asciilifeform: a 'cask' system would make the queue at least thinkable. but still very painful.
asciilifeform: now iirc we touched on the crackpottery where a ~tx~ carries PoW, and tx issuers somehow have to get in a single-file queue to avoid orphaning one another, and at a certain point 'lucky winner' (in practice, folx with disproportionate - a la today's miners - hash power) crosses a threshhold PoW and gets to finalize a block.
asciilifeform: but, upstack, afaik the cold equations have no mercy, if you want miners to deal with tx, gotta pay fee, and fee has to somehow come out of txer's pocket .
asciilifeform: i wonder if by now mircea_popescu also guessed what it is.
asciilifeform: btw i have a terrible solution, that technically works, but is barfalicious
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: do you have some -- rigorous or not -- idea of how 'remains debatable' ? because afaik you gotta square this circle if you want noncuttables.
asciilifeform: (barring some crackpotitude where you somehow buy 'casks' in bulk, a solid coin at a time )
asciilifeform: and so it also appears that we're stuck living with cuttable coins.
asciilifeform: now this car has not only no engine, but no wheels, there is no incentive for ~anybody to even try to store a coherent history of the world.
asciilifeform: right, because the only way to demonstrate ownership is to transfer it to the party being demonstrated to.
asciilifeform: now, this thing just sits and rusts, because it cannot move. there is no way to prevent anybody from signing multiple, conflicting transfers.
asciilifeform: to spend a coin, its owner obtains (out of band) a new lamport pubkey from the new owner, and signs it.
asciilifeform: for sake of argument, let's draw the engineless car, and then possibly one day can conceive of the engine. say all C coins exist at genesis. (how distributed to owners -- outside the scope here.) each consist of a lamport pubkey;
asciilifeform: esp. synchronization in the face of enemy action
asciilifeform: but even the finest handmade chronometer does not approach in cost, the cost of ~synchronization~
asciilifeform: as phf's b00k illustrates, the cost of the chronometers remained a serious boojum well into 1900s
asciilifeform: ( and a tx can be a once-per-Hinterval thing where you gotta roll in the previous interval's hash. and the day's tx form the day's H. )
asciilifeform: then you have the ordering. and 'mining' can consist of, e.g., finding twin-primes and rsa-staking the claim to them, then submitting to martiandeedbot.
asciilifeform: it is worth recalling the gedankenexperiment where it turns out that all you'd need to build 'martian bank' on earth, is if martians merely supplied an infallible 'martian clock', a service whereby they take a string S , at regular, say, daily, interval, and return its hash H☟︎
asciilifeform: (which spend is 'the' spend? and which -- the double)
asciilifeform: without cemented ordering, the concept of 'double spend' cannot be defined
asciilifeform: ( and again i can picture a 'coin' lacking cemented event ordering . but it would not be a 'coin' in any reasonable sense of today. only a bag full of promises. )
asciilifeform: one of the problems classical mined blocks solved was - universal event ordering
asciilifeform: and it rather resembles those infamous star drive engines, e.g., alcubierre's drive
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: the 'every user a currency issuer' is the only 'solution' i currently know to 'mining-is-a-bug'
asciilifeform: other than - possibly - the matrix thing
asciilifeform does not know a working, even in principle, algo for these.
asciilifeform: so it'd have to be one of those schemes where mining isn't even a thing; or at the very least has nothing to do with cementing tx
asciilifeform: !~later tell mircea_popescu how do you picture tx fee working with non-divisible coin ?
asciilifeform: 'The journal's editor, Robert Greene, wrote back to say that Storms’s stance set “a terrible precedent” because it was unfair to the author of the paper and opposed the APA’s policies and the guidelines followed by other reviewers. “Given that your policy conflicts with that of the journal, I think that it's best that you step down from the editorial board,” he wrote.'
asciilifeform: Gert Storms — who says he won’t step down — is one of a few hundred scientists who have vowed that, from the start of this year, they will begin rejecting papers if authors won’t publicly share the underlying data, or explain why they can’t.'
asciilifeform: in other noose, https://archive.is/D3jVT << 'An editor on the board of a journal published by the prestigious American Psychological Association (APA) has been asked to resign in a controversy over data sharing in peer review.
asciilifeform: ( witness the effects of the 900+kB of rubbish that usg is piping into each block today )
asciilifeform: in something short of 'ecological' timespans, even.
asciilifeform: idea being, any 'ecological' problem, with, e.g., algorithmic complexities as t-->+inf, can seem insignificant -- but enemy can waltz it into an actual problem.
asciilifeform: rather than the current '~nobody actually uses bitcoin' situation
asciilifeform: but , upstack, when i think about trbi i go into 'bridge design' mode, where 'it gotta bear all of the tanks that could possibly physically fit, and then let's also assume that martians stack'em five layers deep '
asciilifeform: it also helps that the current crop of miners is almost clinically retarded
asciilifeform: you still have a block-shaped hole occupying every slot.
asciilifeform: blocks are, recall, constant size, if you want O(1) block fetching (and as a verifying node, you certainly do) you win 0 by compressing.
asciilifeform: you replace a block you know to have been fully lubyized with a 'if you want this, go and find'. BUT what, now you have an empty string there ..
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu is right, i waas abouittosay
asciilifeform: if you want to competitively mine, you gotta have the blox in O(1) at your fingertip.
asciilifeform: and yes you can compute the odds of a particular block B ending up wholly lubyized by a time T. however if you rely on the luby strings for your mining, you will be fucked timewise.
asciilifeform: danielpbarron: it is possible to make a hole through a man's torso , in such a way that he does not die. but not desirable.
asciilifeform: so it seems to me that what remains is to up the arity -- find such arity that any attempt at such waltzing is guaranteed to be ~useless
asciilifeform: but, upstack, conundrum is, if some of the oldtx depend on prevblock in a way that is known immediately when said block was mined -- it gives a head start to plagiarists ( per earlier observation -- folx who take a freshly-mined block and try to make ~replacement~ for it with higher PoW.) but if they are ~not~ immediately known, and depend in any way on waltzeable Z, then 'haha i'll waltz until it falls in my 10%'.
asciilifeform: the one thing that definitely cannot be permitted to be manipulable by a waltzer is the arity. (there'd be overwhelming incentive to waltz for minimal arity)
asciilifeform: no, but it may be needed to get absolute certainty.
