pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.
And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias? Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.
If the price of Monero in bitcoin terms can be somewhere around 0.005, it is already very good. I hope that ratio can be kept long term.
The question is, how it can be pumped there. The answear: by bidding it up there. The next question is, how it is bidded there. The trivial answear: by pouring money into Monero and bailing out the dumpers who eventually sell too early. And why write that if you are confident  Obviously the only reason to write that is to try to manipulate the psychology of others and cause them to want to buy so you can dump some. True confidence comes with silence and massive adoption and feature sets. Donation funding model or not, BS walks and action talks.
4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.
Can you elaborate on the bolded part of your statement? Go back to the prior Synereo thread I linked to and find the link that shows how much download music pays per play funded by advertising. You can see that "Don't Worry, Be Happy" with 30 million plays earned a $1000 in payouts. Certainly the value people get out of the music is worth much more than the advertising and this is apparently why free music distribution sites such as SoundCloud is transitioning away from advertising model towards a subscription and track sales model a la Spotify and BandCamp. What people want to find on social networks is what other people want to share. They don't want to find what people were motivated to pay to spam them with. The Knowledge Age economy will be about quality of production, not salesmanship. The entire paradigm of commerce and production is changing to one of merit and social benefit.
I never take any new altcoin seriously.
Then you won't necessarily buy at the very low prices if Bitcoin's adoption and price history is duplicated. Of course though I agree with you, but I can analyze which coin will be the next Bitcoin so I will likely know it very early. You probably can't. Yours would be the only altcoin I would not hesitate to buy right off the bat, no questions asked. And you are absolutely right about my skill set. Thank you but that also makes me feel uncomfortable. Hopefully you will invest on the merits of the product, not just the developer. There is a big difference between talking here on the forum and performing as a developer. I have to make that transition. Thanks again for the encouragement. Maybe I can sign off with this message. Hope so... |
|
|
|
pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.
And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias? Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that. |
|
|
|
So first we had Ethereum shills making dozens of threads, and now Monero/Aeon shills. You are lowering the reputation of Monero and Aeon, making them appear to be P&D shitcoin scams. What a shame. And what a marketing dunce you are! If you want to build the reputation, then you display confidence by accomplishment, not by trying to sell your features because your features can't sell themself. You could start a thread to enumerate all of Monero's features. That would be a more factual and useful reference. Stop the crypto wars infighting. Everybody is tired of that shit. It is not quite clear yet if IPO or donations funding model is superior. You shrill with the assumption that you can force readers to your beliefs, but readers don't like being hit over the head with a frying pan. I hope Monero has more features than just being a donation funded coin. What readers want to hear about is the features that will drive adoption and/or investment, but since investment tends to be sustainable due to real adoption then I would suggest the former is the most convincing. |
|
|
|
Although I am admittedly not familiar with the low-level details of their design the way that AT was designed does allow for parallelisation of AT processing as communication between ATs does not occur "whilst they are processed" (any token amounts or messages sent from one to another don't apply at the point that they are executed but effectively after all the ATs have been processed for that block). Correct. Agreed. See my edit. I realized that also while eating after posting my prior post. I was rushing because food was on the table waiting for me. |
|
|
|
r0ach, Vitalik did not respond to my challenge. I genuinely believe based on listening to their presentations which I linked upthread, that they sincerely didn't realize that partitions are unbounded due to externalities. Math nerds tend to see every nail with their math hammer and don't think of other perspectives such as the following bolded by one of the very smart mathematicians (Greg Meredith) working on Casper (he is also the author of Synereo's white paper): 4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.
We'll see how they react to this, whether they ignore it, offer a "solution", or capitulate honestly. On throughput, smart contract block chains can't even exploit parallelism of the CPU! So without partitions you can only use one thread for validation. Basically it isn't scalable for anything. Completely useless. I quoted Vitalik upthread and linked to that multichain.com page and indicated he had a had solution in mind for parallelization, but I suppose he is thinking along the lines of what I quoted upthread: programming languages with formal verification systems backed by state-of-the-art theorem provers
Ah so Vitalik does realize there is a problem like the sort I am pointing out. But perhaps he has not yet realized that even 100% dependently typed scripting won't fix the problem I am claiming is inherently insoluble. Edit: thinking about this more while eating, I think parallelization could be exploited within a block if the scripts can provably not depend on each other w.r.t. to the data in the prior blocks (e.g. employing partitioned data stores or 100% dependently typed scripts) because the prior blocks are static data so no cross-partition indeterminism can be introduced by externalities (all scripts submitted for the block are computed based on inputs from the historic static data which can't be impacted by running any script for the current block). So then the externalities wouldn't apply within the block. This still won't allow partitions to span block boundaries because externalities across block boundaries will apply in that case as I explained upthread. So thus I guess you could scale this as a centralized service as r0ach wrote. |
|
|
|
I wrote double-top then down -30%, then I wrote "buy the dip!" and it is up 25%, and get ready to sell again so we can go down again.
Isn't this yoyo fun. We are building the future for our grandchildren here. Serious accomplishments.
Sure you did... And again my bolded prediction was true. I am controlling the price of ETH with my posts. Not very amazing, because the insiders can't pump it up when readers here are selling, which indicates there isn't much real volume (other than insiders buying from themselves) that isn't coming from this forum. Just goes to show what a cruel joke (i.e. pitiful useless PoShit) this Ethereum is. |
|
|
|
|
I wrote double-top then down -30%, then I wrote "buy the dip!" and it is up 25%, and get ready to sell again so we can go down again.
Isn't this yoyo fun. We are building the future for our grandchildren here. Serious accomplishments.
|
|
|
|
So whether or not a sybil attack is possible VNL'S Zerotime transaction still allows 10's of thousands of transactions per second while still being safer than every third party transfer system in the world.... just don't use the instant transfer for money exchange... or at least wait the couple minutes for 1 confirm before handing money over for vnl to some unknown entity.
Still better than anything released to date.
I see you asked John and that was his PR reply. There is possibly a scaling issue but I would have to look again at the limited spec white paper. Afair, the transaction needs to propagate to many nodes and they have to vote on locking it. This means the scaling to high transaction volumes is going to be quite limited, especially as the network of full nodes increases in number? |
|
|
|
The UI and wallet availability has nothing to do with the "Paradox" we are writing about in this thread. |
|
|
|
The failure of faucets as a distribution paradigm is an important economics lesson.
What it teaches us if that users only do a mundane activity with no value to obtain coins, then they don't value the coins very much either.
If we want to distribute coins to users and have them place a high value on them, then either they must expend their money (e.g. ICO or cost of PoW mining) or some other way they can express value through an activity.
The design of my marketing plan hinges on this observation.
Not necessarily. If the partitions are provably self-contained then all partitions can be added to the same block without having partitions validate each other.
As long as the block producers are aware of all partitions, this is valid. But do they have an incentive to? Is the Nash equilibrium lost? This was one of the issues I had to work through in my design. |
|
|
|
|
The failure of faucets as a distribution paradigm is an important economics lesson.
What it teaches us if that users only do a mundane activity with no value to obtain coins, then they don't value the coins very much either.
If we want to distribute coins to users and have them place a high value on them, then either they must expend their money (e.g. ICO or cost of PoW mining) or some other way they can express value through an activity.
The design of my marketing plan hinges on this observation.
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily. If the partitions are provably self-contained then all partitions can be added to the same block without having partitions validate each other.
As long as the block producers are aware of all partitions, this is valid. But do they have an incentive to? Is the Nash equilibrium lost? This was one of the issues I had to work through in my design. |
|
|
|
Okay let's replace PoS consensus-by-betting with Satoshi's PoW. So the problem remains every full node needs validate every script. If we instead split validators into partitions, then they can't all agree on adding the other partitions to a block unless they've all validated all the scripts thus destroying the scaling advantage of having partitions. If we could assume the partitions can't impact each other in terms of incorrect validation impacting the output a script which impacts the input of another script in another partition, then the partitions wouldn't care to validate each other. But I showed that with scripting, it is impossible to know whether scripts in different partitions impact each other. The externalities that the block chain can't know means it can't guarantee the partitions are bounded (i.e. self-contained).
In short, if the partitions can impact each other, then all full nodes much validate/verify all scripts. Thus partitions are useless for scaling.
Partitions in PoW are bad because the hashrate of the entire network gets split by the number of partitions, meaning each individual partition is weaker than the whole unpartitioned network would have been. In fact, the strength of the network tends towards 0 as the number of partitions tends towards infinity. Not necessarily. If the partitions are provably self-contained (e.g. no spending between partitions thus no possible double-spend conflicts between partitions) then all partitions can be added to the same block without having partitions validate each other. The problem for scripting is it can't be proven to be self-contained in the partition due to externalities (which even convert Bitcoin scripting to Turing complete). |
|
|
|
I noticed the Monero is rising. It is quite high price now.
fluffypony et al have worked hard. Good to see the truth I revealed about ETH may be giving XMR a little boost. I am not positioned long nor short either one. |
|
|
|
Miners decide the order of transactions within a block - unless the block gets orphaned, this remains fixed. Block ordering in PoW chains is eventual, which implies the deeper a block gets embedded in the chain the higher the probability it won't be reordered. I don't know if etherium scripts start executing after a set number of confirmations, but they almost certainly should do to reduce the probability of the ordering changing.
I expected you to write that. That is why I wrote this rebuttal before you wrote your post: Do not dismiss my point thinking that the boundary is at block confirmation. That is a naive perspective.
The issue is that since the output state of a contract in one partition could impact the input state of a contract in another partition (and there is no way to prevent this unless no one can write any user data into the block chain), then validators in each partition need to trust validators in all partitions, thus they really need to verify the scripts from all the partitions else the consensus-by-betting doesn't reflect rational incentives which the math depends on for rational (versus randomized noise) convergence, i.e. the game theory of the consensus model is impacted. But if all partitions have to validate all partitions, that destroys the scaling gains from partitions.
The point is there can't be partitions with programmable scripting. Coasian boundaries are subject to destruction by entropy.
I was talking about PoW chains - casper is a horrible idea IMO. Okay let's replace PoS consensus-by-betting with Satoshi's PoW. So the problem remains every full node needs to validate every script (which can't scale). If we instead split validators into partitions, then they can't all agree on adding the other partitions to a block unless they've all validated all the scripts thus destroying the scaling advantage of having partitions. If we could assume the partitions can't impact each other in terms of incorrect validation impacting the output a script which impacts the input of another script in another partition, then the partitions wouldn't care to validate each other. But I showed that with scripting, it is impossible to know whether scripts in different partitions impact each other. The externalities that the block chain can't know means it can't guarantee the partitions are bounded (i.e. self-contained). In short, if the partitions can impact each other, then all full nodes must validate/verify all scripts. Thus partitions are useless for scaling. Whereas with the directed acyclic graphs that are crypto asset transfer, we can keep these self-contained in a partition, thus we can use partitions to do scaling. |
|
|
|
Miners decide the order of transactions within a block - unless the block gets orphaned, this remains fixed. Block ordering in PoW chains is eventual, which implies the deeper a block gets embedded in the chain the higher the probability it won't be reordered. I don't know if etherium scripts start executing after a set number of confirmations, but they almost certainly should do to reduce the probability of the ordering changing.
I expected you to write that. That is why I wrote this rebuttal before you wrote your post: Do not dismiss my point thinking that the boundary is at block confirmation. That is a naive perspective.
The issue is that since the output state of a contract in one partition could impact the input state of a contract in another partition (and there is no way to prevent this unless no one can write any user data into the block chain), then validators in each partition need to trust validators in all partitions, thus they really need to verify the scripts from all the partitions else the consensus-by-betting doesn't reflect rational incentives which the math depends on for rational (versus randomized noise) convergence, i.e. the game theory of the consensus model is impacted. But if all partitions have to validate all partitions, that destroys the scaling gains from partitions.
The point is there can't be partitions with programmable scripting. Coasian boundaries are subject to destruction by entropy.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the manipulators are going to be able to defend the 0.011 BTC price level. Buy the dip!
Have fun guys with this nonsense. Give Vitalik some more monopoly money to play with.
|
|
|
|
programming languages with formal verification systems backed by state-of-the-art theorem provers
Ah so Vitalik does realize there is a problem like the sort I am pointing out. But perhaps he has not yet realized that even 100% dependently typed scripting won't fix the problem I am claiming is inherently insoluble. |
|
|
|
Didn't we already discuss this?
I don't remember any capitulation from VNL's side before. I did not participate in the ongoing discussion after I showed the Sybil attack vulnerability. Perhaps it was the way some other VNL guys were shrilling it as the perfect instant transactions that caused me to judge more harshly the honesty of the project. I put that together with plagiarized code and then the recent anonymity claims with no complete specification. All lightning networks have a chance at a sybil attack.
Not afaics in my design (subject to future peer review). Afair, the reason for the potential Sybil attack in Zerotime is because every node participates in voting for the lock. These nodes can be Sybil attacked, because propagation isn't proof and there is no synchrony in distributed networks. In a trust less environment where the interaction is a fiat to coin transaction, ie; in an exchange, all instant transactions should only be used with the understanding of the risk involved.
I'm a Zerotime advocate, but even I agree that unless John proves that he has miraculously solved this problem Zerotime should not be used in a trust less interaction.
What Zerotime does do, is to add to the use ability of vanillacoin in human interaction.
Okay but I want instant microtransactions in a trustless scenario. And I want a million tx/sec *potential* scaling. I need this for the application of the crypto currency that I am envisioning. |
|
|
|
I will dedicate a considerable amount of my time to FUDing
The free promotion will be much appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
