I am glancing at John's (VNL's) code now. I notice he likes to put the opening brace on the next line, which wastes vertical space (expert programmers like to maximize the LOC they can view without scrolling). And he places a redundant 'break;' after 'default;' but this is form of protecting against future human error code edits. This sort of unnecessary structuralization of code is meaningful to junior programmers who think it works some kind of magic. He is not at all using functional programming and instead creating procedures (i.e. have side-effects) which is known to produce spaghetti code (brittle code). He sure loves to waste vertical space and make it appear his code has more LOC than it does! 3 line comments for 3 words. Makes me think he gets confused quickly if code is dense. Throwing exceptions puts the program in a state of indeterminism! Catching an exception puts the program in a random state, because it is bypasses deterministic static typing of invariants. By definition of determinism, in every case where the is a determinstic state to bubble an exceptional condition to, i.e. to deterministically recover from an exceptional condition, this bubbling can be accomplished statically at compile-time. It is another way of saying that halting the program when it is in an non-deterministic state, is "given more eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". The type of bugs that deterministically bubble coherently at compile-time, are those that are not semantic logic errors in the programmer's type design. Semantic logic errors means the program is by design in an incoherent, random state (that thus must be halted). Thus semantic logic errors that randomly trip on an exception, should be handled the same as bugs which deterministically bubble at compile-time and trip on an exception. Halting the program may be restarting the program from (i.e. rewinding to) a historic copy of coherent state, and/or reporting into a debugger. There was a long fruitful discussion that illuminated the above concepts. Consider the following example, which asserts the invariants of the function (f) at compile-time, i.e. the function's invariants are statically typed and the throw (i.e. halt) is provably bubbled outside of the function at compile-time. class NonZeroDiff
{
a, b // also these might be declared to be read only outside the new() constructor
new( a : Int, b : Int )
{
if (a – b == 0) throw "Unexpected inputs"
this.a = a
this.b = b
}
}
function f( ab : NonZeroDiff )
{
return (ab.a * ab.b) / (ab.a – ab.b)
}
result = f( new NonZeroDiff( 2, 1 ) )Compare the above, to the following example, which asserts the invariants of the function (f) at run-time, i.e. the function's invariant type is dynamically typed. The inputs to the function (f) are statically typed Int, but the invariants a - b != 0 is not asserted by Int inputs, and instead the throw (i.e. halt) is inside the function at compile-time and can only bubble at run-time. function f( a : Int, b : Int )
{
// could instead be thrown by the / operator
if (a – b == 0) throw "Unexpected inputs"
return (a * b) / (a – b)
}
result = f( 2, 1 )The fundamental conclusion is that in dynamic typing, the throw check is inside the function (f) being reused, and in static typing the check is outside the function, in the type of the invariants specified by the function’s type. Thus in the dynamic-typing case, the function inherently bind's its internal check in a futures contract to the universe of possible external code (because the external code is not forced by the compiler, to do a throw check itself), i.e. tries to in vain to define the limit of the external universe. Whereas, in the static-typing case, the external code is forced to check for itself, in order to comply with the compile-time checked invariants of the function. |
|
|
|
I am glancing at John's (VNL's) code now. I notice he likes to put the opening brace on the next line, which wastes vertical space (expert programmers like to maximize the LOC they can view without scrolling). And he places a redundant 'break;' after 'default;' but this is form of protecting against future human error code edits. This sort of unnecessary structuralization of code is meaningful to junior programmers who think it works some kind of magic. He is not at all using functional programming and instead creating procedures (i.e. have side-effects) which is known to produce spaghetti code (brittle code). He sure loves to waste vertical space and make it appear his code has more LOC than it does! 3 line comments for 3 words. Makes me think he gets confused quickly if code is dense. Throwing exceptions puts the program in a state of indeterminism! Catching an exception puts the program in a random state, because it is bypasses deterministic static typing of invariants. By definition of determinism, in every case where the is a determinstic state to bubble an exceptional condition to, i.e. to deterministically recover from an exceptional condition, this bubbling can be accomplished statically at compile-time. It is another way of saying that halting the program when it is in an non-deterministic state, is "given more eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". The type of bugs that deterministically bubble coherently at compile-time, are those that are not semantic logic errors in the programmer's type design. Semantic logic errors means the program is by design in an incoherent, random state (that thus must be halted). Thus semantic logic errors that randomly trip on an exception, should be handled the same as bugs which deterministically bubble at compile-time and trip on an exception. Halting the program may be restarting the program from (i.e. rewinding to) a historic copy of coherent state, and/or reporting into a debugger. There was a long fruitful discussion that illuminated the above concepts. Consider the following example, which asserts the invariants of the function (f) at compile-time, i.e. the function's invariants are statically typed and the throw (i.e. halt) is provably bubbled outside of the function at compile-time. class NonZeroDiff
{
a, b // also these might be declared to be read only outside the new() constructor
new( a : Int, b : Int )
{
if (a – b == 0) throw "Unexpected inputs"
this.a = a
this.b = b
}
}
function f( ab : NonZeroDiff )
{
return (ab.a * ab.b) / (ab.a – ab.b)
}
result = f( new NonZeroDiff( 2, 1 ) )Compare the above, to the following example, which asserts the invariants of the function (f) at run-time, i.e. the function's invariant type is dynamically typed. The inputs to the function (f) are statically typed Int, but the invariants a - b != 0 is not asserted by Int inputs, and instead the throw (i.e. halt) is inside the function at compile-time and can only bubble at run-time. function f( a : Int, b : Int )
{
// could instead be thrown by the / operator
if (a – b == 0) throw "Unexpected inputs"
return (a * b) / (a – b)
}
result = f( 2, 1 )The fundamental conclusion is that in dynamic typing, the throw check is inside the function (f) being reused, and in static typing the check is outside the function, in the type of the invariants specified by the function’s type. Thus in the dynamic-typing case, the function inherently bind's its internal check in a futures contract to the universe of possible external code (because the external code is not forced by the compiler, to do a throw check itself), i.e. tries to in vain to define the limit of the external universe. Whereas, in the static-typing case, the external code is forced to check for itself, in order to comply with the compile-time checked invariants of the function. |
|
|
|
Seems the ETH fanboys are offended by the truth.Here we have an example of a temper tantrum by one of the ETH fanboys. Congratulations. You talked to a guy and watched a video from another. Both are way smarter and way more successful than you. I hope you learned something, but I don´t think so. You are still delusional.
Congrats you've confirmed to those who a capable of understanding the technology, that you are incapable of understanding the technology. You will learn to respect me in the future, when once again I am vindicated on every single point I made. You think some young inexperienced kids can challenge a person who has been coding for 30+ years. Geez get off my lawn disrespectful imbecile. Even Vlad admitted he was doing only math and not coding during his short career.
Why should I respect a 24/7-troll?
You are trolling me and not allowing me work. I provided that analysis as a service to the community and also to refine my own understanding. Consider my posts in this thread, my research activity. Btw, check my post history today. It is not a post every 15 minutes. I don't even have a mobile device. How many messages per day do you think Vitalik and Vlad send. I don't communicate much other than here in the forum. Get your facts straight.
Lying won't help you nor any of your shitcoins.
Where are the lies, it´s all obviously[ obvious] and public at BCT. Indeed all your lies are obvious except perhaps to a blind idiot such as yourself and your shitcoins. I will not reply to your retarded nonsense again. Piss in the wind and troll your shadow. Bye loser. (P3WNED)
|
|
|
|
I am 7 minutes into the video, and Vlad Zamfir (developer of Casper) has already not underst00d that proof-of-stake has externalities
My primary issue with Casper is that it relies on transactions to form a consensus, however transactions are subject to consensus, which is a chicken and egg problem much more fundamental than this simple analogy sounds. Proof-of-stake is self-referential no matter how they try to dice and slice it. However, Satoshi's proof-of-work has also failed and is already under control of China's mining cartel. I am moving on... Monero's design has not solved these issues, but merely delayed them until Monero is popular enough for ASICs to arrive. The adaptive block size of Monero does not remain immune to a cartel of majority hash rate. |
|
|
|
|
It seems what ever design you contemplate employing a fee can always be gamed by an attacker so that he pays no cost.
The attacker can make his own DE and receive the fees. So then he attacks the other DEs (which are honest) 100% of the time but doesn't attack his own DE (or attacks he own less frequently) thus all users migrate to his DE. Thus he is losing much less in attack fees than he is gaining from fees.
Since more than one attacker can do this to each other, no one will use DE.
P.S. I knew that there would be a leak in fees that would maintain my conclusion that DE is fundamentally impossible. Sorry when I come to these sort of generative essence conclusions they stick.
|
|
|
|
I am 7 minutes into the video, and Vlad Zamfir (developer of Casper) has already not underst00d that proof-of-stake has externalities. I mentioned that to jl777 today: You have no economically viable attack.
Only of we ignore externalities (external economic motivation). The same applies to the erroneous claim that proof-of-stake is as secure as proof-of-work. Just because something is possible, that doesnt mean it is certain to happen, especially when it is economically non-viable.
As non-viable as Nxt being controlled by a dictator and Bitshares being controlled by two centralized exchanges. Also Vlad doesn't seem to fully appreciate that a validator will not be betting against himself if he bets against his historic validation: To summarize, Proof-of-Stake (including Masternodes of Dash and Casper's consensus-by-betting): - stakes (or even deposits) aren't permanent because they can be sold (withdrawn), thus historic security is indefensible
Also around the 22 - 23 minute point Vlad makes a reasonable point that having no block reward incentivizes miners to not do game theories that would destroy transaction rate, but he is wrong to assume that is the only possibility. For example a cartel on mining could limit block sizes and thus drive transaction fees higher. Also he is incorrect to imply that proof-of-stake is orthogonal to monetary policy because proof-of-stake can only distribute coins proportionally to stake, which thus the same as no distribution. Vlad has so many myopias, I don't have time to comment on all of them. The myopias are pervasive through the entire interview. Btw, the interviewing female seems to be quite intelligent. I'm shocked because first female I've seen in crypto currencies and she seems to be a quick thinker. |
|
|
|
|
I analyzed all those possibilities. Trust me you are wasting your time. And no I don't have time reexplain what I have written over 10,000 posts.
|
|
|
|
There are two markets for crypto currency.
1. Selling features to speculators. Never mind if these features ever get used by millions of people, because none of these altcoins are ever going to attain that.
2. Attaining millions of users.
So far, no one has done #2. I intend to do #2.
As for #1, "John" (who is this anonymous person?) hasn't given us one complete white paper yet. So therefor he is being attacked (bcz the speculation market is all about perception), and rightfully so.
If he was all about implementation, then he would have a plan for #2. As I claim I do (  = secret). Right, as you claim you do. So... who are you to attack someone else when you're standing on weak ground yourself? You entirely missed the point. Try reading again. Hint: #1 is where John is playing and #2 is where I am playing thus I am immune to foruming attacks. In #1, perception is what drives speculation. No, I saw your point clearly. My point is that it's invalid without supporting evidence, of which you provide none. A premise backed by nothing isn't even worthy of consideration - it is simply hot air. Meaning from where I'm sitting, John has actually showed more in results than you have thus far. Trying to call him out for what he's doing with his coin while claiming to know better ways of doing it - yet having nothing real to show - only makes you look like an idiot. This isn't poker, bluffing gets you nowhere. You can't even comprehend that whether I am succeeding in #2 (or not), is irrelevant to the point that John is playing his game in #1 and thus is subject to the fact that perception is what drives results in #1. It has nothing to do with me. Duh! I'm stupid for not accepting your outlandish claims that you're succeeding in #2 - as of yet, you've shown proof of nothing. Okay, let's go with that. It's relevant because your premise that John is playing the game you describe in #1 has supporting arguments that depend on previous attacks against what he's doing with his coin - and those attacks include the claim that you can solve what you see to be issues, while providing no evidence for this. Now that I've explicitly laid out the dependencies your main attack has, you should see quite simply how you're simply building atop bullshit that doesn't hold water (that is, your claims) and because of this, the entire argument falls apart. Do we need to get out the crayons? Well those with sufficient brain stem can see you still haven't gotten the point. Have fun with your crayons. I with not respond again to this retard.  Lol. Of course not, I am laughing at you. I will not respond again to this second retard who can't seem to comprehend I have no reason to be mad because I was correct and it is hilarious that the supporters of VNL confirm their very low IQs and thus providing evidence as to why they are easily manipulated by their "John". |
|
|
|
Sorry I have thought deeply and there is no solution for decentralized exchange. Although I love it ideologically and I was very positive on you doing it, I unfortunately have to conclude that is not viable and should be abandoned. I am trying to help you not waste time on deadends. I invested my effort precisely because I wanted to help you.
Sorry, you are wrong. Maybe it will be the first time this happens? I believe that it is quite difficult to prove a negative, in spite of your claims. While I just need to make it work, and since I have quite a lot of techniques at my disposal, I am very optimistic I will get it to work. I wrote that because I see an inviolable generative essence that there is no reference point. Both parties to the exchange trade are equal in status without a trusted third party. You can see this has been proven by academics for any "simultaneous contract signing". I had seen a PPT with references to the literature and can't find it now, but for example here is another paper: I’m Not Signing That!
James Heather and Daniel Hill
1 Introduction
Often it is desirable to have a procedure to allow two parties to sign a contract
simultaneously. The obvious danger of having one party sign before the other is
that the second party may refuse to sign until it becomes to his advantage to do
so. For instance, suppose the contract is for Alice to buy 1,000 shares in Fudge
Labs, Inc., from Bob, at £1 per share, in a year’s time. If Alice signs first, Bob
may then delay signing until the end of the year. If the price has fallen, he will
sign, the contract will be binding on both parties, and he will make a profit; if
the price has risen, he will not sign. A similar problem will arise if Bob signs
first. Because the market changes over time, anything that allows one party the
option of delaying the decision on whether to commit will cause problems.
Simultaneity in message transmission is, in most practical situations, im-
possible to achieve, making cryptographic contract-signing protocols difficult to
realize. A trusted third party can be employed to receive the two signatures and
then distribute them, but it is clearly advantageous to construct a protocol that
does not require action on the part of a third party unless there is suspicion of
foul play by one of the parties involved in the contract.
In this paper, we examine a cryptographic contract-signing protocol that
aims to solve these problems by making the probability that one party can
abuse the protocol arbitrarily small. We demonstrate that the protocol has a
curious weakness: two rational agents whose rationality is common knowledge
will refuse to run the protocol at all.
Or this paper (which you may want to read as it talks about probabilistic solutions): In 1980, Even and Jacobi [8] showed no deterministic contract signing protocol exists, without participation of a trusted third party (TTP).
You have no economically viable attack.
Only of we ignore externalities (external economic motivation). The same applies to the erroneous claim that proof-of-stake is as secure as proof-of-work. Just because something is possible, that doesnt mean it is certain to happen, especially when it is economically non-viable.
As non-viable as Nxt being controlled by a dictator and Bitshares being controlled by two centralized exchanges. The question is what will the real world failure rate be. I claim that NOBODY is able to predict this ahead of time.
IMHO, we should endeavor to analyze that before expending great effort on implementation. Btw, I am not belittling the toolset you've developed, our shared ideological motivation, etc.. Just trying to be level-headed and rational. My point was that purely DE will not work. You and TierNolan are apparently proposing a slightly centralized design with a trusted third party. It is well known in literature that TTP and/or probabilistic protocol is necessary. |
|
|
|
They have to trust you to do that though, but that is probably ok, since it is just the fee.
Then the centralized KYC pressure point is on the fee provider. So long-term this doesn't prevent KYC being forced (which one might argue is good, so government won't be against). Although one might envision many fee providers appearing over time (which can't drive fees too low because that would encourage jamming). It does apparently solve the problem of centralized exchanges running fractional reserves and failing. I am not sure if there is not a jamming attack in the protocol to establish the fee transactions? The pegged assets alternative I offered in the prior post would probably still benefit from this "DE" design for exchanging the BitBTC to BTC. Note that centralized exchange isn't the only alternative, as for example a BitUSD could be converted potentially on the street. |
|
|
|
TPTB, have you contemplated the only immutable DEX in the top 10?
Is that trading BTC on the Bitcoin block chain with BTS on the BitShares block chain? Or rather is it trading BitBTC pegged asset on the BitShares block chain (which afaics would avoid the jamming issue)? If the latter, then it is isn't decentralized cross-chain exchange, which is what I was referring to. The second one, OK, so thank you TPTB. It's good to know that BitShares is secure from jamming. now back to jamming on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyoJEHHA65I#t=4m59sYes I admit that is a use of pegged assets that I had not considered. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. |
|
|
|
Another potential solution is pegged assets on the same block chain, for those coins you want to trade with: TPTB, have you contemplated the only immutable DEX in the top 10?
Is that trading BTC on the Bitcoin block chain with BTS on the BitShares block chain? Or rather is it trading BitBTC pegged asset on the BitShares block chain (which afaics would avoid the jamming issue)? If the latter, then it is isn't decentralized cross-chain exchange, which is what I was referring to. Afaics, that seems to avoid the jamming issue. |
|
|
|
An attacker with infinite resources that doesnt care about monetary losses...
I claim that such an attacker can bring any network to a standstill. So defending against this is not a high priority in the beginning.
I was very sleepy when I wrote my prior post. I understand your point. You want to design a protocol that is at least immune to jamming against any attacker other than one that has super powers. Yet the attacker with even meager resources could cause honest participants to lose fees and so they might get turned off from the system. For example, centralized exchanges may have this incentive. Or specific coins might have this incentive to jam DE on other coins (especially those who hadn't yet been listed on a major exchange). So you proposed to refund fees to those honest participants. You admitted that users might not be prone to apply for a refund since 0.13% is so small. And I pointed out the DE would maybe have a financial incentive (while appearing to be the good guys) to jam each honest participant say 50% of the time, to increase fees to 0.26%. I am trying to think of a way to make this practical and robust enough, unless we are facing a prolonged attack from a super power. I like the ideological intent of DE. I will now review your latest reply with a clearer mind. |
|
|
|
There are two markets for crypto currency.
1. Selling features to speculators. Never mind if these features ever get used by millions of people, because none of these altcoins are ever going to attain that.
2. Attaining millions of users.
So far, no one has done #2. I intend to do #2.
As for #1, "John" (who is this anonymous person?) hasn't given us one complete white paper yet. So therefor he is being attacked (bcz the speculation market is all about perception), and rightfully so.
If he was all about implementation, then he would have a plan for #2. As I claim I do ( = secret). Right, as you claim you do. So... who are you to attack someone else when you're standing on weak ground yourself? You entirely missed the point. Try reading again. Hint: #1 is where John is playing and #2 is where I am playing thus I am immune to foruming attacks. In #1, perception is what drives speculation. No, I saw your point clearly. My point is that it's invalid without supporting evidence, of which you provide none. A premise backed by nothing isn't even worthy of consideration - it is simply hot air. Meaning from where I'm sitting, John has actually showed more in results than you have thus far. Trying to call him out for what he's doing with his coin while claiming to know better ways of doing it - yet having nothing real to show - only makes you look like an idiot. This isn't poker, bluffing gets you nowhere. You can't even comprehend that whether I am succeeding in #2 (or not), is irrelevant to the point that John is playing his game in #1 and thus is subject to the fact that perception is what drives results in #1. It has nothing to do with me. Duh! I'm stupid for not accepting your outlandish claims that you're succeeding in #2 - as of yet, you've shown proof of nothing. Okay, let's go with that. It's relevant because your premise that John is playing the game you describe in #1 has supporting arguments that depend on previous attacks against what he's doing with his coin - and those attacks include the claim that you can solve what you see to be issues, while providing no evidence for this. Now that I've explicitly laid out the dependencies your main attack has, you should see quite simply how you're simply building atop bullshit that doesn't hold water (that is, your claims) and because of this, the entire argument falls apart. Do we need to get out the crayons? Well those with sufficient brain stem can see you still haven't gotten the point. Have fun with your crayons. I with not respond again to this retard. Lol. Of course not, I am laughing at you. I will not respond again to this second retard who can't seem to comprehend I have no reason to be mad because I was correct and it is hilarious that the supporters of VNL confirm their very low IQs and thus providing evidence as to why they are easily manipulated by their "John". |
|
|
|
There won't be any cash for someone to give you in exchange for your gold on the black market (at least in developed country markets)... not in terms of cash you can spend or transport in large amounts... ...you think you can operate in a country such as the Philippines which probably can't eliminate cash entirely, except if you realize that transacting in gold here in Mindanao is a good way to lose a limb, dead, kidnapped, or at least out-of-pocket. I can't even find a place to take a shit where someone wasn't watching me from behind a banana tree (the population density is high and the people are very curious at everything you do). Word gets around real fast (that foreigner has gold or cash). Nobody wants your coins here. They will pay melt value (trust me I tried). The issue is liquidity (and also spreads go sky high in black markets with low liquidity). There are many sellers here (the miners), but very few buyers. Most of the gold is bought for export. I know the guy that runs a small refinery in Manila and he told me he can't even do business in Mindanao because it is controlled by local politicians. Also his business was basically destroyed as the larger players in Manila squeezed him by instituting a 5% tax which they don't pay but he can't find a way to avoid paying entirely. He had to diversify into mining exploration. As I wrote upthread, I think you can store some in gold that you bury some where and wait for this coming crisis to abate, but if you are expecting to sell gold during the crisis to pay living expenses, then I think you will discover that you end up having to do it in a legal way and pay very high taxes (which I think will be much higher by then). And I think the larger problem may be the government will just confiscate it when you try to sell stating that you were not able to properly document your purchases and the gold was not declared all along or was excessive in violation of some anti-terrorism and AML laws. Gold was very useful in the past when you could carry it with you on a plane or boat, but now the governments are confiscating it at the borders and transport hubs. As you can read below, the-powers-that-be have not yet put in force their full array of plans. They are organizing for the big capital controls push which will accelerate from 2017 to 2020. This really is a pointless
Only to someone who isn't paying attention to what is really going in the world that is oblivious to most (see below). Whereas, it has helped me greatly to decide how to launch a coin wherein it will be legal every where. Which is very important compared to those coins which may run into trouble later, such as Ethereum and Zcash (assuming Zcash continues with their plan to have miners act as money transmitters to the foundation). Note the issues I raised in this thread may not apply for those coins that never reach some level of millions of adoption, if they are no threat to the powers-that-be and haven't caused anger among investors. You're trying to second guess what regulators will do in each country by reference to America?
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/2017-the-year-from-political-hell/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/2017-is-coming-and-the-g20-has-agreed-to-share-all-info-on-everyone/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/swiss-to-give-up-everything-everybody/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/western_europe/britain-to-ban-any-encryption-that-prevents-the-taxman-from-exposing-british-citizens/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/western_europe/uk-to-ban-whatsapp-messaging-service/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/larry-summers-calls-to-end-100-billis-here-comes-the-totalitarian-state/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-new-age-of-economic-totalitarianism-the-london-meeting-to-end-currency/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/nsa-blames-snowden-for-paris/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/nsa-a-tax-economics-espionage-agency/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/category/world-news/taxes/http://www.nestmann.com/http://www.nestmann.com/best-place-to-launder-money-surprisinglyhttp://www.nestmann.com/theyre-coming-for-your-cashhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-has-made-obedience-to-the-state-a-game-a6783841.htmlhttp://theantimedia.org/china-just-launched-the-most-frightening-game-ever-and-soon-it-will-be-mandatory/At G20 last year, all governments agreed to report everyone everywhere to their host countries for tax purposes. The hunt for taxes is destroying the world economy at a staggering rapid pace and this is far worse than even I had anticipated when we first forecast BIG BANG would hit 2015.75 back in 1985. Here is a email a non-US citizen received from his trust company in Malta. “The reporting charges have arisen due to the implementation of new U.S legislation known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) which has been introduced as part of a global initiative to create an International tax reporting regime. Together with the majority of the World’s major trading nations, the Maltese Government has entered into an agreement with the US Authorities to implement FATCA legislation in Malta. The legislation has required all Trust Companies in Malta to evaluate all structures operated on behalf of clients and categorise them according to detailed rules set out in the FATCA legislation. This categorisation process is not just limited to structures operated on behalf of US clients, or clients holding US assets but has to include all clients and structures irrespective of where clients and their structures are domiciled. We can advise you that <Name> has taken extensive legal and tax advice regarding the categorisation of clients and which information should be reported according to various trigger reporting events since our accounting and client management systems have to be tailored to supply relevant information on a per client and <Name> entity basis to the Malta Authorities who then report directly to the IRS.
Consistent with many other Trust Companies a decision has been taken to pass on some of the costs of this work to client structures for whom we act. Accordingly a December invoice will be issued for a one off fee of £250 that will be described in the invoice as a FATCA classification fee.“
The dollar rally and the devaluation of the yuan is not a fluke and it most certainly is not a one-time event. The dollar declined against the yuan for 19 years during the same timing that saw gold decline from 1980 to 1999. The major low on an annual closing basis at 2013 and 2014 was an outside reversal to the upside for the dollar. The Yearly Bullish Reversal stands at 683 and technical resistance stands at 658. The dollar filled the gap that existed prior to 1994 and is yet another confirmation that the dollar rally is underway.
Yes, the world trade is contracting and will get much worse after October. Governments are destroying the world economy on their hunt for taxation. Politicians are hunting money as if it were some sport and are undoing everything that was built postwar. Numerous reports are coming in to us about people traveling on trains and having their bags searched for money in Europe. The hunt for cash is wiping out the world economy. Americans are being thrown out of banks and mutual funds everywhere. FATCA has forced Americans to repatriate dollars. The only real Americans who can operate overseas are now established multinational companies. Small companies cannot expand from the United States nor can individuals send money anywhere.
Add to FATCA the problem in Europe and we see capital still pouring into the USA from both China and Europe. The real estate cycle has/or will peak with this turning point around the world from Switzerland, Britain, Canada, to Asia right down into India and Australia. We are plagued by politicians who have absolutely no clue how to run an economy and it is now all about them retaining power virtually everywhere we look.
The dollar rally is unfolding despite the fact people do not understand why. They look only at the USA debt and assume the dollar must crash, when in fact, the problem we face is on a global scale and $18 trillion in U.S. debt is simply not the large enough for international capital to hide. The future is going to be anything but a textbook move. This is why this year’s World Economic Conference is going to be a real eye opener.
|
|
|
|
This really is a pointless
Only to someone who isn't paying attention to what is really going in the world that is oblivious to most (see below). Whereas, it has helped me greatly to decide how to launch a coin wherein it will be legal every where. Which is very important compared to those coins which may run into trouble later, such as Ethereum and Zcash (assuming Zcash continues with their plan to have miners act as money transmitters to the foundation). Note the issues I raised in this thread may not apply for those coins that never reach some level of millions of adoption, if they are no threat to the powers-that-be and haven't caused anger among investors. You're trying to second guess what regulators will do in each country by reference to America?
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/2017-the-year-from-political-hell/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/2017-is-coming-and-the-g20-has-agreed-to-share-all-info-on-everyone/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/swiss-to-give-up-everything-everybody/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/western_europe/britain-to-ban-any-encryption-that-prevents-the-taxman-from-exposing-british-citizens/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/western_europe/uk-to-ban-whatsapp-messaging-service/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/larry-summers-calls-to-end-100-billis-here-comes-the-totalitarian-state/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-new-age-of-economic-totalitarianism-the-london-meeting-to-end-currency/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/nsa-blames-snowden-for-paris/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/nsa-a-tax-economics-espionage-agency/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/category/world-news/taxes/http://www.nestmann.com/http://www.nestmann.com/best-place-to-launder-money-surprisinglyhttp://www.nestmann.com/theyre-coming-for-your-cashhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-has-made-obedience-to-the-state-a-game-a6783841.htmlhttp://theantimedia.org/china-just-launched-the-most-frightening-game-ever-and-soon-it-will-be-mandatory/At G20 last year, all governments agreed to report everyone everywhere to their host countries for tax purposes. The hunt for taxes is destroying the world economy at a staggering rapid pace and this is far worse than even I had anticipated when we first forecast BIG BANG would hit 2015.75 back in 1985. Here is a email a non-US citizen received from his trust company in Malta. “The reporting charges have arisen due to the implementation of new U.S legislation known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) which has been introduced as part of a global initiative to create an International tax reporting regime. Together with the majority of the World’s major trading nations, the Maltese Government has entered into an agreement with the US Authorities to implement FATCA legislation in Malta. The legislation has required all Trust Companies in Malta to evaluate all structures operated on behalf of clients and categorise them according to detailed rules set out in the FATCA legislation. This categorisation process is not just limited to structures operated on behalf of US clients, or clients holding US assets but has to include all clients and structures irrespective of where clients and their structures are domiciled. We can advise you that <Name> has taken extensive legal and tax advice regarding the categorisation of clients and which information should be reported according to various trigger reporting events since our accounting and client management systems have to be tailored to supply relevant information on a per client and <Name> entity basis to the Malta Authorities who then report directly to the IRS.
Consistent with many other Trust Companies a decision has been taken to pass on some of the costs of this work to client structures for whom we act. Accordingly a December invoice will be issued for a one off fee of £250 that will be described in the invoice as a FATCA classification fee.“
The dollar rally and the devaluation of the yuan is not a fluke and it most certainly is not a one-time event. The dollar declined against the yuan for 19 years during the same timing that saw gold decline from 1980 to 1999. The major low on an annual closing basis at 2013 and 2014 was an outside reversal to the upside for the dollar. The Yearly Bullish Reversal stands at 683 and technical resistance stands at 658. The dollar filled the gap that existed prior to 1994 and is yet another confirmation that the dollar rally is underway.
Yes, the world trade is contracting and will get much worse after October. Governments are destroying the world economy on their hunt for taxation. Politicians are hunting money as if it were some sport and are undoing everything that was built postwar. Numerous reports are coming in to us about people traveling on trains and having their bags searched for money in Europe. The hunt for cash is wiping out the world economy. Americans are being thrown out of banks and mutual funds everywhere. FATCA has forced Americans to repatriate dollars. The only real Americans who can operate overseas are now established multinational companies. Small companies cannot expand from the United States nor can individuals send money anywhere.
Add to FATCA the problem in Europe and we see capital still pouring into the USA from both China and Europe. The real estate cycle has/or will peak with this turning point around the world from Switzerland, Britain, Canada, to Asia right down into India and Australia. We are plagued by politicians who have absolutely no clue how to run an economy and it is now all about them retaining power virtually everywhere we look.
The dollar rally is unfolding despite the fact people do not understand why. They look only at the USA debt and assume the dollar must crash, when in fact, the problem we face is on a global scale and $18 trillion in U.S. debt is simply not the large enough for international capital to hide. The future is going to be anything but a textbook move. This is why this year’s World Economic Conference is going to be a real eye opener.
|
|
|
|
This really is a pointless
Only to someone who isn't paying attention to what is really going in the world that is oblivious to most (see below). Whereas, it has helped me greatly to decide how to launch a coin wherein it will be legal every where. Which is very important compared to those coins which may run into trouble later, such as Ethereum and Zcash (assuming Zcash continues with their plan to have miners act as money transmitters to the foundation). Note the issues I raised in this thread may not apply for those coins that never reach some level of millions of adoption, if they are no threat to the powers-that-be and haven't caused anger among investors. You're trying to second guess what regulators will do in each country by reference to America?
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/2017-the-year-from-political-hell/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/2017-is-coming-and-the-g20-has-agreed-to-share-all-info-on-everyone/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/swiss-to-give-up-everything-everybody/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/western_europe/britain-to-ban-any-encryption-that-prevents-the-taxman-from-exposing-british-citizens/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/western_europe/uk-to-ban-whatsapp-messaging-service/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/larry-summers-calls-to-end-100-billis-here-comes-the-totalitarian-state/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-new-age-of-economic-totalitarianism-the-london-meeting-to-end-currency/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/nsa-blames-snowden-for-paris/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/nsa-a-tax-economics-espionage-agency/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/category/world-news/taxes/http://www.nestmann.com/http://www.nestmann.com/best-place-to-launder-money-surprisinglyhttp://www.nestmann.com/theyre-coming-for-your-cashhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-has-made-obedience-to-the-state-a-game-a6783841.htmlhttp://theantimedia.org/china-just-launched-the-most-frightening-game-ever-and-soon-it-will-be-mandatory/At G20 last year, all governments agreed to report everyone everywhere to their host countries for tax purposes. The hunt for taxes is destroying the world economy at a staggering rapid pace and this is far worse than even I had anticipated when we first forecast BIG BANG would hit 2015.75 back in 1985. Here is a email a non-US citizen received from his trust company in Malta. “The reporting charges have arisen due to the implementation of new U.S legislation known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) which has been introduced as part of a global initiative to create an International tax reporting regime. Together with the majority of the World’s major trading nations, the Maltese Government has entered into an agreement with the US Authorities to implement FATCA legislation in Malta. The legislation has required all Trust Companies in Malta to evaluate all structures operated on behalf of clients and categorise them according to detailed rules set out in the FATCA legislation. This categorisation process is not just limited to structures operated on behalf of US clients, or clients holding US assets but has to include all clients and structures irrespective of where clients and their structures are domiciled. We can advise you that <Name> has taken extensive legal and tax advice regarding the categorisation of clients and which information should be reported according to various trigger reporting events since our accounting and client management systems have to be tailored to supply relevant information on a per client and <Name> entity basis to the Malta Authorities who then report directly to the IRS.
Consistent with many other Trust Companies a decision has been taken to pass on some of the costs of this work to client structures for whom we act. Accordingly a December invoice will be issued for a one off fee of £250 that will be described in the invoice as a FATCA classification fee.“
The dollar rally and the devaluation of the yuan is not a fluke and it most certainly is not a one-time event. The dollar declined against the yuan for 19 years during the same timing that saw gold decline from 1980 to 1999. The major low on an annual closing basis at 2013 and 2014 was an outside reversal to the upside for the dollar. The Yearly Bullish Reversal stands at 683 and technical resistance stands at 658. The dollar filled the gap that existed prior to 1994 and is yet another confirmation that the dollar rally is underway.
Yes, the world trade is contracting and will get much worse after October. Governments are destroying the world economy on their hunt for taxation. Politicians are hunting money as if it were some sport and are undoing everything that was built postwar. Numerous reports are coming in to us about people traveling on trains and having their bags searched for money in Europe. The hunt for cash is wiping out the world economy. Americans are being thrown out of banks and mutual funds everywhere. FATCA has forced Americans to repatriate dollars. The only real Americans who can operate overseas are now established multinational companies. Small companies cannot expand from the United States nor can individuals send money anywhere.
Add to FATCA the problem in Europe and we see capital still pouring into the USA from both China and Europe. The real estate cycle has/or will peak with this turning point around the world from Switzerland, Britain, Canada, to Asia right down into India and Australia. We are plagued by politicians who have absolutely no clue how to run an economy and it is now all about them retaining power virtually everywhere we look.
The dollar rally is unfolding despite the fact people do not understand why. They look only at the USA debt and assume the dollar must crash, when in fact, the problem we face is on a global scale and $18 trillion in U.S. debt is simply not the large enough for international capital to hide. The future is going to be anything but a textbook move. This is why this year’s World Economic Conference is going to be a real eye opener.
|
|
|
|
The hashing of raw data will probably take 90%+ of the resources.
Not if each chunk not larger than the hash bit width, e.g. 128 or 256-bit. I had stated the chunks could optionally even be each character or word. Your merkle tree would save space, at the cost of more complexity and CPU time.
For verification by the final recipient, the Merkel tree should be faster if the hash computation time is on par with your fmul+expand, since fewer operations will done, because there are fewer operations due to proving only the subtrees, not every leaf as in your design. especially the usage of merkletrees for encrypted data transmission
Yeah Merkel trees are another important algorithm in the toolset. Apparently Ralph Merkel also invented public key cryptography in the 1970s but the journal editors rejected his white paper: |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
