Also Evan claims to hail from the financial realm, so I think he may know something about using bots to trade the market. I contemplate he may have been formulating the perfect plan for fooling the market with a bot that buys from itself.

P.S. note I corrected the thread title.

My presumption was incorrect. Apparently Rust outputs to the LLVM:

https://play.rust-lang.org/?code=fn main() {
    println!("Hello, world!");
}

AlexGR, it is possible that what you were trying to say is that C is too low-level to be able to reduce higher-level semantic driven bloat and that C doesn't not produce the most optimum assembly code, so might as well use assembly for low-level and a higher-level language otherwise.

In that case, I would still disagree that we should use assembly in every case where we need lower-level expression instead of a low-level language that is higher-level than assembly. Every situation is different and we should use the semantics that best fit the scenario. I would agree with the point of using higher-level languages for scenarios that require higher-level semantics as the main priority.

I would also agree that the higher-level languages we have today do lead to bloat because they are all lacking what I have explained upthread. That is why I am and have been for the past 6 years contemplating designing my own programming language. I also would like to unify low-level and higher-level capabilities in the same language. Rust has advanced the art, but is not entirely what I want.

You are again talking half-truths with half-lies.

If one were to write an entire application in assembly, they would miss high-level semantic optimizations.

You erroneously think the only appropriate tool for the job of programming is a low-level machine code semantics. You don't seem to grasp that we build higher-level semantics, so we can express (and reason about) what we need to. Example, if I really want to iterate List, then I want to say List.map() and not a few hundred lines of assembly code. The higher-level semantics of how I can employ category theory functors on that List impact more my optimization than recoding in assembly language. For example, in a non-lazy, inductive language (e.g. where Top is at that top of all types and not Haskell where Bottom populates all types) then I will need to manually do deforestation when chaining functors which terminate in the middle of the list.


While it is true that for any given higher-level program code, that hand coding it in assembly can typically make it a few percentage faster and leaner (and in the odd case a significant percentage), this belies the reality that programming code is not static. It is being studied by others and improved. So that hand-coded assembly would have to be scrapped and rewritten each times edits are made to the higher-level program code, which is too much tsuris and too much of a waste of expert man-hours in most scenarios. If we didn't code in the higher-level programming language, then we couldn't express and optimize higher-level semantics.

Your comprehension of the art of programming is simpleton and incorrect.


Why are you offended or surprised that double-wide integers consume double the space, and that a newer platform is less optimized   Progress is not free.

A Model T had resource-free airconditioning. I prefer the modern variant, especially here in the tropics.


Yes and no. That is why they designed Rust to help them get better optimization and expression over the higher-level semantics of their program.


YouTube seems to be a culprit. And other Flash videos such as NBA.com. Other times it is a bad script.



Mozilla Firefox is ostensibly not sufficiently modularly designed to have all bloat associated with supporting rich media and scripting disappear when you disable certain plugins and features.

The is a higher-level semantics problem which belies your erroneous conceptualization of everything needing to be optimized in assembly code.


The solution is not to go backwards to lower-level semantics but to go even higher-level semantic models that C can't express, thus can't optimize.

Your conceptualization of the cause of the bloat and its solution is incorrect.


C is more low-level and less structured than Pascal, which enables it to do more tricks (which can also be unsafe). Also you may prefer verbose words instead of symbols such as curly braces. Also you may prefer that Pascal makes explicit in the syntax what is implicit in the mind of the C programmer. You would probably hate Haskell with a deep disgust. I actually enjoy loading it all in my head and visualizing it as if I am the compiler.

Note I have argued that Haskell's use of spaces instead of parenthesis to group function inputs at the use-site, means the programmer has to keep the definition site declaration in his head in order to read the code. Thus I have argued parenthesis are superior for readability. There are counter arguments and especially parenthesis can't group arguments when the function name is used in the infix position.

Note I got a very high grade in both Pascal and Fortran, so it isn't like a skill in C is mutually exclusive with a skill in those other more structured languages, although that I'm not a counter-example to the converse.

Please understand the distinction between infinite and unbounded.

Infinite implies the tree fell in the forest even if no one observed it. Unbounded means no observer can find the limit.

That is an incredibly important distinction, because it totally changes the model.

I am certain the universe of universes is provably unbounded and not provably infinite. The proof will go something like how I have explained that a total observer (instead of partial orders) would require infinite speed-of-light (to observe the totality in real-time) which would collapse past and future into the a non-existent, infinitesimal point in spacetime.

P.S. CoinCube has been developing a lot of new theory and I haven't been able to pay attention. Hopefully I will have time in the future.

A GUI wallet does not a technology make.

Yeah more innovation such as the high school math error that was in the InstantX white paper for 1 year until I read the paper.

My 2 cents (amended), since someone asked:

Bitcoin has 100 times more adoption (don't compare by market cap) given by transaction fees and equivalent power consumption for hashrate than any altcoin. So it currently has the only realistic chance of furthering crypto-currency adoption. Any other coin would have to grow 100 times before it is even making any improvement. 100 times adoption growth is extremely unrealistic.

Thus Bitcoin is the most stable for long-term growth and the most liquid. Bitcoin could possibly fall apart with the block size scaling problems, but I assume this will get resolved with increasing centralization and/or rising transaction fees.

Monero has the best of breed privacy that no other coin can touch. They are implementing RingCT which combined with Cryptonote will hide values, sender, and recipient. This is all End-to-End principled, so Dash is just a nonsense toy compared to Monero w.r.t. to anonymity (notwithstanding many other technical and economic flaws in Dash). Monero has a real cryptographer who is expert in algebraic geometric and other abstract math. Dash doesn't have this. There is no other coin out there with a realistic technology that actually works. Ethereum, List, Iota, MaidSafe, Sia, Storj, Synereo, etc are all flawed and won't work.

There is only one non-bullshit coin with innovation. Monero. Period.

What is your goal?

1. Short-term profits: gambling or P&D?
2. Long-term profits?
3. Ideological investment to support crypto-currency adoption?

Answers:

1. Close your eyes and pick some from a grab brag or get on the inside with a good scammer with a good technobabble story.
2. Bitcoin (maybe Monero, but I would prefer Bitcoin yet Monero has greater potential long-term upside)
3. IMO and AFAICS, no realistic choice yet available, other than Bitcoin ecosystem investments

Your BrainShutdown:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=999886.msg14501341#msg14501341

It is becoming clear that Dash is the coin for the batshit insane, the retarded, and the incapable.

Equating pricking one's finger to someone's guts blown out with hollow point bullets is batshit insane and Bullshit Bingo.

A fair mine is one that distributes over a period of months or years, not 30% of the coins in less than 48 hours with numerous lies to the community along the way to further confuse any attempts to mine it.

As I said, I know one of your supporters who was mining from the start and he was only able to get 500 DRK (of the 1.9 million instamined) because of this bullshit. Are you claiming you had 3800 people mining the instamine. 

That is not even the most damning accusation; which rather is that Evan is continuing to not be transparent about the launch, which appears to be a violation of securities law in Evan's jurisdiction of residence and citizenship.

I actually think he is correct that it might not end up being Bitcoin. And I am expert of what I am talking about at a level that you are likely not. No offense intended.

Your Language Sucks Because...lol.

I'm formulating a theory that the worsening is due to ideological decisions that were not based on the pragmatic science of utility and practicality.

Examples:

1. Rust abandoning Typestate (as I warned in 2011) which was originally motivated by the desire to assert every invariant in the program. But of course infinite assertion is 0 performance and 0 degrees-of-freedom. Rather you choose a type system that meets the practical balance between utility and expression. And Typestate was not holistically unified with the type system of the language, thus it was doomed (as I had warned).

2. Scala was started as an ideological experiment (grown out of the Pizza project which added generics to Java) to marry functional programming concepts and OOP. Problem is that subclassing is an anti-pattern because for example the Liskov Substitution Principle is easily violated by subsclasses. Here is my Scala Google group post where I explained that Scala 3's DOT is trying to unify (the anti-pattern) subclassing and abstract types. Here is my post where I explained why I think Rust-like interfaces (Haskell Typeclasses) with first-class unions (that I had proposed for Scala) instead of subclass subsumption is the correct practical model of maximum utility and not an anti-pattern. Oh my, I was writing that when I was 4 days into my 10-day water only fasting that corresponded with my leap off the health cliff last year. Here is my post from April 2012 (right before my May hospitalization that started the acute phase of my illness) wherein I explained that "the bijective contract of subclassing is undecidable". Note Scala's complexity (generics are Turing complete thus generally undecidable same as for C++) means the compiler is uber slow making it entirely unsuitable for JIT compilation.

3. James Gosling's prioritization of simplification as the ideological justification for the train wreck that is Java's and JVM's lack of unsigned types (and for originally lacking generics and still no operator overloading).

4. Python's ideology (or ignorance) to remove the shackles of a unified type system which means not only does it have corner case gotchas, but it can never be statically checked compiled language thus can't be JIT optimized.

5. C++'s ideology of marrying backward compatibility with C (which is not entirely achieved) with OOP (including the subclassing anti-pattern on steroids with multiple diamond inheritance) is a massive clusterfuck of fugly complexity and corner cases.

P.S. I need to revisit the ideology of category theory applied to programming to try to analyze its utility more practically.

Agreed in the sense that Monero will scale up the block size by algorithm so devoid of the rigor mortis politics plaguing Bitcoin at the moment.

Note that Monero will likely centralize as block size scales up and I even refuted you on the claim that Monero's algorithm to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons can be gamed and thus won't be an absolute defense.

Nevertheless, Monero has a lot of growth ahead before this becomes an issue, especially with the ASIC resistant proof-of-work hash Cryptonite, which will forestall centralization for a while.

If you want to discuss technology further, please reply to this in the Monero Technical thread.

Monero is more free market due to its wider distribution, thus being such a small cap, it will display more bidirectional volatility than a manipulated market. As an advantage, it has more true liquidity, since I presume much of the exchange volume in Dash is insiders buying from themselves with a bot.

If you are a whale, you can't buy and then sell Dash. Not enough liquidity. Your only option is to sleep with Evan.

Impossible unless you want to forsake performance and degrees-of-freedom. There is a tension between infinite capability that requires 0 performance and 0 degrees-of-freedom.

Sorry some of the details of programming that you wish would disappear, can't.