<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> Rucknium: the definitions in this Roughgarden paper are dubious. They define permissionless as "the protocol is oblivious to who executes it". That is not the typically accepted definition. In their lectures they contradict this definition themselves. The widely accepted definition of permissionless is anyone can become a participant in the network without having to ask a central <clipped message>

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> authority for permission.

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> Rucknium: ">According to what I'm reading by Roughgarden, the less synchronous you become, the more permissioned the validation must be." According to their crooked definition of permissionless this statement would have to be translated to "the less synchronous you become, the less oblivious the validation must be"

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> 1. not sure the interpretation is valid / helpful. 2. On the Roughgarden papers in general: they seem like fluff.

<r​ucknium:monero.social> Who else is doing serious game theory in this area? Give citations.

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> didn't find any. but that does not mean that their stuff is good.

<r​ucknium:monero.social> I first noticed Roughgarden from his paper on the Ethereum fee policy . EIP-???

<r​ucknium:monero.social> I do not necessarily take all game theory as useful. But show me the rigor.

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> the issue is that it just adds more confusion to redefine permissionless as oblivious. It contradicts empirical evidence as well. According to their framework bitcoin and monero are permissionless aka oblivious

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> but nodes are not really oblivious to the network

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> xmrack:

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> > ...But you prefer a coin with 50% emitted in the first year and released with a sketchy miner situation? A coin that changes emission schedules after launch? A coin with a shady record of rigged votes? Not to mention one that was born as a clone from a scam coin?

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> From someone else's comments on XMR in another conversation... I +1 what you brought up yesterday.

rucknium: I read the "learning automata" paper. It's a dud. They rely on block timestamps for their block weight function, but don't include a timestamp-forging attacker in their threat model.

Funnily, they criticize the "preferred freshness" paper for the assumption of unforgeable timestamps and then proceed with the same assumption implicitly.

<interestingband:matrix.org> PoW isn't a fundamental ? The whole point of PoW is to require some non zero work for newly created xmr; who t f needs absolutely virtual token aka scam that isn't bounded to anything ?

<interestingband:matrix.org> Are you complete idi0t ? or just saying whatever helps you make more money ?

<noname-user0:matrix.org> pow is fundamental to new coin distribution, not to security of the blockchain imho

<interestingband:matrix.org> I would say in your case both

interestingband:matrix.org please take this discussion somewhere else.

<interestingband:matrix.org> it was comment regarding unimportance of PoW that was claimed by a person who is advertising his proposal of making a book about PoS here, why would I take it to somewhere else ?

@interestingband:matrix.org that was being discussed in #monero-research-lounge, which is for purposes such as casual conversation or comments about ongoing work or proposals

<interestingband:matrix.org> Would you like to explain why my comment is distinct from everything else said here by others ?

<interestingband:matrix.org> It's just a waste of time to speak politly with that kind of scammers, even though I can do that and did that before; But my comment was on topic, it's just too short and doesn't contain a lot of words saying the same many times like that kayabanerve is doing

The comment is on topic, but not the right channel. As said, you can hold the same conversation but in #monero-research-lounge where users have also made similar comments about the book

<interestingband:matrix.org> monero-project/research-lab #142, e.g. it's an example of what you get when you speak politely with them

<interestingband:matrix.org> basically for every technial comment they will give you huge reply saying nothing

<gingeropolous> DNS checkpoints aren't permanent. this is a false equivalency.

<gingeropolous> i have a hard time wrapping my head around proof of stake being permissionless being that it requires the permission of someone selling you monero.

<interestingband:matrix.org> DataHoarder: ok, next time I will wrap my comment into the same appearance as similar comments here to say the same; sorry that I didn't want to waste my time by doing that

Well, you gotta get the permission of someone selling you a CPU to mine. I think the point is that it's a centralized party (or small enough set thereof).

As people or entities buy monero (or CPUs), they can resell them without permision of the original owner.

There are probably more CPU resellers than monero owners, but this is a quantitative, not qualitative. difference.

<interestingband:matrix.org> tbh, I don't even think that my comment is distinct from what was written here by others already > <@interestingband:matrix.org> it was comment regarding unimportance of PoW that was claimed by a person who is advertising his proposal of making a book about PoS here, why would I take it to somewhere else ?

<antilt:we2.ee> When starting a fresh overlay network an alterative to staking xmr might open up: slashable reputation scores.

<gingeropolous> well as far as I know, buying computer equipment isn't regulated (yet). there's a mountain of effort for your average joe to buy monero. And I doubt it will get any easier

<gingeropolous> like, c'mon. we're talking about monero, which most people can't buy on exchanges with fiat.

<gingeropolous> this isn't bitcoin, or ethereum, etc

Fair, but somehow I wouldn't call that permissioned, it just doesn't fit.

<gingeropolous> wut

Well, it's hard, but open to... well, not anyone, but anyone in a given jurisdiction. There's no licence to buy it.

i mean, govt wise, any citizen is "equal" on that respect.

<gingeropolous> to buy monero? what're you talking about? for your average person, they need to be able to get on an exchange, which requires legal paperwork etc.

<gingeropolous> a 14 yr old can't get an account on a CEX (afaik). a 14 yr old can go buy a computer.

Yes, that's a fair argument, but you're not stopped by who you are, just by whether you accept the privacy risk.

<gingeropolous> the privacy risk?

OK, there's an element of permissioned then.

I mean, about "requires legal paperwork".

It can be thought similar to buying booze, which is age restriced, and you can make the argument that it is therefore permissioned. The joys of vague language I guess.

<gingeropolous> i mean its just an oversimplified example of the walled garden of finance that exists