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

[iCEBREAKER]

If there were no classes, subclasses, objects, complex types and all the abstraction clusterfucks, and you just had to deal with simple things, like vars/consts and functions, how would that affect your programming?

Wouldn't you be able to do your work? If you don't need them (in theory nobody does - the can just copy/paste similar code to emulate objects or make multiple declaration instead of using complex types), you could just skip them all together or bypass them. If the cpu can do everything by 10-15 math and logical functions, like comparing, jumping, adding, moving data, so can we at a much higher level (but still not too high to create clusterfucks).

OMG, I will let smooth handle this one or just ignore it. I'm not up for teaching you why your conceptualization is extremely naive.

Umm...I think you should study some computer science courses.

I know the ignorance of the DashHoles can be trying.  But since keean is being so heroically patient with you, perhaps consider repaying the kindly indulgence karma?

[TPTB_need_war]

I know the ignorance of the DashHoles can be trying.  But since keean is being so heroically patient with you, perhaps consider repaying the kindly indulgence karma?

I am being extremely patient with him also. And yes I do see he is also very patient and respectful/amicable to everyone. He is denying conjunctions (in the immutable+encapsulated scenario) in this case. Btw, I hope you realize that Bob Harper is of superior rank than keean. I respect keean and I've learned from him. In this case, he needs to open his mind and realize what I am saying. I've traded emails with Robert Harper many years ago, and his intellect is way up there. He was so far above me on type theory at that time (and still now), that I stopped emailing him for fear that I would write many stupid things and also waste his time.

keean might be able to make a valid argument that there is no optimum typing system. But that has not been his argument yet. He is denying some facts, e.g. denying that Pos and Nat can coexist in NatPos as a conjunction if we can enforce that the created instance is immutable and was constructed per the invariants.

The only comment I've made which can be construed to be slightly forceful, is the repeated "But I am repeating myself" and the last "Please slow down on posting, and think about my point deeply" which I just changed to "I hope I have explained my point in a way that is clear if we slow down and takes some time to reflect on it.". I mean everything I am saying now is what I wrote from the very start. It has  been a wild goose chase that ended up right back at what I had written from the start.

I am pleading to not lose another day because I had other insights I was writing down (for the other threads of my discussions with keean et al) and got side tracked by this lengthy debate on this one issue in one thread. I appreciate it added clarity for readers and also for myself. But I am hoping we can  bring it to a close and not denying facts.

Note keean is correct that I had some misconceptions about what can be enforced with typeclasses. He is far more expert with Haskell than I am. But that didn't invalidate my point.

Edit: right before keean signed off, he finally agreed with me entirely (although he and I didn't realize it):

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/109

[AlexGR]

If there were no classes, subclasses, objects, complex types and all the abstraction clusterfucks, and you just had to deal with simple things, like vars/consts and functions, how would that affect your programming?

Wouldn't you be able to do your work? If you don't need them (in theory nobody does - the can just copy/paste similar code to emulate objects or make multiple declaration instead of using complex types), you could just skip them all together or bypass them. If the cpu can do everything by 10-15 math and logical functions, like comparing, jumping, adding, moving data, so can we at a much higher level (but still not too high to create clusterfucks).

OMG, I will let smooth handle this one or just ignore it. I'm not up for teaching you why your conceptualization is extremely naive.

As I said, I'm not a programmer and thus my use cases for "complex" language features have always tended to zero. And even if I were, I'm not sure I'd prefer the more complex language, just for the sake of it. For example is ad-hoc polymorphism a necessity for my use case or can I do the same by emulating polymorphism and breaking it down? If I can break it down, I will - instead of, say, going to a more complex language. At least that's my theory of what I expect I'd do if faced with a problem.

In any case I think you said one of the applications you created was in assembly. Obviously the language problems didn't affect you - the sky was the limit (=the hardware limitations were the only limit). And I doubt the code of the 80s was too "evolved" in terms of complexity anyway. I've seen sources from the 70s and 80s - even for things like compilers and OSes... they are full of if/then/else, loops, functions and that's pretty much it. It's like a more "readable" version of the underlying assembly expressed in c, pascal or something similar. And you know what? The software back then was way more reliable than today's. Then you had an OS or an app, and it wasn't *supposed* to be followed by 1500 patches. It was supposed to work out of the box, as intended. I don't know if it was because it was broken down to simple uses of language or if they tested the code 100 times more, or that the uses of the code were more limited and thus the code much simpler but that was the case. Something went wrong since then.

Start reading from here: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/101

I'm reading it, but I don't understand everything.

P.S. with first-class functions and closures, you can model most of the same semantics, but it gets hairy.

Hmm...

[TPTB_need_war]

In any case I think you said one of the applications you created was in assembly.

yeah WordUp was a fully featured WYSIWYG word processor with multi-columns and the whole she-bang. It was a major pita and very, very inefficient to code that way. I was young and had boundless time and energy.

[smooth]

The software back then was way more reliable than today's.

The problems have become much harder. Just to properly make or service a request on the web probably requires more code than his entire word processor, and it may not even be close.

You can step back and say, "Who needs this shit?" and to an extent you would be right, but it's here and we have to deal with it. The tools have to evolve accordingly. Large code libraries (both public and private) are essential to most modern programming, and good methods of abstraction are essential to creating effective libraries.

[TPTB_need_war]

I guess my "dealing with it" is avoiding it almost entirely and thus not being a modern "coder". Ah well, fuck it. Something more sane will come along at some point.

As a related, but not entirely to the same point, question: Is there any tool that you can do central management on a non-gui c program that has multiple libraries, subdirectories etc? For example a multi-algo cpu miner program might have 100 files in it dealing with multiple algos, network transmission / stratum, etc. How is the programmer able to coordinate all sources, definitions, variables, dependencies (ifdefs / arch-related triggers and sub-scenarios)? Is there a way to automate all these or a way to centrally control a project? Something where I can open the central .c file and it automatically shows me the relations and internal co-dependencies... ?

Sorry I have to start moderating this. I can't allow my thread to become for teaching modern development practices now branching out into module/repository systems and paradigms for version control. You are welcome to start your own thread for that. That no longer has even a semblance of relevance to my decision about choosing a new programming language for my project, nor about coding an ASIC-resistant memory hard hash function. I can't see any relevance to my project of that tangent you want to discuss.

Modern methods exist because they are necessary to handle the complexity of things that we program. For example, we now need asynchronous programming because the network has latency. Back in the day, there was no network and we ignored latency+concurrency+parallelism because there weren't complications such as multi-core processors.

[TPTB_need_war]

My very abstract way of thinking really seems to dumbfound even very smart people:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/114
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/119

I don't know it is a problem with elucidation, or if it is just really difficult for humans to grasp abstraction that someone else thought of and is trying to write down. Maybe abstract concepts don't transmit well.

Edit: follow up discussion seems to indicate it is more of an issue of keean not seeing any utility in my abstraction.

[TPTB_need_war]

Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY):

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/131

[TPTB_need_war]

The purpose of mining is to create a permanent decentralized exchange, which thus results in a permissionless system.

And even better than Bitcoin will be the coin where those newly mined coins are mined by the millions and billions of users, not by few 100s of professional miners (which is where Bitcoin is rapidly centralizing to). The only way to achieve this is to make mining unprofitable. I've explained this design, yet so many people remain skeptical. I'll finish the 'plaining in a white paper after it is too late to copy the design.

Absent an automatic means in the economy where money naturally moves from the power law distribution wealthy back to the masses, then Socialism erects to do the job, which is then captured by the same power law which ends up in periodic 600 year Dark Ages.

It is time for something better. Even better than Bitcoin. At least we have a somewhat decentralized Bitcoin in the meantime.

I have work to do.

The purpose of mining is to create a permanent decentralized exchange, which thus results in a permissionless system.

The only way to achieve this is to make mining unprofitable.

You should probably clarify your statement with some kind of exception because you've said you don't think IOTA is a functional system, but that quote in the context of this thread gives the appearance that you endorse it when you obviously don't.

Well I didn't mean to remove the tail reward, i.e. retain ongoing issuance of coins in exchange for mining even though mining is unprofitable. Btw, Bitcoin has no tail reward but that isn't a problem for another 10 years or so.

[TPTB_need_war]

I think this demonstrates my fairly deep knowledge of programming at this stage in my career:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/most-coveted-rust-features/324/65

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/does-rust-really-need-higher-kinded-types/5531/32

I am driving closer to knowing which features I want in my ideal high-level programming language.

[TPTB_need_war]

Kaboom! You Dropped a Bomb On Me Baby:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/design-patterns-for-composability-with-traits-i-e-typeclasses/5569/12

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/design-patterns-for-composability-with-traits-i-e-typeclasses/5569/14



Edit: that is our dog, myself, and my gf.

[TPTB_need_war]

Today afaics I have completely solved Philip Wadler's famous Expression Problem in the remaining area where it wasn't solved which are collections! A known unsolved problem in computer science for at least a decade and half.

Philip Wadler is the famous computer scientist professor co-creator of Haskell.

Essentially afaics my proposal is combining first-class type unions, first-class trait intersections, a global hash dynamic dispatch, and optional immutability to allow for first-class heterogeneous collections which are open in both dimensions of Wadler's Expression Problem, i.e. can add new data types and new interfaces orthogonal without restarting from before what one already has at any location in the source code. And this apparently eliminates subtyping entirely (which typeclasses didn't have any way, e.g. Haskell, Rust, and PureScript).

[TPTB_need_war]

Uh oh. Not many programmers still coding after age 45:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4Gsl8sVgdQ#t=1001

But that may be because they are so rich by that time, they retire. I am bankrupt with no retirement plan, so I must continue producing.


10 year anniversary of the murder of my sister approaching. Just want to remember her in public this one time (she was slim partially due to chain smoker, not just body type although she and I are both slim):

[...]
Son you talk too much[1]. K.I.S.S.  

[1] that was one of the my sister's favorite songs,  

[somacoin]

Very interesting and fascinating insights within your postings. Thank you. When will your project approximately be released? Also many good name suggestions along the lines.

[TPTB_need_war]

Very interesting and fascinating insights within your postings. Thank you. When will your project approximately be released? Also many good name suggestions along the lines.

I don't have an ETA yet. See the description below of what I am trying to accomplish.

Perhaps JAMBOX the social distribution network can be released this year. The Jambits probably early 2017 if I can stay on schedule and do coding 14 x 7.

Looks like I have to take a 2-3 month diversion to create my own programming language that can compile to Javascript. The programming language would be rudimentary in its first incarnation, compiling only to Javascript and no other tools such as no debugger (can use the Javascript debugger). I am working on the LL(k) parser grammar now. Refer to the prior posts upthread on programming languages. The choice of programming language is critical to the success of JAMBOX because I am targeting both music distribution initially and more widely JAMBOX will be a mobile app platform. In other words, you won't code to iOS or Android APIs any more. You will code to the JAMBOX API. I am attempting something very ambitious and could change the entire computing world. More details will be in the crowdfunding campaign when ever I get around to doing that. I probably won't announce the crowdfunding here, because I don't want to be perceived as promoting to speculators nor planning a P&D. This will be a long-term multi-year project for me. I am creating a company, not just a CC. The CC will be open sourced and decentralized. I will not give more details now. The whitepapers will be published when I am ready.

Ransomware operators might keep some BTC too, though I doubt it is much. No one other than speculators wants BTC; everyone who uses it just seems to treat it like a hot potato.

That is why I have said the only economy where Bitcoin is the unit-of-account is the crypto gambling market.

That is why I am going to attempt to create a new microtransactions economy for CC with my JAMBOX wherein the users do not cash out and their unit-of-account are the Jambits or Jamcash. The distinction from GetGems will be there will be actual use cases that drive the users to do these microtransactions. Also I intend to solve all the scaling and centralization problems of Bitcoin, by employing my clever modification to Satoshi's proof-of-work by employing unprofitable mining with a perpetual tail block reward. The math is irrefutable, that Bitcoin's spendable supply will asymptotically trend to 0 due to lost coins. Monero and Jambits will both trend to constant spendable supply due to the tail reward. The difference is Jambits' mining will be unprofitable and mined by the millions of users. I will explain in a white paper why this will remove the tendency to centralize mining and why it will circulate the coin from the power-law savers to the spenders in a virtuous cycle that is necessary otherwise unions and socialism forms to do that job.

P.S. my health is much improved, but only because of the oregano oil taken sublingually. If I miss a dose of the oregano oil, my chronic fatigue malaise returns. Even with oregano oil, I still getting bouts of diarrhoea and I have weakness/pain in my hamstrings. My head is great (about 80% of normal). So I think this is good and sustainable. Hopefully over the months, I will finally be able to clear out the gut dysbiosis that seems to the root of my multi-year struggle with chronic illness. My sleep is still variable. Often I can only stay sleepy for 5 hours but other times I get 8 or 10 hours. That I am working so much on computer night and day is another fact. I will take a vacation for 10 days in first half of May and I won't be on the computer.

[TPTB_need_war]

Very interesting and fascinating insights within your postings. Thank you. When will your project approximately be released? Also many good name suggestions along the lines.

I don't have an ETA yet. See the description below of what I am trying to accomplish.

Perhaps JAMBOX the social distribution network can be released this year. The Jambits probably early 2017 if I can stay on schedule and do coding 14 x 7.

Looks like I have to take a 2-3 month diversion to create my own programming language that can compile to Javascript. The programming language would be rudimentary in its first incarnation, compiling only to Javascript and no other tools such as no debugger (can use the Javascript debugger). I am working on the LL(k) parser grammar now. Refer to the prior posts upthread on programming languages. The choice of programming language is critical to the success of JAMBOX because I am targeting both music distribution initially and more widely JAMBOX will be a mobile app platform. In other words, you won't code to iOS or Android APIs any more. You will code to the JAMBOX API. I am attempting something very ambitious and could change the entire computing world. More details will be in the crowdfunding campaign when ever I get around to doing that. I probably won't announce the crowdfunding here, because I don't want to be perceived as promoting to speculators nor planning a P&D. This will be a long-term multi-year project for me. I am creating a company, not just a CC. The CC will be open sourced and decentralized. I will not give more details now. The whitepapers will be published when I am ready.

Ransomware operators might keep some BTC too, though I doubt it is much. No one other than speculators wants BTC; everyone who uses it just seems to treat it like a hot potato.

That is why I have said the only economy where Bitcoin is the unit-of-account is the crypto gambling market.

That is why I am going to attempt to create a new microtransactions economy for CC with my JAMBOX wherein the users do not cash out and their unit-of-account are the Jambits or Jamcash. The distinction from GetGems will be there will be actual use cases that drive the users to do these microtransactions. Also I intend to solve all the scaling and centralization problems of Bitcoin, by employing my clever modification to Satoshi's proof-of-work by employing unprofitable mining with a perpetual tail block reward. The math is irrefutable, that Bitcoin's spendable supply will asymptotically trend to 0 due to lost coins. Monero and Jambits will both trend to constant spendable supply due to the tail reward. The difference is Jambits' mining will be unprofitable and mined by the millions of users. I will explain in a white paper why this will remove the tendency to centralize mining and why it will circulate the coin from the power-law savers to the spenders in a virtuous cycle that is necessary otherwise unions and socialism forms to do that job.

P.S. my health is much improved, but only because of the oregano oil taken sublingually. If I miss a dose of the oregano oil, my chronic fatigue malaise returns. Even with oregano oil, I still getting bouts of diarrhoea and I have weakness/pain in my hamstrings. My head is great (about 80% of normal). So I think this is good and sustainable. Hopefully over the months, I will finally be able to clear out the gut dysbiosis that seems to the root of my multi-year struggle with chronic illness. My sleep is still variable. Often I can only stay sleepy for 5 hours but other times I get 8 or 10 hours. That I am working so much on computer night and day is another fact. I will take a vacation for 10 days in first half of May and I won't be on the computer.

Additionally I hope everyone understands that one of my goals is to replace the web browser:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/design-patterns-for-composability-with-traits-i-e-typeclasses/5569/55

Ambitious much.  

[TPTB_need_war]

About my IQ or rarity, and my personality.

[TPTB_need_war]

iCEBREAKER you so quiet now:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/does-rust-really-need-higher-kinded-types/5531/65

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/does-rust-really-need-higher-kinded-types/5531/51

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/design-patterns-for-composability-with-traits-i-e-typeclasses/5569/53

Kindly please read those and understand why I am not your ordinary programmer. I am in the top echelon of programmers, perhaps 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 level.

My intuition is smooth and I are peers, although I haven't checked his code and he doesn't have access to enough of my code as well (so he may or may not have an opinion or agree/disagree, I dunno). I don't know about fluffypony et al, as I haven't studied their code nor interacted significantly with them. It is clear that Shen Noether (noblesir at Reddit) and gmaxwell are more thoroughly educated mathematicians than I am, yet it is true that I 100% independently invented RingCT (in June/July and I think before RingCT was fully cooked) and based on CCT and ostensibly fixed CCT in the process (which may be more efficient than RingCT based on Blockstream's CT). Ah still hoping to find time to clean up that ZKT whitepaper and publish it so the claims can be peer reviewed. I am proud of myself that I could achieve ZKT with my lack of formal education in cryptography, abstract algrebra, abstract geometry, and number theory.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Anyone have any idea what rule ^that post^ violates?   

The rule of karma.

Remember your oft employed "crying over spilled milk meme", lol.

Actually I think it is rule of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which basically insures everything returns to random disorder eventually.

Don't try to control it man, throw out the rear view mirror and enjoy the ride.

(There is a lot more random shit coming to your well controlled plans.)

[TPTB_need_war]

Looks like I have to take a 2-3 month diversion to create my own programming language that can compile to Javascript. The programming language would be rudimentary in its first incarnation, compiling only to Javascript and no other tools such as no debugger (can use the Javascript debugger). I am working on the LL(k) parser grammar now...

Progress:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/design-patterns-for-composability-with-traits-i-e-typeclasses/5569/57 (read the post and the subsequent one in the linked thread)

Interest rates may or may not matter to Venture Capitalists , but it does matter to individuals that can think and want a profit while keeping their principle intact. 

Only an idiot would believe a checking/savings account is a safe place to keep money right now.

Those so-called idiots outnumber your VCs and they are risk averse.
They will trust their cash in a mattress before BTC.
And they will determine if BTC ever reaches true Utility. 
BTC has still got years of Public Relations efforts to go thru before the majority of the public trusts them.


 

And the governments can clamp down on BTC at any time using capital controls on the exchanges, because if the most of the world doesn't accept BTC unless they can immediately convert it to fiat as has been explained upthread by smooth (e.g. Bitpay, etc), then BTC becomes an illiquid asset once the government issues capital controls. BTC is not immune to government action (especially G20 coordinated action) because BTC is not a widespread unit-of-account.

However, BTC has apparently become the unit-of-account of crypto-gambling, but it is not yet certain if the demand for that will remain if people no longer believe they can cash out to fiat unfettered when they want to, and the risk of CC failure due to centralization is a big factor that would cause speculators to be hesitant about thinking they could HODL/gamble in BTC long-term until capital controls cease.

This is my goal is to fix the centralization problem with my CC design and also I am going to make CC a very popular unit-of-account for social network payments. But first I am creating a new programming language, then I have to create the social network, and then finally the CC, so hell may freeze over before I am done. 

Note I also contributed the key technical insight[1] into how to make decentralized exchange work so it can't be jammed.

[1] Find my posts in this thread and note that TierNolan is one of the original inventors of the DE protocol, but it had a jamming flaw until I fixed it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364951.0

[TPTB_need_war]

This is yet another reason why we need a successful decentralized social network:

Illegal immigrant is arrested over murder of American nanny in Austria after she took him in to stop him being deported - and is revealed to have raped underage girl



(nb: facebook owns the © on her picture. You know who owns your digital stuff after you get killed.)