More flawed shit: Side-chains are insecure. DOA. To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,... The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain. So the pegging needs to be transient ! I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization. Yes - agreed, but I mean rather it has no negative effect to the main chain, if you don't care using the side chain. I think the insecurity of the side chain can wreck the Bitcoin block chain. If I am mistaken, I request someone to point out why. Please see pages 8, 9, and 12 of the Blockstream side chains white paper. It says that the coins on the Bitcoin block chain can be unlocked by presenting a proof-of-work from the side chain, but that this can be invalidated by a longer proof-of-work. So this means that a lie-in-wait attack on the side chain could allow someone to unlock coins on Bitcoin's block chain, spend them, let others spend them in a fanout of derivative transactions, then reverse the Bitcoin transactions by presenting a longer proof-of-work from the side chain invalidating all those Bitcoin block chain transactions. In short, it seems to me a chain reorganization on the side chain can cause a chain reorganization on the Bitcoin block chain. I am ready to go to sleep, so I am just skimming quickly with my re-reading of that white paper, so perhaps I missed something? |
|
|
|
I suppose everyone understand this, but I will state it for the record.
With a $200,000+ monthly budget, Ethereum can afford fancy website design and paid promotion at sites such as Coindesk, etc..
We gave them $18 million to produce no solution to the fundamental challenges they never solved, and they spent our money on hype to fool other greater fools into buying at nosebleed, manipulated prices. We invested in screwing the newbies who come to crypto.
That is not a sustainable model for growing our ecosystem. We are poisoning the well from which we drink.
Sorta working for BTC, no? Huh  Despite having become by now arguably controlled by the Chinese mining cartel, Bitcoin had some years of being mined from laptops decentralized and I can spend Bitcoin widely and use it to transfer funds internationally. |
|
|
|
There are also asymmetric proof-of-work such as tromp's Cuckcoo and others which are based on NP hard problems.
Cuckoo Cycle is based on finding cycles in undirected graphs. While the latter is obviously in P (and thus not NP hard, unless P=NP), the full graph description is exponentially larger than the 128-bit siphash key that defines it. But while the "is there a cycle for this key" version is in NP\P (again assuming NP != P), it almost certainly is not NP hard (that is, you cannot reduce all other NP problems to it). It was 3 hours past my sleeping time and so I just wrote NP as a placeholder, because honestly I really couldn't reload the complexity classes in my head last night. My point is that the Cuckoo Cycle is verifiable in polynomial time (i.e. fast) but apparently a brute force search for a solution is slower, which is afaik is what makes it an asymmetric (fast to validate, slow to compute) proof-of-work. Thus is it EXPTIME and not P? (just asking and haven't really looked at the Cuckcoo Cycle algorithm lately and I have forgotten it since I last did) As for the major unsolved problem of mathematics and computer science of whether P = NP, I think perhaps I outlined conceptually how to prove they are not equal. Intending to come back to that in the future when I have free time. |
|
|
|
I suppose everyone understand this, but I will state it for the record.
With a $200,000+ monthly budget, Ethereum can afford fancy website design and paid promotion at sites such as Coindesk, etc..
We gave them $18 million to produce no solution to the fundamental challenges they never solved, and they spent our money on hype to fool other greater fools into buying at nosebleed, manipulated prices. We invested in screwing the newbies who come to crypto.
That is not a sustainable model for growing our ecosystem. We are poisoning the well from which we drink.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose everyone understand this, but I will state it for the record.
With a $200,000+ monthly budget, Ethereum can afford fancy website design and paid promotion at sites such as Coindesk, etc..
We gave them $18 million to produce no solution to the fundamental challenges they never solved, and they spent our money on hype to fool other greater fools into buying at nosebleed, manipulated prices. We invested in screwing the newbies who come to crypto.
That is not a sustainable model for growing our ecosystem. We are poisoning the well from which we drink.
|
|
|
|
The algorithm for the "memory hard" hash function isn't going to allow you to implement it with a non-sequential architecture. The parallelism that is attained is to due to reducing memory latency by coalescing memory accesses, or by trading memory accesses for increased computation to maximize the consumption of available computational resources (e.g. on the GPU).
1. (Ideal) ANNs can do super-Turing computations. 2. ANNs don't have the memory bottleneck. 3. ANNs can be simulated on FPGAs. Ergo: FPGAs can do hashing of such functions efficiently. Or am I wrong? I am too sleepy to learn enough about super-Turing computation and alternatives to von Neumann to attempt an answer right now. The memory hard hash functions are designed to sufficiently randomized such that there is no alternative to reading the memory locations sequentially. There are also asymmetric proof-of-work such as tromp's Cuckcoo and others which are based on NP hard problems. These may be susceptible to other algorithms on other architectures. This may be a very deep topic, certainly more than I can muster right now sleepy. What you say tromp? |
|
|
|
On yobit eth is 10 $ in this moment, what is happening. Why people go so crazy this days about this coin? Can anyone give some normal and objective explanation or people will continue to argue still about this. Few days ago I wanted to buy some ethererium, but after all this crazy topics and comments I'm totally confused.
There is no arguing. I have stated the technological facts. There has been no technological rebuttal. Not a single one. Zilch. Only silly P&D noise from the other side to confuse you (to cause you to buy the pump). |
|
|
|
The FPGA directly implements the memory bound PoW, just as an ASIC would,
except it doesn't need the ultimate speed/efficiency of an ASIC, since DRAM latency is
going to be the bottleneck.
I'm talking about architectures without von Neumann bottleneck. Artificial Neural Networks is an example of such architecture. The algorithm for the "memory hard" hash function isn't going to allow you to implement it with a non-sequential architecture. The parallelism that is attained is to due to reducing memory latency by coalescing memory accesses, or by trading memory accesses for increased computation to maximize the consumption of available computational resources (e.g. on the GPU). |
|
|
|
Eth will be huge, haters will be rekt.
So many times i have seen same enthusiasm, pump and dump. People always forget about their losses and they ready to jump again if they see "opportunity". Why they must use ICO for collecting funds? Why this was not normal project like others no premium no ico..POW+POS or something. They can get their fund like others through mining like others. Presale enables the devs to immediately get on with allocating all resource to development work and not simply mining. As proven by the speed Ethereum has got to 1/10th of bitcoins value in a matter of months. The devs focus on building the ecosystem and others developing dapps. Lying pumper. The market cap is fake. The float is miniscule: Already getting dumped like crashy
RIP ETH we return to 0.0020 BTC I'm seeing way too much buy support still for it to ga back to those levels, I've got a feeling that we won't see it drop below 0.015 btc too soon. Just look at that buy wall over at Poloniex, no way it's going back to 0.002.  There are 4.1 mil USD equivalent in whole Bid side of order book. There are 767 mils USD equivalent in existing ETH right now. Poloniex is the ONLY exchange with noticeable values. In common, ETH holders lost 300 mils USD of nominal value in their holdings since yesterday's 0.031 eth/btc peak. There are 360 confirmation required to deposit ETH to Poloniex. And verifications required for amounts over 2k USD daily. I think, 0.002 is reasonable goal for shorting.. |
|
|
|
Readers aren't going to understand what we are referring to with this technobabble about latency bound hash algorithms. Suffice it to say that afaik, Monero has the most CPU friendly hash function deployed. I think it is possible to do better though. Ethash unless they changed it significantly since before Ethereum was conceived is more GPU friendly than CPU friendly. So I presume CPU friendly would be more decentralized, given all other factors being equal. A hash function being CPU-only would still not be sufficient to prevent the mining from centralizing, due to the other economic factors of economies-of-scale (e.g. more hashrate has lower validation and propagation costs). |
|
|
|
Everything sucks
So you can't disprove the facts I claim. So you admit I am correct. except our own creations!
After making incorrect assumptions about the facts of the other coins, now you want to make assumptions about my motives. Don't you think you've done enough ASS-U-MING. How about learning to study facts. My motivation is to shame you into studying technology if you want to invest in technology. If you just want to steal from greater fools, then we will understand that your post is just more P&D obfuscation tactics. Btw, when I talk about my own designs, I am careful to point out potential flaws and caveats. Also you will find that any white papers from me will attempt to have a section that explains positives and negatives to laymen (minimizing/explaining the technobabble). Hypesters don't. |
|
|
|
[1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far.
Ethash appears more ASIC resistant as it is more memory bound and needs at least 8x more memory. The original version that I reviewed for Charles Hoskinson before he formed Ethereum with Vitalik could be easily parallelized and thus would have superior performance on GPUs. Whereas, Monero's hash includes AES-NI instructions and the CPU is roughly at parity with GPUs. So I meant to imply that Monero has the most CPUs mining. |
|
|
|
Side-chains are insecure. DOA. To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,... The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain. So the pegging needs to be transient ! I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization. Yes - agreed, but I mean rather it has no negative effect to the main chain, if you don't care using the side chain. I think the insecurity of the side chain can wreck the Bitcoin block chain. If I am mistaken, I request someone to point out why. Please see pages 8, 9, and 12 of the Blockstream side chains white paper. It says that the coins on the Bitcoin block chain can be unlocked by presenting a proof-of-work from the side chain, but that this can be invalidated by a longer proof-of-work. So this means that a lie-in-wait attack on the side chain could allow someone to unlock coins on Bitcoin's block chain, spend them, let others spend them in a fanout of derivative transactions, then reverse the Bitcoin transactions by presenting a longer proof-of-work from the side chain invalidating all those Bitcoin block chain transactions. In short, it seems to me a chain reorganization on the side chain can cause a chain reorganization on the Bitcoin block chain. I am ready to go to sleep, so I am just skimming quickly with my re-reading of that white paper, so perhaps I missed something? |
|
|
|
Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not). So they can do features that don't work without centralization. Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter. I'm sorry that I didn't wrap that post into <subtleSarcasm> tags. I'm flattered that you use my posts as argumentum ad verecundiam. I'm sorry I didn't emphasize that I know you were being sarcastic. But you are also being pragmatic, as you've always astutely been. I don't fault you for that! Even Satoshi failed at decentralization. |
|
|
|
on hype alone it will make a lot of people very rich; in the short term
It will make most of the speculators very poor by definition of a P&D. |
|
|
|
The free market will chose, we replace bitcoin or we replace Core.
Or pay higher transaction fees and realize none of the other altcoin shit amounts to anything but hype (except for I guess Monero). Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not)[1]. So they can do features that don't work without centralization. Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter. [1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far. They haven't solved the economic centralization issue, but for the time being afaik I presume mining is reasonably decentralized. [1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far.
Ethash appears more ASIC resistant as it is more memory bound and needs at least 8x more memory. The original version that I reviewed for Charles Hoskinson before he formed Ethereum with Vitalik could be easily parallelized and thus would have superior performance on GPUs. Whereas, Monero's hash includes AES-NI instructions and the CPU is roughly at parity with GPUs. So I meant to imply that Monero has the most CPUs mining. |
|
|
|
The free market will chose, we replace bitcoin or we replace Core.
Or pay higher transaction fees and realize none of the other altcoin shit amounts to anything but hype (except for I guess Monero). |
|
|
|
Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not)[1]. So they can do features that don't work without centralization. Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter. [1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far. They haven't solved the economic centralization issue, but for the time being afaik I presume mining is reasonably decentralized. |
|
|
|
Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not)[1]. So they can do features that don't work without centralization. Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter. [1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far. They haven't solved the economic centralization issue, but for the time being afaik I presume mining is reasonably decentralized. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
