everything is possible when YOU decide it actually IS!  In 4 hours I'll have completed 7 days of water only fasting, or 8 days if include the 2 egg yokes I ate after the first day. The easiest thing to do is to sleep. Everything else is exhausting, but I do seem to get several hours a day where I can produce mental work. The one thing I can say for sure is that I don't get the correlation of M.S. effects with eating. Obviously because I am not eating. Normally every time I eat, I get an elevation of M.S. effects immediately after. And I am getting virtually no pain in the stomach which was really becoming frequent before the fasting. It subjectively appears to me that the M.S. effects in my head are so much reduced. But I am so fatigued, it may be subjective, but sure seems like I don't get itchy head, welts on back of head, etc.. I am actually getting more M.S. effects in terms of minor uncontrolled muscle spasms (mostly in the legs and feet). But this was something that happened more in 2010 and 2011. Before the fasting it had progressed more to stomach and head. So my subjecture wild ass interpretation is that maybe this indicates an unwinding back to earlier stage of the disease. Btw, I can still vertical leap 24" in this weakened state (age 50 and been unable to do athletics regularly). Also I just today I started to get sensations down in my lower digestion system like pushing out material accompanied by farts. (Don't you just love reading these gory details, lol) Bottom line for me is I am getting more FUNDAMENTAL changes from this than anything else I had tried in recent memory. My operating theory is that the vitamin D3 et al, wasn't going to work because I was making a fundamental error. I was thinking it was only carbos that were bad. In fact, it appears that any protein and fat (and glucose!) are also bad, except for medium-chain fatty acids which can be converted to ketones while all others can't. So far, it is only coconut oil (less glucose than the meat) and coconut meat that I've found are medium-chain only fatty acids. I don't have a scale around, but sure looks like I've lost 3 - 5 kilos in weight already. My waist is down from 34" to 32". Thus my plan for diet when stopping the fasting is EXCLUSIVELY(!): * raw leafy greens * water * coconut * Kombucha tea (ordered this yesterday) to repopulate intestinal flora This has been a multiple year battle. I am so tired of this M.S. (suicidal thoughts enter sometimes, but my work keeps me motivated). I sure hope I can see some hope and light at the end of the tunnel. |
|
|
|
The same criticism I made in 2013 against his Transactions as Proof of Stake still remains my concern: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=354573.msg3816897#msg3816897Thanks for the reply. I hope someone can publish some white papers to make it all more condensable and convincing. Your informational message (definitely not worthless) refers to many things off hand (even without citations), but it isn't the same as a well organized white paper covering the issues with citations. Note that avoiding attacks for a $17 million market cap is the not the same as Bitcoin with a $3 billion market cap. I guess Bitshares reached a maximum of $51 million mcap at one time, but I don't think DPOS was implemented at that time afair. Bitcoin reached $10 billion and there were some bugs that have been fixed since then, meaning it was stress tested. Indeed Bitcoin has issues with centralization. I claimed that in the following post in another thread. Is there a chance that other currencies such as Dogecoin, Guncoin, Altocin and litecoin will be more popular and more valuable that Bitcoin?
Can I change the question to say, "is it possible that a coin that solved Bitcoin's critical flaws could become more popular and valuable than Bitcoin?"? If so, I say yes it is possible. Those critical flaws: - Double spending on every network fragment.
- 0-confirmation transactions require network centralization to be reliable.
- Scaling transaction volume requires network centralization to handle bandwidth (hello Bitcoin XT a.k.a. GavinCoin a.k.a. GovCoin).
- No on chain, end-to-end principle anonymity.
- Not censorship resistant long-term. Permission-less commerce not insured long-term.
- 51% attack could change the protocol in the future, by then the masses don't care. They didn't care that the dollar is debased.
Bitcoin is a highly flawed 1.0 version of crypto. Version 2.0 will definitely challenge it. Stay tuned. I believe a contender would need to fix ALL of the above and more. Not just fix one or two of the issues. Notice the coins you mentioned don't address those issues. Btw, your brother Daniel will remember me as AnonyMint from 2013. I haven't followed your developments too closely. Best of luck to you. Seriously I would like to understand these various consensus algorithms that these altcoins are proposing. Afaics, simplified white paper proofs seem to be lacking in everything except Satoshi's. That is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree. P.S. I was one of those who was very skeptical that BitUSD could track as originally designed. I see they apparently changed the design of it since the first way it was structured in the 2013 proposal. |
|
|
|
Which do you want?
Sorry not meaning to be a pain. I think as you said, this is evidence that you can't discuss this piecemeal. There needs to be a white paper. |
|
|
|
there is no way to predict which SN will get the next transaction as it is based on human behavior
Ahem. You need to prove mathematically and holistically that is a random process and not subject to game theory. That is essentially the fundamental problem with PoS, its entropy is bounded unlike PoW where the entropy is external. |
|
|
|
Is there a chance that other currencies such as Dogecoin, Guncoin, Altocin and litecoin will be more popular and more valuable that Bitcoin?
Can I change the question to say, "is it possible that a coin that solved Bitcoin's critical flaws could become more popular and valuable than Bitcoin?"? If so, I say yes it is possible. Those critical flaws: - Double spending on every network fragment.
- 0-confirmation transactions require network centralization to be reliable.
- Scaling transaction volume requires network centralization to handle bandwidth (hello Bitcoin XT a.k.a. GavinCoin a.k.a. GovCoin).
- No on chain, end-to-end principle anonymity.
- Not censorship resistant long-term. Permission-less commerce not insured long-term.
- 51% attack could change the protocol in the future, by then the masses don't care. They didn't care that the dollar is debased.
Bitcoin is a highly flawed 1.0 version of crypto. Version 2.0 will definitely challenge it. Stay tuned. I believe a contender would need to fix ALL of the above and more. Not just fix one or two of the issues. Notice the coins you mentioned don't address those issues. |
|
|
|
Or are you arguing that the profit margins from finance will go negative for the rest of human history? If so than you have yet to make your case to my satisfaction. There will always be a human desire and market to push forward consumption and a potential profit to lenders who can satisfy this demand. Since I have no reason to think that the current bubble in finance will continue indefinitly the profit margins of meeting this demeand should eventually turn positive once more. Perhaps future profits from finance will follow a damped sine wave model?   As you correctly argue they can go 'positive' over short periods of time but they are fighting against the trend they are not really positive (and increasingly not so) and just pushing forward demand. Thus your rough model on cursory glance appears to be reasonable. Good point! You taught me something[1] [1] And it isn't first time. Remember your astute private argument that collapse in the USA could not come before 2017. That was before we had clarified Armstrong's model on that point. Kudos on being able to pull that model out of your hat so quickly. That is what an applied math degree can do. |
|
|
|
|
Indeed the security model of all crypto-coins to date has been the premise that an evil 51% attack would be subverted by a mass movement of users to a non-malicious minority chain. I notice that is never the case in human history. Do the masses abandon the dollar as it becomes more malicious.
The masses are preoccupied and have their own individual interests which take priority over the interests of the money system and the holistic effect thereof.
This is one of the critical flaws in existing crypto currency. If you know of an exception, please enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
Then it'll be our fault!
There will never be a market without greater fools (not an allusion to VNL, just a general statement). Accept the universe as it is. Make your statements so the wise investors can do their research. And then let it be. |
|
|
|
(especially an unregulated one)
Thank the gods for that. I hope it remains unregulated. I am sure you agree that another name for "unregulated" is a "free market". As Fuserleer wrote upthread, we will grow weary and fanboys can pump something that doesn't have solid proofs and we will eventually be too busy on other things. |
|
|
|
|
Fuserleer, honestly I would hire some academics to make a formal paper, or do it yourself if you think you are qualified.
The more you waste time trying to piecemeal the design to layman, the more confusion and the less certain you will be that you've caught every flaw.
Before coding, I was very focused on making sure the white papers were precise, so that coding can proceed from that which is well specified.
I really can't make a final determination on your design until it is fully specified with a mathematical model. That intended to be a strong statement of my fairness.
After the formal white paper, you can work on how to explain what is in that white paper to layman. Don't put the cart before the horse.
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, there are many aspect of vanillacoin I appreciate : the rewrite of the network part, the O(1) routing, the android wallet staking ...
These features are enough to qualify vnl above a lots of altcoins.
I don't think anyone has taken a stance against those being potential improvements, although I haven't analyzed them so they may or may not be significant in the holistic sense of effects that matter. From my perspective, the entire network design will change, so all that will become irrelevant any way. (there might still be something important there that might even apply to my design for example, noting I am not a networking expert and he apparently is) I think people haven't focused on those because they are probably not significant enough to make the case for adoption and investing. But that is up to each person to decide. I don't have a well formed opinion on that and frankly don't care because I don't have the time and because I think it will all be soon irrelevant. I took a brief look at it and I wasn't convinced it was Sybil and DoS resistant (but that doesn't mean it isn't). I didn't have time to really study it well. I think it is dangerous when experts from the Bittorrent realm (my best guess of where "john conner" comes from) think they can apply the principles the same way to crypto-currency. There are fundamental differences in the Byzantine fault tolerance. The instant transaction system seems a good + too: even with some eventual limits.
I can't see this at all. What feature does it add? No zero confirmation ability has been proven yet. But I believe John made somewhat excessive claims in regards of the facts : "complete rewrite of the code" and "solving the double spending problem".
Apologizing to the community could go a long way towards repairing his reputation. Apparently he is a loner who doesn't know how to work with others. Can't even participate in a forum where he doesn't have complete control. Brilliant control freaks don't win. Gregory Maxwell is going to get a lesson on that too soon. Embracing the community with open arms is very important. Maybe he is just busy coding. No problem. We didn't force the issue here, nextgencoin did. He has been trying to push this coin before it is ready to be pushed. John hasn't even completed the zerotime white paper. He was forced to rush a more complete paper which is lacking proofs and sufficient justifications. Maybe John is caught between over anxious supporters and the realities of what one man can accomplish by himself in finite time. Maybe he simply doesn't have time to deal with the community in this forum at this time. |
|
|
|
edit: your idea of a 100% secure solution is infeasible in a trustless, peer to peer environment. The best you can hope for is that the chance of an attack succeeding is statistically insignificant.
Again I believe this is not true. Never say never. The devil is in the details. Edit: Nothing is absolutely secure beyond any probability. But when probabilities shrink to that of winning the Lotto, I consider that to be "100%" unlikely to occur in most people's lives. |
|
|
|
Did James (jl777) create all of that? |
|
|
|
|
Oh it is sort of like Amway but anyone can buy direct, no MLM pyramid.
Ah okay I thought I was a crypto-currency. Now I understand you guys are into marketing schemes instead. Good luck.
I never messed around with that Amway crap that my less STEM courses focused friends were into. I was busy learning engineering, computer science, and wanting to create paradigms that enable decentralization and the end-to-end principle that for example gave us the internet.
You guys have fun with that. There are always niche markets for people to do such as this.
|
|
|
|
|
rpietila have you seen that Christianity is taking over China?
The Communist Party is wrecked. The taipans don't want to give up their State owned enterprises monopolies which is what is holding back China.
We are nearing another Berlin wall collapse. Armstrong's computer model says Asia will bottom by 2020.
Anonymous currency and internet will be non-violent tools the people can employ to assert their sovereignty so they can ruled by only one King (for atheists that is a different King than for Christians).
|
|
|
|
CoinCube afaics you always repeat the same mistake (same myopia despite your obvious expertise in logic, math, etc). Annealing only occurs at a fine grained level, not at the macro level. Entropy and time are not reversible. That which is more efficient (anneals better) destroys that which doesn't (that which doesn't needs a crutch such as government theft). I leave it to you to work through how that disproves your statement. Remember debt isn't concerned with performance, only with return of capital. You can refer to my refutation of your mathematical limit proof for clues. Once this light bulb goes on, I think you will finally understand that I won all the debates about anarchy vs. top-down governance. The world is about to undergo a radical change in social organization. We will not be going back. The NWO will fight to survive by any means of totalitarianism. But it will lose, or make the human race extinct (e.g. nuclear winter). There is no middle ground because of the economics I explained recently. http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/36568 We are at effectively reaching a 5,000-year low in interest rates. It cannot get more bearish than this for government. What we face is monumental. P.S. once the epiphany slams you in the face, you will realize that what we face is much more severe than any hopes you've had for a calm or slow resolution to the current crisis. See this post. You now see Armstrong was correct yet again about October 1 being the start of the BIG BANG global sovereign debt crisis. Don't lose valuable time sitting on the fence. What is your game plan? I think you are crazy if you don't take a $5000 rider on a Bitcoin killer. But I don't need you. I just think you are crazy for not doing it. No need to answer me publicly. |
|
|
|
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/36592Our Forecast Array on the Yearly Levels warns of 2017 as a turning point, 2018 as a Panic Cycle Year, then a reversal of fortune into the bottom of the ECM for 2020 followed thereafter by a turn in 2022. So there is no TREND here as we look ahead. It looks much more like wild swings back and forth. So Asia will bottom 2020 and this will temporarily halt the collapse of the West. But after 2022, the West will continue collapsing. That is the way I interpret that based on information MA has provided else where. From now the markets outside the USA are collapsing, but after 2017 the USA will collapse and the world will enter a panic cycle to 2020. http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/36579Why This Week’s Low is So Important
The Dow fell as far as it could possibly go without reversing the trend on a long-term basis, even technically. The low this week has been 15370.33. This has flirted with our Third Monthly Bearish Reversal at 15550, but we also have a simple technical point of great importance — 15284 — which happens to be last year’s low. Penetrating that number would open the door to a slide into March of 2016.
Consequently, penetrating this week’s low will be INCREDIBLY significant for it would set the stage for an OUTSIDE REVERSAL TO THE UPSIDE in 2016 that would be just about the worst type of PANIC you could possibly create. WHY? Because this would imply a total meltdown in government and the rush of assets from government paper to private assets would be like a building on fire with all the doors locked, except one [US stocks and US dollar].
Therefore, the prospect of only gold rising is simply gibberish. If we penetrate this week’s low, then the type of Phase Transition that follows will be the worst type that we could ever imagine. This would set the stage for the complete meltdown in government. This will become our greatest concern for the pendulum will swing to the extreme left [last gasp bubble in sovereign bonds] which will propel the swing to the extreme right [private assets]. This becomes totally insane. So much for the Peak Oil idiots (yeah I used to argue with them too  ) and other hard assets Mathusian fools: http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/36336Oil will drop to the first support zone $31-$35. Breaking that level will warn that we should see a broader decline. It does not appear that oil will make new highs in real terms. Technology is shifting and oil will gradually fade in use over decades ahead.
|
|
|
|
http://www.nestmann.com/are-you-fit-to-be-boiledAre You Fit to be Boiled?
By Mark Nestmann • August 25, 2015
I’ll never forget the first time I saw a lobster boiled alive. It was at a family gathering when I was very young, perhaps five or six years old. One of my aunts calmly picked up a happily wriggling lobster out of an ice chest and dropped it in a pot of boiling water. The lobster flailed a bit and then stopped moving.
That incident made a strong impression on me. I think of it whenever I read of a law, court decision, or administrative decision that, while not notable by itself, represents the end – the death – of something very important. But just like the lobster, most people don’t realize anything’s wrong. They continue “happily wriggling.”
Such was my thought process when I learned of a court decision last month that US persons have no right to withhold information about their foreign investments from the government, even if that information could be used to criminally prosecute them.
The Fifth Amendment appears to contain an outright prohibition of court decisions like this. The relevant section reads:
No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
It’s pretty simple. If the government wants to punish us – the essence of a “criminal case” – it can’t force us to incriminate ourselves.
Like so many other rights the Constitution enshrines, the right against self-incrimination originated in England. By the 1600s, English law granted its citizens the right not to incriminate themselves. The Founding Fathers of the US made sure this concept found its way into the Bill of Rights.
For nearly 200 years after the Bill of Rights came into effect, the courts interpreted the self-incrimination clause broadly. An 1886 Supreme Court decision held that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments create a "zone of privacy" that protects an individual and his personal records from compelled production. And the famous Miranda case of 1966 made it clear that arrested suspects had the right to refuse to answer questions from police.
Things started going downhill from there, but it happened too slowly for most people to notice.
In 1974 and again in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment doesn’t extend to personal records that may incriminate you, if a third party (such as a financial institution) holds them. Prosecutors can issue broad summonses compelling custodians of personal and financial records to retrieve data that matches whatever criteria the government stipulates. Such “John Doe summonses” are now routinely used in tax investigations.
So it came as no surprise that in 1984, the Supreme Court concluded that, “The Fifth Amendment provides absolutely no protection for the contents of private papers of any kind.”
The 2013 Salinas Supreme Court decision opened the door for further incursions, by confirming that a jury can draw a negative inference from someone who refuses to answer a question.
With this track record, I wasn’t surprised to learn that last month, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that citizens may not claim Fifth Amendment protection for their bank records. A couple named Chabot lost their argument that their offshore bank records could incriminate them in district court, and they lost again on appeal.
This is how we lose the rights won through blood, sweat, and tears more than 300 years ago. The events and decisions that matter are so seemingly innocuous and occur over such an extended time period that almost no one pays attention. Piece by piece. Year by year. Even century by century.
It’s such a slow process that it’s easy to miss. Not unlike a lobster obliviously on the way to his doom.
Are you like a lobster ready to be thrown into the pot? Or do you have a Plan B?
|
|
|
|
|
CoinCube the only flaw I find in your last post is what minor-transgression points out, that if everyone is loaning money at interest, then the money supply and/or velocity of money must grow compounded.
Thus I say debt demands fractional reserves (booms, busts and dominance by an oligarchy whether it be 100% reserves or not is irrelevant, except that if you can enforce 100% reserves the booms and bust are much more contained).
Debt is pulling demand forward thus creating a vacuum of demand in the future because it proposes to assume that guaranteed production can predict the future. It doesn't anneal.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
