Re: Cryptocurrencies: alpha-11 US-Public System released
closed sources running in a dedicated environment = no risk regarding security. For those concerned about running a node behind a firewall there is always the option to isolate it remote login ... ssh port 16671
DMZ or not, the box is internet connected, and nobody knows what it's doing or can do. Even if not connected, you could be trojaning their flash / firmware / microcode.
Yes I potentially could, and I assume you think I am evil. but still the unique point for raising concerns is the network activity, since who cares what is going on in the raspberry pi apart from how much electricity is taking or how much heat is dissipating. Think what do you know about the software running in your router, likely proprietary software, same thing. Regarding network activity all you'd see is around 15 connections to other nodes exchanging around 10kbps of encrypted packets. Particulrly you are able to verify the node is niether scanning the LAN not attempting to connect to any local computer. You can even run it in different vlan to prevent it. So, even when I am firmly an open-source advocate and the whole source code of the system will be released, this won't happen before I have enough user-base to justify the creation of a dev-community.
It's not your box, undisclaimed this would be unethical positioning, especially for money environments, doubly when it's not your money either. If you need logins, run your own nodes, and ask for $ if you need for buying them.
Sure people can be asked to accept the risks. But missing the risks is not making crypto optics.
But this is like disconnecting your OS from automatic updates.
If this is the reason, make sure people know it's important for development that they pull down their own updates. Besides, the ongoing network will have so many old and hacked up attack versions that now is good time to experience and deal with that in protocol. Else the network will fall apart on day one.
Updates are pulled by an script on the node that retrieves signed binaries from other nodes. I do not need, as the one who is compiling the binaries, to have access to nodes. If I do during alpha development is only for development purposes and any possibility of anyone accessing your node including me is controlled exclusively by the node-owner.
It is fully AGPL only of the software is executed on a licenced mainnet The restriction is that if you want to run a private system ot generate another public genesis you have to be licenced.
A rather anti-fork iron-fist approach :)
Indeed, although I support nodes working for different forks, I don't want to lose the mainnet (I call it channel 0) In fact I have running two forks. There are nodes working in both channel 0 and channel 4348 which is a licensed private network, different blockchains. I'd like to see a big number of forks with different ledger structures running different local economies. All nodes securing other blockchain also secure channel 0 blockchain, this is the main licence restriction, it is not about paying money for acquiring licences, to make a big public system.
Real crypto money is by nature anti-statist, and must be generally anon to survive long term, else just admit fiat and go use that. And who are you that is going to stand and sue the planet, with what money (tax?). And how are you going to sue when users take it on darknet and screw your license anyway. What about how top-secret actors and govcorp lawmakers won't care about abusing even the HESSLA license to abuse users, or try to shut it down. What about clean reversing and cloning the protocols. Are you hoping to sell product to govcorp, that will be funny. A real cryptocurrency should stand on its own such that forks are not tempting or relavant.
I am not enforcing licences. Think microsoft, they dont pursue home piracy, they just make sure big corps are paying for their software.
Users don't want to sign up (aka: leak info) to some central to run their money either.
This is anonymous system as far as underlying tech allows (IP4 transport).
And they won't want to be seen hooked to clearnet IP broadcasting their transactions and traffic patterns into trivially network analyzed clearnet. They will want TLS and compatibility with onion / i2p / cjdns / socks5 and whatever else happens to give at least some cases better than clearnet.
Information travels encrypted end2end, aka node2node
Sybil / IPv4
Sybil attacks are mostly a human problem with mostly a human solution, some web of trust. People have no idea how easy it is for agents to spin up IP nodes worldwide, IPv4 is not an obstacle for them. Even Tor can nuke 100 fakeass nodes a month. Roll human solutions into the node culture, and or pump adoption numbers so high that Sybil becomes negligible irrelavant ratio, then Sybil gives up and goes home, to run its own legit node so it doesn't starve to death. Politicians are a Sybil too, until you show them how to get unstoppable decentral Swiss Bank on their own Phone :)
My algorithm just enforces there are no more than 6 nodes per IP4. Enough measure to safely grow to million nodes from the perspective of 51% attack. Once reached millions, more nodes can be allowed per IP or even IP6 can gradually be enabled. The system doesn't care whether there are many people running a single node, or there is one person running multiple nodes. The global economy is run on the basis of nodes/addresses for the shake of anonymity. It can be assumed the network would stabilise on a node-human ratio distinct of 1:1. Which is fine. No need to enforce 1:1. Enforcing 1:1 would require disclosure of identities breaking anonymity.
Also, there are millions of legit and desirable users behind NATs, tens to thousands behind one IP... schools, corp workers, phones, roomates, hotels, VPN's, tor... and users transporting their nodes all over with them, etc. They'd end up blocked out.
Innocent people could be prevented from running a node given the IP4 restriction mentioned above. But this would be happening only while the network grows in size. Reached a point, preventive countermeaures could be relaxed allowing the participation of more people.
If in the Tor network the entry/guard nodes (who are witnesses of >>your IP4 address) could forward a hashed version of the IP4, I would >>solve the sybil protection based on IP4 without exposing the real IP4 >>address. I don't (initially) think it would compromise anonymity
Rainbow tables for all IPv4 IP's already exist.
I am not tackling specially the problem beyond IP4 disclosure. I first solve the system assuming IP4 disclosure is OK for 80% of the people. If the demand goes big enough a separate work on how to hide IP4 addresses can be undertaken without invalidating any of the work done so far.
secp256k1
https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography Sure BTC and a lot use secp256k1 so there can be motivation there, but if for purely to follow potential legacy BTC choice, that choice should probably seek some review before deploy.
As part of scalability solution I am spinning around the following idea: what problems I am not foreseeing this approach imply?
Seems to get into things like DHT, message routing between clusters, etc. Not clear if you are seeking potential solutions, or have potential one for review.
mainnet beta 50 nodes now
So what is the launch mechanism... Beta is a premine, no new genesis, leadtime till genesis, etc?
The program is: genesis block, Node #1 - Nov-2018 FFF arounf the world invided to collaborate. alpha-rc6, Node #50 - Apx Feb-2019 Told everyone to not spread the word, so I keep maneageable network size for dev. alpha-11, around ~60 Nodes (Jan 2020) ... (more nodes, I invite more people, YOU?) beta ... 1.0
Sounds impossible. In order to find the current state you need to process the blockchain.
This is legacy first implementation default ideation. Seek ways to make what is thought impossible... possible. It may be possible to do away with backhistory and simply maintain a UTXO db. There were generic posts on "UTXO" here, and some "history chain since genesis not needed" "UTXO database" whitepapers do exist out there on the subject, you will have to find and post them please.
investigate more on how cheaper a public system could be compared to current ones.
#OpenFabs and #GuerrillaNetworks
Publishing a philosophy and technical overview whitepaper would assist all the understanding, review, and development processes, and answer a lot of people's questions. Without paper, or source code, it's hard to see what you propose.
Covering classic scaling, coin privacy, economics, consensus, etc... all the usual issues, plus whatever your value add is. Protocol modularity and ability to smoothly transition any parts of the system as needed. etc.
For the shake of leveraging my effort I am not writing much literature yet. Will do as caring about the impl is less needed and can allocate more time to doc.
You see how all the cryptocurrencies fight. If you are creating something unique, just ignore everyone, else they will take away the unique and any solution it offers.
That's how I am going on : )
I think I understand some picture of your coin philosophy, and look forward to whitepaper for more. Thanks.
Thanks to you, Cheers OA
On 1/30/20, other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
closed sources running in a dedicated environment = no risk regarding security. For those concerned about running a node behind a firewall there is always the option to isolate it different vlan remote login ... ssh port 16671
Port is irrelavant, and any good internet scan can find them all in under one day. And VLAN etc is best practice for everything, but moot here... The issue is an unknown party with access to users outbound, and inbound, IP address. Even if you are not evil, you and or your machines could be killed, raided, coerced, compromised, coldboot, BadUSB, BadHDD, keylog, camera, copied, stolen... or simply become evil later. Now the users get all their USPS remotely stolen, and jailed for their IP distributing kiddie pr0n. Users need to be able to run USPS, and every other thing, over i2p, tor, cjdns, vpn, packet radio, etc if they want. Users can let you log into them over i2p, tor onion, cjdns. The can even register some anti-sybil verify flag picture of node hash ping-pong to you over USPS protocol, or over those private anonymity networks, instead of exposing their ass to IPv4. Or you can do this debugging login or whatever on your own nodes, and ask for crypto donation to buy them if you need to.
DMZ or not, the box is internet connected, and nobody knows what it's doing or can do. Even if not connected, you could be trojaning their flash / firmware / microcode.
Yes I potentially could ... who cares what is going on in the raspberry pi apart from how much electricity is taking or how much heat is dissipating.
The users are dropping ~$50 on a closed source, remotely accessible, critical service box potentially holding and managing their $BIG. The users are going to be very much caring about what's going on there. That's a questionable model for such a project to ask them to do.
I assume you think I am evil
Analying weaknesses and adversary threat models treats everything as evil, the process is not personal :)
the unique point for raising concerns is the network activity
Yes forcing users down to IPv4 and IPv6 is a huge traffic analysis risk for them. Search the thread "Tor Stinks" on this list... applies to fintech same as packettech. Everytime user hit send or receive on a transaction, N different adversary wiretaps and rogue nodes and payees and payors are going to correlate their ass in the clear, without even a thin protection like tor to help them.
Think what do you know about the software running in your router, likely proprietary software, same thing.
Lots of routers these days use Linux or BSD inside, but that is irrelavant topic. USPS is not an internet access router, it's a users Financial Box. Users do not want Fiat hands inside their Financial Box anymore. That's why real cryptocurrency is taking off, and Libra is dead.
This is anonymous system as far as underlying tech allows (IP4 transport).
Not if they have to sign up to you, or expose their clicks and usage and obvious protocol traffic signture of just using USPS to the IPv4 spies.
Regarding network activity all you'd see is around 15 connections to other nodes exchanging around 10kbps of encrypted packets.
Well hopefully everything is encrypted since day one and has some things like pinned TOFU warnings, and expiring session keys, at least something... because BTC was stupid to not use even basic TLS crypto and destroyed that advantage for 10+ years already.
But this is like disconnecting your OS from automatic updates.
Updates are pulled by an script on the node that retrieves signed binaries from other nodes. I do not need, as the one who is compiling the binaries, to have access to nodes.
A project compiling and distributing, users pulling... that's all fine. But auto rolling updates to the users fintech without users permission risks wiping out the entire network, and peoples coins with it. And the signed source code must be available, and reproducible builds must work. https://reproducible-builds.org/ Else USPS would be like the not famous GoldBug project on this list :)
It is fully AGPL only of the software is executed on a licenced mainnet The restriction is that if you want to run a private system ot generate another public genesis you have to be licenced.
I don't want to lose the mainnet (I call it channel 0) ... I am not enforcing licences.
Just realise that no license did ever stop drugs, bittorrent, government thugs, or cryptocurrency. And won't stop users or adversaries from doing things, even on mainnet. And these days old license/copyright model is overshadowed by first to market speed of innovation and best of ideas being taken up by millions of users. That, and mutual interest in not doing and not accepting devaluating things (like FED printing $$$, or mining over 51%) is what self enforces the top cryptocurrencies, not some license. Boring more freedom of BSD-2clause-like copyright is winning. Boring no control over real cryptocurrency is winning. First #OpenFabs printing #OpenHW will be huge winning. StormArea51 will get you some cool teleporter scooters :)
Think microsoft, they dont pursue home piracy, they just make sure big corps are paying for their software.
If you start sending out Windows and Office and Clippy CD's for free from your home without protection they will :)
Sybil / IPv4
My algorithm just enforces there are no more than 6 nodes per IP4.
There are more 1:1 personal nodes than that behind the NAT of the living commune and the workplace of some people on this list.
Enough measure to safely grow to million nodes from the perspective of 51% attack. Once reached millions, more nodes can be allowed per IP or even IP6 can gradually be enabled. ... But this would be happening only while the network grows in size.
BTC, ETH, cryptos... never needed those restrictions. And what fraction of other coins claim or try to enforce that? It does not seem to be a thing that is required for success. Their users either recognize the coin has a quality coin model worth mutually self-enforcing and adopting, or they abandon it to fall prey to the attacks of nature and fail like it should.
The system doesn't care whether there are many people running a single node, or there is one person running multiple nodes. The global economy is run on the basis of nodes/addresses for the shake of anonymity.
It can be assumed the network would stabilise on a node-human ratio distinct of 1:1.
Only if the users profit from more nodes is less than cost of buying or abusing more IPs to put them on. And USPS already allows 6:1.
Innocent people could be prevented from running a node given the IP4 restriction mentioned above. But this would be happening only while the network grows in size. Reached a point, preventive countermeaures could be relaxed allowing the participation of more people.
I first solve the system assuming IP4 disclosure is OK for 80% of the people. If the demand goes big enough a separate work on how to hide IP4 addresses can be undertaken without invalidating any of the work done so far.
More than 80% of the people are going to click away from USPS onion and new USPS thing. Adoption rarely happens with the 80% first. Maybe USPS has some new "democratization" theories for the paper.
So what is the launch mechanism... Beta is a premine, no new genesis, leadtime till genesis, etc?
The program is: genesis block, Node #1 - Nov-2018 invited Apx Feb-2019 Told everyone to not spread the word
These days, due to many past problems, a premine tends to be viewed as a coin that is not widely, publicly, freely announced and released, to and for anyone and everyone around the world to use, posted over same day or few, among and out to the major cryptocurrency, anonymity, privacy, fintech, trading, related community, etc forums.
From the above... USPS seems to be a premine.
USPS claims to be a privacy coin? How? If so, then there is a very big problem to combine privacy, premine, and no new genesis... Then people rightly refuse to use and adopt any privacy premines exactly because no user can openly evaluate how deep some bagholding devs, partners, and earlies have already premined thus washing out proper public release launch users future efforts and positions. And no statement or signed lie from that premine group can disprove or audit their own premine of a truly private coinbase blockchain. The BTC coinbase mining inputs to the blockchain are public, so everyone has the same fair knowledge and audit since block 0. The USPS coin should: 1) Opensource, and at least some general overview paper. 2) Get the code release ready, and running on testnet. 3) Set and widely announce a future date at least say 30-60-90-180 days out. 4) Release new genesis key as the mainnet on that date. Else you will have everyone publicly declaring you and these 60 nodes of 1+ year worth of premine as frauds, and you have no way to ever prove otherwise. Or if you do, then the coin is not private. Premining just seems despised regardless of whatever coin in the world does it. And if the coin is successful, the team will have plenty of time in the early adoption curve after a fair new Genesis launch to still mine from that new day, and invest buying at $0.01, and retire from the profit, if that is their motivation. Is USPS saying that USPS coinbase generated is somehow verifiable public knowledge, but that its transactions are private?
FFF
What does this string mean?
more nodes, I invite more people, YOU?
As a node on an onion / i2p / cjdns, or behind a tor exit, and without registering disclosing communicating linking their identities, yes maybe some people on list would be easy to say yes to that. Hack on :)
grarpamp, thanks for coining the abbreviation USPS, your answers inline.. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, January 31, 2020 10:28 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/30/20, other.arkitech other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
closed sources running in a dedicated environment = no risk regarding security. For those concerned about running a node behind a firewall there is always the option to isolate it different vlan
remote login ... ssh port 16671
Port is irrelavant, and any good internet scan can find them all in under one day. And VLAN etc is best practice for everything, but moot here...
I know, nondefault ssh port is not a security measure, just info I give. Important: SSH only applies to nodes I control because owners voluntarily allowed for development.
The issue is an unknown party with access to users outbound, and inbound, IP address. Even if you are not evil, you and or your machines could be killed, raided, coerced, compromised, coldboot, BadUSB, BadHDD, keylog, camera, copied, stolen... or simply become evil later. Now the users get all their USPS remotely stolen, and jailed for their IP distributing kiddie pr0n.
Users need to be able to run USPS, and every other thing, over i2p, tor, cjdns, vpn, packet radio, etc if they want.
There is a reason for using IP4, see below.
Users can let you log into them over i2p, tor onion, cjdns.
The can even register some anti-sybil verify flag picture of node hash ping-pong to you over USPS protocol, or over those private anonymity networks, instead of exposing their ass to IPv4.
Or you can do this debugging login or whatever on your own nodes, and ask for crypto donation to buy them if you need to.
DMZ or not, the box is internet connected, and nobody knows what it's doing or can do. Even if not connected, you could be trojaning their flash / firmware / microcode.
Yes I potentially could ... who cares what is going on in the raspberry pi apart from how much electricity is taking or how much heat is dissipating.
The users are dropping ~$50 on a closed source, remotely accessible, critical service box potentially holding and managing their $BIG. The users are going to be very much caring about what's going on there. That's a questionable model for such a project to ask them to do.
Users have a linux box with root access protecting their wallet. No one else but you enter the box. Software updates are pulled like your OS pulls updates from repositories. You can find a number of devices at your home fitting this model: Router, TV, Windows.
I assume you think I am evil
Analying weaknesses and adversary threat models treats everything as evil, the process is not personal :)
I know, this is a trustless project.
the unique point for raising concerns is the network activity
Yes forcing users down to IPv4 and IPv6 is a huge traffic analysis risk for them. Search the thread "Tor Stinks" on this list... applies to fintech same as packettech. Everytime user hit send or receive on a transaction, N different adversary wiretaps and rogue nodes and payees and payors are going to correlate their ass in the clear, without even a thin protection like tor to help them.
Think what do you know about the software running in your router, likely proprietary software, same thing.
Lots of routers these days use Linux or BSD inside, but that is irrelavant topic.
It is not an irrelevant parallelism. USPS box is debian Linux where you can login as root. Most routers that run proprietary software inside don't let you in as root, but you still run it.
USPS is not an internet access router, it's a users Financial Box.
USPS is more than a coin, it is a system that cares about your private data. not only financial data, everithing fits, medical records, pics, ... Security is maxed in this project.
Users do not want Fiat hands inside their Financial Box anymore. That's why real cryptocurrency is taking off, and Libra is dead.
This is anonymous system as far as underlying tech allows (IP4 transport).
Not if they have to sign up to you, or expose their clicks and usage and obvious protocol traffic signture of just using USPS to the IPv4 spies.
Regarding network activity all you'd see is around 15 connections to other nodes exchanging around 10kbps of encrypted packets.
Well hopefully everything is encrypted since day one and has some things like pinned TOFU warnings, and expiring session keys, at least something... because BTC was stupid to not use even basic TLS crypto and destroyed that advantage for 10+ years already.
The consensus algorithms do not exchange private data, TLS does little for security, redundancy of information makes its potential utility unneccesary, man-in-the-middle modifying traffic does not impact in the consensus. TLS comes important only in private P2P trades. That's why BTC does not need encryption. Also USPS doesn't need it, although I run the public protocol encrypted mostly for verifying it works as well as unencrypted public traffic.
But this is like disconnecting your OS from automatic updates.
Updates are pulled by an script on the node that retrieves signed binaries from other nodes. I do not need, as the one who is compiling the binaries, to have access to nodes.
A project compiling and distributing, users pulling... that's all fine. But auto rolling updates to the users fintech without users permission risks wiping out the entire network, and peoples coins with it.
That's foolish reasoning because pulling and auto-pulling differs little. You voluntarily allow or disallow your binaries are in sync with the rest of the network, one-time setting.
And the signed source code must be available, and reproducible builds must work.
Only when the project gains user base an open source community will be started, with reproducible builds of course and ALL code open. Not before, there is no point to opensource it before time. Honestly, what are you going to do with 40K lines of C++ code? without user base you would not review a single file. Pointless at this stage to open source. I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA.
Else USPS would be like the not famous GoldBug project on this list :)
Not sure what you mean, but might be performing bit of FUD with this project.
It is fully AGPL only of the software is executed on a licenced mainnet The restriction is that if you want to run a private system ot generate another public genesis you have to be licenced.
I don't want to lose the mainnet (I call it channel 0) ... I am not enforcing licences.
Just realise that no license did ever stop drugs, bittorrent, government thugs, or cryptocurrency. And won't stop users or adversaries from doing things, even on mainnet.
And these days old license/copyright model is overshadowed by first to market speed of innovation and best of ideas being taken up by millions of users. That, and mutual interest in not doing and not accepting devaluating things (like FED printing $$$, or mining over 51%) is what self enforces the top cryptocurrencies, not some license.
Boring more freedom of BSD-2clause-like copyright is winning. Boring no control over real cryptocurrency is winning. First #OpenFabs printing #OpenHW will be huge winning. StormArea51 will get you some cool teleporter scooters :)
Think microsoft, they dont pursue home piracy, they just make sure big corps are paying for their software.
If you start sending out Windows and Office and Clippy CD's for free from your home without protection they will :)
Sybil / IPv4
My algorithm just enforces there are no more than 6 nodes per IP4.
There are more 1:1 personal nodes than that behind the NAT of the living commune and the workplace of some people on this list.
Enough measure to safely grow to million nodes from the perspective of 51% attack. Once reached millions, more nodes can be allowed per IP or even IP6 can gradually be enabled. ... But this would be happening only while the network grows in size.
BTC, ETH, cryptos... never needed those restrictions. And what fraction of other coins claim or try to enforce that? It does not seem to be a thing that is required for success. Their users either recognize the coin has a quality coin model worth mutually self-enforcing and adopting, or they abandon it to fall prey to the attacks of nature and fail like it should.
The system doesn't care whether there are many people running a single node, or there is one person running multiple nodes. The global economy is run on the basis of nodes/addresses for the shake of anonymity.
It can be assumed the network would stabilise on a node-human ratio distinct of 1:1.
Only if the users profit from more nodes is less than cost of buying or abusing more IPs to put them on. And USPS already allows 6:1.
The point is that to perform Sybil carries a considerable cost. That's the fundamental law sustaining hashcash (BTC's PoW)
Innocent people could be prevented from running a node given the IP4 restriction mentioned above. But this would be happening only while the network grows in size. Reached a point, preventive countermeaures could be relaxed allowing the participation of more people.
I first solve the system assuming IP4 disclosure is OK for 80% of the people. If the demand goes big enough a separate work on how to hide IP4 addresses can be undertaken without invalidating any of the work done so far.
More than 80% of the people are going to click away from USPS onion and new USPS thing. Adoption rarely happens with the 80% first.
Maybe USPS has some new "democratization" theories for the paper.
I don't know what you mean. How democracy enters into this?. There are IP4 endpoints, that's all. And this is to allow a resiliency model based on number of nodes (as oposed to CPU power), which is much more aligned with democracy, as every node benefits from the profit generated by the system evenly.
So what is the launch mechanism... Beta is a premine, no new genesis, leadtime till genesis, etc?
The program is: genesis block, Node #1 - Nov-2018 invited Apx Feb-2019 Told everyone to not spread the word
These days, due to many past problems, a premine tends to be viewed as a coin that is not widely, publicly, freely announced and released, to and for anyone and everyone around the world to use, posted over same day or few, among and out to the major cryptocurrency, anonymity, privacy, fintech, trading, related community, etc forums.
From the above... USPS seems to be a premine.
It is not premine, everything 'mined' so far has done in the clear. It is easy to verify how many 'satoshis' should be a in circulation since genesis. And easy to verify the theoretical number matches the actual amount in circulation. Proving that no alterations to cryptoeconomics has been done since then. You ask me to shutdown mainnet to start another. Like if I ask to restart bitcoin because I joined later. How this action would be taken by people who are running a node since long ago? Still I advised to keep the size of the network small during alpha, where we are still. Although discrete announcements was made on public forums like reddit, see - https://www.reddit.com/r/cryptodevs/comments/abs2yj/low_cost_public_system/ So, from your perspective this could be a premine, from the perspective of current running nodes the network is going on. Premine means reserving a share of tokens before launch. USPS didn't do this. What USPS did was to grow slow in the open. Anyway, Satoshi Nakamoto accumulated million bitcoins, you accuse me of pre-mining and if I did, Satoshi did. None of us did. So your comment could be FUD again.
USPS claims to be a privacy coin? How?
If so, then there is a very big problem to combine privacy, premine, and no new genesis...
USPS is not a coin. You can create your own coin in it though. I don't know what you nmean by privacy coin. USPS is a systems that negotiates your private data efficiently using P2P protocols in your behald for the unique interest of defending your interest. (monetization, trading, visiting a Dr. ,.. anything) Nothing to do with the fact that the platform already started in the past.
Then people rightly refuse to use and adopt any privacy premines exactly because no user can openly evaluate how deep some bagholding devs, partners, and earlies have already premined thus washing out proper public release launch users future efforts and positions.
You can always join to be earlier than the rest, everyone is invited to join the earliers. Obviously there are people who are already running nodes, they all deserve every penny they earnt since they joined.
And no statement or signed lie from that premine group can disprove or audit their own premine of a truly private coinbase blockchain. The BTC coinbase mining inputs to the blockchain are public, so everyone has the same fair knowledge and audit since block 0.
The USPS coin should:
Dont call it coin please. It is not a coin.
1. Opensource, and at least some general overview paper.
When user base is big enough a dev-community will be started. GPL
2. Get the code release ready, and running on testnet.
Running on mainnet
3. Set and widely announce a future date at least say 30-60-90-180 days out. 4. Release new genesis key as the mainnet on that date.
I could not do this announcements because there wasn't resources to do so. I needed nodes development and people supported me, I cannot let them down restarting the blockchain.
Else you will have everyone publicly declaring you and these 60 nodes of 1+ year worth of premine as frauds,
This would be real FUD in an excercise of twisting the reality.
and you have no way to ever prove otherwise. Or if you do, then the coin is not private.
Premining just seems despised regardless of whatever coin in the world does it.
And if the coin is successful, the team will have plenty of time in the early adoption curve after a fair new Genesis launch to still mine from that new day, and invest buying at $0.01, and retire from the profit, if that is their motivation.
Is USPS saying that USPS coinbase generated is somehow verifiable public knowledge, but that its transactions are private?
You can do basic macroeconomic math as explained above. Anyway who cares about how much crypto has been generated so far, we're still in alpha, there's plenty of time and little amount has been pumped in comparison with the max. [int64 space] Basically the number every node has earned are directly proportional to the time they've been in. Fair.
FFF
What does this string mean?
startup jargon, see e.g. this coming from ggogling it : https://businessangelinstitute.org/blog/2013/07/31/fff-family-friends-fools/
more nodes, I invite more people, YOU?
As a node on an onion / i2p / cjdns, or behind a tor exit, and without registering disclosing communicating linking their identities, yes maybe some people on list would be easy to say yes to that.
Hack on :)
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:24:02 +0000 "other.arkitech" <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
Software updates are pulled like your OS pulls updates from repositories. You can find a number of devices at your home fitting this model: Router, TV, Windows.
people tolerate that 'model' because they are idiots. Especially idiots who buy a retard-TV and run windows. But the 'model' is also pushed on them, so they are not completely to blame. Conclusion : the two reasons the 'model' is used are stupidity and criminal intent. Also, notice how piece of shit 'developers' can't write decent code so they keep updating their garbage to fix the endless stream of bugs they create. Useless assholes. And in the process, they end up having complete control over, and owning hardware that other idiots, known as 'users', paid for.
I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA.
NDA? LMAO! Frankly, at this point I should tell you to get lost.
On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 10:24:33AM +0000, other.arkitech wrote:
I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA.
NDA? LMAO! Frankly, at this point I should tell you to get lost.
said who?
There might be something lost in language barrier - or not, not sure here. There are perhaps not many "hard core floss devs" willing to sign an NDA with you. The question folks will want answered is "why should I sign an NDA, just to look at code or to write some modules?" But again, perhaps we are missing something between the language barriers... Knowing the following getting repetitive, I strongly suggest beginning discussions on the real fundamentals - some are simply not grasping that your "virtual/ collective/ public ledger taxation" model is something we want to get on board with. It might be - but such a "might be" must live in the minds of those you want to convince to join you, see? Such conversations might best be started with questions. Here's one such hypothetical beginning: Do we consider roads to be "public infrastructure"? In what ways can we pay for roads? Do we want more roads? What criteria should we use for deciding amongst the different ways to pay for new roads? Good luck,
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:20:45 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
The question folks will want answered is "why should I sign an NDA, just to look at code or to write some modules?"
But again, perhaps we are missing something between the language barriers...
"automatic updates", NDAs, 'privacy' reliant on the tor network, closed source, and all that as building blocks for some vague political end. It's not really impressive. I don't think I'm having trouble understanding his proposals. So I guess arkitech can offer an 'NDA' which is actually a null and void 'agreement' (like any other kind of IP garbage) and I can just laugh. And, my english is of course less than stellar but I'll assume my point gets across anyway.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, February 2, 2020 4:09 AM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:20:45 +1100 Zenaan Harkness zen@freedbms.net wrote:
The question folks will want answered is "why should I sign an NDA, just to look at code or to write some modules?" But again, perhaps we are missing something between the language barriers...
"automatic updates", NDAs, 'privacy' reliant on the tor network, closed source, and all that as building blocks for some vague political end. It's not really impressive. I don't think I'm having trouble understanding his proposals.
So I guess arkitech can offer an 'NDA' which is actually a null and void 'agreement' (like any other kind of IP garbage) and I can just laugh. And, my english is of course less than stellar but I'll assume my point gets across anyway.
I do projects based on this platform for a living. In business there exist collaborations and devs from other companies are working with the source code under a standard NDA. This approach is ok in this context. You can forget about taxation, I unfortunately used this word at the beginning and its meaning has nothing to do with current politics or govs. I am really surprised that 'Automatic updates' is a thing for you. But if you have a better idea to have a distributed network in sync go ahead an explain. If you answer to this I hope you don't consider any manual step in the loop because only a small fraction would care or bother to pull updates. Remember that we are talking about an embedded device, a dedicated piece of hardware running a system where the features are what you're missing to consider, blinded by considerations that you would only use when installing software in your workstation computer. I don't think you have understood the sybil prevention based on IP4 for a blockhainn where consensus does not make distinctions based on CPU power, nor stake, but works for all node without discrimination. The only reason you call it garbage is because you don't care to understand leave alone finding valuable comments. I don't thing you've seen any other crypto running on inexpensive hardware with a true flat structure (no delegate nodes, no bias at all)
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 09:36:06 +0000 "other.arkitech" <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
I do projects based on this platform for a living. In business there exist collaborations and devs from other companies are working with the source code under a standard NDA. This approach is ok in this context.
no it isn't. NDAs are not legitimate contracts. And a lot of 'business activity' is criminal activity.
I am really surprised that 'Automatic updates' is a thing for you. But if you have a better idea to have a distributed network in sync go ahead an explain. If you answer to this I hope you don't consider any manual step in the loop because only a small fraction would care or bother to pull updates.
Few people care about updating 'your' software? Maybe your software isn't worth updating then.
Remember that we are talking about an embedded device, a dedicated piece of hardware running a system where the features are what you're missing to consider, blinded by considerations that you would only use when installing software in your workstation computer.
What's the difference between 'embedded device' and 'workstation computer'? Rhetorical question...
I don't think you have understood the sybil prevention based on IP4 for a blockhainn where consensus does not make distinctions based on CPU power, nor stake, but works for all node without discrimination.
If you identify users by IP then you can have some sort of 'sybil resistance'. Oops, so users are identified by IP to some unspecified degree?
The only reason you call it garbage is because you don't care to understand leave alone finding valuable comments.
You are failing to find the value in my comments. So again, closed source, NDAs, remote control, tor, all those things are garbage. The fact that you are willing to use them gives your game away.
I don't thing you've seen any other crypto running on inexpensive hardware with a true flat structure (no delegate nodes, no bias at all)
You don't have any serious documentation and your system is 'closed source'. Plus your understanding of political philosophy isn't impressive. If you want to be taken seriously then clearly explain what, exactly, is the nature of the 'solution' you're advertising.
[OBORONA-SPAM] ? this should be a false positive answer inline.. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, February 2, 2020 12:20 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 10:24:33AM +0000, other.arkitech wrote:
I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA.
NDA? LMAO! Frankly, at this point I should tell you to get lost.
said who?
There might be something lost in language barrier - or not, not sure here.
There are perhaps not many "hard core floss devs" willing to sign an NDA with you.
The question folks will want answered is "why should I sign an NDA, just to look at code or to write some modules?"
But again, perhaps we are missing something between the language barriers...
Knowing the following getting repetitive, I strongly suggest beginning discussions on the real fundamentals - some are simply not grasping that your "virtual/ collective/ public ledger taxation" model is something we want to get on board with.
It might be - but such a "might be" must live in the minds of those you want to convince to join you, see?
Such conversations might best be started with questions.
Here's one such hypothetical beginning:
Do we consider roads to be "public infrastructure"?
In what ways can we pay for roads?
Do we want more roads?
What criteria should we use for deciding amongst the different ways to pay for new roads?
Good luck,
Thanks for changing route Zen, As Punk-Stasi points out the Public System definition is vague at this point. what this USPS proposes is a bottom-up approach to a Public System, starting from the fundamentals. The proposal is to replace current Governments with a low-cost distributed machine that would collect inputs and produce outputs in infinite loop. A system that would have a real view of the 'common interest' because it would not apply filters in people's input. The system would be able to let people decide whether if a 'road' is convenient or not, and how to fund it. Everything is better compared to our current model of participation in the society based on ticking a box every 4 or 5 years.
On 2/2/20, other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
The proposal is to replace current Governments with a low-cost distributed machine that would collect inputs and produce outputs
Sure, that is all good and interesting to try.
not apply filters in people's input. The system would be able to let people decide whether if a 'road' is convenient or not, and how to fund it.
What if the people decide USPS is inconvenient due to license inability to hack and fork, or is being too centralized monetized premined controlled by all these "business investors" and "private invites". People will leave it with no adoption, and all USPS people names and funds die with it. Even from old age who going to enforce or care then. And when people simply reverse engineer or clone around and make a new better than USPS system. At least actual opensource distributed forkable as needed might survives with good reverence and actual freedom. How can peopel think trying to teach new voluntaryism model of "letting people decide" without force concerning "whatabout muh roads"... can be honestly taught using a software application students will eventually discover is based on non-voluntary license force. Did not some students rise to destroy this conflicting master. How to not apply filters to peoples tools.
Everything is better compared to our current model of participation in the society based on ticking a box every 4 or 5 years.
Then don't tick any box. And write code boxes to bypass them. Or tick the Libertarian box if you want to see Stasi boy go postal. Sure maybe there is no problem making private money in some ways, just that truth should be disclaimed in front. "spend years of my life learning to code improvements/modules to particular software platform, it might as bloody well be something I can continue to do if I leave my present corporation"
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 06:44:27PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:24:02 +0000 "other.arkitech" <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
Software updates are pulled like your OS pulls updates from repositories. You can find a number of devices at your home fitting this model: Router, TV, Windows.
people tolerate that 'model' because they are idiots. Especially idiots who buy a retard-TV and run windows. But the 'model' is also pushed on them, so they are not completely to blame. Conclusion : the two reasons the 'model' is used are stupidity and criminal intent.
Ok.
Also, notice how piece of shit 'developers' can't write decent code so they keep updating their garbage to fix the endless stream of bugs they create. Useless assholes. And in the process, they end up having complete control over, and owning hardware that other idiots, known as 'users', paid for.
Developing bug free software, is not so easy (and this is of course no reason to push proprietary software or advocate for broken update models). Analogy: Privacy is a sort of solved problem - PGP, TLS, SSL, NACL/ crypto box. Anonymity of any sort on the other hand, is so far from solved it's not funny, and the current $$$ regime is demanding greater and greater submission to giving up of private data makes the target look "sustainable manned base on Mars" levels of difficult. This reminds me of some years back, a vehement "defender of developers" who literarily bashed "those useless furkin USERS!" to an extreme - until someone gently asked which $EDITOR he used, and did he not consider himself a -user- of that editor? So, bug free software? Have at it bro! And you will be showered with accolades in the order of "shirt, if DJB ain't some kind o' genius, we'll just forgive his social acerbic-ness and let him code and create in his ivory tower!" Of course, when looked at objectively, most of us are indeed idiots. Except of course "I, In My Extremely High Opinion". If you ain't got bug free software to push, your "developers are useless bug creating arseholes" cry won't land all too well with many folks.
I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA.
NDA? LMAO! Frankly, at this point I should tell you to get lost.
The proprietary software horse has left the barn - and that's a good thing - the consequence being that any thoughtful software developer will not put his energy into proprietary - aka "someone else's" - enterprise/ software/ company. FLOSS works for "lowly developers" because it is a fundamentally fairer model than proprietary software. "If I spend years of my life learning to code improvements/modules to particular software platform, it might as bloody well be something I can continue to do if I leave my present corporation" etc.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 1, 2020 10:27 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 06:44:27PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:24:02 +0000 "other.arkitech" other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
Software updates are pulled like your OS pulls updates from repositories. You can find a number of devices at your home fitting this model: Router, TV, Windows.
people tolerate that 'model' because they are idiots. Especially idiots who buy a retard-TV and run windows. But the 'model' is also pushed on them, so they are not completely to blame. Conclusion : the two reasons the 'model' is used are stupidity and criminal intent.
Ok.
Also, notice how piece of shit 'developers' can't write decent code so they keep updating their garbage to fix the endless stream of bugs they create. Useless assholes. And in the process, they end up having complete control over, and owning hardware that other idiots, known as 'users', paid for.
Developing bug free software, is not so easy (and this is of course no reason to push proprietary software or advocate for broken update models).
Analogy:
Privacy is a sort of solved problem - PGP, TLS, SSL, NACL/ crypto box.
Anonymity of any sort on the other hand, is so far from solved it's not funny, and the current $$$ regime is demanding greater and greater submission to giving up of private data makes the target look "sustainable manned base on Mars" levels of difficult.
This reminds me of some years back, a vehement "defender of developers" who literarily bashed "those useless furkin USERS!" to an extreme - until someone gently asked which $EDITOR he used, and did he not consider himself a -user- of that editor?
So, bug free software?
Have at it bro! And you will be showered with accolades in the order of "shirt, if DJB ain't some kind o' genius, we'll just forgive his social acerbic-ness and let him code and create in his ivory tower!"
Of course, when looked at objectively, most of us are indeed idiots.
Except of course "I, In My Extremely High Opinion".
If you ain't got bug free software to push, your "developers are useless bug creating arseholes" cry won't land all too well with many folks.
I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA.
NDA? LMAO! Frankly, at this point I should tell you to get lost.
The proprietary software horse has left the barn - and that's a good thing - the consequence being that any thoughtful software developer will not put his energy into proprietary - aka "someone else's" - enterprise/ software/ company.
FLOSS works for "lowly developers" because it is a fundamentally fairer model than proprietary software. "If I spend years of my life learning to code improvements/modules to particular software platform, it might as bloody well be something I can continue to do if I leave my present corporation" etc.
I am between two lands. On one side I joined the Free Software movement mid90's, since then, all I have done require using/producing GPL software. I Fought Micro$oft evil empire of proprietary software and all I want is this model to die. On the other side, 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. Only when I am at good financial position that allows me continue with the project I'll make 1.- User base; 2.- dev community on GPL/AGPL os any other FOSS. You see. It is not about a war between proprietary/free sw. It is how to getting mainstream. My strategy is: 1st stage: privative - seed the project 2nd stage: Free - grow the fish I apologize to me and to you free software advocates all of us for using a privative model as a continuity solution for the project. I understand your complaints. Cheers OA
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 21:27:27 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Developing bug free software, is not so easy (and this is of course no reason to push proprietary software or advocate for broken update models).
Exactly my point. "automatic updates" is a bad incentive that only makes the problem worse.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 1, 2020 7:44 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 21:27:27 +1100 Zenaan Harkness zen@freedbms.net wrote:
Developing bug free software, is not so easy (and this is of course no reason to push proprietary software or advocate for broken update models).
Exactly my point. "automatic updates" is a bad incentive that only makes the problem worse.
And how would you do in a system where all nodes run the same (major) version without relying on the user to manual update their node?
On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 04:46:35PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 21:27:27 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Developing bug free software, is not so easy (and this is of course no reason to push proprietary software or advocate for broken update models).
Exactly my point. "automatic updates" is a bad incentive that only makes the problem worse.
Have to agree with this - good point.
On 1/31/20, other.arkitech <other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
coining the abbreviation USPS
It seems like a coin, coins have tickers. It's not much of a good one, sounds too much like Postal Services, United Parcel, too much USA.
Important: SSH only applies to nodes I control because owners voluntarily allowed for development.
No one else but you enter the box.
If past is right, it was enabled by default in the image and could login to all the users machines, and required all users to register their IP to you before they could run their nodes.
There is a reason for using IP4, see below.
It's invalidated by both easy and inexpensive attack models. Especially before masses supercede over Sybil. So there is not point to this IPv4, early, or later. Unless there is some whitepaper to show different.
Users have a linux box with root access protecting their wallet.
No, users have a closed source USPS box that they have no idea what it is doing with their funds and their interaction with it. There is zero protection there. Users would be insane to put funds on closed source remotely accessible box that some license and mandatory autoupdates further shove centralized counterparty control risk down users throats.
Software updates are pulled like your OS pulls updates from repositories.
Ask your local FinTech dayjob how scary that is.... no, no, no.
You can find a number of devices at your home fitting this model: Router, TV, Windows.
All of those closed devices are untrustable surveillance, attack, and propaganda boxes that should be hit with a hammer.
It is not an irrelevant parallelism. USPS box is debian Linux where you can login as root. Most routers that run proprietary software inside don't let you in as root, but you still run it.
An opensource BSD/linux router that users can hack on is an irrelavant nonexample. Root access to USPS doesn't matter much when USPS users cannot hack on and run USPS however they want due to closedsource and license. That's a relavant distributed fintech security issue,
it is a system that cares about your private data. not only financial data, everithing fits, medical records, pics, ... Security is maxed in this project.
Needs a whitepaper to evaluate this.
The consensus algorithms do not exchange private data. redundancy of information makes its potential utility unneccesary, man-in-the-middle modifying traffic does not impact in the consensus. TLS comes important only in private P2P trades.
Was a basic analyse the failure modes and breadth of possible attack even done. At minimum, every users transaction is spyable... srcIP, dstIP, content, as it is broadcast across the network. "Private P2P trades" are probably not private because they too need to ripple information across the spy network to register in consensus crunching pools, etc. All the miners mempools or whatever you call them will know exactly what IP hops the tx came from.
TLS does little for security, That's why BTC does not need encryption. Also USPS doesn't need it
Haha, that was the bad joke the NSA police politician propaganda played on you :) Everything that traverses clearnet needs at least some basic TLS mode... TOFU, PSK, oppurtunistic... or other good crypto. TLS is free, to refuse to crypt every single connection today, looks even more stupid than it did in 2010 and 2000. Regardless even if it only make it tiny little harder for adversary, it is non optional today.
But auto rolling updates to the users fintech without users permission risks wiping out the entire network, and peoples coins with it.
That's foolish reasoning because pulling and auto-pulling differs little.
No, auto-pull auto-run is vastly different from manual-pull manual-run.
You voluntarily allow or disallow your binaries are in sync with the rest of the network, one-time setting.
Users should set it to OFF until they can eval and test and talk about it with others.
Only when the project gains user base an open source community will be started, with reproducible builds of course and ALL code open. Not before, there is no point to opensource it before time. Honestly, what are you going to do with 40K lines of C++ code? without user base you would not review a single file. Pointless at this stage to open source.
These ways is not how true opensource projects operate.
I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA.
As before, how exactly are you going to enforce that NDA? How exactly are you going to enforce your nonfree License / Copyright? How exactly are you going to stop users plugging it into overlay networks? Do you think cryptoanarchy cares about those things? Are you going to beg and vote and pay for the State to go shoot people dead?
It is fully AGPL only of the software is executed on a licenced mainnet
Then it seems not AGPL, it seems some proprietary license that cannot use the name AGPL. Good luck... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
The point is that to perform Sybil carries a considerable cost. That's the fundamental law sustaining hashcash (BTC's PoW)
PoW is hard real work. IPv4 are artificial and cheap, entire CIDRs and neighborhoods will be rented, and cracked boxes, and source code changed, and more. The only reason distributed real cryptos work is mutual financial disincentive against breaking the rules. If Sybil breaks the rules, Sybil loses value in proportion to the breakage, therefore Sybil does not break the rules. IPv4 seems artifical restriction upon users freedom and privacy. Unless there is whitepaper formally showing why it is not.
I first solve the system assuming IP4 disclosure is OK for 80% of the people.
You said 100% of the people must disclose their IPv4 to run their node, seems assume that 100% of people will be happy with no privacy. Now you say 80%. But how can that 20% happen if you don't let users run over overlay networks?
And this is to allow a resiliency model based on number of nodes (as oposed to CPU power), which is much more aligned with democracy, as every node benefits from the profit generated by the system evenly.
Where is the whitepaper on this democracy.
It is not premine, everything 'mined' so far has done in the clear.
USPS meets one of crypto internets definition of crypto premine already above. USPS had private selected closed-invitation-only-mode for ~4 months, and secret hush hush cabal for 1+ year, and no sourcecode ever. That's hardly free, fair, opensource, and in the clear, freedom for all to come and play from day one of Genesis no restrictions. USPS is going to take heat for that.
It is easy to verify how many 'satoshis' should be a in circulation since genesis.
What if there "should be" 10, how are you going to show the users that there "are exactly" 10? How are they going to know the bags in the current network hold exactly 9?
And easy to verify the theoretical number matches the actual amount in circulation. Proving that no alterations to cryptoeconomics has been done since then.
Even privacy coin like ZEC XMR has ways to evaluate the coinbase and inflation. With no code and no paper, users cannot.
ask to restart
Many from the crypto internet would suggest USPS a new Genesis.
How this action would be taken by people who are running a node since long ago?
USPS and them was not a fair and open start, it seems a premine, so this question does not matter.
I could not do this announcements because there wasn't resources to do so. Although discrete announcements was made on public forums like reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/cryptodevs/comments/abs2yj/low_cost_public_system/
That's a low traffic niche dev forum, not something mass popular like /r/cryptocurrency, /r/raspberry_pi, or even /r/btc, /r/netsec, /r/privacy, etc. Post cost is $zero resource.
So, from your perspective this could be a premine, from the perspective of current running nodes the network is going on.
Go ask popular reddit cryptocurrency forums what they think the modes and effects of a premine is. Don't ask me.
Premine means reserving a share of tokens before launch. USPS didn't do this.
USPS hush team have received a share of tokens before general public release launch. Matters they did, not how.
What USPS did was to grow slow in the open.
No, it seems was to selected FFF and hush hush team.
Anyway, Satoshi Nakamoto accumulated million bitcoins, you accuse me of pre-mining and if I did, Satoshi did.
Satoshi released opensource code and whitepaper, no restrictions, freedom for all, to the world, new Genesis, first... certainly before mining any significant like millions. Most definitely nor for over year before wide release in relative quiet.
USPS is not a coin. USPS is more than a coin You can create your own coin in it though. Dont call it coin please. It is not a coin.
You said and implied in times and places that it is a coin. It seems fundamental underpinning is as a coin function. It proposed to buy/sell/trade as a coin. Whatever social wrappers anyone put around it, it still seems coin function.
I don't know what you nmean by privacy coin.
Search: "privacy coins"
You can always join to be earlier than the rest, everyone is invited to join the earliers. Obviously there are people who are already running nodes, they all deserve every penny they earnt since they joined.
Most sane people are going to want to see paper and source before they invest any time or money in buying, setting up, and running something. If that takes long maybe they will consider it likely to be mined out and decline to adopt, which drives pennies to zero.
When user base is big enough a dev-community will be started. GPL
GPL? Then where did AGPL go.
Else you will have everyone publicly declaring you and these 60 nodes of 1+ year worth of premine as frauds,
This would be real FUD in an excercise of twisting the reality.
The internet of cryptocurrency is very likely to view USPS as a premine. That is just information for your consideration. The internet is not my retarded self, and is not on this list, the internet is out there somewhere :)
You can do basic macroeconomic math as explained above.
Potential adopters cannot do that without the paper and source.
Anyway who cares about how much crypto has been generated so far
Yes, if amount in the coinbase and inflation mean nothing to them, then they should just stick to Fiat, because then Fiat is what they will get.
still in alpha, there's plenty of time and little amount has been pumped in comparison with the max. [int64 space]
Meaningless without paper and source.
I cannot let them down restarting the blockchain.
But you just said there is plenty of "int64" left for them ;-)
Basically the number every node has earned are directly proportional to the time they've been in. Fair.
Better to ask the internet of cryptocurrency about any fair.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 12:22 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/31/20, other.arkitech other.arkitech@protonmail.com wrote:
coining the abbreviation USPS
It seems like a coin, coins have tickers. It's not much of a good one, sounds too much like Postal Services, United Parcel, too much USA.
Important: SSH only applies to nodes I control because owners voluntarily allowed for development.
No one else but you enter the box.
If past is right, it was enabled by default in the image and could login to all the users machines, and required all users to register their IP to you before they could run their nodes.
There is a reason for using IP4, see below.
I have a ssh access to many of the existing nodes, as people who run them, (some I know, some I don't know who is behind), understands I need it for development purposes. This is ok for alpha status and is also low risk while the value is low.
It's invalidated by both easy and inexpensive attack models. Especially before masses supercede over Sybil. So there is not point to this IPv4, early, or later. Unless there is some whitepaper to show different.
The whitepaper is in the kitchen, but is a slow cook. Remember that this system is in late-development stage. It won't be officially released until the current alpha-11 evolve to 1.0
Users have a linux box with root access protecting their wallet.
No, users have a closed source USPS box that they have no idea what it is doing with their funds and their interaction with it. There is zero protection there. Users would be insane to put funds on closed source remotely accessible box that some license and mandatory autoupdates further shove centralized counterparty control risk down users throats.
Software updates are pulled like your OS pulls updates from repositories.
Ask your local FinTech dayjob how scary that is.... no, no, no.
I bet they all have their operating system automatic updates turned on as they ought to do to keep their systems updated.
You can find a number of devices at your home fitting this model: Router, TV, Windows.
All of those closed devices are untrustable surveillance, attack, and propaganda boxes that should be hit with a hammer.
USPS this node will be trustable and secure on 1.0 because the dev-tools that are present during alpha will be gone, an the software will be released open-source.
It is not an irrelevant parallelism. USPS box is debian Linux where you can login as root. Most routers that run proprietary software inside don't let you in as root, but you still run it.
An opensource BSD/linux router that users can hack on is an irrelavant nonexample.
Root access to USPS doesn't matter much when USPS users cannot hack on and run USPS however they want due to closedsource and license. That's a relavant distributed fintech security issue,
it is a system that cares about your private data. not only financial data, everithing fits, medical records, pics, ... Security is maxed in this project.
Needs a whitepaper to evaluate this.
This is a project aimed to maximize privacy, the whitepaper will tell the details.
The consensus algorithms do not exchange private data. redundancy of information makes its potential utility unneccesary, man-in-the-middle modifying traffic does not impact in the consensus. TLS comes important only in private P2P trades.
Was a basic analyse the failure modes and breadth of possible attack even done. At minimum, every users transaction is spyable... srcIP, dstIP, content, as it is broadcast across the network. "Private P2P trades" are probably not private because they too need to ripple information across the spy network to register in consensus crunching pools, etc. All the miners mempools or whatever you call them will know exactly what IP hops the tx came from.
Using encrypted communication is impossible (provably impossible) to determine the originating node of a transaction. Using clear communication, is a not easy problem to deduce the originating address of a transaction. A transaction contains input and output addresses, which are already anonymized. So it offers pretty good privacy. The most you can know is that a particular IP address operates a node, difficult to breach privacy. Only "The Man" and your Internet Company could transform IP4 into your personna.
TLS does little for security, That's why BTC does not need encryption. Also USPS doesn't need it
Haha, that was the bad joke the NSA police politician propaganda played on you :)
I am connected to politics in no way.
Everything that traverses clearnet needs at least some basic TLS mode... TOFU, PSK, oppurtunistic... or other good crypto. TLS is free, to refuse to crypt every single connection today, looks even more stupid than it did in 2010 and 2000. Regardless even if it only make it tiny little harder for adversary, it is non optional today.
There is no security issue in transmitting a public key in clear, and there is a notable gain in performance. Tradeoff.
But auto rolling updates to the users fintech without users permission risks wiping out the entire network, and peoples coins with it.
That's foolish reasoning because pulling and auto-pulling differs little.
No, auto-pull auto-run is vastly different from manual-pull manual-run.
No, manual-pulling and auto-pulling differs little. The difference is the former requires human intervention. An automatic system with a human loop is an error. You can always turn in to manual for debugging or other purposes, but not as a stable node in the network, which needs to evolve without leaving nodes behind.
You voluntarily allow or disallow your binaries are in sync with the rest of the network, one-time setting.
Users should set it to OFF until they can eval and test and talk about it with others.
Only when the project gains user base an open source community will be started, with reproducible builds of course and ALL code open. Not before, there is no point to opensource it before time. Honestly, what are you going to do with 40K lines of C++ code? without user base you would not review a single file. Pointless at this stage to open source.
These ways is not how true opensource projects operate.
of course not, because until 1.0 the software is closed-source.
I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA.
As before, how exactly are you going to enforce that NDA? How exactly are you going to enforce your nonfree License / Copyright?
I am not going to enforce anything legal, nor particularly control or dedicate resources on that route. These are just legalities that prevent corps to misuse the tech. NDA or written agreements state that nobody with access to the source code will publish it before I decide when. They work as a compromise of collaboration under non-disclose conditions. Do I need to explain private trades are 100% legitimate?
How exactly are you going to stop users plugging it into overlay networks?
I encourage overlay networks. In fact I run more than one.
Do you think cryptoanarchy cares about those things?
It does care about the values I've put in this system: self-autonomy, privacy, P2P, no intermediaries, fair, flat societies.
Are you going to beg and vote and pay for the State to go shoot people dead?
It is fully AGPL only of the software is executed on a licenced mainnet
Then it seems not AGPL, it seems some proprietary license that cannot use the name AGPL. Good luck...
The source code was AGPL, available and compiled by all nodes to generate their own binaries from 2017 to 2019. Then I closed sources on alpha-10 until 1.0
The point is that to perform Sybil carries a considerable cost. That's the fundamental law sustaining hashcash (BTC's PoW)
PoW is hard real work. IPv4 are artificial and cheap, entire CIDRs and neighborhoods will be rented, and cracked boxes, and source code changed, and more.
The only reason distributed real cryptos work is mutual financial disincentive against breaking the rules. If Sybil breaks the rules, Sybil loses value in proportion to the breakage, therefore Sybil does not break the rules.
IPv4 seems artifical restriction upon users freedom and privacy.
It is a preventive artificial restriction. (Think Bitcoin 1Mb block max size limit). It prevents a form of attack in which many evil nodes are created biasing the consensus algorithm and overtaking the network.
Unless there is whitepaper formally showing why it is not.
It will exist before release of 1.0.
I first solve the system assuming IP4 disclosure is OK for 80% of the people.
I said 80% of the people do not care about telling the world their IP address. (when I don't know real number I apply 80-20 rule as an asumption)
You said 100% of the people must disclose their IPv4 to run their node, seems assume that 100% of people will be happy with no privacy. Now you say 80%. But how can that 20% happen if you don't let users run over overlay networks?
I didn't say that. You misinterpreted what I meant with 80%
And this is to allow a resiliency model based on number of nodes (as oposed to CPU power), which is much more aligned with democracy, as every node benefits from the profit generated by the system evenly.
Where is the whitepaper on this democracy.
1 node-1 vote. this is the democratic model.
It is not premine, everything 'mined' so far has done in the clear.
USPS meets one of crypto internets definition of crypto premine already above.
USPS had private selected closed-invitation-only-mode for ~4 months, and secret hush hush cabal for 1+ year, and no sourcecode ever.
That's hardly free, fair, opensource, and in the clear, freedom for all to come and play from day one of Genesis no restrictions. USPS is going to take heat for that.
It is easy to verify how many 'satoshis' should be a in circulation since genesis.
What if there "should be" 10, how are you going to show the users that there "are exactly" 10? How are they going to know the bags in the current network hold exactly 9?
And easy to verify the theoretical number matches the actual amount in circulation. Proving that no alterations to cryptoeconomics has been done since then.
Even privacy coin like ZEC XMR has ways to evaluate the coinbase and inflation.
With no code and no paper, users cannot.
ask to restart
Many from the crypto internet would suggest USPS a new Genesis.
How this action would be taken by people who are running a node since long ago?
USPS and them was not a fair and open start, it seems a premine, so this question does not matter.
I could not do this announcements because there wasn't resources to do so. Although discrete announcements was made on public forums like reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/cryptodevs/comments/abs2yj/low_cost_public_system/
That's a low traffic niche dev forum, not something mass popular like /r/cryptocurrency, /r/raspberry_pi, or even /r/btc, /r/netsec, /r/privacy, etc. Post cost is $zero resource.
So, from your perspective this could be a premine, from the perspective of current running nodes the network is going on.
Go ask popular reddit cryptocurrency forums what they think the modes and effects of a premine is. Don't ask me.
Premine means reserving a share of tokens before launch. USPS didn't do this.
USPS hush team have received a share of tokens before general public release launch. Matters they did, not how.
There is no team, hus hus team or anything like this. There are nodes, some of them are run by FFF and others are organic growth (friends of friends, or random people I meet in my journey)
What USPS did was to grow slow in the open.
No, it seems was to selected FFF and hush hush team.
Anyway, Satoshi Nakamoto accumulated million bitcoins, you accuse me of pre-mining and if I did, Satoshi did.
Satoshi released opensource code and whitepaper, no restrictions, freedom for all, to the world, new Genesis, first... certainly before mining any significant like millions. Most definitely nor for over year before wide release in relative quiet.
USPS is not a coin. USPS is more than a coin You can create your own coin in it though. Dont call it coin please. It is not a coin.
You said and implied in times and places that it is a coin. It seems fundamental underpinning is as a coin function.
It is not a Coin, A Coin is an element of a platform that can run multiple Coins.
It proposed to buy/sell/trade as a coin. Whatever social wrappers anyone put around it, it still seems coin function.
I don't know what you nmean by privacy coin.
Search: "privacy coins"
UPSP doesn't fit the definition of Privacy Coin, as a privacy Coin encrypt their transactions to protect public keys/addresses/signatures from being observed. This is not strictly the case of USPS where the protocol can safely operate in clear and transactuions are public. The relay model of USPS works exactly like bitcoin does.
You can always join to be earlier than the rest, everyone is invited to join the earliers. Obviously there are people who are already running nodes, they all deserve every penny they earnt since they joined.
Most sane people are going to want to see paper and source before they invest any time or money in buying, setting up, and running something. If that takes long maybe they will consider it likely to be mined out and decline to adopt, which drives pennies to zero.
Those would need to wail until 1.0 is released with all the documentation and source code. Early birds now are those who accept the development status of the system and do not complain about the current restrictions. Instead, they would operate a node as user and test the conveniente of the features, the performance, and usability.
When user base is big enough a dev-community will be started. GPL
GPL? Then where did AGPL go.
That was picky. Not incoherent from my side, I used GPL as a way to say GPL-ish. Free software in any case.
Else you will have everyone publicly declaring you and these 60 nodes of 1+ year worth of premine as frauds,
This would be real FUD in an excercise of twisting the reality.
The internet of cryptocurrency is very likely to view USPS as a premine. That is just information for your consideration.
The internet is not my retarded self, and is not on this list, the internet is out there somewhere :)
You can do basic macroeconomic math as explained above.
Potential adopters cannot do that without the paper and source.
Anyway who cares about how much crypto has been generated so far
Yes, if amount in the coinbase and inflation mean nothing to them, then they should just stick to Fiat, because then Fiat is what they will get.
still in alpha, there's plenty of time and little amount has been pumped in comparison with the max. [int64 space]
Meaningless without paper and source.
I cannot let them down restarting the blockchain.
But you just said there is plenty of "int64" left for them ;-)
I accept there exist premine if is is understood that at the moment of the public announcement of version 1.0 353114361543892 out of an int64 have been issued among the ~100 nodes that secured the network from alpha-rc1 to 1.0 This is 0.0038285% See ref: http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/misc/screenshots_gov.txt search for "cash in circulation" Call it premine. I don't care. I only care of securing a ledger and it takes skill, time and descomunal effort to listen to people complaining about premine, specially if we are talking about a ridiculous number.
Basically the number every node has earned are directly proportional to the time they've been in. Fair.
Better to ask the internet of cryptocurrency about any fair.
participants (4)
-
grarpamp -
other.arkitech -
Punk-Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness