I guess @Peter R is being paid off well. Analogous to how the Japanese paid our best engineers to transfer our technologies some decades ago.


Still complacent I see...

So they did it, but tried to continue the illusion:

As if the market will have any other choice. That was a convenient lie.

Now that Bitcoin is at least 51% mined from China, prepare for future regulations to be enforced on all transactions. The reference to Taiwan a subliminal warning to Westerners of their future ass kicking humiliation.

The BU mining cartel admitted it can and will 51% attack when required to.

I warned you all last year. And you all said I was spreading FUD.

When you guys are serious about decapitating the centralized power of the miners, come talk to me.

Hope you don't mind but I am going to be a little be sarcastic just for making a point. I actually appreciate you sharing the information.

So they blabbered some technobabble BS lies to make everyone think that theirs was different and improved. Yet in reality it is same old worthless shit that isn't going to be used by anybody.

I'm not actually interested in going and figuring out why it is lies, but suffice it to say I've studied so many shitcoins that I can assure you with 98.62345678% certainty that it is BS.

Thanks.

So basically it was that plus some BS that wasn't true like the other user was writing.

Typical FOMO mania driven.

Of course I saw PIVX rising and I thought that people were going to keep buying it because of the Dash connection. Speculators are copycats. If they hear the word "Bye" then they "Buy". That pretty much sums up how logical it is.

Then I saw @generalizethis making the argument that you can take revenge on Dash by buying PIVX. I figured that would send it over $1.

@thejaytiesto the problem is that you and I aren't speculators. We are investors. These guys aren't investing, they are speculating.

I don't want to invest in Monero, because I didn't like the community and I think anonymity only coins are dumb.  I didn't invest in PIVX because Dash is the stupidest design ever. I don't want to invest in Byteball, because even though I like the stability point algorithm as a clever innovation, there are other aspects of the coin which make it unlikely to scale up.

Speculators don't think that way. They see the positives only. I see the negatives only. If I was an expert speculator I would study charts and think about all the dumb people who are going to buy something. That is how you make money speculating. Learn to think like they do.

Because I am a programmer. And I expect more.

So I stay on the sidelines of all the shitcoins. But for speculators, they aren't shitcoins and have enough WoW and suitable WooF. If it barks like a FOMO and climbs like a FOMO then it must be a Tulip.

I'm too sleepless to notice.

That was my original claim several months ago in the official thread. But I thought it will be open to all BTC holders until the supply was fulfilled. I didn't realize they were going to do this more unfavorable later rounds. I should have realized that would be the gimick the insiders would use to get 10X more supply than everyone thought they would get.

But because the issuance is to exclusive to those who participated in the very favorable first round, I think maybe they think they should hold on. So far they only have a 10% gain on their BTC. They probably feel Byteball is going to be the next great THING in crypto.

But they better do the pump soon. Because other coins are coming, and Byteball's features won't seem so unique later in the year.

Have you even used your brain?

Who is going to bother going through the hassle of linking their BTC on the 4th round when the 0.0625 GB they will receive is only worth $4 per BTC they link. And it will only get more unfavorable on future rounds. The planned issuance will never be achieved (okay maybe mathematically we can maybe argue that asymptotically it would eventually be fully issued some 100+ years from now, but that it isn't relevant because Tony will have sold his 7 - 14% long before that). Realize that afaik Tony apparently awarded his 10,000 GB to himself at launch day. So his coins are worth $670,000 on a $9 million market cap as we speak.

The 10% interest only increases the existing 137,000 to 150,700. That is only an overall increase of only 1.4% of the planned issuance.

I don't have any problem with him doing that. I just want people to understand that the "1%" is a mathematical deception. And you damn well know it.

---

FOMO.


I also thought it was strange that someone who is invested in Ethereum would complain about names. Smoke the ether dude.

(I've complained about the Monero name, but I also posted at the precisely correct time to buy it, that it was going to rocket up, so if I had wanted to speculate the name wouldn't have stopped me. What stopped me is that I didn't have any money to speculate with and I still don't so I need to remain conservative. Never speculate with money you can't afford to lose)

Byteball is has a reasonable likelihood to be the next big PUMP. But I am reasonably certain it will not be the next THING in crypto, as in massive adoption or practical use. But that shouldn't stop you from speculating on the PUMP. I would too if my opportunity cost wasn't so much higher than yours. If it wasn't a pita to buy, I'd probably buy 1 or 2 BTC of Byteball (except now that I see Tony is deceptive then I ethically don't want to buy it). But for that small amount, it isn't worth my time to figure out to buy it, since it isn't listed on Poloneix. And then I also have to figure out where to store the damn wallet. I don't have time for that over such a small amount of money involved. I have bigger fish to fry.

Btw, I been telling people to buy a little Byteball for the past months. So that is what is very strange when their supporters attack one of their former supporters. Just because I pointed out the truth.

Minted rewards from voting is not in my plans. There is nothing stopping apps from having voting if they want (such as upvoting comments a la Reddit). But it will not be tied to any token rewarded by the blockchain protocol. There will however be an advantage for voting as compared to Reddit and StackExchange voting.

---

Steem made several major errors in design, marketing, and launch/distribution. The original will not be the best.


I think it is based on Graphene, so the same DPoS consensus for the blockchain. I haven't looked in much more detail beyond that. I read they were offer rewards via voting, which IMO was one of the major blunders of Steem.

I heard Dan Larimer is working on improving Graphene and launching a new thing. So Ark and Steem will be using an inferior technology.

Help me understand your thinking. Please enumerate for me those very important different features?

Thanks.

This is like a Monty Python dialogue.  I mean who decides whether the contract stopped. Some argued that the implicit consumer protection contract was cardinal to that of the ambiguous (non-rigorously documented) protocol of executable EVM code. So it continues to this day.  

I mean when you make a technology for the n00bs (apps for geekcool widgets and socialcidalnetworking), then you also have to lower the bar of expectations about self-responsibility.


The indeterminacy of unhandled exceptions is analogous to the indeterminancy of letting it run on in unbounded nondeterminism.

I haven't studied what they did in detail, but why don't they run the contract in sandbox then revert all changes if it halts due to gas limit. That doesn't remove all possible indeterminacy though if there are external synchrony assumptions.

Would be much better if it is possible to prove some bounds on computation time. In theory it can done if the interaction with the environment is bounded nondeterminism (which might be too limiting for their intended generality). Haven't researched this much yet.

Or use some technology similar to the zk-snarks tech in Zcash to prove computation was performed offline, with the proof verification being bounded. Afaik, that technology isn't robust enough yet though.

I lean intuitively that once they find out what sort of contracts are really worth doing on a blockchain, they'll be able to take out some of the generality and tailor the scripting language better.

So I think Ethereum might have some value as an experimentation right now (perhaps enough to make the price go up faster than BTC as it has been), and maybe later it transitions into something more bulletproof.

I don't have the utility-test problem investing in ETH temporarily that I would have investing in DASH or PRIVX. The masternode concept of those latter two is nonsense and their R&D is imbecilic.


Well the token holders decide (if there is no 50+% mining controller). It is their software. They can run the software that they please. There was nothing stopping ETH hodlers from forking. And they did to ETH. Then the original ETH software kept running as ETC.

So actually they did exactly what you suggest.

If you think about it, what you want is totalitarianism. You don't want token hodlers to have control over their own open source software.

Immutability is a red-herring. Immutability violates decentralization. Every token hodler is free to fork their copy of their software. That is a fundamental property of blockchains. I can create my own fork of Bitcoin and spend my tokens on it if I want to (and more securely if I don't choose PoW for the consensus algorithm).

Again I don't like if that slippery slope means democracy of voting for redistribution and taxes. I wouldn't stay invested with a community which had that attitude.

In the case of Bitcoin, PoW devolves to centralization. So there has to be this power struggle. It was inevitable. So the lack of a BDFL in Bitcoin could be its big flaw. But I hope we can invent something that can sustain decentralization on auto-pilot. As you said, it is healthy to be very skeptical about the possibility of achieving that.

Did you cash out $372,000 in BTC or fiat? Until you do, it is not a realized gain. Is there enough liquidity to cash out.


@thejaytiesto, just when you get jealous and bite, that will be altcoin that goes to 0 and you lose it all. IMO, you can only invest in your convictions. If you believed in a Dash-clone, then you invest. There are apparently professional groups that get together and pump coins. Perhaps @JudgeDredd_ is one of them. Why else would he have invested so much in such a risky altcoin.

I didn't invest in either Dash nor PIVX, because for me the masternode concept is a very flawed technology.

I don't have good advice for how to play in the speculation area. It feels and looks like rolling dice or getting involved in collusion. If our efforts and energies will be expended on those activities, then altcoins will never accomplish anything important.

I am getting ready to go to sleep, and I might forget to come back to this thread. Actually I hope I don't. Should move on.

So I will post this thought a bit too prematurely just because I might otherwise forget.

I messaged @tonych and his initial reply did not deny my allegation. I asked for further clarification because his reply seemed to be worded as an admission but it was still somewhat ambiguous. So if there aren't any further updates, then perhaps you can presume the obvious implication.

I replied to @tonych that I would apologize if I end up having the wrong interpretation.

Also I want to say that IMO there is nothing ethically wrong with a 7% or 14% premine^[1], as long as the developer states it clearly upfront.

IMHO, attempts at deception reflect a lack of long-term commitment and pride in a project, because I believe no developer who is serious/sincere would want his project maligned by (even subtle) attempts at deception.

^[1] Note I actually believe > 5% is excessive unless the money supply continues to increase indefinitely, in which case that premine is continually diminishing over time, which is not the case for Byteball.

---

Edit: @tonych replied and the 1% of 1,000,000 GB is confirmed which is 7% of the current 137,000 issuance (and issuance is unlikely to increase much in future rounds). I had the correct interpretation. Note he refused to reply about the wallet signups, so form your own conclusion on that one. I am not quoting him because I didn't ask his permission to do so. And I don't want to annoy him further by asking him.

I also concur that my brief interaction with David gave me the impression that he an upstanding, ethical, hardworking, responsible, and capable person.

Those combination of traits is quite rare amongst the developers of altcoins.

I don't understand how someone can be (even partially) mind-controlled by a belief which is not falsifiable, and simultaneously claim they are free and are not centrally controlled to some extent.

As I see it, they are conditioned to being dependent on control due to their history with Communism, thus as their society is opening up more to the world, and they have more freedom of choice, they choose to improve Communism by replacing it with slightly less destructive form of top-down control. I guess you can call that an improvement, but it seems to be not in pace with the rapid devolution of top-down structure that is coming in the knowledge age where clarify of mind and forming correct knowledge will critical to one's performance.

Christianity is fracturing/splintering as JAD recently lamented and Armstrong also noted.

Myself trying to become a Christian from 2006 - 2010 was "peak religion" for the world, because I was one of the staunchest defenders of the impossibility of absolutes in morals in my youth. So when I capitulated (lost my mind), that had to have been the peak. It should be all downhill from here...

I don't wish on anyone that delusion that gripped me. I look at the photo and I want to see very nice people and wish them the best. But then I remember what a horrible thing mind control and zealotry is. Finally I think I have the fortitude to resist, because my heart really wants to love "the good" but now I realize that emotion wasn't rational and was manipulating my mind.

And so the plot thickens.

Why would anyone think to incentivize wallet signups with $0.0067 per signup? The only people who would be motivated would be bots which could signup wallets in huge volume. Could this be another way to obscure the level of the premine? Could Tony have a plan to do these wallet installs with a specialized bot? Seems like he would get competition from other hackers though. Maybe he is planning to use some heuristics to determine which wallet installs are valid? Hmmm. Needs deeper study...

Fyi, @yvv has been put on Ignore.

Thanks for the open source effort.

Linus' Law: Given enough eyeballs, all bugsdeceptions are shallow.

You are so mathematically challenged that you don't even realize that you still haven't answered my question unambiguously.

Getting angry at me because you can't understand the math ambiguity is kind of silly, rash, and immature don't you think.

Did somebody find a bubu in your precious little Byteball and that makes you cry. Huhu.

Is peer review not valued in our community? Have you ever heard of open source? It is a rather important concept.