know is that Ethereum as it is currently designed can't scale just as Bitcoin can't scale, but the level of scaling which the current Ethereum can do is much less than even Bitcoin's current limitation because verification/validation of Serpent scripts takes more resources than verification/validation of ECDSA signatures.

For both Bitcoin and Ethereum, this is not just an issue of block size limitation. The issue is that in order to scale, the mining becomes more centralized. I think you will should note that Bitcoin and all other major coins are entirely centralized already and on the precipice of failure (all of them! study my links!).

Thus Ethereum proposed Casper which is a design that attempts to use sharding (a.k.a. partitions) to improve scaling decentralized. But I explained in this thread, that can't work. To reduce electricity consumption, Ethereum also proposed PoS-like consensus-by-betting with forfeitable deposits. PoS has known failure modes that violate Nash equilibrium.

So the point of all this is that Ethereum and all the rest of the crypto coins have not yet solved the fundamental issue of decentralized consensus.

If you want to read a theoretical discussion of why, I did that too.

Okay that is enough from me. Adios.

Very interesting answer, thank you a lot for that.

If you are right, positive side should be seen, that all these fails being recognized can be seen as a transition toward a more perfect cryptocurrency. Nonetheless, it seems like you are willing to see a perfect cryptocurrencie, but I am sure I do not need to remind you the saying... Considering Schumpeter's gale, I find it very interesting to look closely how innovation clusters possess destructive cycle in itself. (I hope i was clear, english is not my native language Shocked

)