Only if the merchant doesn't wait long enough, surely? At least this way, the ambiguity is removed.
How is it removed if the both are included into DAG and doublespending may eventually get more PoW? Even a year later. This is from the DagCoin paper:  I've circled the tiebreaker rule, which for example, might use lowest txid. The only way for what you described to happen, is if that entire branch never gets extended, isn't it? Because if it continues getting extended, you can see the double spend doesn't get confirmed, but the legit transaction does? Btw, you might want to reference the post I made within the past month or so (probably in my Decentralized thread in Altcoin Discussion) wherein I pointed out that Sergio had an egregious error in his conceptualization on that diagram. ...and a deterministic transaction ordering.
Looking forward to reading your paper on this matter... Can't be done because of what I wrote upthread: The simple answer is that without a longest chain rule there is no synchrony in distributed systems, thus there is no possibility that there won't be multiple branches (partitions) that can't converge (due to double-spends). This is also why monsterer's tree design can't function without blocks (and I had explained this to him in the Decentralization thread[1] but he is hard-headed). [...] |
|
|
|
My filipina gf likes this app Smule wherein she can do karaoke with songs, but smule requires her to pay a monthly subscription to use the app in solo mode and she doesn't have a credit card. Thus she deleted the app. She also deleted the BandCamp app for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
|
My filipina gf likes this app Smule wherein she can do karaoke with songs, but smule requires her to pay a monthly subscription to use the app in solo mode and she doesn't have a credit card. Thus she deleted the app. She also deleted the BandCamp app for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
Edit: by parallelization we mean the ability of a validator to validate more than one script simultaneously. Distinguish this from partitioning where we have validators who trust other validators (since not all validators validate all scripts).
That Etheruem didn't even define their terms well and write up a specification for Casper (rather we received a disjoint set of technobabble "oh thats cool and sexy" speculators-wet-thy-pants hype presentations), I think exemplifies how disorganized they are ostensibly because they are rushing and/or still in design mode (perhaps because they were running out of funding before the recent pump to raise the price and because after a year they still basically have only vaporware in the sense that nothing they've released could actually scale and be used for anything serious). I am not sure if it was intentional on the part of Vitalik. I tend to see him as oblivious. Perhaps that is why Peter Thiel awarded him $100,000 and anointed him to lead the faithful to this destiny. The professionals know how this game is played and so I assume they think strategically from the get go. Vitalik is likely caught up in an investment scam he is oblivious to. Any way, that is my conspiratorial hypothesis. However perhaps it is just another example of Murphy's Law. Can Ethereum fix this? Yes perhaps. They could try to implement some of my ideas about census design. Note the consensus-by-betting is apparently orthogonal to the partitioning design. I would prefer my unprofitable PoW design instead of the PoS consensus-by-betting, because I don't see how the latter can remain decentralized (we've discussed the flaws of PoS, some of which continue to apply to consensus-by-betting). Consensus-by-betting attempts to solve the issue whereby normally in PoS, then every stakeholder can mine on every chain (which smooth pointed out may devolve to a proof-of-work computational problem yet with other bad aspects of PoS remaining intact). Because in consensus-by-betting, every stakeholder has to put their stake at-risk on every chain according to their bet of which chain is the consensus. But consensus-by-betting does not fix the nothing-at-stake and the self-referential aspects of using stake instead of external entropy. But why would anyone continue to invest in a $400 million marketcap even if the zero-adoption, vaporware is fixed with my design (and soon to be $1.6 billion market cap even with no price rise) when it is clear that someone such as myself and others understand the technology better than Ethereum does and we can easily create forks with smaller market caps.Just because I caught Szabo in a dull moment and have called attention to his myopia in promoting Ethereum when they haven't even solved the fundamental issues, that means I am bragging  Ethereum now has a $400 million market cap and even if the price doesn't increase, the market cap will grow 18% per year due to new coins being created. If without any price increase the market cap in 10 years will be $1.6 billion just due to new coins created. Any one think that is a good investment  Hell even if it is a good design, it will be forked. It will never reach critical mass like Bitcoin to sustain a market to a $trillion market cap. The upside is gone. Only bag holders buying or HODLering now. Any sane person would obviously sell at these prices. Guys about the issue of whether Ethereum is running out of funding, my point is that they were running out of funding, except for the ETH they own which before this recent rise in the price was not valued very high. Moreover, there was not sufficient volume so if they had tried to sell, they would have driven the price down (especially factor in the amount of ETH being created from mining ongoing). Thus I am saying this recent shrilling for the Casper vaporware is likely to drive the price AND VOLUME of ETH upwards to take more money from speculators. And I am saying they have wasted the $18 million they got. Heck I could probably design a solution for ~$20,000 (or not more than $100,000). It doesn't take $18 million to make smart contracts work with a centralized verification which is what they will eventually realize is the only way to make it work (per my upthread posts explaining why). They will waste more $millions, because that is what they do. The pattern is already clear. People/organizations don't change (until they are forced to by economic reality, which apparently is discipline the market is unwilling to do as you all are giving Vitalik more money to play with). How new Alts / Scamcoins steal your Bitcoins
It seems every day a new alt coin pops up. They are easy to make - most are just clones of coins
that were programmed by someone else and just given a new name, a few graphic tweaks, etc. to make it look new.
It doesn’t take much work - a new scam coin is born. Most of the devs who create these coins have only one intention - to steal bitcoins from others. This explains how they do it.
First they clone an existing coin, make a few tweaks, make a website (which helps scam coins look legit) then they pre-mine a good amount of coins which they will dump later on.
After the coin is up and ready for launch it is Announced on various sites - bitcointalk.org, reddit, etc.
They get the coin listed on an exchange or two and then deposit a portion of their pre-mine coins they already
have saved up. They may make a few Bitcoins after their coin gets listed, but this is not the way they
intend to get your Bitcoins. They let their coin do whatever the market wants for a month or two, maybe try to hype it up a little thru various forums and trollboxes to help legitimize it. They don’t want to pump it as soon as it gets listed on an exchange - this would be obviously suspicious.
Then the day comes where they decide to make their move. They start by buying up the orders on
the exchange(s) to start driving up the price to give the illusion that their coin is starting to take of. This doesn’t cost them anything because they pre-mined the coins for free and the Bitcoins they are using to buy up the orders go back to them because they are buying the scamcoin from themselves anyways. After us innocent, unsuspecting users see that this alt
is moving up a large percent is when we start putting our bitcoin orders in so we don’t miss out on this coin that seems to be really taking off. As soon as enough orders are put in / coins are bought - when the scammer devs are happy with the amount of BTC they have acquired, they dump the rest of their pre-mined coins on the order book to buy
up any lower bitcoin orders still on the books. Congratulations, you have just become a bag holder of a worthless scamcoin that is back to its previous price of next to nothing, the devs have conned you out of your bitcoins and will let their scam coin die to start working on their next scam.
|
|
|
|
I have yet to see someone that gives a detailed technical Counter Argument to the Guys here which making me have doubts about ethereum "Long Term". Following this thread now
do you have a summary of what these doubts are long term? 8 pages is a bit much to read. Just read the 1st Page and 1st TPTB_need_war first replay on the thread. Basicly i was very enthusiastic about CASPER and Scalability potential of ethereum. Until i read some good technical counterargument, i'm reducing my investment in the ethereum project long term, which is best now since prices seems to be good enough for me. I just read: http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/smart-contracts-slow-blockchains/they have some very good arguments, but does it mean ethereum is doomed? hard to say until they reach that point and possibly come up with another solution. you got to give it to them on the marketing front. That multichain.com article is talking about the lack of parallelization, but as I (and CIYAM and even Vitalik) have pointed out (both upthread and in my video), parallelization can be fixed by simply restricting the inputs of scripts to data from already confirmed blocks (i.e. do not allow scripts in the current block to impact scripts in the current block). Edit: by parallelization we mean the ability of a validator to validate more than one script simultaneously. Distinguish this from partitioning where we have validators who trust other validators (since not all validators validate all scripts). That multichain.com article does not address my point about partition boundaries being impossible for scripting. That is my point and I am sure no one else has thought of it. I am the first to make that point. And this is a damning point because it means all validators (full nodes) must verify all scripts. And from that comes the other points I have made about why mining is forced economically to become centralized (and this applies to Bitcoin as well). Thus I have argued don't pretend that crypto currency has decentralized validation (verification) because it can't. And thus I argued just make the validation centralized and try to put the decentralized control else where in the design. Which is what I have contemplated for my design. Which I am working on. Ethereum could hire me to solve their problem perhaps. I wouldn't charge $18 million. Fuserleer has been trying to teach the masses that miners of a successful coin always get rich. It is a necessary evil.
Not true in my contemplated design, because the mining is unprofitable. |
|
|
|
I am very sleepy now. That is it for me today.
My gosh I slept 13 hours. I didn't want to wake up except I was so hungry (which isn't good for my gall bladder to go such a long time between meals). Btw, I spoke on Skype with my friend from Australia (who was in the Philippines with me back in the early 1990s) and he said yesterday that he has gallstones and the doctors want to remove his gall bladder. He is experiencing nausea every day so he is very close to being forced to have the surgery. I urged him to start taking curcumin immediately and hope the stones don't dislodge and hope it will dissolve them over the long-term. Most advice is to not take curcumin if one has gallstones, but some few have recommended small doses over the long-term to try to dissolve the stones without dislodging them (which is incredibly painful and if they are too large to pass through the duct then emergency surgery becomes necessary). I am perhaps dealing with a similar issue (bile duct blockage) or pancreatic cancer (obviously not the fast moving variety which killed Jobs). My condition has improved dramatically since the worst of September 2015, because I started taking specific supplements to replace the glutathione (and B vitamins) I wasn't getting due to lack of proper digestion of food (glutathione is very protective of my brain and neurological effects such as the peripheral neuropathy symptoms I used to have but now which are virtually non-existent). And then I started the high dose (3 - 6 grams per day) curcumin about 5 weeks ago and significantly increased the dose to 20 - 30 grams per day roughly 3 weeks ago, which seems to have radically good effects. My symptoms now have nearly entirely stopped involving my brain and neuropathy and now nearly entirely focused on my gut and sleep. So in spite of being tired (and wishing I could work with full energy always), I am very happy with the improvement and inspired that this might be leading to the cure to this shit I've had for the past years. I explained that asset transfers (crypto currency, etc) are compatible with partitions. I explained that scripts are not and explained the distinction in terms of external chaos that destroys the Nash equilibrium.
In case the video wasn't succinct (and some of you may have missed the end of the video as it was still uploading when I posted the link), if there exists external input/output ("I/O") (meaning the data on the block chain can be written to from a source external to the block chain independent of the data already on the block chain[1]), then the system is Turing complete (which was Nick Szabo and Gregory Maxwell's error when they didn't comprehend Wright's point[1]) thus it is not possible to bound the effects at partition boundaries. Although the validators will see a Nash equilibrium w.r.t. to their incentives (block rewards and in Casper consensus-by-betting penalties), the external effects will be chaotic and thus the value of the coin would collapse due to incorrect outcomes (from the perspective of the users of the system) and thus the Nash equilibrium collapses because validators need for their block rewards to have value in the external market. Apologies I didn't state this succinctly as I was already feeling somewhat tired yesterday evening when I started the video. Whereas, the I/O for transactions (transferring assets such as crypto coins) is a directed acyclic graph and there is no external processing of coin outputs to input the values into another partition as a external input, thus the above does not apply to asset transfers in the context of strict partitioning (see below for caveat). For scripting on block chain, strict partitioning is impossible to obtain due to the point in the prior paragraph. That is why Ethereum's planned future Casper upgrade will not work. I don't think UXTO or account balances has anything to do with why asset transfers are compatible with partitions while scripts are not.
I meant in the case where there are no transactions that cross partitions (i.e. where all transactions are fully contained within their partition). Once cross-partition transactions are considered, the design is much more complex as Fuserleer noted. In fact, I do believe that perhaps the same Nash equilibrium failure that applies to scripting (as stated above) may apply in the cross-partition design for asset transfers because there is a cascade of history. I need to think about this more. I will try to remember to comment on this point later. | [1] | please note the distinction that although asset transfer transactions (i.e. not scripting) can be written from external source, the data that can be written is dependent or restricted by the data that is already on the block chain, e.g. the UXTO. Wrights claim that Bitcoin's scripting is Turing complete hinges on the ability to store meta-data in the block chain from an external source, thus external state can be recorded in the block chain. However since Bitcoin does not support partitioning, I don't think (but I am not 100% certain yet) the smart contracting layers built on top of Bitcoin such as CounterParty can destroy the Nash equilibrium of Bitcoin. |
Sounds like you just stumped yourself.
It is humorous to watch people who lack technical understanding try to judge what they read based on how they misperceive the emotions/demeanor of the person writing. Dude you have no fucking clue. I am not stumped. I have a very clear understanding as explained in this post.
He very well might be correct, but its a difficult task to figure it out as everything from him is a brain dump wall of text, with added shouting.
Not to mention that he changes his mind on things frequently, one day something isn't possible, then it is, then he has invented the best thing since slice bread relating to the issue at hand, then it isn't possible again.
As the above clarification shows after a 70 minute video explanation, these issues have many subtle points that are very difficult to explain such that no one has a misunderstanding. For example, you were upthread assuming that in my video I was talking about cross-partition spending, but I was not. I have now clarified that for you in this post (and my prior post just before I slept). I'd prefer if you stop the erroneous generalizations ad hominem. Thanks. This area is very difficult to discuss in a forum setting. Not only the technical aspects are easily misunderstood if one detail is not mentioned, but also there are all the egos to deal with such as stoat's above. Please stop putting all the BS of a forum on my shoulders. I do what I can. I got upset with monsterer inciting you in my Decentralization thead to go spam the thread with 25 posts of nonsense because you were not ready to reveal your entire specification and monsterer was trying to reverse engineer your design by asking a zillion questions and I asked him to take it else where but he refused. Readers can't benefit from that noise at all. Look I like organization. I like clarity. I like specifications. And yeah I get frustrated with those who don't prioritize those. Asking questions about a specification I understand. Asking questions about an enigma (because you Fuserleer stated you weren't ready to reveal a specification and monsterer was challenging you to release a summary) is far too noisy. If monsterer and you were interested to have that sort of public discussion, you could do it in your own thread. I created my Decentralization thread to talk about issues that I was prepared to completely specify. Then you somehow blamed all of that on me. Then later monsterer didn't understand that a DAG such as Iota is a mathematical model, not a structural model of the trees. I asked him to please discuss it with me outside of my thread until he understood, because his posts were getting noisy because he was pursuing a line of inquiry that was inapplicable. Any way, these are examples of what you refer to as "shouting". Yeah I have to shout over the noise and say "Stop". As for changing designs again this where I have to deal with your ego. You have changed designs numerous times. Accusing me of changing designs as if that is some sort of sin, thus makes you a hypocrite. Do you think I like to write this? Do you think I love to put the mirror in your face? Not really. You force me to. |
|
|
|
Ethereum does not have UTXOs nor does eMunie for that matter, account/address balances are recorded and credited/debited as per transactions they make and receive.
Without the UTXO overhead, double spend prevention across partitions is much easier to achieve and can be done in an efficient manner.
I mentioned in the video that Ethereum is using an account balances design. There can't be any double-spend across partitions in the design I described in the video. I understand if you want to allow spending across partitions, this complicates design issues. I had mentioned upthread that I deal with that in my design by requiring confirmation of such to wait for block confirmations. Where spending within partitions is instant in my design. I think it is difficult to talk about every possible design variant in one video. I was already going off on too many injected tangents. That is not to say I have envisioned your design per se. Thanks. Hmm I must have missed where you mentioned that :| Still, if you know that ETH is using balances rather than UTXOs, doesn't that mark the whole argument against partitions when using UTXOs redundant (at least as far as transactions are concerned)? The points made about why it can't function are not applicable in the case of ETH anyway, and apply only to UTXO based block chains. I explained that asset transfers (crypto currency, etc) are compatible with partitions. I explained that scripts are not and explained the distinction in terms of external chaos that destroys the Nash equilibrium. I don't think UXTO or account balances has anything to do with why asset transfers are compatible with partitions while scripts are not. I am very sleepy now. That is it for me today. |
|
|
|
Ethereum does not have UTXOs nor does eMunie for that matter, account/address balances are recorded and credited/debited as per transactions they make and receive.
Without the UTXO overhead, double spend prevention across partitions is much easier to achieve and can be done in an efficient manner.
I mentioned in the video that Ethereum is using an account balances design. There can't be any double-spend across partitions in the design I described in the video. I understand if you want to allow spending across partitions, this complicates design issues. I had mentioned upthread that I deal with that in my design by requiring confirmation of such to wait for block confirmations. Where spending within partitions is instant in my design. I think it is difficult to talk about every possible design variant in one video. I was already going off on too many injected tangents. That is not to say I have envisioned your design per se. Thanks. |
|
|
|
TP, How about your join our live hangout and discuss why you think our decentralized model won't work with us? That would make for a more productive discussion, with immediate conclusions we can then public to this community. Every Wednesday at 11:00am PST. I think my design could work for Synereo for the AMPs. See my video please. |
|
|
|
No premine.
Mined coins are premines. Users aren't mining. Most speculators here didn't mine. Your "rabid dog" phases only kill the credibility or air of respectfulness that bitcoin carpenter was trying to create. Project is over 1 year old.
And still no white paper with full specifications. |
|
|
|
100% correct except the "not so active in Monero" part. Just list the people who are more active and you see that either I am actually pretty active, or Monero is very active  I meant not so active in the Monero Altcoin Discussion threads you used to be. And I think that was a very positive change which I assume increased your productivity. But I haven't been able to follow your work lately, because I am too overloaded on my health and trying to do my own work. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Insiders buying from themselves: How new Alts / Scamcoins steal your Bitcoins
It seems every day a new alt coin pops up. They are easy to make - most are just clones of coins
that were programmed by someone else and just given a new name, a few graphic tweaks, etc. to make it look new.
It doesn’t take much work - a new scam coin is born. Most of the devs who create these coins have only one intention - to steal bitcoins from others. This explains how they do it.
First they clone an existing coin, make a few tweaks, make a website (which helps scam coins look legit) then they pre-mine a good amount of coins which they will dump later on.
After the coin is up and ready for launch it is Announced on various sites - bitcointalk.org, reddit, etc.
They get the coin listed on an exchange or two and then deposit a portion of their pre-mine coins they already
have saved up. They may make a few Bitcoins after their coin gets listed, but this is not the way they
intend to get your Bitcoins. They let their coin do whatever the market wants for a month or two, maybe try to hype it up a little thru various forums and trollboxes to help legitimize it. They don’t want to pump it as soon as it gets listed on an exchange - this would be obviously suspicious.
Then the day comes where they decide to make their move. They start by buying up the orders on
the exchange(s) to start driving up the price to give the illusion that their coin is starting to take of. This doesn’t cost them anything because they pre-mined the coins for free and the Bitcoins they are using to buy up the orders go back to them because they are buying the scamcoin from themselves anyways. After us innocent, unsuspecting users see that this alt
is moving up a large percent is when we start putting our bitcoin orders in so we don’t miss out on this coin that seems to be really taking off. As soon as enough orders are put in / coins are bought - when the scammer devs are happy with the amount of BTC they have acquired, they dump the rest of their pre-mined coins on the order book to buy
up any lower bitcoin orders still on the books. Congratulations, you have just become a bag holder of a worthless scamcoin that is back to its previous price of next to nothing, the devs have conned you out of your bitcoins and will let their scam coin die to start working on their next scam.
|
|
|
|
And why don't you go read about how dumb Szabo is about the smart contract issue: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13870882#msg13870882There is the video of him not understanding the externalities issue and Turing completeness (see above link). And then add this: I’m not a fan of the term “smart contracts”. For a start, it has been used by so many people for so many different things, that we should probably just ban it completely. For example, the first known reference is from 1997, when Nick Szabo used it to describe physical objects that change their behavior based on some data. More recently, the term has been used for the exact opposite: to describe computation on a blockchain which is influenced by external events such as the weather. For now let’s put both of these meanings aside.
I want to focus here on “smart contracts” in the sense of general purpose computation that takes place on a blockchain. This meaning was popularized by Ethereum, whose white paper is subtitled “A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform”.
And yet you claim Szabo is Satoshi. You guys are a like a dog, you will hump any tree stump. How about getting in touch with reality. Woohoo look at you, you're so smart, yet all you do is whine around the forum thinking how dumb everybody is and how we're all beneath you. Yet that's all you do, whine and baghold your mined shit coins. Haha  Spoken like a 5 year old. Meanwhile tokeweed supports insiders buying from themselves: How new Alts / Scamcoins steal your Bitcoins
It seems every day a new alt coin pops up. They are easy to make - most are just clones of coins
that were programmed by someone else and just given a new name, a few graphic tweaks, etc. to make it look new.
It doesn’t take much work - a new scam coin is born. Most of the devs who create these coins have only one intention - to steal bitcoins from others. This explains how they do it.
First they clone an existing coin, make a few tweaks, make a website (which helps scam coins look legit) then they pre-mine a good amount of coins which they will dump later on.
After the coin is up and ready for launch it is Announced on various sites - bitcointalk.org, reddit, etc.
They get the coin listed on an exchange or two and then deposit a portion of their pre-mine coins they already
have saved up. They may make a few Bitcoins after their coin gets listed, but this is not the way they
intend to get your Bitcoins. They let their coin do whatever the market wants for a month or two, maybe try to hype it up a little thru various forums and trollboxes to help legitimize it. They don’t want to pump it as soon as it gets listed on an exchange - this would be obviously suspicious.
Then the day comes where they decide to make their move. They start by buying up the orders on
the exchange(s) to start driving up the price to give the illusion that their coin is starting to take of. This doesn’t cost them anything because they pre-mined the coins for free and the Bitcoins they are using to buy up the orders go back to them because they are buying the scamcoin from themselves anyways. After us innocent, unsuspecting users see that this alt
is moving up a large percent is when we start putting our bitcoin orders in so we don’t miss out on this coin that seems to be really taking off. As soon as enough orders are put in / coins are bought - when the scammer devs are happy with the amount of BTC they have acquired, they dump the rest of their pre-mined coins on the order book to buy
up any lower bitcoin orders still on the books. Congratulations, you have just become a bag holder of a worthless scamcoin that is back to its previous price of next to nothing, the devs have conned you out of your bitcoins and will let their scam coin die to start working on their next scam.
|
|
|
|
Btw, I also advised our whale rpietila to buy with both fists @ $10/BTC (he sold $100,000 of silver and bought 10,000 BTC).
So we have you to blame for him? Ugh. Good to know.  He had numerous guys getting him into Bitcoin and he was the one who tried to focus me more on it. I was in ER and ICU in May 2012 and dealing with my kids being yanked and I was too preoccupied. I just took a quick look in January 2013 and agreed with him that it was about to explode to the upside. Rpietila was a very rational, ethical, fair and even amicable person to deal with on silver trading, as I used to sell him silver rounds that I had manufactured from my 18,000 oz of Comex bars. Any idiosyncrasies that flourished after becoming wealthy are not during the time in which I was interacting with him. I remain cordial/friendly with rpietila, but we are both off doing on our thing and I haven't been able to make time or justification for any communications with him lately. |
|
|
|
I recorded a video of myself to try to explain some of these issues: http://coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Shelby_Ethereum_Paradox.aviThe Ethereum MSM shrilling is out in full force yet I still managed to make the price decline yet again. Is the growth sustainable?
Ethereum price reached an all-time high of 0.0171 BTC on 12th of this month, only to experience a considerable fall soon after. Even though the cryptocurrency value is not showing any upward trend at the moment, it has scaled new heights, and it will continue to perform better than it used to in the previous months.
The cryptocurrency may not sustain this growth in a short term, but the demand is bound to grow in the long term. The ones with long term trading plans are bound to gain a lot as time progresses.
The insiders of Ethereum are ostensibly well connected professionals. They are fucking you over royally. |
|
|
|
My son,
How old you are? I am 50.7. Are you sure you are factual? I have been registering my bitcointalk account June 06, 2011, 12:27:49 PM. At which date did you register?
March 14, 2013. That is quite irrelevant though. I was programming probably before you were born. When you registered doesn't indicate any particular skill for technological discernment. It just indicates you are quick to fuck any tree stump. Btw, I also advised our whale rpietila to buy with both fists @ $10/BTC (he sold $100,000 of silver and bought 10,000 BTC). Since that time I have seen legions of folks like you come an go. They mostly had one thing in common: they were strong with words and weak with action. Many of them should have better doing a walk in nature more often than sitting behind their keyboards day and night.
Well some are different than others and that will be a lesson for you. Not everyone fits the same mold (I also studied Latin and French in 10th grade): When I was in High School, I was taking Spanish, French, and Latin. I had virtually completed the first semester when I was called down to the principal‘s office. I was told I had to drop French because taking three languages at the same time they determined was too much for a student. I said my grades were fine and obviously there was no problem. My argument fell on a close mind. That was the rule and it was applied to me. I argued they were all Latin based and so I could see the connection between the three. The word for bed in Latin was lictus, in French lit, and in Spanish lecho. He thought I was a smart ass because I asked if he comprehended what I was saying in French, comprendre, in Spanish comprender, and then in Latin comprehendere. He did not grasp my point. I was given a study hall in place of French and my enthusiasm for school went out the window.
And while I haven't been posting a lot, I have been doing lots of reading and learning about crypto currencies. And after doing my homework I have been buying up some chunks of BTC (at that time you had to pay about 14 USD ) because I was convinced that BTC had a great future. Definitely worth more than 14 bucks... Great for you. Hope you've learned something and been profitable for you. As a "paid Ethereum shrill" with a (4 1/2 year old) "newbie sock puppet account"
We have no idea if the manipulators haven't registered innumerable sock puppet accounts from long ago. Although I admit I didn't look at your registration date because I am very busy and there are so many newbie sockpuppets. I don't care what know-it-all folks like your are saying. I do my DD. This includes technical details of a coin, potential market and who is standing behind a coin. And after that I'm spending some bucks or I don't. (Mostly don't ) Obviously not, if you are criticizing my explanation of the technological issues. You obviously don't understand the technology. So keep trying to learn. You can start by reading this thread over and over again until you comprehend. As someone who is doing business with other "things" for a long time now, I have been always looking at the personality of my prospective business partners. And most of the time this was a very important criterion whether a business relation has been enjoyable and successful or not. And sorry to say that I probably wouldn't invest in your coin.
Absolutely do not invest in anything I do. I would very much appreciate being able to look at you as a great fool. You are a poor judge of personality in this case. |
|
|
|
The upside is gone. Only bag holders buying or HODLering now. Any sane person would obviously sell at these prices.
What does the price of eggs ether tokens have to do with anything? Is that what this is really about? Did you entirely miss upthread point about wasting $18 million of YOUR money. And the reason for the current P&D being they ran out of funds and so they need to fool you, so they can waste some more of YOUR $millions. Are you guys totally idiots or what Didn't read anything you wrote
And then you think you are qualified to speak about what Ethereum can accomplish |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
