The Ethereum Paradox

[enhu]

From whom do you buy ETH here in the forum?
I've tried buying to someone lately buy he just have few and won't sell these days, maybe he is also holding his ETH.

[child_harold]

From whom do you buy ETH here in the forum?
I've tried buying to someone lately buy he just have few and won't sell these days, maybe he is also holding his ETH.

Just buy from an exchange? shapeshift is discreet iirc
buying from forum members is a bit risky imo

[StinkyLover]

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.

Where is your proof?

Here's mine - www.coinmarketcap.com

Non-sequitor. I am stating that the insiders are buying from themselves to drive up the price. Thus the market cap is not evidence or proof, but rather a symptom of the disease. Proof would be to ask the SEC to require the exchanges trading ETH to provide investigators with all the KYC and trading data (and then the regulators would have to require those individuals provide detailed financial accounting in order to track down all the potentially illegal insider trading). Absent that proof, you will be unable to make any proven counter claim.

I am now placing you on ignore along with stoat for intentionally posting noise. Enjoy posting to yourself, because none of the astute readers believe your nonsense.

So, the equivalent of "La-la-la-la, I'm not listening"?

Sometimes I wonder if this guy is just posting tripe, hoping to get to "Legendary" status ASAP. Then he'll REALLY believe in his own hype!

It takes much longer than you think

[monsterer]

Scripting opens a Pandora's box that destroys the normal security model for block chains. This is more damning than the problem of needing to centralize verification of scripts, because afaics it is entirely insoluble (unless you centralize authorization of which scripts are allowed to run).

A counter argument; I don't believe it makes any difference to the security model. A failed script is a failed script, it doesn't mean the blockchain has failed.

An analogy is a computer's OS; programs run on this OS, some are faulty and crash, but they don't generally bring down the entire OS.

[stoat]

Shrilling

There you go again.  "Shrill" cannot be used as in "someone is shrilling". It is grammatically incorrect and reads horribly.  I read somehwere you were over 50.  How have you managed this many years on planet earth without learning the basics of the english language?

Someone is shrilling about the rules of grammar without actually knowing the rules of grammar.

Lets use some examples to illustrate how common TPTB's usage is: "He is programming the coin to act as decentralized cash. She is speculating Dash is on its last leg. Mike Hearn is harping on Bitcoin's politics."

It's being used as a present participle verb in your example, so I'm not sure why you think it is being used incorrectly. Am I missing something? Even if you change the tense, the function is the same:

"He was making a shrill sound. He was shrilling all night about grammar and some guy online. He will shrill the song so badly, that none of us will want to hear it again."

Given that shrill is a noun, an adjective, an adverb, and a verb, it would be hard to argue that it can't be used in any of those functions. Though the verb form of shrill is of older decent and perhaps sounds out of date, it doesn't mean it can't be used in that tense or come back in vogue similarly to the reemergence of the word trolling, which has much more to do with making something go around and around in a circular way than it does with monsters who live under bridges. I also think you are missing that TPTB_need_war has cross-bred the words shrill and shill to create a very descriptive word that can be used interchangeably for shill and shrill. Words are very adaptive and new usages can add richness to the language and a greater degree of precision in speech--personally, I like this addition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shrill

Yes but you still cant be 'a shrill'. His usage was wrong and weird. You and him are both wrong get over it

I was correct. I was correcting the quoted material and you are incorrect as I pointed out. I wasn't following or referencing any prior arguments--though I pointed out that TPTB_need_war's coinage of shill+shrill is perfectly fine (Shakespeare coined as many phrases as anyone and it would be tough find a more masterful user of the English language). The point of language is communication and precision, and shrill encapsulates an angry shill better than any other word I've seen--would you rather him say shrill-shill like a Dr. Seuss' character?

But he isn't shakespeare.  He's a doddery old man who repeatedly spells the word "shill" wrong as "shrill". In fact I've never seen him spell it right.

I am still correct as you cannot be "a shrill". You can be shrill, you can sound shrill but you can not "be a shrill" be a shrill what? Exactly it sounds wrong and stupid.

[child_harold]

He's a doddery old man

I think you mean "a doddering old man"

I am still correct as you cannot be "a shrill". You can be shrill, you can sound shrill but you can not "be a shrill" be a shrill what? Exactly it sounds wrong and stupid.

chill. and yes, you cannot "be a shrill". but you can always try

[stoat]

He's a doddery old man

I think you mean "a doddering old man"

I am still correct as you cannot be "a shrill". You can be shrill, you can sound shrill but you can not "be a shrill" be a shrill what? Exactly it sounds wrong and stupid.

chill. and yes, you cannot "be a shrill". but you can always try

doddery
ˈdɒd(ə)ri/
adjective
slow and unsteady in movement because of weakness in old age.
"he's a bit doddery on his legs and doesn't get about much"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/doddery

[child_harold]

"I stand corrected" said the man in the orthopedic shoes.

[generalizethis]

Shrilling

There you go again.  "Shrill" cannot be used as in "someone is shrilling". It is grammatically incorrect and reads horribly.  I read somehwere you were over 50.  How have you managed this many years on planet earth without learning the basics of the english language?

Someone is shrilling about the rules of grammar without actually knowing the rules of grammar.

Lets use some examples to illustrate how common TPTB's usage is: "He is programming the coin to act as decentralized cash. She is speculating Dash is on its last leg. Mike Hearn is harping on Bitcoin's politics."

It's being used as a present participle verb in your example, so I'm not sure why you think it is being used incorrectly. Am I missing something? Even if you change the tense, the function is the same:

"He was making a shrill sound. He was shrilling all night about grammar and some guy online. He will shrill the song so badly, that none of us will want to hear it again."

Given that shrill is a noun, an adjective, an adverb, and a verb, it would be hard to argue that it can't be used in any of those functions. Though the verb form of shrill is of older decent and perhaps sounds out of date, it doesn't mean it can't be used in that tense or come back in vogue similarly to the reemergence of the word trolling, which has much more to do with making something go around and around in a circular way than it does with monsters who live under bridges. I also think you are missing that TPTB_need_war has cross-bred the words shrill and shill to create a very descriptive word that can be used interchangeably for shill and shrill. Words are very adaptive and new usages can add richness to the language and a greater degree of precision in speech--personally, I like this addition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shrill

Yes but you still cant be 'a shrill'. His usage was wrong and weird. You and him are both wrong get over it

I was correct. I was correcting the quoted material and you are incorrect as I pointed out. I wasn't following or referencing any prior arguments--though I pointed out that TPTB_need_war's coinage of shill+shrill is perfectly fine (Shakespeare coined as many phrases as anyone and it would be tough find a more masterful user of the English language). The point of language is communication and precision, and shrill encapsulates an angry shill better than any other word I've seen--would you rather him say shrill-shill like a Dr. Seuss' character?

But he isn't shakespeare.  He's a doddery old man who repeatedly spells the word "shill" wrong as "shrill". In fact I've never seen him spell it right.

I am still correct as you cannot be "a shrill". You can be shrill, you can sound shrill but you can not "be a shrill" be a shrill what? Exactly it sounds wrong and stupid.

You're correct if you assume he can't coin a new word, which is a pretty absurd presumption. It reminds me when the dictionary makers tried to pick and choose words, not based on what people said and meant, but on their own preferences.
 

Noun 1. shrilling - a continuing shrill noise; "the clash of swords and the shrilling of trumpets"--P. J. Searles

A sound can be a shrill, just as a sound can be a thump or screech, the sentence, "I heard a shrill outside my door," is no more incorrect as, "I heard a thump outside my door, " or "I heard a screech outside my door."

I'm trying to think of a sound that doesn't have this property, but it seems most sounds can be used as noun and verb. I think your confusion is that it is almost entirely used as adjective and adverb, which can make it sound outlandish to the modern ear (not that that is the way TPTB_need_war was using it or intended it). Personally I like its use to describe a shill who is shrilling text to hide the flaws in whatever product he is endorsing. Stop your shrilling seems like it could be the mantra for everyone tired of wading through endless diatribes and meaningless text.


Language isn't a set of objective rules, it's more of "what is standard, what is accepted, and what is preferred"--none of which lends itself well to "you're wrong" argumentation. A great example is Emily Dickinson's inventions in punctuation--are you going to tell her she can't invent punctuation or her poems aren't written correctly? Many an editor who did, now looks like an imbecile for missing her genius.

[stoat]

No.  You are wrong.  A copy editor would strike out that usage of "shrill".

Repeatedly misusing a word in the wrong grammar and the wrong context betrays a kind of myopia that is quite relevant to this thread.

You can't suddenly decide to coin new usages of words in a forum discussion.  This isn't a poem or a piece of creative writing this is a technical discussion.

Both you and anonymint are wrong.

[generalizethis]

No.  You are wrong.  A copy editor would strike out that usage of "shrill".

Repeatedly misusing a word in the wrong grammar and the wrong context betrays a kind of myopia that is quite relevant to this thread.

You can't suddenly decide to coin new usages of words in a forum discussion.  This isn't a poem or a piece of creative writing this is a technical discussion.

Both you and anonymint are wrong.

Hodl up, are you saying this is an academic setting and there are editors stalking about? Such lolz, such shrilz.  

[stoat]

Allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies.

[generalizethis]

Allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies.

Language is malleable--some have little trouble adapting to new usages, while others fight it tough and nail in the name of virtue or some other inane principle.  I hope when you're older that you realize how ridiculous it is to apply hard rules on language, especially on a forum where new usages are a source of communal pride. I won't hodl my breath though.  

[TPTB_need_war]

Scripting opens a Pandora's box that destroys the normal security model for block chains. This is more damning than the problem of needing to centralize verification of scripts, because afaics it is entirely insoluble (unless you centralize authorization of which scripts are allowed to run).

A counter argument; I don't believe it makes any difference to the security model. A failed script is a failed script, it doesn't mean the blockchain has failed.

An analogy is a computer's OS; programs run on this OS, some are faulty and crash, but they don't generally bring down the entire OS.

You have failed to read the linked thread and understand the issue. Please report back after you have read the linked thread (not the Monero thread) and understood how a certain script can open the security hole for a rented 51% attack:

I didn't intend to post in this thread again, but seems I remember Monero would soon add multi-sig, and I wanted to make you aware of a potential 51% attack hole enabled by multi-sig:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364951.msg14002317#msg14002317

I am continuously amazed/dumbfounded that readers don't click links. When I cite a link, it means you must read the linked post/thread in order to understand my point.

[TPTB_need_war]

He's a doddery old man

I think you mean "a doddering old man"

Lol stoat calling the kettle black, trolling the thread with off-topic noise (the thread is "Ethereum Paradox" not "Queen's English 101").

Btw, "calling the kettle black" is a strictly grammatically incorrect idiom.

Btw, I am an American and we kicked your tea-sipping, chair bound English arses and will do it again. You can stick your pompous pendant grammar up your A-holes. Yet somehow your youth now admire our Southern idioms in the form of rap music.  

I'd like stoat to provide evidence that he even knows how to code.  

Stoat anytime you'd like to challenge this "doddering old man" to a boxing match, I don't care what is your height nor weight. Let's get it on motherfucker because I am going to rearrange your facial features like putting lipstick on a pig. Put your gloves where you slobbering, technologically-illiterate mouth is.

You see what a native blooded man (Pacquiao) did to your Ricky Hatton. Be aware I have Cherokee native blood. When I am enraged, I don't give a fuck about your bullets. Don't fuck with a native. I've seen best friends here in the Philippines slaughter each other with machetes when enraged. You don't fucking understand that even a female can lift a car when her baby is under the wheel. Don't fuck with native, there is superhuman power lurking that can be called upon.

There is a boxing ring here at my Holiday Spa Gym in Davao. Show up or STFU.

[YarkoL]

It would be seriously great if someone could go through all the relevant threads
and gather up some kind of FAQ

[TPTB_need_war]

It would be seriously great if someone could go through all the relevant threads
and gather up some kind of FAQ

Collect donations and pay me, then I will do it. Or have someone else do it.

Ethereum could hire me to solve their problem perhaps. I wouldn't charge $18 million.  

I take this as a good sign since even if a problem exists, it can be fixed.

The point is after wasting $15 million, Ethereum is no closer to a solution than when they started. And they are moving further in the wrong direction away from any decentralized solution.

(they are moving towards a centralized result and obscuring that it is centralized in technobabble, yet they are also adding so much complexity that I think it might diverge/disintegrate/malfunction as well as being a failure due to being centralized ... and they may not even fully comprehend this which is indicative of the mess... )

And Nick Szabo is discussed in this thread, click "All" then use Ctrl+F on your browser to search for "Szabo".

Read also enet's last post (which he apparently deleted, but he had pointed out that he knows code and there were only 13 issues ever opened on the development of libethereum at Github, which seems to indicate very little actual testing and usage).

Read also my last reply to monsterer regarding the fact that scripting on block chains is inherently insecure and can't be fixed (except maybe with some super complex zk-snarks thing that no one is thinking about).

Read also hv_'s post about PoS and smart contracts.

Etc... (far too much to summarize easily, I would need to be paid to redo all that into a very well organized summary).

[TPTB_need_war]

The point is after wasting $15 million, Ethereum is no closer to a solution than when they started. And they are moving further in the wrong direction away from any decentralized solution.

(they are moving towards a centralized result and obscuring that it is centralized in technobabble, yet they are also adding so much complexity that I think it might diverge/disintegrate/malfunction as well as being a failure due to being centralized ... and they may not even fully comprehend this which is indicative of the mess... )

Smooth...

I didn't read the whole thread so maybe this is covered but the reason* these attacks don't happen in practice is that none of the deployed chains actually operate as decentralized consensus systems. They are centralized in some manner with checkpoints, centrally signed blocks, etc.

This makes them impossible to attack but it also makes them a sham. They're just centralized systems implemented in an inefficient way that gives the appearance of decentralization.

* The other reason these systems aren't necessarily attacked is that attacking takes work...

[TPTB_need_war]

Generalized scripting is going to open up 51% attack vectors that didn't exist in a more pure crypto currency usage of a block chain:

I didn't intend to post in this thread again, but seems I remember Monero would soon add multi-sig, and I wanted to make you aware of a potential 51% attack hole enabled by multi-sig:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364951.msg14002317#msg14002317

I don't know how many of you read the post linked in the above quote, so I wanted to again draw attention to this insoluble problem for scripting on a block chain.

Scripting opens a Pandora's box that destroys the normal security model for block chains. This is more damning than the problem of needing to centralize verification of scripts, because afaics it is entirely insoluble (unless you centralize authorization of which scripts are allowed to run).

The only possible solution I can think of is to make all scripts run as zero knowledge black boxes so that the miners are unable to see any of the data in the block chain.

The only way to do this is zk-snarks. Remember I wrote in 2014 that I thought zk-snarks were essential for block chain 2.0 smart contracts. Once again (as I did in 2013), I've shown that my foresight is exceptional.

My zk-snarks idea has been prototyped by gmaxwell and the Zcash team:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364951.msg14023183#msg14023183

[Buddytronic]

Allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies.

That is one of the funniest posts I have read in a long while

You guys must all have English degrees!