And you are trolling me in this thread.
If pointing to your incorrect behavior is trolling Define incorrect behavior. I see my behavior was correct. I see your behavior is incorrect. You are posting noise. (Noise is defined as not relevant to the topic of this thread. You could start a Meta thread about politically correct double-speak if you wish). |
|
|
|
Decentralized file storage block chains are entirely flawed and only a completely clueless fool wouldn't realize it: Whoops. This is why technological idiots shouldn't be investing in technology they don't understand. You are investing in something which has an insoluble technical flaw and can't work: 7. the largest file swapping service company is Florincoin (The Alexandria Project)
Inoramus, don't you know that all these decentralized file storage systems (including Sia, Storj, Florincoin, etc) can't work because I explained that proof-of-storage (a.k.a. proof-of-retrievability) is nonsense because anyone can pretend to be running many nodes and keep it all stored on one node. Thus Sybil attacking the system and cheating its economics and data retention resiliency. MaidSafe is a scam. Even the claimed anonymity is technical bullshit. I am so tired of this forum and endless stream of new ignoramuses who join this forum. I am not paid to reteach all of you fools! I would never fix the problems by coding if I spent all my time teaching all of you. 5 Proof of Storage
Storage proof transactions are periodically submitted
in order to ful ll le contracts. Each storage proof
targets a speci c le contract.
So a single entity can pretend to be many nodes, and Sybil sign and fulfill many such contracts on the same data, yet the client pays for more backup copies but only gets the resiliency of one backup copy. As well, that entity might just short the Sia coin and then disconnect all his nodes and destroy the coin. This is a fucking mess. And I can't believe that idiots are investing in these decentralized storage shit coins. How stupid are these guys on these forums.  7.4 Basic Reputation System
Clients need a reliable method for picking quality
hosts. Analyzing their history is insucient, because
the history could be spoofed. A host could repeat-
edly form contracts with itself, agreeing to store large
\fake" les, such as a le containing only zeros. It
would be trivial to perform storage proofs on such
data without actually storing anything.
To mitigate this Sybil attack, clients can require
that hosts that announce themselves in the arbitrary
data section also include a large volume of time locked
coins. If 10 coins are time locked 14 days into the
future, then the host can be said to have created a
lock valued at 140 coin-days. By favoring hosts that
have created high-value locks, clients can mitigate the
risk of Sybil attacks, as valuable locks are not trivial
to create.
Same as for proof-of-stake deposits, this only has to be deposited once yet can be used to Sybil attack unbounded number of clients ongoing. And shorting the coin can be more profitable than the deposit staked. Reputation systems devolve to centralization winner-take-all paradigms due to the power vacuum created by the security hole (the potential to attack the coin and/or clients).
...later financially connected to Bitcoin via a two-way peg...
Also Side-chains are a flawed mess.
I do ask that you don't smear insults throughout your posts because it makes it difficult to see your technical arguments and distracts from your core points.
It adds no difficulty. Don't be disingenuous. It is because after 10,000+ posts, an endless stream of idiots causes me to have to repeat the same technical points over and over and over and over and over and over... The insults are intended to shame them into doing some reading before posting or investing. After 10,000+ posts, I think I deserve to express such frustration. If you don't, you are free to ignore me. The second problem is that you are citing some pretty old information about how Sia works, and you are missing some important details that help bring the system together and secure it.
It doesn't matter. The issue I cited is insoluble. You will never find a technical solution. Ever. The first technical argument you make is that "anyone can pretend to be running many nodes and keep it all stored on one node". I'm not sure if you are talking about a deduplication attack here, or just a standard Sybil attack.
Sybil attack as I had stated. I never mentioned deduplication. The Sybil attack is, in my qualified opinion, the weakest part of the Sia protocol. But we do have sufficient defense against it, and that comes in the form of proof-of-burn.
Nope. I already explained why staking (analogously burning) doesn't provide sufficient security. Also you talk about shorting a coin and then using the money raised from shorting it to attack it. You would need to buy the short from somewhere, and you'd need enough money to both buy the shorts and then have enough to do the proof-of-burn. I'm doubting that someone would let you short a massive volume of some asset, if you are shorting that much they would probably get suspicious.
An illiquid coin is rather useless. If that is your goal, then you are stating it won't be widely adopted. Edit: note that shorting isn't required to break the economic model for the security. The staked (deposited and risked) or burned coins can be offset by earnings and in fact must be, otherwise no one will be a storage provider. Also I was the one who invented proof-of-storage in 2013. I abandoned it because the Sybil attack is insoluble. I am the inventor of the shit. |
|
|
|
Instead make solid arguments as to why the altcoins in this list are not scams per the definition provided. You can't, loser.
Name calling don't improve your reputation, you should reconsider your tactics, unless you post for the sake of posting. I speak factually to trolls, else I don't speak at all (which would be wiser yet I do a service for the community here as a sacrifice from my time to code and do professional endeavors). And you are trolling me in this thread. |
|
|
|
Whoops. This is why technological idiots shouldn't be investing in technology they don't understand. You are investing in something which has an insoluble technical flaw and can't work: 7. the largest file swapping service company is Florincoin (The Alexandria Project)
Inoramus, don't you know that all these decentralized file storage systems (including Sia, Storj, Florincoin, etc) can't work because I explained that proof-of-storage (a.k.a. proof-of-retrievability) is nonsense because anyone can pretend to be running many nodes and keep it all stored on one node. Thus Sybil attacking the system and cheating its economics and data retention resiliency. MaidSafe is a scam. Even the claimed anonymity is technical bullshit. I am so tired of this forum and endless stream of new ignoramuses who join this forum. I am not paid to reteach all of you fools! I would never fix the problems by coding if I spent all my time teaching all of you. 5 Proof of Storage
Storage proof transactions are periodically submitted
in order to ful ll le contracts. Each storage proof
targets a speci c le contract.
So a single entity can pretend to be many nodes, and Sybil sign and fulfill many such contracts on the same data, yet the client pays for more backup copies but only gets the resiliency of one backup copy. As well, that entity might just short the Sia coin and then disconnect all his nodes and destroy the coin. This is a fucking mess. And I can't believe that idiots are investing in these decentralized storage shit coins. How stupid are these guys on these forums. 7.4 Basic Reputation System
Clients need a reliable method for picking quality
hosts. Analyzing their history is insucient, because
the history could be spoofed. A host could repeat-
edly form contracts with itself, agreeing to store large
\fake" les, such as a le containing only zeros. It
would be trivial to perform storage proofs on such
data without actually storing anything.
To mitigate this Sybil attack, clients can require
that hosts that announce themselves in the arbitrary
data section also include a large volume of time locked
coins. If 10 coins are time locked 14 days into the
future, then the host can be said to have created a
lock valued at 140 coin-days. By favoring hosts that
have created high-value locks, clients can mitigate the
risk of Sybil attacks, as valuable locks are not trivial
to create.
Same as for proof-of-stake deposits, this only has to be deposited once yet can be used to Sybil attack unbounded number of clients ongoing. And shorting the coin can be more profitable than the deposit staked. Reputation systems devolve to centralization winner-take-all paradigms due to the power vacuum created by the security hole (the potential to attack the coin and/or clients).
...later financially connected to Bitcoin via a two-way peg...
Also Side-chains are a flawed mess. |
|
|
|
Definition of scam here = the biggest competitor.
The definition was provided: For this thread, a scam coin is defined to be one where the insiders have hyped features which can not work as described or features which do not exist and profited on selling coins (tokens) to the market. Scam coins do not have actual usership and do nothing to help the crypto currency ecosystem grow because they are just mining the speculators and preselling hype. Having no usership is not by itself an indicator of a scam coin, for as long as there is sincere effort and realistic plans to achieve user adoption and network effects (but a year after selling $18 million in tokens for vaporware and still having only ~0 users is a strong indicator of scam), and not just predominately selling hype for insiders to sell tokens to mine the speculators. In other words, a scam coin is just using hype (and not actual technical achievements that have been well vetted by substantial and non-biased expert peer review) to pretend to be about real adoption and really just exists to create and sell tokens.
I can't help it that nearly all the altcoins are scams per the definition above. You argue I shouldn't compete and try to improve the situation. Nonsense. You'd prefer I leave crypto and let it die in one big scam, centralized cluster fuck. Are you insane. Instead make solid arguments as to why the altcoins in this list are not scams per the definition provided. You can't, loser. |
|
|
|
EDIT: History repeats itself, now you are on the other side...now you want to make assumptions about my motives.
Nothing has changed. I want readers to learn to analyze the technology and learn to not buy tokens for hype that doesn't exist or isn't peer reviewed by non-biased experts. Notice I am not planning to sell any ICO. Nor am I going to make any ANN on these forums. I am not interested in mining the speculators. I am creating a social network that I want to succeed with millions of users regardless of whether the associated crypto currency succeeds or fails. Adoption first, that is my creed. I want to do everything different than how it has been done. My career has been about I don't get paid if I don't have users. I never mined the investors in my life. I refused a $1.2 million stock options offer in 1995. I refused another such offer in 2001. I have always made my money the hard way. Now I am open to the concept of crowdfunding and shares, but not for the crypto currency! For the for-profit social network. The crypto currency must be fair and decentralized (no one controls it), else it won't be adopted as money. (not unless you are the government which can force legal tender). |
|
|
|
26 votes as of now doesn't seem to qualify as a Sybil attack. If there are 1000 votes, then maybe. I think the forum doesn't allow newbie accounts to vote.
Few votes == not statistically significant. A lot of votes == Sybil-attacked. Looks like a failure from the very beginning. Whine your spam at Theymos. You are claiming all polls on this site are a scam because you don't like the vote on Iota. Your problem is with Theymos, not with me. The readers here are perhaps giving you some valuable feedback. Ignore it at your own peril. The truth hurts, but don't shoot the person who asked the question. Shoot Theymos or yourself (or David/iotatoken). I presume Iota's ICO has been very profitable, so I don't think bitterness is appropriate. Market feedback is what it is. If you think the poll is invalid, perhaps you should endeavor to prove it. I would think 100 votes here is statistically significant to gauge roughly the sentiment here on this board. The polls may be Sybil attacked, I don't know. I think you will find that most readers are clueless so there is no accurate sentiment. Rather there are fools lead to the slaughter on this board, so I rather like the outcome of the poll that basically says nearly all the altcoins are scams. That seems rather factual from my expert perspective. Personally I lean towards the ICO of Iota is a scam based on some innuendo I've heard (but I haven't fully investigated and have no time to waste on that). I think the technology is fundamentally flawed (although somewhat interesting and worthwhile to understanding, but not worthwhile to implement*) and I would never have endorsed it because it would scar my reputation (at least not until a Nash equilibrium is mathematically proven*). The implementation (which you did) may be sound, but I haven't reviewed your code. I assume you produce good code based on what others have said, and also the astuteness of your posts. * Note there is an argument that centralization is unavoidable and thus one might argue you are okay to proceed. Or perhaps you will eventually show or argue that as long as 50% of the merchants enforce a single math algorithm, then it remains sound. But in my mind, that is still a power vacuum that leads to centralization, because it requires that merchants can't find other game theories for profiting. Maybe you can show they have no other incentive and thus there is a Nash equilibrium. In that case, my opinion of Iota's technology would rise significantly. I don't expect you can show a Nash equilibrium because the CAP theorem assures us that when you allow Partition tolerance as Iota has done, then you lose either Access of Consistency. |
|
|
|
For this thread...
Didn't read the OP, it was too long. Just one question: What anti-Sybil method are you using for this poll? 26 votes as of now doesn't seem to qualify as a Sybil attack. If there are 1000 votes, then maybe. I think the forum doesn't allow newbie accounts to vote. Perhaps you should ask Theymos. |
|
|
|
4. the largest music monetization company is MUSE
What the fuck is that? Okay this is Peertracks and apparently the Bitshares asset is MUSE. Peertracks runs on the Bitshares block chain, which means it can't scale to the level of transaction volume that a popular music paid download system will require. Also Bitshares is a highly centralized platform that will ultimately suffer the destruction by winner-take-all economics of power vacuums. Also the Bitshares instant transactions aren't reliable, because there is only one designated confirmation node for each block period, so the performance of blocks can vary. The usability is simply not going to work reliably at-scale. That is why I didn't even bother to attempt my project until I first solved the nearly insoluble issues with the block chain design that everyone else is grappling with. The Peertracks Note features is interesting. It might turn audiences in P&D targets though, so I am not sure it is desirable. It is also not clear if these are illegal unregistered securities under SEC law in the USA. I do know that in the case of airplane VIP memberships the Supreme Court ruled they were not subject to the Howey test. I will need to study that more. Peertracks doesn't appear to do anything about enabling the unbanked to monetize music, which is one of my major goals. Peertracks is IMO too focused on just music. Users are saturated with music distribution choices. I believe it will require more synergies to compete effectively. The serious music fans in developed countries demographic is already heavily targeted by Spotify, iTunes, and other such sites and apps. The wide open frontier are the less serious music lovers, which no one has yet found a way to monetize well. And I can't see anything Peertracks is doing to change that. I just don't think the masses are going to be tuned into Notes as something they are interested in. You are basically trying to turn the serious music fans into speculators. A rule of Marketing 101 is don't assume you can change an Apple into an Orange. You must target a real existing need, not a fantasy. Yeah speculators here will think Notes are cool, but the actual music fans I think will perceive it to be a negative feature and an insult to love of music. You basically corrupt the musicians teaching then to do P&D instead of produce great music. Sigh. Disclaimer: my project to develop a truly decentralized, instant, microtransaction altcoin, and achieving widespread adoption also incorporates the features targeted by Peertracks except without the Notes, but my projects runs the gamut from games to collaborating on graphic arts and business documents. We have already chosen a name for the project, and I am confident it is the best name seen yet in our crypto arena. The name implies music distribution but it also implies collaboration on anything not just music.
P.S. Some people have sent me private messages asking me how they can find out about what I am working on. Even there won't be an ANN on Bitcointalk, I am sure you will hear about it if I am successful with my goals. I am not currently seeking any investment nor am I offering favoritism on who will learn about it first. Note there won't be a ninjamine, but it won't help you mine it more efficiently by being early because we won't turn on the mining until we have enough users so that mining is a fair launch. Also the mining will be highly unprofitable for everyone, because you will competing against 1000s of users who are mining at a loss. And you won't be able to speed up the miner on a GPU. And the miner will already be highly optimized for the CPU. |
|
|
|
There is no public property
Who owns the atmosphere we breathe. |
|
|
|
There is no public property
Who owns the atmosphere we breathe. |
|
|
|
I reset the poll, because I added Vanillacoin and Iota. Why are people voting Monero as a scam? Do they think some whales mined most of the tokens? Monero has real End-to-End principle anonymity features (although IP obfuscation relies on the reliability of mixnets Tor/I2P which are not End-to-End principled thus anonymity remains dubious and arguable, c.f. the " Thoughts on Zcash?" thread). It is not hype. It has real users. I own no Monero, but I am perplexed. Are those just competitors illogically voting? |
|
|
|
I am wise to your technique of baiting me in order to steal my design and place it into the public domain. And you didn't even credit me IN THE POST LINKED TO IN THE ABOVE QUOTE! I always credit you! You are a disingenuous snake. You will receive no more help from me. And you are not intelligent enough. |
|
|
|
For this thread, a scam coin is defined to be one where the insiders have hyped features which can not work as described or features which do not exist and profited on selling coins (tokens) to the market. Scam coins do not have actual usership and do nothing to help the crypto currency ecosystem grow because they are just mining the speculators and preselling hype. Having no usership is not by itself an indicator of a scam coin, for as long as there is sincere effort and realistic plans to achieve user adoption and network effects (but a year after selling $18 million in tokens for vaporware and still having only ~0 users is a strong indicator of scam), and not just predominately selling hype for insiders to sell tokens to mine the speculators. In other words, a scam coin is just using hype (and not actual technical achievements that have been well vetted by substantial and non-biased expert peer review) to pretend to be about real adoption and really just exists to create and sell tokens. Please read the following and understand it well before voting, but apparently you can't change your vote later if you realize later that I am correct below about other coins being scams.YOU MAY VOTE MORE THAN ONE CHOICE WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR VOTE(S), i.e. FOR EVERY COIN YOU THINK IS A SCAM. Please note the copy of the following post I made in a related thread which readers should read to gain insights as to which coins are scams: Scamcoin Education 101I am forced to post because no one addresses your post correctly. Sigh. Can't anyone learn from me and take over my former role? Pleeeeaasssseee! 1. - In a Hashocracy like bicoin, only the miners choose which future developments get implemented (which hard forks to take), and anyone is free to compete in the coin mining process. The original Bitcoin Foundation members did not like fact that they lost their ability to control the miners,
In Satoshi's design that is true and also because it is economically driven to centralized control over the hashrate; but in my redesign of proof-of-work, I posit that no user has enough hashrate to control anything and the economic forces driving centralization are eliminated. so they left to form Decred which is a:
2. - hybrid Hashocracy/Meritocracy which allows anyone to compete in the coin mining, but only coin holders get to vote on development directions (which hard fork to take).
Ignorant bullshit. I explained why that is impossible when employing Satoshi's design (<-- read the linked threads), regardless that the developers assert some BS about meritocracy. Rather there can only be centralized control. DASH is now a hybrid Hashocracy/Meritocracy like Decred Because I obviously need to be politically correct here, I formally apologize to Amanda for criticizing her explanation of the DASH governmental structure as anything but its former dictatorship because it’s obvious now that Masternode owners are in control of the DASH network, even though that was not always the case. I simply choose not to associate with former dictators, and I don’t want to lose the female vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQGlcLFhwE0#t=2m8s(I stand corrected Ms. Johnson) Ignorant bullshit. Come on man, don't be such a dufus. Surely could have deduced quite simply that since Dash and his whales control most of the coin supply, then they control most of the masternodes. Duh. The scam continues unabated. Amanda is articulate and quick witted, but she is not very deep on understanding technology. She has only a superficial understanding justified by her reasonably quick mind. But she totally lacks computer science and relevant experience. She is a smart journalist, not a coder. Would you ask a journalist how to rebuild your combustion engine, or a mechanic. Come on people, the abysmal level of common sense on these forums is pitiful. Hot? Somewhat attractive but the big lips and mouth are slightly resembling the vagina of a mother pig. I haven't seen her figure, but probably nothing exceptional. And I read that she is addicted to some medications. Definitely not my type, except I appreciate her quick mind, might not be boring to talk to her. But if she has any feminist leanings wrapped in Libertarian sheepskin, then fuhgeddaboudit. , but started out as a Dictatorship when Evan misrepresented the total number of shares without indemnifying the shareholders. Since the SEC has no jurisdiction over a crypto company, there can be no legal recourse for suffering through injustices experienced as a shareholder of a company ruled as a:
Ignorant bullshit. Why do people not study my research on this legal topic and other topics  Reading my 10,000+ posts should be required Bitcoin 101 reading course! 3. - Dictatorship is where a central man or entity tells the miners what to do. I pledge to avoid any investments in companies who are or have ever been ran as a Dictatorship due to the lack of legal shareholder recourse described in #3 above.
4. - In a pure Meritocracy like BitShares, shareholders determine which hard forks to take and who is allowed to mine new coins (1 BTS = 1 Vote). This type of community resembles that of a traditional company with multiple owners.
More ignorant manure. Proof-of-stake is entirely centralized. The illusion of voting is the same as in a democracy. I only came up with 8 niche crypto business sectors. Please let me know if I am overlooking any sectors. Again, I want only the largest cap company in that sector, but not if it has ever been ran a Dictatorship:
1. the largest (biggest market cap) data storage company is Maidsafe
7. the largest file swapping service company is Florincoin (The Alexandria Project)
Inoramus, don't you know that all these decentralized file storage systems (including Sia, Storj, Florincoin, etc) can't work because I explained that proof-of-storage (a.k.a. proof-of-retrievability) is nonsense because anyone can pretend to be running many nodes and keep it all stored on one node. Thus Sybil attacking the system and cheating its economics and data retention resiliency. MaidSafe is a scam. Even the claimed anonymity is technical bullshit. I am so tired of this forum and endless stream of new ignoramuses who join this forum. I am not paid to reteach all of you fools! I would never fix the problems by coding if I spent all my time teaching all of you. 2. the largest records database company is Factom
Get a fucking clue dude about this shitcoin. 3. the largest social networking company is Synereo
Get another fucking clue about this shitcoin scam that presold AMPs before shipping a technobabble hyped project which has an economically and technically flawed design: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361721.msg13868758#msg13868758https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344997.msg13713923#msg13713923https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344997.msg13739210#msg137392104. the largest music monetization company is MUSE
What the fuck is that?
5. the largest public Turing complete computer is Ethereum
Have you been asleep under a rock the past few weeks? 6. the largest anonymity solution (omitting DASH) is BitShares
Learn about the End-to-End principle for anonymity before you IGNORANT AND ERRONEOUSLY claim that any coin that doesn't use on chain mixing is anonymous. Ask smooth to explain this to you. Visit the various thread where I have commented on this, such as the "Thoughts of Zcash?" thread. |
|
|
|
|
You fucking changed the poll to some meaningless shit.
Please restore a proper poll about which coins are scams.
Ah fuck it, I will make a new thread because you are clueless about making a proper poll.
Yw on my feedback. Hope you can learn before you make polls.
|
|
|
|
Scamcoin Education 101I am forced to post because no one addresses your post correctly. Sigh. Can't anyone learn from me and take over my former role? Pleeeeaasssseee! 1. - In a Hashocracy like bicoin, only the miners choose which future developments get implemented (which hard forks to take), and anyone is free to compete in the coin mining process. The original Bitcoin Foundation members did not like fact that they lost their ability to control the miners,
In Satoshi's design that is true and also because it is economically driven to centralized control over the hashrate; but in my redesign of proof-of-work, I posit that no user has enough hashrate to control anything and the economic forces driving centralization are eliminated. so they left to form Decred which is a:
2. - hybrid Hashocracy/Meritocracy which allows anyone to compete in the coin mining, but only coin holders get to vote on development directions (which hard fork to take).
Ignorant bullshit. I explained why that is impossible when employing Satoshi's design (<-- read the linked threads), regardless that the developers assert some BS about meritocracy. Rather there can only be centralized control. DASH is now a hybrid Hashocracy/Meritocracy like Decred Because I obviously need to be politically correct here, I formally apologize to Amanda for criticizing her explanation of the DASH governmental structure as anything but its former dictatorship because it’s obvious now that Masternode owners are in control of the DASH network, even though that was not always the case. I simply choose not to associate with former dictators, and I don’t want to lose the female vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQGlcLFhwE0#t=2m8s(I stand corrected Ms. Johnson) Ignorant bullshit. Come on man, don't be such a dufus. Surely could have deduced quite simply that since Dash and his whales control most of the coin supply, then they control most of the masternodes. Duh. The scam continues unabated. Amanda is articulate and quick witted, but she is not very deep on understanding technology. She has only a superficial understanding justified by her reasonably quick mind. But she totally lacks computer science and relevant experience. She is a smart journalist, not a coder. Would you ask a journalist how to rebuild your combustion engine, or a mechanic. Come on people, the abysmal level of common sense on these forums is pitiful. Hot? Somewhat attractive but the big lips and mouth are slightly resembling the vagina of a mother pig. I haven't seen her figure, but probably nothing exceptional. And I read that she is addicted to some medications. Definitely not my type, except I appreciate her quick mind, might not be boring to talk to her. But if she has any feminist leanings wrapped in Libertarian sheepskin, then fuhgeddaboudit. , but started out as a Dictatorship when Evan misrepresented the total number of shares without indemnifying the shareholders. Since the SEC has no jurisdiction over a crypto company, there can be no legal recourse for suffering through injustices experienced as a shareholder of a company ruled as a:
Ignorant bullshit. Why do people not study my research on this legal topic and other topics Reading my 10,000+ posts should be required Bitcoin 101 reading course! 3. - Dictatorship is where a central man or entity tells the miners what to do. I pledge to avoid any investments in companies who are or have ever been ran as a Dictatorship due to the lack of legal shareholder recourse described in #3 above.
4. - In a pure Meritocracy like BitShares, shareholders determine which hard forks to take and who is allowed to mine new coins (1 BTS = 1 Vote). This type of community resembles that of a traditional company with multiple owners.
More ignorant manure. Proof-of-stake is entirely centralized. The illusion of voting is the same as in a democracy. I only came up with 8 niche crypto business sectors. Please let me know if I am overlooking any sectors. Again, I want only the largest cap company in that sector, but not if it has ever been ran a Dictatorship:
1. the largest (biggest market cap) data storage company is Maidsafe
7. the largest file swapping service company is Florincoin (The Alexandria Project)
Inoramus, don't you know that all these decentralized file storage systems (including Sia, Storj, Florincoin, etc) can't work because I explained that proof-of-storage (a.k.a. proof-of-retrievability) is nonsense because anyone can pretend to be running many nodes and keep it all stored on one node. Thus Sybil attacking the system and cheating its economics and data retention resiliency. MaidSafe is a scam. Even the claimed anonymity is technical bullshit. I am so tired of this forum and endless stream of new ignoramuses who join this forum. I am not paid to reteach all of you fools! I would never fix the problems by coding if I spent all my time teaching all of you. 2. the largest records database company is Factom
Get a fucking clue dude about this shitcoin. 3. the largest social networking company is Synereo
Get another fucking clue about this shitcoin scam that presold AMPs before shipping a technobabble hyped project which has an economically and technically flawed design: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361721.msg13868758#msg13868758https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344997.msg13713923#msg13713923https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344997.msg13739210#msg137392104. the largest music monetization company is MUSE
What the fuck is that?
5. the largest public Turing complete computer is Ethereum
Have you been asleep under a rock the past few weeks? 6. the largest anonymity solution (omitting DASH) is BitShares
Learn about the End-to-End principle for anonymity before you IGNORANT AND ERRONEOUSLY claim that any coin that doesn't use on chain mixing is anonymous. Ask smooth to explain this to you. Visit the various thread where I have commented on this, such as the "Thoughts of Zcash?" thread.
|
|
|
|
|
r0ach, I will refute you in my white paper. There is a monetary science and you are not aware of all of it apparently. For example, there is no store-of-value, when the TPTB enforce capital controls on your Bitcoin because it is entirely controlled by a collusion of China's mining cartel and Blockstream/Fintech's $75 million investment. Store-of-value not only means "holds its value", it also means "returns its value, i.e. doesn't become worthless because it is confiscated or locked from transacting".
Now this really is my last post. Many of you will write what I believe are false statements I want to refute, but I will have to bite my tongue and save it for the white paper.
|
|
|
|
If it is impossible for Evan to steal (scam) shares in the future (like he essentially did in the past), then there can be no future scams, and this stock is accurately priced by the free market, however, if there is indeed a chance that Evan could steal shares again in the future, then, this coin has true potential for further scamming, and I wouldn't touch it with Hillary's dick.
The parameters of DASH have been changed many times (so many, in fact, it is hard to come up with a complete listing of all the changes). There is little question that Evan could change the parameters again (or, more precisely, "propose" that they be changed, while the dominant stakeholders including himself and his close associates would very likely endorse such a proposal). Damn smooth, you force me to post again. I was waiting for you to answer him and expecting... Please don't forget to make the point that masternodes are themselves an ongoing scam which you and I have both pointed out in the past. I will let you elaborate...I hope I don't need to post again. |
|
|
|
I don't believe the tragedy of the commons argument is a valid one because Bitcoin never existed in "the commons" as something like a lake in the first place due to one obvious reason, it's a for-profit system managed by central bankers. That implies the miners collude, which isn't the case. They all compete for a central resource (BTC) and they try to do so by expending as little energy as possible; that is their rational behaviour. The reason it might be a 'tragedy of the commons' is if they chose to exclude transactions, or any other activities which benefit them but not the network as a whole. My more careful explanation... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
