[neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?

[TPTB_need_war]

I saw your quick/draft logo, did you decide on a name for your project? (I might of missed you talking about it).

Yes I did and it isn't any of the names mentioned in this thread. You might be able to deduce it from the rough sketch of a brainstorming idea for a logo I did upthread.


Btw, thanks for all the feedback and help on brainstorming names upthread.

[FreeTrade]

Hmmmm . . . just reading that iPhones have had AES hardware since the iPhone 5S . . . although I'm reading that the AES chip sits between the flash and the main CPU - perhaps meaning it can only be used to encrypt/deprypt data going to/from the flash. If not, perhaps iPhones could be used for efficient mining . . memorycoin, cryptonight, maybe HODLCoin soon enough

Understand that I am working on a new concept for unprofitable PoW mining, in which it is not critical that that the PoW hashrate for phones be at par with anything; they will still add to the total systemic hashrate which makes my design more secure.

Note that it would be problematic if phones are 100X slower or less efficient on the PoW than desktops.

I know, and I'm looking forward to your coin, and follow-up biopic. However, I have more immediate needs right now than I think you can be helpful with.

[AlexGR]

Do you think a coin design should be worried with quantum resistance, and if yes, does your design offer quantum-resistance / quantum-proofing? Is there any viable solution to be QC-resistant and not bloated at the same time?

[CoinHoarder]

@TPTB

You are delusional if you think I don't understand PoS has its vulnerabilities. I may not be privy as to exactly what or how each of them work, but I have always known PoS to have vulnerabilities. What you fail to understand is PoW has its issues as well, most of which can be solved by some form of PoS. Yes there are a few vulnerabilities with PoS, similar to there being a few vulnerabilities in PoW. The difference inbetween me and you is that you gloss over vulnerabilities of PoW as if they don't exist.

Furthermore, the vulnerabilities of PoS are greatly exaggerated as far as how likely they are to happen. Just as PoW has its vulnerabilities, but they are unlikely to be attack vectors. There is only one instance of a dying PoS coin being attacked (with not many people staking), and many instances of PoW coins being attacked in various ways. I understand PoS has vulnerabilities, but a lot of them are far fetched fantasies thought up by PoW zealots interested in herding the sheep to invest in their chain instead. PoS solves most issues with PoW and PoW solves most issues with PoS... I believe both them are valuable for different reasons and should exist harmoniously.

You state you have solved the issues with PoW, but your ideas are just that... ideas. Once you publish your ideas in a concise and easy to read manner I will be happy to poke holes in it as I'm sure your design is not as perfect as you make it out to be. You say you have things solved, then you go on to make other statements in which you admit you are still trying to figure something out. The fact of the matter is your ideas have only been peer reviewed by a few people because most do not want to wade through all of your ramblings. I would have to take a week off work to do so.

You state I don't understand the economics of dPoS, which is another fallacy in your ignorant assumption I am uneducated. I understand people with a lot of stake have more say, and for me that works... I accepted this to be fact a long time ago. That is how corporations work and it makes sense to me. Large stakeholders generally have the best interest of the cryptocurrencies in mind. You go on to assume Bitshares only has a few users which is obviously not the case if you spent one day on Bitsharestalk. If a few people can prop up the market cap and 50k+ to 100k+ volume per day for years, then that is really impressive. You claim Bits hares is subject to Sybil and fail to mention every decentralized cryptocurrencies is vulnerable to Sybil. You claim all of the delegates could be one person without doing the research to actually see for yourself if that is the case. If you did the research it is obvious that delegates are not one individual. Each is doing a project, website, or service, and delegate pay is not enough to hire someone to do those tasks for you. Not to mention each of their forum presence.

You make accusations about Bitshares without understanding how it works, or all of its features, or how all of its features work. How am I supposed to take your opinion on Bitshares seriously when even you yourself admit you haven't taken the team to dive into and understand its features and how they work? You are highly uneducated when it comes to Bitshares and your jealousy of Dan Larimer seems to be greatly in play here. It seeps through with every statement you make on the subject. Just admit that you are jealous of his success, and that he was able to find a loophole to start a cryptocurrency. A loophole in which you are too scared of what the government may do to utilize. He has much more of a following and recognition than you, and be honest.. that bothers you because you think you are so much smarter than him. The difference is he actually delivers as far as coding goes. He walks the walk and talks the talk, instead of simply talking the talk like you.

The fact of the matter is that I speculate in cryptocurrencies, not vaporware that is unspeculatable in the first place (since you havent given us any method to speculate on your ideas or explained them in a clear concise manner.) There are very few vaporware projects I speculate in to begin with, as I prefer a project to have a working product first. If you happen to ever release something then I will give it a nice long look, however until that day comes you are simply a FUD artist and a vaporware pusher. Your solutions are worthless if you cannot implement them into a working cryptocurrency. Ideas are cheap in the cryptosphere, many community members have a lot of good ideas. Execution and the ability to deliver is what truly matters. At this point I am sincerely doubting that you can deliver considering you spend every waking hour on these forums as if it is your meth pipe.

[TPTB_need_war]

On the note of TPTB_need_war, I like him, he is a very smart fellow, bring up interesting points in technical discussions, but here is my warning and prediction: if he ever release his coin (which is doubtful as he is unable to work with anyone, e.g now he is having a fight with his former best friend smooth) then that coin will create nothing but tears and disappointment for the inevitable bagholders. It will be P&D like other coins with the army of disappointed bag holders at the and of the chain.  

TPTB_need_war's innovations such us the no PoW and his plan of pursuing the third world market are nothing but marketing gimmicks. There is zero chance for monetization (except that he and the early adopters will pocket some profit via the P&D) and his coin will never find way to real world businesses and won't be a factor in the real world's economy. It will exists in this pathetic no volume microcosms for a while, and then it will disappear like all other coins.

AltcoinUK and I are friendly as far as I know. A couple of weeks ago, I was invited to join GadgetCoin's private group discussion. They are working on IoT (and also a distributed streaming platform Streemo) and have a lead developer who (roughly the same age as me and) is an invited expert for the W3C Web Of Things working group, due primarily to that invited expert's maintenance of the nodeJS implementation of the proposed API undergoing the standardization process. AltcoinUK appears to maybe be an investor, but I haven't confirmed that with him. I don't think I am stating anything here that isn't already publicly available information, thus I am not revealing any private discussions that took place.

In any case, after lengthy discussions to become familiar with their goals and assets, we all mutually agreed there was no overlap between my goals to create a better decentralized currency and their current goals. So I was expunged from the private discussion forum and to the best of my understanding, it ended amicably submitting to factual reality.

It is possible that AltcoinUK is rationalizing to himself that anything I will work on is doomed to failure because I decided not to change my focus and adopt a more business-targeted focus that their group is considering (in addition to I presume continuing GadgetCoin). In other words, he might possibly be allowing his feelings dominate his objective open-minded analysis. But I am not accusing him of anything, just saying it is a possibility.

I wrote upthread that I would not entertain discussions about vaporware, but I will respond to allegations/theories/conjecture asserting that all my plans are shit.

First of all, AltcoinUK is not privy to all the details of my plans. I am by no means planning to airdrop coins to n00bs in the third world market and leave it at that. That of course would fail, because there is nothing to spend the coins on and thus no ecosystem is created.

I don't need to tell AltcoinUK my precise plans, because when he sees them in action, he will quickly understand how wrong he was. As I said, only action counts and if and when that action comes from me, then it will be extremely clear there is no P&D because the adoption will be spreading all over the world at a viral pace. It will be quite clear to everyone that I have won. And then finally I can say to all my detractors, "STFU"! But I won't have any hard feelings towards AltcoinUK because I can understand (the justifiable reasons) why he is thinking and feeling the way he is.

Btw, I expect all of you to be shocked as to the developer(s) that will be working with me shortly. Smooth is a pindot in the specific industry I am targeting (although I presume smooth is highly sought expert and magnanimous in the industry where he has focused his career) compared to these guys who have a very strong incentive to work with me. Note I am not fighting with smooth. I am advising Monero to get more focused on corporate block chain privacy (with specific admonishment to study more closely Zerocash's technology), because afaics that is the best potential market for them and their developers' experience is in server work for corporations and I can see now that they were really trying to adopt Linus Torvald's model for open source development, but IMHO the mistake they made was replacing corporate funding with speculators. This is what is screwing up their technological focus and prognosis.

AltcoinUK, please note that my advice and insight to Monero partially derives from what I learned from talking to your group. So you can see I am still trying to advance the technological progress that your corporate target markets need, even though I won't be the one developing those corporate block chain privacy solutions. Hopefully your group will pick up on my cue and find your role and place within that.

As for my work, I have been in the midst of massive strategic thinking mode for the past 3 - 4 weeks, trying to nail down exactly what I am doing. I am happy to conclude, it has all finally gelled for me. But again, I don't want to speculate on vaporware. If the action comes, you will know it.

Please do note that the technologies I am working are not marketing gimicks and are absolutely required to achieve the adoption I am targeting. This will all be clear at the appropriate time.

Everyone knows my complete name is Shelby Moore III. If any P&D comes out of my efforts, then you can take it to me personally. I can't hide. I am a USA citizen.

Again I want everyone to remember I am not creating software and tokens targeting investors (although no one can entirely control what exchange markets do). I am targeting mass markets for decentralized applications. I am targeting a for-use token that enables decentralized applications that COULD NOT BE ACHIEVED ANY OTHER WAY.

[TPTB_need_war]

Here we go again. They never stop. I wake up and more of the same shit from the Monero community... (I already told them I would inhibit myself from posting in any of their official threads)

Cryptodromeda's point may be that you miss the obvious sometimes. And design work is part of marketing.

My point is Monero folks think they know everything and don't need to listen to anyone. And they censor what they don't want to hear.

Sorry but that's absolute fucking bollocks.

No-one is censoring anything. If you vocalise lengthy passages about things un-related to Monero Speculation on a Monero Speculation thread, guess what's going to happen? How can you divorce yourself from the supreme objectivity to which you hold so dear and not see something so painfully obvious?

How on earth has the Monero community attacked you or your project? I have only witnessed the Monero community act in an entirely receptive and accommodating manner to both your technical suggestions and your personal predispositions.

You're really going full-troll on this.

By the way, the entire point of Monero is that anyone can contribute. If you've something to contribute then fucking contribute. No-one is stopping you from participation. Either get yourself over to GitHub and help out, or don't. Either way, stop with the BS and the borderline reverse trolling.

And it's really disappointing to see a good man whore himself out on a troll thread such as this. If you side with trolls and scam-artists then you will be considered as such.

Your statement is an obfuscation of the reality:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13636139#msg13636139

Monero's community are always about willynilly spin master promotional spam (and your post above is another example of it):

I've also noticed that Monero has been inserting itself in numerous Wikipedia pages. Here is an example:

Other platforms which refute Zooko's conjecture, include: Twister and Monero OpenAlias.

Monero seems to have not understood that willynilly promotion is useless without a marketing strategy.

[tifozi]

So what is the right approach to "marketing" monero? Scams are always going to win. Backdoored OSes are always going to be more popular. Linus didn't necessarily fight to win. He fought to fight and considered it a genuine marathon. He will win, long after naysayers don't exist in this planet. The metrics by which he "lost" in the short term are not what he fought to begin with, it's inner naiveté of the junta he chose not to exploit.

Satoshi absolutely went wrong with the economics of Bitcoin. I wish we could go back in time and argue with him and amend the economic modalities of Bitcoin.

[TPTB_need_war]

CfB, I don't want some information to come to you from behind my back, so I will tell you up front and in public. I gave copies to GadgetCoin's group of the private message threats of legal action (against me for speaking freely about unregistered investment securities in the context of your ICO) that your Iota partner David sent to me. I asked them to keep the messages private unless they were required to reveal them by a legal authority. I gave them my opinion that there was technological substance in Iota (but I have since studied your technology in my Decentralization thread and I am still respectful of your technical capabilities but I don't have confidence in the fundamental tech of Iota), but I warned them that IMO David was a very risky person to be involved with based on his rash interaction with me.

I don't want any fight with Iota. I am not going on a crusade against you. The reality will be the reality over time it will all come clear to the markets. I don't need to intervene. It is a free market.

I personally would love to read your statement about your involvement with Nxt if you are so inclined. I am ignorant about what transpired with Nxt. I know vaguely that it was a PoS coin that made something like 100 early adopters fantastic returns. One of the very notable ones was kLee who claimed most of his BTC and Nxt was stolen. When I was contemplating altcoin designs in 2014, kLee was one of the insiders in my Bitmessage group and he was very enthusiastic about investing huge sums of money but I balked at such an early angel investment. I realized at the time I didn't want to get myself hooked into something that I might regret later. Then suddenly he lost all his funds and declared he has suddenly Multiple Sclerosis. Then he later claimed my chronic illness is a lie or something like that (because I didn't have a formal diagnosis perhaps). I heard his wife divorced him and took the rest of his money, but that is just hearsay. And then I read in your Iota thread where kLee says something to the effect that your David and myself would mix like oil and water.

No accusations. I am just pointing out what we all know which is that this crypto arena is a hornets' nest of innuendo and malfeasance. I don't want to add to it, but I also don't want people to accuse me of hidden undesirable associations.

For the record, I am trying my best to deliver a real product for our idealistic goals for crypto. I don't want to be involved in any scam. I do have a financial problem because I have taken a small amount of angel investment and I need to make good on that. And because I am near to bankrupt. I am trying my best to not to be unwittingly involved nor associated with any scam nor P&D.

[TPTB_need_war]

So what is the right approach to "marketing" monero? Scams are always going to win. Backdoored OSes are always going to be more popular. Linus didn't necessarily fight to win. He fought to fight and considered it a genuine marathon. He will win, long after naysayers don't exist in this planet. The metrics by which he "lost" in the short term are not what he fought to begin with, it's inner naiveté of the junta he chose not to exploit.

Satoshi absolutely went wrong with the economics of Bitcoin. I wish we could go back in time and argue with him and amend the economic modalities of Bitcoin.

I've also noticed that Monero has been inserting itself in numerous Wikipedia pages. Here is an example:

Other platforms which refute Zooko's conjecture, include: Twister and Monero OpenAlias.

Monero seems to have not understood that willynilly promotion is useless without a marketing strategy.

I seem to remember that FluffyPony ran down the list of thing Monero wanted achieve marketwise as a complete privacy hub (I'm sure hub is not the word he used), but the point is that private transactions and openalias are parts of a broader design. Judging its marketing based on what's transpired so far is akin to judging Netflix when they were only doing mail order--there's a plan and specific market (those looking for end-to-end privacy solutions), so you are most likely jumping the gun on any pronouncements of failure.  

I will need to stop thinking and writing about Monero because I need to work on my own project and its marketing. I know you in the Monero/Aeon community didn't originally ask me to do this, and I am the one who forcefully interjected my opinions about Monero. So thus let me try to wrap up with one more summary of what I have been suggesting upthread.

It seems to me very likely that fluffypony's market strategy is not well focused on what corporations might want from block chain privacy. I have stated my logic on Zerocash technology upthread and the reasons corporations are IMO more apt to embrace it; whereas, they currently do not embrace public block chains and I've been told that mentioning public block chains is a good way to get ignored by corporations.

I believe a privacy focused block chain should not be in any discussions whatsoever on a daily basis in a speculation forum. What corporations want to be associated with that! Not to mention how it influences what the lead developers think about and are focused on on a daily basis. I see your lead developer smooth of Aeon in these forums constantly talking about exchange market movements. Corporations would want him to be buried away in a lab accomplishing technology quietly and appearing in public to make announcements of milestones and broad technological goals and achievements.

In other words, if you want to be a long-term focused open source project, then you need to be aligned with the interests of long-term oriented corporations as Linux is. And then you need to produce the best technology for them, e.g. probably Zerocash based (contingent on your careful study).

Anonymity for the masses is nonsensical. I had to finally come to that realization myself. Corporations have a real business need to pay for privacy and public block chains promise more interoption and network effects than private databases. Also public block chains means that corporations don't fail when their partner corporation fails. In other words, just like the concept of open source in general, public block chains remove proprietary lockin failure modes. But corporations will not use public block chains if the privacy is not 100% certain. Period.

Sorry to say it probably means mostly restarting from scratch on a new code base. And it means broadening your perspective away from just crypto currency and including distributed databases and the economics thereof. For example in IoT, a parking meter needs to be paid.

It will require a deep rethink away from the delusion that you can build an anonymous coin for general use and you will all get rich over the long-term by buying low and selling high in a speculator market. I have explained upthread why an anonymous coin for general use makes no technological sense and has no markets. In short, the few individuals that would rely on it, would be risking jail time. Corporations don't risk jail time for using privacy on their data (especially if there is a viewkey when needed for regulatory oversight).

That is my gift to your community. Ignore it at your peril.

[TPTB_need_war]

Please note I had to delete the quoted post below, because it attributed generalizethis's comments to me, and I had asked tifozi to correct his quote and he hadn't completed it by the time I made this reply, so I deleted his post. The otherwise unaltered content of his remains quoted below, with the corrected attribution.

I seem to remember that FluffyPony ran down the list of thing Monero wanted achieve marketwise as a complete privacy hub (I'm sure hub is not the word he used), but the point is that private transactions and openalias are parts of a broader design. Judging its marketing based on what's transpired so far is akin to judging Netflix when they were only doing mail order--there's a plan and specific market (those looking for end-to-end privacy solutions), so you are most likely jumping the gun on any pronouncements of failure.  

Netflix is a for profit corporation. They are answerable to shareholders of the company. Monero is not a company. There are for profit companies within cryptosphere that need to worry about it. Monero does not. So it's value as you see fit is immaterial. If fluffypony implied bringing awareness about this project and used the word marketing it is his prerogative. Monero is not fluffypony and fluffypony is not Monero. This isn't the fight that you are looking for. I didn't imply failure by any means, I meant to mock superlatives being used by many in these forums about the state of the project.

I was not privy to (not aware of) any of that discussion. That is between you and generalizethis. But I am reasonably clear that fluffypony is the most important developer of Monero and he has been in a leadership role. And you need leadership on the marketing strategy of the open source project. I would suggest you read the canonical source on open source economics:

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron.html

I will need to stop thinking and writing about Monero because I need to work on my own project and its marketing. I know you in the Monero/Aeon community didn't originally ask me to do this, and I am the one who forcefully interjected my opinions about Monero. So thus let me try to wrap up with one more summary of what I have been suggesting upthread.

No need to be diabolical with a large paint brush. I don't judge those who did either, they must have seen merit  (or not, it's irrelevant to me)

I am just acknowledging for the public record what transpired and my intentions to reach closure on this discussion asap.

It seems to me very likely that fluffypony's market strategy is not well focused on what corporations might want from block chain privacy. I have stated my logic on Zerocash technology upthread and the reasons corporations are IMO more apt to embrace it; whereas, they currently do not embrace public block chains and I've been told that mentioning public block chains is a good way to get ignored by corporations.

And that should be respected. If corporations launch their own coins, or embrace a coin launched by other corporations, it is again their pejorative. I do not have to follow them and I will not. My valuation of Monero remains unchanged because it is not an investment vehicle.

With this comment, I can see you are not agreeing that corporations (businesses) are the only viable market for block chain privacy.

Even if you argue that the general public will one day want privacy (not illegal anonymity!) on their financial transactions (which btw I think will be the case), then you will still find that Zerocash is the superior solution because its performance is provable (i.e. reasonably estimated with sufficient safety margins) because it is End-to-End principled (and this can't be done for Cryptonote/RingCT because of the meta-data problem). And I will continue to suggest that there won't be this mass market for private block chains until crypto currency is widely adopted. So you will never be able to address this market with Monero's current marketing strategy and technology, because:

1. Monero will never implement the block chain scaling technology and marketing strategy that can successfully reach the masses (for one reason because you all are clueless about this and have no focus on this). And who ever does, will simply adopt the best anonymity block chain technology and Monero ends up abandoned. The mass market coin will have more funds and more momentum.

2. Zerocash will pursue corporations and leave you behind on the viable near-term markets and also end up with the best anonymity technology.

In short, you all are in speculator delusion mode. You need to shift to thinking clearly about marketing strategy and get your heads out of the sand.

I believe a privacy focused block chain should not be in any discussions whatsoever on a daily basis in a speculation forum. What corporations want to be associated with that! Not to mention how it influences what the lead developers think about and are focused on on a daily basis. I see your lead developer smooth of Aeon in these forums constantly talking about exchange market movements. Corporations would want him to be buried away in a lab accomplishing technology quietly and appearing in public to make announcements of milestones and broad technological goals and achievements.

A systemic hyperbole that doesn't need to be indulged in.

Here is more evidence for readers that Monero's community will remain adrift at sea because it is being dominated by clueless speculators. Sorry to criticize you tifozi, but you all are braindead when it comes to marketing analysis and understanding positioning and open source economics. I've tried to explain it to you all and you are boastful about your ignorance of these matters.

In other words, if you want to be a long-term focused open source project, then you need to be aligned with the interests of long-term oriented corporations as Linux is. And then you need to produce the best technology for them, e.g. probably Zerocash based (contingent on your careful study).

A "public" fork of zcash is acceptable although still inferior in design and achievement of the movement already started with Monero.

Factually incorrect. The technical and marketing strategy detailed discussion is upthread. I will not rehash it again. Mark my words everyone. Watch and see that I am correct again in the future. As I was when everyone called me crazy back in 2013 for predicting what happened to Bitcoin now.

Anonymity for the masses is nonsensical. I had to finally come to that realization myself. Corporations have a real business need to pay for privacy and public block chains promise more interoption and network effects than private databases. Also public block chains means that corporations don't fail when their partner corporation fails. In other words, just like the concept of open source in general, public block chains remove proprietary lockin failure modes. But corporations will not use public block chains if the privacy is not 100% certain. Period.

An assumption that this is being catered towards corporations and it is not. It doesn't imply exclusion either.

See my detailed elucidation/enumeration above.

Sorry to say it probably means mostly restarting from scratch on a new code base. And it means broadening your perspective away from just crypto currency and including distributed databases and the economics thereof. For example in IoT, a parking meter needs to be paid.

Always looking for broadening, sharpening and enhancing the code base. I know the address to the github.

That is a lame excuse for ignoring what has been explained to you.

There are more than 1 million open source projects on the internet. You have to figure out a strategy that compels serious parties to join your movement. I have explained your economic options, but you won't listen.

It will require a deep rethink away from the delusion that you can build an anonymous coin for general use and you will all get rich over the long-term by buying low and selling high in a speculator market. I have explained upthread why an anonymous coin for general use makes no technological sense and has no markets. In short, the few individuals that would rely on it, would be risking jail time. Corporations don't risk jail time for using privacy on their data (especially if there is a viewkey when needed for regulatory oversight).

That is my gift to your community. Ignore it at your peril.

Sure.

Mark my words. Monero's community will eat them in a couple of years at most.

[dEBRUYNE]

Here we go again. They never stop. I wake up and more of the same shit from the Monero community... (I already told them I would inhibit myself from posting in any of their official threads)

Cryptodromeda's point may be that you miss the obvious sometimes. And design work is part of marketing.

My point is Monero folks think they know everything and don't need to listen to anyone. And they censor what they don't want to hear.

Sorry but that's absolute fucking bollocks.

No-one is censoring anything. If you vocalise lengthy passages about things un-related to Monero Speculation on a Monero Speculation thread, guess what's going to happen? How can you divorce yourself from the supreme objectivity to which you hold so dear and not see something so painfully obvious?

How on earth has the Monero community attacked you or your project? I have only witnessed the Monero community act in an entirely receptive and accommodating manner to both your technical suggestions and your personal predispositions.

You're really going full-troll on this.

By the way, the entire point of Monero is that anyone can contribute. If you've something to contribute then fucking contribute. No-one is stopping you from participation. Either get yourself over to GitHub and help out, or don't. Either way, stop with the BS and the borderline reverse trolling.

And it's really disappointing to see a good man whore himself out on a troll thread such as this. If you side with trolls and scam-artists then you will be considered as such.

Your statement is an obfuscation of the reality:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13636139#msg13636139

Monero's community are always about willynilly spin master promotional spam (and your post above is another example of it):

I've also noticed that Monero has been inserting itself in numerous Wikipedia pages. Here is an example:

Other platforms which refute Zooko's conjecture, include: Twister and Monero OpenAlias.

Monero seems to have not understood that willynilly promotion is useless without a marketing strategy.

It's kind of pathetic you are condescending on the ones that genuinely tried to help you with your health earlier.

I will look into this and which diagnostic tests or diagnostic therapies can be tried.

Cool. Let me know how you get on.

You may want to research:-

Stachybotrys (toxic black mold)
Trichothecene Mycotoxins (T-2 mycotoxins)
Cholestyramine Mycotoxin Detoxification

You'll probably want to check C3a, C4a as well as ACE, C-Reactive Protein as well as cholesterol levels. If C3 is high (i.e above 200) then it would indicated Lyme. If C4a is high then it's probably mold, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if its mold then your cholesterol levels are going to be through the roof also, irrespective of how fat/thin you are.

If mold is the culprit then you can be sure that's the reason your GSH levels are depleted thus causing oxidative stress. Building it back up as you are is an excellent idea, but bear in mind as long as you have mycotoxins in your system then you're at risk from relapse. So locate the source of the mold first, detox second, and rebuild last.

You'll find this interesting:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942754/

By the way, skipping sleep is a really bad idea. While detoxification of the lymphatic system can be achieved in numerous ways, detoxification of the glymphatic system can only really be achieved through deep sleep. So you'll want to be sleeping 9-10 hours a day.

Also don't be doing caffeine. If you're faced with the mammoth task of detoxing mycotoxins from your system it makes no sense to overload your liver with un-neccesary "extra" detoxification tasks. For that same reason I'd question why you're eating raw tuna.

I sadly have to agree with the statement of this user:

With all due respect, your input on these forums has been less and less interesting over time. I am not put off by your nazi speech I am already accustomed to. It is more about the content which is lacking the informational part that worries me.
You have not solved anything until you put your ideas on the table so we can examine. Correct me if I am wrong but you have not published any description of your great solution in depth. However you have written many texts by your all powerful ego claiming basically every coin (especially bitcoin) is flawed and it is only you that got the solution right. I think everybody already got that - there is not much more to add, why waste more time?
Obviously Monero is your favorite coin because it is the best existing tech there is - you should at least admit that.

TPTB_need_war, I don't know what happened to you. Your seemingly personal crusade against Monero and its community members has really put me off. I genuinely enjoyed reading your post and found them insightful, but the quality of them has severely deteriorated. 

[wpalczynski]

@TPTB

You are delusional if you think I don't understand PoS has its vulnerabilities. I may not be privy as to exactly what or how each of them work, but I have always known PoS to have vulnerabilities. What you fail to understand is PoW has its issues as well, most of which can be solved by some form of PoS. Yes there are a few vulnerabilities with PoS, similar to there being a few vulnerabilities in PoW. The difference inbetween me and you is that you gloss over vulnerabilities of PoW as if they don't exist.

Furthermore, the vulnerabilities of PoS are greatly exaggerated as far as how likely they are to happen. Just as PoW has its vulnerabilities, but they are unlikely to be attack vectors. There is only one instance of a dying PoS coin being attacked (with not many people staking), and many instances of PoW coins being attacked in various ways. I understand PoS has vulnerabilities, but a lot of them are far fetched fantasies thought up by PoW zealots interested in herding the sheep to invest in their chain instead. PoS solves most issues with PoW and PoW solves most issues with PoS... I believe both them are valuable for different reasons and should exist harmoniously.

You state you have solved the issues with PoW, but your ideas are just that... ideas. Once you publish your ideas in a concise and easy to read manner I will be happy to poke holes in it as I'm sure your design is not as perfect as you make it out to be. You say you have things solved, then you go on to make other statements in which you admit you are still trying to figure something out. The fact of the matter is your ideas have only been peer reviewed by a few people because most do not want to wade through all of your ramblings. I would have to take a week off work to do so.

You state I don't understand the economics of dPoS, which is another fallacy in your ignorant assumption I am uneducated. I understand people with a lot of stake have more say, and for me that works... I accepted this to be fact a long time ago. That is how corporations work and it makes sense to me. Large stakeholders generally have the best interest of the cryptocurrencies in mind. You go on to assume Bitshares only has a few users which is obviously not the case if you spent one day on Bitsharestalk. If a few people can prop up the market cap and 50k+ to 100k+ volume per day for years, then that is really impressive. You claim Bits hares is subject to Sybil and fail to mention every decentralized cryptocurrencies is vulnerable to Sybil. You claim all of the delegates could be one person without doing the research to actually see for yourself if that is the case. If you did the research it is obvious that delegates are not one individual. Each is doing a project, website, or service, and delegate pay is not enough to hire someone to do those tasks for you. Not to mention each of their forum presence.

You make accusations about Bitshares without understanding how it works, or all of its features, or how all of its features work. How am I supposed to take your opinion on Bitshares seriously when even you yourself admit you haven't taken the team to dive into and understand its features and how they work? You are highly uneducated when it comes to Bitshares and your jealousy of Dan Larimer seems to be greatly in play here. It seeps through with every statement you make on the subject. Just admit that you are jealous of his success, and that he was able to find a loophole to start a cryptocurrency. A loophole in which you are too scared of what the government may do to utilize. He has much more of a following and recognition than you, and be honest.. that bothers you because you think you are so much smarter than him. The difference is he actually delivers as far as coding goes. He walks the walk and talks the talk, instead of simply talking the talk like you.

The fact of the matter is that I speculate in cryptocurrencies, not vaporware that is unspeculatable in the first place (since you havent given us any method to speculate on your ideas or explained them in a clear concise manner.) There are very few vaporware projects I speculate in to begin with, as I prefer a project to have a working product first. If you happen to ever release something then I will give it a nice long look, however until that day comes you are simply a FUD artist and a vaporware pusher. Your solutions are worthless if you cannot implement them into a working cryptocurrency. Ideas are cheap in the cryptosphere, many community members have a lot of good ideas. Execution and the ability to deliver is what truly matters. At this point I am sincerely doubting that you can deliver considering you spend every waking hour on these forums as if it is your meth pipe.

Glad you  took the time to say all that, agree with your assessment of him 100%.

[TPTB_need_war]

1) I have some investment in GadgetCoin, and therefore I was very happy to see you in the thread. You would bring an incredible amount of expertise and knowledge to that project. It is very unfortunate there won't be  collaboration with you. Though I hope you continue the discussion with the GDC devs in the future. I asked the developers what's happening regarding the collaboration with you, they talked about you with the highest regards and stated they hope the dialogue will continue at some stage in the future.

All possibilities remain open. It isn't impossible that I could end up involved somehow with Zerocash and then targeting corporations. I tried to join the Zerocash forum and was banned, so that wasn't a good start. Perhaps in the future I might try to contact their principles. But I also think there might be too many cooks in their kitchen and perhaps some misguided strategies, so it might end up being easier to just fork their open source. We will have to see what transpires. I nodded to Monero to show their mettle and take the lead, but seems they are balking at the suggestion.

I am first attempting something in the mass market arena.

Agreed our discussions concluded (for the time being) mutually respectful.

2) I know very little about your coin. All I know what I read in this forum, and I remember you said somewhere your primary target is the third world and demographics without a bank account. I could be wrong and you could have in fact a different plan. No offence was intended.

Distinguish between a seed market (or part of the scheme) and the overall scheme. Also it is very unlikely that someone who is working on something confidential will tell anyone all of his strategy, especially we haven't even signed a NDA.

Also I have had several different ideas for incentivizing use of an altcoin since 2014. And I wasn't entirely satisfied with any of them (as evident by what I said in private discussions with your group), but an epiphany arrived on how to combine two of the ideas in a way that is much more convincing to me. We'll have to see if I am correct or not. Actually I was going to abandon the idea you are referring to and go directly to this second more direct aspect of the scheme, but then I realized it violated the economics of how to keep a coin decentralized! So then I realize there was no way to do what I want to do marketing wise, without the technological innovations I am working on. So then I started to feel a bit more smug that I was finally onto to something fundamentally good and sound. But not too smug...still working to find flaws and working on many details.

3) It was not my intention to imply or say that you would directly and purposefully organise a P&D.

Ah yes I also comprehended that but forgot to make it clear that I did. I understood you were saying that despite my best intentions, that my plans (the plans you were privy to) seemed flawed. And so that is why I felt compelled to reply and make a few clarifications.

All I was trying to say/imply that naturally you will earn money from the coin, most likely it will make you rich while unfortunately the bagholders will lose money. My main issue is that since there is no real economic justification for crypto currencies they will end up as a speculative asset with many begholders at the end of the chain.

Well I won't be promoting coins to any speculators. So if anyone finds a way to obtain some tokens, it will be on their own initiative. I am placing on myself the challenge that I must create something that has such a marketing buzz  and real user adoption outside this forum, that speculators become aware of it without me ever telling them. So that hopefully makes it much less likely that there will be bagholders. But again I am making no promises and no representations whatsoever to speculators because I am not creating an investment. I am creating a for-use token with a software that will hopefully enable decentralized applications that could not economically be achieved any other way. That is my goal. So I need to stop talking. I just wanted to make it clear to you (and readers).

I understand by default you are a decent and honest man, unlike these JINN & IOTA scammers you have integrity. However, I can see that you are trying to build an alliance for your coin here in BCT, but that means you will naturally end up in working with those very people who know nothing but scam and P&D.

No I have not made any alliances other than my 2 angel investors. I had no choice. I had to take angel investment and I entirely depleted my savings over the past 3 years that I've been working on this with no income. The amount of $ is quite small and won't burden the token.

And I do not intend to form any more alliances on this forum if at all possible. I might consider working with a developer from this forum, but it is unlikely. I am preferring to find developers from outside of our crypto community.

I totally agree with you that because we have been unable to open adoption markets, we are forced into speculation markets and the ramifications thereof. Note I am not against speculators, I just don't want that to be my target market of my project. If that is the case with no adoption, then I will have failed inspite of any funds I extracted.

You are trying to succeed in this toxic scam microcosmos which will inevitably push your coin to the P&D route. It's shame because I am telling everyone that you could be the one who build a remarkable crypto currency.

If the adoption is growing virally, then it can't be a P&D. But that is a big if. We will see. This is my experiment in crypto.

I apologise for the tone of my post. It was not a very level headed comment. Sometimes the wankers of this environment like this Belarusian IOTA scammer makes me upset and then I write harsh things about all software developers, but you should be the last person to be offended. You bring a lot to this community and you don't deserve harsh comments nor accusation of wrongdoing.

I understood.

Btw, I'd rather not take sides on CfB. Bob Surplus would argue that P&D is the product that speculators want. To each his own. CfB obviously also writes real code. I wouldn't be funded if not for CfB's work (and no he is not my angel investor). Sometimes great things come from less than perfect things. The universe is unpredictable that way.

Edit: I am not condoning any activity. Whoever can win legal or criminal action against activity may do so. That may be one judge of the implications of ethics. I am not the morality police. I have my own ethics which basically revolve around I want to be proud of my actions, I like challenges, and I enjoy to tinker with engineering being intellectually curious. I am very competitive. And I'd like to help us live in a more meritorious and freedom oriented world. I love freedom. I hate the concept of top-down control. Nevertheless I am also pragmatic. I don't view corporations as so evil that I should ignore their needs. We the human race are on a journey and I want to be engaged in it. Corporations may disappear in the future, but for now they are part of human society. Sometimes I go off and do my own isolationist thing, but I am also an extrovert and like society.

[TPTB_need_war]

It's kind of pathetic you are condescending on the ones that genuinely tried to help you with your health earlier.

I am not condescending to rangedriver. I am correcting him. He corrected me on what he thought was the correct treatment regimen. I thanked him. He has not thanked me.

I don't believe that when someone helps me, that I should later lie to him about the truth. Seems you are requiring me to lie to him.

I sadly have to agree with the statement of this user:

Then you agree with any statements that don't reflect reality just because the erroneous statements align with your feelings about your vested interests. I try to be more objective and employ logic. I even criticized my own work (ZKT) because it is the same faulty mixing scheme as RingCT.

TPTB_need_war, I don't know what happened to you. Your seemingly personal crusade against Monero and its community members has really put me off. I genuinely enjoyed reading your post and found them insightful, but the quality of them has severely deteriorated.

The quality has increased, but you don't like the reality.

Sorry I don't control reality. Complain to God or what ever delusion you might believe in. I find it highly objectionable that you blame me for stating my logic on the reality.

I am trying to help you guys, but you see it as an attack because you don't like the implications of the reality that I am stating. If you disagree with the reality, then refute it. I can't allow myself to continue to be deluded on anonymity, because I need to be productive and reach real markets.

[dEBRUYNE]

It's kind of pathetic you are condescending on the ones that genuinely tried to help you with your health earlier.

I am not condescending to rangedriver. I am correcting him. He corrected me on what he thought was the correct treatment regimen. I thanked him. He has not thanked me.

I don't believe that when someone helps me, that I should later lie to him about the truth. Seems you are requiring me to lie to him.

I sadly have to agree with the statement of this user:

Then you agree with any statements that don't reflect reality just because the erroneous statements align with your feelings about your vested interests. I try to be more objective and employ logic. I even criticized my own work (ZKT) because it is the same faulty mixing scheme as RingCT.

TPTB_need_war, I don't know what happened to you. Your seemingly personal crusade against Monero and its community members has really put me off. I genuinely enjoyed reading your post and found them insightful, but the quality of them has severely deteriorated.

The quality has increased, but you don't like the reality.

Sorry I don't control reality. Complain to God or what ever delusion you might believe in. I find it highly objectionable that you blame me for stating my logic on the reality.

I am trying to help you guys, but you see it as an attack because you don't like the implications of the reality that I am stating. If you disagree with the reality, then refute it. I can't allow myself to continue to be deluded on anonymity, because I need to be productive and reach real markets.

This looks rather condescending to me though. I bet others would agree too.

Here we go again. They never stop. I wake up and more of the same shit from the Monero community... (I already told them I would inhibit myself from posting in any of their official threads)

In your eyes they might, but seeing as how many people have commented otherwise, I don't think they have. Also, I always said we appreciated the advice and you looking in on it. However, for the past few months you seem to be rambling about Monero just everywhere you get the chance to do so. The most pervasive example probably is the IP obfuscation you went on about. You have repeatedly been stating that Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation and therefore is not subject to I2P/TOR, which are, in your opinion, flawed. However, it needs IP obfuscation for certain cases (see Zerocash whitepaper section 6.4) and will be using TOR for that -> https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/689958030859960321. Thus, initially your statements were erroneous.

Anyway, perhaps you should just keep focussing on your own coin, which will inevitably take over the world anyway, and stay away from anything Monero related or its supporters. Most of them have likely read your posts already anyway, therefore ongoing posts won't have any merit to them and will merely waste your time. The reason for you to keep talking about Monero is for me ambiguous as well, I don't see you going off on other coins all day.

[TPTB_need_war]

@TPTB

You are delusional if you think I don't understand PoS has its vulnerabilities. I may not be privy as to exactly what or how each of them work, but I have always known PoS to have vulnerabilities. What you fail to understand is PoW has its issues as well, most of which can be solved by some form of PoS. Yes there are a few vulnerabilities with PoS, similar to there being a few vulnerabilities in PoW. The difference inbetween me and you is that you gloss over vulnerabilities of PoW as if they don't exist.

I wrote the thread all about PoW and how to fix the vulnerabilities which I linked for you in my prior reply to you upthread. You seem to be clueless on what I am working on now. Gloss over? Are you entirely out-of-your-mind. I am one of the (or in the same league as the researchers who wrote the white paper on the selfish mining attack and invented Bitcoin-NG) expert on that exact topic right now.

Furthermore, the vulnerabilities of PoS are greatly exaggerated as far as how likely they are to happen.

Attack vectors are not the relevant issue (even though I would disagree with you on that point as well).

It is 100% certain that PoS results in centralization and political Tragedy of the Commons end game (a.k.a. Corporate Fascism). At least an improved PoW has a fighting chance to remain decentralized.

You state you have solved the issues with PoW, but your ideas are just that... ideas.

To the know-it-all (Dunning-Kruger) non-expert such as yourself, they are only ideas. To the expert, they are solid innovations that need to be implemented and tested in the real world. In other words, the expert can ascertain that they are not dubious.

Once you publish your ideas in a concise and easy to read manner I will be happy to poke holes

Good luck.  

your ignorant assumption I am uneducated

I never said you are uneducated in every respect. I said you inject statements about very detailed decentralized crypto issues you have not studied in sufficient depth and thus you make generalizations which are not accurate.

. I understand people with a lot of stake have more say, and for me that works... I accepted this to be fact a long time ago. That is how corporations work and it makes sense to me.

That is not decentralized, permissionless commerce. I have told you this many times, and if you continue to ignore what you've been told, I will ignore you and delete your redundant future posts. Make a new point.

The fact of the matter is that I speculate in cryptocurrencies, not vaporware

I never asked you to do differently.

I am sincerely doubting that you can deliver considering you spend every waking hour on these forums as if it is your meth pipe.

I never asked you to not doubt me. Why are you wasting my time forcing me to respond to this then? How can I work if I have to constantly respond to B-listers.

[TPTB_need_war]

You have repeatedly been stating that Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation and therefore is not subject to I2P/TOR, which are, in your opinion, flawed. However, it needs IP obfuscation for certain cases (see Zerocash whitepaper section 6.4) and will be using TOR for that -> https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/689958030859960321. Thus, initially your statements were erroneous.

I already replied to that very specific issue upthread (and in Monero's technical thread) in my recent debate with smooth and explained why you are clueless. Try to actually read everything I wrote on an issue before making incorrect technical allegations (of the ad hominem kind against me) on that issue.

It won't help you Monero speculators to remain ignorant about the critical nuances of technical issues that you do not understand properly.

I am not going to repeat what I already wrote on that technical issue. Go find what I wrote. I am not going to open the Monero technical thread again and be incited to refute further discussion there. You all are entitled to think what you want to think.

Edit: most specifically how afaics the above issue does not apply to important scenarios where corporations would need provable block chain privacy. And other cases of general anonymity are impossible any way due to meta-data (that reaches far beyond just IP obfuscation and besides Tor/I2P are not reliable any way).

[dEBRUYNE]

You have repeatedly been stating that Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation and therefore is not subject to I2P/TOR, which are, in your opinion, flawed. However, it needs IP obfuscation for certain cases (see Zerocash whitepaper section 6.4) and will be using TOR for that -> https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/689958030859960321. Thus, initially your statements were erroneous.

I already replied to that very specific issue upthread (and in Monero's technical thread) in my recent debate with smooth and explained why you are clueless. Try to actually read everything I wrote on an issue before making incorrect technical allegations (of the ad hominem kind against me) on that issue.

It won't help you Monero speculators to remain ignorant about the critical nuances of technical issues that you do not understand properly.

I am not going to repeat what I already wrote on that technical issue. Go find what I wrote. I am not going to open the Monero technical thread again and be incited to refute further discussion there. You all are entitled to think what you want to think.

I am merely pointing out that initially you were wrong, because you stated Zerocash wouldn't need IP obfuscation at all, whereas they do need it (even though it might be for specific cases, like you stated in that thread (I actually read a bit of it)). Perhaps that doesn't render your initial statement erroneous in your eyes, in mine (and likely others) it does.

Ad hominem, please, this is getting ludicrous.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am merely pointing out that initially you were wrong

Incorrect:

Edit: most specifically how afaics the above issue does not apply to important scenarios where corporations would need provable block chain privacy. And other cases of general anonymity are impossible any way due to meta-data (that reaches far beyond just IP obfuscation and besides Tor/I2P are not reliable any way).

Ad hominem, please, this is getting ludicrous.

In addition to erroneously accusing me of making a technical error, you also injected this erroneous claim against my person:

However, for the past few months you seem to be rambling about Monero just everywhere you get the chance to do so.

[wpalczynski]

I am merely pointing out that initially you were wrong

Incorrect:

Edit: most specifically how afaics the above issue does not apply to important scenarios where corporations would need provable block chain privacy. And other cases of general anonymity are impossible any way due to meta-data (that reaches far beyond just IP obfuscation and besides Tor/I2P are not reliable any way).

Ad hominem, please, this is getting ludicrous.

In addition to erroneously accusing me of making a technical error, you also injected this erroneous claim against my person:

However, for the past few months you seem to be rambling about Monero just everywhere you get the chance to do so.