Quote from: thejaytiesto on December 09, 2017, 05:12:37 PM

If your blocks are huge, then your transactions are validated by some corporation.

Even if the blocks are small, an oligarchy is the only possible outcome of proof-of-work, both because of economies-of-scale of ASICs which cant be avoided with any algorithm and because as transaction fees become the majority of the mining income then consensus does not converge (i.e. is incentives incompatible).

Quote from: thejaytiesto on December 09, 2017, 05:12:37 PM

So you either pay increasingly bigger fees for onchain transactions, or pay a tradeoff in a less-than-ideal transaction if you want to cater for the masses demands. Maybe this tradeoff cannot ever be avoided because it's some sort of physical limit? (like the speed of light or whatever). That is the trillion dollar question. If someone comes up with something that keeps your track record as safe as a strong PoW network without all the negatives then it would be a real bitcoin killer. What are the chances of this happening anytime soon?

I claim to have that design already (and my angels have read it). Its described in the secret version of the linked document above (which I may have sent you a link to some months ago) which doesnt have the second half of the document elided.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on December 09, 2017, 05:12:37 PM

I would say rather low.

I would say rather high because Im privy to information you dont know yet, except I will say I cant be sure that my design will remain decentralized. And the security model is different. Yet what I hope is:

Quote from: CornCube on December 09, 2017, 07:12:59 AM

As I explained upthread, I think the only social consensus should be to maintain immutability.

Quote from: CornCube on December 03, 2017, 10:08:59 PM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 02, 2017, 05:27:34 PM

Quote from: CornCube on November 28, 2017, 02:06:19 PM

Its true that I see even flaws in my own design which could potentially cause it to become centralized, but Im working on the notion that people will be able to form groups of like-mindedness about protecting the invariants of the protocol. The key is for the community to be able to objectively distinguish malfeasance and for each individual to be able to independently and effectively route around it, i.e. castrating the powe of political influence.

The devil is in the details.

You contradict yourself regarding forming a democratic utopia when it is convenient to do so to support your arguments. In the above quote in a separate thread, you compose an argument for what I have been arguing all along ITT... leveraging Social Consensus to keep a protocol static. If you believe such Social Consensus can be obtained to keep a protocol the same (IE. BCH), then surely the same Social Consensus can be reached to change a protocol for the betterment of the protocol (IE. Bitcoin). You can not castrate political influence altogether

Im delighted you went scouring in another thread and brought this up. Because youre advertising for me. Thanks.

You correctly rebutted yourself. The key distinction is using social consensus to keep a protocol immutable, not for changing it. And to do that requires that each individual can act independently to defect from mutations. Also of course it requires that the protocol meet the needs of most users and not need changes.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on December 09, 2017, 05:12:37 PM

Until then you have to live with what you have, and BTC is what we have. If this real bitcoin killer that defeats it on every department shows up, we would get rich as fuck since we would be the first to know about it (we would know at least in practice, since it doesn't work until it's in the wild, holding billions of a marketcap and not blowing up, but let's say it works in theory then on practice). Sounds too good to be true, so for the time being, you better hold some BTC, with it's cons and pros, it's what we have thus far. The other altcoin proponents have always some weaknesses that simply don't cut it and wouldn't justify mass exodus from BTC to them. Speculation is wild when some of these show up. Just see IOTA. You could have turned 1 BTC into 10 BTC the other day, during BTC's bull. It shows there's a demand for a "bitcoin killer", but like I said, in the long term it goes back to BTC since there isn't such thing yet.

IOTA is entirely centralized and requires a Coordinator they refuse to remove and let it run decentralized because they know their consensus technology is a (fabulous technobabble) lie. Use google with site:bitcointalk.org Come-from-Beyond TPTB_need_war" and site:bitcointalk.org Come-from-Beyond iamnotback" to find the banned technical discussions. Someone who invested in the ICO told me they refuse to release tokens to all and that is why the price is mooning (limited supply which is not accurately accounted for in the Coinmarketcap) and when they do finally release the tokens, then the price may crash.

To bring your post back on topic to this thread, indeed we must enter another crypto winter eventually, because the technologies and reality doesnt quite yet meet the speculative expectations.

But I want to make it clear that no altcoin which scales volume transaction volume will have the same security model as proof-of-work. Therefore, BTC will never be replaced as the reserve currency. Yet do note that proof-of-work will ways be run by an oligarchy (which for example in the case of Bitcoin makes it superior to proof-of-stake), thus the security model is one of transparency of correctness but weakness against fragility. The proof-of-work security model is antifragile on the long-tail distribution; whereas, my design is long-term antifragile but near-term less deterministically transparently objective (aka Vitaliks weak subjectivity but with some improvements wherein I employ statistical objectivity).

For example, the point of my altcoin project is to scale into the knowledge age (i.e. not compete for the most liquid, fungible reserve currency unit-of-account). Its not to actually kill Bitcoin, which would be a silly futile goal:

Quote from: CornCube on December 07, 2017, 05:21:06 AM

Yes altcoins can already do transactions much cheaper than Bitcoin and that doesnt matter. Bitcoins transaction volume demand will always continue to increase because BTC is the reserve currency of crypto and so everyone wants to bank their profits in their unit-of-account which is BTC.

Bitcoins transaction market share will drop precipitously, but its share of the economic pie of crypto will remain very significant and grow because of the reason I stated. BTC miners/whales do not care about transaction volume, they care about value of the transactions and thus the amount of fees that those whose transacts fit within 1MB block size can afford to pay. For example, when every BTC transaction is $10 million, then a $5000 fee per transaction will not be a problem.

Quote from: CornCube on December 09, 2017, 10:00:31 PM

Quote from: realr0ach on December 09, 2017, 09:37:31 PM

Quote from: CornCube on December 09, 2017, 09:02:43 PM

I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan. Youre wasting your time idolizing shiny pieces of metal thinking that is a solution to anything.

Were moving into a knowledge age. I will not repeat all the upthread explanations and links. Readers can scroll back.

Unless you're trying to channel Coincube over here, it's kind of ludicrous you claim to know what god is.

Satan can be characterized as the collective failure of humans, e.g. as it says in the Bible that 666 is the number of a man.

The images of Satan as some devilish creature can be construed to be an attempt to visualize this collective failure. It doesnt necessarily mean that Satan is that creature.

We should also define failure in this context. Failure is an integral facet of the inexorable universal trend towards maximum entropy. Fungible systems tend towards top-down, economies-of-scale, thus must eventually be destroyed by creative destruction in order for maximum entropy to progress. Yet they are expedient and necessary along the way. They for example harbor stability for a while.

Quote from: CornCube on December 10, 2017, 02:17:08 AM

Quote from: realr0ach on December 09, 2017, 10:53:15 PM

Cryptocurrency either centralizes into complete control faster and more so than anything else, or you just have endless chain forks like bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, etc. [] All roads lead to subsidizing your own enslavement. And this is why I prefer metals.

The endless forking means it cant be entirely centralized. The fungible value will always be sucked into the center (i.e. Zionists who control the reserve currency Bitcoin), but remember my (AnonyMints) seminal essay is that knowledge production cant be extracted with fungible finance. I keep repeating this and it keeps flying right over your head. You may never grok it.

Fungible money and the fixed capital investment industrial age is dying.

Quote from: realr0ach on December 09, 2017, 11:26:58 PM

If you don't want to live in an unwinnable casino gulag, metals wins again because shorting to cost of production just gives you a free money buying opportunity.

Only for metals which sit in your basement and are entirely useless. As soon as you need to actually spend them as money, then you will always be right back in the Zionists fungible money system.