Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 246 results by mirelo
In addition to corrections and improvements, the paper has now an introduction with examples:
https://proof-of-loss.money/
https://proof-of-loss.money/
I LIKE PROOF OF BOUNTY...
YOU SPAM TWETT TO HUNDRED PEOPLE, YOU PROOF
YOU WRITE SHITY TRANSLATION IN CANADIAN, YOU PROOF
YOU TRY MINE ON GOODWILL PC WITH NO KEYBOARD, YOU PROOF
BOUNTY
YOU SPAM TWETT TO HUNDRED PEOPLE, YOU PROOF
YOU WRITE SHITY TRANSLATION IN CANADIAN, YOU PROOF
YOU TRY MINE ON GOODWILL PC WITH NO KEYBOARD, YOU PROOF
BOUNTY
I am not mining, except for some real feedback (the idea of proof-of-loss is precisely getting rid of mining).
what is content youre site mining or can get create trading portofilio
i am visit youre site only PDF content, not automatic calculate about proof of loos
i am visit youre site only PDF content, not automatic calculate about proof of loos
The site does not provide any financial services, just a PDF specifying a consensus algorithm called proof-of-loss.
There was an error on page 5 of the paper, which made the block-chaining odds formula confusing. The error was in the text, not in the formula, and consisted on assuming the affected route as always being the rewarded one, which is false. The corrected version is already available at the same URL. The new file's date is 02/07/2017, and downloading it will probably require clearing the browser's cache.
How does proof-of-loss address the nothing at stake problem?
This algorithm forces people to serially rather than parallelly chain blocks (forcibly serial chaining in the paper).
- Transferring money requires transaction rights, which cost fees.
- Each transaction consumes hence loses exactly as much in rights as its total size in bytes.
- The spendable outputs of each transaction represent that loss.
- The odds of chaining a block depend on the loss each of those outputs represents.
- The reward for chaining each block is transaction rights instead of their price (in fees).
- This reward is only saleable (for fees) in subsequent blocks.
- If the same spendable output tries to chain two different blocks at the same height, then its earned rights are inherited by the spendable output chaining a child of either block.
This algorithm forces people to serially rather than parallelly chain blocks (forcibly serial chaining in the paper).
(Since January 03, 2018, the paper has a new version including the pseudocode for block validation.)
An alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, proof-of-loss addresses all their deficiencies, including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining centralization, and the "nothing at stake" problem:
https://proof-of-loss.money/
An alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, proof-of-loss addresses all their deficiencies, including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining centralization, and the "nothing at stake" problem:
https://proof-of-loss.money/
For me money is a token of trust. The value of it simply is a derivative of the trust.
So the more you trust your ten dollars, the more they can buy?
Isnt it self evident?
But on a serious note you dont trust the dollars they are the token of your trust to economy, society, that the commodities you buy are up to your expectation, your employers will do their job etc, or if you like that god will not end the world tomorow
Money depending on trust does not mean its value derives from that. Instead, it derives from the proportion between the exchange value of all commodities and the amount of money available to express it.
How would you value your dollars if you knew you would be dead tomorow?
Can I go to a restaurant and say: "I do not have any money, but I have loads of trust, so serve me your best meal"?
Would you call someone who goes into a restaurant and orders a meal without having enough money to pay for it "a trusted member of the society"?
Perhaps its formerly trusted member...
For me money is a token of trust. The value of it simply is a derivative of the trust.
So the more you trust your ten dollars, the more they can buy?
Isnt it self evident?
But on a serious note you dont trust the dollars they are the token of your trust to economy, society, that the commodities you buy are up to your expectation, your employers will do their job etc, or if you like that god will not end the world tomorow
Money depending on trust does not mean its value derives from that. Instead, it derives from the proportion between the exchange value of all commodities and the amount of money available to express it.
How would you value your dollars if you knew you would be dead tomorow?
Can I go to a restaurant and say: "I do not have any money, but I have loads of trust, so serve me your best meal"?
For me money is a token of trust. The value of it simply is a derivative of the trust.
So the more you trust your ten dollars, the more they can buy?
Isnt it self evident?
But on a serious note you dont trust the dollars they are the token of your trust to economy, society, that the commodities you buy are up to your expectation, your employers will do their job etc, or if you like that god will not end the world tomorow
Money depending on trust does not mean its value derives from that. Instead, it derives from the proportion between the exchange value of all commodities and the amount of money available to express it.
For me money is a token of trust. The value of it simply is a derivative of the trust.
So the more you trust your ten dollars, the more they can buy?
The value of the money is formed individually and expressed in the market. Basically each actor compares two things at the time and decides what is best for him at that moment. A nickel or a coke. Maybe you (mirelo) confuse it with the unit of account. That is something that is chosen by a businessman, and the crucial traits are fungibility and divisibility. By the way, a 10 dollar bill is not exactly as valuable as 10 one dollar bills, that you will discover, if you go to a bank with truckloads of money, they will charge you for handling the notes.
The value of money is not "formed individually," but socially. It is not just "expressed in the market," but decided by the market. No buyer can determine the price of anything independently of the seller.
This is fundamental, and a trader in money types should know. The market price is just the last price on the market of one of the goods (money) measured in the other good (which is also money in our case). It does not represent the value of anything except what is in the minds of those two traders at that exact moment, and the two have opposite opinion of the value of the two things, one of them thinks that the amount of bitcoins in question is more valuable than the amount of dollars in question, and vice versa for the other trader. The other individuals that are on the market, either with offers stated, or just waiting to accept a suitable offer, have completely different opinions of the value in the moment. Not even speaking about those that are currently not trading.
A businessman in general has to have some tool to decide if what he is doing is creating value or not, therefore he needs a unit of account. The value does not have to be completely stable for that to work, just reasonably stable. He knows that when he comes out of a set of trades with less dollars than he started out with, he has lost. For many types of business that is enough. If your projects have long durations however, dollar is not good enough either, you have to invent something like an inflation adjusted dollar, or use something else completely.
People are so used to the money that they do not see it, they don't see that any trade is two way with money as half the trade, and the money is some stuff you buy and sell also. It is about viewing it from the opposite angle, where money is the stuff in your focus, and the goods you trade is the payment. When we trade forex and bitcoin, we are driven to see it because both of our good types are money.
You are one step away of eating money rather than food (and having a great disappointment).
I suppose you mean you reject it out of hand. The difference between money and other goods is clear, money is never destroyed by consumption, because it is not useful for anything, while other goods have mostly use value, and sometimes just a small exchange value. But the rules of the market, supply and demand and price discovery by trade, are the same.
Either something is money and buys commodities or it is a commodity and is bought or sold for money. Of course, anything can play both roles, but not simultaneously to the same person. People can believe they buy and sell money only because deriving monetary value from debt requires mistaking the future for the present.
...
You keep confusing the need for money with its value. The value of money consists in its buying power, not in how much you need it. Of course, if you have the amount of money Jamie Dimon has, then you can indeed change the value of the monetary unit, despite certainly not by just needing less of it.
You keep confusing the need for money with its value. The value of money consists in its buying power, not in how much you need it. Of course, if you have the amount of money Jamie Dimon has, then you can indeed change the value of the monetary unit, despite certainly not by just needing less of it.
Value is entirely conceptual though, its just as much a personal thing as beauty or taste and doesn't have a hard and fast means of measurement in the real world. Money attempts to do that but its a crude and inaccurate measure, just as a portrait is only a visual representation of the infinite complexities of the person it represents.
Money must represent how much of one thing people are willing to give in exchange for another thing.
Money has essentially nothing to do with how people decide what they want or need, and in which quantity, or what they are willing to give in exchange for that, and in which quantity.
The value of the money is formed individually and expressed in the market. Basically each actor compares two things at the time and decides what is best for him at that moment. A nickel or a coke. Maybe you (mirelo) confuse it with the unit of account. That is something that is chosen by a businessman, and the crucial traits are fungibility and divisibility. By the way, a 10 dollar bill is not exactly as valuable as 10 one dollar bills, that you will discover, if you go to a bank with truckloads of money, they will charge you for handling the notes.
The value of money is not "formed individually," but socially. It is not just "expressed in the market," but decided by the market. No buyer can determine the price of anything independently of the seller.
This is fundamental, and a trader in money types should know. The market price is just the last price on the market of one of the goods (money) measured in the other good (which is also money in our case). It does not represent the value of anything except what is in the minds of those two traders at that exact moment, and the two have opposite opinion of the value of the two things, one of them thinks that the amount of bitcoins in question is more valuable than the amount of dollars in question, and vice versa for the other trader. The other individuals that are on the market, either with offers stated, or just waiting to accept a suitable offer, have completely different opinions of the value in the moment. Not even speaking about those that are currently not trading.
A businessman in general has to have some tool to decide if what he is doing is creating value or not, therefore he needs a unit of account. The value does not have to be completely stable for that to work, just reasonably stable. He knows that when he comes out of a set of trades with less dollars than he started out with, he has lost. For many types of business that is enough. If your projects have long durations however, dollar is not good enough either, you have to invent something like an inflation adjusted dollar, or use something else completely.
People are so used to the money that they do not see it, they don't see that any trade is two way with money as half the trade, and the money is some stuff you buy and sell also. It is about viewing it from the opposite angle, where money is the stuff in your focus, and the goods you trade is the payment. When we trade forex and bitcoin, we are driven to see it because both of our good types are money.
You are one step away of eating money rather than food (and having a great disappointment).
Money has different values depending on the circumstances though, it has a lot higher value when you're struggling to make ends meet than when you've plenty to spare and that seems to be on a linear scale, when you've billions then throwing a few million at a market to push it around is trivial. Risk likely comes into it there and could be considered a currency in its own right.
You are confusing the value of money with your need of it. Having more money cannot decrease the need for it unless the monetary unit maintains its value.
I'd disagree, there are varying levels of scarcity so there will be varying values. Someone could be wealthy in a poverty stricken country with a hundred dollars and have way more than he needs but could barely get through a week with that same hundred in the US and the same situation exist everywhere, Jamie Dimon will value a thousand dollars far less than whoever cleans his office.
You keep confusing the need for money with its value. The value of money consists in its buying power, not in how much you need it. Of course, if you have the amount of money Jamie Dimon has, then you can indeed change the value of the monetary unit, despite certainly not by just needing less of it.
The value of the money is formed individually and expressed in the market. Basically each actor compares two things at the time and decides what is best for him at that moment. A nickel or a coke. Maybe you (mirelo) confuse it with the unit of account. That is something that is chosen by a businessman, and the crucial traits are fungibility and divisibility.
The value of money is not "formed individually," but socially. It is not just "expressed in the market," but decided by the market. No buyer can determine the price of anything independently of the seller.
By the way, a 10 dollar bill is not exactly as valuable as 10 one dollar bills, that you will discover, if you go to a bank with truckloads of money, they will charge you for handling the notes.
You forgot to mention they can only charge you using the original monetary unit, the value of which is hence unaffected.
Money has different values depending on the circumstances though, it has a lot higher value when you're struggling to make ends meet than when you've plenty to spare and that seems to be on a linear scale, when you've billions then throwing a few million at a market to push it around is trivial. Risk likely comes into it there and could be considered a currency in its own right.
You are confusing the value of money with your need of it. Having more money cannot decrease the need for it unless the monetary unit maintains its value.
Money is just a certificate of value, and there is a consensus for that value among a group of people
A ten-dollar bill cannot certify that something priced at ten dollars indeed has this (or any other) value, so it makes no sense to define money as "a certificate of value."
There is no standard unit of value, it is all subjective, but you can make a rough compare of things with different value: a $10 bill has 10 times larger value than a $1 bill
There is, of course, a standard unit of value: it is called money. You have just asserted that ten of those units are worth ten times more than one of them. Additionally, the price of anything you sell depends not only on your individual evaluation, but also on that of the buyer. So its value must become objective to both of you, precisely, as money.
Money is just a certificate of value, and there is a consensus for that value among a group of people
A ten-dollar bill cannot certify that something priced at ten dollars indeed has this (or any other) value, so it makes no sense to define money as "a certificate of value."