He thinks JINN is a scam. Thus he thinks what he is doing is ethical. And again, yes I have explained that he needs to not overstep and commit errors, especially when making such a serious accusation.

And yes the venom doesn't help make the case. He is incited when you attack his reputation (but he attacked yours so you have a right to respond). It is a vicious cycle. And he needs to understand this.

AltcoinUK is doing what he thinks is right and ethical. But he perhaps made some accusations which he could not prove (e.g. that you are anonymous). He does need to be more careful about fact checking.

Some of his points are correct. So I can't agree that his credibility is aweful.

AltcoinUK please be aware that CfB is taking advantage of your weaknesses, which is that you get inflamed and then you overstep from good/strong arguments to weaker or even unsupported/incorrect arguments.

It is difficultimpossible to omniscient. Please remember that the more one asserts, the more odds of being incorrect. I really push that limit. I assert so many things, yet I have reasonably good record of backing up my assertions in fact. And I don't push too aggressively on a vague issue such as CAP theorem applicability to Byzantine consensus.

I just don't think it is worth it for you to go on a vendetta against Iota. But again to each his own. I decided it wasn't worth it for me.

When I state Ethereum failed to solve the fundamental issue for scripting on a block chain, then I am stating a fact. I make sure I fact check. Upthread I hadn't fact checked Iota's signature scheme and so I was in error on the issue of quantum resistance.

Arguing that quantum resistance is not a feature that some people are interested in, is like arguing that females shouldn't like Beanie Babies. People like what they like. I am also interested in quantum resistance, as is the venerable Daniel Bernstein.

Good. Thanks.

AltcoinUK, I suggest you focus on the message of why you think JINN labs is so unrealistic. And I also think you can refer to my decentralization thread for why (I think) Iota leads to centralization. Those seem to be strong arguments in your favor.

I think if you continue to assert the scam accusation and attack every aspect of Iota as entirely worthless, then you will lose credibility even IF you end up being correct about its ultimate failure. Those arguments appear to readers as vindictive.

But of course I can't tell you what to do. And perhaps I am mistaken about perceptions (but I doubt it).

I support your ethics and I also support your sober analysis of potential markets. I am just hoping you don't let CfB's ribbing incite you to turn it into a vendetta, which will then lower your own credibility. I know it is difficult in the heat of the moment, but try to think about that you can't protect every speculator from everything nor is that your role.

Balance.

I didn't reply to it because it is just another evidence that he lacks reading comprehension. Any one who asserts my IQ is below average has a more than just a few screws loose in their head.

You already have my real name in private message from the last time you threatened me with legal action.

Note above I am not making any accusation. Read it again more carefully. I am just arguing to AltcoinUK that even if JINN labs were a scam (and I state that I don't claim that), that I would think CfB would not be the one in charge of it.

In any case, I have avoided this entire thing because it turns into an enormous time waster for me.

And yes I have stated that Iota brought some innovations. I have no idea about JINN.

David you have a hot head. That will be your downfall. Cool off young man half my age.

I stand corrected. I unignored you because it is unfair to post in this thread and not read what you are saying. I don't want to Ignore you if please don't pesker me in my thread so I won't be bogged down (trying to do coding).

Note to readers, this doesn't change my statement about the consensus not converging without centralization.

Jabo38 was in my inner circle in 2014 so perhaps some of my ideas rubbed off on him when he saw that my progress was too slow so he found that opportunity and apparently ran with it.

I noted that aspect of Iota's proof-of-work (hash-based) design is clever. Another example to AltcoinUK that Iota has some important ideas. But it doesn't change my conclusion that the consensus algorithm can't converge (will diverge) without centralizing the system.

Note Iota's transaction signatures are not quantum resistant, because they use ECC.

AltcoinUK, the problem is that most readers do not understand the CAP theorem conceptualization of consensus problem nor will most users understand that Iota is based on a mathematical model that has to be enforced on all payers on their choices of which branch to attach their txns and on recipients in terms of what recipients compute is a probabilistically confirmed txn. If the Monte Carlo math can be enforced then consensus should converge, but there is no way to force decentralized actors to follow one math model when the system can't enforce it without centralization. Thus I stated Iota/DAG only converges if the system centralizes. As opposed to Satoshi's PoW which always converges because of the longest chain rule.

So it is extremely difficult to take an aggressive position when most readers won't even comprehend. Why is a speculator going to trust my assessment when they can't understand or don't have the attention span to digest my 33 page thread on Decentralization. Also I haven't written a white paper yet, so all that is not well formalized.

As for the JINN labs and trinary logic aspect, I am not involving myself in that at all. I have no interest in hardware other than to read specification sheets for when I am writing assembly language code.

I think perhaps you've over personalized your friction with CfB. I understand you feel he is willingly intent on being part of a scam. The way I see it is David is probably the scammer (if there is a scam and I am not asserting there is bcz I haven't studied the JINN aspect) and CfB is an astute developer who is trying to earn money while working on something interesting (so he let's David run the scammy parts and he focuses on the technology). You seem to think CfB has a long history of being involved in pumping half-assed technology (my presumption of your opinion of Nxt) where you claim insiders profited at the expense of the greater fools. Yes David threatened me with legal action, but he can't touch me. I am some guy with no money who lives in Mindanao. His attorney will advise him that they can't sue to draw blood from turnip. Besides offering my opinion in a forum is not slander. I am just not interested in adding more fights to my plate. I am interested in coding and doing my own project. If I waste my time by creating more fights, I will never accomplish anything.

Nxt got a lot speculators excited about investing in altcoins. For anyone who ever does produce an altcoin that has the adoption and capability of overtaking Bitcoin, then that interest in altcoin stoked by Nxt is perhaps actually helpful.

In other words, I think we have to accept speculation markets are what they are, an imperfect Wild West system of stimulating R&D.

I haven't been able to pin anything on CfB specifically that would tell me he is nothing but a douche bag scammer. I rather see him more as developer trying to find a way to earn money in crypto. My ethics and standard for my work is higher. I have set the bar that I have to achieve via real adoption, not speculation alone. But I can't expect that every person is as crazy risk taker as I am.

Huh 

Be careful with assuming anyone can apply the Zcash open source. Zcash has the zk-snarks inventors on their team and there may be not so trivial tweaks that need to be made over time.

Afaics, if they play their cards well (e.g. no 11% premine for private placement investors), they should be in the driver's seat on their technology.

I follow http://blog.mpettis.com/ and Martin Armstrong. Armstrong has consistently said China will have a crisis starting 2017 and bottom in 2020 (but I don't know about Yuan and FX crisis), as well that oil will rise again in 2017 as the War Cycle heats up to hot wars. Pettis has argued that China needs to rebalance from manufacturing to services and they would need < 3% growth for a decade. Both have made the point that China has refused to revert to the mean and thus will suffer Waterfall collapse 2017 - 2020. Armstrong has noted $850 billion of capital exodus from China just within the past year, as the wealthy diversify out of China and into SE Asia and more so luxury investments in the USA and USD denominated investments.

Note China and India will rise up and be the financial leaders of the world from 2032 onwards.

Edit: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35516054

Some startups have succeeded in producing new architectures in what were (at least initially) vertical markets. I haven't studied these markets and the concept of a trinary logic process, so I can't comment meaningfully other than in any case I would tend to agree that 9/10 of startups fail in general and not to mention the very high capital intensive arena of custom hardware architecture.


You are ignoring my expert review of Iota's consensus algorithm. That is fine with me.

Actually I think those comments are reasonably good. He is trying to articulate that he wants to invest in projects that could or do have technology viable to some market strategy other than just mining the speculators.

AltcoinUK's disadvantage above is that he can't quite evaluate some aspects of obscure software technology research as well as I can. I was in the Skycoin thread back when the hope was great, and I was pointing out realism that others hadn't. Afair (vaguely), I was vindicated when Skycoin released their consensus white paper and it was a dud. Skycoin was attempting to solve for consensus basically what Stellar's SCP (created by a Stanford U. professor with a PhD in CompSci and author of a very popular Kademlia DHT) ended up being and SCP will centralize in order to guarantee against Sybil preemption.

Come-from-Beyond has delivered products that do evolve some technological innovation and has produced products which get speculators excited which has brought money into our altcoin space, which thus attracts people like myself who do other fundamental research (and hopefully development too  ). There is a synergistic effect.

Of course the JINN aspect appears to be quite dubious, and I am not claiming CfB is the most awesome programmer the world has ever seen (neither am I, but I bet I am pretty far up there... we'll see), but I find it difficult to criticize him on his efforts technologically. Yeah I have concluded that Iota can't converge on consensus without centralization, but that doesn't mean our altcoin sector hasn't gained anything from that technological endeavor. I separate in my mind the JINN aspect from the technological and development work done. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

CfB is not normally shrilling in threads but he lost his cool with me recently wherein I am trying to shift from "discuss" mode to implementation and white paper writing mode. Nevertheless the above is how I stand on the issues.

I wish AltcoinUK and CfB will stop fighting. I understand the JINN aspect needs to be explained to investors. I have too have done my share of attempting to explain what I think are limitations and flaws in altcoins. I done a small amount of "scam" accusation posting, but for the most part I try to not repeat that endlessly (except perhaps in the case of Dash I need to it seems repeat that every once in a while because their shills are so persistent).

I don't know what to say other than to admit the altcoin arena is a hornet's nest of snake oil. There is some minor amount of valid R&D being done, and for me that is worthwhile.

As for my work on yet-another-coin, I won't be announcing it here on Bitcointalk, so if I succeed with my ambitious (delusional?) gambit then it will be in the user adoption markets. So I will try to do something different than has ever been done with an altcoin.

I received a reply from Juan Bennet (author of IPFS) and he referred me to the following:


I don't see how that solves the problem that IPFS is a protocol that enables people to advertising the availability of illegal content on the DHT, and then illegal content can move to new ephemeral nodes, i.e. Whack-A-Mole. Thus authorities are eventually very likely to regulate Hosts and tell them that by running IPFS they are providing hosting for a DHT which routes illegal content. IPFS can infringe the millions of indie artists who struggle to earn an income.

Also as pointed out in that thread, then there is very low guarantee that any data is backed up by the system or that the other desired properties of content being cached closer those who need it will be achieved.

Decentralized file storage requires fungibility of data, but this can't be attained without BOTH a block chain for recording the policies of content owners and algorithms that automatically detect which content infringes other content.

No one here can do that because they don't comprehend his writings. They pull phrases out-of-context of the conditions that Armstrong placed on the contingency and also they don't incorporate a holistic understanding. MA tends to write blog posts that follow on from prior blog posts, and you need to follow them as a conversation in his mind to understand what he is thinking.

I understand his writings and his statistically accuracy is 100% on the long-term trends since I've been following him intently starting 2012. I followed him a bit before that, but his prison writings were incomprehensible for me at that time.

Note he has not stated a 100% certainty that gold drops below $1000 between this March and May. His models say it is very likely, but I doubt he would argue 100%  certain. Perhaps 80% or 95%. Regardless, his long-term prediction on gold has been true, which was a PHASE TRANSITION after breaking above $1500 in summer of 2011, then a decline to a low by 2015.75. Gold fell from 1900 to 1050 as predicted.

I am very curious to hear how you are omniscient[1] because you were able to make the speed-of-light infinite[2] and thus you know what decentralized annealing would have done otherwise.

You won't understand my point, yet it is a rebuttal and I don't have time to teach any more.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg13704711#msg13704711

[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg13705829#msg13705829