Most of the ethereum threads on here are created by haters. Ethereum is a far superior crypto than even bitcoin for multiple good reasons.
People trying to FUD down others hard work need to take a look at themselves and their motivations. Are you really trying to push crypto forward or are you holding it back for your own personal biases?
No. We are trying to prevent you from lying about technology and wasting $millions on technology that can't work. |
|
|
|
More junk. Btw, Sergio had an error in his DAG white paper. He isn't perfect. I guess investors don't yet understand the a programmable block chain can't be partitioned thus it can't be scaled. Eventually these Blockstream guys will realize I am correct. |
|
|
|
Smooth please go read through some of the thousands of other lines of code John has wrote, you will see why your last post is full crap.
No one said he can't write some code. Smooth's point is that if he is cutting corners and even trying to obscure that fact that he did, by running the plagiarized code through a reformatter, and on top of that is my point that he hasn't released detailed specifications, then it at the minimum exemplifies that he doesn't have enough resources and is attempting to hide that reality. In the worse case, it is evidence of unethical foundation. Thus when you all shrill and hype that which is not ready for prime time, and the fact that VNL is trading now even though it is not ready for prime time, then we have every right to point that out. If John had first completed all the necessary work before providing coins to trade on the market, then we'd perhaps be less inclined to doubt his ethics and scammerness. TPTB, I am going to admit something here to you all based on your last line. Almost a year ago, while this coin was still beta and being cpu mined, talk was going around about a gpu miner coming out soon. People were on the original forums constantly trying to do off market buys and sells because there was no exchange yet. I saw VNL as a very promising coin and thought that if people were cpu mining for a few months and then gpu mining for a few months with no exchange then later on people would yell foul, that it was mined by a select few nerds like DARK or something, and the forum would be filled with buy/sell postings. I discussed this with john connor briefly and at first he said he didn't want it on exchanges yet, it wasn't ready. Then later with more trades off market and speculation he said ok to me. I then asked my contacts at Bittrex and Poloniex to add it, I gave them john's contact info as well (and I never had anything to do with C-Cex adding it). Well it took a couple months of me trying to get it listed, but in the end Bittrex and Polo did thorough code reviews and had the help of john and I believe ocminer in incorporating it. It was not a simple job, because it is not a clone. So don't doubt his ethics. He has never hyped his coin and he didn't want it on exchanges yet, but myself and others felt it needed to be and he reluctantly agreed months later. So if you want to blame someone for having the coin listed too early, blame me. But I have seen clone coins made in a day and listed the next. This coin was developed for a year before listed. And that one pump in the summer to 60k, that was just speculators speculating. It had nothing to do with john connor. In fact john buys coins when pumpers try to inflate the price before he thinks the price is where it should be naturally. John also buys a lot of coins when the price dumps. He believes in his coin 100% and is like Jamie Dimon buying $26M of Chase (his own companies) stock when people think it is doomed. John has always delivered and puts his money where his mouth is. Now I know everybody doesn't love his personality, and that is fine. Once you get to know him and his sarcasm, low tollerence for idiots, and humor, he is fun to talk to. Though he does get annoyed easily when people who are not very experienced dev/coders try to talk to him about VNL, because lets face it, almost no one can really read all his code, understand it, and have a meaningful debate with him. He also holds two Ph.Ds I believe and has been in crypto and P2Ps major projects for two decades. He is no kid in his basement, and if you believe any of this FUD and miss out on the long term (not days or weeks) opportunities VNL is offering, well that is up to you. I see a competant dev pumping code to git like a monster, delivering on all his promises, having lawyers and accountants look over his business, buying domains for his business, making contacts with important people and companies in crypto and outside of crypto looking to enter. And while john is the main dev, there is other devs that help as well as his recent ad for a full stack dev. This coin is as real as it gets. When it has whisper (encrypted) voice and text on cell phones, chainblender (anon coins), and is already the fastest coin with zerotime and probably the fastest even without zerotime, what is there not to like? I am not saying it is going to overtake btc, though it does solve the scalability and speed problem, but it certainly belongs in the top 5 altcoins, and is nothing like the other 1000 clone copy paste scam coins. Show me a full specification for Zerotime that convinces me. Then you will see me change my tune. You can even send it to me in private with an understanding I won't comment on it in public if you prefer. I just haven't seen any thing yet that convinces me he is legit. I see grand claims without specification. If he provides that then I will take the time to review the analysis we did of the prior Zerotime white paper and see if our analysis was flawed or if the Sybil attack alleged was unrealistic. |
|
|
|
how would blake be more secure than whirlpool ? mining has nothing to do with the security of this coin its just a way of distribution.
You guys think you are capable of judging John's capabilities but you don't even comprehend very basic Bitcoin 101 issues. If the mining hash function is sufficiently broken, the cracker can rewrite the entire block chain with a greater difficulty (i.e. he can produce great difficulty with very little computing hardware). If the crack is public knowledge, then the longest rule means nothing and chaos results. Chaining hashes doesn't always fix the risk, e.g. if one of the hashes in the chain has a very high level of collisions. Well, I'm 45 and feeling sorry for you cause yes I'm that kind of guy.
... But than you, again, started posting shit which points to your terminal brain illness.
Still feeling sorry for you.
I hope it's not contagious.
45/healthy and 51/chronically ill is indescribably different. 6 years ago I was still chasing girls and partying. Now I struggle with daily life. But don't feel sorry for me, I did it to myself with the life choices I made. And I am doing reasonably well with it since I discovered high dose curcumin extract. I think my problem is dysfunction in the pancreas, gall bladder, or colon (possibly cancer or auto immune disease thereabouts). Any way, I am getting some improvement, but it has taught me that life is for the moment. I don't think about living to 80. What ever I get, I will enjoy. Main thing is I've stopped thinking like I was still young and my life is ahead of me. I started to think about decline and just making the most of remaining life. I think even without illness, this is a change in mental outlook that man goes through in his 50s. Perhaps it would be different if I was totally healthy and could still compete in athletics the way I love to. For example, last month I think I tore or strained the rotator cuff in my shoulder. Maybe just an occassional nuisance and maybe next time I need to remember i just can't go from doing nothing to shooting the basketball vigorously. Sometimes it feels like everything I try to do physically is a failure since I got ill. As I said, maybe my attitude will be different if athleticism returns consistently. Even when I jog my legs are often weak. But I will say I had a strong run the prior day and I was just happy with that. I live what ever I get. |
|
|
|
Above I and Vitalik both linked to the same page ( in fact I got that link from the quoted Vitalik text): http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/smart-contracts-slow-blockchains/The point that page makes is that validating Ethereum contracts MUST be slow because nothing can be validated with parallel computation. I am making an additional and more damning point. That is since each contract WITHIN a block has to be executed to completion before the next (i.e. no parallelization) this also means that the result of the block chain state will be potentially different depending on which order the contracts are ordered in the block. But note that such order is completely arbitrary (because there is no synchrony in distributed systems, i.e. there is no way to prove which transaction arrived first during the block period since each node will have a different ordering due to variance in network propagation). The becomes an insoluble problem due to chain reorganizations (unless everyone waits for umpteen confirmations before validating anything but then how do we order the blocks...etc...see next paragraph). Also we can't assume that contracts in one partition don't affect a contract in another partition due to externalities, e.g. for example the result of a contract causes an external action which causes the execution of another contract. The point of computation is that it is not bounded at the block chain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thus if thus if the block period is not infinitesimally small (or especially as the block period grows larger), then the indeterminism that is introduced can cause contracts to behave randomly if they were not designed to handle such indeterminisn. Or worse yet, the validators on different partitions will be in predicament where if there are two or more orderings that are incompatible from different partitions and thus the block chain can't be unified and diverges into forks. The externalities problem is entirely unfixable. Period! The only way to fix it is to not verify smart contracts on a block chain and instead only record the directed acyclic graph asset transfers on the block chain as the section "Smart contracts in public blockchains" explains. This means the entire premise of Ethereum is impossible. 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.
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. |
|
|
|
lol when i said multi algo i meant that atm you can mine with blake and in future it was talked whildpool could be readded as secound mining algo. In no way vnl is going x11 dumass.
Well you still didn't get the technical point, because the nonsense of x11 was it was as weak as its weakest hash in terms of security and please tell John to flush some of the cryptanalysis that has been done on Whirlpool, as it is most definitely not as secure as Blake. So now you can thank me for contributing to your coin. You're welcome. Pwn3d.  |
|
|
|
-multi algo mining
x11 is reborn. Hallelujah. Praise the John.  Can't wait till your not around anymore, Praise the lord. If you understood the reason x11 was nonsense, maybe you'd appreciate the implied technical point. It was inside joke for those who aren't n00bs. |
|
|
|
-multi algo mining
x11 is reborn. Hallelujah. Praise the John. |
|
|
|
Thatīs not truth, thatīs trolling again. Where are the facts?
And Vitalik is not dealing with trolls, he is too busy. Just like you want to but you canīt, cause you are a forum addicted troll.
Your idols have just been REKTED. You can go cry under a rock now. still kinda surprise me how long it took for that dump to finalize... Notice how the vertical dump happened right after I made the post linked above. I don't know if there is a correlation. Perhaps many speculators are trying to figure out if it is really true that ETH is REKTED. I was also checking my technical analysis again to make sure I hadn't screwed up. What is that like $150 million erased from the ETH market cap in the past 24 hours or so. Any way the market cap has to be fake. No way that writing on this forum could move $150 million in actual liquidity. Market cap obviously includes the value of all the coins, not just the volume that was traded (and I think most of the volume is insiders selling to themselves, although I can't prove that). |
|
|
|
In regards to the ordering of "script execution" the experience that the CIYAM team has had with the development of AT (the first "live" Turing complete system that has been running for over a year now) it is actually just another consensus rule.
(i.e. it is neither a difficult problem to solve nor very hard to verify)
My point was that once partitions are introduced, they can't be kept orthogonal due to externalities, thus partitions can't be introduced. It is only simple because you didn't add partitions. But w/o partitions the scalability isn't attainable. Notwithstanding partitions, I would be very curious to see how you ordered script execution since there is no synchrony in a distributed system. Again I refer you to this page: http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/smart-contracts-slow-blockchains/ |
|
|
|
|
Congrats on starting your own thread and blazing your own path. Now you are starting to understand how to not be a B-lister. Go forge your own audience and passion. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
Does the pump of Ethereum just finish and the hot money is moving to the Moneoro? I think it is long over due.
Ostensibly Ethereum insiders held a lot of ETH and BTC which they could use to sell it to themselves over and over again to drive up the fake price on the exchanges. The price was not likely driven by very much hot money. The only requirement was that the true buyers (not the insiders) exceed the sellers so that the insiders could be net sellers. Once there are more sellers than buyers, then the insiders can't continue the manipulation thus the price collapses. But if the selling subsides, the insiders can start pumping it again. But it depends on whether any buyers will be motivated to buy. It is a rollercoaster//yoyo game that extracts money from the speculators. Everyone is a net loser over time, except the bandit insiders who fleece the community. Monero in theory doesn't have this centralization of the float and thus can't in theory be P&D like that. So it might be difficult to light the speculative fever necessary to get such a dramatic price rise. But realize that not that much hot money was involved in the recent ETH P&D. Only Poloniex and Kraken know for sure. Perhaps only a few $millions or much less  |
|
|
|
I do not find the reason for the recent rise. Did anybody find why the price rose so much recently?
Possibility is they need to raise the ETH price so they can sell some because they had exhausted their $millions in funding from the ICO vaporware pre-sale: Another reason one might imagine that perhaps Vitalik could be corrupted to participate in the pump by emphasizing Casper vaporware and hiding the fact they were not close to solving the fundamental technological issues. And yet they were running out of money (but not now if they can sustain these higher prices for ETH and/or have sold a lot of ETH on this price rise ... in either case selling ETH to bag holders). So one might imagine perhaps the insiders have cleverly realized they could control Vitalik so they would be able to cash out. The professionals play these games very strategically. You bag holders have no chance against them (unless of course you sell early enough and get out the door before the rest of the bag holders). Note I am not short ETH, but I did play this game strategically also. I waited for ETH to reach a nosebleed price before I started to reveal the truth more aggressively. This is a warning to these professionals (hucksters) to not fuck with my coin when I release it. Edit: I have just challenged Vitalik directly: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/45bhus/so_the_ethereum_foundation_can_now_fund_itself/czx5jejEdit#2: Vitalik admits they've been selling on the pump (in violation of escrow?). And note he mentions raising monthly budget so more money in their pockets (see how this works, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine!): https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/45bhus/so_the_ethereum_foundation_can_now_fund_itself/czwqr30In Ethereum insiders' own words[ promotional hype] (ostensibly in direct violation of the Howey test which perhaps makes ETH illegal unregistered investment securities?): Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum's founder, has summarised the reason for the growing price and demand of the cryptocurrency: Application developers are seeing that the Ethereum platform is a very powerful technology that offers advantages in a very broad set of areas. There has been a lot of interest in Ethereum applications over the last few months; particularly in January the number of individuals and companies interested in Ethereum private chains, Ethereum-based financial applications, smart contracts, IoT, etc, has all increased greatly. According to Roman Mandeleil, ether.camp CEO and founder, there are two reasons for Ethereums early success: The first reason is that the people have come to trust that the network is solid and reliable. Ethereum has had eight months of live network to prove just that.
Secondly, users have noticed that the network is being constantly improved with new products and new services, which is a major attraction for new users who eventually buy ether and consequently push up the price. |
|
|
|
The Ethereum price has dropped 12% over the last 24 hours. The volume is also quite big. Will the pump end soon?
Huh It was at the peak roughly 0.0165 BTC and now it is below 0.0125. That is roughly a 25% decline already. I think it is REKTED and going to $0. |
|
|
|
1. Synereo is based on Ethereum and Ethereum can't ever work technologically. I detailed my reasoning and specifically what I think is Greg's myopia on Ethereum's future version named Casper (which Greg Meredith is involved with on the math for consensus-by-betting). (Will be adding more on that technological point soon in the linked thread) Ethereum 2.0 will be based on Casper which Greg is the head designer. Both Synereo and Ethereum 2.0 will utilize Casper PoS. Other than that to my knowledge, Synereo holds no other resemblance to Ethereum. There is no scripting or turing completeness in Synereo. I did hear (in this video Hangout) Greg mention that Synereo might use a more integrated form of Casper's consensus algorithm. My point is that if Casper's consensus algorithm is flawed, then so will be Synereo on the AMPs part. But again, please follow the Ethereum Paradox thread so we can discuss more the issue of Casper. Okay it appears on further analysis that Synereo only needs the AMPs to be on a block chain and thus these are a directed acyclic graph, thus as long as not built on Ethereum then should be okay. But note that PoS has Nash equilibrium failure modes. And again this isn't my only doubt about Synereo as enumerated upthread. Greg is apparently a very talented mathematician. I hope he is not offended by my review. I could see him as potentially an ally, but I think he needs to stop dreaming so wide-eyed and needs someone more well grounded to bring him back down to reality sometimes (myself being a very pragmatic person). Some of his mannerism actually remind me of myself which was weird for me the first time I watched him on video. |
|
|
|
Thatīs not truth, thatīs trolling again. Where are the facts?
And Vitalik is not dealing with trolls, he is too busy. Just like you want to but you canīt, cause you are a forum addicted troll.
Your idols have just been REKTED. You can go cry under a rock now. |
|
|
|
[...] Afaics, Ethereum has an additional insoluble challenge which eMunie, Iota, and my design do not have to solve. That is they have to guarantee ordering of contract execution is Consistent even within a partition, which afaik (from Computer Science fundamentals) is impossible unless the scripts are 100% dependently typed; because otherwise they are not commutative and the permutations of orderings with the unbounded recursion of general scripting results in the block chain state being indeterminate. If one instead argues that any partial ordering will suffice (just chose one arbitrarily), this is equivalent to arguing that contract ordering doesn't matter, i.e. that they are commutative. It is a circular logic. So I really have no idea what the designers of Casper are thinking Serenity is intended to have two major feature sets: abstraction, a concept that I initially expanded on in this blog post here, and Casper, our security-deposit-based proof of stake algorithm. Additionally, we are exploring the idea of adding at least the scaffolding that will allow for the smooth deployment over time of our scalability proposals, and at the same time completely resolve parallelizability concerns brought up here an instant very large gain for private blockchain instances of Ethereum with nodes being run in massively multi-core dedicated servers, and even the public chain may see a 2-5x improvement in scalability. Above I and Vitalik both linked to the same page ( in fact I got that link from the quoted Vitalik text): http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/smart-contracts-slow-blockchains/The point that page makes is that validating Ethereum contracts MUST be slow because nothing can be validated with parallel computation. I am making an additional and more damning point. That is since each contract WITHIN a block has to be executed to completion before the next (i.e. no parallelization) this also means that the result of the block chain state will be potentially different depending on which order the contracts are ordered in the block. But note that such order is completely arbitrary (because there is no synchrony in distributed systems, i.e. there is no way to prove which transaction arrived first during the block period since each node will have a different ordering due to variance in network propagation). The becomes an insoluble problem due to chain reorganizations (unless everyone waits for umpteen confirmations before validating anything but then how do we order the blocks...etc...see next paragraph). Also we can't assume that contracts in one partition don't affect a contract in another partition due to externalities, e.g. for example the result of a contract causes an external action which causes the execution of another contract. The point of computation is that it is not bounded at the block chain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thus if thus if the block period is not infinitesimally small (or especially as the block period grows larger), then the indeterminism that is introduced can cause contracts to behave randomly if they were not designed to handle such indeterminisn. Or worse yet, the validators on different partitions will be in predicament where if there are two or more orderings that are incompatible from different partitions and thus the block chain can't be unified and diverges into forks. The externalities problem is entirely unfixable. Period! The only way to fix it is to not verify smart contracts on a block chain and instead only record the directed acyclic graph asset transfers on the block chain as the section "Smart contracts in public blockchains" explains. This means the entire premise of Ethereum is impossible. Fugetaboutit. Stick a fork in it. It is going to $0 their funding will run out and the game is over. This is why I said the Ethereum developers do not fully understand the implications of the CAP theorem in conjunction with Turing completeness (or more saliently with the Second Law of Thermodynamics). I am very tired of people saying that I am trolling and that the Ethereum developers are more clever than I am. Even I remember Nick Szabo made an analogous error when he was at that conference where that guy claimed to be Satoshi and Nick was perplexed as to how the Bitcoin block chain could be made Turing complete with externalities. Someone tell Nick Szabo to read this (specifically from section " Double decker blockchains" forward): http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/smart-contracts-slow-blockchains/Make sure you click the video link in the following quote!My immediately prior installment in this journey was about Turing-completeness, so it is highly relevant to note that Nick Szabo just demonstrated to me that he is lacking knowledge about Turing-completeness compared to this Craig Wright that some are claiming might be Satoshi. At roughly the 17 minute mark in this conference video, Wright correctly explains that due to unbounded recursion, the Bitcoin block chain scripting is effectively Turing-complete. Afaics, he is entirely correct and Nick Szabo is wrong, because although the scripting language stack can't loop within one transaction, one can use multiple transactions to simulate looping. This is precisely the point I made in my recent post wherein I explained that under composition it is impossible to prevent unbounded recursion and thus unbounded entropy. Review the Dr. Suess proof of Turing-completeness. It doesn't matter what the called script answers, the calling script can always change the outcome. If you have the ability to store state on the block chain across multiple invocations of a script, then the block chain becomes the stack. Nick Szabo just demonstrated to me that he isn't as smart as I thought. Dr. Wright makes a relevant point that many people these days seem to forget that in machine code there is no virtual machine that controls what the instruction set can do in terms of which memory it can treat as a stack. Bitcoin's script instruction set can be viewed as machine code w.r.t. to its ability to read and store state any where in the memory space of the block chain UTXO. What Dr. Wright meant when he said, "the looping function is actually separate from the loop itself ... that would assume the only way of devising code would be to put it directly in the script". Szabo made really stoopid statement implying that the language can only be Turing-complete if the script stack is, but he completely fails to realize that the block chain is state and thus can be an orthogonal stack. And most definitely then you can loop. When I say "loop", I mean in the sense relative to the block chain as the stack, so I do not mean that any one transaction can loop. Yet such a distinction is arbitrary any way, because I can have a client interacting with the block chain causing it to loop. Here is more about conjecture about Craig Wright being Satoshi: http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-alleged-to-be-australian-academichttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-founder-craig-wrights-home-raided-by-australian-police?CMP=twt_a-technology_b-gdntechEdit: and add Gregory Maxwell (nullc) to list of people who don't understand Turing-completeness: |
|
|
|
Do we know who is behind the latest pump of Ethereum. That requires to lock a lot of Ethereum and needs a lot of Bitcoin.
I see ~93% of the volume is on Poloniex and Kraken: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethereum/#marketsDoes anyone know if these exchanges enforce strict KYC and keep records of all trades so that authorities will be able to determine who was selling to whom? So an investigation could determine if the insiders were buying from themselves to manipulate the price? Afaik, this would be insider trading and should get them jail time (at least afaik according to SEC regulations). The fools who support these scams by buying the coins and promoting them, are giving the government every reason to regulate alt-coins. You are polluting the well from which we all drink. Note though that Peter Thiel had gifted a $100,000 award to Vitalik, so perhaps Ethereum has protection at the highest levels of our corrupt system. Who knows |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
