Quote from: zeeman on October 19, 2017, 02:04:30 PM

Daniel was talking in the early days with Satoshi here on this forum.

Satoshi politely slapped Daniel back down:

Quote from: satoshi on July 29, 2010, 02:00:38 AM

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

Quote from: bytemaster on July 28, 2010, 08:59:42 PM

Besides, 10 minutes is too long to verify that payment is good. It needs to be as fast as swiping a credit card is today.

See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

However:

Quote from: iamnotback on August 09, 2016, 03:55:03 PM

Quote from: MWD64 on August 09, 2016, 02:07:02 PM

satashoi in 2010 telling Steem creator Daniel Larimer that he's dumb.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpbDqv0UEAAQCWO.jpg

Tone Vays is apparently not an expert. Apparently he has somewhat average or slightly above understanding of blockchain tech.

Afaics, Satoshi was incorrect:

Quote from: satoshi on July 17, 2010, 10:29:13 PM

The payment processor has connections with many nodes. When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends. If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad. A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it. The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.

Quote from: satoshi on July 18, 2010, 01:59:15 AM

Quote from: llama on July 18, 2010, 12:03:29 AM

This is a good start, but still not impermeable.

I didn't say impermeable, I said good-enough. The loss in practice would be far lower than with credit cards.

A selfish miner with 33% of the network hash rate would simply withhold the double-spend transaction and release it when it wins the next block, thus reverting innumerable instant transactions.

Thus the loss rate could hypothetically be egregiously worse than the 5% chargeback rate on credit cards.

What Satoshi didn't account for is a systemic attack where the attacker has a game theory to bring down the Bitcoin price, e.g. is shorting it.

I am not saying that case is likely near-term, but when you are talking about the politics of who controls the world's transaction system, the Satoshi's design loses the key quality of it being impervious to control. Thus it is a power vacuum, which is precisely what we are trying to eliminate with blockchains.

Satoshi apparently didn't account well for the systemic risks that come from the natural centralization of mining due to economics of ASIC farms. He seemed to think these parties would be ruled by the Nash equilibrium that says if they attack the network, then they destroy the value of their own investment, but he forgot about shorting and also that ASIC hardware can be fungible and used to mine other coins.

Also bytemaster (Daniel Larimer) was correct about the bandwidth and computational resources being a problem, but he didn't emphasize that the problem was scaling without centralization of the full nodes. But that centralization is coming to Satoshi's design any way due to the (even political, e.g. subsidies in China) economics of ASIC mining farms.

I suspect Satoshi knew this weakness and didn't emphasize it on purpose.

Note Dan's DPoS "solution" is centralized control as well, so it is not like Dan found a solution. He just made the centralization more efficient before Bitcoin does. One could argue that DPoS with a competitive distribution is at least the same as democracy (unlike Steem which is authoritarianism), but democracy is what we were trying to eliminate with blockchains, because it is a power vacuum.

Note wrote the above before writing the following and realizing that proof-of-work was designed by Satoshi to become centralized:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e0c36e24344efba2d1f0d650cd94f1c7

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2251762.msg22889412#msg22889412

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2259054.0;viewResults

Quote from: key_z on October 19, 2017, 03:39:41 PM

Design of a Digital Republic (Medium)

Im trying to speed read it now because I have to leave in a moment. I do not agree with their presumption that a 51% attack never happened or that it is necessarily self-destructive. SegWit is a 51% attack on Bitcoin (see my links above), and I expect a 51% attack to destroy SegWit by stealing it back in the future, but I do not think that will be self-destructive. I think it will strengthen the immutability of Bitcoin.

I do not agree that digital land has scarcity. Digital money has scarcity because of the coordination problem which cant be removed because money has to be fungible. The coordination problem of digital land is always being removed, e.g. IPv6 will have virtually unlimited quantity of addresses. Urbit can try to make moat around their digital land, but they will ultimately fail.

Note in my blog about the coming world currency, I rebuked some of Curtis Yarvins (aka Moldbugs) past theories about money.

Republics are what we are trying to kill with decentralization, but so far nobody has been able to design a ledger that is truly decentralized. So thus far, the axioms stated hold. I will propose a new decentralized ledger technology (which scales even better than DPoS) which I posit can remain decentralized if the majority of the participants are not politically motivated to defect or who cant be manipulated. So what I expect is the the intelligent minority will fork off and run their own decentralized ledger on this technology. If the majority attacks it and necessarily raising its value, the intelligent majority will take the gains and fork off again. By eliminating the mining, I make this plausible. More on this is coming soon