Bitcoin Forum
April 24, 2019, 05:23:38 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion discussion on: October 02, 2015, 02:09:34 AM
I disappeared for longer than expected due to health issues which were preventing me from having any mental energy for working. I have detailed this over the past days under my other username TPTB_need_war.

I am on the 4th consecutive day of continuous reasonably pain-free health and somewhat reasonable energy level (still not ideal, but not always zombified). I was able to run 2.25 kms at 8:30 mile pace in the hot tropical sun each of the past 3 days (will attempt again after writing this), got one barbell and basketball shoot around workout in those 3 days also, and 2 of those days I exceed 4 kms with a second run later in the day. I also finally got my driver's license renewal (which is critical for being able to get daily errands done efficiently) which had represented a big hurdle due to the unwillingness of the LTO (land transportation office) to issue a driver's license with night time driving privilege to someone blind in one eye (as I am). I had to get a medical certificate from an ophthalmologist which was a struggle to accomplish due to the low energy I was experiencing, as well very difficult to find one who wasn't on vacation.  Then my uncorrected eye sight had declined from 20/40 to 20/70 just since early August (perhaps due to the 10 day fasting I attempted as a cure in late August, but I don't know). My vision should improve as my overall health does, since it is hypothesized (but not clinically verified yet) that the gut dysbiosys is driving the autoimmunity which is attacking my visual cortex.

In any case, a big change in diet to focus on live probiotics, wild grown green leaves, raw tuna, and restarted my vitamin D3 supplementation but at a more subdued level of 20,000 IU daily, so far has me in an improving state-of-health over the past 4 days.

As of today, I have completed both the single-threaded and multi-theaded coding for the linear probe hash table which is a central component of the algorithm I am developing. Here is the heading comment for the multi-threaded version of it. I still intend to post some open source code soon to demonstrate progress. My health has been really debilitating and I have done Herculean effort to try to cure it. I don't think words could describe the minute-by-minute struggle I have been fighting.

Code:
package collections.hashed

/*
TODO: in Scala 3 we can require KEY, VAL, and CNT to be Int or Long, since we
      can express a first-class disjunction type.
*/
trait LinearProbe[@specialized(Int,Long) KEY, @specialized(Int,Long) VAL, @specialized(Int,Long) CNT] {
  def count: CNT
  // Whether entry was inserted. Value ‘0’ will return ‘false’ (internally ‘0’ values denote an empty entry).
  def insert(key: KEY, value: VAL): Boolean
  // Whether entry was removed.
  def remove(key: KEY): Boolean
  // Value that matches the given key, else ‘0’.
  def value(key: KEY): VAL
}

/*
Thread-safe LinearProbeLongInt optimized for ‘insert’, ‘find’, and ‘value’ (but not ‘remove’).
Do not employ more threads than hardware threads.

Writers are sequentially synchronized, and readers run asynchronously. Writers
wait for all active readers to complete, and readers wait for all queued writers
to complete. Non-blocking coordination is employed because a context-switch
costs a thousandth to a hundredth of a millisecond, i.e. 100,000 - 1 million
operations per second. Whereas, the critical sections of the ‘insert’, ‘find’,
and ‘value’ have a throughput in excess of 10 million operations per second.

The lines of code added to make this class thread-safe are tagged with /**/
*/
class ThreadedInsertLinearProbeLongInt(bits: Byte, lsr: Byte) extends LinearProbe[Long, Int, Int] {

I do not expect to post often. I'll post when there are significant developments.
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion discussion on: September 14, 2015, 02:38:34 PM
1. There is a mining requirement because transactions sent without proof-of-work mining share would form a rejected block, thus will not be accepted by any block.

2. The sender of the transaction doesn't need to win a block to send a transaction. I claim a 51% attack is impossible in my design. The specifics on how I accomplish that protection is not going to be discussed now. It hinges on objectivity which Satoshi's design doesn't have. Sincerely I feel bad for not being able to discuss the specifics on that now (I am eager to of course, because I am proud of my design even if it is not perfect because nothing is perfect) but please do not drag me into another argument because that particular feature is my intellectual property. I am trying to accelerate my coding so I can get the white paper and code released into the open source asap so we can open discussion on the specifics.

For 1, I was more asking why a miner would be incentivised to mine a chain with no block reward.

I can see how a 51% would be impossible in a system where only you can mine your transactions, but it looks like this is not your design. In the system I was musing about, the 51% attack was replaced with the attacker only having to outpace the recipient of the transaction, which is much worse than only having to outpace the network.

Okay I admit you don't know my design yet. You'll see why I say the objectivity is different and allows identifying the 51% attack as distinct from the honest chain once I release the white paper. Whether you will find a flaw or not remains to be seen. And again I need to get back to coding. Hope we can do that evaluation and peer review soon. Thanks.
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion discussion on: September 14, 2015, 12:27:41 PM
Mining will be unprofitable if we achieve that technical design goal. Only users that send transactions or who don't count their insignificant electricity cost will mine.

Did you just reveal that mining has a proof of burn involved because I don't see any other way for that statement to work otherwise.

I already told you that if users are required send PoW with each transaction and they don't care about their insignificant electrical cost then PoW will be unprofitable, especially if the CPU-only hash has been well designed to be within an order-of-magnitude of the potential ASIC optimization. In my recent archives (July?), smooth and I estimated this order-of-magnitude for Cryptonite at between 1 and 2, and I believe mine may be slightly better than Cryptonite.

There is your first example of me doing something technical you formerly thought is impossible. And there will be many more such cases. Stay tuned...

Not sure what thread is now the right place to post technical questions, so gonna post here:

* If there is no mining incentive, why mine the chain?

* If difficulty is low enough for joe public to mine their own transactions (and assuming only the sender can mine his own transactions), doesn't that open the chain to attack by server farms under the control of one individual?

1. There is a mining requirement because transactions sent without proof-of-work mining share would form a rejected block, thus will not be accepted by any block.

2. The sender of the transaction doesn't need to win a block to send a transaction. I claim a 51% attack is impossible in my design. The specifics on how I accomplish that protection is not going to be discussed now. It hinges on objectivity which Satoshi's design doesn't have. Sincerely I feel bad for not being able to discuss the specifics on that now (I am eager to of course, because I am proud of my design even if it is not perfect because nothing is perfect) but please do not drag me into another argument because that particular feature is my intellectual property. I am trying to accelerate my coding so I can get the white paper and code released into the open source asap so we can open discussion on the specifics.
4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion.cash "developer" a.k.a. Anonymint goes off the deep end on: September 13, 2015, 08:49:48 AM
Mining will be unprofitable if we achieve that technical design goal. Only users that send transactions or who don't count their insignificant electricity cost will mine.

Did you just reveal that mining has a proof of burn involved because I don't see any other way for that statement to work otherwise.

I already told you that if users are required send PoW with each transaction and they don't care about their insignificant electrical cost then PoW will be unprofitable, especially if the CPU-only hash has been well designed to be within an order-of-magnitude of the potential ASIC optimization. In my recent archives (July?), smooth and I estimated this order-of-magnitude for Cryptonite at between 1 and 2, and I believe mine may be slightly better than Cryptonite.

There is your first example of me doing something technical you formerly thought is impossible. And there will be many more such cases. Stay tuned...
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion discussion on: September 11, 2015, 05:04:48 AM
Basically it was this young punk who was disrupting everything:

I)  A common complaint of DPoS is that it can't be decentralized because it has the word "delegated" in the title...

Just like when I delegate the transfer of my internet packets to my ISP and all the router hops along the way, thus my participation in the internet is no longer decentralized.  Roll Eyes

That is the fabulous logic of Smoothie which he tried to ram down our throat 5 or more times.

As I tried to explain to that young punk several times, if the routers are fungible, replaceable, and can't be monopolized, then the packets find their way to the destination, without need to trust or centralize. Delegation should not be conflated with centralization, nor trust. We told him this 5 or more times, yet he still insisted.

And he claims to be a software developer. I wouldn't let him any where near my code.

By my own profession (software developer)
6  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion.cash "developer" a.k.a. Anonymint goes off the deep end on: September 10, 2015, 11:13:10 PM
The scamming is supposed to be relative to BTC value, as the form asks for the BTC value involved.

His trust rating states 0 BTC, which is accurate. (Unlike, for example, the trust abuse against me by one of the Bytecoin scammers which claims 10 BTC risked or lost, something which is made up out of thin air.)

And he presents no strong evidence to say why I would risk my Hero reputation as Anonymint.

Quote
If this devolves to a judgement of personality, then it is a meaningless metric. Surely you are smart enough to see that and I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

The trust system is inherently subjective for better or worse.

I don't "strongly believe" that you are scamming but maybe smoothie does. I'm asking him to reconsider that assessment carefully (especially with emphasis on "strongly").

If there is no basis of preponderance of evidence then the entire Trust system is meaningless.

If you are arguing the system should be meaningless, then go ahead. You seem to love to argue nonsense.

You went against me the other day when you argued that I was hyping and would receive bad outcome for it. Did I receive a bad outcome? Of course not. I will win. Why? Because I have truth, sincerity, and hard work on my side. And those attributes can't be faked.
7  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion.cash "developer" a.k.a. Anonymint goes off the deep end on: September 10, 2015, 11:06:00 PM
However, I don't think it is trust abuse, within the context of the cryptocurrency marketplace. Hype of vaporware and conveniently selective disclosure of information is something that has been used by scammers and has a high risk of being employed by someone who is scamming.

Smooth you live in a fantasy world. You know damn well I am not hyping vaporware because you've even seen the Blake2 hash I coded in Scala this past week.

What I've seen is irrelevant as I'm not the one making a scamming allegation, though I have told you a few times now that your hyping without willingness to back it up with evidence will raise that suspicion. Which it does and will.

Again another of your epic logic fails.

My signature line clearly points to a Hero reputation from 2013.

Yeah dumbasses can refuse to read and refuse to look at the signature line and do their homework. But that doesn't constitute sufficient evidence of scamming. Period.

Logic fail. I am disappointed in you.
8  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion.cash "developer" a.k.a. Anonymint goes off the deep end on: September 10, 2015, 10:57:16 PM
However, I don't think it is trust abuse, within the context of the cryptocurrency marketplace. Hype of vaporware and conveniently selective disclosure of information is something that has been used by scammers and has a high risk of being employed by someone who is scamming.

Smooth you live in a fantasy world. You know damn well I am not hyping vaporware because you've even seen the Blake2 hash I coded in Scala this past week.

And you completely ignore the point that I made about when factoring in the probability of a scam, you must factor in the 2.5 years of reputation of Anonymint. Would Anonymint sacrifice his reputation? What is the probability of that.

You have disappointed me smooth. But that is okay because it was already clear from too many numerous past conversations that you have selective reading myopia weakness.

Smoothie abused the Trust rating system which is supposed to be for bad trades

This is not quite right and is a common misconception. The instructions on the trust page say:

Quote
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer

The scamming is supposed to be relative to BTC value, as the form asks for the BTC value involved.

If this devolves to a judgement of personality, then it is a meaningless metric. Surely you are smart enough to see that and I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

And again there is no strong evidence presented that I am a scammer. Taking into account the reputation history on my signature line prevents any argument that there is a high likelihood I am a scammer. He tried to abuse the system because he thought he could use his Legendary reputation against my newbie status, but my signature line points to one Hero account from 2013 and several other accounts with significant status.
9  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The state of crypto - The only serious thread on the subforum on: September 10, 2015, 10:38:54 PM
B)  Hope that Vitalik, Fuserleer, or Anonymint will some day release something better, but the consensus mechanism of all three projects is currently vaporware

I will accelerate. Multiple Sclerosis has gone into remission apparently.

I will sign off for now and be back online with some code.
10  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion.cash "developer" a.k.a. Anonymint goes off the deep end on: September 10, 2015, 10:01:06 PM
I as TPTB_need_war submitted a Positive trust rating to ion.cash, with a rebuttal explaining that Smoothie was taking revenge and abusing the Trust system. When that Trust rating did not publicly appear within 8 hours and Smoothie did not remove his Negative rating on ion.cash, I as TPTB_need_war submitted a Negative trust rating to Smoothie as documented upthread. Both of those were worded as rebuttals explaining that Smoothie was abusing the intent of the meaning of the Trust system.

Now after sleeping, neither of those Trust ratings as submitted by TPTB_need_war have appeared publicly. They do appear if I login as TPTB_need_war. Does anyone know if this is due to some action or failure of action of the part of the mods? Or is this an automated function of the forum that someone with 0 trust can't make a public Trust report?

If the latter, I would appreciate if any of you would go put a Positive trust rating on my TPTB_need_war username. Several of you have done dealings with me involving BTC.

If the former, then any of you who would like to test the fairness of the mods, please consider also submitting the Trust ratings I described above but in your own words and reasoning, until we can convince Smoothie to take his grievances with me out of the Trust system which is designed for proven scamming, not for ego battles.

If the Trust system is allowed to devolve to ego battles, then it becomes meaningless. I am confident that is not the desire of the forum owner Theymos. Rather if there is some corruption involved here that is blocking my attempts to post rebuttals to the Trust system, then of course they will lose because I will have the users on my side in the end because I am the real McCoy and I will deliver the Bitcoin killer whether they like it or not. They could ban me from the forum and it won't stop me from winning. I will win. Mark my word. And Smoothie will eat crow. If it the last thing I do in life. Death or bust is my motto now.

on the contrary, negative trust on the sole basis of "Huge ego" is abusive.
However I certainly share his view that his behavior indicates untrustworthiness. A lot of untrustworthiness. But that's just my opinion and I can't prove that he shouldn't be trusted so I don't give him negative trust.

Your logic is correct on the fact that the Trust system is not designed to be a metric of how thin skinned people are and how they get their noses bent out of joint because they don't like confident people who do what they say and say what they mean.

In terms of your opinion of me, you are conflating ego with factual statements. I don't know why when someone makes factual statements, they have to do it timidly and sugar coat it so that people don't get offended by the fact that some people have more knowledge in fields where they are expert than other people.

Experts don't have time to worry about your butt hurt feelings. I mean I don't have anything against you. And I prefer to have amicable relations. But you come here and write an entirely illogical opinion that just because I am not timid in my bold statements, that somehow is correlated with untrustworthiness.

One of the reasons a person becomes more bold is because when I post facts in a sanguine or even dispassionate tone, I get attacked because I am perceived by men to be in a weak posture. So knowing I am going to be ridiculed and attacked, I start off in an attack or masculine posture to discourage the tail waggers from thinking the tail wags the dog. This is the nature of how competition about ideas takes place in this dysfunctional forum, because men unfortunately don't know how to have level-headed factual discussions here. Consider how tiring it gets after posting 100,000 posts in the past several years to deal with all the Dunning-Krugers who all want to push their ignorance on the expert. How many times can the expert patiently explain to every one of the 10,000s of Dunning-Krugers that cross his path. Come on be realistic in your assessment. Walk in the other guy's shoes.

If you had a rational mind, instead you would read my signature line and go research my history on this forum since April 2013. I have never done something untrustworthy in those 2.5 years. The only incident that is a blemish on my record is the BCX fiasco (was in 2013? I forgot) in which I was trying to see if any of his threats were real and I was in public discussions with smooth et al about the potential for any of the threats to be real. In the process of that, I did discover the more remote potential to unmask anonymity of Cryptonote using combinatorial unmasking which I relayed to smooth. And for which if I am not mistaken I was reward 10 BTC by the trio smooth, jl777, and rpietila because I we had that agreement before I revealed the weakness I had identified. Apparently some Monero folks were angry about my involvement in that and that I earned anything from that. At that time, I was severely suffering from Multiple Sclerosis and the 10 BTC was very helpful at that time. Also I suspected but never confirmed that some felt I used that incident to hoodwink them into paying me that. The fact is that my suggested weakness and fix ended up in a Monero Research Labs report and I believe recently some Cryptonote coin may have implemented my suggested fix because it is also the way to enable pruning. I heard pruning is coming to Monero, so perhaps you can thank me somewhat for that, although I haven't checked to see how they are accomplishing it.

If you bothered to check my history as a software developer, you'd see I am 50 years old with a history of major commercial software success with some software shipped to millions of users.

Even entertaining the notion that I am untrustworthy is entirely bullshit. And it is very disrespectful to your elder who is very accomplished in the software world and also very expert in the crypto-currency world by now.

It is great you've doubted me. Just goes to show that both you and Smoothie don't do your homework before you open your mouths. You two are lazy and immature. Which is why we got into this bitch slap war in the first place.

I am like Steve Jobs. I speak frankly. I am also very amicable to those who are amicable to me. I am also reasonably humble, but not excessively so. When I been working hard on something for years and have major breakthroughs, I will of course exude a bit of cockiness. I am sort of like a Michael Jordan in that way. I carry a bit of swagger. But other times I am bit humble. Depends on my testosterone level perhaps. Perhaps on whether I've released in some intense daily exercise yet or not (e.g. I am headed out for a run now and I probably really need it to relax my testosterone level). Perhaps also depends on how the other party is relating to me, such if they are being a lazy jerk who doesn't read and then blames their failure to read on me. I dunno. And I don't care. I am interested only in the facts and production of results. All that time wasting emotional crap is for men who have menstruation. And none of that has anything to do with trustworthiness. Just so happens that my personality is my personality. Like it or hate it depending on your personality and cultural background, but that is orthogonal to trustworthiness.

Smoothie (and just about every person) have problems with orthogonality in logic. Delegation and decentralization are orthogonal concepts. Personality and trustworthiness are orthogonal concepts. Sometimes they are correlated but not always. ASS-U-ME and you are inherently illogical. Separation-of-concerns and orthogonality of logic are critically important concepts and skills for expert computer programmers.

Also bear in mind I am not your stereotypical nerd. Like some others, I am also a testosterone laden athlete (was before the M.S. and appears my M.S. is in remission as of several days and thus my athletics is starting to ramp up again).

Haha, Sybil attack him/trust system.

Germane.  Cheesy
11  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion discussion on: September 10, 2015, 11:59:52 AM
Can you reveal distribution plans? You mentioned billions of coins or more, will it be like larger block and than halving after some time or something nethash/diff related?

What I appreciate is the interest that has been shown, as it helped to confirm to me that the crypto market is not dead despite the price being down (and I think headed lower before bottoming). Because this has enabled me to gain more confidence that I am not wasting my time coding.

And I have already been contacted by an experienced crypto Java developer, so that meets my goals along with getting feedback on the name.

Other than those welcome successes, I feel shame for the discordant attention this thread has drawn (both shame for myself and for the other parties where we can't have mutual respect) and I want to delete everything and close this thread. I am trying to restrain myself, so I will just lock the thread now and go about deleting my recent posts in the other threads because I feel I have nothing to gain from parading myself around like a clown in a circus.

As for the distribution, I think it doesn't help at all to go into details like that so prematurely. It can surely just lead to more things for people to gossip or attack about and I think it is better that when we are ready to distribute we just do it. The market will tell us if we done our job correctly and if the markets feels we have made the honest and most network effects building choices w.r.t. to distribution.

I think I started this thread because I was excited to share my excitement and find some others to work with. I guess I was originally thinking it would be a community spirit where I would check in every few days and update published code and get some positive feedback loop going with the community. When I played team sports it wasn't politics, but about who could do the best job at each position. We competed to make each other better. We learned to have mutual respect. But I remember that was a difficult adjustment process. At the start, all the guys had some kind of attitude adjustment we had to go through in order to truly appreciate each other and work together as one. I just don't think a community here can work like that. It would need to be more a cult and zombie or speculative pump mass mania effect.

Now I rather feel like hiding under a rock and showing up one day da bomb. Wasting too much time on very draining communication. I think its better to communicate through non-interactive channels, e.g. white paper, website, and wiki.

These attacks can be squelched if for observers and peers their system function is verifiable truth, they can prove a trusted reputation, or they can expend or risk sufficient resources which exceed the gain from cheating.



Already asked this, but it didn't get a response, so here it goes again. How are you solving the problem (on zero confirmation transactions) which is bolded in the quote?

It isn't so simple to explain and would basically tell you major aspects of my design and I already said I am not going to reveal that at this early stage. So I think I just need to disappear for a while. I already got the feedback I needed. Thanks and I apologize for nothing being able to give the complete information now.
12  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion DELEGATION discussion on: September 10, 2015, 08:52:13 AM
Can y'all wait maybe 3 months, then let's open a free for all thread on delegation and I will participate openly if my white paper is released.

At this point it seems pointless to continue trying to get answers from someone who has none to share.

Well yeah I only said that like 3 times. You finally get it.

I explain some principles, fungibility, verifiable truth, etc.. I didn't tell you how I remove trust precisely and how I deal with issues such as Sybil and DoS attacks with delegation. That is all I will share at this time. Sorry I wasn't even intending to share what I did. It unintentionally got out of hand.

I did intend to make some strong opinioned statements of principle, that appear in r0aches thread. I don't back them up with details. Yeah disappointing for both of us.  Sad I'd like to tell you. (asap)

If you were a strong programmer and wanted to join and help, then you could see the details sooner.
13  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion discussion on: September 10, 2015, 08:36:42 AM
I am sure Oracle.Sun.Java's crypto primitives work very well (until they don't, because 'Oops ZeroDay LOL').

I am not using Java's bloatware crypto libraries! I am writing all my stuff from scratch to make sure it is correct, concise, elegant, clean, and kick ass. You don't realize you are talking to a prolific programmer.

And I already ported Ed25519 from Java to Scala (I2P code).
14  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion DELEGATION discussion on: September 10, 2015, 08:11:43 AM
Yup. Those were precisely the committed errors. I should have stuck to my policy in the opening post and I deviated because monsterer had told me long ago that he would help peer review my design when I was ready and so I wanted to be respectful to him. I tried to bend but not break on the design details withholding, but then it ended up inflaming Smoothie the worst (also inflamed monsterer a bit too but we kept it level-headed). I think because Smoothie got caught into some simpleton thinking scenarios and then when I pointed out that he was kind of stumbling into it and needed to really digest the thread in detail, he got offended and started ramping up the "I am not humble". While at the same time, I was rubbing salt into the wounds by making inflammatory claims in r0ach's thread.

So yes mutual culpability for sure. But I am sort of guy that when I can play logic games with people I do, because it is sort of fun for me to watch how people fall into lapses of logic so easily. One of the reasons I have such great respect for smooth is I almost never catch him in one and he sometimes catches me.

Smooth was spot on that I should have refused to discuss the consensus algorithm.

Perhaps I should have made no claims in the opening post about the consensus algorithm, but then I'd basically have nothing to say since I've put the anonymity features on the back burner for the time being.

I will say this that you are all thinking about the delegation the wrong way conceptually. And until I reveal that epiphany it is going to seem like I am a kook.
15  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion DELEGATION discussion on: September 10, 2015, 08:02:35 AM
Unfortunately yes. I do respect you for stopping the discussion when I requested we stop. Thank you.

To be honest, I just went to bed - it wasn't related to your request... but I'm glad that I did looking at the state of this thread!

I have no control nor desire to control if you want to continue to talking about what ever.

I mean thanks for not pushing on accusing me of being willfully abusive in some way. I tried my best to share with you as much info as I could without giving away my design, because my design is not yet implemented. And this is a competitive market place. It has nothing to do with wanting to not discuss. I am confident in the design. I already told you what the caveat is, which is the change in the security model. I see no other holes in the design thus far, and I am pretty deep into it by now.

I would love to share it. I am eager and itching to share it. I am equally afraid of it getting lost if I were killed. I mainly started that thread and reveal some info, hoping to entice another dev to join me, so I can reveal it to someone to get peer review and also to accelerate implementation and to have two or more people holding the design for redundancy. But alas, every time I try to seek out help, it is always a disaster. I lost an entire month of June trying to recruit a co-developer. I think I better just put my head down and do what I did best my entire life before the M.S.. M.S. appears to be in remission the past days.
16  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Does anyone still think NXT is a scam? on: September 10, 2015, 06:52:39 AM
The JVM doesn't just exist in splendid isolation.  Even (falsely) assuming it's secure/stable,

Even falsely assuming any new coin is secure/stable, including Bitcoin which had another bug recently which I saw you were commenting on.

I can assure you the JVM has orders-of-magnitude more eyeballs and test hours logged than Bitcoin and all the shitcoins combined.

the JVM can't (ie shouldn't) do much of anything without its libraries and security models.

Oh really? Then how come I can run my Scala crypto program on JVM without including a ton of Java libraries and no security models.

And hey what does a sandbox security model have to do with crypto code. You are really lost now.

Why does pointing out the obvious advantages of 'closer-to-the-iron' low-level interfaces for security-intensive (fintech, crypto) applications make me a "classic asshole?"

Pointing out illusions in a way that seems impressive to n00bs.

For example, where is the automatic buffer overrun protection in C?

I will accept (slightly) below-market consulting fees

I wouldn't work with you if you paid me to accept your assistance. The Mythical Math Month in spades. You've demonstrated to me on numerous times your inferior skills.

Btw remember you said Armstrong was full of shit. And now October 2015 is finally here and it is all coming down as predicted. Surely you will make some excuses on that this. You've never seen an argument that you can't lie and fake your way through.
17  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion DELEGATION discussion on: September 10, 2015, 06:24:36 AM
I see you like to play psychological games.

Crafty slimy weasel.

It won't help you win. Being good at being a weasel doesn't go far in terms of real accomplishments in life. It is destructive behavior and thus you will end up where you deserve.

Not trying to win anything. But anyway...

Get back to work! You have a shit-ton of work to do with your "project"  Grin

No time to slack on arguing with smoothie.

Sticks and stones buddy... Sticks and stones Roll Eyes

What kind of lame loser abuses the Trust system to take revenge for humiliating himself in my thread and then suckering me into telling him what an asshole he is for going on and on about how I am not humble just because he is offended that he was outed in my thread for being lazy and illogical.

Your shenanigans won't help you.

All you proved to everyone is how you can waste 24 hours of my scarce time on entire nonsense. And how you can create threads to try to incite animosity such as this one after I said many times I didn't want to discuss the algorithms for what is not yet implemented.

I won't be humiliated as I already offered to publicly apologize if you do create a system that does everything you claimed below

You can stop the nonsense now or you can be humiliated. Apology will be far too late if you leave this day like this.

Come back tomorrow and review your postings and behavior. I posted in the opening post of my thread that I was not going to release details on the consensus algorithm. I have respect for monsterer so when he pressed me for some information, I gave in a little bit.

You come along like a battering ram making silly posts about how delegation always implies trust when in fact that is not the only definition of delegation.

Also I guess you aren't even familiar with the computer science notion of delegation, which is a structural or semantic construct and has nothing to do with trust.

The you have the gall to tell me twice (adding the  Roll Eyes the second time) that your illogic is my fault because I didn't put the entire thread in the opening post.

You are so over the top. Now you stoop ever lower abusing the Trust rating system which is supposed to be for bad trades, not for bitch slap arguments in flame wars.
18  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion discussion on: September 10, 2015, 06:00:38 AM
Oh so now Smoothie has filed a bogus trust claim on my username to try to get revenge. (Click the "Trust" next to my username to the left)

It won't help him escape from the reality of this day.

When a person frames their argument with Freudian words such as "immaturity" and "not humble", they speak about themselves. They attempt to project their passive aggressive psychological illness on others.

It is rather sick to observe. (pun intended)

Edit: appears this behavior of abusing the Trust ratings is being sanctioned by the mods as they deleted my positive rating with counter argument from my long standing username TPTB_need_war.  Perhaps Smoothie has been the one sanctioned to do a demolition job on my coin by the powers-that-be that favor Bitcoin and own this forum. This was expected and it won't help them.

My long explanation.
19  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion discussion on: September 10, 2015, 05:52:20 AM
You have to trust that the person/node will do the task otherwise there is no point in delegating in the first place.

You continue to ignore information which has already been stated. I have emphasized upthread that the nodes are fungible, replaceable, and unable to monopolize their function. A node that continuously doesn't do its function will simply have removed itself from the network giving way to the other nodes which are doing their function.

I think you ought to just wait until I publish the entire white paper, so the whole thing can make sense to you.

Yup waiting  Roll Eyes

Perhaps you should publish all of the available information (without revealing your entire system) to the OP as opposed to cherry picking what you want to disclose and then doing a dance as people's questions come into this thread.

One thing I despise is a moving target in a discussion.

Please make everyone's reading and understanding a little easier by presenting the information at the beginning of this thread instead of as you see fit.

Again you ramp up the pressure even more trying to blame me for you inability to be able to read. You can't even read a dictionary:

You have to trust that the person/node will do the task otherwise there is no point in delegating in the first place. Please see my quoted definition of the word DELEGATED.

You continue to ignore information...

I don't know why you incapable of reading a dictionary properly.

del·e·gate
noun
ˈdeləɡət/
1.
a person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.
20  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ion discussion on: September 10, 2015, 05:39:19 AM
I missed your excerpt.

Perhaps you should repost that "generous" portion in the OP so everyone doesn't have to DIG for it and play this moving target game with you.

Perhaps you will learn RTFM.

Reading 2 pages of a thread is too much for a prima donna, that is no excuse for you to blame me for not putting the entire thread in the opening post.

I can see we are going to have significant problems with political trouble makers, who have nothing better to do but be lazy and disruptive— apparently intentionally so.
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!