Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 01:42:35 AM

DNS does not have single point of failure and uses a tree structure of command but even if you took the top node down the system still works
and if needs be the structure could assign itself a new top level node using voting. Think more down the lines of Coordinators in relation to coins
to break nodes down into useful groups. Tree structure will scale better than what we have now, no brainier.

1) DNS is not secure, 2) easily blocked and 3) not used to transact millions of dollars worth of currency.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 01:42:35 AM

Coordinators will all so deal with trust rating so nodes that start playing stupid get blocked so good bye BS about 51% attack and hello GUID node
registration.

Coordinators require trust, which is something cryptocurrencies are striving to get rid of.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 01:42:35 AM

Quote

The consensus protocol itself is quite interesting and I'm sure that LN has borrowed some pages from it (assuming there is no prior work on which both protocols are based upon) but I still find it hard to trust a payment network that relies on a central corporate entity for both development and token issuance. I'm sure that Ripple has merits of its own but it's not quite what I expect from a cryptocurrency.

The currency and network has got to be separated and it will be in the end so we all have a public address and any currency gets sent to the address
so in effect the wallet has one address instead of ten pub/private keys which are still present but used after handshake and protocol is setup.

Separating the currency from the network leads to counterparty risk.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 01:42:35 AM

Quote

PoW is not about preventing spam transactions, it's about preventing double-spend attacks. Before PoW came along you couldn't rely on keeping a valid, reliable ledger state without a central entity acting as arbiter. Bitcoin's master stroke is making the network not only fault-tolerant against attackers, but actually using what would usually be an attack -- ie. brute force -- to protect the network from the very same class of attacks.

Spamming, double spend both prevented by PoW from what i read but PoW stupid and is being dumped by everyone even in the forks.

PoW has nothing to do with spam transactions. "PoW is stupid" is not a counter-argument. All meaningful BTC hardforks are relying on PoW so far.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 01:42:35 AM

Quote

I'm not sure I quite follow you here. You don't need to rely on DNS to connect to other nodes. You can't use DNS spoofing to fake transactions. Worst case you could probably prevent specific nodes from sending or receiving transactions, but that would require a lot of targeted resources without much impact on Bitcoin as a whole.

Virgin nodes at startup use DNS to get list of well know nodes and i can find you the address if you like but after that it uses cached IP-Address to find
a live node on the network and nodes relay between each other a list and the state of other nodes. I am talking new node start up.

Everyone can set up nodes using IP addresses instead of domain names. The application of DNS is irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 01:42:35 AM

Quote

Assuming you haven't already, you should really look into how LN works. You might be surprised that it's not quite the plaster you expect it to be.

I did and you did not deal with what Alice sends to bob and you are forced to accept Coordinators (Hubs/Gateways) in LN anyway so why not
wrap it up by breaking the 200gb block-chain down into more a tree structure and then it will scale better and you don't need IOU's or fake tokens.

No such things as coordinators / hubs / gateways in the LN network topology. Alice is a LN node. Bob is a LN node. Everyone en route between Alice and Bob is a node.

Once again, no IOUs. No fake tokens. All very real, time based transactions.

I know too little about blockchain sharding to argue either for or against it, I guess I'll watch Ethereum to see how this works out. Not sure if there ever has been any discourse of applying sharding to the Bitcoin blockchain. It seems to come with its own set of problems however.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 01:42:35 AM

Block-Chain is a liked list of headers but groups of nodes organised by Coordinators can deal with sections to provide redundancy within the section so in effect the LN patch up (or rewrite in disguise) is at the wrong level and as a transaction hits one set of node then a request will be sent to another set of nodes but after that the reply will be cached.

Assuming blockchain sharding relies on coordinators, we have a weak point and needless complexity right there. I do assume though that there are more effective approaches than that.

LN is neither a rewrite nor a patch btw, it's simply an additional protocol layer. Much like OMNI and XCP before it. And like HTTP on top of TCP/IP before even that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the reply will be cached". If this still refers to LN, a channel state is maintained, but kept up to date by enforcing state updates by using presigned timelocked transactions.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 01:42:35 AM

Here I am talking about having to trace back down the chain to the origin of each coin part back to when it was mined

If this still refers to LN, coins can still be traced back to their origin, even when using LN.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 01:42:35 AM

Break the current 200gb Block-chain down to say 16 X 16 sections and each section has a group of nodes then you will start getting some speed but if i am honest
it's patching something instead of having a white sheet of paper to work from and i think that's whats needed and i will add this concept of public ledger we all
love and trust does allow anyone to clone it and produce a forks so that needs a long term solution

You're welcome to fork then

Or contribute to one of the alts that are eying blockchain sharding right now (assuming ETH is not the only one).

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 01:42:35 AM

Maybe wallets need voting rights so we can appoint people as trustees and then go at it from that angle because all S-M has done is left a mess that won't scale, wastes
energy and started CPU wars plus allows forks and clones.

Read up on sybil attacks on why this is a bad idea. Also the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to go trustless. Trying to create a trustee network comes with problems of its own. It's barely working with Root and Intermediary CAs. It becomes even less reliable with incentives to defect, such as the case with digital cash.