I am not hilarious. I guarantee you are wrong. If you could simply wrap your mind around the fact that no one will attack if it is not profitable for them to do so, and the analyze the ways they can profit, then you will likely realize your error.

Sorry you just don't comprehend. Will I receive your apology when you later realize you were wrong, as you did on Iota and again on your other failed idea for DAG-like design.

How many times I have taught you, yet you still don't respect me. Sigh.

Iota doesn't have free transactions. The payer has to include proof-of-work. Proof-of-work costs some electricity and/or CPU resources. Also the centralized servers oftenmay need to resubmit the payer's transaction with new PoW, as admitted by Come-from-Beyond in our discussions in the Decentralization thread. They will not do this PoW for free forever. Iota can I guess afford to subsidize these servers for the meantime to give the illusion you desire.

But sorry the correct answer is there will be never be transactions without a fee. The fee will always be charged indirectly if not directly, e.g. Facebook is free to use, but you get bombarded by ads to pay for it.

Haha, got me.

So true.

The best you can do is observe when experts debate, e.g. smooth and I, or gmaxwell and I. Then form a judgement based on that interaction.

No expert has debated me on Ethereum's technology. Everyone ran away and hid, or implicitly agreed. So that should be an indication to you, that I am very likely correct on my technological analysis of Ethereum.

Note I would not claim to be an expert on some aspects, such as the math of elliptic curve cryptography. Neither is smooth.

Factom's security is so flawed that it is useless junk:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1388635.msg14112369#msg14112369

I feel some pity for you guys who so deluded that you think that. Go read my posts in the Ethereum Paradox thread. But of course, you just want soundbites, not the hard work of analysis, and thus you choose to be in delusion.

Ethereum has 0% chance of ever attaining 10,000 users as a decentralized block chain. It might end up as some centralized crap and perhaps some partnership will hoist some crapware onto it similar to the "success" of Windows Phone with its 0.1% global market share of the smartphone market.

If you hold that 1 year, you will be one of the fools who loses all the money he invested in ETH. ETH is technologically flawed and won't be fixable, because the design team is pursuing utter nonsense.

Augur can't be secure without centralization. Just all nonsense you pumpers write. Never even one technology rebuttal.

Incorrect.

Correct I am not against free market experimentation. But I think it is my duty to analyze the technologies (because no one else is ... well at least not publicly and exhaustively and because I need to know intimately all the flaws of others and how I plan to avoid those flaws). And that includes enumerating the flaws in any work I do.

I think what people get frustrated with is that they want to believe there is progress, and they don't want to hear that something is just hype to steal money from us. Especially the pumpers who bought the coin low don't want to hear any facts about technology.

That is not the generative essence issue that causes Iota to centralize. Rather it is that the choice of the mathematical algorithm to use when payers sign and payees accept, is a Prisoner's dilemma— i.e. they can't be sure that every other payer and payee is using the same algorithm and the algorithm is only provably convergent on consensus when most (a super majority?) participants choose the same algorithm.

There simply isn't enough mathematical analysis of Iota yet to fully characterize the game theory. It needs centralization to prevent edge cases.

This is utterly dumb confused crap, especially after I had already explained to you recently the profits from 51% attacking.

You conflate unrelated economic issues and you have so confused yourself.

I told you I am not going to repeat myself again. I have no incentive to give away my design. I already described the design to a large extent and I just smile as you butcher your understanding of it.

Indeed the powers-that-be are going to try find a way to control anything that is popular. Period. That is why you see everyone here has been reduced to doing P&D to steal from each other, while the whales (powers-that-be) walk away our money.

We are fucked. Society is fucked.

I'd rather try to do something about that and maybe fail, then to do nothing and certainly fail.

And I can earn some money on that attempt as well, and so can others.

If the government wants to take down a coin, they can always do it even for Bitcoin. But that is a nuclear option, because there is no direct profit to 51% attacking a coin.

Whether the mining is profit or not, is irrelevant to the profitability of attacking a coin. The profitability of mining enables economies-of-scale to centralize the coin, which helps enable attacks. What you are erroneously claiming is that by overpaying for mining, then it is more secure than by paying consumerately to the level of transactions for unprofitable mining. But the latter may be 1000X more popular, thus have a higher hashrate (and use much less electricity per transaction as well as being decentralized).

Society needs for digital currency to work (which it can't if it is centralized because centralized shit always fails), so that society doesn't collapse into a Dark Age. I have to believe society will limit government, else we can all kiss our current quality of life goodbye.

Really you guys are clueless about my design and why it will work. And I like it that way, so you can't copy it.

Apparently Satoshi agreed:

At 1:11:45, Greg Meredith claims that the Nash equilibrium can be ignored because all game theories can be considered within the Pi calculus model.

Naive viewers might assume this implies the loss of Nash equilibrium (which we explained upthread) is irrelevant. Rather what he is saying is that any effects from the loss of Nash equilibrium will be observed in the Pi calculus model. He has not shown a proof that no negative effects exist within the Pi calculus model.

Worse yet, what he doesn't appear to realize is that his Pi calculus model is incomplete. It doesn't model the economic externalities that can't possibly be captured by a model of recursive (self-referential) validation, such as shorting the coin and the value of double-spends of sharded gas to the attacker. The Pi calculus is a process model, thus it doesn't capture these economic externalities.

In short, more technobabble bullshit.

There won't be an ANN thread.

Me too. No white paper.

Not one single technological rebuttal to my recent technological points about Ethereum by anyone on these forums. Zilch. Zero.

If you call that bullshit, then you have screws loose in your head. You can't seem to discern technological discussion from opinion. That is because you don't understand the technology. Get off my lawn.

What you don't like is truth.

You are now on Ignore technologically illiterate pumper. You are wasting my time with nonsense replies.

Sorry I haven't analyzed Counterparty. I am at the limit of altcoins that I can research. I need focus more on my own work. After studying dozens of altcoins from Stellar to Factom to Iota to Dash, etc and finding flaws in all of them, I am confident there is nothing out there that is doing block chain consensus in a way that can scale (to millions of users) decentralized, not even Monero.

Obviously Counterparty is built on Bitcoin's block chain so inherits the scalability issues plaguing Bitcoin.