He can't afford lighting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMSA5W7jx1E#t=566Note his Scorex was apparently commissioned by Charles Hoskinson (an Ethereum founder) at IOHK.oi. Old timers might remember Charles and I lamenting on Bitcointalk in 2013 (when Charles was with Bitshares) that we couldn't code in Scala for crypto projects. |
|
|
|
You missed the point entirely. Only 0.001% have the economies-of-scale to mine Bitcoin profitably. Sorry your argument fails on the economics of proof-of-work hash functions, unless you can argue there is one that can't be significantly optimized for an ASIC and economies-of-scale for cheaper electricity located next to utility scale hydropower (even free electricity perhaps if you do a handshake and wink in China with a Communist Party official). Whoa... Hold on! Are you telling us that it is entirely possible, if not extremely likely, that the Chinese Communists are in fact subsidizing PoW mining in an effort to undermine the decentralization of Bitcoin and control the currency in the hopes of applying capital controls to the digital economy through underhanded tactics which will further solidify their hegemony? I've been hinting at that for months and finally an astute reader articulates it. If you are wondering who created Bitcoin though, I think more likely the globalist DEEP STATE funded by the $trillions Black Budget and knowing full well they could hide their capture of Bitcoin blaming it on the "enemy". Nick Rockefeller (the one who warned Aaron Russo about 9/11 before it happened) has been spending most of his time in China. |
|
|
|
What would happen is, Alice sends and empty Bob and if she refuses to work with Bob he will
certainly let the escrow expire. He will lose 200, she will lose 100. (you could have made
her put up a little more)
There IS a reputation system in place that checks the result of transactions and puts it in
a database. So it already reads to blockchain to make sure no contracts blow up.
The "extortion attack" doesn't work so well not only because of the reputation system but because
in order for Alice to WANT to extort it needs to be profitable long term and I guarantee you it
is not. Many more people will blow up Alices money out of extreme anger for her transgressions.
The whole point here is really mathematical probability:
What is more likely? A risky extortion attack that you need to pull off MORE than 50% of the time
to screw people out of money?
OR simply stealing peoples shit on Ebay with ZERO risk of getting caught because nobody can prove
you didn't put the guitar in the box, not even USPTO (put rocks in it, it will weight the same).
In the above case of theft 100% of the time it works.
Afaik, eBay has a reputation system and anyone not using it to check the reputation of both the seller and those who voted on the seller's reputation, deserves to be defrauded. People that use eBay understand very well that if they want 100% protection, go buy from Amazon instead. If they buy from eBay, they use human judgements which are actually pretty astute for those who bother to hone that useful life skill. What can happen with your system is that eBay spends part of the marketing budget to do the empty box scam on 1% of your transactions. What is likely to happen is people will find it is more risky than eBay, because at least on eBay they can make their case to eBay and then eBay has to weigh the facts and make a judgement. eBay will over time be able to statistically determine which users are the liars by doing correlation analysis. So yeah some people might get pissed off, but that will also make them pissed off at your system. They are much more likely to then choose Amazon next time or vetting the person somehow. It is good that you have a fighting spirit, but you need to understand that you don't make successful (software) businesses based on introducing strife for the users. Humans prefer things that just work with the least tsuris. There may be a use case for Bitbay which supercedes what I wrote above. I encourage you to complete it and fulfill your obligations. I am not trashing it. I am just speaking frankly about the potential to replace eBay. Using ODESK or FREELANCER for example is a nightmare!
I found out about that too. Cheap and Eastern European or Indian programmers don't work out well. Bob lists the product and waits for bids. Those bids are signed of course (anything that gets to the market
is signed) and Bob will then sign a message back with the highest bid.
Its in Bobs best interest to post accurate bids. If both parties sign their bid, everyone can check
that the values indeed match. So faking this would be pointless and difficult to do.
Bob accepts the highest bidder, because there is more money in it for him.
IF we see people trolling auctions, we can require them to BURN funds to Bid. For the first version
of auctions, I'm not going to force a burn... simply because its scope creep and I need to finish all
my templates.
So its really simple.
But I am asking about how you can be sure the bidders have committed the funds for their bid? I am assuming you have some multi-party commitment to a deposit? But I just don't see how that can work. |
|
|
|
ETH has no means to support that price over a long time line because of their inflating amount of coins.
They will switch to proof-of-stake and thus presumably stop all further coin issuance. |
|
|
|
Most people don't even realize Bitcoin has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.
Which only 0.001% of the population can participate in profitably. And it ceases roughly 2033 or unless transaction fees scale up but there is a Tragedy of the Commons dilemma there as well. It doesn't really even matter if it's profitable or not. You can define Bitcoin in one sentence: The purpose of mining is to create a permanent two way peg, decentralized exchange, which thus results in a permissionless system.The economic incentives are a side issue, but seem to work thus far. It's designed to bounce back and forth between profitable and unprofitable. The fact that it's deflationary creates a time opportunity cost reward to generally remain profitable over the long haul. You missed the point entirely. Only 0.001% have the economies-of-scale to mine Bitcoin profitably. Sorry your argument fails on the economics of proof-of-work hash functions, unless you can argue there is one that can't be significantly optimized for an ASIC and economies-of-scale for cheaper electricity located next to utility scale hydropower (even free electricity perhaps if you do a handshake and wink in China with a Communist Party official). |
|
|
|
...be reminded that without privacy there is no freedom.
I am endeavoring to prove that your claim is grossly incorrect. You'll later find out why anonymity isn't really necessary and is in fact a hindrance to attaining freedom. Having said that, I think optional privacy is a nice feature and I guess Monero is best of breed right now. |
|
|
|
To be fair, Evan can come here and once again state his case, whereupon I may further amend the list in the OP (go see the edit now). Evan has no case, other than being very good at making nice words ("wolf in sheep skin") which causes people to not pay attention to the fact that he did not refute any of the following starting at the 10 minute point in the above quoted linked audio. How is that Evan Duffield from Dash is not on this list, when smooth and others documented his ninjamine scam and then changing the planned coin supply to much less than was originally touted so that he and insiders owned most of the coins, and then creating a masternode design for Dash to pay more coins to those who own the most coins, thus a steady supply of selling coins to n00bs and then paying more coins themselves.
The alleged ongoing scam is allegedly perpetrated via to a great extent trading BTC for DRK, so should be included in this Bitcoin Hall of Shame.
1. smooth and others have documented that he is lying about an innocent programming error leading to in Evan's own words, "1/3 of the total coin supply being mined in less than 24 hours". 2. He also doesn't mention in the linked audio, that after this fact, he changed the planned coin supply to be much less than it was originally published to be, so the instamine amounted to 1/3 of the coin supply. 3. He claims in the linked audio that he is not the largest holder of DRK (Dash), yet we have no way to verify that and besides how could he know this unless he knows who the largest holders are? This is evidence that he does know them or he is bending the truth for propaganda. 4. Even if he doesn't have most of the DRK that was instamined, his insiders who were privy to the instamine scam do. And when he instituted the masternode scam, that enabled them to further concentrate the supply of coins. It is simple economics and smooth et all have already explained this exhaustively. 5. I found a high school level probability math error in the InstantX white paper some year after it had been released, wherein these scammers had claimed a 1000X less chance of masternode collusion than is actually the case. Smooth or someone can dig up the link for you if you want. And you can even read Evan's one post response before he high-tailed it out there not to be heard from again on the issue. 6. Erik Voorhees (whose scams were documented upthread) was pitching for Dash at a recent conference which can be viewed on YouTube. Has the dude not even studied the technology! Dash is complete crap compared to Monero. For example, it requires minutes to anonymous a transaction, it can't be done autononomously, and the masternodes compromise your anonymity. I was the one who first explained that CoinJoin be jammed, which then caused Evan to propose the masternode nonsense which was just a veil on the corrupt economic structure it concentrates as well as rendering the security and anonymity suspect. 7. In addition to probably being an illegal unregistered investment security because it was launched as a premine to themselves (in disguise) and promoting to USA investors without registering with the SEC (and Evan ostensibly being a US citizen), it is also violating FinCEN regulations which probably thus require masternodes to register as Money Services Businesses, since they are transferring money from the block chain to a third party. This Dash crap is illegal from every angle. 8. At recent conference, Dash was pushing a Dash soda pop machine and had a lady with a g-string walking around on their conference floor area. Hype much? The list goes on and on, but that should be sufficient to remove the strikethrough from his name in your OP. |
|
|
|
Why is Craig Steven Wright on this list? Has anyone documented a scam? I remember him schooling Nick Szabo on Turing completeness.
Alluded to being Satoshi Nakamoto, then left Australia for supposedly the UK to avoid a 3-LA investigation. He also demonstrated that he is smarter than Nick Szabo. And thus his claim of being involved in Bitcoin since early on may be true. He did not claim to be Satoshi, but his colleague who died might have been (but I doubt it). You have no proof on why he acted on the advice of his attorneys nor any proof or strong evidence of wrongdoing. If you are going to base this list on such flimsy hearsay and on idolizing "Satoshi" (who was probably an elite team of special agents within the DEEP STATE) to the extent that you must attack any man who belittles your misbelief that Satoshi is God, then I will disrespect your list for its lack of objectivity. Piece of Shit Bitcoiners et al. Hall of Fame ...
Excellent Doxx'ing, Gleb. It pains my eyes to see so many knucklefucks lined up in a row, but there you have it.
You forgot: Satoshi Nakamoto ("Bitcoin is debased less than gold!" lie) Satoshi Nakamoto ("Bitcoin is decentralized" lie) In case nb00bs haven't noticed, all during Bitcon's current life it has been double-digit debased which transfers to Chinese miners who control 67% of the hashrate (who have already 51% attacked disallowing any block size increase) and who have $50 per BTC costs and dump the coins at huge profits to siphon our Libertarian capital away to China's Communism. And then there is Larry Summers, Blythe Masters et al gunning for their share of our ass raping with 21 Inc, etc.. Dude, are you seriously declaring with your verbiage that Craig Steven Wright is not a Piece of Shit? By your reasoning, John Fritzpatrick should be taken off the list as well for all the work he almost done in almost donating billions (with a B) to Oregon University resulting in two resignations. I am demanding you provide evidence other than just the fact that he decided to leave Australia where the authorities were double taxing Bitcoin operations. Hatchet jobs are not the same as corroborating evidence. |
|
|
|
Let us be the ones to celebrate its autoimmune agony.
No disagreement. If WAVES can milk that tit without siphoning off our capital to the dying system as Ethereum, Bitcoin, and most every other coin except maybe Monero, then great! But I have my skepticism about colored coins ending up just being more means for the speculation experts to rape the naive amongst us. Piece of Shit Bitcoiners et al. Hall of Fame ...
Excellent Doxx'ing, Gleb. It pains my eyes to see so many knucklefucks lined up in a row, but there you have it.
You forgot: Satoshi Nakamoto ("Bitcoin is debased less than gold!" lie) Satoshi Nakamoto ("Bitcoin is decentralized" lie) In case nb00bs haven't noticed, all during Bitcon's current life it has been double-digit debased which transfers to Chinese miners who control 67% of the hashrate (who have already 51% attacked disallowing any block size increase) and who have $50 per BTC costs and dump the coins at huge profits to siphon our Libertarian capital away to China's Communism. And then there is Larry Summers, Blythe Masters et al gunning for their share of our ass raping with 21 Inc, etc.. |
|
|
|
This gambit by banksters is going to fall flat because Ethereum has no viability whatsoever and even the nb00bs here will eventually figure that out: It is hilarious to see Peter Thiel, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters and their gang of thugs trying to compete in hi-tech where they are not sufficiently knowledgeable to know whether the BS they are told by the geeks they hire is valid. I think it is about time to wipe their corrupt asses with the technological floor. It required 3 years of research to become deeply knowledgeable about block chain technological and economic issues. You can't just scratch the surface and expect to not make dumb mistakes. |
|
|
|
It is obvious that a cryptocurrency initiative will not be successful without the support from licensed financial institutions,
Don't be so smug. The licensed financial institutions system is the one that is dying and will collapse in a heap of chaos from 2018 - 2032. A new decentralized Digital Age is emerging. We will make crypto-fiat as the founding feature of our system. And you will be astonished by the positive consequences.
We may be astonished, but I am betting against it be a positive outcome. |
|
|
|
Most people don't even realize Bitcoin has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.
Which only 0.001% of the population can participate in profitably. And it ceases roughly 2033 or unless transaction fees scale up but there is a Tragedy of the Commons dilemma there as well. |
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately there is a flaw in David's protocol concept.
The deliverable may be an empty box, but that still doesn't stop the buyer from releasing the BTC to the seller, because at least the buyer gets back $100 of his $200 deposit in that example case.
I remember now I had considered this sort of protocol in the past and dismissed it as fundamentally flawed.
Both can increase the size of the deposit, so that the amount Bob and Alice lose if Alice sends an empty box is much greater than what Bob loses by not releasing the BTC to the seller. So in that sense the protocol can function, but at a very high risk[1] relative to small transaction values.
Btw, the other overriding issue is I think we are moving away from tangible goods, towards digital delivery in exchange for micropayments, so this protocol may be less useful. Who cares if they lose a micropayment. They will know not to deal with that seller again, i.e. decentralized seller reputation held independently by each customer. Disrupting the tangible goods sector of the economy is a non-starter, as Nxtblg has pointed out upthread. Your protocol is pushing for larger deposits and centralized reputation[1] which is the antithesis of decentralization. You are trying to fix a sector of the economy that is dying as we move into the Knowledge/Information/Digital Age.
[1] What if the seller or buyer just flakes out for what ever reason. Seems we are back to long-term reputation of reliability, but is there is no way to measure this that is objective? I.e. it can't be proven which party failed the prior instances of the protocol.
|
|
|
|
Nothing means anything. Let's stop talking.
Hm, you kept talking in Iota thread even after David asked you to stop spreading misinformation and now you want me to stop talking in this thread? Ok, why not. Except I wasn't spreading misinformation and I am not moving the goalposts of what is meaningful when someone points out that the goalposts I was using were not preventing him from scoring a victory. |
|
|
|
The internet was 1/10 the population when I achieved that ALL BY MYSELF. So make that 30%.
Yeah a one man company that achieved 30%. Fuck yeah.
I just say that number of downloads means nothing. There are programs used only by 100 people in NASA, are their creators bad programmers? Nothing means anything. Let's stop talking. |
|
|
|
David directed me to the Help Desk at https://bithalo.org where I skimmed through the White paper and the section 2.10 of the Documentation. I find it difficult to follow quickly due to the way it is not written with a concise explanation. And I am not really willing to expend the effort to attempt to reverse engineer the possibilities of what he attempting to describe. It appears he is proposing a protocol wherein the seller of for example BTC could escrow the BTC with the buyer such that the buyer risks double the BTC if the buyer doesn't pay the fiat or commodity to the seller. But I can't understand the protocol; for example he makes a statement in the white paper which I don't understand, "Perhaps Bob wishes to purchase bitcoins using cash from Alice". I will await David to clarify. Btw, ostensibly he is attempting a very steep learning curve at his age and the level of programming experience he had coming into this. So it is expected that at his age and level of experience, that his articulation would be somewhat difficult to follow, that is unless he is Eric S. Raymond who is a verbal and math genius. Whats not concise? The protocol was explained from many angles with diagrams as well. Most crucially, the software exists, works and can be used. Actions speak louder than words. The code speaks for itself. I think the writepaper could use an update however since its been 2 years and now that its fully coded i can speak from experience in retrograderetrospective. Note the correction above and also the incoherence of the sentence I had quoted. Now I understand what you meant to write was "Perhaps Bob wishes to pay cash to Alice for Alice's bitcoins" because "using cash from Alice" implies Bob is using Alice's money to buy Bitcoins from someone else which lead to think maybe you were designing a 3 party protocol. You may be similar to myself in having a high math IQ but a lower verbal IQ. Your SAT test would have indicated this to you if so. Your white paper is written as if you are writing your thinking instead of writing for the reader who understands nothing that is already clear in your mind. As a writer you have to take yourself out of your own perspective, which is difficult to do when deep in engineering/conceptual thought. And the editorial review step of writing should catch and fix incoherent sentences that sow confusion for the reader who is trying to form a conceptual map. The cash example refers to people who buy bitcoin. Traditionally Bitcoin is bought otc or through escrow. But otc is dangerous they can keep your cash and not send the bitcoins. And an escrow agent could steal funds. Furthermore, an escrow agent cannot truly calidate if deception took place or thr cash never arrived.
So bob wants to buy 100 usd of bitcoin from alice lets say.
So Bob deposits 100 usd in btc (to prevent himself from extorting from alice)
And Alice advances 100 usd in btc for the purchase plus 100 usd deposit
Now Alice is out 200 Bob is out 100 locked into an escrow that each of them has 50% control. They agreed that the time limit is 2 weeks. If this time limit expires they both destroy the escrow resulting in loss for both parties. Since that cant be prevented they must work together.
Now Bob sends 100 in cash via western union. Note this is the first time in history WU can be used trustless without an escrow agent or laws tacitly as a deterrent.
Once Alice gets the 100 she is still -100 because of her deposit and advanced payment. Bob is -200 because his deposit and cash advance.
Now they release escrow since they agree the deal is complete. Bob gets his deposit back and 100 usd in btc and Alice gets her deposit back so now she has 100 usd in cash in exchange for her btc. The sale of btcoins is complete. Both parties are happy and nobody needed a government or third party looming over the deal. And more importantly, at no point could Bob or Alice steal from this deal or try to lie to the other because if they had they both would have lost.
Lke ive said before as well deposits dont always have to be equal to the value. They can be 10% the value since any deposit in this deal would be a net loss for a thief. However make the deposits high is best when dealing with an untrusted party. You deposit thus reflects your level of trust.
This is a much superior, concise, and comprehensible explanation. And the deposit can be increased relative to the size of what is being traded, so that the intermediate step doesn't alter the balance (-of-risk) much, e.g. Bob deposits $1000 and Alice $1100, then on payment Bob has $1100 at risk and Alice $1000. This indeed is the only way I can see to solve the sort of problem you explained: Well there is so many things I could say in response to this.
What you say is true. But consider the fact on E-bay people constantly get empty boxes and still are
forced to pay. Paypal payments get reversed and how can Ebay know who is telling the truth?
They GUESS thats how.
However, I still don't understand how this protocol helps you set up eBay auctions decentralized? (perhaps I could figure it out, but easier to let you tell us) P.S. I am starting to take an interest in you. He or she who solves a serious problem for society with a viable protocol, especially at your age, is bumped up several notches on my radar. I am very curious about your programming talent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
