In my case, health is a big factor. Any way, I think I can sign off now. I'll check back tomorrow to see if anything really needs my response. Otherwise I intend to bite my tongue and focus more on my own.

And that makes you objective  

And it also proves you are incapable of evaluating technology, so I am confident you did not fully comprehend what I wrote on the prior page of the thread.

Disbelief by vested ignoramuses is quite the normal reaction.

I am done here unless someone has something intelligent worthy of my response.

No. There is no altcoin named Etherium. Did you mean Ethereum?

If you were capable of understanding the issue, you would understand it is insoluble. Sorry I can't prove it to someone who can't comprehend what I wrote on the prior page of this thread.

The difference is I am smart enough and I have demonstrated it. You are free to be ignorant of that fact because you can't comprehend what I write.

When I outright discard a design (instead of holding it in my back pocket for further analysis/research), it is because I am sure it is insoluble. I am smart enough. You are ostensibly not.


I genuinely care about dumbshit being promulgated on n00bs.

That image resembles another:



I think you missed the point. The users here want to get rich quick on technology they can't possibly understand nor discern. That is what they want. No amount of spamming from you (or me) can change that.

That is why I am leaving. And I suggest you leave too, unless you enjoy flogging the pole with your wanker.

Sure he can. He can put all the pieces in the same data center where he can maximize his economies-of-scale, e.g. build own datacenter next to hydropower. Are you so ignorant to not realize that the actual cost of the harddisks is not only component of the cost of storage focused datacenter.

You've just shifted the centralization incentive to the Sybil attack.

And what is the point? We can already pay now for cloud storage on many providers (hosts). The point was that people could stand up nodes, but as you see a datacenter focused Sybil attack will always be more efficient and thus can burn more coins than nodes by those with less economies-of-scale.

Notwithstanding the above which is already sufficient to make your oxymoronic design for a decentralized file store attackable by centralization, additionally any public data can't be encrypted in a way that can hidden from the attacker. So the design is an unarguable failure for hosting public files such as downloadable music, internet web page files, etc..

Additionally it is probably possible to detect which redundant encrypted pieces (in the case of non-public data) are the same, by failing on a request for a piece and correlating with timing analysis and client IP to the request for the other piece. There is no way to prove that a failed request was not a network timeout, which is another problem I haven't yet dropped on you.  


Nonsense.

The renter's can't blacklist that which is performing correctly for them because they can't identify any attack. You failed to address my second paragraph as quoted.


Nonsense again. Your design encourages Sybil attacked centralization. The attacker will own all the copies, because the attacker is more profitable thus can expand his economies-of-scale in virtuous (for the attacker) self-reinforcing spiral towards total centralization and winner-take-all.


No need. I am killing your scam now.

Thanks for disrespecting me and saying that you need to hire Peter Todd, when I am here giving you an education now.

One example? I can't think of any. All the IPO/ICO coins have crashed and burned. Only the proof-of-work distributed coins have sustained, e.g. Monero, Litecoin, Bitcoin.

One example? I can't think of any. All the IPO/ICO coins have crashed and burned. Only the proof-of-work distributed coins have sustained, e.g. Monero, Litecoin, Bitcoin.

Synereo:

Pre-selling the AMPs before having a viable design and viable product ready for Synereo is already a sign of a scam.

Then I have explained (read the linked threads from my prior post) that the attention model doesn't work economically when AMPs are incorporated. If anything remains of value, it is the Reo without the AMPS.

Thus the AMPs are a not a viable investment, except for a P&D.

Yeah the Reo might work. And indeed a decentralized social network may have market importance. But there is no viable investment here, because the AMPs are an incorrectly conceived component.

Any way there are others already releasing decentralized open source social networks, such as Diaspora is I think now in Beta. Synereo's Reo could potentially offer some advantage, but that still won't make the AMPs viable.

Perhaps Synereo will repurpose the AMPs in another use case other than the attention model. Any way, my point is the AMPs are for sale but Synereo is far from figuring out what they should be designing and implementing. They are too far off on hairbrained failure directed shit like Casper. And the competitors are moving forward rapidly.

Also AMPs are very likely illegal unregistered investment securities per the Howey test. So the future looks bleak for Synereo.

What I see is they are good at making regular video hangouts, but really not well focused as a software development company. Too much time wasted talking and attempting pie-in-the-sky designs that are still not threshed out and in some respects are insoluble until they change focus and direction.

I studied them carefully trying to think if I could gain more by partnering with them and trying to refocus them, and I decided I could do much better without their existing team. Greg Meredith is smart and a math whiz. But Steve Jobs wasn't a math whiz, yet you can see which of the two accomplished more in software. My point is I see the wrong company culture. I been around in Silicon valley and such, so I think I am a good at making these appraisals.

Again I respect their intellect, but not their focus. And the pre-selling of AMPs (even if they could work in the attention model, which they can't) is despicable IMO (and probably illegal as well).

I suggest you improve (pay attention to) your reading comprehension. I have specifically gone out of my way to make it clear that I am not accusing you of a conviction. See quotes below. And if you read my posts on this page and the prior one, I am speaking about what I think the legal entity "Iota/JINN" is doing w.r.t. to securities (not you personally) and then I relate to you in terms of your own personal ethics and the outcomes from personal ethics in my experience in life.

Oh crap here we go again repeating the same logic as to why decentralized file system block chains are insolubly flawed...


Fucking low IQ time wasters!


Read my 10,000+ posts so you can gain the level of expertise I have accumulated.

Otherwise, we can debate each issue here as follows to bring you up-to-speed on the relevant technological issues.

Btw, how much are you willing to pay me for this education and distraction from my own work?

The onus is on you to write a coherent, concise, and complete white paper so that I can bring to bear my expertise on tearing the nonsense white paper to shreds. I didn't volunteer to condense my 10,000 posts into a white paper to offer you a concise citation.

I am particularly incensed by you promulgating this crap technology as worthwhile. It wastes my time. I told you I invented proof-of-storage in 2013 and I thought about all the ways it could possibly be made to work and all possible ways were flawed. The onus is on you to do the same and not promulgate and hype faulty technology to the community.


You may myopically think so, but you are incorrect.


And you are not smart and/or experienced enough to see the flaw in this proposed design. Thus you should not be trusted by the community as a lead developer of anything to do with block chains.

If you presume that renters will prefer the host with the most burned coins, then hosts must either burn all their coins to be in the chosen top or they must join together to form an oligarchy of some sort (if that is possible) to stop other hosts from burning all their coins. Because the host that burns all his coins would then be chosen and he can then short the coin and delete all the data stored on the coin and walk away with the value that was in the coin.

If you presume some equilibrium level will be attained by the market where hosts can earn some profit, then the Sybil attacker can burn that many coins too, because he is being paid for all his Sybil hosts. The fact that he only stores the data once (for all his Sybil hosts) reduces his costs, so he can afford to burn more coins than the other honest hosts (or burn the same number of coins as other honest hosts yet have higher profits). And the renter ends up with only 1 copy of the backup instead of the many copies they paid for.

You've solved nothing. And that you can't see this obvious flaw means you don't have the IQ to even be attempting this. Please just do yourself a favor and quit now. This is above your pay grade.


So you attempt to solve decentralized file storage by making it centralized.  

Also you can't identify who the attacker is! For as long as the attacker is successfully storing only one copy but charging for multiple hosts, this is not detectable. That is the entire point I made about why this is insoluble. Duh! You really need a citation? It is a simple logic.


Sorry you are just hyper ignorant.

I can't believe anyone placed investment with you. There are some super n00bs here. I am also amazed that smooth is so clueless that he needs you to write a white paper.

---

Fucking low IQ time wasters!


Read my 10,000+ posts so you can gain the level of expertise I have accumulated.

Otherwise, we can debate each issue here as follows to bring you up-to-speed on the relevant technological issues.

Btw, how much are you willing to pay me for this education and distraction from my own work?

The onus is on you to write a coherent, concise, and complete white paper so that I can bring to bear my expertise on tearing the nonsense white paper to shreds. I didn't volunteer to condense my 10,000 posts into a white paper to offer you a concise citation.

I am particularly incensed by you promulgating this crap technology as worthwhile. It wastes my time. I told you I invented proof-of-storage in 2013 and I thought about all the ways it could possibly be made to work and all possible ways were flawed. The onus is on you to do the same and not promulgate and hype faulty technology to the community.


You may myopically think so, but you are incorrect.


And you are not smart and/or experienced enough to see the flaw in this proposed design. Thus you should not be trusted by the community as a lead developer of anything to do with block chains.

If you presume that renters will prefer the host with the most burned coins, then hosts must either burn all their coins to be in the chosen top or they must join together to form an oligarchy of some sort (if that is possible) to stop other hosts from burning all their coins. Because the host that burns all his coins would then be chosen and he can then short the coin and delete all the data stored on the coin and walk away with the value that was in the coin.

If you presume some equilibrium level will be attained by the market where hosts can earn some profit, then the Sybil attacker can burn that many coins too, because he is being paid for all his Sybil hosts. The fact that he only stores the data once (for all his Sybil hosts) reduces his costs, so he can afford to burn more coins than the other honest hosts (or burn the same number of coins as other honest hosts yet have higher profits). And the renter ends up with only 1 copy of the backup instead of the many copies they paid for.

You've solved nothing. And that you can't see this obvious flaw means you don't have the IQ to even be attempting this. Please just do yourself a favor and quit now. This is above your pay grade.


So you attempt to solve decentralized file storage by making it centralized. 

Also you can't identify who the attacker is! For as long as the attacker is successfully storing only one copy but charging for multiple hosts, this is not detectable. That is the entire point I made about why this is insoluble. Duh! You really need a citation? It is a simple logic.


Sorry you are just hyper ignorant.

I can't believe anyone placed investment with you. There are some super n00bs here. I am also amazed that smooth is so clueless that he needs you to write a white paper.

I am researching it now. I remember reading that foreign companies are not allowed to market to non-qualified USA investors without registering the securities with the SEC. My IANAL understanding is that naming them "tokens" doesn't absolve the Howey test in the USA.

As for your personal culpability, you may or may not be adequately shielded by clever corporate structure, but I have learned in life that unethical obfuscation is bad karma. The mindset of the person required to do this, is such that they will find trouble in their life at some point. I would not participate in something like this because it violates my personal ethics. I can't stomach spending the money of n00bs who I abused in a greater fool theory of investing, My concept of investing is one where everyone who joins benefits from a greater productivity that is created. If there is risk, I want to know in my heart that I didn't let the n00bs invest until that risk had been minimized by actual market acceptance of the product of the company.  Pre-selling pipe dreams to n00bs is despicable in my opinion. Sorry.

Disclaimer: IANAL and readers should consult their own professional advisor.

I've been wealthy in the past and I will be wealthy again. I am trying to tell you that I took a wrong turn in my 30s, which is why I am in the predicament I am now. And now I am fighting my way back up again. I am advising you that you can't sustain a good life with poor ethics. And that includes trying to skirt USA securities law to be able to market "wonder investments" to unwary n00b investors in the USA. In the 1800s in the USA, we have snake oil salesmen running rampant. The USA securities law was created to force proper disclosure of IPOs. Perhaps Iota has complied in Norwary under EU law. But my IANAL understanding is you still can't market those securities to USA investors unless either you register them with the SEC or you limit to qualified investors.

Disclaimer: IANAL and readers should consult their own professional advisor.

The corporations may eventually come around to an open source standardization process, but that is not now. And I doubt any standards will form around a block chain and coin launched as an ICO that is illegal in the USA. Open source standards promulgated by the W3C must be I presume unencumbered.

I am more afraid of being bit by mosquito than I am of David and his vacuous threats. I am perfectly within my rights to comment in a forum with my conjecture. That is what speculation forums are for.

I have negative net worth, and you guys don't. Don't kick a sleeping dog, else you might find yourself counter-sued.

albert what CfB is apparently stating is that he believes altcoinUK was trying to use GadgetCoin as a foundation from which to discredit and attack Iota, thus damaging GadgetCoin also.

CfB, but my point to you is that these misunderstandings are just scratching the surface of failures that will arise from being associated with unethical endeavors. If the ICO/JINN stuff wasn't so shady, altcoinUK would have nothing to peg on you.

I am also finding it incredulous that you think you can out innovate Intel and other hugely capitalized semiconductor companies with a "trinary" processor. Do you even have any PhD researchers with a decade of work in this area?

Even without really investigating fully, I can already smell that JINN is pre-selling a one-way space junket to the money vortex Ur-anus.

I bit my tongue up to now, out of respect for your ability to code and the fact that Iota had some tech that helped my thought process (even though I think a DAG can't converge without centralized control). Also because you had mostly been cordial and it seemed you had sensitivity for others and you seemed open-minded as well w.r.t. to technology discussion even when it was critical. But then you made the mistake of trolling me in this thread, and I started to think about why am I pulling my punches w.r.t. Iota   The more I hear and think about the ICO/JINN, the harder it is for me to think of it being ethical. The real sensitivity for others is not doing unethical pumps to unwary n00bs. And to pursue real projects with real adoption and ethical out in the open business (e.g. have a LinkedIn account and have a history and a reputation).