Quote from: sor.rge on June 12, 2013, 08:25:41 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on June 12, 2013, 08:12:22 PM

And who decides who was 1, 2, 3?

Timestamp ordering of the initial SH deposit transaction.

Then I can game the random number generator since the seed is known a priori before I set my timestamp. If you argue that another SH sets my timestamp, I argue that I can send my deposit transaction to one of the SH I control.

You keep trying to pretend there is entropy where there isn't. It is fundamental. More chasing your tail in circles trying to design away from a fundamental concept that can't be designed away from?

I repeat:

Quote from: AnonyMint on June 12, 2013, 08:12:22 PM

You keep pushing the problem to the same problem all over again. I already told you this, but you refuse to listen. See quote of myself below.

Quote from: AnonyMint on June 12, 2013, 06:32:20 PM

Quote from: sor.rge on June 12, 2013, 06:07:44 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on June 12, 2013, 07:06:57 AM

There is no possible solution. This is why only Proof-of-Work is viable for achieving consensus.

Even if that solution didn't work out, there is no proof of this statement.

The proof is that the only way you get the necessary entropy is by having every peer compete to be first. Everyone other form of entropy has a point of failure that there is no decision, the consensus is required ad infinitum at every point where you design it away to another point.

For how many more posts are you going to waste time talking in circles like a dog chasing his tail? You can't design away the problem of needing consensus on the order but no one can make that decision (without opening a point of failure that can be gamed).