Re: What is ICO ?
Idiot's Coin Owership plan. Via: Instant Corruption Obfuscation scheme. Edit: Idiomatic Conundrum Oligarchy debacle. Inimical Cartelized Organization Iota Co-owners' Opulence |
|
|
|
Re: What is ICO ?
Idiot's Coin Owership plan. Via: Instant Corruption Obfuscation scheme. Edit: Idiomatic Conundrum Oligarchy debacle. Inimical Cartelized Organization Iota Co-owners' Opulence |
|
|
|
Segwit is the only proper solution for malleability.
Technical reference please so I can verify? Lol, smooth: Segwit is the only proper solution for malleability
There is some confusion between the concept of not including the signature in the txid and the particular package of changes that is being done in Core that does this and more but is also commonly called sigwit. Hope you understand smooth is speaking facetiously here while also pointing that gmaxwell's claim is perhaps BS. |
|
|
|
How does a business that gets hacked get to claim they are STILL secure?
ShapeShift should have had a more stringent audit of their new employees before hiring them. I think it's a little harsh saying that the whole system is compromised when in reality there was 1 compromised person with ulterior motives who spoiled the party for everyone. Do you think something like this can happen again if Erik finds other professionals with conscience this time around?
OP is correct as quoted. Only decentralized exchange can be secure. Note I recently educated how to do decentralized exchange securely: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364951.0 |
|
|
|
It's not trolling to make a statement in your thread about an illogical conclusion
Explain why the conclusion is illogical? Why is Bitcoin not the reserve currency of crypto gambling?NONE of the quotes in the initial post either individually or as a whole would lead to the conclusion that Bitcoin is the reserve currency for [ crypto] gambling. The question of the thread is not "is the OP a conclusive proof of...?". The question is, "Bitcoin is the reserve currency of crypto gambling?". The OP offers some initial thoughts to stimulate the discussion. Post should argue yes or no and give their reasons why. Complaints about what you did or did not learn from the OP (and other posts in the thread) is irrelevant. Btw, even if you did argue the OP is not conclusive, that does not prove the answer to the question is No. P.S. your reading comprehension is apparently not good, since you didn't read or didn't comprehend the clearly stated question. |
|
|
|
desperate red text
Somebody is shorting ETH. |
|
|
|
I guess my "dealing with it" is avoiding it almost entirely and thus not being a modern "coder". Ah well, fuck it. Something more sane will come along at some point.
As a related, but not entirely to the same point, question: Is there any tool that you can do central management on a non-gui c program that has multiple libraries, subdirectories etc? For example a multi-algo cpu miner program might have 100 files in it dealing with multiple algos, network transmission / stratum, etc. How is the programmer able to coordinate all sources, definitions, variables, dependencies (ifdefs / arch-related triggers and sub-scenarios)? Is there a way to automate all these or a way to centrally control a project? Something where I can open the central .c file and it automatically shows me the relations and internal co-dependencies... ?
Sorry I have to start moderating this. I can't allow my thread to become for teaching modern development practices now branching out into module/repository systems and paradigms for version control. You are welcome to start your own thread for that. That no longer has even a semblance of relevance to my decision about choosing a new programming language for my project, nor about coding an ASIC-resistant memory hard hash function. I can't see any relevance to my project of that tangent you want to discuss. Modern methods exist because they are necessary to handle the complexity of things that we program. For example, we now need asynchronous programming because the network has latency. Back in the day, there was no network and we ignored latency+concurrency+parallelism because there weren't complications such as multi-core processors. |
|
|
|
Someone has accused me of being Anonymint 3 times, Fontas twice, and Come from Beyond once.
r0ach don't be shy to share your portrait, lol:  |
|
|
|
In any case I think you said one of the applications you created was in assembly.
yeah WordUp was a fully featured WYSIWYG word processor with multi-columns and the whole she-bang. It was a major pita and very, very inefficient to code that way. I was young and had boundless time and energy. |
|
|
|
I know the ignorance of the DashHoles can be trying. But since keean is being so heroically patient with you, perhaps consider repaying the kindly indulgence karma?
I am being extremely patient with him also. And yes I do see he is also very patient and respectful/amicable to everyone. He is denying conjunctions (in the immutable+encapsulated scenario) in this case. Btw, I hope you realize that Bob Harper is of superior rank than keean. I respect keean and I've learned from him. In this case, he needs to open his mind and realize what I am saying. I've traded emails with Robert Harper many years ago, and his intellect is way up there. He was so far above me on type theory at that time (and still now), that I stopped emailing him for fear that I would write many stupid things and also waste his time. keean might be able to make a valid argument that there is no optimum typing system. But that has not been his argument yet. He is denying some facts, e.g. denying that Pos and Nat can coexist in NatPos as a conjunction if we can enforce that the created instance is immutable and was constructed per the invariants. The only comment I've made which can be construed to be slightly forceful, is the repeated " But I am repeating myself" and the last " Please slow down on posting, and think about my point deeply" which I just changed to " I hope I have explained my point in a way that is clear if we slow down and takes some time to reflect on it.". I mean everything I am saying now is what I wrote from the very start. It has been a wild goose chase that ended up right back at what I had written from the start. I am pleading to not lose another day because I had other insights I was writing down (for the other threads of my discussions with keean et al) and got side tracked by this lengthy debate on this one issue in one thread. I appreciate it added clarity for readers and also for myself. But I am hoping we can bring it to a close and not denying facts. Note keean is correct that I had some misconceptions about what can be enforced with typeclasses. He is far more expert with Haskell than I am. But that didn't invalidate my point. Edit: right before keean signed off, he finally agreed with me entirely (although he and I didn't realize it): https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/109 |
|
|
|
If there were no classes, subclasses, objects, complex types and all the abstraction clusterfucks, and you just had to deal with simple things, like vars/consts and functions, how would that affect your programming?
Wouldn't you be able to do your work? If you don't need them (in theory nobody does - the can just copy/paste similar code to emulate objects or make multiple declaration instead of using complex types), you could just skip them all together or bypass them. If the cpu can do everything by 10-15 math and logical functions, like comparing, jumping, adding, moving data, so can we at a much higher level (but still not too high to create clusterfucks).
OMG, I will let smooth handle this one or just ignore it. I'm not up for teaching you why your conceptualization is extremely naive. Umm...I think you should study some computer science courses. Start reading from here: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/101P.S. with first-class functions and closures, you can model most of the same semantics, but it gets hairy. |
|
|
|
It's not trolling to make a statement in your thread about an illogical conclusion
Explain why the conclusion is illogical? Why is Bitcoin not the reserve currency of crypto gambling? Please don't reply again if you aren't going to get directly to the point. You are filling the thread with useless noise. I will flag your posts to the moderator if you continue posting noise and not making an argument. |
|
|
|
I sincerely wish for him to be the first fiat BILLIONAIRE in the altcoin universe! He deserves it. He made invaluable contributions to crypto-currencies in general !
You're drunk on the Ethereum Paradox Koolaid. Do you know what a drunk looks like to the sober observers. Afaics, he didn't contribute an iota of technology that is important. |
|
|
|
I've only made the statement that you have posed shit. One only need read the shit to substantiate my claim. Apparently you don't even read your own shit.
Thats not an argument. It is trolling (unless you clarify that is just your opinion without any stated logic to back it up). When you are ready to make an argument, such as posting statistics on Bitcoin's usage, I will welcome the challenge. Until then, your posts are vacuous. Hope it is starting to sink in, that you are trolling someone who is very smart and has even been alleged to be Satoshi. |
|
|
|
Yes not gambling and porn could be something that can drive bitcoin market to quite high level. Users will love to be anonymous while playing in online casino as well as when paying to watch some camgirls and porn.
Bitcoin is perfect to recognize as gambling currency all those payment processors like neteller, skrill sucks due to limitation for gambling.
Note I don't think porn and camgirls have any significant market share of the Bitcoin economy. The economy is most speculating on altcoins and then dumping profits back to BTC, then repeat. And depositing BTC to other gambling outlets. The rest is just HODLing BTC as an ideological speculative investment (i.e. gambling). |
|
|
|
You forgot to mention the fallacy of your non-argument. Your point is invalid.
You forgot to make an argument. I didn't want to cut and paste my first post into my last post. It's lazy... look up. I don't see any argument there on your first post (in this thread). Where is the logic substantiating your allegation? You've pasted a few disjointed quotes (your own quotes I might add) from other threads together illogically concluding that Bitcoin is the reserve currency of gambling. Is this the clever new way to create new threads; cutting and pasting from old posts? Somebody call the mods!
|
|
|
|
You forgot to mention the fallacy of your non-argument. Your point is invalid.
You forgot to make an argument. I can't provide a rebuttal to unstated logic. I can't read your mind. You actually have to state the logic of your argument. |
|
|
|
Most of the gambling are fiat based. As the casino has to verify the age of the gambler so as to obey laws.
I have changed the subject title to "of crypto gambling". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
