Quote from: iamnotback on April 15, 2017, 10:03:56 AM

Quote from: vlight on April 13, 2017, 12:01:05 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on April 13, 2017, 10:14:33 AM

From my deep study of the range of plausible designs for a blockchain consensus system (and I studied much deeper than in than what is contained in that linked thread), I conclude that it is impossible to have a fungible token on a blockchain in which the consensus doesn't become centralized iff the presumption is that the users of the system gain the most value from the system due to its monetary function.

However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff that value can't be financed (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way that is not democracy and is a crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium, then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.

The elite simply weren't aware of these concepts, because I invented them. Nash didn't know this.

And that is what I intend to launch with BitNet.

Quoting, because this post is too valuable Cheesy

More on that...

Quote from: dinofelis on April 15, 2017, 08:13:07 AM

Quote from: IadixDev on April 13, 2017, 03:06:29 PM

You could just remove the reward, any one can mine new block out of the mem pool, if two blocks or tx are in common, a determinstic algorithm could be used to select between the two.

I agree with you. The error in most crypto is the reward, which gives rise to strategies that do not necessarily induce the desired properties. I also think that the only viable kind of crypto currency is where the validation/consensus decision is taken on a voluntary basis, the "reward" being that the system in which you are invested, keeps running correctly.

However, you still need a kind of deterministic decision *that is hard to game* (because you can do "proof of work" like calculations to get the deterministic solution in your advantage). This is why a kind of PoS signature scheme is necessary in my opinion.

@dinofelis, how many times do I have to repeat to you that voting is not free.

Ethereum's Casper shit is more of the same proof-of-stake (nothing-at-stake or centralization by economic weight, e.g. DPoS) nonsense. The betting stuff enables what Vitalik refers to as "dark uncles" or "dunkles", which Vitalik incorrectly thinks will solve the nothing-at-stake problem. Also Casper has the problem that all deterministic finality PoS and Byzatine agreement systems have, which is a 33% liveness threshold which if that many validators balk or stop processing, then the chain can't move forward without a hard fork.

The only way to replace PoW is with an Inverse Commons consensus protocol, which is my new invention.

Quote from: IadixDev on April 15, 2017, 10:07:04 AM

And all together your comment also show that you dont see my perpective, and why the thing you point doesnt matter, and what I meant with checkpoint is that you would only need real pow consencus on this checkpoint to "harden" The chain if you want to enforce a particular order on the tx/block, but that would just be about one packet saying this block height is this block hash, and having a pow once in a while on this checkpoint instead of every block.

I invented that already in collaboration with @jl777 for Komodo in 2016. It is named dPoW (delayed proof-of-work).

CounterParty does something somewhat analogous as well.

And really it isn't a secure and sound solution, but more of a gimick. Because the local consensus still have to decide what to submit for checkpoints because the PoW system isn't validating every thing and can't resolve conflicting double-spending orderings that occurred between checkpoints.

Yes they still have to check validity in between, the checkpoint is just to rule out the 0.01% proba that could happen with collision or when nodes could think they are on the same chain but are not because of a weird low probability thing, it's just to push this probability few zero down.

But the core of the idea is not dPoW or only this, this is just additional measure to push probability of erroneous consensus few zero down

I still think you miss the gist of the idea lol