Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 02:22:03 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 »
  Print  
Author Topic: The Ethereum Paradox  (Read 84273 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
February 20, 2016, 01:03:11 PM
 #281

Oh dear.  More walls of text.  I want to know what the ethereum paradox is.  Can someone explain it in 6 lines or less please?


0x8d1b4e41652eacec5715dc5c4833f6b713573de6 If you agree with me, please support a friend of mine in need.

Readers see the games these retarded ETH shills play. stoat pretends he didn't already read this yesterday:

(1) What you need to know is that Ethereum as it is currently designed can't scale just as Bitcoin can't scale, but the level of scaling which the current Ethereum can do is much less than even Bitcoin's current limitation because verification/validation of Serpent scripts takes more resources than verification/validation of ECDSA signatures.

(2) For both Bitcoin and Ethereum, this is not just an issue of block size limitation. The issue is that in order to scale, the mining becomes more centralized. I think you will should note that Bitcoin and all other major coins are entirely centralized already and on the precipice of failure (all of them! study my links!).

(3) Thus Ethereum proposed Casper which is a design that attempts to use sharding (a.k.a. partitions) to improve scaling decentralized. But I explained in this thread, that can't work. To reduce electricity consumption, Ethereum also proposed PoS-like consensus-by-betting with forfeitable deposits. PoS has known failure modes that violate Nash equilibrium.

(4) So the point of all this is that Ethereum and all the rest of the crypto coins have not yet solved the fundamental issue of decentralized consensus.

Expect the shills to bury this post in more noise as they desperately try to sell you some bag holding shitcoins.

1513088523
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513088523

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513088523
Reply with quote  #2

1513088523
Report to moderator
1513088523
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513088523

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513088523
Reply with quote  #2

1513088523
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513088523
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513088523

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513088523
Reply with quote  #2

1513088523
Report to moderator
stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
February 20, 2016, 01:07:17 PM
 #282

Alright cool.   I believe these problems are solvable.


Next question:  do you think you're the smartest person in the world and know everything?

0x8d1b4e41652eacec5715dc5c4833f6b713573de6 If you agree with me, please support a friend of mine in need.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
February 20, 2016, 01:11:26 PM
 #283

Alright cool.   I believe these problems are solvable.

I already explained w.r.t. to proof-of-stake and consensus-by-betting why Vlad and Vitalik are not close to solving them and are pursuing their wrong direction. And that aforementioned link doesn't even include their error of pursuing partitioning.

But you aren't sincere (you are not interested in knowing the truth).

Next question:  do you think you're the smartest person in the world and know everything?

I don't need to be the smartest in the world. I only need to explain factually as I did, that I am smarter (more experienced actually) than Vlad and Vitalik on these issues being discussed in this thread.

If you are incapable of comprehending technical details, that isn't my fault. It also means you are incapable of judging whom is more expert. The astute readers know how to study what I have written and listen to my video. Nothing you can write will change that. So just keep trolling and attempting to bury the truth with your insincere noise.

stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
February 20, 2016, 01:34:56 PM
 #284

Video won't play on my phone...

0x8d1b4e41652eacec5715dc5c4833f6b713573de6 If you agree with me, please support a friend of mine in need.
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


View Profile
February 20, 2016, 01:57:27 PM
 #285

If you are incapable of comprehending technical details, that isn't my fault. It also means you are incapable of judging whom is more expert. The astute readers know how to study what I have written and listen to my video.

Any chance you could youtube your video, for ppl that don't want to download 200Mb?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
February 21, 2016, 05:42:37 AM
 #286

So let's hear you display some knowledge of functional polymorphism? Explain ML functors? What is a type class and why are there no inductive types in Haskell?

Etc..

It's not functional polymorphism, but parametric polymorphism. A type class is the way of doing ad-hoc polymorphism in Haskell. There is not inductive types in Haskell because all types include bottom value.

Do you still think you're the only one in here that know things?


Vanillacoin is a gem. Vanillacoin forum

Well I was thinking of precisely the following post which says "(parametric) polymorphism", but I term it functional polymorphism since it using functional parameters instead of parametric types of instantiable OOP objects:

http://scala-language.1934581.n4.nabble.com/scala-usefulness-of-OOP-tp2000320p2000339.html

(what a small world, I see Gregory Meredith participated in the above discussion)

No why would you assume such an absurd notion when I never indicated Huh I suppose you just have an ego problem (must be your irrational association with VNL, did you invest your lunch money?). I obviously know I am not the only one since I learned about Haskell's bottom type populating all types via Robert Harper's blog post. I didn't ask you, I asked Fuserleer.

But I already was aware that Haskell inverts the type hierarchy and puts bottom at the top of the hierarchy, or rather let's say Haskell is the dual and has co-inductive types. I wrote more about that here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/scala-language/PIhmEeMg-Ms/SUdf950G_T0J

If you truly know these matters and didn't just Google for them, then why on God's earth do you think VanillaCoin is a gem. Cripes surely you are smart enough to realize Zerotime and Chainblender are highly flawed.

hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 06:27:23 PM
 #287

So let's hear you display some knowledge of functional polymorphism? Explain ML functors? What is a type class and why are there no inductive types in Haskell?

Etc..

It's not functional polymorphism, but parametric polymorphism. A type class is the way of doing ad-hoc polymorphism in Haskell. There is not inductive types in Haskell because all types include bottom value.

Do you still think you're the only one in here that know things?


Vanillacoin is a gem. Vanillacoin forum

Well I was thinking of precisely the following post which says "(parametric) polymorphism", but I term it functional polymorphism since it using functional parameters instead of parametric types of instantiable OOP objects:

http://scala-language.1934581.n4.nabble.com/scala-usefulness-of-OOP-tp2000320p2000339.html

(what a small world, I see Gregory Meredith participated in the above discussion)

No why would you assume such an absurd notion when I never indicated Huh I suppose you just have an ego problem (must be your irrational association with VNL, did you invest your lunch money?). I obviously know I am not the only one since I learned about Haskell's bottom type populating all types via Robert Harper's blog post. I didn't ask you, I asked Fuserleer.

But I already was aware that Haskell inverts the type hierarchy and puts bottom at the top of the hierarchy, or rather let's say Haskell is the dual and has co-inductive types. I wrote more about that here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/scala-language/PIhmEeMg-Ms/SUdf950G_T0J

If you truly know these matters and didn't just Google for them, then why on God's earth do you think VanillaCoin is a gem. Cripes surely you are smart enough to realize Zerotime and Chainblender are highly flawed.

Here one can try to follow and will find out that Casper might work with a reduced set of "well" defined type sub class so that scripts can terminate.

https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/comment/18130/#Comment_18130

Referenced paper is guess that:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-24727-2_7

Still performance vs. convergence is not clear.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
StinkyLover
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


This industry is pure fiction


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 08:44:19 PM
 #288

The Ethereum Paradox, indeed.

1. The value has increased to 450M$. Meanwhile the author of the system has written 0 lines of code in the last month. https://github.com/vbuterin

2. The former CEO of the project has presented the potential of smart contracts, mentions ethereum, but doesn't show running code. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bY66Zgr8Cs

3. The algorithm will be changed to PoS, yet its entirely unclear how the current currency can survive this.

AFAIK, and I'd like to be corrected with tangible evidence, nobody uses the software for anything. All the examples I've seen were theoretical. It is, as far as I can tell a purely speculative vehicle.

I agree, but I remember back in the days of the start of the internet. Many theories, nobody interested. Then those theories became real and everybody started going wooo. Then the companies went public and people called them unprofitable rubbish. Then they started making big profits after 5 years. And those boys who were talking theories and were being laughed at are all now billionaires and we know their names.

stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 08:45:24 PM
 #289

1.V Buterin is meeting with investors and holding talks at the European parliament and shit.  There is a whole dev team doing the actual developing.

2.why would you show code in an informal talk to people who probably can't read it

3.POS is still in development and the currency will survive it just fine in fact it will probably increase in value, again.

0x8d1b4e41652eacec5715dc5c4833f6b713573de6 If you agree with me, please support a friend of mine in need.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 08:52:25 PM
 #290

And by the way, a forked ETH chain with smart-contracts (and all the same issues I outlined upthreat) will run as a BTC-sidechain soon, "backward comp" promised here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1375724.0


So what exactly is the ETH good for? Speculation?

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 08:54:19 PM
 #291

1.V Buterin is meeting with investors and holding talks at the European parliament and shit.  There is a whole dev team doing the actual developing.



Watch him, he just needs some free lunch.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 08:58:47 PM
 #292

Lol mexican rootstock!  Saviour of bitcoin lol.  Roll Eyes

0x8d1b4e41652eacec5715dc5c4833f6b713573de6 If you agree with me, please support a friend of mine in need.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 09:46:09 PM
 #293

Lol mexican rootstock!  Saviour of bitcoin lol.  Roll Eyes

Getting even more paradox with that:

https://youtu.be/_so7aokJgYY

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 11:04:47 PM
 #294

The Ethereum Paradox, indeed.

1. The value has increased to 450M$. Meanwhile the author of the system has written 0 lines of code in the last month. https://github.com/vbuterin

2. The former CEO of the project has presented the potential of smart contracts, mentions ethereum, but doesn't show running code. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bY66Zgr8Cs

3. The algorithm will be changed to PoS, yet its entirely unclear how the current currency can survive this.

AFAIK, and I'd like to be corrected with tangible evidence, nobody uses the software for anything. All the examples I've seen were theoretical. It is, as far as I can tell a purely speculative vehicle.

3.POS is still in development and the currency will survive it just fine in fact it will probably increase in value, again.

We are at the end of an Austrian "Crackup Boom" cycle globally, where excess credit has destroyed all profitable investments. Given the global collapse contagion underway which will accelerate from 2017 to 2020, the exodus from government bonds (and other conservative investments which are no longer viable) has really only one place to go (as Martin Armstrong predicted):

stock speculation

$450 million mcap is nothing. No where near $450 million has changed hands, rather only $10s of millions at most.

So everyone position yourself to partake of the trend. Fundamentals aren't the only factor involved. Speculation follows speculation.

Ethereum doesn't have a monopoly on this phenomenon...

stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 11:32:42 PM
 #295

Your macroeconomic analysis is retarded.  Don't give up the dayjob...whatever that is.

0x8d1b4e41652eacec5715dc5c4833f6b713573de6 If you agree with me, please support a friend of mine in need.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 11:34:50 PM
 #296

Your macroeconomic analysis is retarded.

Justify your shrilling with facts and data. I await your elaborately detailed presentation to back your claim.

Otherwise you(r ignorance) will be appropriately ignored.

StinkyLover
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


This industry is pure fiction


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 11:50:18 PM
 #297

The Ethereum Paradox, indeed.

1. The value has increased to 450M$. Meanwhile the author of the system has written 0 lines of code in the last month. https://github.com/vbuterin

2. The former CEO of the project has presented the potential of smart contracts, mentions ethereum, but doesn't show running code. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bY66Zgr8Cs

3. The algorithm will be changed to PoS, yet its entirely unclear how the current currency can survive this.

AFAIK, and I'd like to be corrected with tangible evidence, nobody uses the software for anything. All the examples I've seen were theoretical. It is, as far as I can tell a purely speculative vehicle.

3.POS is still in development and the currency will survive it just fine in fact it will probably increase in value, again.

We are at the end of an Austrian "Crackup Boom" cycle globally, where excess credit has destroyed all profitable investments. Given the global collapse contagion underway which will accelerate from 2017 to 2020, the exodus from government bonds (and other conservative investments which are no longer viable) has really only one place to go (as Martin Armstrong predicted):

stock speculation

$450 million mcap is nothing. No where near $450 million has changed hands, rather only $10s of millions at most.

So everyone position yourself to partake of the trend. Fundamentals aren't the only factor involved. Speculation follows speculation.

Ethereum doesn't have a monopoly on this phenomenon...
Actually you're wrong. That's the daily volume you've quoted there ($10m+).
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
February 24, 2016, 11:56:20 PM
 #298

Actually you're wrong. That's the daily volume you've quoted there ($10m+).

Insiders buying from themselves to pump up daily volume is a well known tactic of shrilling shit coins. Welcome to the party. Seems you need to catch up on your education of how market manipulation works when the insiders control a large percentage of the float.

Again 96% of all ETH volume is done on two exchanges. I don't see those exchanges sharing their KYC data on who is trading with whom. So it is impossible for anyone to refute this.

StinkyLover
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


This industry is pure fiction


View Profile
February 25, 2016, 12:12:58 AM
 #299

Actually you're wrong. That's the daily volume you've quoted there ($10m+).

Insiders buying from themselves to pump up daily volume is a well known tactic of shrilling shit coins. Welcome to the party. Seems you need to catch up on your education of how market manipulation works when the insiders control a large percentage of the float.

Again 96% of all ETH volume is done on two exchanges. I don't see those exchanges sharing their KYC data on who is trading with whom. So it is impossible for anyone to refute this.

Nope. That's just your personal opinion, not fact set in stone, which you will also find impossible to prove. Others have a different opinion of the ETH daily volume.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
February 25, 2016, 12:14:42 AM
 #300

Actually you're wrong. That's the daily volume you've quoted there ($10m+).

Insiders buying from themselves to pump up daily volume is a well known tactic of shrilling shit coins. Welcome to the party. Seems you need to catch up on your education of how market manipulation works when the insiders control a large percentage of the float.

Again 96% of all ETH volume is done on two exchanges. I don't see those exchanges sharing their KYC data on who is trading with whom. So it is impossible for anyone to refute this.

Nope. That's just your personal opinion, not fact set in stone, which you will also find impossible to prove. Others have a different opinion of the ETH daily volume.

Where is your proof?

I've never seen a case where humans didn't take money that was sitting in front of their faces to take. The insiders always do this, unless they are worried about being caught and prosecuted. But since ETH was an illegal unregistered investment security launched from Switzerland to attempt to side step SEC (and I presume EU) regulations[1], we don't have to doubt whether they feel constrained by any regulators.

[1] But they marketed it to US investors so they are still in violation of SEC law.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!