[Cryptography] Proof of Work is the worst way to do a BlockChain

[Ismail Kizir]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Ersin Taskin <ersin.taskin at ieee.org> wrote:
> Dear Ismail,
>
> Today I met with my master thesis advisor Prof Denizhan at the Bogazici
> University Electrical  Electronics Engineering Department. She is the
> founder of the BU Chaos Group: the Nutty Professor. I had limited time to
> explain POP. When I briefly sketched her the isolation of tasks to three
> basic independent components, she said "Ersin, you know what this is. It is
> the Separation of Powers principle." and I said, "I admit that the recent
> political  debate on the separation of powers in Turkey probably inspired
> me." So I find your "Separation of Powers" remark fascinating taking into
> account that you are Turkish, too. You see how influential our environment
> is in our creation.

It's a really interesting story and I am waiting for your paper
without patience my friend.
And I promise I will visit you in your office in Istanbul :)

Meanwhile, I just want to give another interesting detail I've read in
Wikipedia several years ago:

Did you know that in years 1900s, nearly whole New York Taxi Fleet was
consisted of electric cars?
"Something" happened and for two decades, we polluted nature and we made wars!
And today, we are talking about electric cars as it's new, brilliant
idea and technology!!

Believe me: The discussion we're actually making here is the same
thing, even much more important than the example of electric cars!
I am addressing here to all members of this group:
I know that you're all distinguished professionals from many different
countries. Elites of your nations.
Let's not repeat history again.
This time, let's try to protect rights of ordinary American, Frenchs,
Turkish, Brit etc., on their behalf.

Regards
Ismail Kizir

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Ersin Taskin <hersintaskin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:23 PM, Ismail Kizir <ikizir at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Ersin Taskin <hersintaskin at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >We need a system that can be implemented TODAY and evolve in the course
>> > of time. We have to admit that state/government is a reality TODAY. Some
>> > part of is bad but some part of it is good (at least as of today).
>> > >https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/911307/Bitcoin-price-live-gunpoint-heist-rising-falling-ripple-ethereum-blockchain
>> > . We have to acknowledge the legitimate parts of the state and design a fair
>> > system that collaborates >with that part of the state. No body would be able
>> > to succesfully object to a crypto-system that shakes hands with the
>> > legitimate and fair part of the state.
>>
>> Ersin,
>>
>> You tell that you trust in State and Banks. And you tell that there
>> are good parts of it.
>> Of course, there are good parts of State. And we need it.
>> But, let me emphasize some facts about State:
>>
>> Modern Democracies are based on Montesqieue's "Separation of powers"
>> ideas:
>>
>> https://www.catallaxia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Montesquieu:De_l%27esprit_des_lois
>>
>> The base of modern state is, simply "lack of trust".
>> That's why, we have separation of powers.
>> That's why, for example, in Turkey, actually, we are converting our
>> parlementary system, which is more based on trust(soft separation of
>> powers) to  a Presidential system, as in United States, which have a
>> more rigid separation of powers(Legislation, Execution, Jurisdiction).
>>
>> Consequently, even actual modern state concept is based on "untrust".
>> The State doesn't trust itself. How can we trust it?
>> Even though it was a lie, last 30 years Western World Slogan is
>> minimizing the State! (But they did the same mistake i am trying to
>> elaborate and made peoples slaves of global finance capital and
>> empowered States physically, more police and security officers, more
>> cameras, larger armies, more weapons and wars! But this is another
>> discussion)
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> But here, the biggest danger is to be trapped by global
>> finance-captial instead of States.
>
>
> Dear Ismail,
>
> Today I visited with my ms thesis advisor after so many years. I asked her
> help with the paper which takes more time than I expected. When I briefly
> sketched her the isolation of crypto-functionality to three basic
> independent components, she said "Ersin, you know what this is. It is the
> Separation of Powers principle." and I replied, "I admit that the recent
> political  debate on the separation of powers in Turkey probably inspired
> me." So I find your "Separation of Powers" remark fascinating taking into
> account that you are Turkish, too. You see how influential our environment
> is in our creation.
>
> To avoid misunderstanding; I do not propose handing over any bit of power to
> the state (nor the banks). POP can only be implemented with zero
> government/capitalist stake. Its core strength is that it resolves the
> double spend problem with an anchorage that cannot be convertible to money.
> State and banks (an all other powerhouses of capitalism) are made of money
> and thus cannot influence/attack the POP system. Remember the
> anchor-to-iceberg problem.
>
> However, we must acknowledge the existence of the state, banks; and the fact
> that a great deal of the people trusts these banks in basic banking/cash
> services. Many people to whom I presented and advocated Bitcoin told me that
> they trusted banks more than the entities in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
> Some of them said they didn't like the idea of irreversibility to my
> surprise and anger. These are observations I have to admit. I try hard to
> fight against fanaticism and cherish scepticism in me. It is not easy.
> Evolution hasn't wired our brains that way. We cannot help getting
> aggressive when we hear statements against our strongest beliefs. Then the
> heist, ransomware incidents caused me to re-think irreversibility. A system
> architect with an evolutionary vision/approach cannot deny the environment.
> This is our environment. A cryptocurrency system should not be arrogant to
> deny these people, banks, states. We have to admit that we are soo the
> minority in our countries, trying to join forces with the unbanked in the
> underdeveloped world. We are the very minority in terms of capital as well.
> Besides, any good platform would provide the options, its users demand. The
> broader the platform the broader the options demanded. A cryptocurrency cash
> platform must provide its users and suppliers with the option for
> jurisdiction based reversibility, the trust scheme, and the privacy-control,
> etc. Any cash system who addresses the demands of the majority of the people
> will be dominant anyway. And all these are possible in POP without any state
> stake in the system. The state is a peripheral device in POP. If users want
> to use it the POP protocol allows that. Just like the printer. Same for the
> banks.
>