This


Although I'm not incrementing until next block (which would execute only once), but until block is
at certain height.

By incrementing, I meant adding 42 to a variable (ok, sloppy terminology again).

Not useful at all, but if I understood
you, you said it was impossible to do.

But perhaps you meant, impossible to
increment repeatedly within a single block interval.

Doesn't the discussed problem mean that Ethereum is not Turing-complete?

Good catch.

Yes, but unfortunately it is likely impossible to determine what benefit might be achieved (across multiple contracts). I think TPTB has commented on this.


Also sort of works, but has other issues. Even in the best case the cost will be high.

I was unclear. I meant the cost (in terms of on-chain contract execution) to generate usable random numbers using this sort of multiparty protocol, not the cost to attack.

The only way to have an external data feed that is not binary is to delegate to a centralized source, because even if we use reputation (or stake deposits) to prevent Sybil attacks and take a vote, the problem is that such a vote only surely converges to a majority outcome if the choices are only binary (e.g yes or no). Otherwise we can get forks which disagree on the consensus choice.

So conceptually an Augur-like prediction market could work if the bet outcomes are binary. But this reputation consensus has to be integrated with the block chain consensus and can't be orthogonal to it. Augur's mistake is building a reputation consensus on top of Ethereum's separate (but not orthgonal!) consensus protocol, which thus destroys the Nash equilibrium and creates a Prisoner's dilemma over which is the consensus choice.

But an additional problem, is that reputation systems are a power vacuum that ultimately centralize to a winner-take-all due to the Iron Law of Political Economics.

And the flaws of proof-of-stake have been enumerated.

I'd be interested in seeing a proof-of-work consensus for binary outcome predication bets. But that will have serious problems if the binary outcomes are not objectively clear to all miners.

The slow game (or so fast you lose your lunch money) game of "I'm making money; who cares if the tech is real or not?" is dangerous, not only for your bank account, but for those of us who want to look in the mirror and see that we are being as truthful as possible to ourselves in life. Lying to oneself by ignoring the flaws of a technology in an attempt for short term financial gains is the Russian roulette of bag-holding-- more luck than skill and more "you got what you deserve, dumbass"  than "I admire his courage."

Whoops: