Cryptocurrency: Exploits, Austrian Libertarian, Privacy Coins Needed, Scaling Bloat, JPMorgan Flex, more...
https://cointelegraph.com/news/digital-currencies-could-threaten-us-geopolit... “There is no country with more to lose from the disruptive potential of digital currency than the United States,” say analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. Two faced Banks, Banksters and Govts giving accounts to crypto exchanges, while buying cryptos to their pockets, shilling CBDC's, FUD dissing on OG distributed unstoppable cryptocurrencies. search: YouTube censored and deleted livestreams of the blockchain halving event parties. Early attempt at periodic table of cryptos... https://i.redd.it/cpp9nt6cjuz41.jpg https://jes.al/crypto-table/ https://www.wired.com/story/harry-pottery-cryptocurrency-privacy-zcash-moner... https://twitter.com/IvanBogatyy/status/1196441051814223880 https://medium.com/dragonfly-research/breaking-mimblewimble-privacy-model-84... $60/week of AWS spend, By running a rogue node tweaked to save all intermediary transaction gossiping data. That's it! I was able to uncover the exact addresses of senders and recipients for 96% Grin transactions in real time. Hardly any cryptocurrencies using TLS or interfacing well with privacy/location/anonymous overlay networks either. Consider also deploying satellite and GnuRadio integration. Still no good distributed DEX's in operation with open APIs for wide range of coins to plug into for cross-chain atomic swaps. https://crypto.stanford.edu/timings/ https://crypto.stanford.edu/timings/paper.pdf https://crypto.stanford.edu/timings/pingreject.pdf We describe remote side-channel attacks on the privacy guarantees of anonymous cryptocurrencies. Our attacks, which we validate on Zcash and Monero, enable a remote attacker to identify the P2P node of the payee of any anonymous transaction being sent into the network. This enables the adversary to link all transactions sent to a user, to recover a user's IP address from their anonymous payment address, and to link a user's diversified addresses. In addition, for Zcash, we show that an attacker can remotely crash any Zcash node for which the attacker knows a payment address, and set up a remote timing attack on an ECDH key exchange involving a victim's private viewing key. In principle, this attack can fully recover the victim's private viewing key, thereby completely breaking receiver privacy. https://www.wired.com/story/dark-web-welcome-to-video-takedown-bitcoin/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/gofd6b/i_think_its_remarkable_that_... https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1263218326282612736 'I think it’s remarkable that we’ve built a cryptocurrency where some poor schmuck can’t spend their money without everyone on Twitter knowing all the details and commenting about it.' -- Matthew Green https://decrypt.co/29799/this-is-why-xrps-price-has-been-crushed-and-is-stru... Centralized wannabee cryptos are all inflating, premining, founder taxing, censoring, patenting, and governing your values down to zero... just like Fiat. External privacy tech like JoinMarket, CashShuffle, CashFusion while handy fun... and spies in SPV and similar upstream thin client node protocols... all risky for cryptos lacking native privacy in protocol, and scalability. Evergrowing blockchains of UTXO transaction logs are unneeded bloat and a standing privacy risk. ZEC, XMR, BTC, BCH, ETH, pick any toplist... these are all old legacy first generation coins regarding storage. They cannot survive the dead weight of their own tx chainlogs growing and clogging their infrastructure, clients, and bandwidth... and that tx block history carried will be repeatedly raped by mass and targeted privacy exploits. Coinspace must move lots of designthink toward researching tech based on agreeing consensus over the much smaller (and negligible growth) database that is their respective UTXO sets. 8B humans * 512bit/8/2^40 ECC/PQC crypto = 0.5TiB of UTXO db state, add generous 10x extra for consensus and distribution state ops, cryptoprivacy overhead, etc... = max of say 5TiB, forever (grows per human not per tx... 10M humans now = 6GiB, 100M = 60GiB, 1B = 600GiB ...). Global max fits on commodity flashdrive in 10 years. Network and processing bandwidth remains only limit. https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gmhuon/in_the_last_24_hours... Watching the mining pool charts... the large pools are slowly killing off the smaller pools. BTC.com and AntPool are both Bitmain, Nakamoto Coefficient (a measure of decentralization) has dropped to 2, they control 62% of the hashrate. https://btc.com/stats/pool?pool_mode=day Welcome to joint problem of ASICs... central sole source ASIC Corps presale mining out with their own HW first, then dictating preferred bulk sales channels and destinations... and lack of personal responsibility to your own nominal values held by running and adopting global commodity CPU/GPU mined ASIC-hard coins, abandoning large pools for smaller pools. Avoiding your responsibilities in these ways will get you censored and wiped out... just like Fiat. If it's free no effort you take, you become the victim. Random youtubes... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqc-yyoVKg Hayek on Friedman and Keynes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leqjwiQidlk Friedman on Cryptocurrency "I don't believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can't take it violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can't stop." -- F.A.Hayek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6S5c6xhXTY "Every destruction is a loss" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkQfK8hn0ds Mises on Friedman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtDM7VF3_Rc Friedman on Mises, Rand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymQoIt5k2AI Hoppe vs Friedman and Hayek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXGQDqN67YI Henry Hazlitt: Economics in one lesson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cle9IWPrBBs Mises on Money https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfyp_i7y1t0 Murray Rothbard: Gold Standard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z8u7Sz8n1c Frederic Bastiat: The Law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vo7FOFpJYs Hazlitt: The Task Ahead Happy Cryptocurrency Pizza Day.
On Sat, 23 May 2020 00:08:43 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Evergrowing blockchains of UTXO transaction logs are unneeded bloat and a standing privacy risk. ZEC, XMR, BTC, BCH, ETH, pick any toplist... these are all old legacy first generation coins
so where are the 'second generation coins'...?
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 2:53 AM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2020 00:08:43 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Evergrowing blockchains of UTXO transaction logs are unneeded bloat and a standing privacy risk. ZEC, XMR, BTC, BCH, ETH, pick any toplist... these are all old legacy first generation coins
so where are the 'second generation coins'...?
(sorry I haven't been keeping up with the cypherpunks list) punk-stasi, second and third generation coins are everywhere all over the internet, but the secret police censorship systems make them really hard for anarchists to find. but personally i support keeping ancient utxo logs because it means people in trouble can store their experiences and evidence in the permanent logs. i was looking into qortal recently. regrew out of qora, which i was involved in the accidental death of, as a visiting programmer.
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 2:53 AM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2020 00:08:43 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Evergrowing blockchains of UTXO transaction logs are unneeded bloat and a standing privacy risk. ZEC, XMR, BTC, BCH, ETH, pick any toplist... these are all old legacy first generation coins
so where are the 'second generation coins'...?
(sorry I haven't been keeping up with the cypherpunks list) punk-stasi, second and third generation coins are everywhere all over the internet, but the secret police censorship systems make them really hard for anarchists to find.
but personally i support keeping ancient utxo logs because it means people in trouble can store their experiences and evidence in the permanent logs.
i was looking into qortal recently. regrew out of qora, which i was involved in the accidental death of, as a visiting programmer.
USPS doesn't keep the history record as other blockchains, removing the immutable trait, which I consider dangerous for privacy. At the same time people can store their evidences and make them available or delete them if that is convenient. It's a pity that USPS is being overlooked.
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 7:17 AM other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 2:53 AM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2020 00:08:43 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Evergrowing blockchains of UTXO transaction logs are unneeded bloat and a standing privacy risk. ZEC, XMR, BTC, BCH, ETH, pick any toplist... these are all old legacy first generation coins
...
but personally i support keeping ancient utxo logs because it means people in trouble can store their experiences and evidence in the permanent logs.
....
USPS doesn't keep the history record as other blockchains, removing the immutable trait, which I consider dangerous for privacy. At the same time people can store their evidences and make them available or delete them if that is convenient. It's a pity that USPS is being overlooked.
USPS sounds important. One thing we consider when protecting information on security lists is the problem of "rubberhosing" -- being physically forced by someone else to remove the security from the information, to keep your own life, health, or livelihood. Hence a way is needed to protect crucial information from deletion _even_by its_owner_. But you've probably heard this already.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, May 23, 2020 11:55 AM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 7:17 AM other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 2:53 AM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2020 00:08:43 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Evergrowing blockchains of UTXO transaction logs are unneeded bloat and a standing privacy risk. ZEC, XMR, BTC, BCH, ETH, pick any toplist... these are all old legacy first generation coins
...
but personally i support keeping ancient utxo logs because it means people in trouble can store their experiences and evidence in the permanent logs.
....
USPS doesn't keep the history record as other blockchains, removing the immutable trait, which I consider dangerous for privacy. At the same time people can store their evidences and make them available or delete them if that is convenient. It's a pity that USPS is being overlooked.
USPS sounds important. One thing we consider when protecting information on security lists is the problem of "rubberhosing" -- being physically forced by someone else to remove the security from the information, to keep your own life, health, or livelihood. Hence a way is needed to protect crucial information from deletion _even_by its_owner_. But you've probably heard this already.
The solution for this problem doesn't fall into the blockchain platform. The platform will delete the information if evidence signed by the right private key is presented. If you want to protect a piece of information from "rubberhosing" you must follow a procedure to safeguard it. for instance : 1. break down your key into several parts, using the Shamir secret sharing squeme. 2 spread the parts acros a distributed group of people you trust 3 delete the key so nobody can force you to reveal 4 the attacker must have to coherce a number of people to reconstruct the private key
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:05 AM other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
The solution for this problem doesn't fall into the blockchain platform. The platform will delete the information if evidence signed by the right private key is presented.
BSV is a blockchain platform that has been working well for me for this purpose of information preservation. If you want to protect a piece of information from "rubberhosing" you must
follow a procedure to safeguard it. for instance : 1. break down your key into several parts, using the Shamir secret sharing squeme. 2 spread the parts acros a distributed group of people you trust 3 delete the key so nobody can force you to reveal 4 the attacker must have to coherce a number of people to reconstruct the private key
It is true "rubberhosing" is usually mentioned in the context of secrecy and privacy, but it can also be used to force erasure and destruction of information. In such a case it does not matter whether it is encrypted or not: the device that holds it can be destroyed. Additionally many can indeed coerce a large number of people. The network would need to preserve the information even if all parties purport to want it removed. Most blockchains have pulled that off, although I imagine there are other solutions too.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:21 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:05 AM other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
The solution for this problem doesn't fall into the blockchain platform. The platform will delete the information if evidence signed by the right private key is presented.
BSV is a blockchain platform that has been working well for me for this purpose of information preservation.
If you want to protect a piece of information from "rubberhosing" you must follow a procedure to safeguard it. for instance : 1. break down your key into several parts, using the Shamir secret sharing squeme. 2 spread the parts acros a distributed group of people you trust 3 delete the key so nobody can force you to reveal 4 the attacker must have to coherce a number of people to reconstruct the private key
It is true "rubberhosing" is usually mentioned in the context of secrecy and privacy, but it can also be used to force erasure and destruction of information. In such a case it does not matter whether it is encrypted or not: the device that holds it can be destroyed.
Additionally many can indeed coerce a large number of people. The network would need to preserve the information even if all parties purport to want it removed. Most blockchains have pulled that off, although I imagine there are other solutions too.
storing in a single device is never secure. it must be distributed. If you want the info never ever deleted by any means you just destroy de private key used to store it.
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:33 AM other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:21 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:05 AM other.arkitech < other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
The solution for this problem doesn't fall into the blockchain platform. The platform will delete the information if evidence signed by the right private key is presented.
BSV is a blockchain platform that has been working well for me for this purpose of information preservation.
If you want to protect a piece of information from "rubberhosing" you must
follow a procedure to safeguard it. for instance : 1. break down your key into several parts, using the Shamir secret sharing squeme. 2 spread the parts acros a distributed group of people you trust 3 delete the key so nobody can force you to reveal 4 the attacker must have to coherce a number of people to reconstruct the private key
It is true "rubberhosing" is usually mentioned in the context of secrecy and privacy, but it can also be used to force erasure and destruction of information. In such a case it does not matter whether it is encrypted or not: the device that holds it can be destroyed.
Additionally many can indeed coerce a large number of people. The network would need to preserve the information even if all parties purport to want it removed. Most blockchains have pulled that off, although I imagine there are other solutions too.
storing in a single device is never secure. it must be distributed. If you want the info never ever deleted by any means you just destroy de private key used to store it.
It sounds like USPS can store things in this reliable way, spreading them among many devices? That really seems the biggest value of a blockchain to me. It also attempts to prove when the data was created, as consensus time is included in the block confirmation algorithm, which shows that it was not fabricated after the fact.
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:39 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:33 AM other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:21 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:05 AM other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
The solution for this problem doesn't fall into the blockchain platform. The platform will delete the information if evidence signed by the right private key is presented.
BSV is a blockchain platform that has been working well for me for this purpose of information preservation.
If you want to protect a piece of information from "rubberhosing" you must follow a procedure to safeguard it. for instance : 1. break down your key into several parts, using the Shamir secret sharing squeme. 2 spread the parts acros a distributed group of people you trust 3 delete the key so nobody can force you to reveal 4 the attacker must have to coherce a number of people to reconstruct the private key
It is true "rubberhosing" is usually mentioned in the context of secrecy and privacy, but it can also be used to force erasure and destruction of information. In such a case it does not matter whether it is encrypted or not: the device that holds it can be destroyed.
Additionally many can indeed coerce a large number of people. The network would need to preserve the information even if all parties purport to want it removed. Most blockchains have pulled that off, although I imagine there are other solutions too.
storing in a single device is never secure. it must be distributed. If you want the info never ever deleted by any means you just destroy de private key used to store it.
It sounds like USPS can store things in this reliable way, spreading them among many devices?
That really seems the biggest value of a blockchain to me. It also attempts to prove when the data was created, as consensus time is included in the block confirmation algorithm, which shows that it was not fabricated after the fact.
The 'registry' function is an important feature. To me, the most important feature is the ability to create a perceived macroeconomy based on all detailed microeconomies produced by millions of personal coins, which was a design feature of USPS. In USPS there is not a concept of 'block'. I changed the wording in the USPS context to avoid confusion. Instead there exist the homologous concept 'diff', representing the difference between the previous state and the next. A diif is used to be appplied to a base state producing the next state. The both the previous state and the diff can be forgotten or deleted because they are never needed again. That's way USPS is 'lean', lightweight, not bloated with past information, and that's why USPS is not immutable (as a positive trait) and for so it is very easy to upgrade the cypher suite without compromising past encrypted data. Immutability is a threat to privacy.
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:55 AM other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:39 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:33 AM other.arkitech < other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:21 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:05 AM other.arkitech < other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
The solution for this problem doesn't fall into the blockchain platform. The platform will delete the information if evidence signed by the right private key is presented.
BSV is a blockchain platform that has been working well for me for this purpose of information preservation.
If you want to protect a piece of information from "rubberhosing" you
must follow a procedure to safeguard it. for instance : 1. break down your key into several parts, using the Shamir secret sharing squeme. 2 spread the parts acros a distributed group of people you trust 3 delete the key so nobody can force you to reveal 4 the attacker must have to coherce a number of people to reconstruct the private key
It is true "rubberhosing" is usually mentioned in the context of secrecy and privacy, but it can also be used to force erasure and destruction of information. In such a case it does not matter whether it is encrypted or not: the device that holds it can be destroyed.
Additionally many can indeed coerce a large number of people. The network would need to preserve the information even if all parties purport to want it removed. Most blockchains have pulled that off, although I imagine there are other solutions too.
storing in a single device is never secure. it must be distributed. If you want the info never ever deleted by any means you just destroy de private key used to store it.
It sounds like USPS can store things in this reliable way, spreading them among many devices?
That really seems the biggest value of a blockchain to me. It also attempts to prove when the data was created, as consensus time is included in the block confirmation algorithm, which shows that it was not fabricated after the fact.
The 'registry' function is an important feature. To me, the most important feature is the ability to create a perceived macroeconomy based on all detailed microeconomies produced by millions of personal coins, which was a design feature of USPS. In USPS there is not a concept of 'block'. I changed the wording in the USPS context to avoid confusion. Instead there exist the homologous concept 'diff', representing the difference between the previous state and the next. A diif is used to be appplied to a base state producing the next state. The both the previous state and the diff can be forgotten or deleted because they are never needed again. That's way USPS is 'lean', lightweight, not bloated with past information, and that's why USPS is not immutable (as a positive trait) and for so it is very easy to upgrade the cypher suite without compromising past encrypted data. Immutability is a threat to privacy.
There is no such thing as privacy. Only the shared respect of not looking hard enough.
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 9:36 AM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:55 AM other.arkitech < other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:39 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:33 AM other.arkitech < other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:21 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 8:05 AM other.arkitech < other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
The solution for this problem doesn't fall into the blockchain platform. The platform will delete the information if evidence signed by the right private key is presented.
BSV is a blockchain platform that has been working well for me for this purpose of information preservation.
If you want to protect a piece of information from "rubberhosing" you
must follow a procedure to safeguard it. for instance : 1. break down your key into several parts, using the Shamir secret sharing squeme. 2 spread the parts acros a distributed group of people you trust 3 delete the key so nobody can force you to reveal 4 the attacker must have to coherce a number of people to reconstruct the private key
It is true "rubberhosing" is usually mentioned in the context of secrecy and privacy, but it can also be used to force erasure and destruction of information. In such a case it does not matter whether it is encrypted or not: the device that holds it can be destroyed.
Additionally many can indeed coerce a large number of people. The network would need to preserve the information even if all parties purport to want it removed. Most blockchains have pulled that off, although I imagine there are other solutions too.
storing in a single device is never secure. it must be distributed. If you want the info never ever deleted by any means you just destroy de private key used to store it.
It sounds like USPS can store things in this reliable way, spreading them among many devices?
That really seems the biggest value of a blockchain to me. It also attempts to prove when the data was created, as consensus time is included in the block confirmation algorithm, which shows that it was not fabricated after the fact.
The 'registry' function is an important feature. To me, the most important feature is the ability to create a perceived macroeconomy based on all detailed microeconomies produced by millions of personal coins, which was a design feature of USPS. In USPS there is not a concept of 'block'. I changed the wording in the USPS context to avoid confusion. Instead there exist the homologous concept 'diff', representing the difference between the previous state and the next. A diif is used to be appplied to a base state producing the next state. The both the previous state and the diff can be forgotten or deleted because they are never needed again. That's way USPS is 'lean', lightweight, not bloated with past information, and that's why USPS is not immutable (as a positive trait) and for so it is very easy to upgrade the cypher suite without compromising past encrypted data. Immutability is a threat to privacy.
There is no such thing as privacy. Only the shared respect of not looking hard enough.
(but yes, sorry, different goals. we want to make it very hard to look for now.)
On Sat, 23 May 2020 07:06:07 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 2:53 AM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2020 00:08:43 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Evergrowing blockchains of UTXO transaction logs are unneeded bloat and a standing privacy risk. ZEC, XMR, BTC, BCH, ETH, pick any toplist... these are all old legacy first generation coins
so where are the 'second generation coins'...?
(sorry I haven't been keeping up with the cypherpunks list) punk-stasi, second and third generation coins are everywhere all over the internet, but the secret police censorship systems make them really hard for anarchists to find.
Oh cool! The third generation is already here! So I guess next year we'll have the 4 th generation, just in time to go with the WEB 40.0. Or is it WEB 4000.0? There's so much progress I can't keep track.
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 2:28 PM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2020 07:06:07 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 2:53 AM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2020 00:08:43 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Evergrowing blockchains of UTXO transaction logs are unneeded bloat and a standing privacy risk. ZEC, XMR, BTC, BCH, ETH, pick any toplist... these are all old legacy first generation coins
so where are the 'second generation coins'...?
(sorry I haven't been keeping up with the cypherpunks list) punk-stasi, second and third generation coins are everywhere all over the internet, but the secret police censorship systems make them really hard for anarchists to find.
Oh cool! The third generation is already here! So I guess next year we'll have the 4 th generation, just in time to go with the WEB 40.0. Or is it WEB 4000.0? There's so much progress I can't keep track.
I didn't know about web 4.0 . Yeah, new tech developments are happening too fast to comprehend and learn about for me now. There are over 1500 different cryptocurrencies now according to https://hackernoon.com/why-third-generation-cryptocurrencies-are-game-change... which is just a random hit I got googling for third gen cryptos.
On Sat, 23 May 2020 17:18:32 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't know about web 4.0 . Yeah, new tech developments are happening too fast to comprehend and learn about for me now.
There are over 1500 different cryptocurrencies now
that's like 1498 scams? I guess I'll be waiting for a while before somebody posts a reference to a 'cryptocurrency' that doesn't have a bloated chain. and by the way... "Evergrowing blockchains of UTXO transaction logs are unneeded bloat" Crytocurrencies require a log of ALL TRANSACTIONS, not just the so called utxo set...
according to https://hackernoon.com/why-third-generation-cryptocurrencies-are-game-change... which is just a random hit I got googling for third gen cryptos.
lawl, somebody shilling some shitcoin scam : shitcoin #55 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nano/ Plus, I'd bet that the author can't find venezuela on the map.
Honestly government issued money is a bigger scam than the altcoins. People die from it and it doesn't produce anything. Altcoins should be seen as a proposal for something that makes money worthwhile to exist. Most will fail. On Sat, May 23, 2020, 7:08 PM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2020 17:18:32 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't know about web 4.0 . Yeah, new tech developments are happening too fast to comprehend and learn about for me now.
There are over 1500 different cryptocurrencies now
that's like 1498 scams?
I guess I'll be waiting for a while before somebody posts a reference to a 'cryptocurrency' that doesn't have a bloated chain.
and by the way...
"Evergrowing blockchains of UTXO transaction logs are unneeded bloat"
Crytocurrencies require a log of ALL TRANSACTIONS, not just the so called utxo set...
I figured UTCO and "transaction" were being quickly summarized together here, up to the reader to only interpret in ways that make sense, as happens when people address something quickly.
according to https://hackernoon.com/why-third-generation-cryptocurrencies-are-game-change... which is just a random hit I got googling for third gen cryptos.
lawl, somebody shilling some shitcoin scam :
shitcoin #55 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nano/
Plus, I'd bet that the author can't find venezuela on the map.
On Sun, 24 May 2020 05:08:14 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Honestly government issued money is a bigger scam than the altcoins.
Well, yes, I never said otherwise. Although I would point out that even govt issued cash(paper bills) is better than any cryptocurrency since it doesn't need the arpanet to work, and it doesn't leave any trail in the mosad-nsa-gchq datacenter. But the question was, which 'altcoin' doesn't have a bloated chain? I should have mentioned that something like grin/MW is more efficient thanks to signature aggregation, but I haven't looked into the details. Still, if grin is better than bitcoin, then people can easily switch. So far, they haven't...
People die from it and it doesn't produce anything. Altcoins should be seen as a proposal for something that makes money worthwhile to exist. Most will fail.
On Mon, 25 May 2020 19:03:25 -0300 "Punk-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2020 05:08:14 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Honestly government issued money is a bigger scam than the altcoins.
Well, yes, I never said otherwise. Although I would point out that even govt issued cash(paper bills) is better than any cryptocurrency since it doesn't need the arpanet to work, and it doesn't leave any trail in the mosad-nsa-gchq datacenter.
Sorry, I meant to say, govt physical cash is better, privacy-wise.
Crytocurrencies require a log of ALL TRANSACTIONS, not just the so called utxo set...
If one can form a consensus over one set of data, peoples favorite bloated log, which is in effect one big pile of state, then one can perhaps form a consensus over any other set from it, eventually among other possiblities, mining deltas to move a UTXO state db forward, potential db distribution and update mechanisms, etc... all under some form of consensus, facts of formal verification, etc. To claim Satoshi Genesis Blockchain whitepaper is only way to do things, that there are no other ways to be found, or proofs proving no others, is really quite ridiculous in such early days of research where no one knows much about what is or isn't possible. All possible within physics. People with head locked in sand will never find them.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, May 25, 2020 10:33 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Crytocurrencies require a log of ALL TRANSACTIONS, not just the so called utxo set...
If one can form a consensus over one set of data, peoples favorite bloated log, which is in effect one big pile of state, then one can perhaps form a consensus over any other set from it, eventually among other possiblities, mining deltas to move a UTXO state db forward, potential db distribution and update mechanisms, etc... all under some form of consensus, facts of formal verification, etc.
That's USPS mechanism: state+diff=next state The unbloated trait is present as well. There is no history to carry on with it acting like an elastic gum (time to sync a new node for instance). The verification taking place to calculate the next state is enough to trust on the state. There is no need to validate the history from the genesis to trust the last state. The truth starts there, on the last block.
To claim Satoshi Genesis Blockchain whitepaper is only way to do things, that there are no other ways to be found, or proofs proving no others, is really quite ridiculous in such early days of research where no one knows much about what is or isn't possible. All possible within physics. People with head locked in sand will never find them.
On 2020-05-26 08:41, other.arkitech wrote:
The unbloated trait is present as well. There is no history to carry on with it acting like an elastic gum (time to sync a new node for instance). The verification taking place to calculate the next state is enough to trust on the state. There is no need to validate the history from the genesis to trust the last state. The truth starts there, on the last block.
This creates the opportunity to inject a fake history with no past through a 51% attack. When there are many transactions, the computers constructing the final consensus hash of the final block, which testifies to the entire immutable consensus past, are necessarily rather few, rather large, and owned by a rather small number of rather wealthy people. Too keep them honest, need a widely distributed history of at least the past few weeks. We need a large number of people making sure, and able to make sure, that the history is consistent from day to day, not just from block to block. We need a system where if one party is persistently unable to get hold of the the transaction justifying unspent transaction output number five million and seven in the block that is a day or so behind the current block, the panic button automatically goes off.
On Mon, 25 May 2020 18:33:05 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Crytocurrencies require a log of ALL TRANSACTIONS, not just the so called utxo set...
If one can form a consensus over one set of data, peoples favorite bloated log, which is in effect one big pile of state, then one can perhaps form a consensus over any other set from it, eventually among other possiblities, mining deltas to move a UTXO state db forward, potential db distribution and update mechanisms, etc... all under some form of consensus, facts of formal verification, etc. To claim Satoshi Genesis Blockchain whitepaper is only way to do things,
It seems to be the only way to do things as far as current 'cryptocurrencies' are concerned. I obviously don't know a better a way, and nobody seems to know such a way either, but I don't claim that a better way is impossible. Just that it doesn't exist today.
that there are no other ways to be found, or proofs proving no others, is really quite ridiculous in such early days of research where no one knows much about what is or isn't possible. All possible within physics.
...what do you think your reference to 'physics' means, exactly? anyway, so far cryptographic 'coins' are not coins at all. They are just global accounting systems. An actual coin is an object that stands by itself and doesn't require the arpanet to exist.
People with head locked in sand will never find them.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 12:20 AM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2020 18:33:05 -0400 grarpamp grarpamp@gmail.com wrote:
Crytocurrencies require a log of ALL TRANSACTIONS, not just the so called
utxo set...
If one can form a consensus over one set of data, peoples favorite bloated log, which is in effect one big pile of state, then one can perhaps form a consensus over any other set from it, eventually among other possiblities, mining deltas to move a UTXO state db forward, potential db distribution and update mechanisms, etc... all under some form of consensus, facts of formal verification, etc. To claim Satoshi Genesis Blockchain whitepaper is only way to do things,
It seems to be the only way to do things as far as current 'cryptocurrencies' are concerned. I obviously don't know a better a way, and nobody seems to know such a way either, but I don't claim that a better way is impossible. Just that it doesn't exist today.
rofl.. people hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. The boxer.
that there are no other ways to be found, or proofs proving no others, is really quite ridiculous in such early days of research where no one knows much about what is or isn't possible. All possible within physics.
...what do you think your reference to 'physics' means, exactly?
anyway, so far cryptographic 'coins' are not coins at all. They are just global accounting systems. An actual coin is an object that stands by itself and doesn't require the arpanet to exist.
People with head locked in sand will never find them.
On Tue, 26 May 2020 01:44:35 +0000 "other.arkitech" <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
rofl.. people hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. The boxer.
so mr. 'arkitech' your system doesn't have mining. it doesn't have a bloated chain. it doesn't have the most basic, proper documentation* it doesn't have source code. and it doesn't even have a decent name. *you were asked here https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080618.html to provide basic documentation, and you failed to provide any. As far as I'm concerned, you are just another scammer.
[OA,] *you were asked here
https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080618.html
to provide basic documentation, and you failed to provide any.
O.A, there is something you need to be aware of that perhaps you are missing: A bit over 30 years ago, Richard Stallman personally and at apparently not insignificant personal sacrifice, ushered in the present era of a new social contract which despite many years of 'despondent underdog status', now finally predominates, and even Microsoft admits they "were on the wrong side of history", notwithstanding MS still seems allergic to the word "freedom": Microsoft on 'wrong side of history' with open source, president Brad Smith says https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-wrong-side-history-open-source-pres... Steve Ballmer called Linux a "cancer," but Microsoft's current president says Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when it comes to open source. Sean Endicott 19 May 2020 Microsoft president Brad Smith recently shared his thoughts on open source and how Microsoft approached it at the turn of the century. Speaking at an MIT event, Smith stated that "Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when open source exploded at the beginning of the century, and I can say that about me personally." Smith has been with Microsoft for 25 years and The Verge points out that he has been part of several legal battles surrounding open source software as one of Microsoft's senior lawyers. Now, Smith has a different view. The Microsoft president added that "The good news is that, if life is long enough, you can learn … that you need to change." ... This social contract brought forth by Stallman was likely not the first actually free/libre software, but was certainly the explicit naming of, and call to live, this ('new') social contract in relation to computer software. And today there are few who do not understand at least the personal/individual benefits (as well as corporate/business benefits) to engaging with and embracing libre software, notwithstanding that many do live in mere utility and 'personal benefits' rather than the actual higher ethic of freedom for one and all as a matter of principle. Suffice to say, in 2020 it will simply never fly if you try to go against this new social contract. Proprietary, closed hidden and anti competitive simply is not tolerated by those you want to be in association with.
From code to protocols, and even your foundation principles, to be "taken seriously" there is one option - open and libre protocols, open and libre source code, and the reference implementation must be available for download and inspection, and libre licensed.
There is no other option. You have been treated with kid gloves up until a couple days ago, and you've been provided abundant notice of the things you must provide, and not even a draft protocol document have you provided. There is a phrase in English, "put up or shut up". (You may want a different reception in the face of your possible desire "to be trusted" and your desire to have folks sign NDAs and accept proprietary source code, but that is fanciful wishing in the face of the 30+ years FLOSS social contract we live with today - you ain't gonna turn back this clock, sonny!) Good luck,
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 8:16 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
[OA,] *you were asked here https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080618.html to provide basic documentation, and you failed to provide any.
O.A, there is something you need to be aware of that perhaps you are missing:
A bit over 30 years ago, Richard Stallman personally and at apparently not insignificant personal sacrifice, ushered in the present era of a new social contract which despite many years of 'despondent underdog status', now finally predominates, and even Microsoft admits they "were on the wrong side of history", notwithstanding MS still seems allergic to the word "freedom":
Microsoft on 'wrong side of history' with open source, president Brad Smith says https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-wrong-side-history-open-source-pres...
Steve Ballmer called Linux a "cancer," but Microsoft's current president says Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when it comes to open source.
Sean Endicott 19 May 2020
Microsoft president Brad Smith recently shared his thoughts on open source and how Microsoft approached it at the turn of the century. Speaking at an MIT event, Smith stated that "Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when open source exploded at the beginning of the century, and I can say that about me personally." Smith has been with Microsoft for 25 years and The Verge points out that he has been part of several legal battles surrounding open source software as one of Microsoft's senior lawyers. Now, Smith has a different view.
The Microsoft president added that "The good news is that, if life is long enough, you can learn … that you need to change." ...
This social contract brought forth by Stallman was likely not the first actually free/libre software, but was certainly the explicit naming of, and call to live, this ('new') social contract in relation to computer software.
And today there are few who do not understand at least the personal/individual benefits (as well as corporate/business benefits) to engaging with and embracing libre software, notwithstanding that many do live in mere utility and 'personal benefits' rather than the actual higher ethic of freedom for one and all as a matter of principle.
Suffice to say, in 2020 it will simply never fly if you try to go against this new social contract.
Proprietary, closed hidden and anti competitive simply is not tolerated by those you want to be in association with.
From code to protocols, and even your foundation principles, to be "taken seriously" there is one option - open and libre protocols, open and libre source code, and the reference implementation must be available for download and inspection, and libre licensed.
There is no other option.
You have been treated with kid gloves up until a couple days ago, and you've been provided abundant notice of the things you must provide, and not even a draft protocol document have you provided.
There is a phrase in English, "put up or shut up".
(You may want a different reception in the face of your possible desire "to be trusted" and your desire to have folks sign NDAs and accept proprietary source code, but that is fanciful wishing in the face of the 30+ years FLOSS social contract we live with today - you ain't gonna turn back this clock, sonny!)
Good luck,
You don't need to sell free software to a free software advocate.
On Tue, 26 May 2020 09:31:52 +0000 "other.arkitech" <other.@protonmail.com> wrote:
You don't need to sell free software to a free software advocate.
LMAO!!! "I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA." NDAs??? Yeah, nothing says free software like your little NDAs... " this particular project is a seed for something bigger that requires funding. While looking my way through investors I must not disclose the sources because having a 'secret' in my pocket sort of helps in accessing funds." Right, you're a 'free software' advocate who wants to make some money off closed source software and 'trade secrets'.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 7:39 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 09:31:52 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.@protonmail.com wrote:
You don't need to sell free software to a free software advocate.
LMAO!!!
"I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA."
NDAs??? Yeah, nothing says free software like your little NDAs...
" this particular project is a seed for something bigger that requires funding. While looking my way through investors I must not disclose the sources because having a 'secret' in my pocket sort of helps in accessing funds."
Right, you're a 'free software' advocate who wants to make some money off closed source software and 'trade secrets'.
No mate, you get it wrong. 1.- I am making a living with this project. 2.- Whoever is paying me he does it to get it conducted to businesses, which is fine to me, is not happy with free software, and I respect it. 3.- In the business, privative world, it is normal to exchange NDA's. That's a given. 4.- As soon as I get funding to create the "open-source" branch I will, as a free software enthusiast, start the community. But not before, do I don't upset the man who is making it possible to develop the system. Who is aware since the beginning of the intention, but kindly asked me to wait to release the sources until the product is more mature, giving him time to sell it as a privative platform based on licences. That's contextual to help understand. So to me is fine both worlds and they will co-exist. Now, if you don't like, I would kindly ask you to just manifest that you don't like it. But don't cross the line of being a gentleman because it does not help neither me nor to you. I suggest you to change your prejudices you invented about my product, and start either just ignoring with respect or looking at it as an opportunity to learn about new approaches to cryptocurrencies. The network is there, the invitation to participate and the opportunity to join a genesis of a new system that could potentially make it is there. If you have any reservation regarding working for money I just ask you to respect other perspectives of life instead of distorting the facts. I'd also ask you to think twice about it because what do we all do for a living? mostly working on making money. right? Just leave it with me. I am not a privative software person. the system will be published GPL, of course. Thanks for getting back to your concerns about my tech or about my coherency. Perhaps this one could make you change your mind... Let me know
On Tue, 26 May 2020 20:01:31 +0000 "other.arkitech" <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
1.- I am making a living with this project. 2.- Whoever is paying me he does it to get it conducted to businesses, which is fine to me, is not happy with free software, and I respect it.
Ok, so now we just learned that you are developing a commercial product.
3.- In the business, privative world, it is normal to exchange NDA's. That's a given.
So called NDAs are based on the flawed concept of 'intellectual property' and so they are invalid and unenforceable. I pointed this out in the past. You of course ignored it.
4.- As soon as I get funding to create the "open-source" branch I will, as a free software enthusiast, start the community. But not before, do I don't upset the man who is making it possible to develop the system. Who is aware since the beginning of the intention, but kindly asked me to wait to release the sources until the product is more mature, giving him time to sell it as a privative platform based on licences.
...so this 'thing' can be used for 'public governments' or whatever half-backed political idea you promote, and it can be also used by the (fascist) private sector...
That's contextual to help understand. So to me is fine both worlds and they will co-exist.
Now, if you don't like, I would kindly ask you to just manifest that you don't like it. But don't cross the line of being a gentleman because it does not help neither me nor to you.
I can't cross that line because I've never been a gentleman...
I suggest you to change your prejudices you invented about my product, and start either just ignoring with respect or looking at it as an opportunity to learn about new approaches to cryptocurrencies.
So, you kindly give me two options. Either I agree with you, or I shut up. You don't happen to see any problem with such a 'deal'? Anyway, I'll say it one more time. If you're developing some 'new system', the very first thing you have to do is explain how it works. If you want to keep the workings secret, then I don't think people here will take you too seriously.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:28 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 20:01:31 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
1.- I am making a living with this project. 2.- Whoever is paying me he does it to get it conducted to businesses, which is fine to me, is not happy with free software, and I respect it.
Ok, so now we just learned that you are developing a commercial product.
like, e.g. Qt, MySQL or RedHat GNU/Linux. I promote the free software side of it. And also the Business side of it, because I am entrepreneur. For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a product fit to them will be supplied. If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being open to what exist is essential for survival and rise.
3.- In the business, privative world, it is normal to exchange NDA's. That's a given.
So called NDAs are based on the flawed concept of 'intellectual property' and so they are invalid and unenforceable. I pointed this out in the past. You of course ignored it.
Yes, I agree with this. This doesn't mean we cannot cooperate in a flawed world. In bz you have to sign NDA with cooperating parties, knowing that is a weak contract that mostly serve as a memorandum of intentions. I am against patents and all this shit as well. I refered to NDA that for the first time here in the context of what is the procedure to share the sources of non-free software or, in my case, software that is not yet released. That's something that can be questionable philosophically, but it does exist. I have signed a lot of them of them and they're like most like a ritual to move on to practical things between 2 parties in private agreement..
4.- As soon as I get funding to create the "open-source" branch I will, as a free software enthusiast, start the community. But not before, do I don't upset the man who is making it possible to develop the system. Who is aware since the beginning of the intention, but kindly asked me to wait to release the sources until the product is more mature, giving him time to sell it as a privative platform based on licences.
...so this 'thing' can be used for 'public governments' or whatever half-backed political idea you promote, and it can be also used by the (fascist) private sector...
Yes because literally this is anonymous system where anyone is alloed to participate without asking for permission, by design (aside from implementation complications like Tor defects). This cannot be a reason to criticize the tech.
That's contextual to help understand. So to me is fine both worlds and they will co-exist.
Now, if you don't like, I would kindly ask you to just manifest that you don't like it. But don't cross the line of being a gentleman because it does not help neither me nor to you.
I can't cross that line because I've never been a gentleman...
ok
I suggest you to change your prejudices you invented about my product, and start either just ignoring with respect or looking at it as an opportunity to learn about new approaches to cryptocurrencies.
So, you kindly give me two options. Either I agree with you, or I shut up. You don't happen to see any problem with such a 'deal'?
Anyway, I'll say it one more time. If you're developing some 'new system', the very first thing you have to do is explain how it works. If you want to keep the workings secret, then I don't think people here will take you too seriously.
I have zero intention to hide anything. I cannot focus on particular topics with wide questions, so,.. in general what is it? a decentraliced P2P system that can run using inexpensive hardware where nodes form a flat organization (no different roles), the connect each other as a mesh forming a graph of connections where the number of edges is configurable on every node. Permissionless, anonymous, the algorithm only cares about the current state of the database and is not linked backwards to previous states. The system is Sybil protected using IPv4 addreses and depends on the internet be turned on (formerly Arpanet). The algorithm enforces homogeneous distribution of nodes over the IPv4 geographical allocations and its security increases with the number of nodesm with no known shrinking forces (like other competitive consensus algorithms). The consensus is based on BFT. It preserves no history and a 51% attack is possible during the time the network is small. That's the public system, a multi-coin account where the definition of a coin is not a chain of signatures but a utxo set, where an utxo is a Bitcoin word, I call it boxes because files or typed information can be also stored in every account. Nodes also run a wallet with P2P protocols to trade among them in what I call the pricate system. Both system (the public, the private) form a closed ecosystem designed to maximize transactions, thus a system that can be used to run an aggregation of microeconomies, eventually the world-wide economy. That's an overview and a final note on the vision. If you are interested in having a feel of new systems like this you're invited, anyone, is permissionless, so I dont even have to know. Accept my disclaimer as the creator this is what the system needs to mature until the public release. There is no evil software running in it. Accept for now the same disclaimer you accept from https://cock.li/, the mailing system you use. Excerpt: "How can I trust you? You can't. Cock.li doesn't parse your E-mail to provide you with targeted ads, nor does cock.li read E-mail contents unless it's for a legal court order. However, it is 100% possible for me to read E-mail, and IMAP/SMTP doesn't provide user-side/client-side encryption, so you're just going to have to take my word for it." Best, OA
Hey OA, It's not free software if the source is not available without having to ask. It sounds like you know a lot about navigating the business world and have a lot to offer to us free software people? Like business, we believe our way is the only way, not really seeing or talking about ways we can work together and support each other to succeed. Free software is likely very interested in supporting businesses that help the free software people spread and accurately preserve the free software culture. It is really very profitable to give all of your rights to your works away. People respond by giving back to you, and getting involved in the work to strengthen and grow it widely. On Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:28 PM other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:28 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 20:01:31 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
1.- I am making a living with this project. 2.- Whoever is paying me he does it to get it conducted to businesses, which is fine to me, is not happy with free software, and I respect it.
Ok, so now we just learned that you are developing a commercial product.
like, e.g. Qt, MySQL or RedHat GNU/Linux. I promote the free software side of it. And also the Business side of it, because I am entrepreneur. For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a product fit to them will be supplied. If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being open to what exist is essential for survival and rise.
3.- In the business, privative world, it is normal to exchange NDA's. That's a given.
So called NDAs are based on the flawed concept of 'intellectual property' and so they are invalid and unenforceable. I pointed this out in the past. You of course ignored it.
Yes, I agree with this. This doesn't mean we cannot cooperate in a flawed world. In bz you have to sign NDA with cooperating parties, knowing that is a weak contract that mostly serve as a memorandum of intentions. I am against patents and all this shit as well.
I refered to NDA that for the first time here in the context of what is the procedure to share the sources of non-free software or, in my case, software that is not yet released. That's something that can be questionable philosophically, but it does exist. I have signed a lot of them of them and they're like most like a ritual to move on to practical things between 2 parties in private agreement..
4.- As soon as I get funding to create the "open-source" branch I
will, as a free software enthusiast, start the community. But not before, do I don't upset the man who is making it possible to develop the system. Who is aware since the beginning of the intention, but kindly asked me to wait to release the sources until the product is more mature, giving him time to sell it as a privative platform based on licences.
...so this 'thing' can be used for 'public governments' or whatever
half-backed political idea you promote, and it can be also used by the (fascist) private sector...
Yes because literally this is anonymous system where anyone is alloed to participate without asking for permission, by design (aside from implementation complications like Tor defects). This cannot be a reason to criticize the tech.
That's contextual to help understand. So to me is fine both worlds and they will co-exist.
Now, if you don't like, I would kindly ask you to just manifest that
you don't like it. But don't cross the line of being a gentleman because it does not help neither me nor to you.
I can't cross that line because I've never been a gentleman...
ok
I suggest you to change your prejudices you invented about my product, and start either just ignoring with respect or looking at it as an opportunity to learn about new approaches to cryptocurrencies.
So, you kindly give me two options. Either I agree with you, or I shut up. You don't happen to see any problem with such a 'deal'?
Anyway, I'll say it one more time. If you're developing some 'new system', the very first thing you have to do is explain how it works. If you want to keep the workings secret, then I don't think people here will take you too seriously.
I have zero intention to hide anything.
I cannot focus on particular topics with wide questions, so,.. in general what is it? a decentraliced P2P system that can run using inexpensive hardware where nodes form a flat organization (no different roles), the connect each other as a mesh forming a graph of connections where the number of edges is configurable on every node. Permissionless, anonymous, the algorithm only cares about the current state of the database and is not linked backwards to previous states. The system is Sybil protected using IPv4 addreses and depends on the internet be turned on (formerly Arpanet). The algorithm enforces homogeneous distribution of nodes over the IPv4 geographical allocations and its security increases with the number of nodesm with no known shrinking forces (like other competitive consensus algorithms). The consensus is based on BFT. It preserves no history and a 51% attack is possible during the time the network is small. That's the public system, a multi-coin account where the definition of a coin is not a chain of signatures but a utxo set, where an utxo is a Bitcoin word, I call it boxes because files or typed information can be also stored in every account. Nodes also run a wallet with P2P protocols to trade among them in what I call the pricate system. Both system (the public, the private) form a closed ecosystem designed to maximize transactions, thus a system that can be used to run an aggregation of microeconomies, eventually the world-wide economy. That's an overview and a final note on the vision.
If you are interested in having a feel of new systems like this you're invited, anyone, is permissionless, so I dont even have to know. Accept my disclaimer as the creator this is what the system needs to mature until the public release. There is no evil software running in it. Accept for now the same disclaimer you accept from https://cock.li/, the mailing system you use. Excerpt:
"How can I trust you?
You can't. Cock.li doesn't parse your E-mail to provide you with targeted ads, nor does cock.li read E-mail contents unless it's for a legal court order. However, it is 100% possible for me to read E-mail, and IMAP/SMTP doesn't provide user-side/client-side encryption, so you're just going to have to take my word for it."
Best, OA
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 11:47 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey OA,
It's not free software if the source is not available without having to ask.
I have stated everything I can state about when the sources will be published. You can freely consider them not-free till then. But the exact thing is that they have a Free Licence but they are not publicly available yet.
It sounds like you know a lot about navigating the business world and have a lot to offer to us free software people?
I am free software people as well. I've introduced free software in big corps and always have fought against privative software.
Like business, we believe our way is the only way, not really seeing or talking about ways we can work together and support each other to succeed.
Free software is likely very interested in supporting businesses that help the free software people spread and accurately preserve the free software culture.
I am tech entrepreneur, I like to combine free sw and business.
It is really very profitable to give all of your rights to your works away. People respond by giving back to you, and getting involved in the work to strengthen and grow it widely.
I see. So far this is a major problem here for checking out the system at user level. Like if they dont trust me lol, I can understand though. I try to build trust based on conversations anyway. I have not a problem giving away my work, I think it is positive, I've always thought it. it will hapen when I feel ready to do so. Like preparing it for public review, with developer documentation, and with funding, the most important thing. A dev community requires a loit of dedication and I have to secure the funds before the ball starts to grow out of my hands. I follow a plan you see. Other thing is is whether or not I can be trusted without publishing everything like in an inconvenient rush for me. Cheers, OA
On Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:28 PM other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:28 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 20:01:31 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
1.- I am making a living with this project. 2.- Whoever is paying me he does it to get it conducted to businesses, which is fine to me, is not happy with free software, and I respect it.
Ok, so now we just learned that you are developing a commercial product.
like, e.g. Qt, MySQL or RedHat GNU/Linux. I promote the free software side of it. And also the Business side of it, because I am entrepreneur. For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a product fit to them will be supplied. If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being open to what exist is essential for survival and rise.
3.- In the business, privative world, it is normal to exchange NDA's. That's a given.
So called NDAs are based on the flawed concept of 'intellectual property' and so they are invalid and unenforceable. I pointed this out in the past. You of course ignored it.
Yes, I agree with this. This doesn't mean we cannot cooperate in a flawed world. In bz you have to sign NDA with cooperating parties, knowing that is a weak contract that mostly serve as a memorandum of intentions. I am against patents and all this shit as well.
I refered to NDA that for the first time here in the context of what is the procedure to share the sources of non-free software or, in my case, software that is not yet released. That's something that can be questionable philosophically, but it does exist. I have signed a lot of them of them and they're like most like a ritual to move on to practical things between 2 parties in private agreement..
4.- As soon as I get funding to create the "open-source" branch I will, as a free software enthusiast, start the community. But not before, do I don't upset the man who is making it possible to develop the system. Who is aware since the beginning of the intention, but kindly asked me to wait to release the sources until the product is more mature, giving him time to sell it as a privative platform based on licences.
...so this 'thing' can be used for 'public governments' or whatever half-backed political idea you promote, and it can be also used by the (fascist) private sector...
Yes because literally this is anonymous system where anyone is alloed to participate without asking for permission, by design (aside from implementation complications like Tor defects). This cannot be a reason to criticize the tech.
That's contextual to help understand. So to me is fine both worlds and they will co-exist.
Now, if you don't like, I would kindly ask you to just manifest that you don't like it. But don't cross the line of being a gentleman because it does not help neither me nor to you.
I can't cross that line because I've never been a gentleman...
ok
I suggest you to change your prejudices you invented about my product, and start either just ignoring with respect or looking at it as an opportunity to learn about new approaches to cryptocurrencies.
So, you kindly give me two options. Either I agree with you, or I shut up. You don't happen to see any problem with such a 'deal'?
Anyway, I'll say it one more time. If you're developing some 'new system', the very first thing you have to do is explain how it works. If you want to keep the workings secret, then I don't think people here will take you too seriously.
I have zero intention to hide anything.
I cannot focus on particular topics with wide questions, so,.. in general what is it? a decentraliced P2P system that can run using inexpensive hardware where nodes form a flat organization (no different roles), the connect each other as a mesh forming a graph of connections where the number of edges is configurable on every node. Permissionless, anonymous, the algorithm only cares about the current state of the database and is not linked backwards to previous states. The system is Sybil protected using IPv4 addreses and depends on the internet be turned on (formerly Arpanet). The algorithm enforces homogeneous distribution of nodes over the IPv4 geographical allocations and its security increases with the number of nodesm with no known shrinking forces (like other competitive consensus algorithms). The consensus is based on BFT. It preserves no history and a 51% attack is possible during the time the network is small. That's the public system, a multi-coin account where the definition of a coin is not a chain of signatures but a utxo set, where an utxo is a Bitcoin word, I call it boxes because files or typed information can be also stored in every account. Nodes also run a wallet with P2P protocols to trade among them in what I call the pricate system. Both system (the public, the private) form a closed ecosystem designed to maximize transactions, thus a system that can be used to run an aggregation of microeconomies, eventually the world-wide economy. That's an overview and a final note on the vision.
If you are interested in having a feel of new systems like this you're invited, anyone, is permissionless, so I dont even have to know. Accept my disclaimer as the creator this is what the system needs to mature until the public release. There is no evil software running in it. Accept for now the same disclaimer you accept from https://cock.li/, the mailing system you use. Excerpt:
"How can I trust you?
You can't. Cock.li doesn't parse your E-mail to provide you with targeted ads, nor does cock.li read E-mail contents unless it's for a legal court order. However, it is 100% possible for me to read E-mail, and IMAP/SMTP doesn't provide user-side/client-side encryption, so you're just going to have to take my word for it."
Best, OA
On Tue, 26 May 2020 22:27:57 +0000 "other.arkitech" <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:28 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 20:01:31 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
1.- I am making a living with this project. 2.- Whoever is paying me he does it to get it conducted to businesses, which is fine to me, is not happy with free software, and I respect it.
Ok, so now we just learned that you are developing a commercial product.
like, e.g. Qt, MySQL or RedHat GNU/Linux. I promote the free software side of it. And also the Business side of it, because I am entrepreneur.
That's not the point. The point is that you mentioned it just NOW.
For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a product fit to them will be supplied. If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being open to what exist is essential for survival and rise.
Yes, I think free software is far superior to anything else. But that's not because I'm a commie like stallman. Au contraire, I'm as anti-commie as it gets so I don't think other people have any right to run 'their' software on my computer. Likewise, being anti-commie means I have no love for the current 'private' sector since the current 'private' sector is an arm of the state (and vice versa...)
4.- As soon as I get funding to create the "open-source" branch I will, as a free software enthusiast, start the community. But not before, do I don't upset the man who is making it possible to develop the system. Who is aware since the beginning of the intention, but kindly asked me to wait to release the sources until the product is more mature, giving him time to sell it as a privative platform based on licences.
...so this 'thing' can be used for 'public governments' or whatever half-backed political idea you promote, and it can be also used by the (fascist) private sector...
Yes because literally this is anonymous system where anyone is alloed to participate without asking for permission, by design (aside from implementation complications like Tor defects). This cannot be a reason to criticize the tech.
It's a general comment. Given the outright fascist nature of the 'private' sector and the way they use computers I do wonder what sort of advantage your software can give to them. I mean, take bitcoin for instance. It's highly unlike that the 'private' banking sector would be interested in something like bitcoin since it takes away their power to counterfeit money. In general, I'd expect that the kind of software that cpunks like is the kind of sofware that the 'private' sector, aka govcorp, doesn't like.
The consensus is based on BFT.
...vague
It preserves no history and a 51% attack is possible during the time the network is small. That's the public system, a multi-coin account where the definition of a coin is not a chain of signatures but a utxo set, where an utxo is a Bitcoin word,
what's a bitcoin word?
I call it boxes because files or typed information can be also stored in every account.
I'm having trouble understanding what the basic functionality of the system is. You can put 'bitcoin words'(??) or files in some kind of 'account'? In the case of files, where are the files actually stored?
Nodes also run a wallet with P2P protocols to trade among them in what I call the pricate system. Both system (the public, the private) form a closed ecosystem designed to maximize transactions, thus a system that can be used to run an aggregation of microeconomies, eventually the world-wide economy.
what's that supposed to mean, "run an aggregation"? And it's way too grandiose anyway - The world economy...?
That's an overview and a final note on the vision.
Yeah, but you gave little information regarding the actual protocol. quote from another post : "I have for many years or decades a thread running underneath about replacing governemnts by low cost machines changing the way society organizes, making everyone involved (I mean 3rd world) and rising their and our lifestyle" That raises a few red flags... As it should be well known in this list, governments are criminal organizations. So what does it mean to replace criminal organizations with 'low cost machines'?? What do you think the "3rd world" is exactly? I take it you don't live in the "3rd world"? So you're a subject of the "1st world" who is planning to 'fix' the "3rd world"? Or...? So again, as far as I'm concerned, both your political views and your un-specified protocol are...unappealing at best.
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:05:01PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 22:27:57 +0000 "other.arkitech" <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a product fit to them will be supplied. If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being open to what exist is essential for survival and rise.
Yes, I think free software is far superior to anything else. But that's not because I'm a commie like stallman.
For the record, Richard Stallman is very pro commercial software, making money from your software development, etc - in fact this is fundamental since his very beginning of the "modern" Free Software movement over 30 years ago. A lot of people misunderstand this. Stallman says "make as much money as you can from free software, just make sure it's free software".
On Wed, 27 May 2020 17:03:09 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:05:01PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 22:27:57 +0000 "other.arkitech" <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a product fit to them will be supplied. If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being open to what exist is essential for survival and rise.
Yes, I think free software is far superior to anything else. But that's not because I'm a commie like stallman.
For the record, Richard Stallman is very pro commercial software, making money from your software development, etc - in fact this is fundamental since his very beginning of the "modern" Free Software movement over 30 years ago.
stallman is a commie because of his views on the state https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html though to be more accurate, his variety of national US communism is commonly referred as fascism. "we need a state to do many important things. We need a state for: defending the nation"
A lot of people misunderstand this.
Stallman says "make as much money as you can from free software, just make sure it's free software".
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:05:01PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 22:27:57 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a product fit to them will be supplied. If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being open to what exist is essential for survival and rise.
Yes, I think free software is far superior to anything else. But that's not because I'm a commie like stallman.
For the record, Richard Stallman is very pro commercial software, making money from your software development, etc - in fact this is fundamental since his very beginning of the "modern" Free Software movement over 30 years ago.
A lot of people misunderstand this.
Stallman says "make as much money as you can from free software, just make sure it's free software".
yes :) Free speech, not free beer
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:19:26AM +0000, other.arkitech wrote:
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:05:01PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 22:27:57 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a product fit to them will be supplied. If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being open to what exist is essential for survival and rise.
Yes, I think free software is far superior to anything else. But that's not because I'm a commie like stallman.
For the record, Richard Stallman is very pro commercial software, making money from your software development, etc - in fact this is fundamental since his very beginning of the "modern" Free Software movement over 30 years ago.
A lot of people misunderstand this.
Stallman says "make as much money as you can from free software, just make sure it's free software".
yes :) Free speech, not free beer
:) Which is why, when non-free software is presented with only a promise of "it'll be free libre at some unknown point in the future, but 'before version 1.0'", some folks are naturally skeptical :D
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 10:43 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:19:26AM +0000, other.arkitech wrote:
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness zen@freedbms.net wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:05:01PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 22:27:57 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a product fit to them will be supplied. If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being open to what exist is essential for survival and rise.
Yes, I think free software is far superior to anything else. But that's not because I'm a commie like stallman.
For the record, Richard Stallman is very pro commercial software, making money from your software development, etc - in fact this is fundamental since his very beginning of the "modern" Free Software movement over 30 years ago. A lot of people misunderstand this. Stallman says "make as much money as you can from free software, just make sure it's free software".
yes :) Free speech, not free beer
:)
Which is why, when non-free software is presented with only a promise of "it'll be free libre at some unknown point in the future, but 'before version 1.0'", some folks are naturally skeptical :D
at the end of the day any development of any product is nothing but a promise. Some trust must be in place during such a time. The remaining choices are ignore and/or wait till the product is well mature and adopted (a.k.a missing the early-bird bus)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 12:59 AM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 22:27:57 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:28 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 punks@tfwno.gf wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 20:01:31 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
1.- I am making a living with this project. 2.- Whoever is paying me he does it to get it conducted to businesses, which is fine to me, is not happy with free software, and I respect it.
Ok, so now we just learned that you are developing a commercial product.
like, e.g. Qt, MySQL or RedHat GNU/Linux. I promote the free software side of it. And also the Business side of it, because I am entrepreneur.
That's not the point. The point is that you mentioned it just NOW.
For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a product fit to them will be supplied. If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being open to what exist is essential for survival and rise.
Yes, I think free software is far superior to anything else. But that's not because I'm a commie like stallman. Au contraire, I'm as anti-commie as it gets so I don't think other people have any right to run 'their' software on my computer.
It rather works this way: you run in your comuter the software you like to run, which would be 99% written by others.
Likewise, being anti-commie means I have no love for the current 'private' sector since the current 'private' sector is an arm of the state (and vice versa...)
The private system I refer tu has nothing to do with the private sector ( a bunch of colluding orgs afine to gov) The private system is instead based on private P2P secret trades.
4.- As soon as I get funding to create the "open-source" branch I will, as a free software enthusiast, start the community. But not before, do I don't upset the man who is making it possible to develop the system. Who is aware since the beginning of the intention, but kindly asked me to wait to release the sources until the product is more mature, giving him time to sell it as a privative platform based on licences.
...so this 'thing' can be used for 'public governments' or whatever half-backed political idea you promote, and it can be also used by the (fascist) private sector...
Yes because literally this is anonymous system where anyone is alloed to participate without asking for permission, by design (aside from implementation complications like Tor defects). This cannot be a reason to criticize the tech.
It's a general comment. Given the outright fascist nature of the 'private' sector and the way they use computers I do wonder what sort of advantage your software can give to them.
I mean, take bitcoin for instance. It's highly unlike that the 'private' banking sector would be interested in something like bitcoin since it takes away their power to counterfeit money. In general, I'd expect that the kind of software that cpunks like is the kind of sofware that the 'private' sector, aka govcorp, doesn't like.
The consensus is based on BFT.
...vague
ok. I'll be more descriptive on this one. 1.- Nodes broadcast evidences (a generalized term I used to represent transactions). 2.- All nodes are aware of all evidences 3.- verified evidences are applied in real time onto a temporary view of the 'new' state made of the current state plus a the diff they are building. 4.- At agreed timings they sign and broadcast their diff 5.- All nodes decide, based on the views of the rest, which is the legitimate diff and broadcast the hash of their delta. 6- All nodes receive the hash of the legitimate delta from the rest, and decide which delta is the legitimate based on a majority of 'votes' 6.- if the winner delta matches the one they computed they just apply the delta to the current state to produce the next state. If not they request and receive the delta from neighbours. 7- goto 3 Let me know if it is understandble.
It preserves no history and a 51% attack is possible during the time the network is small. That's the public system, a multi-coin account where the definition of a coin is not a chain of signatures but a utxo set, where an utxo is a Bitcoin word,
what's a bitcoin word?
a word coined during bitcoin development. unspent transaction output (UTXO). The UTXO set is a concept equivalent to an accounting ledger. Bitcoin defines a coin as a chain of signatures, which I found it a very inneficient design. An utxo is the last link of such chain. In contrast USPS only holds the accounts, a coin is not a chain of sigs, is an entry in a database.
I call it boxes because files or typed information can be also stored in every account.
I'm having trouble understanding what the basic functionality of the system is. You can put 'bitcoin words'(??) or files in some kind of 'account'? In the case of files, where are the files actually stored?
Think of a vault, or a typical security box used in banks to store customer's valuable items. An account is like a transparent security box where you can store anything: files, data structures, and where public algorithms store their data, e.g. the coin accounting. As part of the protocol there is a lightwight implementation (fit for the purpose) of a distributed file system (DFS) -ref. e.g. IPFS-. Every node can configure the size of disk space to be used as file storage.
Nodes also run a wallet with P2P protocols to trade among them in what I call the private system. Both system (the public, the private) form a closed ecosystem designed to maximize transactions, thus a system that can be used to run an aggregation of microeconomies, eventually the world-wide economy.
what's that supposed to mean, "run an aggregation"? And it's way too grandiose anyway - The world economy...?
Those expressions are more like bird-eye views.
That's an overview and a final note on the vision.
Yeah, but you gave little information regarding the actual protocol.
quote from another post :
"I have for many years or decades a thread running underneath about replacing governemnts by low cost machines changing the way society organizes, making everyone involved (I mean 3rd world) and rising their and our lifestyle"
That raises a few red flags...
As it should be well known in this list, governments are criminal organizations. So what does it mean to replace criminal organizations with 'low cost machines'??
It means getting rid of criminal orgs to replace them with trustable machines that can serve us to run a public system - Hence.. US - PUBLIC SYSTEM
What do you think the "3rd world" is exactly? I take it you don't live in the "3rd world"? So you're a subject of the "1st world" who is planning to 'fix' the "3rd world"? Or...?
So again, as far as I'm concerned, both your political views and your un-specified protocol are...unappealing at best.
I dont have any political bias, ZERO. I am no-wing. I don't care about classic politics or ideologies. I do care about personal ideas and the right to not be represented by anyone. Politicians are 3rd party actors. Unnecessary in a P2P understanding. 3rd world means people with talent who cannot afford to have a comfortable home with broadband connection. poverty can be eradicated. I hope this helps a bit more in the understanding of USPS. Thanks for asking. : )
On Wed, 27 May 2020 10:18:16 +0000 "other.arkitech" <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
1.- Nodes broadcast evidences (a generalized term I used to represent transactions). 2.- All nodes are aware of all evidences 3.- verified evidences are applied in real time onto a temporary view of the 'new' state made of the current state plus a the diff they are building. 4.- At agreed timings they sign and broadcast their diff 5.- All nodes decide, based on the views of the rest, which is the legitimate diff and broadcast the hash of their delta. 6- All nodes receive the hash of the legitimate delta from the rest, and decide which delta is the legitimate based on a majority of 'votes' 6.- if the winner delta matches the one they computed they just apply the delta to the current state to produce the next state. If not they request and receive the delta from neighbours. 7- goto 3
Let me know if it is understandble.
let's see if I get it... 1- all nodes receive a number of transactions 2- they validate the txs/compute a new state 3- they broadcast a hash of the new tentative state 4- each node gets hashes from all the rest 5- the most common hash is the winner? That seems to work, based on voting being limited by the one IP addr/one vote rule? (unless there's some obvious flaw, 'known in the art') Not sure how it scales when the state is big, there are a lot of nodes, and every node has to make sure that it's getting all (or most) of the votes. as to creation/distribution of coins, each node gets one coin(or whatever) per cycle?
It means getting rid of criminal orgs to replace them with trustable machines that can serve us to run a public system -
governments don't need to be replaced, simply exterminated, but ok.
I dont have any political bias, ZERO. I am no-wing. I don't care about classic politics or ideologies.
that's nonsense, but ok.
I do care about personal ideas and the right to not be represented by anyone. Politicians are 3rd party actors. Unnecessary in a P2P understanding.
3rd world means people with talent who cannot afford to have a comfortable home with broadband connection.
poverty can be eradicated.
poverty per se is not a problem. Plus, the 'riches' of your 'first' world are created by a seriously fucked industrial society and looting of the 3rd world. You'd be better off being poor, honest, and free. But ok.
I hope this helps a bit more in the understanding of USPS. Thanks for asking. : )
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, May 28, 2020 12:05 AM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2020 10:18:16 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
1.- Nodes broadcast evidences (a generalized term I used to represent transactions). 2.- All nodes are aware of all evidences 3.- verified evidences are applied in real time onto a temporary view of the 'new' state made of the current state plus a the diff they are building. 4.- At agreed timings they sign and broadcast their diff 5.- All nodes decide, based on the views of the rest, which is the legitimate diff and broadcast the hash of their delta. 6- All nodes receive the hash of the legitimate delta from the rest, and decide which delta is the legitimate based on a majority of 'votes' 6.- if the winner delta matches the one they computed they just apply the delta to the current state to produce the next state. If not they request and receive the delta from neighbours. 7- goto 3 Let me know if it is understandble.
let's see if I get it...
1- all nodes receive a number of transactions 2- they validate the txs/compute a new state 3- they broadcast a hash of the new tentative state 4- each node gets hashes from all the rest 5- the most common hash is the winner?
That seems to work, based on voting being limited by the one IP addr/one vote rule? (unless there's some obvious flaw, 'known in the art')
yes, I am glad you got the sequence.
Not sure how it scales when the state is big, there are a lot of nodes, and every node has to make sure that it's getting all (or most) of the votes.
It will hit a limit, but then it will enter another mechanism, sort of a composition of networks, I'll not provide much detail of this one because it is not implemented nor tested yet. But the idea spins around having each network of (say 10000 nodes) taking care of a fraction of the address space.
as to creation/distribution of coins, each node gets one coin(or whatever) per cycle?
yer, per cycle. not one, well, there exist a 'root' crypto called gas. the range is the whole 64 space (No 21M cap). gas is used to take transaction fees and to control the bloating of the address space charging a fee on each account every cycle. (maintenance). The problem to address is the creation of infinite accounts at 0 cost for the troll. Accounts are consuming gas and if they run out of it they are destroyed. Remember this system is not meant to be immutable because I consider immutability a compromise on privacy.
It means getting rid of criminal orgs to replace them with trustable machines that can serve us to run a public system -
governments don't need to be replaced, simply exterminated, but ok.
If, after extermination, the need they used to cover (registry, law, economy,..) is left in the wild they would rebirth again and again. So replacement is more appropriate to me. but ok.
I dont have any political bias, ZERO. I am no-wing. I don't care about classic politics or ideologies.
that's nonsense, but ok.
I dont believe in delegating my political capabilities, whatever they are, to a 3rd party, if that makes more sense. How about you?
I do care about personal ideas and the right to not be represented by anyone. Politicians are 3rd party actors. Unnecessary in a P2P understanding. 3rd world means people with talent who cannot afford to have a comfortable home with broadband connection. poverty can be eradicated.
poverty per se is not a problem. Plus, the 'riches' of your 'first' world are created by a seriously fucked industrial society and looting of the 3rd world. You'd be better off being poor, honest, and free. But ok.
I hope this helps a bit more in the understanding of USPS. Thanks for asking. : )
so, I was wrong and now stand corrected. Apparently a system based on accounts works fine. A counterargument of sorts is that keeping the whole history makes the system more robust, but it doesn't seem like the increased amount of 'security' can be clearly gauged. The costs imposed by a bloated chain on the other hand are easier to see. Something that always bothered me with chain verification is that it only makes sense if you have the 'authentic' client. So in the end the security of the whole system depends on getting the right binary, or the right sources, etc, off the arpanet...
Remember this system is not meant to be immutable because I consider immutability a compromise on privacy.
I'm not sure which parts are 'mutable'? I mean, yes mutability helps privacy, but I assume you don't mean the accounting can be 'mutated'?
It means getting rid of criminal orgs to replace them with trustable machines that can serve us to run a public system -
governments don't need to be replaced, simply exterminated, but ok.
If, after extermination, the need they used to cover (registry, law, economy,..) is left in the wild they would rebirth again and again.
governments don't cover legitimate needs - as criminal organizations they exist for the benefit of the criminals who compose them. Notice that you mention "economy" as some kind of 'need' 'covered' by those criminals. Under anarchy "economy" is handled by the (actual) free market.
So replacement is more appropriate to me. but ok.
I dont have any political bias, ZERO. I am no-wing. I don't care about classic politics or ideologies.
that's nonsense, but ok.
I dont believe in delegating my political capabilities, whatever they are, to a 3rd party, if that makes more sense. How about you?
I fully endorse non-delegation. We're on the same page on that regard. Sorry I wasn't clear, what I called "nonsense" is the claim of not caring about classic politics. The principle of non-delegation is part of the classic political school of anarchism.
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:32:17PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
so, I was wrong and now stand corrected. Apparently a system based on accounts works fine. A counterargument of sorts is that keeping the whole history makes the system more robust, but it doesn't seem like the increased amount of 'security' can be clearly gauged. The costs imposed by a bloated chain on the other hand are easier to see. Something that always bothered me with chain verification is that it only makes sense if you have the 'authentic' client. So in the end the security of the whole system depends on getting the right binary, or the right sources, etc, off the arpanet...
Yes the following is most likely stating the obvious - just making sure we're all on the same page here: The present status quo for the current dominant player (BTCes, muffas) may have devolved to "the right binary" (I'm not personally familiar though sorry), but at least in principle it's the protocol that is 'canonical'. And so, logically, if the protocol is 'secure' then conformant implementations must also have the same (in respect of that protocol) security characteristics. Lack of competing implementations and lack of protocol improvements thereafter disclose other issues or problems, such as lack of development community, dysfunctional community due to greed (e.g. many irrelevant competing alternatives/variations), failure of anyone to either identify and/or improve upon protocol deficiencies, etc.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, May 28, 2020 9:26 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
so, I was wrong and now stand corrected. Apparently a system based on accounts works fine. A counterargument of sorts is that keeping the whole history makes the system more robust, but it doesn't seem like the increased amount of 'security' can be clearly gauged. The costs imposed by a bloated chain on the other hand are easier to see. Something that always bothered me with chain verification is that it only makes sense if you have the 'authentic' client. So in the end the security of the whole system depends on getting the right binary, or the right sources, etc, off the arpanet...
I feel like I am getting some degree of trustability. thanks for the illusion. : ) (After writing note: I started to write a short mention, but then I think I've extended myself for long. Serve it to publish the intention in search of potential flaws.) I like to have a single point of failure. (even though I've worked for doing safety critical systems in aeronautics where there must a chain of failures to finally cause the disaster). The difference that in aeronatics the system is composed of trusted subsystems, which are all redundant. In an untrusted system you can only rely on your node and on the ledger. The single point of failure is transaction validation. If you break this, then all subsystems are compromised and the whole system collapses, all trust lost. Once a tx is validated its payload enters the ledger modifying it. The software running in the node comes from the ledger itself. In USPS the software is published by what I call the Other Foundation. An anonymous organization that publishes files in the account 4NwEEwnQbnwB7p8yCBNkx9uj71ru. if you execute in your node this command: gov data 4NwEEwnQbnwB7p8yCBNkx9uj71ru you would get this: Account 4NwEEwnQbnwB7p8yCBNkx9uj71ru locking_program 11111111111111112UzHM GAS volume 107237822 5 files. Total size 40 MiB. nN85MYnExi1jNvSdUy8ZMq2WRVy PuxQ2g 8274508 bytes 3GVc1XJ1ifeqNkGZLnhnuKCL1LvH ZouMi2A 8524527 bytes a8zrtj7BzNwRfyXYZh1XLJHhfWE OzqIox 8383214 bytes 2c6sM6cdAobGUC4RzgrekvSboavN nYhqPoi 8365226 bytes 4DtfKBoVzbQ9Ha4FdTHk8XtETHsB v8uq1f 8515720 bytes Nodes are fed from those files, they can obtain them from anywhere, the only thing they have to do is to check the content of the file hashes to one of those files (e.g. nN85MYnExi1jNvSdUy8ZMq2WRVy), and the binaries included in it can be trusted if the account 4NwEEwnQbnwB7p8yCBNkx9uj71ru is trusted. Now, in order to trust this account one must trust the other foundation, the org behind this account. The future of the governance shall be distributed, so publishing content in this account must be done via the collaboration of a pretty large group of people that are skilled to have this responsibility. This chapter of community governance deserves to be treated perhaps in a separate thread.
Remember this system is not meant to be immutable because I consider immutability a compromise on privacy.
I'm not sure which parts are 'mutable'? I mean, yes mutability helps privacy, but I assume you don't mean the accounting can be 'mutated'?
mutable after the possibility of deleting accounts (always after evidence of intention from the owner, or lack of maintenance (gas goes 0)) once deleted there's not a possibility to retrieve the content from the trusted state anymore. (perhaps from other sources that could have copied the deleted data while it was publicly available)
It means getting rid of criminal orgs to replace them with trustable machines that can serve us to run a public system -
governments don't need to be replaced, simply exterminated, but ok.
If, after extermination, the need they used to cover (registry, law, economy,..) is left in the wild they would rebirth again and again.
governments don't cover legitimate needs - as criminal organizations they exist for the benefit of the criminals who compose them. Notice that you mention "economy" as some kind of 'need' 'covered' by those criminals. Under anarchy "economy" is handled by the (actual) free market.
ok. ?? current govs?, or future social orders that we can blueprint. Two different stories. Economy is a social need since we have the need of exchanging value.
So replacement is more appropriate to me. but ok.
I dont have any political bias, ZERO. I am no-wing. I don't care about classic politics or ideologies.
that's nonsense, but ok.
I dont believe in delegating my political capabilities, whatever they are, to a 3rd party, if that makes more sense. How about you?
I fully endorse non-delegation. We're on the same page on that regard. Sorry I wasn't clear, what I called "nonsense" is the claim of not caring about classic politics. The principle of non-delegation is part of the classic political school of anarchism.
yup, although I don't like words that can carry connotations I don't identify with like e.g. lack of social order.
Haven't kept up with all the posts on this list but I've been on this thread about deadly-digital-money a bit. On Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:10 AM grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:. <summary of part of what I snipped: all the major anonymous coins have been deanonymized. the pattern of when that is possible hasn't been summarized for continued use of them. usa still hates cryptos.> Still no good distributed DEX's in operation with open APIs
for wide range of coins to plug into for cross-chain atomic swaps.
I must have missed where whatever the issue with bitshares (trading bot at https://github.com/Codaone/DEXBot ) is. It seems to meet your qualifications to me but may fall short in other areas. https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gmhuon/in_the_last_24_hours...
Watching the mining pool charts... the large pools are slowly killing off the smaller pools. BTC.com and AntPool are both Bitmain, Nakamoto Coefficient (a measure of decentralization) has dropped to 2, they control 62% of the hashrate. https://btc.com/stats/pool?pool_mode=day
Welcome to joint problem of ASICs... central sole source ASIC Corps presale mining out with their own HW first, then dictating preferred bulk sales channels and destinations... and lack of personal responsibility to your own nominal values held by running and adopting global commodity CPU/GPU mined ASIC-hard coins, abandoning large pools for smaller pools. Avoiding your responsibilities in these ways will get you censored and wiped out... just like Fiat. If it's free no effort you take, you become the victim.
I began "birddogging" (brazenly approaching and trying to ask concise obvious questions that peoples' conversation habits have been tending to turn away) the developers in response to this at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-May/017882.html . The first reply I got included a proposal that we work to build international electricity infrastructure rather than work on software solutions, maybe parroting something old. It takes a while for replies to trickle through the moderation queue. Random youtubes...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqc-yyoVKg Hayek on Friedman and Keynes
(personally I don't watch youtube, hard to quickly grok (i.e. understand thoroughly), and requires graphics systems that crash my overburdened devices; but I miss most information anyway. i know you guys are good at bringing what's important into text and it's my responsibility to read it eventually) Happy Cryptocurrency Pizza Day.
I discovered that with a lot of chemical processing old mining equipment can be used to fertilize wheat used for pie crusts. The running mining machines fire the oven. (I'm joking here, not intended meanly: trying to raise a little how to consider both the merits (e.g. transparency, economic accessibility) and harm (e.g. energy waste, deadly detached capital culture) of cryptocurrency, together)
participants (6)
-
grarpamp -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Karl -
other.arkitech -
Punk-Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness