Bitcoin/cryptos are pyramid/chain games. New "mail/letter-chain" to paralyze the internet.

[skybu...@hotmail.com]

(Google-translate assisted translation from dutch to english with corrections from me ! Cool =D)

Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are:

1. Pyramid and especially chain-like chance games.

Especially game of chance:

2. Probability of finding a "suitable hash" for which one receives a reward.

This reward is included in a chain. This chain is sent around the internet just like a chain letter.

3. Eventually people will lose their money because the system is stuck. The chain has become too large and no longer fits on the computer.

4. The remuneration/rewarding will become less after the years have passed. The late entrants get less reward.

In the meantime more than 1000 of these games of chance can be found on the internet.

The games of chance in themselves are evolving. Some will develop as alternatives to banks / the financial system.

These games of chance should in principle have been banned a long time ago.

Those in power are asleep, do not see the danger, or are lax, or do not care if things go wrong or dare not to act because these games of chance could offer an alternative for banks.

Now a power takeover looms because of these games of chance. It will not be long before the financial banks collapse, wallstreet will be dragged into this or will be struck by competition from these games of chance.

Three groups of people are now being formed:

1. Group 1 has "cryptographic money"
2. Group 2 has "old rulers approved money".
3. Group 3 has both.

There will soon be war between these groups. Especially group 2 will soon disappear because of the loss of banks.

This group 2 will soon have no more money to pay the gas / water and electricity, they will literally be in the cold.

This cold will be accompanied by illness and the outlook of death. These people will be in conflict with those who are warm and can pay their bills with the cryptographic money.

Group 3 will not have it much easier.

In short, World War 3 seems to be very close.

The solution could be to paralyze the internet with a new game of chance where a chain letter should be as long as possible. The longest chain letter is rewarded. This length needs to be increased in order to be able to cash in on the reward. Only the chain that has reached a certain size first will win, after which the length will be increased, and then the game of chance can be repeated.

It is suspected that this chain letter will become so long that the internet can no longer handle it. Whether this is indeed possible will have to prove an experiment.

Before the experiment, the chain letter can be signed using cryptographic IP addresses that need to be checked. The IP address is encrypted and added to the chain by means of a private key.
The public keys of all participants are distributed by the system. The participants are now able to check that each participant only has a maximum of one ip address on the chain letter. A counter can also be added which, together with the ip address, must be encrypted to prevent the move around of signatures on the chain.

To encourage participants to circulate the chain letters, a reward must be introduced. All participants on the chain letter are rewarded, the upper one gets a bit more than the bottom one. The exact reward formula will have to be further thought about. An exponential function up to a certain limit would be nice, that is somewhat more difficult to understand for the human brain and therefore somewhat meaner;) :) A simpler reward could also be possible.

(The rewards are also tracked via a "block chain" the winning chain is added to the blockchain, maybe only the first signature otherwise the blockchain might become too big;))

This game of chance was devised to frustrate miners. Especially the ASIC miners and GPU miners (special computers / machines). These machines have a weakness: they do not have an IP address to participate in this game of chance.

To guarantee their exclusion, only IPv4 must be allowed for this game of chance. After all, there has been a shortage of IPv4 addresses and it will be difficult for miners to get there. Optionally nodes / participants of the system can check ip addresses with trace routes to make sure that it is not a local area network and that sort of thing. Only public IP addresses are allowed.

Now the problem with this new chance game according to a not so smart guy, but he may well be right. This chance game will unfortunately not only thwart the miners but also the entire internet.

The dangers are now:

1. Global warming due to mining.
2. World war because of the loss of banks.

vs

3. Paralyze ("laying lamb" :) ) the internet.

Of course, this new chain-game game will destroy itself over time, but will also drag down all other games of chance with it. Hopefully this game of chance will arrive on time to prevent the global warming and war.

However, I'm not sure if creating this new chance game is a good idea, and maybe I will not manage to create this new system myself.

That's why I leave it to the reader to make a decision. After all, everyone can make a decision:

1. Risk of warming up / fighting the war and paralyzing the internet?
vs
2. Do not participate and risk Warming / War.

The only thing I could possibly do for you is to create this system in the absence of decisive action by those in power.
Also remember that the Internet was designed against physical violence. Those in power have the monopoly on physical violence, but the internet undermines this a little.
Also something to think about for the future;) See skynet / terminator 2! = D See also quantum computing + AI = Quantum AI?!?

Maybe it's better to demolish the internet.

You all may join in! Break the internet in exchange for coins! = D

Now that this idea has been brought to the world, it can not be stopped anymore! ;)

Success with it! = D

Since this is a technical newsgroup I will share with you possible techical rules for this new system to help you along in case you want to implement it yourself:

(I will simply copy & paste what I have for you so far ! ;))

Node Chain idea invented by Skybuck Flying on 18 december 2017 live on discord

Skybuck - Today at 10:51 PM

Hello Folks...
Before I go to bed... and such... I am going to ramble about "mining-pool-resistent" chaining.
The idea is as follows:
1. Every node sends packets into the network.
2. Every nodes that receives the packet "signs" the packet with it's private key.
3. Every node then forwards the packet to other nodes... hopefully nodes that have not seen it yet.
4. This way the packet gets signed by each node eventually.
5. The packet which is first signed by all nodes wins. Or by a certain difficulty which could be "node count"... the higher the difficulty the more nodes need to sign it.
6. There would be a node-signing exchange protocol. "This for That" like bittorrent.
This is to make sure nodes work together instead of not forwarding other nodes packets.
(An easier/alternative more incentive solution would be nodes that signed the packet get a small reward as well).
Yes this small reward per signing would probably suffice.
7. The idea behind this protocol is that big gpu and big asic mining pools are lacking IP addresses.
So they cannot partcipate in this.
8. The packet signing must happen in such a way... that the signing must match the IP address of the node... which must match either source or dest ip... (not yet sure which is best to select).
Correction: 8.1. The receiver of the packet should probably sign the packet with it's IP address which matches the Source IP address.
9. A private key is used for the signing, the public key can be used to verify that the packet was signed correctly.

Skybuck - Today at 11:00 PM
10. There would be a node public key exchange protocol.... All nodes learn of each's others public key.
So that each node is capable of verifieing other nodes signatures.
11. Packets which are not correctly signed are not propagated.
12. Signing happens as follows: Sign( IP Source + Random Data (?) could maybe be replaced later with some kind of rewards or even small ammounts of transaction data. )(edited)
13. The packet to be signed first X times first wins. X matching the difficulty.
14. To not consume too much data for the signing process. The signing could be done on top of each other and with a counter which is to be incremented each time it's signed.
Example:
Packet.Signature = Receiver1Sign( Counter=0, Receiver1_IPAddress, EmptySignature, Data );(edited)
Packet.Signature = Receiver2Sign( Counter = 1, Receiver2_IPAddress, Packet.Signature, Data );
Packet.Signature = Receiver3Sign( Counter = 2, Receiver3_IPAddress, Packet.Signature, Data );
And so forth...
Drawback of this idea is the packet has to be sent back... for decryption...
This could also be an interesting idea... A ping-pong method...
Where during the "ping" the counter is incremented...
and once it reaches a certain difficulty/threshold... it has to be propagated back to the source... via the nodes..
During the "pong" the counter could be decremented... and a new counter incremented or just same counter incremented again until twice difficulty... so everything above difficulty is considered reset to zero... might make more sense to include two counters to avoid any syncing issues.
Once the packet arrives back at the node with the second counter matching the difficulty too... that node wins... and can now add it to the blockchain.
and also propagate it forth...
However this may not work...
All nodes have to do this at the same time.
So new idea:

mattbolt - Today at 11:09 PM
Though getting IP addresses is not hard ... a big mining pool could easily scale that up

Skybuck - Today at 11:09 PM
Allow 64K jumbo datagram packets(edited)
Each signature is recorded in the packet.
However this would limit the protocol to 64k which could suck for difficulty limitation.
So instead "signature streams/chunks/files" are propagated... and can grow beyond 64K.
This is cool idea.
So which ever "signature chain" is signed "difficulty times" all by unique nodes wins !
and is added to blockchain.
This could work.
Now to set format of this signature stream which should be easy.
mattbolt - Today at 11:12 PM
Kinda puts the chance of winning a block at the mercy of which path your internet traffic takes you...
too bad if you have rubbish internet

Skybuck - Today at 11:13 PM
Stream.Signature1 = Receiver1Sign( Counter = 1, Receiver1_IP_ADDRESS );

mattbolt - Today at 11:13 PM
And what’s stopping a big farm from just firing up hundreds of daemons which bounce the data back and forth the requisite number of times and winning?

Skybuck - Today at 11:13 PM
Stream.Signature2 = Receiver2Sign( Counter = 2, Receiver2_IP_ADDRESS );(edited)
Stream.Signature3 = Receiver3Sign( Counter = 3, Receiver3_IP_ADDRESS );
Stream.Counter would be at the front too unencrypted... and incremented... and this is used to produce the signature...(edited)
@mattbolt... as difficulty goes up even slow nodes will be important...
All streams will have to pass even through slow nodes...
So everybody is affected by slow nodes...
makes it somewhat fair.
Good point.
The IP addresses of receivers will also be recorded in packet...
Using tcp/ip should be enough to prevent spoofing...
Ok new structure for stream:
counter is unnecessary to maintain in stream
the number of nodes can be counted
Stream.NodeData[X] = Node[X].Address + Node[X].Signature( X, Node[X].Address )(edited)

mattbolt - Today at 11:21 PM
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying

Skybuck - Today at 11:21 PM
Only IPv4 could be allowed if IPv6 is too easy to "deamon" as you write...

mattbolt - Today at 11:22 PM
Particularly with services like Amazon cloud and Google cloud ... it’s very very easy to scale up even thousands of virtual computers ... each could run multiple daemons with their own IPs (if you limit to ip4 - you will never scale - they are all running out)...

Nothing stopping someone from just doing all the bounces between nodes that they own

Skybuck - Today at 11:23 PM
I shall call this idea: "Node-Chain" :wink:

mattbolt - Today at 11:23 PM
:thumbup::skin-tone-1:
Ok well - I’ll let you sleep on that ... I think I’ve had my dose of skybuck for now ... going to have a shower and start my day :joy:

Skybuck - Today at 11:27 PM
15. The IP addresses have to be public ip address and not local lan addresses.
16. Trace route could be included from Node to Node to proof that it was not on some artificial/test network.(edited)
17. Other nodes could try and verify if these intermediate IPs are reachable on the network.
18. If too many intermediate IPs seem unreachable the stream could be declared invalid and discarded.
19. Counter measures as stated above could be build in and activated as needed.
20. To prevent internet flooding. Only the winning stream is checked for valid intermediate IPs.
21. If too many invalid intermediate IPs the winning stream is discarded.
22. If valid the winning stream is added to blockchain and intermediate trace route data thrown away.
22. For last 100 winning streams all NodeData is kept.
23. For older winning streams NodeData[0] is kept. 0 = first node in stream. All other NodeData[1..X] is thrown away.(edited)
24. For winning streams Node[0].Address is rewarded Coins on the blockchain.
25. Winning Node[0].Address is to be looked up in current active network (table) and converted to account number. Coins are added to account number.
Lovely :smile:

Possible problems and solutions with this idea:

Problem 1. Node[0] could be replaced in current design...
Solution 1. protection by chaining could be implemented.

Problem 2. Nodes have no incentive to cooperate.
Solution 2. Reward each node with CoinReward / Current Difficulty. (Would require to keep node data for each stream ?)

Problem 3. Once a fast route has been found... nodes could use it over and over again.
Solution 3. To prevent this... streams are hashed based on "node addresses". Streams with the same hash as on last 100 winning streams
are rejected.

Problem 4. Denial of service attacks and other mischief may have to be studied further, for now no real weakness is visible from this as long as stream can circulate around such dosses.

Solution 2 and solution 3 might have to be re-worked to be more storage efficient. Especially solution 2 might have to be done differently.

Lacking in solution 2: No greedy incentive to be the first to send a stream.... this might be a good or a bad thing... but I kinda like idea of rewarding The first best, the second less third even lesser
and so forth... not sure why... Perhaps this idea should be inverted.... to make nodes cooperate with bigger streams even better !

The futher the node down the stream... the more rewards it gets... but this is actually a drawback this would prevent nodes from actually signing cause they can only sign once.

So the downing of the rewards make sense... this is to incentize nodes... to quickly sign the stream and pass it on ! nice idea !

Bye,
Skybuck.

ENJOY AND BE FUUUUKKED LOL =D

[MitchAlsup]

I would vote to paralyse the internet just to keep you from posting such dribble.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 5:41:29 AM UTC+3, MitchAlsup wrote:
> I would vote to paralyse the internet just to keep you from posting such dribble.

Apparently your glorious leader has already done so, and we are now back to the dark days of pre-2015 internet.

[skybu...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 3:41:29 AM UTC+1, MitchAlsup wrote:
> I would vote to paralyse the internet just to keep you from posting such dribble.

Great another customer/user for this system !

I bet there will be many people that feel or were "wronged" by thez internetz ! =D HAHAHAHAHA.

Billionare in the making ! =D

[Renee Keller]

>
> Apparently your glorious leader has already done so, and we are now back
> to the dark days of pre-2015 internet.

You are confused. There are TWO kinds of Net neutrality. Type 1 is the
idea that you pay for your bandwidth and you should be able to access
whatever you like, be it Netflix or Youtube or you own server, etc. etc.
But that's not what we got.

Mr Obama and the FCC cooked up a plan to get control over the population by
classifying it (without congress) as a utility. He called their plan "Net
Neutrality". Same name but entirely diferent meaning.

Since that time there has been complete web sites removed from the net's DNS
servers, and enormous amounts of censorship which did not exist prior to
2015.

President Trump removed that aspect of it, but it's not yet complete. and
still more work needs done in order to restore our freedoms on the Internet.

[Tim Rentsch]

In the United States everyone has an inalienable right to be
stupid. Some people take more advantage of that right than
others.

[herrman...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:25:13 AM UTC-8, Renee Keller wrote:

(snip)

> You are confused. There are TWO kinds of Net neutrality. Type 1 is the
> idea that you pay for your bandwidth and you should be able to access
> whatever you like, be it Netflix or Youtube or you own server, etc. etc.
> But that's not what we got.

Yes. People expect that if they pay for a certain bandwidth
from a provider, it gives them that bandwidth to anywhere in
the world. That never will be true.

[Renee Keller]

>
> Yes. People expect that if they pay for a certain bandwidth
> from a provider, it gives them that bandwidth to anywhere in
> the world. That never will be true.
>

Correct, but in the United States anyway, people rightfully expect there
would be no censorship or controls within the U.S.

What happens in other country's is another issue.