great movies and the actor is a cool guy but most of the kung-fu scenes are ridiculous. less of them would have been better.

just because it's usefull. monetary incentives to run nodes doesn't work. it leads always into centralization, no exceptions.
just look into btc and you can see the path. people with common sense naturally tend to support usefull services because
the incentive is it's existence, serving you, giving advantages or just make some things easy for you. once understood,
a network built on this approach is way more reliable against external influence than payed models. there is no need
to claim altruism, since you benefit or not, which means it is selfregulated. i think dawkins is right on this.

pow isn't bad in general but a monetary based incentive model doesn't work. it may on the paper, in theory
but you have to deal with humans here and they have totally different demands (mostly accumulation driven).
i mean, is there really any doubt that this model already lead into a very unhealthy centralization?

perhaps for those denying reality, granted, but assuming this centralization is the case you have to accept
that pow is much, much more vulnerable by bad actors than other models. i am talking not about the weird
double spending scenarious contructed here, which are nonsense simple due to a horrible risk/reward ratio.
i you just think a minute about the details necessary to initiate an attack (real world) it comes clear nobody
would do this just for some doublespends but they would, if the goal is to create controlled mayhem.

taking this into account you can ask yourself now what gives you more confidence for a multi-billion
ecosystem. pos, where an attacker has to reveal his intention by positioning building* to get the majority
thru a very expensive asymptotically nearing or a handfull powerlines driven by an even smaller number
of miners?

well, for me this is a no-brainer. sad how things are evolved but i would bet the probability an attacker
could get the control on pos by buying old gen keys is magnitude smaller than satoshi is heavily pissed off
how things are going and therefore switching his 1mio btc stash into ethereum.

*silent positioning building is pretty hard, even in traditional markets, where most parts of the books
are closed but in crypto this much harder since most data is visible and many tracking tools already
looking exactly for those kind of pattern.

thx yassin. i like your btc address, 13 is a lucky number for me.

pos is much more secure than pow. you can't attack pos without notice or real world feedback but you can on pow.
on pow an evil entity could easily aggregate +50% silent, in the dark, without any chance to prevent this.
even without any new fancy, more powerfull asic design, this attack could occur anytime and compared to a pos
with a similar macap it would also be cheap, very cheap.

to follow your crude 'pico-probabillity-attack-vectors' on pos, here is a crude pow one for you. just imagine that
for whatever reason, the power-lines to the three chinese mining-warehouses randomly gets broken. i guess in this
case the attack would be much cheaper, perhaps close to free compared to pos and as said, just out of the dark
without any chance or sign to prevent it. this is impossible with pos.

however, whatever possible attack vector you are constructing, it boils down to this. if you try to find a solution to fix users,
having the goal to destroy their own stuff serving them (your gen key example) you will fail, no matter how fancy your math is.
there is no solution for lunatic or planed selfdestroying behaviour simple because even if it would, it has no value because the
target and reason for this solution dissapears.

deal completed. thx rando, yassin and cfb.
(yassin, please remove it from your list)

das erinnert mich an diverse nxt genesis investoren, die ganz zu beginn pakete zu 10mio nxt für 1 btc verkauft haben.
das gejammer war heftig ein paar monate später. wie auch immer, iota ist was völlig anderes und hat enormes potential
(technologisch), nicht nur im m2m bereich sondern vor allem im bereich nanopayment und microservices. iota liefert
(falls lauffähig) eine art crypto/blockchain blaupause, allerdings erkauft mit einem schlecht kalkulierbaren risiko.

für alle die hauptsächlich an der kursentwicklung interessiert sind gibt es meiner einschätzung nach keine mitte.
entweder null oder reichlich. für entwickler allerdings stellt iota ein morphbares blockchain tool dar auf dem so alles
laufen könnte was derzeit 'en vogue' ist und noch vieles mehr.

yes, i am sure.
turning a slow but robust single cpu into a fast and robust multicore cpu/gpu sounds good to me.
from my experience with nxt (100% pos, no inflation). pos rewarded sell pressure doesn't have
notable impact since it is just a recycling (fixed supply | closed system) on already fullfilled usage
(buy) demand. the pos specs aren't written in stone yet but a 1% inflation isn't sufficient to make
a difference from my pov. a self-adjusting recycle loop with a zero sum outcome so said but we
will see because this depends heavily on how eth pos is finally designed.

yes, sharding is a game changer not only for scaling. it incentives 'entities' to stay on the eth chain instead cloning.
it won't prevent cloning in all cases but for many 'products', acting on consumers, it gives advantages to run contracts
on semi-private metalayers on the main chain. sharding is used since years in db-country so it should work. however,
as soon sharding is confirmed, i will throw my remaining btc on eth in zero-time.

@bit1
you can't (or shouldn't) value ethereum by comparing to bitcoin (price). this doesn't make sense.
try to estimate the potential marketcap compared to other, crypto external companies, targeting a
similar sector. within the finance industry for instance. if you count in the ecosystem, spin offs
and number of devs working on projects and so on, you can see there is a good change ethereum will
hit higher single to lower double digits macap within the next years. these numbers are neither
unsual nor very high within this sector. so yes, ethereum could easily reach a 'much' higher price
than btc just by it's additional - and so far - unique usage scenarios.

and the first bunch of financial institutions are jumping aboard, just as supposed two years ago:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=428589.msg4759732#msg4759732

hey yassin54. just to mention, thanks for your numerous helpfull hands. it spreads good moods. 

wow!, personal vendetta driven scam accusation porn at it's best (perhaps some more here).

i am a little impressed by your skills altcoinUK, you are using a nice set of language programming technics
not seen everywhere like stereotyped repetition, discrediting by race, age or other characteristics, reply reforming,
context separation, reference nearing and other stuff but i am missing some specials you are hiding, or not?

so my question is, are you just talented, or trained on this?
(not a personal attack, i am just curious)

however, for all others just do your homework if you are interested in crypto tech. due diligence. no one
will do this for you. stick with the facts, dig, ask question and if you don't fully understand what you
see or hear don't do it. if you need someone like altcoinUK telling you what is good (or not), cryptoshpere
isn't probably the right place for you but in case you need this kind of nanny you have to blame yourself
for the outcome and not others.

absolutely agree rlh!

don't take me wrong here, it is great what you are doing but my suggestion points
to enable as much other devs as possible to overcome the lang gulag.
the requirements are different if IOTA see/confirms the potential in doing so.

into what exactly?

vanilla C is and will be unbeatable in terms of portability and extensibility compard to C#.
sure, adding additional layers (and therefore complexity) to run on nix for instance is
doable but this is not what i am talking about. a lean dependency free 33.3 kb C lib
which compiles from source on all major OS without bloat, ready to use is what i mean.

however, don't want to start a language war here but if your requirements are those
like portability, usability, extensibility etc. to unlock many other devs and projects
you have to go good-old-plain-ansi-C.

IOTA as lib

don't know how many LOC the current core has but a serious bounty to port the core
to C would be very usefull. many service and communication related apps out there
could benefit form a painless 'snap-in' solution.

not only for micro/nanopayments like mentioned here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.msg13076239#msg13076239

sure, adding a small com layer connecting to a remote host is a another solution
but able to run a full node, wrapped into a language/OS agnostic lib gives
any app dev much better control no matter in what lang those apps are written.