|
If I am not mistaken, Shonoe did say he identified where in Shadowcash's source code it is using the wrong deterministic hash Hp. That is all the proof that is necessary. Those of us who are very knowledgeable about one-time ring sigs can clearly see that if Hp doesn't have the correct properties then the anonymity is toast. Award him the bounty and stop whining. If you offer bounties and then make someone do nonsense extra work, then your bounties are not worth attempting.
As for whether Shadowcash should quit and join Monero or Aeon, what americanpegasus is trying to say is he doesn't think Shadowcash's cryptographer is sufficiently capable and thus Shadowcash can't be relied upon to innovate on anonymity, e.g. Monero is improving by replacing one-time ring sigs with RingCT. Shadowcash made an error when they "reinvented" one-time ring sigs, so it is reasonable to conclude they will make more errors when trying to keep up with Monero's improvements.
I do understand that Shadowcash has innovated in other areas which they may feel provide some alternatives to Monero/Aeon/Boolberry. That is their decision to make and I think americanpegasus should respect their right to flog themselves with a paddle if they so desire.
Bottom line is Zcash is going to replace all this shit any way. And none of the anonymity coins have an significant user level adoption and never will.
I laugh at americanpegasus with his delusion about the coins he is invested in becoming world dominant. The guy has been drinking the KoolAid.
|
|
|
|
Look like eth price stop! Its may go down again back dlow to 1$?!
Buy the dips. But one thing I hate about that strategy is the timing. No can time the market perfectly. The truth is coming out now that both ETH and MaidSafe are scams and can't work. The speculators are still for the moment thinking that "less than 100% perfect is better than nothing" thus they haven't yet run for the door. Some more explaining by me, and we can get the realization that they must stop supporting these shit coins and poisoning the well from which we all drink. You are a pumper/scammer, with your Szabo is Satoshi lies in the other thread. You do not care whether you poison the well. You have no ethics and probably do drugs like marijuana all day. |
|
|
|
When it comes to real world use Zerotime seems 1000xs safer than a zero confirm btc transfer. That is what matters, not whether it is 100% foolproof.
When exchanges lose their money then it won't acceptable that it can be Sybil attacked. The incentive has to be great enough for the attack to worthwhile. |
|
|
|
The rest of what icebreaker wrote is garbage. VNL ZEROTIME transfers work very well
monsterer, Fuserleer, and I analyzed the Zerotime whitepaper in thread some months ago and pointed out it is flawed. This is another scam coin. And the new anonymity feature is also flawed. Any speculator who buys this is contributing to the cesspool of scams in altcoins and is poisoning the well from which we all drink. |
|
|
|
It was the following linked post where I linked to the post I had made on Vitalik's blog about the Consensus-by-betting plan for Ethereum's future version named Casper: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/42rvm3/truth_about_ethereum_is_being_banned_at/czcpoezI explained at the linked post above that Consensus-by-betting is essentially a proof-of-stake/share algorithm in the sense that the financial penalty mechanism is based on deposits (stakes). And PoS has failure modes which don't have a Nash equilibrium (some of which Vlad is not aware of!) and here follows I described how longest chain rule does have a Nash equilibrium: Thus I have explained there is no Nash equilibrium in Monero's penalty feature (unlike for Satoshi's longest chain rule where there is indeed a Nash equilibrium because if miners don't converge on the longest chain then all their chains are invalid/orphans and worthless without consensus). ArticMine is probably thinking that since miners have different costs, the equilibrium point for transaction fees will be the weighted average but I have explained the holistic economics by which this weighted average is driven by the costs of the largest hashrate miners until they control all the hashrate[1].
Greg Meredith talks technobabble for 15 minutes about the design of Casper. Greg is talking about the math that says if the bets are rationally motivated by the penalties, then it should be possible to get them to converge on a consensus as to which block from all the validators (i.e. verifiers) is correct and chosen, i.e. that convergence of consensus can be mathematically guaranteed. Vlad Zamfir had a video presentation and an audio presentation about Casper. I had also seen a video presentation by Vitalik which explained more about sharding and an overview. But what all three Vitalik, Greg, and Vlad are failing to grasp is a MORE FUNDAMENTAL INSOLUBLE FLAW which is what I wrote in the prior post that consensus requires the the underlying state transformations for contracts are/is bounded on recursion, otherwise the partial orderings diverge and it is impossible to unify them into one block chain ordering. Bob McElrath explained on Vitalik's block the consensus requires fungibility of contracts. By fungibility what he is really wanting to say is commutativity of ordering, which is achieved (other than a double-spend) in Bitcoin by the UXTO history having the directed acyclic graph property. Edit: Vlad's conceptualization of the CAP Theorem at the 15:17 slide of his video presentation is incorrect! Once you allow Partitioning of the block chain state, it is then impossible to regain both Consistency and Availability. Vlad seems to think you can regain Consensus consistency after waiting for a vote, but that is incorrect because the partitioned state is then irrevocably in conflict and can be reconciled any more! Also Vlad makes many other errors as well. These three guys are clueless. They are making so many mistakes. |
|
|
|
Boy wonder and Szaboshi apparently forgot their Computer Science education: monsterer is wrong again. Even within the block there is no way to attain commutativity of ordering. Any particular choice of arbitrary orderings of script executions for a block result may achieve a different result for contracts than another ordering (unless the scripts are invariant to ordering but that basically means the scripts can do nothing). That is the definition of indeterminism.
Perhaps I should have said 'within one script execution within one block'. Block ordering is eventual, just like bitcoin. In ethereum this has scope for more dire consequences than it does with bitcoin; it depends on the application. Specifically the generative essence distinction is that Bitcoin's UXTO history is a directed acyclic graph, which by definition means it has no recursion (i.e. no cycles). Has anyone proven that Bitcoin's scripts maintain this property? Whereas, only perfectly dependently typed programs have bounded recursion and can be proven to halt. It may be possible to model commutative scripts that are 100% dependently typed, but this by no means can open (to composition and open) the block chain state to every script that someone wants to create. If Vitalik even had a clue about Computer Science, the first thing he would have done is model the scripting in a purely dependently typed language such as Epigram or Coq. I must admit I hadn't really expended more than 5 minutes (cumulatively) thinking about it until today. |
|
|
|
monsterer is wrong again. Even within the block there is no way to attain commutativity of ordering. Any particular choice of arbitrary orderings of script executions for a block result may achieve a different result for contracts than another ordering (unless the scripts are invariant to ordering but that basically means the scripts can do nothing). That is the definition of indeterminism.
Perhaps I should have said 'within one script execution within one block'. Block ordering is eventual, just like bitcoin. In ethereum this has scope for more dire consequences than it does with bitcoin; it depends on the application. Specifically the generative essence distinction is that Bitcoin's UXTO history is a directed acyclic graph, which by definition means it has no recursion (i.e. no cycles). Has anyone proven that Bitcoin's scripts maintain this property? Whereas, only perfectly dependently typed programs have bounded recursion and can be proven to halt. It may be possible to model commutative scripts that are 100% dependently typed, but this by no means can open (to composition and open) the block chain state to every script that someone wants to create. If Vitalik even had a clue about Computer Science, the first thing he would have done is model the scripting in a purely dependently typed language such as Epigram or Coq. I must admit I hadn't really expended more than 5 minutes (cumulatively) thinking about it until today. Edit: this blog post explains a bit about the insoluble synchrony problem. And not surprisingly he uses the same terminology as I did above. |
|
|
|
Another get-rich-quick scammer (this one from India) who has no fucking clue about what he is writing or doesn't care. A page loaded with banner ads pumping up Ethereum. I wonder whose slush fund has funded this. |
|
|
|
I do not think Bitcoin will be crashed by Ethereum. Bitcoin has much bigger community. Its value will increase with time.
Bitcoin has users. I use Bitcoin. You use Bitcoin. Not just for speculating. Ethereum has precisely 0 users and will never attain 1 user. A fake $600 million market cap with $21 million in fake daily volume today on Poloneix and not even 1 real user more than a year after the ICO raised $millions (which has all been spent). It isn't even a joke to compare the two. It is fraud to even remotely insinuate that Ethereum is any where near Bitcoin's level. And even considering that the perhaps 100,000 serious users of Bitcoin is nothing in terms of millions of serious users adoption compared to even Corel Painter which I was involved (in a minor role) with creating, further exemplifies the pitiful ridiculousness of the Ethereum shills. And poof it's gone. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Eth whales seem to think crashing BTC to nothingness would actually be beneficial to them.
That has been their theme in several threads, that Bitcoin is too limited and doomed by a scalecopalyse so therefor buy ETH. They don't tell you that ETH was doomed from the first time I spoke to Charles in Skype before Ethereum was formed and advised him none it would work. The lure of money is too much for some people. I like money too, but only if I produce something worth while. I also love the satisfaction of creating something real that helps people. These fucking scammers really boil my blood. This forum feels like it is infested with scammers and/or really naive speculators. What happened to the ideology of Bitcoin and creating a better world  How can these people look in the mirror and respect themselves What happened to meritocracy. I still remember the first time I earned $5 cutting a very thick and large lawn at maybe age 12 or thereabouts. I worked hard physical labor in my youth to earn money. I worked hard programming in my adult life to earn money for real products that were used by millions of users. These scammers take $millions for doing nothing useful and sip their lattes. All of you who bought ETH are contributing to this unethical cesspool. |
|
|
|
But never mind. I'll promise that next time when I dare to open my mouth
in your presence it will be in a trembling, hushed voice with my garments rent
and covered with dust.
I don't want you to stop asking questions. I want you to stop asserting statements that you don't know enough about. Because readers misinterpret your assertions as facts. Which then forces me to untangle the mess you made (since you were replying to what I asserted). I am amicable as I was to you in the past many times, but I have a limited time and resources. I simply ask you to respect my limitations as I will respect yours. Right. That's not why Ethereum is indeterminate - within one single block things are fine. The problem is across multiple blocks - if execution is dependant on block order, orphans and re-orgs can cause big problems.
Thanks. I think I now see where the potential problem is and so I have guidelines for further investigation. monsterer is wrong again. Even within the block there is no way to attain commutativity of ordering. Any particular choice of arbitrary orderings of script executions for a block result may achieve a different result for contracts than another ordering (unless the scripts are invariant to ordering but that basically means the scripts can do nothing). That is the definition of indeterminism. |
|
|
|
Can Etherium price ever drop down to 1$?
Is still aprox 3 mio etherium need to be mined?
One might imagine the price can drop to $0 if Ethereum runs out of funding (i.e. if they can't sell their ETH at high prices) and/or the speculators wake up and realize that Ethereum has been a grand lie. |
|
|
|
I think Ethereum and Bitcoin are complementary. One is a currency, the other is a currency as well as a trading platform.
One sort of works (Bitcoin) and the other one can't possibly work and is a lie. Do you mean the bitcoin will work and the Ethereum does not work in its present form? Will further development change that? Ethereum can't be fixed. No general purpose programmable smart contract block chain can be fixed. One might be able to design some very limited hard-coded contracts that are carefully studied, but even these are very likely to produce the fundamental errors around commutativity, deadlocks, and other issues that plague distributed systems. It is simply impossible to have different people coding scripts and not have them blow up in pile of disorder. The universe will not tolerate a total ordering, else our universe would not exist because the future would be predetermined by the past. Or stated another way, the speed-of-light would be infinite and the past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal point. Bitcoin's scaling problem has potential technical solutions that aren't perfect but may work well enough in practice. However, the politics around Bitcoin suggests to me that the solution will come in an altcoin not in Bitcoin, but we will have to wait and see on the outcome. Note the math wizard behind Synereo (Greg Meredith) has proposed a design for contracts that is enforced by social engineering (the cascade of individualized actions/partial orderings are expected to adhere to some social function) rather than by an enforced global ordering. I have my doubts about the applicability of this idea and it is certainly no where near what people mean now when they say "smart contract" on a global ledger. |
|
|
|
I find it hard to believe that Satoshi is 'money grabbing'. He believes in Ethereum.
Szabo apparently believes in taking free money from dumb speculators. I linked upthread to where Nick Szabo stated he is not Satoshi, yet you continue to promote Ethereum. You are a scammer and I want no association with you. Here is more evidence of Szabo's lack of technical knowledge: Genius Bitcoin implements a [ unambiguous via longest chain rule] partial order of transactions and Smart Contracts's need total order. It is not that hard to come up with some models of event ordering [ that show that total ordering is required]. This is an interesting post, and shows more the direction, although I don't agree with NS[ Nick Szabo] on ethereum. unenumerated.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-dawn-of-trustworthy-computing.htmlThis is another essence of my technological point which I have stated previously as follows: * computers are electronic elements with billions of components. how does such a machine achieve consistent state? see: Shannon and von Neumann and the early days of computing (maybe even Zuse)
* partitions, blocks, DAG's, .... all this stuff generally confuses the most fundamental notions. after investigating this matter for a very long time, I can assure you that almost nobody understands this.
I can assure you I've understood the point deeply about the impossibility of absolute global consistency in open systems (and a perfectly closed system is useless, i.e. static). Go read my debates with dmbarbour (David Barbour) from circa 2010. Laymen let me attempt to explain this to you. Putting Smart Contract data on a global block chain means that as those contracts interact, it is impossible to prove that the order that the contracts are run is commutative and that the contracts will halt. This is well known because Turing Completeness (the ability to run any logic) requires unbounded recursion. This is the essence of the famous Halting Problem. All you laymen need to know is that Ethereum and Nick Szabo propose that which is impossible. I told Charles Hoskinson this in Skype when he was contemplating forming Ethereum with Vitalik (I guess before it became a bigger thing with many others involved). Ethereum responded by inventing gas, so that scripts would halt by failing once their gas is exhausted. This is horrific because it means the state machine is put into an indeterminate state. Indeterminism manifests as errors and chaotic machines that do random actions. On top of that, Vitalik recently admitted in one of the videos I watched that they know Ethereum violates commutativity (and they have no real solution). WATCH IT BLOW UP FOLKS!Nick "Satoshi" Szabo has just made another huge blunder by not realizing the above, as enet correctly points out. So please stop telling me Szabo is at Satoshi's level. Not even close. |
|
|
|
Laymen let me attempt to explain this to you.
Putting Smart Contract data on a global block chain means that as those contracts interact, it is impossible to prove that the order that the contracts are run is commutative and that the contracts will halt.
I'm not sure where commutativity applies here. Contracts call public methods of other contracts, so it is an ordered sequence. You've admitted to me before that your knowledge of Computer Science is limited. And your reply here makes that obvious. It would be more truthful to yourself and others if you phrased your lack of knowledge as a question than as a statement. I am more respectful when answering questions than when n00bs effectively are slandering the facts I have written when they write false statements as you have done. Why don't you go learn Computer Science at the university before you expect that you should even be capable of knowing "where commutativity applies here". Making methods public has nothing to with the consistent ordering of transactions amongst all full nodes. If you had even understood my Decentralization thread, you would have understood that I explained that synchrony can't exist in distributed systems. Please don't make me repeat myself. Just because you don't comprehend Computer Science, doesn't mean it is my responsibility to cram 4 years of education in a forum post for you. You may feel I am not being nice, but how nice is it that you cram your ignorance down my throat forcing me to teach you what you didn't learn. Ethereum responded by inventing gas, so that scripts would halt by failing once their gas is exhausted. This is horrific because it means the state machine is put into an indeterminate state.
If there is not enough gas, EVM is supposed to roll back to the pre-execution state. It is the responsibility of the caller script to take precautionary measures. The state of the script doesn't exist in isolation because again there is no global ordering and no global synchrony in our universe. Rolling back the different arbitrary partial orderings results in an indeterminate state, i.e. random disorder and divergence. The block chain becomes one big tape in a Turing machine... please go learn Computer Science...
I think Ethereum and Bitcoin are complementary. One is a currency, the other is a currency as well as a trading platform.
One sort of works (Bitcoin) and the other one can't possibly work and is a lie. Do you mean the bitcoin will work and the Ethereum does not work in its present form? Will further development change that? Ethereum can't be fixed. No general purpose programmable smart contract block chain can be fixed. One might be able to design some very limited hard-coded contracts that are carefully studied, but even these are very likely to produce the fundamental errors around commutativity, deadlocks, and other issues that plague distributed systems. It is simply impossible to have different people coding scripts and not have them blow up in pile of disorder. The universe will not tolerate a total ordering, else our universe would not exist because the future would be predetermined by the past. Or stated another way, the speed-of-light would be infinite and the past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal point. Bitcoin's scaling problem has potential technical solutions that aren't perfect but may work well enough in practice. However, the politics around Bitcoin suggests to me that the solution will come in an altcoin not in Bitcoin, but we will have to wait and see on the outcome. Note the math wizard behind Synereo (Greg Meredith) has proposed a design for contracts that is enforced by social engineering (the cascade of individualized actions/partial orderings are expected to adhere to some social function) rather than by an enforced global ordering. I have my doubts about the applicability of this idea and it is certainly no where near what people mean now when they say "smart contract" on a global ledger. |
|
|
|
I think Ethereum and Bitcoin are complementary. One is a currency, the other is a currency as well as a trading platform.
One sort of works (Bitcoin) and the other one can't possibly work and is a lie. |
|
|
|
It's interesting going somewhere like Ethereum Reddit. It's a place full of professional software devs who should be able to figure out things discussed in this thread, but they honestly do not care one bit. They aren't worried about the underlying aspects of Ethereum like it's consensus mechanism, scalability, or execution costs. They think, hey, somebody else will fix that. They have a laser beam focus and only care about what can be created inside the VM.
Instead of being an Android developer, they want to be an Ethereum developer, imagining millions of different apps blasting off per second controlling every device in the world that uses a transistor. Too bad the current state of crypto is attempting to figure out how to do the most primitive things imaginable in a reliable, secure way, like a time stamp. These guys have skipped the basics and have gone straight to making video games on-chain. Soon, I think Vitalik will catch Eth fever from his subjects and attempt to release Mortal Kombat Ethereum edition himself.
n00bs seem to be oblivious of the distinction: |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
