Careful with predicting the dollar's early demise. It will get stronger before it is replaced with a more global SDR basket. The Euro and Sterling pound have to be brought down to parity with the dollar first. Dollar and NYSE will get very strong in 2015, and this will put downward pressure on gold. According to Armstrong's computer model, after 2015.75 the world slides into the tempest.
So... is the plan to integrate the functionality of pools in the protocol instead of how it currently is with Bitcoin mining pools now?
I don't think it is necessary to do anything to the block chain protocol to control pool size. So in theory the ideas I have in mind could be employed for Bitcoin or any coin. However, I do think pools that adopt a solution which aids anonymity (that is how I my idea controls pool size and I would propose that anonymous pools blacklist those which don't implement the protocol[1]) are going to be attacked for that reason and thus the block chain protocol will need support for Meni Rosenfeld's oblivious shares fix to prevent pool shares withholding attack (Bitcoin has refused to make this change since 2011 when Meni pointed it out). And note P2P pools (e.g. P2Pool) can't implement oblivious shares, thus my ideas can't be safely applied to P2P pools.
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/339902.msg3715641#msg3715641https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/339902.msg3719385#msg3719385That is my way of saying I think P2P pools are not a good solution. If ever they become popular, they could be attacked.
Another reason I don't favor using ZeroCash on the block chain is because in theory with ZeroCash you no longer need to obfuscate your IP address thus you don't need my ideas which apply to pools thus we don't control pool size and
centralization of mining continues.
In theory with ZeroCash no one can see any details (not even amount) of the transactions you send to the network, so therefor you probably don't need to worry if anyone sees your IP address sending a blob of data to the network. Since the ZeroCash paper is not yet released, I can't yet analyze how sending two transactions with the same IP address would affect linkability. I assume unlinkable, but the devil is in the details. However, I am not sure how this will work for mining coinbase awards, you may still need to obfuscate your IP address for those with ZeroCash.
With the block chain crypto I have seen (note this is not my design), the payer and payee are hidden but the amount is not. And it is still possible to link transactions if someone can see the same IP address is sending two transactions that would otherwise be unlinkable.
I have said many times that AnonyMint will not announce nor endorse any coin, thus if my ideas make it into an altcoin, some other party here on Bitcointalk.org will be taking the lead role on the interface with the community.[1] Realize that the anonymity of the other users affects how anonymous you are, because anonymity is obtained by mixing with other users. If they all lose their anonymity, you lose yours. Or if many of them lose their anonymity, your anonymity set decreases and the adversary can use multiple statistical overlapping sets to isolate you. Anonymity needs to be system-wide enforced. ZeroCash in theory does this by making every coin mix with every coin in the universe. That is very alluring crypto. But problem is we then lose the ability to see if more coins were created via crack of the crypto or someone kept the master key. Also ZeroCash probably can't scale to micro transactions without centralization of mining. Centralization of mining means the government can take control. So even if ZeroCash finds a way to make the generation of the setup parameters trapdoor (the master key) impossible to intercept (and I think that is impossible), it still has the fundamental problem that it is too anonymous. We lose the ability to see if it was cracked. We never know if it is cracked or not. We will be flying blind against the adversary. Whereas the alternative crypto for the block chain which I am aware of, hides the payer and payee but not the amount and public can see which coins were mixed (but doesn't know which one is the payer and payee) and it doesn't require any master setup parameters trapdoor. Thus we get all the anonymity we need to prevent pools from blocking payer and payees and hiding our identity, without the bad caveats of ZeroCash. Well to be fair, it is possible the government could say any transaction is blocked if it contains any coin address on a black list (even if we can't determine which of the coins mixed with is the actual payer and payee). In that case, ZeroCash could be a solution (yet its bad caveats would remain). Thus this is another reason we don't want centralization of mining, so that government can't control every pool.
What I am saying is that making the entire block chain a fog with ZeroCash incurs the cost that we no longer know when the government has cracked it or someone possesses the master key trapdoor creating as many coins as they want covertly. For me, that is unacceptable. If our technology has been broken, I want to know, so we can work on improving it.
I know I'm a noob - but if you release something. Can I recommend not posting it in the ALT section and just garnering a lot of organic support a month before release?
I feel almost anything posted in the alt section of btc is doomed to live in it's shadow at best. And most likely to fail.
You are actually quite astute.
An altcoin with the right feature set doesn't need to launch with blazing saddles, and also because you wouldn't want any cpu-only coin subject to botnet or server farm attack before the hashrate was sufficiently developed.
