Methodology - Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption ...

'''
[link]¹
The Bitcoin miner maker Canaan Creative (NASDAQ: CAN) lately announced that five members of their board are leaving. As told, the terms of office of two directors, namely Jianping Kong and Qifeng Sun, expired on July 31, and three of its independent directors, namely Hong Zhang, Xiaohu Yang and Mei Luo, expired on August 1.
It is noteworthy that all the departing directors are not allowed to seek appointments nor participate in the elections of the board of directors after the expiration of their terms of office.
On July 9, Canaan Creative’s Hangzhou headquarter underwent business registration record modification. Former directors Kong, Sun and Li Jiaxuan, as well as supervisor Tu Songhua withdrew from the board, and Meng Lu was added as the new supervisor. "The corporate contact person also changed from Zhang Jing to Zhang Ning.
According to the news, recently, the founder Zhang Nangeng had come with some Canaan Creative executives from Beijing to Hangzhou, dismissed a number of managers of Hangzhou headquarter, took away the official seal and business license of the company, later that day, some employees called the police.
​
[link]²
The same as Bitmain, the first NASDAQ listed Bitcoin miner maker Canaan Creative also built the VIE structure, the main body of the company set up in the Cayman Islands. According to some sources, there has been a power struggle in Canaan Creative, between Zhang’s Beijing office and Kong’s Hangzhou office.
In response to what happened in Hangzhou, Canaan Creative said that, "after the registration modification, the company is running normally, and all subsidiaries in China are headed by Zhang as the company's executive director, general manager and legal representative”.
The power struggle in Canaan is not a single case. As the former industry dominant, BitMain technologies, who has released IPO prospectus in 2018 but with no progress, stuck in a Cayman Islands lawsuit between two founders. Its business is also badly affected.
While another rising star MicroBT’s founder suffered from the disaster behind bars. December 12, 2019, Shenzhen Nanshan Court announced that the criminal suspect Yang Zhenxing was arrested by the crime of official encroachment. Outpost OnChain confirmed the news with MicroBT at the first moment.
​
[link]³
Dr. Yang was graduated from Tsinghua University, had been the former miner chip design supervisor in BitMain and worked for the mysterious miner maker ‘FriedCat’. He had designed so-called BE300 chip using a "full custom methodology", the chip failed to go into mass production with the disappearance of FriedCat.
Yang disclosed the "Full Custom Methodology” to the founder of BitMain, Zhan Ketuan, which can significantly reduce the cost and power consumption of the chip. Yang worked part-time to help design the S7 miner (1385 chip) and the S9 miner (1385 chip) that made BitMain's mining dominance possible.
In 2016, Yang left BitMain and built up Shenzhen MicroBT Electronic Technology Company. Subsequently, MicroBT released a number of high-performance crypto mining products, quickly squeezed into the market, which had shaken the market dominance of BitMain. Later on, BitMain launched a patent ownership and infringement dispute lawsuit against MicroBT.
However, a source said that there are some hidden facts behind Yang's arrest. As the source acknowledged, during the end of 2019, the lawsuit between BitMain and MicroBT made significant progress, law enforcement officers from Beijing has come to Shenzhen to handle the case. Right at this point, as the chairman, general manager and the actual beneficiary of MicroBT, Yang arrested by a 100 thousands RMB worth embezzlement case. The case between BitMain suspended after that. The timeliness of the embezzlement case and the identity of the informer are worthy of considering.
Satoshi Nakamoto may not have imagined the emergence of ASIC chips when he published the Bitcoin white paper. The mining machine, a money-printing artifact, has created wealth for mining giants such as BitMain, MicroBT and Canaan Creative in just a few years. While the rapid accumulation of wealth, pathetic stories have also been staged, from the vanish of the FriedCat to the BitMain’s official seal wresting case. The road less traveled may not be the right path for everyone.
'''
Canaan's Co-Chairman was 'Out', Chinese BIG3 Bitcoin Miner Makers under Inner Wars
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: CjOnChain
1: p*e*iew.redd.it/c*****q*b5g51.jpg*width=16*0&f*rmat=pj*g&*m*;*uto=*eb*&s=*d609326*f*b62c*9e****be8*947**abfb8b**4 2: pre*iew.r*dd.it**o7z24z8b*g51.png*wi*th=*176&*mp;f*rm*t=**g&*aut*=webp&a*p;s=224cf*10**a*550***54d3*e0*6d1e929**7e*** 3: previ*w.red*.**/8*i23*bab5*5*.jpg*w*dth=1*80&*mp*fo*mat=pjp*&*mp*au*o=web**amp;s=7e289df*ce**2d9ca2de9**c0ce2847c2**e***f
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.

In this video at the 6m20s mark Andreas Antonopoulos speaks about Satoshi's vision. He speaks about "1 cpu 1 vote" saying that Satoshi designed the system to be decentralized as possible, but Andreas completely misunderstands the meaning of 1 cpu 1 vote. He is falling into the common trap of conflating 1cpu 1 vote with 1 user 1 vote.
Andreas, haven't you even read nChains paper about POW and Theory of the Firm? A cpu is an economic resource:

One of the little-known aspects of bitcoin is the nature of the proof of work system. There are many people, especially those who support a UASF or PoW change that believe a distributed system should be completed as a mesh. In this, they confuse centralised systems with centrality. The truth of the matter, no matter which proof of work system is implemented, they all follow a maximal growth curve that reflects the nature of the firm as detailed in 1937 by Ronald Coase (1937).
The bitcoin White Paper was very specific. users of the system "vote with their CPU power" [1]. What this means, is that the system was never generated to give one vote per person. It is designed purely around economic incentives individuals with more hash power will have provided more investment into the system. These individuals who invest more in the system gain more say in the system. At the same time, no one or even two individuals can gain complete control of the system. We'll explore the nature of cartels in a separately, but these always fail without government intervention. The reason for cartels failing comes down to the simple incentivisation of the most efficient member. The strongest cartel member always ends up propping up the weakest. This leads to a strategy of defection.
No proof of work-based solution ever allows for a scenario where you have one vote to one person. The anti-sybiling functions of bitcoin and all other related systems based on proof of work or similar derivatives are derived from an investment based strategy. Solutions to the implementation of ASIC based systems are constantly proposed as a methodology of limiting the centralisation of proof of work systems as it is termed. The truth of the matter is that the mining function within any proof of work system naturally aligns to business interests. This leads to corporations running machines within data centres. On the way that democracies and republics have migrated away from small groups of people individually voting for an outcome towards a vote for a party, the transactional costs associated with individual choice naturally leads to corporate solutions. In this, the corporation mirrors a political party.
In this paper, we address the issues of using alternate approval work systems with regards to either incorporating alternate functions in an extension of simply securing the network against the use of proof of work systems to create a one person one vote scenario in place of economic incentivisation. We will demonstrate conclusively that all systems migrate to a state of economic efficiency. The consequence of this is that systems form into groups designed to maximise returns. The effect is that bitcoin is not only incentive compatible but is optimal. No system can efficiently collapse into an order of one vote one individual and remain secure. In the firm-based nature of bitcoin, we demonstrate that the inherent nature of the firm is reflected within mining pools. Multiple aggregation strategies exist. The strategies range from the creation of collective firms where members can easily join or leave (mining pools) through to more standard corporate structures
Proof of Work as it relates to the theory of the firm. that are successful within any proof of work system. The system was determined to be based on one- vote per CPU (Satoshi, 2008) and not one vote per person or one vote per IP address. The reasons for this is simple, there is no methodology available that can solve byzantine consensus on an individual basis. The solution developed within bitcoin solves this economically using investment. The parties signal their intent to remain bound to the protocol through a significant investment. Those parties that follow the protocol are rewarded. The alternative strategy takes us back to the former and failed systems such as e-cash that could not adequately solve Sybil attacks and decentralise the network. Bitcoin manages to maintain the decentralise nature of the network through a requirement that no individual party can ever achieve more than 50% of the network hash rate.
In all proof of work systems, there are requirements to inject a costly signal into the network that is designed as the security control. To many people, they believe that the cryptographic element, namely the hashing process is the security feature of bitcoin. This is a fallacy, it is the economic cost that is relevant to the overall system and not the individual element.
The benefits of a hash function are that they are difficult to solve in the nature of the proof of work algorithm but are easy to verify. This economic asymmetry is one of the key features of bitcoin. Once a user has found a solution, they know it can be quickly broadcast and verified by others. Additionally, the hash algorithm provides a fair distribution system based on the amount of invested hash rate. The distinction from proof of stake solution as has been proposed comes in the requirement to constantly reinvest. A proof of stake system requires a single investment. Once this investment is created, the system is incentivised towards the protection of the earlier investment. This leads to a scenario known as a strategic oligopoly game.
The solution using a proof of work algorithm is the introduction of an ongoing investment. This is different to an oligopoly game in that sunk cost cannot make up for continued investment. In a proof of stake system, prior investment is crystallised allowing continued control with little further investment. Proof of work differs in that it requires continuous investment. More than this, it requires innovation. As with all capitalist systems, they are subject to Schumpeterian dynamical change (Shumpeter, 1994). The system of creative destruction allows for cycles of innovation. Each innovation leads to waves of creation over the destruction of the old order.
This process creates continued growth. Proof of work-based systems continue to grow and continue to update and change. Any incumbent corporation or other entity needs to continue to invest knowing that their continued dominance is not assured. In bitcoin, we have seen innovative leaps as people moved from CPU-based mining into GPU-based systems. This initial innovation altered the software structure associated with the mining process in bitcoin. That change significantly altered the playing field leading to novel techniques associated with FPGAs and later ASICs dedicated to a specific part of the mining process.
The error held by many people is that this move from a CPU-based solution into more costly implementations could have been averted. A consequence of this has been the introduction of alternative proof of work systems into many of the alt-coins
These systems have been implemented without the understanding that it is not the use of ASICs that is an issue. It is that the belief that individual users can individually mine in a mesh system will be able to be implemented as a successful proof of work. In the unlikely event that a specialised algorithm was implemented that could only run once on any one machine CPU, it would still lead to the eventual creation of corporate data centres for mining. In the section above, we showed using Arrow’s theorem how only a single use proof of work system can be effective. If we extend this and look at the Theory of the Firm (Coase, 1937) we note that in a system in Litecoin and Dogecoin for example. A00137:
Proof of Work as it relates to the theory of the firm. of prices, reduction could be carried out without any organisation. One issue against this arises from the cost of information. Interestingly, as we move into a world of increasingly more information, it becomes scarce information that is important. As the amount of information becomes more voluminous, the ability to uncover accurate and timely information becomes scarcer. The ability to specialise in the coordination of the various factors of production and the distribution of information leads towards vertical integration within firms. We see this first voiced in Adam Smith’s (Smith, 1776) postulation on the firm:
Everyone can choose to either seek further information or act on the information that they already have. This information can be in the form of market knowledge, product knowledge, or expertise, but at some point, the individual needs to decide to act. There is a cost to obtaining information. The returns on obtaining more information hit a maximum level and start to decrease at a certain point. The entrepreneur acts as a guiding influence managing the risk associated with incomplete information compared to the risk of not acting but rather waiting to obtain more information.
In the instance of bitcoin mining, the firm can increase in size through the integration of multiple specialist roles. Even given the assumption that any one process can run on but a single CPU, we come to the scenario of high-end datacentre servers. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290f implements 72 Atom CPU Cores. Each core runs two threads. Even taking the control system into account, this leaves 142 processes able to run per system. With four cards per RU this allows for datacentre implementations of 5,964 mining processes to run on a pure CPU-based proof of work implementation. One person can manage a small number of mining server implementations within a home or small business environment. In large data centre-based organisations such as Facebook, a single administrator can run 20,000 servers
The effect of this would be one individual managing 2,840,000 individual CPU-based mining processes. This alone is outside the scaling capabilities of any individual. This can be further enhanced as cost savings through the creation of large data centres, management savings and integrating multiple network and systems administrators is considered. As we start to add additional layers we come to a maximum where it is no longer profitable to grow the firm in size. Right up until that point, the firm will grow.

SOURCE: SPECULATIVE RATIONALITY
BLOCK COLLIDER WEBSITE: https://www.blockcollider.org
A New Approach to Blockchain Interoperability (True Decentralisation)
Recommended Reading to assist in better informing this post:

• Block Collider Whitepaper
• Collision Course — Emblems & NRG by Ian Simpson
• Building a Blockchain Singularity with Proof of Distance by Patrick McConlogue

A close look at the Blockchain space reveals a series of blockchain projects that operate largely in distinct silos. The reality is that blockchain technology is yet to realise widespread real-world adoption, however as we accelerate towards maturity a key infrastructure level requirement will be the ability for information to be transmitted in real time from blockchain to blockchain and even off-blockchain to old world systems. Anecdotally we need to look only as far as the internet to conceive the value that interconnectivity can generate.
“Bridging chains with a multichain is like building roads between buildings. Hypothetically, one could build a building that has everything, but in practice some buildings are built to work in, some are built to live in — as long as citizens want to be in multiple buildings at different points in time, roads are valuable. The crypto community as it exists demonstrates a wide variety of features across blockchains — some chains have quick block times, some chains have expressive smart contracts, some are purely deflationary and an excellent store of value. As long as users need features from more than one blockchain, bridging those chains with a multichain is needed.” – Block Collider Whitepaper (Source)
There are some well known projects that are trying to tackle interconnectivity between disparate chains. Of those known projects, only a few are focused on Interoperability as their core focus – some examples are Polkadot, Cosmos and Ark. A new project which as yet has remained under the radar (by design) has come out with a radically different solution to the issue of interconnectivity between chains: Block Collider.
“A mineable multi-chain protocol for stable coins, decentralized exchanges, and meta contracts.” – Block Collider
Let’s take a quick look at a few of the key interoperability projects within the space:
Comparison Table
For more detailed Table of comparison click here
The Multi-Chain: The Advent of Multi-chain Distributed Applications and Meta Contracts
Block Collider is the first true “multi-chain”, which at genesis will connect 6 chains – Bitcoin, Ethereum, Neo, Waves, Lisk and another chain that is yet to be named. Block Collider’s core ledger is the aggregate of all blocks on all member chains, giving rise to the term “multi-chain”. Block Collider’s blockchain is built by “weaving” together disparate chains using PoD* (Proof of Distance – a modified version of Nakamoto consensus), consuming blocks from each chain into a Block Collider block, recording in effect the state of each member chain.
The multi-chain not only facilitates value transfer between chains but more importantly allows these previously “siloed” projects to know the “state” of each other’s chains. Why is knowing the state of other chains so important? True interoperability is much more than just value transfer, it is the ability for different blockchains to work in parallel. This innovation opens the gates to something truly remarkable – multi-chain distributed applications and meta contracts (multi-chain smart contracts).
Example Diagram
The above diagram illustrates a simple example of a distributed multi-chain DAPP handling trust funds. This kind of application only scratches the surface of the true potential Block Collider brings to the blockchain ecosystem. The multi-chain functionality is not merely transferring data but proving data relative to another chain.
“…distributed application developers can modularly combine exotic features from blockchains across the ecosystem …. distributed application developers can build in the capability to load-balance work between chains” – Block Collider Whitepaper (Source)
As an aside there is an additional security benefit that results from Block Collider being a multi-chain, an aggregate of member chains. A miner attempting to use bad blocks would not only have to reverse the entire chain on Block Collider but also break the hash power of difficulty of the member chain.
*PoD – Proof Of Distance consensus mechanism is beyond the scope of this article. Please refer to Block Collider Whitepaper – Section 3.2 The Edit Distance Computational Challenge (pp 13) or Building a Blockchain Singularity with Proof of Distance by Patrick McConlogue (Co-founder of Block Collider).
True Decentralisation
“The Block Collider multichain is collaboratively created exclusively by decentralized peer-to-peer miners — with no centralized points of failure, oracles, or validators.” – Block Collider Whitepaper (Source)
One of the core tenets of Block Collider is to provide a platform that is very much in line with Blockchain’s vision of true decentralisation. Block Collider prides itself on the absence of validators in its consensus mechanism and its resistance to centralising elements.
Validators vs no validators
What is a validator? A validator in a blockchain is a “human element” or third party to whom the network cedes some degree of trust. A validator is incentivised by a network to confirm that an event/transaction has occurred on the network. This approach has been/will be adopted by many chains including interoperability chains like Cosmos, Polkadot and Ark who utilise Delegated-Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) or similar consensus models, where there are a set number of validators.
Block Collider does not require validators, it builds it’s blockchain with a mining algorithm (PoD), requiring proof of work to validate events on the blockchain. It in effect removes the requirement to place trust in a fallible party.
Centralisation of Power
A concern in any decentralised network is that power may accrue to a few. We see some commentators point to this occurrence in the Bitcoin network, where there is a centralisation of power around a few mining pools. Power in this context is the governance of the chain and the rewards for block validation. In this situation existing economic power is entrenched and can conceivably lead to the ongoing centralisation of consensus, governance and wealth. However, it is also worth noting one of the advantages that the Bitcoin platform has in comparison to its counterparts who have pursued PoS or DPoS is that it does not require the network to cede any additional trust to validators.
PoS or DPoS and their varying iterations aim to solve for some of the bottlenecks in current blockchain technology, however, these consensus mechanisms still contain elements that can give rise to centralisation. PoS requires that a node stake a sufficiently high bond in order to achieve the status of “validator” and thus PoS is still heavily weighted to those with economic power. DPoS has the added functionality of “democracy” by allowing delegates to vote for a trusted “validator”. Ideally the scenario is one of a democratic approach, however such a system may still lend itself towards centralisation as voting is typically weighted by share of network. Without going into an exhaustive discussion about various consensus methodologies, their strengths and shortcomings, we can nevertheless see that the use of validators presents some departure from trustless consensus without necessarily resolving the centralising effects of economic power.
Block Collider is a mineable chain like bitcoin and faces the same issue of centralisation of power from mining pools but has implemented certain conditions to alleviate the pressure towards centralisation. These include:
1) Splitting the mining of blocks and transactions (Refer Whitepaper Section 3 – Mining on the collider for technical details)
“… by allowing for competition in two spaces, there is reduced risk of centralization, since an actor would have to win the centralization game at both levels.” – Block Collider Whitepaper – Section 3.4
Transaction mining is open to anyone and does not require ASIC hardware to mine. This allows anyone on the network to have an economic incentive to participate in the network whilst achieving greater throughput and greater load distribution, reducing the strain on the network.
2) Emblems – Block Size Bonus (Refer Whitepaper Section 3 – Mining on the collider for technical details)
BC has a unique proposition to implement dynamic block sizes through the use of Emblems. In effect miners can “stake” Emblems which will allow them to expand the size of the block, thereby fitting more transactions into a single block for greater rewards. How does this alleviate pressure towards centralisation? We look to the Co-Founder Patrick McConlogue for answers:
“Block Collider implements game theory to the benefits of mining incentives beyond block/fee rewards. The Emblem bonuses for mining is sublinear (that is, there are diminishing returns for emblem ownership) which balances the economic incentive against centralisation (as the marginal utility of Emblems will be highest for those with fewer emblems).” – Patrick McConlogue
As an example, noting that all metrics are hypothetical, Sue has 10 Emblems and Mike has 100 Emblems. If the optimal number of Emblems required to achieve a desired block size was around 20 Emblems, staking beyond the 20 emblems does not significantly increase the block size. In effect, any additionally staked emblems has a diminishing value in comparison to the optimally staked 20 Emblems. So, in this example Sue’s block size could be “Standard block size + 5” and the optimal block size is “Standard block size + 7”. As staking has a diminishing bonus, Mike staking 100 Emblems would result in “Standard block size + 8”. This is to say those without large economic power can still compete on a near equal footing. In this way Block Collider aims to mitigate the pull of economic power towards centralisation.
What if Mike splits his 100 Emblems to utilise the optimal number of emblems to stake, to run multiple mining rigs concurrently? In this case 20 Emblems to 5 mining operations.
“A miner could absolutely split the Emblem rewards among mining rigs but in order to maximize the rewards from this he/she would have to be connected to the least number of identical peers that the original rig is connected to. In this way they must expand to other regions. This leads to less centralization regionally and increases the overall efficiency + speed of the network.” – Patrick McConlogue
In addition, Mike replicating 4 more instances of the original mining operation would require significant resources.
Interoperability Technology
Member Chain Conditions
One of the greatest breakthroughs that Block Collider has achieved is that it has a very low threshold to incorporate foreign blockchains into its multi-chain. In laymans terms there is no need for modification of member chains to participate in the network.
This is a significant development in the blockchain ecosystem as current and planned future interoperability solutions require some form of compatibility or change to the participating chains. To achieve compatibility Cosmos and Polkadot primarily require chains to be built on top of their infrastructure. Ark on the other hand requires direct changes to existing chains in the form of embedded code.
However, it should be noted though that Cosmos Polkadot, and Ark have alternate solutions to compatibility for existing chains who choose not to be modified. This can be achieved through intermediate zones, peg-zones, bridgechains, smart bridges and encoded listeners. If we are to borrow from the Polkadot whitepaper certain chains (Ethereum) are clearly easier to adapt into intermediate zones but others not so much (Bitcoin):
1) Ethereum – “Due to Ethereum’s Turing completeness, we expect there is ample opportunity for Polkadot and Ethereum to be interoperable with each other, at least within some easily deducible security bounds.” – (Polkadot Whitepaper – Source)
2) Bitcoin –* “…. As such we believe it not unrealistic to place a reasonably secure Bitcoin interoperability “virtual parachain” between the two networks, though nonetheless a substantial effort with an uncertain timeline and quite possibly requiring the cooperation of the stakeholders within that network.”* – (Polkadot Whitepaper – Source)
The breakthrough by Block Collider should not be understated, the multi-chain by providing a low threshold for member chains to interoperate without the need for validators provides crucial infrastructure for a trustless internet of blockchains.
Scalability and Shared Security for Member Chains
Through comparison of Cosmos and Polkadot, the question may arise does Block Collider provide scalability and shared security for member chains? The simple answer is no.
Block Collider does not provide scalability and shared security primarily because of its conditionless participation for member chains. Block Collider follows the philosophy of Doug McIlroy, the inventor of Unix pipes, “Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together.” In this sense scaling solutions are the responsibility of protocol level chains, interoperability is the responsibility of Block Collider.
Cosmos and Polkadot provide these solutions for member chains that “join” their networks and is a unique and commendable value proposition provided by their platforms. Although it should be noted that for existing chains, using the intermediate zones referenced earlier, does not provide the same scalability and shared security benefits as those built natively on the platforms. This is because the existing chain does not function atop the platform, rather they are bridged to the platform with links (bridgechains or pegzones) built by Polkadot or Cosmos.
Scalability – Size and Transaction Speed
Block Collider as a multi-chain is the aggregate of blocks from its member chains. What does this mean for scalability in terms of size & transaction speed?
Size of the Chain
A valid concern would be that Block Collider which is an aggregate of all blocks on all member chains can be quite space consuming. To combat this Block Collider’s PoD consensus mechanism primarily uses header states and Merkle proofs of other chains to store the chain on the Block Collider network. The headers are less than 1% of the size of the original chains’ block. So, one could imagine without any modifications, Block Collider could merge 100 chains and still only be the size of one Ethereum sized chain.
As Block Collider evolves, we can envision a day when 1000 plus chains are interoperable with Block Collider. So, what then? Block Collider is designed to tackle this growth in two ways, compression as far as possible and then through reverse chain pruning.
“To handle the first part [compression], we start with header states. After which we switch to a signature only model like that proposed in Mimblewimble (once the Block Collider hash rate is strong enough). Finally the pruning which will be the process of creating a second blockchain which mines backwards. In the second blockchain, “the work” is transactions that should be trimmed from the block. In this way it works like defragmenting your hard drive.”* – Patrick McConlogue
*Mimblewimble – an experimental blockchain network
Transaction Speed
Block Collider as the aggregate of blocks from member chains will always be slightly faster than the fastest member chain. This is due to Block Collider having a high block issuance rate that is based on blocks issued on member chains.
Image Example of Block Issuance
In the above example from the whitepaper we see that Bitcoin issues 2 blocks in a set time frame “x”, Ethereum issues 6 blocks and Waves issues 3 Blocks. The first Block Collider block is formed when the 3 chains issue their first block. It should be noted that block times vary across chains and as such member chains will issue blocks at different intervals. At each issuance from a member chain Block Collider will issue its own block containing the new set of blocks from the member chains. In this example 9 Block Collider blocks are issued in the time frame “x”. So the block issuance rate (block velocity) will always be higher than the fastest member chain.
Higher block velocity of course brings up the issue of throughput – the number of transactions per second. Mining has been designed with throughput being the primary mandate. The satisfaction of this mandate was one of the primary motivations for Block Collider splitting block mining and transaction mining into separate processes.
“Unlike other cryptocurrencies, the transactions and the blocks of the Collider blockchain can be mined separately. Transactions being pre-mined makes it easier for a miner to add a transaction to a block it has discovered, which balances the power that miners have in current systems.” – Block Collider
TECH COMPARISON // Multi-chain Protocols (The Internet of Blockchains)
LINK
Conclusion
Block Collider has come to the space with a radical solution to the “Internet of Blockchains”, connecting disparate chains whilst maintaining blockchain technology’s vision of being truly decentralised. The mainnet launch will include interoperability between 6 chains, BTC, ETH, NEO, Waves, Lisk and a yet to be named chain.

I have been making factual posts about Ethereum (and Synereo) and all the following posts have been deleted by the moderators and they have banned my username for making factual posts about Ethereum.
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Quote

Quote from: damn_the_truth on Today at 05:06:30 AM TPTB_need_war was banned for 3 days for writing in big red letters that "Ethereum is broken and can't be fixed" and proceeded to defend this point factually.
And so the mods have now demonstrated they are involved in the pump of Ethereum.
So much for the objectivity of this forum.

They allow excessive trolling and scams no problem though.

Note TPTB_need_war posted the same statement about ETH in three threads, because suddenly 5 or 6 new threads all about pumping Ethereum appeared today. If the pumpers can make three threads, then why can't they all be rebutted? They can spam, but the opposing opinion and facts can't be. As if the opposition is the spammer but spamming the Altcoin Discussion with a proliferation of Ethereum pump threads is not spamming. Roll Eyes
The thread that in particular incited me to post so forcefully in opposition is the one that as a title implying if Ethereum will go challenge Bitcoin's market cap. That is clearly manipulative of the readers inducing them into a mania based on some totally implausible proposition. How can a broken block chain design that hasn't solved the most fundamental issue pertaining to verification and scaling of long-running scripts have any chance of challenging Bitcoin's market cap. Ridiculous.
Someone may want to quote this, as surely the drunk mods will delete this and permanently ban ban_the_truth (and probably they will permanently ban TPTB_need_war).
Doesn't Theymos understand that you can never silence a person who knows he is just and correct. A person will fight to the death when they know truth is on their side. And will eventually win. Those who try to obscure truth will always eventually lose.
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Quote

Quote from: WilderX on Today at 08:36:10 AM y0 newbs, you talking about issues with mining? Did you know ETH goes POS this year?

Yo clueless n00b, do you not understand the PoS doesn't rectify the fundamental flaw in the economics of the verification of long running scripts that I explained upthread and for which I have been banned for trying to point out in the numerous threads pumping Ethereum that spammed the Altcoin Discussion forum today.
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Quote

Quote from: stoat on Today at 05:58:42 AM You still don't get it do you? The hype for ethereum is actually real. As in, it's our best hope. And people who actually want crypto to succeed as an idea will get behind it.

Oh because it is our only hope, then we have to ignore the fact that after more than a year since they took and spent ICO money, they still haven't solved the most fundamental issue of the block chain technology required for long running scripts (if they want scaling and decentralization).
Put Vitalik in a live debate with me right now and I will be able to force him to admit that is the truth.
Or ban_the_truth so you can sucker more n00bs into being bagholders to the insiders can cash out.

Quote from: stoat on Today at 05:58:42 AM Tptb want war, well, the entire time ive visited this forum he is either wasting everyones time with mental masturbation or simply stumbling from thread to thread FUDDing down every coin that would dare to challenge his "intellectual superiority".

Because you are not interested in actually solving the core technical challenges that inhibit cryptocurrency from scaling out to the masses and being compatible with marketing strategies that can do so, such as the one I will drop on the world.
All you want is something you can pump up. And you want it sooner than it is ready. And so thus you think I am not worthy, and you think the broken Ethereum is.
I never took $millions of ICO while I was researching and developing the solutions we need. Ethereum did and still didn't solve the most basic issue they need to.
Whereas I have solved the major fundamental issues. Sorry if the good stuff takes time. If you are in a rush, then feel free to give your money away to those who are willing to take it.
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Quote

Quote from: Elokane on January 25, 2016, 12:56:02 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 24, 2016, 05:27:06 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 24, 2016, 03:28:48 AM I think social media can possibly be taken over by cryptocurrency/decentralized/blockchain technology. Think about it... Facebook has a market capitalization of 266.3 billion. What if a portion of their net profit was distributed to its users instead? Which service would you use... one that makes money off of you providing you nothing in return, or one that pays you to use its service? There are likely a few projects attempting to capitalize on this space. The only one off the top of my head I can name is Synereo and I am on the fence as to whether it is is a legit project or a P&D... I am waiting on the sidelines for now. http://www.synereo.com/

I will respond to the rest of your informative post later (as I need to go outside on this Sunday).
I think Synereo may be conceptually on the right track, in that ads should preferrably be content that users want to see. I can envision content providers being creative in how they advertise products within enjoyable content. The bottom line is the economics per my prior post in reply to TechorMarketing. There were one or two ads on Google that were so interesting to me, I wanted to save a copy of the video ad. Meaning the way to beat Google is by making the advertising more efficient, thus superior ROI for all participants (advertiser, content creator, and viewer). If the superior algorithms require decentralization and cutting out the middle man, then Google with all its technical prowess can do nothing to compete.

Spot on!

Quote I only scanned a portion of their white paper. I believe they may have Sybil attack problems in their attention model (thus being gamed and not having the result intended), but I can't yet judge that with any certainty as I need to study it more carefully.
You've given me something very intellectually deep to chomp on, so thank you. I love conceptual paradigm shifts and I like to analyze models. I will need more time on this.
Looks to me as though they are serious. The devil is in the details on their technical model. They have a brainy looking CSO mathematician, so perhaps some of the model theory is originating from him.

The attention model is mine. We've designed it carefully against Sybil attacks. If you think you've identified an attack vector, do let us know -- I'll give you with an AMP bounty for it.
Feel free to join our Slack channel at slack.synereo.com and chat with us there directly.

So you must be younger guy Dor who I've viewed in the Hangout videos in the Synereo channel on YouTube?

Quote from: Elokane on Today at 12:01:35 PM It is common knowledge that Greg, Synereo's CSO, is leading the design of Casper, Ethereum's new proposed Proof of Stake blockchain: https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/12/28/understanding-serenity-part-2-caspe He has spoken about the design principles of the technology underlying this effort, what would allow it to scale, in the recent Ethereum developer conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzahKc_ukfM
Synereo is NOT building their technology on Ethereum. Rather, it is Ethereum who are using Greg's decades of expertise in the field, and Synereo technology, to build their own.
Ethereum has provided Synereo with developer grants for this purpose. Hopefully, collaboration will continue in other ways as well. We also believe that our notion of a "smart contract", which we call a social contract, is more advanced, mature and scalable than anyone else's. People in the industry are starting to get a sense of this as well, including our friends at Ethereum. http://blog.synereo.com/2015/03/06/social-contracts-pt-ii/
A comprehensive post going into detail about all of these subjects are in the works.
Feel free to ask any other question about this here or on our slack channel at slack.synereo.com.

And appears Greg is the greying long-haired mathematician in Seattle that I've viewed on the same videos.
I am doing an in depth study of your system and I am not yet ready to offer all my feedback because I am in the midst of analyzing it.
However I do want to start with a few observations.
First I want to thank you for providing those Hangout videos because I am gaining much information from listening to the feedbacks from the musicians. That has been very useful for my marketing research.

1. Greg asks what can a decentralized Synereo do that centralized SoundCloud can't do, and Dor replies that the bandwidth (he said "distribution" but I assume he means download and streaming bandwidth) costs become free because they are provided by the users. Unfortunately this is incorrect. Decentralized filesystems will not work and are theft socialism (stealing from those who pay, to redistribute to those who didn't pay for it) models as I explained yesterday. For context, make sure you understand how I explained to Bittorrent in 2008 that their optimistic choking algorithm was a theft socialism model and was apparently ignored with the result now that we have government takeover of the internet underway via Net Neutrality. Note that Matt the owner of Ninja Tunes music company precisely nails this point later in the video and explains why distributed files systems can't handle legality. Furthermore, Matt astutely explains that copyright infringement can get Synereo in legal trouble and Greg retorts that decentralized systems can't be legally attacked, but what is forgetting is as I pointed out yesterday, that the Synereo system can be banned by Hosting providers (because they are culpable) and thus all files would need to be stored and served from users' computers which has severe issues I had explained.
   
2. I will expend some time studying Casper's design, but I already watched some videos of Ethereum presentations about the strategy for shards and proofs against cheating in the attempt to achieve decentralized scaling with verification of long-running scripts. And I have explained why it will never work. I have an entire thread dedicated to discussing the finer issues with block chain consensus and the CAP theorem is fundamental. Essentially you can't use propagation as a consensus rule thus proofs against cheating will fail as methodology. You simply can't solve the Tragedy of the Commons verification problem without centralization. Period. You will eventually face come to this realization that your ideas are fundamentally flawed and can't be fixed.
   
3. An attention model based upon users approvals is probably going to suffer from the same phenomenon I observed when I asked my gf why she was rapid clicking every Like on her timeline without even reading the posts. She said because they are my friends and will Like all my posts also. But I need to study your model in detail in the white paper before I can comment further on it.
   

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Quote

Quote from: tokeweed on Today at 09:55:40 AM I appreciate that you're trying to get your argument out. And you do have some points to think about. But this is a time of less talk and more trades. There's profit to be made in this current price run, which could be one of the largest runs we've seen in altcoins.

You can't speak for all readers, because you are not all readers.
Those of you who bought Ethereum at lower prices are in a different risk situation compared to those who are reading your pumping and considering whether to buy at these nosebleed levels.
I am not making any guesses about whether the price will go much higher or not (manias often do).
Rather I am providing balancing information for those readers who might think they can't lose because of some fundamental long-term value, which I assert does not exist because Ethereum hasn't solved the fundamental technological issue required to scale their system in terms of decentralized verification of long-running scripts. And in fact, they will not be able to solve this problem, not with Casper or anything else because it violates the CAP theorem.
The only solution will end up being centralization and then therefor those who are talking about building decentralized apps on top of Ethereum (e.g. this Synereo which I will be commenting on next) are apparently in technical delusion also. Btw, I have been watching the YouTubes of this Greg @ Synereo who I just read is claimed to be the lead dev on Casper, and I will be explaining that he doesn't seem to understand block chain consensus technology.
Stay tuned, this is going to get much more informative and interesting...
(sorry again that TPTB_need_war remains banned by drunken mods for 3 days so ban_the_truth must communicate interim)
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Quote

Quote from: Elokane on Today at 01:16:08 PM 2. Well, we think we have a solution! Would you like to take a look at the post Greg is writing on the subject? We'd value your direct feedback on it. This approach is different from the one Ethereum espoused before, and both Vitalik and Vlad are working with Greg to develop it now.

Will do after I finish watching the video.

Quote from: Elokane on Today at 01:16:08 PM 3. We have a mechanism taking into account a few parameters to make it so people who behave in exactly the way you describe have very little, if any, impact on this economy. Generally, we're looking for actions that have high entropy; if "B", your GF, is essentially a copy of "A", you, there's very little information there.

Is that specifically covered in the white paper or a design improvement hence?
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Quote

Quote from: Elokane on Today at 01:23:51 PM He's providing valuable constructive feedback, which we always welcome!

Thanks. Academics understand their life is finite and thus peer review in valuable so they don't waste time down a dead end.
A welcome change in tone compared to others who attack me relentlessly for trying to share/collaborate on research and analysis.
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Quote Another thought off the top of my head is where Greg explains why the bar of implementation is so much higher and Dor astutely points out that they are competing against very well entrenched and well vetted user interfaces (Facebook, etc).
I appreciate that honesty and I believe in separation-of-concerns, orthogonality, and modularity, because no only it provides more degrees-of-freedom, but it also means you don't have to necessarily implement everything yourself. It may be better to let others build those user interfaces for example from an API. But this is very complex to analyze because of the integration with the complexities of the attention model, etc..
I am just cautioning you that building all yourself, meaning you are limiting the network effects and making the scalability of the system (from the programming standpoint) funnel through your one organization.
I am thinking about a marketing strategy that is much more modular and encourages others to build on top of what my project would provide. But I am also thinking about how what I am contemplating is differentiated from what Synereo is proposing and whether there are collaborative opportunities or... (conclusions still not yet clear to me)
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Quote I need to correct an error I made upthread. I stated that the reason payers would not pay for ASIC mining farm to compute the PoW share the payer must include with the transaction, would be because the PoW share could be computed locally faster than the latency for a round-trip network request for the PoW share generated on the lowest cost ASIC mining farm. And I stated that this was because the payer would sign the PoW share, so the "provider" receiving the transaction (with the attached PoW share) would not be be able instead compute the PoW share for the payer (without the round-trip latency delay). I had stated this was a difference from Iota's design which can't allow payers to sign PoW, because Iota's defense against certain attacks requires that anyone can recompute the PoW share and reattach a transaction to a different branch of the DAG.
That will not work in my design because the payer has to do a roundtrip request to request the current "intra-block chain" hash from a "provider" to include in the PoW share (otherwise the same PoW share could be submitted to multiple providers and thus payers have no vote in the LCR). Therefor the PoW share computation can be outsourced at no extra latency cost.
However on further analysis this does not entirely weaken the intent of my design to remain decentralized. The key is the power remains in the hands of the payers to choose which provider to submit their transaction to and thus can choose to route away from any malfeasance (since they are paying for the PoW share via a transaction fee to the provider). Although it means mining capital costs will be reimbursed (unlike in the case where the payers' computers would compute the PoW share then the non-payers mining capital costs would be unreimbursed given the block reward would be 0 or very small relative to the difficulty), mining equipment will not be wildly profitable as in the case for Bitcoin since the reimbursement is only for costs, thus still the point remains that mining equipment won't be well capitalized for making LONG-TERM 51% attacks on the protocol (even if forced to by regulation as could be the case in Bitcoin) because the payers can send their PoW share computation else where in a heart beat.
This also makes more sense because mobile users are not going to want to compute PoW shares and drain their battery.
One issue is a mining farm located next to a hydropower plant would maybe have (including better economy-of-scale capital costs on equipment) up to a 10X cost advantage over a provider server that is located any host any where.
Perhaps the latency to the mining farm could still be an issue (delay the transaction by another sub-second perhaps) and this could force providers to be located in the datacenters of mining farms to lower latency (which would be catastrophic to remaining decentralized since the choice of providers available to payers would be limited by such confining requirements). OTOH if the cost of the PoW is miniscule relative to the value of the transaction, then PoW share can be computed by a provider with up to 10X greater cost without impacting the payers decision which provider to choose. But remember also that the computation cost of the PoW share needs to be much greater than the validation cost of the transaction overall, but that should be doable since transaction verification is such a miniscule cost.
Again remember I suggested that payers' clients (wallet software) could be induced to move to other providers when a providers PoW share exceeds 5% or so.
Also it is not impossible to design the system such that payers are always listening for the current "intra-block chain" hash updates and so the original point of my latency design could remain. But this would require all payers to be receiving communications from the block chain network at all times, which would increase network load and there are Sybil attack and centralization issues about who pays for this (perhaps payers can pay a provider to provide this data feed). So it is not impossible to envision retaining my original design, but it seems to be workable only for desktops and not for wireless mobile.
If latency becomes the main issue for wireless mobile then telcoms may have the upper hand any way. So it seems that the key is to keep PoW shares small enough to be miniscule relative to typical microtransaction values yet large enough to be greater than the verification cost. Also PoW has to be large enough to prevent spam on the network (which is essentially saying significantly larger than the verification cost, since the storage cost will be assumed to be even lower than the verification cost but I need to run some calculations to confirm this intuition).
I am probably missing a few details in this quickly written post. The entire design could be explained more coherently in a white paper (hopefully forthcoming).
P.S. Note that Iota has the similar issues, and this aspect of Iota was not my main concern expressed upthread about Iota's ability to remain Consistent about double-spends and whether that will lead to divergence (chaos).
Note the above post was deleted by the mods, so I am reposting it. Someone may wish to quote the above technical discussion before some drunk mod goes "happy finger" again.

The core foundation of a cryptocurrency is the network's security yet we don't have a common methodology to compare currencies.
Thus I propose one method: the capital to market cap ratio.
To start let us calculate Bitcoin's C2MC ratio. Since BTC is an asic coin we need to estimate the cost to design and manufacturer enough asics to 51% the network.
The best method here is to look at the best value non-scam asic. The logic being if a for-profit company can bootstrap production at their public asking price then so could a malicious attacker. It does not matter for our calculation that the asic producers are abusing their customer's preorders and mining for their personal benefit, all that matters is they could produce the hardware. After all an attacker would also mine before they attack.
For our calculation let us use the KNC Neptune which costs $5,995.00 and hashes at 3TH/s. Then take the Bitcoin nethash: 83,161,066.76
Combined we get the formula: ((83,161,066.76 / 3000) * 6000 ) / 7,395,527,268
We thus find Bitcoin has a whole 3 cents of hardware defending every US dollar of BTC.
Now lets do it again for Vertcoin. To make things harder for Vertcoin we will only count the cost of the GPUs. We are thus ignoring the motherboard, power supply, and even CPU. We'll use the 280x which can be had right now for $300 and hashes 350KH/s.
We get: ((7629439.6 / 350) * 300) / 4900000
Or: 130 cents per US dollar.
So there, four months on we can say with confidence that asci-resistance leads to a stronger network. In other news, we've just redesigned the vertmarket so you should try selling something with your super-secure vertcoins.