ion.cash "developer" a.k.a. Anonymint goes off the deep end

[RaginglikeaBoss]

I only wish all of you had to go through even 1 month of the past 3 year hell I been going through with M.S.. You have no way to understand the debilitation of the effects until you've experienced it.

But I don't want any fucking sympathy. Instead I want to kick your asses.  

Yes, I understand living with M.S. (Munchausen Syndrome) is very debilitating...for everyone who has to put up with your attention seeking self-pity parade.

#R3KT

I screencapped this to use as the background on my iPad.

And by the way, I have absolutely no idea what teenage girl drama is going on in this thread, but I loved what I read.

[TPTB_need_war]

As the baboons pile on, I want to help reinforce their Neanderthal chest thumbing claim that I demonstrated no expertise and have no expert reputation. Something random I just stumbled across while refreshing my memory on Bitshares' DPoS (for a debate smooth, r0ach, and I are having else where).

It is time to squash Proof-of-Stake once and for all. It can NEVER remain decentralized. Satoshi's Proof-of-Work is the only known solution to the Byzantine General's Problem (was a known unsolved problem since at least the 1970s).

Apologies I've been busy and hadn't had time to squash bytemaster's latest N.A.O.D. (nonsense algorithm of the day).

First of all, he never was able to address the issues I raised about Transactions as Proof-of-Stake quoted as follows.

This proposal appears to be flawed, unless I am missing something. I have only read the first 4 pages thus far.

1. You propose to decrease the coin rewards as coin-days-destroyed volume increases, so this makes it less costly for an attacker to obtain > 50% of the hash rate assuming the attacker includes all the transactions. You apparently are attempting to imply there is no useful attack to do if the attacker is including the most coin-days-destroyed? Please confirm or deny then I will dig into more analysis of this vector.

2. Also how do you choose between someone who generates a proof-of-work hash with lower coin-days-destroyed several times sooner than the network propagation delay versus another who generates it that much delayed with a higher coin-days-destroyed? If you choose the latter, then you've killed the proof-of-work incentive because it means it will always pay to be later and wait for more transactions to arrive.

3. You claim to defeat my Transactions Withholding Attack, by blacklisting those who send blocks with transactions that were not recently seen by all miners. I retorted against this recently. This centralizes the network (all for one and one for all outcome) by requiring every miner to be responsible for the incoming network connectivity of other miners. And it centralizes the network in other ways, such it can't tolerate a temporary partitioning of the network due to connectivity outages.

P.S. By coin-days-destroyed, I assume you mean coin value x days, otherwise you would motivate proliferation of dust.

The most significant flaw of any proof-of-stake system and any system that diminishes coin rewards, is it can't distribute currency from the hoarders to the users of the currency, thus it will end up with the hoarders (the banksters) accumulating all the coin and the currency usage dying.

This is because the wealthy spend a much lower % of their net worth than the masses do.

[snip]

Whereas those who actually mine are proactively using their time, ingenuity, initiative and capital to secure the network, thus it seems more capitalistic they should receive the redistribution from the hoarders. Besides it may beis the only viableplausible way to secure the public ledger.

The other attacks you describe all derive from the fundamental reason I declared all non-proof-of-work systems to be insecure back in April.

My logic was mathematically fundamental. The input entropy set is quite deterministic and well known and thus can be preimaged. For example, accumulating a lot of coin-days-destroyed and then targeting them in clever ways to subvert the security.

The randomness (entropy) of each proof-of-work is fundamental and mathematical and it can not be preimaged. It can only be surely defeated with > 50% of the network hash rate. Note I recently offered what I believe to a solution to the selfish-mining attack (the one at hackingdistributed.com that claims 25 - 35% attack).

I am skeptical that you can characterize all possible attack vectors of proof-of-stake in one coherent mathematical proof. Thus you will not know formally what the security is; instead a list of adhoc attacks and counter-measures.

[snip]

Edit: Perhaps coin-days-destroyed in some attack vectors motivates not transacting for long periods of time.

The bottom line is that no proof-of-stake system can ever remain decentralized.

They all will require some sort of delegation of reputation to achieve consensus. I would have to go through a laundry list of examples to cover all the cases. For example, in Transactions as Proof-of-Stake it is required to delegate trust of propagation to the other nodes as I explained above. Thus there needs to be some reputation system to enforce this, e.g. blacklisting, whitelisting, etc.. All the other proof-of-stake systems have a requirement for some form of delegated reputation.

I have many times explained to bytemaster and others the fundamental problem is that any system that attempts to replace proof-of-work will rely on some form of reputation, and reputation is centralization. And centralization is precisely what decentralized crypto-currency is not supposed to be because centralization will always end up control and manipulated (i.e. it is a fiat system).

Trust is orthogonal to reputation and centralization. I can trust Proof-of-Work, which is decentralized trust without reputation. Reputation isn't needed in Proof-of-Work, because the input entropy is fresh (can't be preimaged) on every new TB.

You can 75% attack it if you like, but your nodes wont have any trust, so that block chain will just be ignored.

(In any non-Proof-of-Work design, ) It is mathematically impossible for there to be external consensus trust of the honest chain if the dishonest chain is controlled by more than 51% of the peers. We've covered some of the scenarios upthread, and it always boils down to that the external viewers can not know who to trust except by trusting the majority of peers.

The only mathematical way around this is to centralize the network, by placing more trust in some peers than others over time.

Indeed long-term reputation is a mathematically viable alternative to Proof-of-Work. This is centralization. There are tradeoffs.

So this is not "7 billion individually watching the network", but rather a fewer # of peers with reputation being trusted. This is just the political power vacuum all over again with its contingent problems of vested interests Olsen power scramble:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033 (No Money Exists Without the Majority)

Notwithstanding the above, any non-Proof-of-Work system can be attacked with much less than 51% of the peers, due to the fact that the input entropy is preimageable, as I explained upthread. Again the only way to work around this is to trust some established peers to guard against this.

Financial transactions must be recorded in a public or private ledger trusted by both the spender and the recipient, otherwise funds could be unspent or double-spent to a plurality of recipients. To provide a ledger that can't be captured, Satoshi described a proof-of-work (PoW) scheme where transaction peers communicating over the network compete to be the first to solve a computational puzzle which is unique for each block of transactions added to a public ledger. The security of this ledger against double-spends has three (3) essential requirements.

1. The computational puzzle can't be preimaged, i.e. nothing can be known about solving the puzzle until the prior block's puzzle is solved.

2. Without at least 50% of the aggregate computational power of all transaction peers, it is not possible to create a modified chain of blocks starting from any present or past block, which would contain more blocks than the block chain controlled by the remaining cooperating peers. Thus the longer chain is trusted.

3. The block chain is cryptographically linked in forward order, such that the historical proof-of-work and transactions can be independently verified at any time in the future. Thus the transaction peers may leave and rejoin the network at will without need for a trusted centralized storage.

Note security point #1 eliminates from consideration PoW schemes in which the puzzle is some real-world computational work because the puzzles are known a priori and are thus pre-imageable. Non-PoW voting and membership schemes disqualify because the ordering of designation of authority (to decide which transactions are in each block) to transaction peers is pre-imageable, or requires peers trusted by reputation which is centralizing on a slippery slope towards Olsen capture.

You must also consider the negative impacts of design features when you state the positive impacts.

Reputation has many downsides:

a. It can be stolen, e.g. threaten first to extort private key, then kill, and keep key.
b. Censorship based on metadata which doesn't always correlate rationally.
c. Discriminate against early adopters out of jealously, i.e. retribution for #b.
d. Regulatory authorities can require the BitName same as they now do Social Security # and Id. They can now establish the BitName is real, because it has (duration) reputation.

The high cost to transfer or revoke a name also has many downsides, e.g. see #d.

I thinking the pool operator (server) does so little relative to work of the pool miners that it doesn't need to charge a very high fee. Thus there isn't much ability (incentive for pool miners) to undercut competitors based on fee.

So there just needs to be a slightest incentive to encourage pool miners to seek out another pool as a pool grows large. This will encourage a poliferation of pools.

How do pool miners know that a pool server isn't cheating them by paying some of the earnings to themselves pretending to be a pool miner?

Go down that line of thought and you will discover what I am thinking.

The only way you can prove a pool isn't cheating is by estimating the hash rate of the pool and comparing it to the number of blocks found.  Unfortunately, you could probably still skim a couple of a percent this way.

Modern protocols (GBT & Stratum) both have the full coinbase transaction visible to the miners, meaning you can verify that the block being built will be paid to a certain address or has a certain message encoded in the block that identifies the pool.  This allows you to audit if the pool is trying to skim blocks if certain users start seeing work without a coinbase message that identifies the pool.  In the case of BTC Guild, it's both, they always pay to the same address and always include "Mined by BTC Guild" in the coinbase message.

It's not no-trust, but all it would take is a few % of users monitoring this to determine if a pool was trying to skim blocks by sending a certain % of work that doesn't include identifying marks.

How could anything less than 100% of the pool miners know if some of the coinbase transactions were to addresses not owned by pool miners who contributed shares?

Since you can never know if you are the 100% (because mining pool shares* are not recorded in the block chain), thus seems to me there is no way to verify if there is skimming or not, as bytemaster and I wrote.

*For those who don't know the terminology, a pool share is a proof-of-work hash below some threshold that is easier than the current network difficulty. It might also be a block solution.

Why don't you just use P2Pool? Is there any reason?

I was waiting for bytemaster to answer because I wanted to know his thoughts. Seems to me that you have no way to stop the Share Withholding Attack since it is decentralized. And every peer has to run more of a full client if I am not mistake. And there is a lot more overhead I believe. And perhaps also much less resistance against denial-of-service flooding. Frankly I didn't analyze for long enough to be very sure of my initial intuition which is to stay away from it.

I know it is generally impossible to enforce reputation on a 100% decentralized system. So I am intuitively skeptical of P2Pool.

P.S. I won't have time to go back here and debate. I am technically qualified and I am 100% sure I am correct.

[TPTB_need_war]

TooDumbForBitcoin

Well at least you got that part right. Lol. Losers.

Any more "me toos" from the monkey cheerleading section of the auditorium?

Does anyone have to wonder why the West is about to collapse economically? Rewarding failure. Disrespect for expertise. Ego instead of rolling up the sleeves together. Appeal to authority. Obstructing productive people out of spite and jealously. Lack of even the basic human decency and empathy towards serious disabilities. Etc..

You probably throw you own mother under the bus to get your daily fix.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I think the idea of suing someone because they left a negative trust rating against an anonymous nick on an interwebs forum is laughable.

Explain this to prosecutors who interpret laws literally. Btw, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking.

[Fuserleer]

Wow this is getting silly now.

If I tried to sue everyone that called me a scammer, conman, clown, douchebag, and a whole host of other names, I'd never have written a line of code yet!

Just take it on the chin and move on otherwise you'll never get anywhere.

Some people are immature, some people have irrational behavior, some people just like to throw bones for you to bite on because its amusing, or because they've have been scammed, or whatever other endless cocktail of reasons.  Trying to actively defend against them all is futile.

My advice is take the hit, be polite, STFU, move on!

[Come-from-Beyond]

If I tried to sue everyone that called me a scammer, conman, clown, douchebag, and a whole host of other names, I'd never have written a line of code yet!

This is what attorneys are for. You give them a task and share profit in the end. Smoothie feels himself protected because of lack of real life experience. Once he gets his arse slapped by guys in uniform he will change his behavior on the Internet, no doubt. 

[TPTB_need_war]

That is of course correct advice Fuseleer, except Come-from-Beyond is also correct that is what attorneys are for if it is worthwhile. Btw, did you see in my quote of AnonyMint upthread, that you and I were in discussions back in 2013.

Oh and here I am stumbling onto to my 2013 research again...

It consumes less electricity.

Miners or delegates or validators or whatever will expend resources only to the extent justified by transaction processing profit margin, which delegates in DPoS will also do. In fact DPoS may well have high profit margins because the number of delegates is fixed, making it a closed market.

So perhaps less electricity, but if so then more resources expended on something else (politics most likely).

(This assumes that the coin distribution phase of Bitcoin is over or insignificant, which must be done to meaningfully compare with DPoS since DPoS is incapable of distributing coins at all.)

Thus as I pointed out in 2013, a very high incentive exists to centralize mining, because transactions fees are a Tragedy of the Commons. We keep coming back to the research I did in 2013. I had already figured all this stuff out back then.

I had even pointed out the block size issue back in 2013, which is now the raging problem today with BitcoinXT alias GavinCoin.

[Fuserleer]

If I tried to sue everyone that called me a scammer, conman, clown, douchebag, and a whole host of other names, I'd never have written a line of code yet!

This is what attorneys are for. You give them a task and share profit in the end. Smoothie feels himself protected because of lack of real life experience. Once he gets his arse slapped by guys in uniform he will change his behavior on the Internet, no doubt.  

Well, I still couldn't be arsed, attorneys can be as difficult to deal with as the people you are suing!

Id just rather not cry over split milk for something as trivial as some name calling and push on.

[ExtremeFacials.com]

man, I'm loving this thread! Great publicity for mint's new coin, just look at all the alt heavy hitters lurking about ... thanks smoothie ... i feel like an alt coin 'super group' is close by, just need jl777, and maybe one of those long-ass skycoin doom posts and it's all systems go!

[TPTB_need_war]

Well, I still couldn't be arsed, attorneys can be as difficult to deal with as the people you are suing!

Id just rather not cry over split milk for something as trivial as some name calling and push on.

I tend to agree, but there are cases where I wouldn't. For example, if the crowd of them became more emboldened and the attacks became too severe to remain productive. Then it might be worth wrecking someone's life with a Cyberstalking criminal complaint to instill some fear.

First he disrupted my discussion with r0ach in r0ach's thread. Then he came to my thread and disrupted until I had to ask them to create another thread for it. Then in that new thread he attacks me. And this all before I ever issued any curse words against him.

You didn't answer Smoothie's astute question. And your dichotomous assumptions are very myopic. You do not entertain all the possibilities...

P.S. no personal offense intended. I will appreciate the debate and discussion with you at the appropriate time. I allowed you to push me for more information and discussion than is advisable at this time for my project.

Add: I really appreciate all the interest in this topic. It is an important one.

Please go elsewhere given you already asked people not to discuss delegation and this thread is simply about ion delegation.

Thanks  

Let's see if you still react that way if there is a "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" next to your name on every post you make.

[Fuserleer]

I tend to agree, but there are cases where I wouldn't. For example, if the crowd of them became more emboldened and the attacks became too severe to remain productive. Then it might be worth wrecking someone's life with a Cyberstalking criminal complaint to instill some fear.

Or you could just go under the radar for 12 months like I did, concentrate on what you are doing, and pop up when you have more concrete stuff to show.

Worked out pretty well for me, I actually feel semi-respected around here these days.  

Hitting people with a big iron hammer to gain respect through fear is probably THE worst attitude to have period.  Not only that, there will be no loyalty and your "followers" will conspire to bring you down at the first opportunity.

I'm all for legal action if its warranted, someone has caused actual harm, but name calling?  C'mon!

IMO you're doing more potential long term harm yourself than any of the "trolls" are.

[TPTB_need_war]

I tend to agree, but there are cases where I wouldn't. For example, if the crowd of them became more emboldened and the attacks became too severe to remain productive. Then it might be worth wrecking someone's life with a Cyberstalking criminal complaint to instill some fear.

Or you could just go under the radar for 12 months like I did, concentrate on what you are doing, and pop up when you have more concrete stuff to show.

Indeed. All that really matters is who delivers something to the users. Again the users are not here in Bitcointalk.

If you have the users, the investors will flock in and fight to be line.

Instead what everyone else but Bitcoin and Dogecoin did is try to get the investors first before the users. When Bitcoin was launched, the miners were the users.

[Fuserleer]

I tend to agree, but there are cases where I wouldn't. For example, if the crowd of them became more emboldened and the attacks became too severe to remain productive. Then it might be worth wrecking someone's life with a Cyberstalking criminal complaint to instill some fear.

Or you could just go under the radar for 12 months like I did, concentrate on what you are doing, and pop up when you have more concrete stuff to show.

Indeed. All that really matters is who delivers something to the users. Again the users are not here in Bitcointalk.

If you have the users, the investors will flock in and fight to be line.

Doesn't matter if your users are here on Bitcointalk or not, there is now a public record of your reaction to something that is trivial, and it will only hinder you later.

[TPTB_need_war]

I tend to agree, but there are cases where I wouldn't. For example, if the crowd of them became more emboldened and the attacks became too severe to remain productive. Then it might be worth wrecking someone's life with a Cyberstalking criminal complaint to instill some fear.

Or you could just go under the radar for 12 months like I did, concentrate on what you are doing, and pop up when you have more concrete stuff to show.

Indeed. All that really matters is who delivers something to the users. Again the users are not here in Bitcointalk.

If you have the users, the investors will flock in and fight to be line.

Doesn't matter if your users are here on Bitcointalk or not, there is now a public record of your reaction to something that is trivial, and it will only hinder you later.

Nonsense. Users can't even research what a Satoshi is. They could care less.

This issue is not trivial.

And you've been coding for 3 years and still haven't finished?

I haven't really been coding (much) yet. Cripes I created the first version of Cool Page in 1.5 months. In 3 months, the sales topped $3000 a month (inflation adjusted). Two years later at nearly a million downloads (when the internet was 1/10 the population) and up to $100,000 a month in revenue (inflation adjusted).

[Fuserleer]

I tend to agree, but there are cases where I wouldn't. For example, if the crowd of them became more emboldened and the attacks became too severe to remain productive. Then it might be worth wrecking someone's life with a Cyberstalking criminal complaint to instill some fear.

Or you could just go under the radar for 12 months like I did, concentrate on what you are doing, and pop up when you have more concrete stuff to show.

Indeed. All that really matters is who delivers something to the users. Again the users are not here in Bitcointalk.

If you have the users, the investors will flock in and fight to be line.

Doesn't matter if your users are here on Bitcointalk or not, there is now a public record of your reaction to something that is trivial, and it will only hinder you later.

Nonsense. Users can't even research what a Satoshi is. They could care less.

This issue is not trivial.

And now you're calling your users stupid, in public....

I'm respectfully just offering my sincere advice regarding things Ive witnessed over the years that can, and does sometimes come back to bite you hard....do what you will with it

1 year, 3 years, 5 years, does it matter so long as everyone (including me) involved in the project is happy with progress and it delivers at the end of it?  I've read a few places that Satoshi took years to craft Bitcoin and if you think about it, I'm in the same position he was....that is doing something technically 100% different and new...it takes time.

You've taken (so far) 2 years or whatever to write a paper and form your ideas, so I hope you were stating the time I've spent as a negative.

[TPTB_need_war]

I tend to agree, but there are cases where I wouldn't. For example, if the crowd of them became more emboldened and the attacks became too severe to remain productive. Then it might be worth wrecking someone's life with a Cyberstalking criminal complaint to instill some fear.

Or you could just go under the radar for 12 months like I did, concentrate on what you are doing, and pop up when you have more concrete stuff to show.

Indeed. All that really matters is who delivers something to the users. Again the users are not here in Bitcointalk.

If you have the users, the investors will flock in and fight to be line.

Doesn't matter if your users are here on Bitcointalk or not, there is now a public record of your reaction to something that is trivial, and it will only hinder you later.

Nonsense. Users can't even research what a Satoshi is. They could care less.

This issue is not trivial.

And now you're calling your users stupid, in public....

I'm respectfully just offering my sincere advice regarding things Ive witnessed over the years that can, and does sometimes come back to bite you hard....do what you will with it

Users know they are stupid. They like easy to use stuff. They don't want to be bothered.

Do you realize you are talking to someone who has successfully marketed to users.

[Fuserleer]

I tend to agree, but there are cases where I wouldn't. For example, if the crowd of them became more emboldened and the attacks became too severe to remain productive. Then it might be worth wrecking someone's life with a Cyberstalking criminal complaint to instill some fear.

Or you could just go under the radar for 12 months like I did, concentrate on what you are doing, and pop up when you have more concrete stuff to show.

Indeed. All that really matters is who delivers something to the users. Again the users are not here in Bitcointalk.

If you have the users, the investors will flock in and fight to be line.

Doesn't matter if your users are here on Bitcointalk or not, there is now a public record of your reaction to something that is trivial, and it will only hinder you later.

Nonsense. Users can't even research what a Satoshi is. They could care less.

This issue is not trivial.

And now you're calling your users stupid, in public....

I'm respectfully just offering my sincere advice regarding things Ive witnessed over the years that can, and does sometimes come back to bite you hard....do what you will with it

Users know they are stupid. They like easy to use stuff. They don't want to be bothered.

Do you realize you are talking to someone who has successfully marketed to users.

Do you realize the same?

So even if they are stupid, and they know it, they won't appreciate being told that they are.

Could you imagine if Apple launched a new product and at the launch talk they implied that all users were stupid and told them as such?  There would be a boycott of all Apples products.

Don't make the mistake of confusing stupidity with a desire for convenience.

[TPTB_need_war]

You've taken (so far) 2 years or whatever to write a paper and form your ideas, so I hope you were stating the time I've spent as a negative.

Yes 2.5 years to go from Bitcoin 101 to getting to the point where I could make better anonymity than Zerocash and Blockstream combined!

But also remember I was suffering extremely debilitating CFS where I would spend the entire day trying to keep my eyes open and try to ignore the headache and abdominal pain. You try working in that condition.

Just here in September I got so pissed off at this lame condition, that I decided to not eat for 10 days. Then I started drinking this Kombucha tea and only eating vegetables and coconut, nothing else. No meat, no carbos, no protein. I am nearly certain now I have correlated my M.S. to gut dysbiosis. I was about to do a self-administered fecal transplant as a desperate last resort attempt to get my ability to work restored. Luckily appears the fasting + Kombucha + change in diet is going to work.

You think someone willing to not eat for 10 days and then eat only veggies and coconut is not dedicated about to his work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you only knew how much I struggled to get back to where I am now. The coding will be much easier than what I had to go through to get back here.

[Fuserleer]

You've taken (so far) 2 years or whatever to write a paper and form your ideas, so I hope you were stating the time I've spent as a negative.

Yes 2.5 years to go from Bitcoin 101 to getting to the point where I could make better anonymity than Zerocash and Blockstream combined!

But also remember I was suffering extremely debilitating CFS where I would spend the entire day trying to keep my eyes open and try to ignore the headache and abdominal pain. You try working in that condition.

Just here in September I got so pissed off at this lame condition, that I decided to not eat for 10 days. Then I started drinking this Kombucha tea and only eating vegetables and coconut, nothing else. No meat, no carbos, no protein. I am nearly certain now I have correlated my M.S. to gut dysbiosis. I was about to do a self-administered fecal transplant as a desperate last resort attempt to get my ability to work restored. Luckily appears the fasting + Kombucha + change in diet is going to work.

We're yet to see the validity of those claims so I'm not going to comment on it.

It shouldn't be a competition of who has spent how much time per day under what conditions when we're all trying to solve the same problem.  The fact that you err towards that kind of argument is kinda disappointing, when all I'm doing is suggesting some friendly advice based on my own experience and doing so in a respectful manner (which I always try to be in our exchanges) so that you don't find yourself in a world of shit.

Know who your "friends" are, and don't treat them with contempt.

[TPTB_need_war]

I tend to agree, but there are cases where I wouldn't. For example, if the crowd of them became more emboldened and the attacks became too severe to remain productive. Then it might be worth wrecking someone's life with a Cyberstalking criminal complaint to instill some fear.

Or you could just go under the radar for 12 months like I did, concentrate on what you are doing, and pop up when you have more concrete stuff to show.

Indeed. All that really matters is who delivers something to the users. Again the users are not here in Bitcointalk.

If you have the users, the investors will flock in and fight to be line.

Doesn't matter if your users are here on Bitcointalk or not, there is now a public record of your reaction to something that is trivial, and it will only hinder you later.

Nonsense. Users can't even research what a Satoshi is. They could care less.

This issue is not trivial.

And now you're calling your users stupid, in public....

I'm respectfully just offering my sincere advice regarding things Ive witnessed over the years that can, and does sometimes come back to bite you hard....do what you will with it

Users know they are stupid. They like easy to use stuff. They don't want to be bothered.

Do you realize you are talking to someone who has successfully marketed to users.

Do you realize the same?

So even if they are stupid, and they know it, they won't appreciate being told that they are.

Could you imagine if Apple launched a new product and at the launch talk they implied that all users were stupid and told them as such?  There would be a boycott of all Apples products.

Don't make the mistake of confusing stupidity with a desire for convenience.

Who said I would literally tell users they are stupid? Do you assume I am totally insane? You think I am going to display "you are stupid" in relevant places.

Of course Apple tells its users they are stupid. It tells them they need a walled garden Appstore, and a white color fanboy attitude, etc..