Quote from: miscreanity on January 22, 2017, 05:17:32 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on January 19, 2017, 10:56:19 PM

Quote from: miscreanity on January 19, 2017, 10:45:55 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on January 19, 2017, 07:45:55 PM

Quote from: CoinCube on January 19, 2017, 06:24:47 PM

What interest me is the role bitcoin plays in improving the signalling mechanism of money.

...

Whereas, the crypto-currency I am going to offer (not only fixes Bitcoins problems) but it also has perpetual deflation (the money supply is forever asymptotically shrinking), thus it will provide the signaling you aim for. I am not making this up now, as this was already in my white paper which is already recorded online.

That struck me as an interesting element in Ripple, although there the supply was instantly available. Anxiously curious to see how you've got the supply structured to avoid instamine.

Actually at the start the money supply in my design is expanding. As it matures, the money supply can begin contracting.

I contrasted with PoS and PoW:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1744718.msg17558554#msg17558554

I see - not sure how it doesn't centralize then without some sort of demurrage or growing fee for older transactions.

The money supply will always be power-law or exponentially distributed for any resource. I document this claim with some references in my whitepaper.

What my design posits to do is maintain the consensus algorithm decentralized regardless. They key is finding a way to eliminate a Sybil attack without relying on a resource that becomes centralized. And to remove advantages due to economies-of-scale in the economics that impact the consensus algorithm and its long-term stability. I believe I have achieved it theoretically via separation-of-concerns. In other words, I slice-and-dice the responsibilities for achieving consensus such that no party has economy-of-scale incentives. I do this with a feedback mechanism, which I view as analogous to Byzantine fault detection. The design needs peer review, so assume a flaw may be found.

Quote from: miscreanity on January 22, 2017, 05:17:32 AM

So BFD to throttle bad actors, transaction ordering to facilitate reliable cross-chain commits while obviating the need for mining, and some form of cryptographic signature to seal the deal. It would seem that makes your approach more of a blockchain-agnostic protocol than a static design?

I can't grok what you are writing here.