How I Fixed Satoshi's Design
There was a really good summary of why Casper's planned sharding is flawed.
Apparently everybody is still oblivious to my solution.
If you shard the blockchain, you've still got to verify it. You can't have shards trusting each other, as that breaks Nash equilibrium (there are game theories other than the one that guarantees the security of the long-chain rule).
But if you have every shard verify every other shard, then you don't have sharding any more.
My hypothetical solution is a statistical one (where the economic interests of all shards become intertwined) combined with eventual consistency where it is required to maintain the Nash equilibrium.
SegWit is (in one aspect but not entirely as afaik it really just centralizes proof-of-work) generally analogous to a similar conceptual idea I had thought of and dismissed, because it relies on the trust that the economically impacted parties will verify before eventual consistency is required, not on the proof that those parties did verify before it was required. The game theory gets quite complex because there are externalities such as shorting the coin. So it is possible I may have a mistake and we will find out once I publish.
Looks like some random Bitcoin dev posting under a throwaway account:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4vmh35/meth_users_re_assure_each_other_that_etc_the_coin/d5zxr7s?st=irci5tcm&sh=bcbbaec2
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4vmh35/meth_users_re_assure_each_other_that_etc_the_coin/d5zxr7s?st=irci5tcm&sh=bcbbaec2
There was a really good summary of why Casper's planned sharding is flawed.
Apparently everybody is still oblivious to my solution.
If you shard the blockchain, you've still got to verify it. You can't have shards trusting each other, as that breaks Nash equilibrium (there are game theories other than the one that guarantees the security of the long-chain rule).
But if you have every shard verify every other shard, then you don't have sharding any more.
My hypothetical solution is a statistical one (where the economic interests of all shards become intertwined) combined with eventual consistency where it is required to maintain the Nash equilibrium.
SegWit is (in one aspect but not entirely as afaik it really just centralizes proof-of-work) generally analogous to a similar conceptual idea I had thought of and dismissed, because it relies on the trust that the economically impacted parties will verify before eventual consistency is required, not on the proof that those parties did verify before it was required. The game theory gets quite complex because there are externalities such as shorting the coin. So it is possible I may have a mistake and we will find out once I publish.
Reviewing the video I had done for this thread back in February where I critiqued some aspect of Casper:
I did make one video on Ethereum when I was feeling not so energetic, so you can sort of get a feel for myself as a public speaker but note I was suffering from my illness when I made this:
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Shelby_Ethereum_Paradox.avi (Feb 15 2016)
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Shelby_Ethereum_Paradox.avi (Feb 15 2016)
At the end of that rambling video, I finally got to the point. But amazingly I didn't come to the very obvious conclusion on how to fix the problem that computation on a blockchain faces. I basically stated it in the last part of that video, but I failed to connect the dots.
Now I see the solution. It was right there in front of our face all along. Why has no one seen it
(Of course I am not going to tell you. You tell me. I want to see if anyone else can figure it out)