Erm....what video did you watch?  The one I saw was pointing out just how cumbersome and potentially useless smart contracts are in the real world.....

The point of it being "Nash fulfilling" was not the topic of the video

The question says "their intersecting lines form 1,597 areas".
That doesn't suggest finite areas to me, or to most mathematicians.

If finite areas were meant, it would have been made explicit in the question.

Your solution should start out by stating that you interpret area to mean finite areas.

Anyway, getting back to my question:

What is the maximum number of finite areas created with L lines?

Yeah agreed, some are a bit off the mark...that one was not

What is the maximum number of areas created with L lines?

Oh never mind I already see the obvious error.

Each triple can insect the enclosed area of every other triple.

Unfortunately, your posted answer of 59 lines is wrong:-(

But proof of work is old. Its washed out. Get with the times

Therefore I downgrade my 130sats value to 0 sats.

Case closed Iota will not make you 1000BTC return from the 1BTC you invested with yourself.

On to NXT3

Even then I would advise waiting for all the other coins using DAG

You are wrong on all accounts here. The markets are PEER TO PEER. They leverage Bitmessage and don't use a blockchain. This can scale to any level since the contract data is only store about markets that you care about and Bitmessage only holds 2 days in memory and I've done a custom build to allow determined sellers to resubmit orders.

So yeah there is no bloat. Thats the POINT. I'm not pumping Bitbay, I've never even sold a single coin. I'm simply completing Halo/BlackHalo/BitHalo/Bitbay as promised. Maybe you don't realize this but I worked on BitHalo for free for almost 2 years before i was into the Bitbay project.

The pegging is a serious feature you should also read up more on before insulting people without a technical background.

Your IQ is apparently insufficient to understand what I wrote. Your rebuttal is not a rebuttal but you don't understand why.

This folks is the difference between a genius level IQ and not. I'll leave it as a homework problem for CfB or anyone else who wants to demonstrate they have genius level understanding of the Nash equilibrium w.r.t. block chain consensus algorithms.

A DAG can never be a Nash equilibrium consensus. I don't care what magic is piled upon it, I have with my genius insight already determined that the data structure can't support a Nash equilibrium:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg14357837#msg14357837

It depends which problem one is trying to solve: a) something new to sell to speculators, or b) a system that can scale decentralized because your plans for the use of the CC require that it does.

Satoshi's proof-of-work design is flawed in that it falls to centralization due to economies-of-scale. But the interim Nash equilibrium does function until centralization is at 33% or above, as Bitcoin proved during its nascent period. (Hint: I just refuted CfB's prior post but there is a deeper refutation that I would like to see someone else articulate)

But note every known consensus system for a block chain fails to centralization due to economies-of-scale.

I think I know how to fix Satoshi's design. My future white paper will explain the threats that remain.

This is what a person with a low IQ and/or incomplete understanding of the holistic analysis of block chain consensus would conclude.

Rather Iota actually devolves to either a proof-of-reputation or centralized proof-of-work because of the loss of the Nash equilibrium which I explained upthread, thus forces centralization in order to force convergence over choices of conflicting DAG branches. How this centralization is maintained will determine whether it is via reputation of which servers payers and payees trust (if these servers can sign these transactions somehow perhaps) else devolves to who has the most efficient ASIC mining farms same as for Bitcoin.

You do. You seem to not read the links I provided:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7055#comment-1698745 (correcting a documented 155+ IQ genius)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378533.msg14035614#msg14035614 (correcting the inventor of the Ogg orbis about the flaws in Ogg container, Gmaxwell our resident high IQ core dev)

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html (published my solution to a question on an IQ test that indicates I would score above 148 IQ on that test)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13938052#msg13938052 (correcting the entire W3C on correct design, see also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378533.msg14035614#msg14035614)


It is only 1-in-1000 rarity so that isn't such a miraculous feat if you work at a company with IQ selective hiring policies.

Needless to say, IQ is not the sole determinant of success and breadth of impact on society. Motivation, competitiveness, and tenacity are very important.

Einstein purportedly bought 7 pairs of the same clothing so he wasn't distracted thinking about extraneous issues such as deciding what to wear each morning.

I really didn't know CfB created Nxt. I've been and remain as ignorant about Nxt as I can manage to be, i.e. I don't go seeking information about Nxt. I had heard some name "Luc" or something like that. I have not even committed the Nxt developers names to memory. That exemplifies the importance I assign to knowing who the Nxt core developers are.

There are only so many hours in each day. If I waste them, I get no progress. This discussion is becoming wasteful and silly.


There are two factors in play here. First, I've been suffering a chronic infection which makes it nearly impossible to have normal energy for thinking. Until you've experienced this, you will not understand how it messes with your head because of frustration at feeling like shit every damn day for 4 years. And not being able to do the productivity or even just the basic daily activities such as take a shower and change your clothes (because it is too tiring to do so). I am proud that I was able to function to the level I did with this illness. And I am very encouraged with the new treatments I am experimenting with.

The second factor is that I speak frankly. And I don't have much tolerance for trolls. So did other greats in the software industry such as Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, Eric S. Raymond, and Steve Jobs. Little people have ego. Those at the top of their game are more concerned with accomplishing goals. If you think my frankness will prevent me from achieving a mass market succcess, then you have not studied my LinkedIn.

I don't need to convince you, because frankly I don't need any of you to take any interest in what I am working on.      

It exhibits a very low IQ to not even fathom that a developer who is focused on technological issues and is off in his programming cave focusing there, may not care about the useless shit you P&D gamblers waste your time on.

So not conceiving of that obvious scenario due to your low IQ, you would then propose the ludicrous idea that I have Asperger's syndrome, when in fact I have demonstrated in this forum and in my career the ability to communicate socially with a wide range of people.

Just because I smash trolls like yourself as I am doing in this post, doesn't mean I am anti-social. Illogical. Your low IQ is evident for everyone now.

It depends which problem one is trying to solve: a) something new to sell to speculators, or b) a system that can scale decentralized because your plans for the use of the CC require that it does.

Satoshi's proof-of-work design is flawed in that it falls to centralization due to economies-of-scale. But the interim Nash equilibrium does function until centralization is at 33% or above, as Bitcoin proved during its nascent period. (Hint: I just refuted CfB's prior post but there is a deeper refutation that I would like to see someone else articulate)

But note every known consensus system for a block chain fails to centralization due to economies-of-scale.

I think I know how to fix Satoshi's design. My future white paper will explain the threats that remain.

You are counting infinite regions which are not bounded:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55008.html

Those have no definable "area" as the question pertains. Thus I claim you are wrong and even the designers of the question are wrong if they expected your answer.

This isn't the first time I corrected the answer on an IQ test.  


Edit: tromp has a high IQ. That is quite clear. And he is afaik more formally trained in math than I am. I am not going to claim I am smarter than him. IQ is overrated any way, as was explained upthread.

I may be very close to doing that. I haven't had free time to pursue what I laid out already.

Genius is a lot about being able to look problems in ways and detect features that most others miss. I been doing that habitually throughout my life. Again a 150 IQ is only one-in-a-thousand rarity, so it isn't like every genius becomes the next Bill Gates. Michael Jordan, or Steve Jobs. That requires functional intelligence and also other attributes such as extreme competitiveness, intense focus and discipline, etc.. IQ tests can't measure all these attributes. At the far right of the bell curve, IQ tests may have very little predictive power and be essentially the same as a random number. So my thought is an IQ test has exponentially less and less predictive power above a 'g' of roughly 130 or so.

---

Make it clear who the "you" is you are referring to, i.e. the one who responded to my factual argumentation about Iota by making ad hominem attacks on my capabilities on my own projects (as if that is at all relevant to the facts of Iota):



I explained this to MadCow yesterday:

You say that "white" is "black". It doesn't make sense to continue after this point.


PS: Those who are interested in the subject can check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium#Informal_definition ("Informally, a set of strategies is a Nash equilibrium if no player can do better by unilaterally changing their strategy."),

https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcFC.pdf ("We presented Selfish-Mine, a mining strategy that enables pools of colluding miners that adopt it to earn revenues in excess of their mining power.")

and https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf ("Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it.")

which clearly show that Bitcoin doesn't operate in a Nash equilibrium and still achieves consensus thus making TPTB's claim ("Thus there is no Nash equilibrium.") look out of place, because it shows/proves nothing.

TPTB, do you happen to also have Asperger's syndrome? Reading your responses makes me think of a less genius version of Von Neumann... some people can be so smart and fail to see very simple things right in front of them.

acting like you didn't know the background of CFB. As much as you are on this forum, it would only take someone with an IQ of 70 to know you were lying about that.

Even greater an issue is mental health. This can make it all pointless. This pertains to you alittle. However, your social skills, or lack of them, is very well documented right here on this forum.

I thought we had a GENIUS on our hands here...

I'm surrounded by people with IQs in the 140-150 range all day long

I'm sure you have, I know how smart you are...

I remembered that my ACT which I took when I was sober (but still didn't study for it) over the summer between high school and college (as it was a requirement for L.S.U.) corresponded to 100 points higher than my SAT, so that was another confirmation that my IQ is in the 130s. I think my "g" is some where between 125 - 135 and I note my verbal scores are significantly lower (just above average in high 80s percentile) than my math (98 - 99+% percentile). But I think when it comes to creativity and the ability to conceptually abstract a problem or issue, my IQ is higher.

Seriously, you should probably spend more time trying to work with other teams directly - most of the time the things we think others are overlooking are there for a reason

No. Because anyone who has greater than 33% of the hashrate must employ the Selfish Mining as their optimum strategy and everyone else must mine on the visible longest chains as theirs.

The Nash equilibrium does have a long-term failure as economies-of-scale centralization, but that is an orthogonal issue.

The problem with a DAG is no one can know the optimum strategy of the other participants and even which strategy they employed. Or at least not until you can show mathematically that no other strategies than following the Monte Carlo is profitable. The Monte Carlo is only the most profitable IF everyone else is also following it. That conditional "IF" doesn't apply in the LCR. That is the key distinction that makes a DAG fatally flawed.

Great. Take your angel investor dough and go work on your coin and we talk again after you fix all problems in BTC, Ethereum, Iota, etc... that is very likely to happen. 

The delusion of (even very smart) humans is incredible to me. Best of luck, you will need it on your one-man mission.