Sent to following request to the moderator as stoat continues to violate forum policy even after I have warned (informed) him.


Btw, the above post is entirely off-topic. This thread is not about me, nor about whether Ether is a great smoke. It is about whether Ether pumps are drowning out the other discussion of altcoins and thus Ether has become "important" (pumped) enough to have its very own (non-technical, circle jerk) subforum.

I have now deleted 9 of stoat's panic-stricken trolling posts, as he frantically tries to control all threads related to Ethereum with his inability to make any technological argument whatsoever.

I've now deleted 6 of stoat's posts trolling of this thread. Changing the wording slightly is still a violation of self-moderation. One more time, and I will report to the moderator.

Are they not satisfied with all their dozens of pump threads, that they feel they can violate the forum and not allow others to have their own self-moderated opinion threads.

I've deleted the same post from stoat 4 times. If he repeats this, I will report to the moderator. Perhaps stoat isn't aware that repeated violations of self-moderated threads is grounds for being banned from the forum.

Admission of desire to troll squelched by rational decision as quoted. Thanks.

The Altcoin Discussion forum has become so dominated with Ethereum pump threads, that it no longer resembles any sort of rationally balanced discussion forum. It is difficult to even find altcoin discussion any more.

Also these pump threads are entirely devoid of any technological justification, as the progenitors of these threads are technologically illiterate.

Shouldn't we just make a new subforum titled "Ethereum To Da Moon" and everything related to how Ethereum is going to replace Bitcoin and is going to the moon can go there? Which should be the majority of recent thread bumps.

Then the quieter Altcoin Discussion forum can remain for the rest of the diversity of altcoin discussion.

I told you several times in the past. I eschew repeating myself. I have 10,000 posts.

Well you don't need to find historical keys (in order to rewrite the history of PoS block chains), when you can make them for nearly 0 cost.

Simply buy and sell on an exchange, and your cost will only be the spread.

Then short the coin, and start attacking.

Obviously this doesn't apply to illiquid meaningless microfloat altcoins. We are talking about whether PoS is viable for a mainstream decentralized coin. Not.

For a centralized coin, then anything works, you don't even need PoS nor PoW (except to fool people with).

It is not a problem. You asked the wrong question.

ilia7777,

Frankly I have 10,000+ posts. Do you expect me to redefine everything I already defined for each newbie that comes along and hasn't done his homework. Are you paying me to be your secretary?

You do some research and reading, so you can come up to speed.

Why don't you start with for example this white paper from Bitcoin experts that talks about scaling issues:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378112.0

If you aren't aware of the Bitcoin scalepolcaplyse ongoing, then you definitely have not been around here long.

Edit: another couple of threads that are more verbose than the above linked white paper:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183043.0

Do not reply to the panic-stricken technologically illiterate trolls.

I need to start by explaining everything about block chains. You are ostensibly lacking the very basic levels of technical understanding. But there are no stupid questions if they are sincere. Probably many readers would have a similar confusion.

Normally the way a block chain works (whether it be proof-of-work or proof-of-share) is that there is one ordering of transactions and blocks that the system forms a consensus on. The key point is that every validator validates every transaction and every block, thus each validator can be sure that there is nothing invalid is the consensus ordering. Note that any particular ordering is arbitrary as there are other orderings that are also valid, but the consensus chooses one ordering from the many arbitrary valid possible orderings. The consensus never chooses an invalid set of transactions nor an invalid ordering.

But when every validator has to validate everything, then the block chain can't scale and remain decentralized.

So Ethereum proposed to shard (partition) the validation such that scripts are assigned to a partition and can only operate on block chain state that has been validated for that partition. Any state stored on the block chain for other partitions is only validated for those other partitions. In short, partitions can't share state, because the validators can't assume that state they did not validate is valid. Because such an assumption would put the validators in a Prisoner's Dilemma game theory wherein the Nash equilibrium collapses.

So thus gas balances being a block chain state could only be spent within their own partition. So thus if you as a user have your gas balance stored in partition 536 and you want to run a script in partition in 1279, then you can not (not without entirely breaking the mathematical model of the security of Ethereum).

The only way to fix that is to not do sharding. Period.

Thus Ethereum can't scale decentralized. Period. There is no fix they can do (at least not anything they are contemplating ... although I have an idea of how to solve this problem with unprofitable mining but I am the only person with that idea).

Read what I wrote again more carefully. And make a rebuttal if you have one. Adding noise to the thread by writing this "read again" doesn't help at all. I read it already. I already explained why it doesn't make any sense. Where is your nonsense rebuttal?

Edit: for the source and destination partitions to merge (even for the history and not the future), means they need to validate each other's history. That is my point that then separate validation is lost. Thus the entire scaling advantage of partitioning is lost. Read again what I wrote! How can you not remember something I wrote just a few posts above:

And then the partition that has accepted the transfer of gas from a partition that it did not validate now will have all its derivative transactions (and scripts) subject to reversal if later someone shows evidence that the balance was a lie.

You are writing nonsense (and you should know it which is why I am not being entirely polite ... please don't feed the damn trolls because you are not careful to think before typing).

You can't.

And then how would a user who has his gas in partition 536 run a script that runs only in partition 1279?

Hint: he can't. Thus you would have entirely broken Ethereum with your suggestion.


I already explained that cross-partition spending is possible (i.e. won't destroy the Nash equilibrium) only if validation of all partitions is done by all validators, which thus defeats the scaling advantages of making partitions (shards).

You even agreed with this upthread wherein you stated that validators can't decide which block to mine on if they don't validate all transactions in the block.

Edit: in case this isn't clear, let me remind readers and you that I had explained upthread that when validator that is responsible for validating only his own partition has to accept a spend from a partition he did not validate, then he has no way to know if that balance from the other partition was a lie or not. Thus he can't accept it, because his reward may be compromised if later it is shown that he accepted an invalid balance from a partition he did not validate.

I commented there:

I ask you first where is the code example in Satoshi's white paper which explains a 51% attack? Hint: there isn't one because it doesn't have anything do with any specific implementation code, but rather is a mathematical structure.

Why don't you try to articulate what parts you understand and what parts you don't, then I will elaborate once I see where your blind spot(s) are. If you are unwilling to do so, then I will presume you are trolling (from a newbie account with 2 posts) as are the other panic-stricken trolls.

That is reasonable. I just wish Monero would go out-of-its-way to insure the criticisms of its own tech are always mentioned for those resources its supporters cite. You can be sure if I make a coin, the flaws will be mentioned in the white paper.

I am of the belief that BS eventually walks and only substance rules the roost.

On that video of the recent Satoshi roundtable, Roger Ver demonstrated how clueless he is about the technology issues surrounding the block chain scaling debacle. He said he felt those against a block size increase were constantly changing their reasons and thus block chain increases don't have real negative repressions. It is not that the reasons are changing, but rather the reasons Bitcoin can't scale are multiplying as people investigate and understand better the issues.

Well that is if you assume the only possible overriding motivation for the strategies that determine a Nash equilibrium are about profit.