That was my point.

Google for "Ethereum" right now.

The insiders are well connected with MSM and are pumping it hard. Trying to bring enough new fools in to buy.

smooth is not being anonymous because he is afraid of culpability. He is being anonymous because of the nasty things that jealous people can do.

I am 50 (and perhaps terminally ill) so I don't fucking care. Kill me and my gf's family will make sure you end up as Lechon before you can escape the Philippines. Haha.

Truth is poison  

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:

Don't worry the market caps are likely fake insiders buying from themselves, so the amount isn't $400 million, perhaps just a few $millions.

Refer to the same thread which the "Stellar SCP" link leads to.

I want to set aside the performance issues for the moment and focus on the impossibility of granting both Partition tolerance and retaining Consensus/Consistency and Availability/Access, which the CAP theorem states is impossible. I know many developers want to delude themselves into believing the CAP theorem only applies at the a lower level semantic layer of the distributed network, but I intend to challenge your explanation in order to prove that is a delusion.

It is my understanding from evaluating possible designs, that if transactions are allowed to span partitions (a.k.a. shards), then it is impossible to prevent a double-spend by spending on two or more partitions (i.e. maintain Consistency) unless all partitions verify each other, which of course defeats the scaling benefits that partitions were intended to provide (and really just eliminates the partition tolerance). And if transactions are not allowed to span partitions (i.e. they can only transact to the validators in their partition), then it is impossible for a transaction to become unstuck (i.e. regain Availability) if all the authorized validators for the partition are censoring the transaction, are unreachable or have stopped being validators. It is possible to change the set of validators periodically such as based on the progression of the block chain (e.g. Dash Evolution quorum), but this makes it impossible to objectively detect a 51% attack (which is one of the aspects my design attempts to improve). I solved this issue by allowing BOTH partitioned transactions and spanning transactions where the latter conforms to the normal Satoshi longest chain rule (but with my unprofitable PoW improvement). Also there remains the issue that there must be a global consensus that all partitions were validated correctly, yet if all partitions validate each other, then the scaling advantage of having partitions is lost. You mention Merkel and Patricia trees to provide cross-partition transactions? I think it is impossible to achieve my solution and provide security without a (either PoW or PoS) chain, i.e. that Partion tolerance must be limited to intra-block because there still needs to be a consensus around whether a transaction has spanned a partition and thus if we introduce partition tolerance interblock then we will lose either Consistency or Availability. Also note PoS has Nash equilibrium failure modes which PoW doesn't have, so I chose PoW but improved it by making it unprofitable.

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  

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.

It is not just the upload bandwidth asymmetry issue. It is the issue of society’s choice about creative property rights. That is why I proposed two DHTs. Please reread my proposal. I don't want to repeat myself.

But according to you Satoshi failed since you know Szabo is Satoshi. And by spreading that "fact", you have further caused Satoshi to fail to remain anonymous. Thus Nick must have full time security escorts already (does he?). You must think Satoshi is careless and stupid. Logic is not your strong suite.

Obviously Satoshi is not anyone obvious. Duh.

Give me more time to analyze Casper. Perhaps Greg doesn't see all the angles or perhaps I don't. Follow the Ethereum Paradox thread. I have more discussion to do there in order to make sure I haven't missed some key point in my analysis.

Greg appears to be conscientious and sincere. But I have big red scam warning flags on them releasing AMPs into the market before the product was available.

The problem with analogies is category error. Your laptop doesn't fail for everyone. It fails only for you, then you reboot it and learn not to overload its systems. That is decentralization. Whereas when a block chain fails, up to millions of people are impacted.

I have seen many speculators in this forum use this line of reasoning, which basically is "nothing is perfect, pragmatism is how business gets done in the real world".

I am all for pragmatism, but that reasoning does not apply in this case of comparing say Ethereum to for example Monero or Bitcoin, because when a project fails on its fundamentals then it crashes and burns, e.g. the fork of Stellar's consensus algorithm (which was copied from Ripple) before SCP was invented nearly destroyed the Stellar project. That argument about pragmatism does apply in other contexts obviously. I used pragmaticism when I created CoolPage. It in fact never did import HTML but yet it was very popular as an HTML editor because people liked the easy-to-use pixel perfect WYSIWYG placement of photos and text.

Bitcoin's promised Nash equilibrium has never failed (well there was a bug once or twice that required centralized intervention). It was always specified that the 51% attack is a threat. We can say that the 65% of the hashrate that the Chinese miners allegedly control has enabled them to veto the adoption of any block size increase and they effectively have 51% attacked Bitcoin presumably so they can drive transaction fees higher so they can increase profits for the oligarchy they have controlling Bitcoin (and I read yesterday they are also blocking Classic's doubling to 2MB).

So therefor and also including the scalecopalyse ongoing, that Bitcoin is not perfect. However the salient distinction is that Bitcoin has performed exactly as the white paper said it would. Even Satoshi had admitted that Bitcoin would likely become centralized over time in order to scale.

So Bitcoin has been basically perfect to its specification. Bitcoin has been reliable to the specification and I for one have been working on how to solve the issues that Satoshi did not attempt to solve w.r.t. to scaling and centralization. I think I have that solution and I am working on specifying it formally and implementing it (if I can stop foruming!).

Whereas, so many of the alt-coins have either no or insufficient specification (e.g. VanillaCoin, Ethereum, MaidSafe) or their specification is flawed and can't ever work at all (e.g. Ethereum, Storj, Filecoin, etc). There is another class of specifications that is very thorough and will work but only with centralization that they do not fully admit in the specifications (e.g. Ripple, Iota, Stellar's SCP).

Click the links in the prior paragraph for the gory details.

In my next post in this thread, I will try to further explain why Ethereum can't adhere to its implied specification (and I write 'implied' because afaik there is no coherent specification for Casper, one has to piece together the puzzle from presentations by the developers).

Disputed.

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)

2. Synereo is based on decentralized file storage for sharing content (such as music, videos, etc) and this can't ever work technologically (review all my posts in the linked thread) at least as currently envisioned by all the decentralized file projects I am aware of. I also proposed a solution in that linked thread, so perhaps you might want to pass it along to Greg.

3. PoS has failure modes which don't sustain Nash equilibrium. I have some links and posts in the Ethereum Paradox thread which expand on that point.

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.

I have explored every possible design for anonymity. I expended months and years thinking about every possible way it could be done. How many days I sat on my couch just running the possibilities through my mind. So if I say John is wasting his time, then you should believe it.

And by now getting close to that level of study also on consensus algorithms including instant confirmations.

Let John publish a complete specification if he thinks he invented something I (or others who I've studied) didn't already think of and dismissed. The likelihood although not absolutely 0, is exceedingly small.

smooth's implicit point (among other points) in his immediately prior post is that John isn't participating in peer view and prior art searching. No person is omniscient and there are very few things under the sun that others haven't also explored. I have been sharing my ideas and thoughts on this forum as a form of peer review.

By your illogic, why would Satoshi allow any one to identify the likely person he is. You retarded man.

If Nick was likely Satoshi, he'd be dead already due to blackmail and rubber hoses given the known wealth. No way he could waltz around without full time security.

Good luck. I'll be waiting for the complete specifications from John and hoping on his Zerotime he can prove all the PhDs wrong and somehow make the speed-of-light infinite by showing that synchrony is possible in distributed systems.