And how in my tiny pea brain do you suppose any of that applies to me?
stoat also can't read: stoat hope you've hid your IP address well, because jail time awaits you: c) To circulate or disseminate information that the price of any security listed in an Exchange will or is likely to rise or fall because of manipulative market operations of any one or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of the security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security.
d) To make false or misleading statement with respect to any material fact, which he knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of any security listed or traded in an Exchange.
24.2. No person shall use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance
|
|
|
|
stoat hope you've hid your IP address well, because jail time awaits you: 15 U.S. Code § 78i - Manipulation of security prices
(a) Transactions relating to purchase or sale of securityIt shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, or for any member of a national securities exchange—
(1) For the purpose of creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any security other than a government security, or a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for any such security, (A) to effect any transaction in such security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof, or (B) to enter an order or orders for the purchase of such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same time, and at substantially the same price, for the sale of any such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties, or (C) to enter any order or orders for the sale of any such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same time, and at substantially the same price, for the purchase of such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties.
(2) To effect, alone or with 1 or more other persons, a series of transactions in any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, or in connection with any security-based swap or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security creating actual or apparent active trading in such security, or raising or depressing the price of such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security by others.
(3) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or a security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination in the ordinary course of business of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.
(4) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, such security-based swap, or such security-based swap agreement any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.
(5) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a broker, dealer, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.
(6) To effect either alone or with one or more other persons any series of transactions for the purchase and/or sale of any security other than a government security for the purpose of pegging, fixing, or stabilizing the price of such security in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
Securities Regulation Code
CHAPTER VII
Prohibitions on Fraud, Manipulation and Insider Trading
SEC. 24. Manipulation of Security Prices; Devices and Practices.
24.1 It shall be unlawful for any person acting for himself or through a dealer or broker, directly or indirectly:
a) To create a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any listed security traded in an Exchange or any other trading market (hereafter referred to purposes of this Chapter as “Exchange”):
(i) By effecting any transaction in such security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof;
(ii) By entering an order or orders for the purchase or sale of such security with the knowledge that a simultaneous order or orders of substantially the same size, time and price, for the sale or purchase of any such security, has or will be entered by or for the same or different parties; or
(iii) By performing similar act where there is no change in beneficial ownership.
b) To effect, alone or with others, a series of transactions in securities that:
(i) Raises their price to induce the purchase of a security, whether of the same or a different class of the same issuer or of a controlling, controlled, or commonly controlled company by others;
(ii) Depresses their price to induce the sale of a security, whether of the same or a different class, of the same issuer or of a controlling, controlled, or commonly controlled company by others; or
(iii) Creates active trading to induce such a purchase or sale through manipulative devices such as marking the close, painting the tape, squeezing the float, hype and dump, boiler room operations and such other similar devices.
c) To circulate or disseminate information that the price of any security listed in an Exchange will or is likely to rise or fall because of manipulative market operations of any one or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of the security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security.
d) To make false or misleading statement with respect to any material fact, which he knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of any security listed or traded in an Exchange.
e) To effect, either alone or others, any series of transactions for the purchase and/or sale of any security traded in an Exchange for the purpose of pegging, fixing or stabilizing the price of such security, unless otherwise allowed by this Code or by rules of the Commission.
24.2. No person shall use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance. Neither shall any short sale be effected nor any stop-loss order be executed in connection with the purchase or sale of any security except in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.�
24.3. The foregoing provisions notwithstanding, the Commission, having due regard to the public interest and the protection of investors, may, by rules and regulations, allow certain acts or transactions that may otherwise be prohibited under this Section.
|
|
|
|
stoat hope you've hid your IP address well, because jail time awaits you: 15 U.S. Code § 78i - Manipulation of security prices
(a) Transactions relating to purchase or sale of securityIt shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, or for any member of a national securities exchange—
(1) For the purpose of creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any security other than a government security, or a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for any such security, (A) to effect any transaction in such security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof, or (B) to enter an order or orders for the purchase of such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same time, and at substantially the same price, for the sale of any such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties, or (C) to enter any order or orders for the sale of any such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same time, and at substantially the same price, for the purchase of such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties.
(2) To effect, alone or with 1 or more other persons, a series of transactions in any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, or in connection with any security-based swap or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security creating actual or apparent active trading in such security, or raising or depressing the price of such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security by others.
(3) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or a security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination in the ordinary course of business of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.
(4) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, such security-based swap, or such security-based swap agreement any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.
(5) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a broker, dealer, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.
(6) To effect either alone or with one or more other persons any series of transactions for the purchase and/or sale of any security other than a government security for the purpose of pegging, fixing, or stabilizing the price of such security in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
Securities Regulation Code
CHAPTER VII
Prohibitions on Fraud, Manipulation and Insider Trading
SEC. 24. Manipulation of Security Prices; Devices and Practices.
24.1 It shall be unlawful for any person acting for himself or through a dealer or broker, directly or indirectly:
a) To create a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any listed security traded in an Exchange or any other trading market (hereafter referred to purposes of this Chapter as “Exchange”):
(i) By effecting any transaction in such security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof;
(ii) By entering an order or orders for the purchase or sale of such security with the knowledge that a simultaneous order or orders of substantially the same size, time and price, for the sale or purchase of any such security, has or will be entered by or for the same or different parties; or
(iii) By performing similar act where there is no change in beneficial ownership.
b) To effect, alone or with others, a series of transactions in securities that:
(i) Raises their price to induce the purchase of a security, whether of the same or a different class of the same issuer or of a controlling, controlled, or commonly controlled company by others;
(ii) Depresses their price to induce the sale of a security, whether of the same or a different class, of the same issuer or of a controlling, controlled, or commonly controlled company by others; or
(iii) Creates active trading to induce such a purchase or sale through manipulative devices such as marking the close, painting the tape, squeezing the float, hype and dump, boiler room operations and such other similar devices.
c) To circulate or disseminate information that the price of any security listed in an Exchange will or is likely to rise or fall because of manipulative market operations of any one or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of the security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security.
d) To make false or misleading statement with respect to any material fact, which he knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of any security listed or traded in an Exchange.
e) To effect, either alone or others, any series of transactions for the purchase and/or sale of any security traded in an Exchange for the purpose of pegging, fixing or stabilizing the price of such security, unless otherwise allowed by this Code or by rules of the Commission.
24.2. No person shall use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance. Neither shall any short sale be effected nor any stop-loss order be executed in connection with the purchase or sale of any security except in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.�
24.3. The foregoing provisions notwithstanding, the Commission, having due regard to the public interest and the protection of investors, may, by rules and regulations, allow certain acts or transactions that may otherwise be prohibited under this Section.
|
|
|
|
stoat hope you've hid your IP address well, because jail time awaits you: 15 U.S. Code § 78i - Manipulation of security prices
(a) Transactions relating to purchase or sale of securityIt shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, or for any member of a national securities exchange—
(1) For the purpose of creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any security other than a government security, or a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for any such security, (A) to effect any transaction in such security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof, or (B) to enter an order or orders for the purchase of such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same time, and at substantially the same price, for the sale of any such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties, or (C) to enter any order or orders for the sale of any such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same time, and at substantially the same price, for the purchase of such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties.
(2) To effect, alone or with 1 or more other persons, a series of transactions in any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, or in connection with any security-based swap or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security creating actual or apparent active trading in such security, or raising or depressing the price of such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security by others.
(3) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or a security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination in the ordinary course of business of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.
(4) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, such security-based swap, or such security-based swap agreement any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.
(5) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a broker, dealer, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.
(6) To effect either alone or with one or more other persons any series of transactions for the purchase and/or sale of any security other than a government security for the purpose of pegging, fixing, or stabilizing the price of such security in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
Securities Regulation Code
CHAPTER VII
Prohibitions on Fraud, Manipulation and Insider Trading
SEC. 24. Manipulation of Security Prices; Devices and Practices.
24.1 It shall be unlawful for any person acting for himself or through a dealer or broker, directly or indirectly:
a) To create a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any listed security traded in an Exchange or any other trading market (hereafter referred to purposes of this Chapter as “Exchange”):
(i) By effecting any transaction in such security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof;
(ii) By entering an order or orders for the purchase or sale of such security with the knowledge that a simultaneous order or orders of substantially the same size, time and price, for the sale or purchase of any such security, has or will be entered by or for the same or different parties; or
(iii) By performing similar act where there is no change in beneficial ownership.
b) To effect, alone or with others, a series of transactions in securities that:
(i) Raises their price to induce the purchase of a security, whether of the same or a different class of the same issuer or of a controlling, controlled, or commonly controlled company by others;
(ii) Depresses their price to induce the sale of a security, whether of the same or a different class, of the same issuer or of a controlling, controlled, or commonly controlled company by others; or
(iii) Creates active trading to induce such a purchase or sale through manipulative devices such as marking the close, painting the tape, squeezing the float, hype and dump, boiler room operations and such other similar devices.
c) To circulate or disseminate information that the price of any security listed in an Exchange will or is likely to rise or fall because of manipulative market operations of any one or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of the security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security.
d) To make false or misleading statement with respect to any material fact, which he knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of any security listed or traded in an Exchange.
e) To effect, either alone or others, any series of transactions for the purchase and/or sale of any security traded in an Exchange for the purpose of pegging, fixing or stabilizing the price of such security, unless otherwise allowed by this Code or by rules of the Commission.
24.2. No person shall use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance. Neither shall any short sale be effected nor any stop-loss order be executed in connection with the purchase or sale of any security except in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.�
24.3. The foregoing provisions notwithstanding, the Commission, having due regard to the public interest and the protection of investors, may, by rules and regulations, allow certain acts or transactions that may otherwise be prohibited under this Section.
|
|
|
|
sold that shit, overhyped
The hype has only begun. If you are buying because you want to steal from your fellow greater fool, then by all means do buy and hold for Homestead, Casper, Dumbo the Flying Elephant, and Microsoft Azure, $trillion market cap, etc.. |
|
|
|
sold that shit, overhyped
The hype has only begun. If you are buying because you want to steal from your fellow greater fool, then by all means do buy and hold for Homestead, Casper, Dumbo the Flying Elephant, and Microsoft Azure, $trillion market cap, etc.. |
|
|
|
My accusations of him being a predatory pederast have more merit than his accusations against Casper. If he's going to FUD he should be able to handle the bants.
This works only because readers are as ignorant of technology as stoat is. They say ignorance is bliss, because you don't know what you think you know. I know for a fact I am not FUDing. If you want to prove otherwise, get Vitalik to enter a debate with me. Any way, it is time to stop reading your nonsense. Bye stoat. Enjoy your right hand. |
|
|
|
|
Do not reply to the panic-stricken, technologically illiterate, deranged trolls.
|
|
|
|
There is too much hype and manipulation going on right now. Once the promised features are released, the hype will die out and people will sell.
Remember, buy the hype, sell the news.
What happens when they release features that don't work decentralized or they don't release features because they realize their design can't work decentralized? Actually it doesn't matter. Speculators do not care whether anything will work or not. Shams sell well. Buy the shams. Long live the shams. |
|
|
|
There is too much hype and manipulation going on right now. Once the promised features are released, the hype will die out and people will sell.
Remember, buy the hype, sell the news.
What happens when they release features that don't work decentralized or they don't release features because they realize their design can't work decentralized? Actually it doesn't matter. Speculators do not care whether anything will work or not. Shams sell well. Buy the shams. Long live the shams. |
|
|
|
Your denials are not convincing anyone. Sexual molestation of children is a serious crime.
Your investment is crashing, you're starting to embarrass yourself. Unfortunately it is probably impossible to permanently crash it until the non-viability becomes common knowledge, so that greater fools stop handing their money over to kids running Ethereum and the insiders continue to buy from themselves to create the illusion of market cap, volume, and price. This one thread isn't going to have the reach of Coindesk and other mass market pump vehicles. I agree he has made it clear to all readers of this thread what a deranged case he is. |
|
|
|
Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.
I live a few blocks from the Talomo police station. I was at the Barangay Hall today to buy JC Herbal drinks from the head official of the Barangay Affairs. Btw, Talomo is where my ex-wife is from and where I lived in squalor from 1995 to 1998 until I created CoolPage from a Nipa Hut. You've got some screws loose in your head. Thats how predatory pedophiles operate. They bribe and befriend the local officials to gain access to kids and immunity from the law. You need to stop harming children and return to america to face justice. You've now shown everyone on the forum how mentally deranged you are. Btw, there are numerous foreigners living in the subdivision where I live now who are happily married. I already told you that I am not a sex predator (in fact I can't even make sex to my gf lately due to illness). Nor am I a fugitive. Nor am I bribing any one. |
|
|
|
Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.
I live a few blocks from the Talomo police station. I was at the Barangay Hall today to buy JC Herbal drinks from the head official of the Barangay Affairs (whom I met for the first time). Btw, Talomo is where my ex-wife is from and where I lived in squalor from 1995 to 1998 until I created CoolPage from a Nipa Hut. Note I have kids who were born in this Barangay who are now living in the USA and also my ex and her mother whom I all financed to go to the USA. You've got some screws loose in your head. |
|
|
|
Anybody that is claiming to have superior intelligence by definition has no intelligence at all. There those that raised 18 million dollars and develop real stuff and those that spend their entire days on this forum hoping that whatever more intelligent one's(or should I say more lucky one  ) do won't work. I will let you sink in your own misery Mr. Superior )) Here we go again. Another retard whose huge ego is offended by my intellect (as if that is my fault). Eric Raymond the 150+ IQ genius who wrote the Bibles on open source has an essay for you: Ego is for little people
Posted on 2009-11-09 by Eric Raymond
When I got really famous and started to hang out with people at the top of the game in computer science and other fields, one of the first things I noticed is that the real A-list types almost never have a major territorial/ego thing going on in their behavior. The B-list people, the bright second-raters, may be all sharp elbows and ego assertion, but there’s a calm space at the top that the absolutely most capable ones get to and tend to stay in.
I’m going to be specific about what I mean by “ego” now, because otherwise much of this essay may seem vague or wrongheaded. I specifically mean psychologial egotism, not (for example) ethical egoism as a philosophical position. The main indicators of egotism as I intend it here are are loud self-display, insecurity, constant approval-seeking, overinflating one’s accomplishments, touchiness about slights, and territorial twitchiness about one’s expertise. My claim is that egotism is a disease of the incapable, and vanishes or nearly vanishes among the super-capable.
It’s not only scientific fields where this is true. For various reasons (none of which, fortunately, have been legal troubles of my own) I’ve had to work with a lot of lawyers. I’m legally literate, so a pattern I quickly noticed is this: the B-list lawyers are the ones who get all huffy about a non-attorney expressing opinions and judgments about the law. The one time I worked with a stratospherically supercompetent A-list firm (I won’t name them, but I will note they have their own skyscraper in New York City) they were so relaxed about recognizing capability in a non-lawyer that some language I wrote went straight into their court filings in a lawsuit with multibillion-dollar stakes.
This sort of thing has been noted before by other people and is almost a commonplace. I’m bringing it up to note why that’s true, speaking from my own experience. It’s not that people at the top of their fields are more virtuous. Well…actually I think people at the top of their fields do tend to be more virtuous, for the same reason they tend to be be more intelligent, less neurotic, longer-lived, better-looking, and physically healthier than the B-listers and below. Human capability does not come in nearly divisible chunks; almost every individual way that humans can excel is tangled up with other ways at a purely physiological level, with immune-system capability lurking behind a surprisingly large chunk of the surface measures. But I don’t think the mean difference in “virtue”, however you think that can actually be defined, explains what I’m pointing at.
No. It’s more that ego games have a diminishing return. The farther you are up the ability and achievement bell curve, the less psychological gain you get from asserting or demonstrating your superiority over the merely average, and the more prone you are to welcome discovering new peers because there are so damn few of them that it gets lonely. There comes a point past which winning more ego contests becomes so pointless that even the most ambitious, suspicious, external-validation-fixated strivers tend to notice that it’s no fun any more and stop.
I’m not speaking abstractly here. I’ve always been more interested in doing the right thing than doing what would make me popular, to the point where I generally figure that if I’m not routinely pissing off a sizable minority of people I should be pushing harder. In the language of psychology, my need for external validation is low; the standards I try hardest to live up to are those I’ve set for myself. But one of the differences I can see between myself at 25 and myself at 52 is that my limited need for external validation has decreased. And it’s not age or maturity or virtue that shrunk it; it’s having nothing left to prove.
I’m going to use myself as an example now, mainly because I don’t know anyone else’s story well enough to make the point I want to with it. I’m the crippled kid who became a black-belt martial artist and teacher of martial artists. I’ve made the New York Times bestseller list as a writer. You can hardly use a browser, a cellphone, or a game console without relying on my code. I’ve been a session musician on two records. I’ve blown up the software industry once, reinvented the hacker culture twice, and am without doubt one of the dozen most famous geeks alive. Investment bankers pay me $300 an hour to yak at them because I have a track record as a shrewd business analyst. I don’t even have a BS, yet there’s been an entire academic cottage industry devoted to writing exegeses of my work. I could do nothing but speaking tours for the rest of my life and still be overbooked. Earnest people have struggled their whole lives to change the world less than I routinely do when I’m not even really trying. Here’s the point: In what way would it make sense for me to be in ego or status competition with anybody?
And yet, there are people out there who are going to read the previous paragraph and think “Oh, that’s Eric’s ego again. The blowhard.” I’ve had a lot of time to get used to such reactions over the last decade, but it’s still hard for me not to collapse in helpless laughter at the implied degree of Not Getting It. Now (limiting myself to a small random sample of the A-listers I’ve actually met and taken the measure of) Alan Kay or Terry Pratchett or David Friedman or Freeman Dyson…they would understand why I was laughing. Because real A-listers are sui generis, and usually polymaths; they tend to have constellations of talent so extreme and idiosyncratic that they couldn’t even really be in ego competition with each other, let alone with those much less capable. That’s supposing they wanted to be.
And generally they don’t want to be. If you’re the kind of person who can make it to the top even in a single field (law or CS or whatever) you may not have started out with better things to do than compete for attention and glory, but by the time you make the A-list you’ve almost certainly discovered subtler games to play that are much more fun. You’ll maintain a reputation because a reputation is a useful tool, but it’s not the point any more. If it ever was. In my experience this is even more true of polymaths, possibly because their self-images as competent people.have broader and more stable bases.
I think there are a couple of different reasons people tend to falsely attribute pathological, oversensitive egos to A-listers. Each reason is in its own way worth taking a look at.
The first and most obvious reason is projection. “Wow, if I were as talented as Terry Pratchett, I know I’d have a huge ego about it, so I guess he must.” Heh. Trust me on this; he doesn’t. This kind of thinking reveals a a lot about somebody’s ego and insecurity, alright, but not Terry’s.
There’s a flip side to projection that I think of as the “Asimov game”. I met Isaac Asimov just a few months before he died. Isaac had long been notorious for broadly egotistical behavior and a kind of cheerful bombast that got up a lot of peoples’ noses. But if you ever met him, and you were at all perceptive, you might see that it was all a sort of joke. Isaac was laughing inside at everyone who took his “egotism” seriously – and, at the same time, watching hungrily for people who could see through the self-parody, because they might – might – actually be among the vanishingly tiny minority that constituted his actual peers. The Asimov game is a constant temptation to extroverted A-listers; I’ve been known to fall into it myself. It’s not really anybody’s fault that a lot of people are fooled by it.
Another confusing fact is that though A-listers may not be about ego or status competition, they will often play such games ruthlessly and effectively when that gets them something they actually want. The something might be more money from a gig, or a night in the hay with an attractive wench, or whatever; the point is, if you catch an A-lister in that mode, you might well mistake for egotism some kinds of display behavior that actually serve much more immediate and instrumental purposes. Your typical A-lister in that situation (and this includes me, now) is blithely unconcerned that a bystander might think he’s egotistical; the money or the wench or the whatever is the goal, not the approval or disapproval of bystanders.
Finally, a lot of people confuse arrogance with ego. A-listers (and I am including myself, again, this time) are, as a rule, colossally arrogant. That is, they have utter confidence in their ability to meet challenges that would humble or break most people. Do not be fooled by the self-deprecating manner that many A-listers cultivate; it is a mask adopted for social purposes, mostly to avoid freaking out the normal monkeys. But this arrogance is not the same as egotism; in fact, in many ways it is the opposite. It is possible to be arrogant about one’s abilities compared to the statistically average human being and the range of challenges one is likely to encounter, but deeply and genuinely humble when dealing with peers or contemplating the vastness of one’s own ignorance and incapability relative to what one could imagine being. In fact, this combination of attitudes is completely typical of the A-listers I have known.
The behaviors most people think of as “egotism” tend to be driven out by arrogance rather than motivated by it. If you really believe bone-deep that you are superior, you don’t act insecure and twitchy and approval-seeking, because you just aren’t! Arrogance doesn’t even have to be justified to drive out egotism – it just has to be there. It’s all the more powerful an egotism-banisher when the arrogance is actually well-justified by the A-lister’s track record. Thus, egotists are usually people who have not yet established their capability to themselves, or who had that confidence in the past but are beginning to doubt it.
Finally, I think a lot of people need to believe that A-listers invariably have flaws in proportion to their capabilities in order not to feel dwarfed by them. Thus the widely cherished belief that geniuses are commonly mentally unstable; it’s not true (admissions to mental hospitals per thousand drop with increasing IQ and in professions that select for intelligence, with the lowest numbers among mathematicians and theoretical physicists) but if you don’t happen to be a genius yourself it’s very comforting. Similarly, a dullard who believes A-listers are all flaky temperamental egotists can console himself that, though he may not be smarter than them, he is better. And so it goes.
Ego is for little people. I wish I could finish by saying something anodyne about how we’re all little when you come down to it, but I’d be fibbing. Yeah, we’re all little compared to a supernova, but that’s beside the point. And yeah, the most capable people in the world are routinely humbled by what they don’t know and can’t do, but that is beside the point too. If you look at how humans relate to other humans – and in particular, how they manage self-image and “ego” and evaluate their status with respect to others…it really is different near the top end of the human capability range. Better. Calmer. Sorry, but it’ s true.
|
|
|
|
Back to partitions, I've read about sharding today, the post was written by Vitalik and it describes exactly what is being implemented. It said clearly that if a call from one transaction group is made to another transaction group it would produce "out of range" exception. Its not clear to me why you even discuss the possibility of such calls that would be executed.
The second thing I did I watched an interview with Vitalik where he said that in Ethereum 2.0 they are thinking about getting away from every node executing every transaction. In a paper you quoted before exactly such solution is described with double decker blockchain where one layer is used to simply store the state. This seems to be the exact solution they are going to adopt.
need_war you need to understand that there are no problems in computer science that can't be solved. If particular architecture doesn't work they will change it to the one that works. The whole thing about blockchain with all the excitement around it seems to me like we say in Russia "sucked out of finger" . But that doesn't mean that Ethereum is not gonna work and that we won't be able to make money on it. Crazy youngsters like Vitalik will develop lots of shit on Ethereum just because people have nothing better to do. No point to talk further, what I studied so far is enough for me to start pouring money in mining farm for it.
Than they need to come over the CAP theorem - could be a bit tricky. 'Proof' is there: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13490710#msg13490710  Let's talk generalities that apply to any block chain partitioning system. As monsterer and I discussed upthread, it is possible to partition transactions (and even scripts as "transactions") as long as the partition state is not shared between partitions. Once you need to share any state between partitions (e.g. gas), then those partitions need to validate all the history of each other, otherwise the Prisoner's Dilemma is created and the Nash equilibrium is lost. Fuserleer claimed he had developed a more granular data structure (not precisely a block chain, although discussion revealed the difference from a block chain was semantic illusion) wherein he can isolate only those histories that are dependent and thus I presume more efficiently merge partitions by validating only the relevant history for the state that is being moved cross-partition. That is one way to go that is different than the design I am contemplating (assuming I have described his design correctly since he hasn't revealed the details). Fuserleer's design would I presume in theory allow to partition validation and only validate what you need to when you need to, but there are several issues I can expect: - The miner/validator may not have the financial incentive to include transactions which have a high validation burden.
- The economic problem of validation centralizing over time remains, thus it seems the attempt to keep them decentralized by using partitioning is pointless.
- The unbounded amount of delayed validation work has implications similar to delays seen when garbage collection locks up your browser for 5 minutes.
I had also pointed out upthread a more high-level reason that scripts can't be assumed to have isolated state due to uncontrollable externalities, but even if someone argues I am incorrect on that point, it is unarguable the gas can't be sharded (again even if we apply Fuserleer's unreleased design, it will economically centralize). |
|
|
|
So in terms of script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).
It is I think undecideable to prove what Turing-complete scripting can't do. But since the particular vulnerability I discovered when investigating DE requires the ability to multi-sig to any destination one could just place a limit on multi-sig destinations, but this would highly limit what multi-sig can be used for I think. And that doesn't guarantee there aren't other security holes. |
|
|
|
Im better at predicting things than you are
Any 20-something who hasn't grown up and learned any real skills, can predict he will waste another day masturbating on his moma's sofabed again the next day and anonymously trolling accomplished elders from his mobile device. |
|
|
|
Stoat - although I don't think you're a bad person (just very enthusiastic over etherium)... you do realise that bumping this thread over and over is not beneficial for Etherium? quite the opposite.
The BBC made a video a UK troll. Why not just listen to the critique anonymint gave and accept that you don't have any way to refute it right now. Don't feel bad about it less than 0.01% of the board understands crypto at a deep enough level to argue with smooth, anonymint et al. That and the fact even VB has not come here to offer a quick explanation of how anonymint is wrong is kind of strange. Maybe there is no way to refute it?
I mean if there was just something he is planning to deal with the issue brought up then fair enough. However nothing from him or any Eth core dev since the start. Perhaps ask on the etherium board his opinion?
or
Just wait and see. If Etherium can scale it can scale. If it can not (as i fear it can not after the laymans explanation he attempted to give on the other page) then perhaps they will find another design by which it can.
Well scaling is not the only problem they can't solve. Another problem is as I explained upthread, that generalized scripting destroys the security of the block chain because it enables scenarios where the 51% attacker can fund his attack by stealing the coins of others. Ethereum is vaporware. The unsatisfying part will be that stoat will disappear when Ethereum has failed and he was chicken shit to reveal his true identity, so we won't be able to doxx him in real life. In one of their videos / threads they discussed about only allow a special subset of scrpting types to adress the 'generalized scripting' issue. You think that's feasable? Probably but it will highly limit what they can allow to be scripted. I already made the superior proposal which is to investigate using zk-snarks to hide the data of scripts from miners (or validators). The validation could be done in zero knowledge. In either case, they are not close to solving that issue, which is separate from the insoluble scaling issue. There is only one way to solve the scaling issue DECENTRALIZED and I know what it is. No one else in the universe apparently knows how to do it. Their only options will be to either lie about the Prisoner's Dilemma and cross their fingers or centralize the validation (or copy me). |
|
|
|
When will the design details of the new PoS system be shared so we know how they plan to scale?
The plans are sufficiently shared already in the numerous presentations and YouTube videos. I know the limits of the range of choices they can possibly choose from. So I know they are stuck up river without a paddle. They will eventually realize this, and then either they will try to shoehorn some crap that creates a Prisoner's Dilemma and breaks Nash equilibrium (such as "transaction receipts") and/or they will hide the fact that they will allow the validation to centralize (as I allege Iota is doing). "They will". "They won't" You seem pretty sure of things for someone who is clearly 2 apples short of a picnic I am damn good at it: I wonder when MA will clue in on that Trump is fracturing the Republican party which will enable Hillary Clinton to win the Presidency.
[...]
As I predicted he would: It seems the elite Republicans want Trump to exit the Republican Party and become Independent for they would rather hand it all to Hillary to ensure their rank and career political status. The fear Trump will be an outsider who will trim the sails of government and reduce wasteful spending that feeds their friends and family, is just too much for them to accept.
Or better yet: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23786.htmlOr I predicted Bitcoin's block size scalepocaplyse in 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=340686.msg3681159#msg3681159Or many others ... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
