I never had a single "conference call" with anyone in the Nxt project (only Skype IM chats).

So that is just a bullshit claim (unless you are trying to say that a Skype IM chat is a "conference call" which no-one else would say if they were being genuine).

So - you have stepped back from threats of revealing PMs to just calling me names.

Hopefully your "non-investors" are paying attention to that (am guessing your puppet master told you to stop).

So the pathetic little pussy can't produce a single thing after all his threats to do so.

What - afraid to make yourself look like the pathetic piece of shit that you actually are?

Fuckwits like you don't bother me at all - you are just the kind of people that will end up in jail and will deserve it.

But hey - I'm not the one trying to get "non-investors" onboard.

I hope all your non-investors are watching this topic and your posts very closely.

Again - fuckwit - please leak it.

The world is waiting for you to show what you are made of.

Again - dickhead - go ahead and post your stuff.

I want people to see exactly what a piece of shit you are (and don't try and deny your alts - they are known to others).

And as for "leading CIYAM" I think it is you that has been drinking (you were never ever offered to do such a thing at all).

Good - do it!

I want everyone to see exactly what a piece of shit you are - so please show us all!

(and if you don't do it after now threatening me twice to do so it just shows what a fucking pussy you are)

Hold on fans of IOTA your "marketing leader" is about to disclose how he will record and use any PMs or the like to be an asshole (am guessing CfB is now checking his Skype history as he knows you'll turn on him later).

Is that the best you can do? Rather pathetic IMO (you already tried that line of attack before and it didn't work).

Why don't you try "answering a question" instead of being an asshole?

So if according to their own twists "there are no investors" then I would hope that "no-one has been stupid enough to invest anything" in it.

(it would seem they have actually admitted that it is a failure from an investment perspective as an investment would require investors which it apparently doesn't even have)

So we have have a *cough* coin with no investors that hasn't promised anything to anyone - and yet we have a bunch of idiots shilling about it here. Why?

No it doesn't - please use a dictionary to look up the word "value" and you'll find out that it is not what you think it is.

(actually I'm pretty sure you are just trolling me as you have done elsewhere so don't bother looking it up and keep on pretending - I'll just ignore your further posts)

@monsterer if you are interested to discuss this topic with me then please PM me (I think I'll be unwatching this topic now)

Idiots like @amaclin think that they can "get to me" but actually I just end up unwatching and ignoring them (and mostly this forum is full of such idiots now).

Perhaps their goal is simply to "stifle discussion" (and maybe they are paid to do so).

Then you should learn that "value" does not just mean something that you can sell.

As stated - I might "value" the ability to send an encrypted message from my account to another account but I can't "trade this value" because if I did then I would no longer be able to have a securely encrypted message (I would have had to trust another party doing that for me which would make it basically a "useless" service).

If you can't understand this point then it isn't to do with English sorry (perhaps you fail to understand that "value" isn't a strict synonym for "money").

To perhaps try and make it easier for you to understand it would be like having someone else do your Bitcoin transactions on your behalf (i.e. defeats the entire purpose of it just like when you trust exchanges to control your private keys).

I'm sorry but just because you say something is "useless" actually doesn't make it that (perhaps you have too high an opinion of your own opinions and if not then please stop making such unhelpful assertions about what is or is not useful to people other than yourself).

Some people may actually value the ability to send a private message to another person (and you can't actually trade that as you would be having to trust someone else with your private message then).

Thus the ability to send a secure message via a blockchain could very well be something of value but not something that can be traded (of course I'm sure you won't accept this reasoning as you are not reasonable but I think some others may be able to see the logic).

If the reward is not in the form of a "coin" then I'm not really sure that "double spending" applies at all (as that is dependent upon there being a "coin" is it not?).

Let me suggest a hypothetical example where the "reward" is simply the ability to send an encrypted message (via the block chain) to another account.

How do you "double-spend" that?

(I don't believe you really *can* but if you aren't a minter then you also can't guarantee that your message will ever get into a block so if you want to send such messages you now have an incentive to do the POW that your account's effectiveness requires)

That's your opinion but that wouldn't be the opinion of many millions of people that exchange services, etc. (or if you are going to say that this is "indirect" then obviously that is what I meant).

I tend to think you are correct although I think it could be possible for the reward to be other than "coins".

One possibility that I'm thinking of is service level (e.g. a consensus rule might favour txs from minting accounts over non-minting ones).

This could make sense with the initial P2P application that I am currently working on (being a decentralised BTC/LTC exchange).

That is what I haven't decided upon yet (but in reality it is likely to be necessary to at least have some reward).

Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough - to create a new account requires POW but to maintain an existing account also requires POW (and this has to be done at the same time). The big difference with the approach to the normal POW approach is that the difficult work is not needed at every block (and nor can new accounts be created at every block).

This does provide an equivalent security in that the expense to mount a Sybil attack (in terms of POW) grows with every new account you add (so you'd need a lot of computing power to gain the majority of currently minting accounts).

If you look at the ideas of "weak blocks" (which are very likely to be added to Bitcoin next year) then you'll see that the approach I am taking is a bit more like that.

The confirmation times are sped up by the fact that most blocks only require low POW (and the minters can be preparing their difficult POW between the block where the information is sourced from and the block their POW tx needs to appear by).

Although the design has not yet been completed (it's about half-way there) what I have envisioned doing with regards to accounts is to have a regular need to provide a difficult (and memory exhaustive) POW so that you can't create Sybils without incurring more and more POW.

This also means that new accounts can only be created at this same time which you could think of as being like a regular "meeting" of all those wanting to continue to mint blocks (if you fail to provide POW at this time then you'd lose the right to mint until the next such meeting is held).

Note that these meetings are not like a real meeting but perhaps are just txs that need to be included using information only revealed after block X that must be included with the POW in block X+n (where at a minimum n would be 1 but more like >10 as the POW would be difficult).

Most likely the system will also support accounts that don't get to mint at all (so they don't have to provide the difficult POW although they might be required to provide at least some POW to minimise that as a potential attack vector).

They do of course know when they should mint and will always "win" assuming that they do (only one random minter can realistically be the "best one" for each new block although in my implementation there is a small chance of "collision").

The question of incentive becomes more of an issue should the best minter not mint and then no-one else wants to (although I think in reality this wouldn't occur unless the platform had been basically abandoned).

Perhaps you are thinking this approach has a Sybil problem but as account creation is strictly controlled (by a much harder proof of work that has to repeatedly occur at a regular interval) then it becomes increasingly more difficult to create Sybils (so POW is being used to prevent Sybils but accounts are being used so that intensive POW is only needed infrequently).

Indeed - the approach that CIYAM uses is known as a "hash chain" (which functions like a PRNG meaning that the next best choice of minter is random).


The question is whether there needs to be any "reward" at all (assuming that you don't require increasing costs of hardware and electricity in order to run a full node).

I created the same sort of idea back in 2012 - http://ciyam.org/open but unfortunately it hasn't really taken off but of course a bigger name might help that to occur.

(it should be done as a P2P system without any commissions but I doubt that they are going to do that)