Idiot, where is Asian big deal? Where is exchange news release in last year? Only fake news to dump your worthless IOTA to newbies, you greedy bastard.
Cry, baby, cry. The purpose of your life is to entertain me while I'm having a break between work tasks, you are doing it pretty good. |
|
|
|
So if you have balls, sir, we can set up a nice interview where you can explain in an academic manner, why and how IOTA is a scam.
Don't waste time, he is confirmed troll. |
|
|
|
the only way we have been able to observe this super position of quantum states has been when the quantum computing system was in sub-zero temperatures. And only then for very short periods of time.
hahaha! quite funny, actually- which sub-zero do you mean, sub-zero Celsius or sub-zero Kelvin?   He clearly means Sub-Zero from Mortal Kombat. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1799665.msg17950428#msg17950428....When I discussed this in the Byteball thread, the Byteball author Anthony realized there is a problem and started to talk about avoidance of needing to replace witnesses and how to have a community wide vote and other mechanisms for overcoming the inherent flaw (which means really he will end up needing whales same as for DPoS to avoid chaos so then you are right back to centralization and the failure of Bitshares and Steem again).....@tonych  If you knew AnonyMint (+dozen of other names) you would take his words with a grain of salt... |
|
|
|
You stated 1 which by itself is hilarious statement to make if you want to design publicly accesible and usable cryptocurrencies.
Then you made another statement from a diffrent contexr, proving something not related to statement 1..
PS. I have no reputation and dont wish to aquire it, in fact I shit on both mine and your reputation.
You simply just quit the convo? Trolls are so weak these days... |
|
|
|
it is you who should defend your dumb statements and not require handholding like a baby.
Besides most readers dont need explanation for basics in cryptocurrency.
You probably forgot how it was: 1. I stated that consensus and attacks are different things 2. You used pics to imply it was wrong 3. I showed that it's right If you still don't believe me then google difference between Paxos and Byzantine Paxos. As you said it yourself, the most of others don't need explanation for basics in cryptocurrencies. So, what statement do you want me to defend? Upthread I already gave a link to a counter-example of your claim (which proved my statement) and there are zillions of other links on the Internet. PS: I don't mind continuing this convo, I like watching you digging a deeper and deeper hole for your "reputation"... |
|
|
|
The laughing image is not enough to describe how hilarious you are.
Thank you man, you provide me with enough hilarity so I can continue to chuckle for weeks.
I cant even focus to make a short explanation to other readers. Just hilarious chuckle worthy material.
Nothing concrete, as always when you can't defend your position. 90% of your post are from this category. |
|
|
|
We shouldn't confuse countermeasures against an attacker and achievement of consensus. These are different things.
  This is worth to be added into my collection of your fuckups. PS: If anyone thinks that those are NOT different things then read http://work.tinou.com/2009/05/faulttolerant-distributed-systems-made-simple.html (you can jump straight to these words: The Paxos algorithms can help us. The specific Paxos algorithm discussed below is the "basic" one (there's a bunch of Paxos algorithms). The model is asynchronous and non-Byzantine. This means that a process may crash and recover, but doesn't do anything weird like sending random, deceitful messages to other processes. ) |
|
|
|
Same with byteball, only replacement mechanism is different.
This is a interesting bit, btw. I don't get how 6 witnesses could be replaced if discrepancy in 1 witness is the max of what is allowed. |
|
|
|
Please I wish you would state your claims as questions rather than pretending you actually know what you are doing. You are arguing with an expert, and you are obviously not an expert.
This is how we know that you are the original iamnotback, not someone who bought his account. |
|
|
|
No it doesn't. You don't understand the whitepaper.
With 33+% of hashing power I can break Bitcoin, this is what the paper says. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~luca/cs174/byzantine.pdf talks about 33% too. 51% works only in unrealistic assumptions. I can imagine a case where an attacker with 90% of hashing power won't break the system. I hope you got my point, I'm not going to extend it because it's an off-topic. |
|
|
|
No you are incorrect. It requires greater than 50% to stall the blockchain by censoring all transactions.
The whitepaper claims the opposite, if you want to argue - argue with the authors. |
|
|
|
You dont take kindly to any questions anywhere, it is not surprising due to the big ego you carry. A common trait of sociopaths. In any case, the quoted was not for you, but for many other readers.  When other people repeat your questions I answer them. What does this mean? Don't answer, that's a rhetorical question. |
|
|
|
Random picking is not modeling an attacker who is using a strategic algorithm.
We shouldn't confuse countermeasures against an attacker and achievement of consensus. These are different things. |
|
|
|
Rather than argue, remove the centralized servers and let's observe.
OK, let's postpone the final dispute to the moment when we switch Coordinator off. Obviously, we can't do it right now just to prove the point to you. |
|
|
|
We already had that discussion. The Monte Carlo model (from the white paper) assumes that all payers and payees employ the same algorithmic strategy for disambiguating double-spends. But there is no way to enforce that assumption without centralized servers.
That link contains an example with completely random picking of tips. |
|
|
|
Is this a joke?
You think people will allow machines to spend/receive money and rely on only a probability that their transactions will succeed? And rely on another probability that they have the "global" tip and are not sitting in a cluster? Why not make this simpler and just roll a dice and pretend you have money if you get 4 sixes in a row.
Maybe it will work if the "money" you are transacting is worthless. Like worth almost one iota.
The claim "it doesnt work without centralized servers" hasnt been refuted, you have just lowered the bar significantly.
You were banned from IOTA thread for trolling, why do you think I'll take your words seriously here? |
|
|
|
Iota has an entire different consensus than Byteball, and it doesn't work without centralized servers.
Do you know Java? Can you demonstrate how consensus of IOTA without centralized servers breaks once https://github.com/Come-from-Beyond/Tangle simulator is ready? I've updated the repo. With Completely Random Walker without attackers global consensus on 84.5% of all transactions was achieved. So the claim "it doesn't work without centralized servers" has already been refuted. The next step is to add Random-Walk Monte Carlo algorithm to show that even under attacks the consensus on significant portion of transactions (subject to connectivity between clusters) is still achieved. |
|
|
|
Iota has an entire different consensus than Byteball, and it doesn't work without centralized servers.
Do you know Java? Can you demonstrate how consensus of IOTA without centralized servers breaks once https://github.com/Come-from-Beyond/Tangle simulator is ready? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
