Quote from: bigfryguy on June 13, 2016, 10:16:10 PM

Is VCash the most scalable crypto around?

No.

Quote from: haendehochueberfall on June 13, 2016, 10:58:36 PM

Crypto doesn't scale because of latency and bandwidth. Anyone who tells you different is a scammer.

True for Satoshi's design. Other designs are feasible.

Quote from: Fuserleer on June 14, 2016, 12:03:19 AM

Block chains can't scale without centralization...period. Anyone that says otherwise is arguing against CAP theorem which is an effect of the speed of light limit.

Correct but incorrect.

Please note that centralization of control is orthogonal to other aspects of centralization. When we say 'decentralized', what we really mean is decentralization of control.

And that is the strongest hint I have ever provided about my design.

Quote from: Fuserleer on June 14, 2016, 12:03:19 AM

Side chains are nasty hacks that add more problems than they solve, as is the lightning network, segwit and all the other "work arounds".

Agreed. They are Rube Goldberg designs.

Of egregious note, is that SegWit delegates validation to centralized nodes who then have control over which transactions are accepted, thus very easy to implement the 666 ChainAnchor plan from MIT. And SegWit involves trust without verification of validation, thus puts Nash equilibrium on more shaky foundation wherein we trust centralization, i.e. Blockstream is moving Bitcoin towards a fiat system. It appears the Chinese mining cartel and Blockstream are in bed together because you can note that the Chinese cartel used the lame and technically incorrect excuse that the Great Firewall of China prevented them from approving larger block size increases of Bitcoin XT and Classic. But what is really going on, is as explained in my discussion with Professor Jorge Stolfi, that the Chinese cartel wants to be able to control the block size increase so as to maximize the equation for transaction fees.

Quote from: iamnotback on June 09, 2016, 09:42:49 PM

How do you calculate that Blockstream is for small blocks Huh

Blockstream is for making sure they and the Chinese mining cartel control how fast the block size increases, so they can squeeze maximum transactions fees that the market will bear. You could read the Reddit discussion between Professor Jorge Stolfi and TPTB_need_war, which explained this.

And SegWit is all about centralization of validation, so that we get a 666 enslavement system. Do you think the powers-that-be invested $70 million in Blockstream for no reason. Come on. You don't think (Mr. ZIRP and Russian oligarchy maker) Larry Summers (who is on the board of 21 Inc.), Peter Thiel (BitPay, gifted $100k to Vitalik @ Ethereum, etc), and other banksters elite are in on that. Come on.

There is only one possible way you defeat those bastards. And that is to make something so popular, that can't be centralized. Once it is very popular, they will have a difficult time taking it away from the people.

Even the French presidential candidate Le Pen, is advocating banning Bitcoin because she has realized AnonyMint was correct in 2013 when he wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch:

http://www.coindesk.com/french-presidential-hopeful-bitcoin-ban/

Some people are starting to realize that Bitcoin is a Trojan Horse planted to force nation-states off of cash and into a digital enslavement.

Quote from: Fuserleer on June 14, 2016, 12:03:19 AM

This is a debate I've had many times and I spent a long time looking for solutions back in 2012-2013 before realizing the obvious.

A block chain is "a single threaded process", if you want more performance/scalability the only thing you can do is add more processing power per node, which raises the barrier to entry and reduces the number of nodes doing the actual processing (centralization).

The only way to increase scalability to 10,000 tps and beyond and maintain decentralization is to add parallelism to the processing of transactions, and drop the block chain based ledger structure. We're the only project that does that and has it functional today.

Eth is also looking at something similar, but they are 2+ years away from it as of today and it has limitations due to it being block chain based shards.

Problem is that sharding destroys Nash equilibrium if ever any state transition (e.g. transaction) from two or more different shards needs to be combined, because the two or more shards need to validate the history of each other else they rely on trust which destroys Nash equilibrium. But if they must validate each other, then they are back to the single-threaded process where all full nodes validate all transactions. You could try to isolate histories of individual transactions within shards (I suspect this is what eMunie does?) but it won't require too much cross-shard transactions before most of the history of each involved shard has to be validated.

Thus I have never viewed sharding as a workable solution to scaling validation (which is the design error of Ethereum's coming Casper). Instead I viewed ephemeral sharding as an excellent solution for the bandwidth and latency aspects of scaling. Unfortunately I must be vague else I will give too many hints about my design before it is released.

On top of all that, control must be decentralized.

I believe I have already the perfect design for a block chain. I am in implementation mode.