On software development, terms of implementation he is hopeless. I read not long time ago, he said none of the popular existing programming languages - which could expose the project to existing developer communities - satisfies his requirements, and therefore he is evaluating now the Rust language/framework. WTF? So he delays his progress again, because right now the programing languages are not suited to his use case. WTF again? It seems he doesn't have the ability to deliver anything, except showcasing his super intellect in this forum.
I agree with you on this. You go to war with the army you have, while working to make it better. Waiting for the perfect language guarantees waiting forever. There is no perfect language, but I told you already that I have certain requirements which my project dictates which are not met by any language: 1. JIT compilation as loaded over the Internet. 2. Strong typing with type parameter polymorphism, eager by default, with Top as the disjunction of all types and Bottom (_|_) as the conjunction of all types (Haskell is the opposite). 3. Async/await (stackless coroutines) 4. Haskell typeclass adhoc polymorphism, i.e. no subclassing which is an anti-pattern 5. Low-level control for performance with high-level elegance such as first-class functions and functional programming paradigm. 6. Add first-class disjunctions to #4. There is no language on earth which can do that. My analysis thus far concludes Rust is closest. Rust does everything except #3 and #6, and IMO its #4 and #5 need some polishing. If you are just building an application, crypto-currency or just a website, then you don't need to invest in creating the correct tools. But when you are building an application platform for others to build on top of, then you have to invest in the tools. Ask Google about Android. Ask Apple about iOS. Is it outside my resources? Maybe. That is what I am trying to determine now. Deep in research and coding. |
|
|
|
One thing that might help, is to understand how other terms are used instead of the perhaps more familiar "hashtag". It is just a content identifier. You will find this represented by other terms, like "channels", "syntactic entities", or terms specific to pi-calculus like "persisted queues", or even the word "network", as this does not apply to "gods-eye" perspectives here - so these sub-groups are most typically defined by a topic, or keyword.
So in short, Greg is using a private language for technobabble. That is sure helpful for peer review.  There is no manipulation whatsoever.
An ICO is inherently manipulation. I need to bow out of this debate now because I have important work to focus on. Don't expect further replies. Good luck. |
|
|
|
If i can't acquire native tokens except by willingly submitting to a centrally issued extortion scheme, then it's a permissioned ledger.
Say hello to Bitcoin mining pools... I agree with Fuserleer that Bitcoin is gradually losing its decentralized attribute because of the economics of mining, as the economies-of-scale increase and the block reward decreases. Monero is ostensibly more decentralized because it is early stage and hasn't yet scaled to great economies-of-scale in mining, e.g. there is no ASIC available yet afaik. However I don't know how eMunie plans to obtain a more wide and competitive distribution than proof-of-work. And is that topic really appropriate in a thread about me. I've stated why I no longer like ICOs. I'll leave it at that. |
|
|
|
His financial predictions are completely off the charts and useless. I pointed out in the Armstrong thread how wrong he was about the BTC price in several occasions - still he is marketing himself as a great forecaster. Total nonsense.
The underlined statement is false because it is too absolute. Additionally your post with those allegations was refuted by myself. On software development, terms of implementation he is hopeless. I read not long time ago, he said none of the popular existing programming languages - which could expose the project to existing developer communities - satisfies his requirements, and therefore he is evaluating now the Rust language/framework. WTF? So he delays his progress again, because right now the programing languages are not suited to his use case. WTF again? It seems he doesn't have the ability to deliver anything, except showcasing his super intellect in this forum.
I am quoting this for posterity, so we can look back on it with the undeniable fact of retrospection. Terms of his scam busting mission, as I said several times, make no mistake, he is not worried about the scams - in fact he said scams are "part of the game" -, he is just building up his honest and ethical profile, because he is preparing for a P&D to satisfy his "angel investors".
Is that a fact? Prove it. And when it is not true in the end, do you think I am going to accept your apology for slandering me. On the personal level, - apart from his incoming P&D venture - he is a very nice guy, the BCT forum wouldn't be the same without him.
I don't need your two-faced neurosis. Please instead conclude I am not a nice guy. That will be a more consistent. |
|
|
|
Yes, the streaming argument is valid, but the processor is capable of more than that.
Compilers are not superoptimizers. They can't and don't promise to do everything a processor is capable of. Basically that brings up back to the starting point... When C was first created, it promised to be very fast and suitable for creating OS'es, etc. Meaning, its compiler wasn't leaving much performance on the table. With khz of speed and few kbytes of memory there was no room for inefficiency. Granted, the instruction set has expanded greatly since the 70's with FPUs (x387), MMX, SSE(x), AVX(x), AES, etc, but that was the promise. To keep the result close to no overhead (compared to asm). That's what C promised to be. But that has gone out the window as the compilers failed to match the progress and expansion of the cpu's arsenal of tools. We are 15 years after SSE2 and we are still discussing why the hell isn't it using SSE2 in a packed manner. This isn't normal for my standards. If you look at the basic C operations, they all pretty much correspond to a single (or very small number) CPU instruction from the 70s. As TPTB said, it was pretty much intended to be a thin somewhat higher level abstraction but still close to the hardware. Original C wasn't even that portable in the sense that you didn't have things like fixed size integer types and such. To get something close to that today you have to consider intrinsics for new instructions (that didn't exist in the 70s) as part of the language. The original design of C never included all these highly aggressive optimizations that compilers try to do today, that was all added later. Back in the day, optimizers were largely confined to the realm of FORTRAN. They succeed in some cases for C of course, but its a bit of square peg, round hole. AlexGR, assembly wouldn't regroup instructions to make them SIMD if you hadn't explicitly made them that way. So don't insinuate that C is a regression. C has no sematics for SIMD, rather it is all inferred from what the invariants don't prevent. As smooth showed, that C compiler's heuristics are able to group into SIMD over loops but for that compiler and flag choices, it isn't grouping over unrolled loops. Go write a better C compiler or contribute to an existing one, if you think that optimization case is important. If you want explicit SIMD, then use a language that has such semantics. Then you can blame the compiler for not adhering to the invariants. |
|
|
|
"The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever"
Block reward share for MNs at 1.94 dash, x 576 blocks per day x 365 days per year = 407.865 dash / 4000MNs = 102 dash / MN / ~10%. There was a chart (may or may not still be there) on the Dash website showing up to 50% per annum returns since I think the rate increases every year of being staked or something like that. Please reply in the original thread (that my prior post was quoted from) and not here. I will delete my reply here and your post shortly, so please copy it to where it should go. |
|
|
|
Apparently your time is cheap enough to spam the same message on 11 different threads, 10 of which it's completely off topic in.
ICO=premine=instancemine is entirely relevant in all 11 threads. I didn't create the duplicate threads. You pumpers did. |
|
|
|
you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points.
Please enlighten me how expensive your time actually is, in order to be able to fully appreciate your generosity. No. You'll find out eventually. I will not allow you to waste my expensive time. You are now on Ignore jealous troll. |
|
|
|
Not kissing anyone's ass, it is just factual. You'll probably want to read the entire post: [...] 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. [...] |
|
|
|
enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable. They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on... and servers kept over heating and got fried up  As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise. It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points. I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now). Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them. So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on. everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc.. so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro Please clearify. tnx 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better uses to build our real ecosystems that are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. 4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market. 5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem: As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.
did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt
No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner. New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value: The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.
When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...
Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.
This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.
6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games: Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me ( I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
+1 for conscious reason. The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone. " I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally". This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that! They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy. 7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5: you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable. They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on... and servers kept over heating and got fried up As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise. It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points. I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now). Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them. So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on. everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc.. so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro Please clearify. tnx 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. 4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market. 5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem: As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.
did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt
No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner. New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value: The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.
When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...
Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.
This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.
6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games: Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me ( I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
+1 for conscious reason. The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone. " I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally". This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that! They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy. 7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5: you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable. They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on... and servers kept over heating and got fried up As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise. It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points. I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now). Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them. So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on. everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc.. so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro Please clearify. tnx 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. 4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market. 5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem: As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.
did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt
No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner. New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value: The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.
When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...
Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.
This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.
6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games: Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me ( I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
+1 for conscious reason. The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone. " I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally". This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that! They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy. 7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5: you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable. They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on... and servers kept over heating and got fried up As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise. It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points. I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now). Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them. So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on. everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc.. so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro Please clearify. tnx 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. 4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market. 5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem: As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.
did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt
No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner. New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value: The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.
When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...
Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.
This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.
6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games: Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me ( I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
+1 for conscious reason. The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone. " I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally". This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that! They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy. 7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5: you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable. They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on... and servers kept over heating and got fried up As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise. It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points. I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now). Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them. So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on. everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc.. so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro Please clearify. tnx 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. 4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market. 5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem: As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.
did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt
No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner. New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value: The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.
When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...
Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.
This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.
6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games: Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me ( I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
+1 for conscious reason. The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone. " I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally". This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that! They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy. 7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5: you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable. They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on... and servers kept over heating and got fried up As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise. It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points. I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now). Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them. So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on. everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc.. so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro Please clearify. tnx 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. 4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market. 5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem: As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.
did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt
No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner. New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value: The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.
When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...
Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.
This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.
6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games: Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me ( I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
+1 for conscious reason. The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone. " I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally". This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that! They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy. 7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5: you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable. They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on... and servers kept over heating and got fried up As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise. It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points. I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now). Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them. So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on. everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc.. so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro Please clearify. tnx 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. 4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market. 5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem: As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.
did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt
No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner. New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value: The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.
When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...
Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.
This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.
6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games: Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me ( I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
+1 for conscious reason. The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone. " I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally". This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that! They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy. 7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5: you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable. They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on... and servers kept over heating and got fried up As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise. It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points. I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now). Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them. So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on. everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc.. so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro Please clearify. tnx 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. 4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market. 5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem: As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.
did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt
No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner. New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value: The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.
When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...
Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.
This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.
6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games: Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me ( I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
+1 for conscious reason. The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone. " I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally". This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that! They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy. 7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5: you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable. They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on... and servers kept over heating and got fried up As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise. It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points. I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now). Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them. So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on. everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc.. so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro Please clearify. tnx 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. 4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market. 5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem: As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.
did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt
No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner. New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value: The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.
When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...
Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.
This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.
6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games: Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me ( I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
+1 for conscious reason. The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone. " I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally". This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that! They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy. 7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5: you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable. They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on... and servers kept over heating and got fried up As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise. It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points. I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now). Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them. So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on. everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc.. so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro Please clearify. tnx 1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal. I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams. 3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero. 4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market. 5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem: As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.
did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt
No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner. New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value: The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.
When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...
Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.
This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.
6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games: Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me ( I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs. This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.
+1 for conscious reason. The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone. " I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally". This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that! They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy. 7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5: you can read my observations here. Interesting post. The salient quote is of course: Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?
I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
