Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2017, 01:23:56 AM *
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 84474 times)
generalizethis
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
 #481

So in terms of  script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).

It is I think undecideable to prove what Turing-complete scripting can't do.

But since the particular vulnerability I discovered when investigating DE requires the ability to multi-sig to any destination one could just place a limit on multi-sig destinations, but this would highly limit what multi-sig can be used for I think. And that doesn't guarantee there aren't other security holes.

It's pretty obvious that you are talking in circles. You haven't made "a breakthrough" or found an achilles heel as you would like people to believe.  You are merely building a strawman out of ideas in your own head and attacking that.

You can't know what ethereums solution to scaling will be because it hasn't been released yet. This whole thread is merely a pathetic attempt at FUD against something you are sour graping.

Stop doing it and stop being a fugitive pedophile. Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.

....still waiting for stoat to refute anything TPTB_need_war has stated about Ethereum's weaknesses, my guess is I'll be waiting a long, long, long time--meanwhile I can enjoy his theater of distraction. Next he'll be claiming I killed Kennedy and cryptohunter went back in time and fathered Hitler.

1513214636
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513214636

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513214636
Reply with quote  #2

1513214636
Report to moderator
1513214636
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513214636

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513214636
Reply with quote  #2

1513214636
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513214636
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513214636

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513214636
Reply with quote  #2

1513214636
Report to moderator
ilia7777
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:13:05 PM
 #482

Back to partitions, I've read about sharding today, the post was written by Vitalik and it describes exactly what is being implemented. It said clearly that if a call from one transaction group is made to another transaction group it would produce "out of range" exception. Its not clear to me why you even discuss the possibility of such calls that would be executed.

Review the upthread discussion of the impossibility of sharding the gas.

Why do I have to repeat myself? You claim to be a programmer of 10 years. You can't remember what you read 2 pages ago in the thread  Huh

The second thing I did I watched an interview with Vitalik where he said that in Ethereum 2.0 they are thinking about getting away from every node executing every transaction. In a paper you quoted before exactly such solution is described with double decker blockchain where one layer is used to simply store the state. This seems to be the exact solution they are going to adopt.

I will repeat again for the 10th time in this thread. Every validator must be able to validate the entire history of the lineage of transactions for the shard that validator is responsible for. Otherwise that validator can't be sure it is not going to lose its funds (i.e. electricity for PoW or deposit for the proposed consensus-by-betting) because it approved an invalid transaction due to some lie in the history as trusted but not validated. Come this with the impossibility of sharding the gas as explained already to you. The white paper you referred to is for a crypto currency, thus there is no gas (from other shard) that must be atomic with the execution of the sharded script (as was explained to you upthread!).

need_war you need to understand that there are no problems in computer science that can't be solved.

False. Make the Halting Problem decideable.

Please don't insult my superior intelligence and experience again with your (ostensibly not even freshman level) learning curve (and the inability to remember the famous Halting problem from freshman CompSci at the university).

Anybody that is claiming to have superior intelligence by definition has no intelligence at all.  There those that raised 18 million dollars and develop real stuff and those that spend their entire days on this forum hoping that whatever more intelligent one's(or should I say more lucky one Smiley) do won't work. I will let you sink in your own misery Mr. Superior Smiley))
stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:13:20 PM
 #483

So in terms of  script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).

It is I think undecideable to prove what Turing-complete scripting can't do.

But since the particular vulnerability I discovered when investigating DE requires the ability to multi-sig to any destination one could just place a limit on multi-sig destinations, but this would highly limit what multi-sig can be used for I think. And that doesn't guarantee there aren't other security holes.

It's pretty obvious that you are talking in circles. You haven't made "a breakthrough" or found an achilles heel as you would like people to believe.  You are merely building a strawman out of ideas in your own head and attacking that.

You can't know what ethereums solution to scaling will be because it hasn't been released yet. This whole thread is merely a pathetic attempt at FUD against something you are sour graping.

Stop doing it and stop being a fugitive pedophile. Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.

....still waiting for stoat to refute anything TPTB_need_war has stated about Ethereum's weaknesses, my guess is I'll be waiting a long, long, long time--meanwhile I can enjoy his theater of distraction. Next he'll be claiming I killed Kennedy and cryptohunter went back in time and fathered Hitler.

There is nothing to refute you moron.  He is putting forth arguments against something that doesn't exist yet. There is no way anyone can form a logical argument against it.

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
March 04, 2016, 01:19:10 PM
 #484

Back to partitions, I've read about sharding today, the post was written by Vitalik and it describes exactly what is being implemented. It said clearly that if a call from one transaction group is made to another transaction group it would produce "out of range" exception. Its not clear to me why you even discuss the possibility of such calls that would be executed.

The second thing I did I watched an interview with Vitalik where he said that in Ethereum 2.0 they are thinking about getting away from every node executing every transaction. In a paper you quoted before exactly such solution is described with double decker blockchain where one layer is used to simply store the state. This seems to be the exact solution they are going to adopt.

need_war you need to understand that there are no problems in computer science that can't be solved. If particular architecture doesn't work they will change it to the one that works. The whole thing about blockchain with all the excitement around it seems to me like we say in Russia "sucked out of finger" . But that doesn't mean that Ethereum is not gonna work and that we won't be able to make money on it. Crazy youngsters like Vitalik will develop lots of shit on Ethereum just because people have nothing better to do. No point to talk further, what I studied so far is enough for me to start pouring money in mining farm for it.

Than they need to come over the CAP theorem - could be a bit tricky.  

'Proof' is there:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13490710#msg13490710

 Grin

Let's talk generalities that apply to any block chain partitioning system.

As monsterer and I discussed upthread, it is possible to partition transactions (and even scripts as "transactions") as long as the partition state is not shared between partitions. Once you need to share any state between partitions (e.g. gas), then those partitions need to validate all the history of each other, otherwise the Prisoner's Dilemma is created and the Nash equilibrium is lost.

Fuserleer claimed he had developed a more granular data structure (not precisely a block chain, although discussion revealed the difference from a block chain was semantic illusion) wherein he can isolate only those histories that are dependent and thus I presume more efficiently merge partitions by validating only the relevant history for the state that is being moved cross-partition. That is one way to go that is different than the design I am contemplating (assuming I have described his design correctly since he hasn't revealed the details). Fuserleer's design would I presume in theory allow to partition validation and only validate what you need to when you need to, but there are several issues I can expect:

  • The miner/validator may not have the financial incentive to include transactions which have a high validation burden.
  • The economic problem of validation centralizing over time remains, thus it seems the attempt to keep them decentralized by using partitioning is pointless.
  • The unbounded amount of delayed validation work has implications similar to delays seen when garbage collection locks up your browser for 5 minutes.

I had also pointed out upthread a more high-level reason that scripts can't be assumed to have isolated state due to uncontrollable externalities, but even if someone argues I am incorrect on that point, it is unarguable the gas can't be sharded (again even if we apply Fuserleer's unreleased design, it will economically centralize).

stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:21:30 PM
 #485

Who's software or piece of code are you talking about? 

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
March 04, 2016, 01:35:16 PM
 #486

Anybody that is claiming to have superior intelligence by definition has no intelligence at all.  There those that raised 18 million dollars and develop real stuff and those that spend their entire days on this forum hoping that whatever more intelligent one's(or should I say more lucky one Smiley) do won't work. I will let you sink in your own misery Mr. Superior Smiley))

Here we go again. Another retard whose huge ego is offended by my intellect (as if that is my fault).

Eric Raymond the 150+ IQ genius who wrote the Bibles on open source has an essay for you:

Ego is for little people
Posted on 2009-11-09 by Eric Raymond

When I got really famous and started to hang out with people at the top of the game in computer science and other fields, one of the first things I noticed is that the real A-list types almost never have a major territorial/ego thing going on in their behavior. The B-list people, the bright second-raters, may be all sharp elbows and ego assertion, but there’s a calm space at the top that the absolutely most capable ones get to and tend to stay in.

I’m going to be specific about what I mean by “ego” now, because otherwise much of this essay may seem vague or wrongheaded. I specifically mean psychologial egotism, not (for example) ethical egoism as a philosophical position. The main indicators of egotism as I intend it here are are loud self-display, insecurity, constant approval-seeking, overinflating one’s accomplishments, touchiness about slights, and territorial twitchiness about one’s expertise. My claim is that egotism is a disease of the incapable, and vanishes or nearly vanishes among the super-capable.

It’s not only scientific fields where this is true. For various reasons (none of which, fortunately, have been legal troubles of my own) I’ve had to work with a lot of lawyers. I’m legally literate, so a pattern I quickly noticed is this: the B-list lawyers are the ones who get all huffy about a non-attorney expressing opinions and judgments about the law. The one time I worked with a stratospherically supercompetent A-list firm (I won’t name them, but I will note they have their own skyscraper in New York City) they were so relaxed about recognizing capability in a non-lawyer that some language I wrote went straight into their court filings in a lawsuit with multibillion-dollar stakes.

This sort of thing has been noted before by other people and is almost a commonplace. I’m bringing it up to note why that’s true, speaking from my own experience. It’s not that people at the top of their fields are more virtuous. Well…actually I think people at the top of their fields do tend to be more virtuous, for the same reason they tend to be be more intelligent, less neurotic, longer-lived, better-looking, and physically healthier than the B-listers and below. Human capability does not come in nearly divisible chunks; almost every individual way that humans can excel is tangled up with other ways at a purely physiological level, with immune-system capability lurking behind a surprisingly large chunk of the surface measures. But I don’t think the mean difference in “virtue”, however you think that can actually be defined, explains what I’m pointing at.

No. It’s more that ego games have a diminishing return. The farther you are up the ability and achievement bell curve, the less psychological gain you get from asserting or demonstrating your superiority over the merely average, and the more prone you are to welcome discovering new peers because there are so damn few of them that it gets lonely. There comes a point past which winning more ego contests becomes so pointless that even the most ambitious, suspicious, external-validation-fixated strivers tend to notice that it’s no fun any more and stop.

I’m not speaking abstractly here. I’ve always been more interested in doing the right thing than doing what would make me popular, to the point where I generally figure that if I’m not routinely pissing off a sizable minority of people I should be pushing harder. In the language of psychology, my need for external validation is low; the standards I try hardest to live up to are those I’ve set for myself. But one of the differences I can see between myself at 25 and myself at 52 is that my limited need for external validation has decreased. And it’s not age or maturity or virtue that shrunk it; it’s having nothing left to prove.

I’m going to use myself as an example now, mainly because I don’t know anyone else’s story well enough to make the point I want to with it. I’m the crippled kid who became a black-belt martial artist and teacher of martial artists. I’ve made the New York Times bestseller list as a writer. You can hardly use a browser, a cellphone, or a game console without relying on my code. I’ve been a session musician on two records. I’ve blown up the software industry once, reinvented the hacker culture twice, and am without doubt one of the dozen most famous geeks alive. Investment bankers pay me $300 an hour to yak at them because I have a track record as a shrewd business analyst. I don’t even have a BS, yet there’s been an entire academic cottage industry devoted to writing exegeses of my work. I could do nothing but speaking tours for the rest of my life and still be overbooked. Earnest people have struggled their whole lives to change the world less than I routinely do when I’m not even really trying. Here’s the point: In what way would it make sense for me to be in ego or status competition with anybody?

And yet, there are people out there who are going to read the previous paragraph and think “Oh, that’s Eric’s ego again. The blowhard.” I’ve had a lot of time to get used to such reactions over the last decade, but it’s still hard for me not to collapse in helpless laughter at the implied degree of Not Getting It. Now (limiting myself to a small random sample of the A-listers I’ve actually met and taken the measure of) Alan Kay or Terry Pratchett or David Friedman or Freeman Dyson…they would understand why I was laughing. Because real A-listers are sui generis, and usually polymaths; they tend to have constellations of talent so extreme and idiosyncratic that they couldn’t even really be in ego competition with each other, let alone with those much less capable. That’s supposing they wanted to be.

And generally they don’t want to be. If you’re the kind of person who can make it to the top even in a single field (law or CS or whatever) you may not have started out with better things to do than compete for attention and glory, but by the time you make the A-list you’ve almost certainly discovered subtler games to play that are much more fun. You’ll maintain a reputation because a reputation is a useful tool, but it’s not the point any more. If it ever was. In my experience this is even more true of polymaths, possibly because their self-images as competent people.have broader and more stable bases.

I think there are a couple of different reasons people tend to falsely attribute pathological, oversensitive egos to A-listers. Each reason is in its own way worth taking a look at.

The first and most obvious reason is projection. “Wow, if I were as talented as Terry Pratchett, I know I’d have a huge ego about it, so I guess he must.” Heh. Trust me on this; he doesn’t. This kind of thinking reveals a a lot about somebody’s ego and insecurity, alright, but not Terry’s.

There’s a flip side to projection that I think of as the “Asimov game”. I met Isaac Asimov just a few months before he died. Isaac had long been notorious for broadly egotistical behavior and a kind of cheerful bombast that got up a lot of peoples’ noses. But if you ever met him, and you were at all perceptive, you might see that it was all a sort of joke. Isaac was laughing inside at everyone who took his “egotism” seriously – and, at the same time, watching hungrily for people who could see through the self-parody, because they might – might – actually be among the vanishingly tiny minority that constituted his actual peers. The Asimov game is a constant temptation to extroverted A-listers; I’ve been known to fall into it myself. It’s not really anybody’s fault that a lot of people are fooled by it.

Another confusing fact is that though A-listers may not be about ego or status competition, they will often play such games ruthlessly and effectively when that gets them something they actually want. The something might be more money from a gig, or a night in the hay with an attractive wench, or whatever; the point is, if you catch an A-lister in that mode, you might well mistake for egotism some kinds of display behavior that actually serve much more immediate and instrumental purposes. Your typical A-lister in that situation (and this includes me, now) is blithely unconcerned that a bystander might think he’s egotistical; the money or the wench or the whatever is the goal, not the approval or disapproval of bystanders.

Finally, a lot of people confuse arrogance with ego. A-listers (and I am including myself, again, this time) are, as a rule, colossally arrogant. That is, they have utter confidence in their ability to meet challenges that would humble or break most people. Do not be fooled by the self-deprecating manner that many A-listers cultivate; it is a mask adopted for social purposes, mostly to avoid freaking out the normal monkeys. But this arrogance is not the same as egotism; in fact, in many ways it is the opposite. It is possible to be arrogant about one’s abilities compared to the statistically average human being and the range of challenges one is likely to encounter, but deeply and genuinely humble when dealing with peers or contemplating the vastness of one’s own ignorance and incapability relative to what one could imagine being. In fact, this combination of attitudes is completely typical of the A-listers I have known.

The behaviors most people think of as “egotism” tend to be driven out by arrogance rather than motivated by it. If you really believe bone-deep that you are superior, you don’t act insecure and twitchy and approval-seeking, because you just aren’t! Arrogance doesn’t even have to be justified to drive out egotism – it just has to be there. It’s all the more powerful an egotism-banisher when the arrogance is actually well-justified by the A-lister’s track record. Thus, egotists are usually people who have not yet established their capability to themselves, or who had that confidence in the past but are beginning to doubt it.

Finally, I think a lot of people need to believe that A-listers invariably have flaws in proportion to their capabilities in order not to feel dwarfed by them. Thus the widely cherished belief that geniuses are commonly mentally unstable; it’s not true (admissions to mental hospitals per thousand drop with increasing IQ and in professions that select for intelligence, with the lowest numbers among mathematicians and theoretical physicists) but if you don’t happen to be a genius yourself it’s very comforting. Similarly, a dullard who believes A-listers are all flaky temperamental egotists can console himself that, though he may not be smarter than them, he is better. And so it goes.

Ego is for little people. I wish I could finish by saying something anodyne about how we’re all little when you come down to it, but I’d be fibbing. Yeah, we’re all little compared to a supernova, but that’s beside the point. And yeah, the most capable people in the world are routinely humbled by what they don’t know and can’t do, but that is beside the point too. If you look at how humans relate to other humans – and in particular, how they manage self-image and “ego” and evaluate their status with respect to others…it really is different near the top end of the human capability range. Better. Calmer. Sorry, but it’ s true.

stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:37:45 PM
 #487

And you have a massive inflated ego for a fugitive pedophile so that article kind of proves that you are an intelectual midget now doesn't it.

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
March 04, 2016, 01:40:24 PM
 #488

Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.

I live a few blocks from the Talomo police station. I was at the Barangay Hall today to buy JC Herbal drinks from the head official of the Barangay Affairs (whom I met for the first time).

Btw, Talomo is where my ex-wife is from and where I lived in squalor from 1995 to 1998 until I created CoolPage from a Nipa Hut. Note I have kids who were born in this Barangay who are now living in the USA and also my ex and her mother whom I all financed to go to the USA.

You've got some screws loose in your head.

stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:42:54 PM
 #489

Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.

I live a few blocks from the Talomo police station. I was at the Barangay Hall today to buy JC Herbal drinks from the head official of the Barangay Affairs.

Btw, Talomo is where my ex-wife is from and where I lived in squalor from 1995 to 1998 until I created CoolPage from a Nipa Hut.

You've got some screws loose in your head.

Thats how predatory pedophiles operate.  They bribe and befriend the local officials to gain access to kids and immunity from the law.  You need to stop harming children and return to america to face justice.

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

Activity: 1204


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2016, 01:44:16 PM
 #490

So in terms of  script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).

It is I think undecideable to prove what Turing-complete scripting can't do.

But since the particular vulnerability I discovered when investigating DE requires the ability to multi-sig to any destination one could just place a limit on multi-sig destinations, but this would highly limit what multi-sig can be used for I think. And that doesn't guarantee there aren't other security holes.

It's pretty obvious that you are talking in circles. You haven't made "a breakthrough" or found an achilles heel as you would like people to believe.  You are merely building a strawman out of ideas in your own head and attacking that.

You can't know what ethereums solution to scaling will be because it hasn't been released yet. This whole thread is merely a pathetic attempt at FUD against something you are sour graping.

Stop doing it and stop being a fugitive pedophile. Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.

....still waiting for stoat to refute anything TPTB_need_war has stated about Ethereum's weaknesses, my guess is I'll be waiting a long, long, long time--meanwhile I can enjoy his theater of distraction. Next he'll be claiming I killed Kennedy and cryptohunter went back in time and fathered Hitler.

There is nothing to refute you moron.  He is putting forth arguments against something that doesn't exist yet. There is no way anyone can form a logical argument against it.

Because no one can think theoretically? Yeah, I'm the moron.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:45:20 PM
 #491

Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.

I live a few blocks from the Talomo police station. I was at the Barangay Hall today to buy JC Herbal drinks from the head official of the Barangay Affairs.

Btw, Talomo is where my ex-wife is from and where I lived in squalor from 1995 to 1998 until I created CoolPage from a Nipa Hut.

You've got some screws loose in your head.

Thats how predatory pedophiles operate.  They bribe and befriend the local officials to gain access to kids and immunity from the law.  You need to stop harming children and return to america to face justice.

You've now shown everyone on the forum how mentally deranged you are.

Btw, there are numerous foreigners living in the subdivision where I live now who are happily married.

I already told you that I am not a sex predator (in fact I can't even make sex to my gf lately due to illness). Nor am I a fugitive. Nor am I bribing any one.

stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:49:28 PM
 #492

Your denials are not convincing anyone.  Sexual molestation of children is a serious crime.

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

Activity: 672


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:50:13 PM
 #493

So in terms of  script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).

It is I think undecideable to prove what Turing-complete scripting can't do.

But since the particular vulnerability I discovered when investigating DE requires the ability to multi-sig to any destination one could just place a limit on multi-sig destinations, but this would highly limit what multi-sig can be used for I think. And that doesn't guarantee there aren't other security holes.

It's pretty obvious that you are talking in circles. You haven't made "a breakthrough" or found an achilles heel as you would like people to believe.  You are merely building a strawman out of ideas in your own head and attacking that.

You can't know what ethereums solution to scaling will be because it hasn't been released yet. This whole thread is merely a pathetic attempt at FUD against something you are sour graping.

Stop doing it and stop being a fugitive pedophile. Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.

....still waiting for stoat to refute anything TPTB_need_war has stated about Ethereum's weaknesses, my guess is I'll be waiting a long, long, long time--meanwhile I can enjoy his theater of distraction. Next he'll be claiming I killed Kennedy and cryptohunter went back in time and fathered Hitler.

There is nothing to refute you moron.  He is putting forth arguments against something that doesn't exist yet. There is no way anyone can form a logical argument against it.

Because no one can think theoretically? Yeah, I'm the moron.

... it's better than putting money on things that doesn't  exist yet ...

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
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078



View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:53:03 PM
 #494

Your denials are not convincing anyone.  Sexual molestation of children is a serious crime.

Your investment is crashing, you're starting to embarrass yourself.

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:55:00 PM
 #495

Your denials are not convincing anyone.  Sexual molestation of children is a serious crime.

Your investment is crashing, you're starting to embarrass yourself.

Doesn't seem to be crashing.  I just checked it's going sideways at 0.021 btc.  Probably due for another phat green bar later this weekend.  Have fun with litecoin or monero or whatever failed shitcoin you put your money in to.

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
March 04, 2016, 01:56:29 PM
 #496

Your denials are not convincing anyone.  Sexual molestation of children is a serious crime.

Your investment is crashing, you're starting to embarrass yourself.

Unfortunately it is probably impossible to permanently crash it until the non-viability becomes common knowledge, so that greater fools stop handing their money over to kids running Ethereum and the insiders continue to buy from themselves to create the illusion of market cap, volume, and price. This one thread isn't going to have the reach of Coindesk and other mass market pump vehicles.

I agree he has made it clear to all readers of this thread what a deranged case he is.

stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 01:57:46 PM
 #497

Your denials are not convincing anyone.  Sexual molestation of children is a serious crime.

Your investment is crashing, you're starting to embarrass yourself.

Unfortunately it is probably impossible to permanently crash it until the non-viability becomes common knowledge, so that greater fools stop handing their money over to kids running Ethereum. This one thread isn't going to have the reach of Coindesk and other mass market pump vehicles.

I agree he has made it clear to all readers of this thread what a deranged case he is.
It's pretty obvious that you are talking in circles. You haven't made "a breakthrough" or found an achilles heel as you would like people to believe.  You are merely building a strawman out of ideas in your own head and attacking that.

You can't know what ethereums solution to scaling will be because it hasn't been released yet. This whole thread is merely a pathetic attempt at FUD against something you are sour graping.

Stop doing it and stop being a fugitive pedophile. Hand yourself in to the local police station in Davao and apologise to the philipino people for being a predatory sex tourist.

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
March 04, 2016, 02:03:27 PM
 #498

There is too much hype and manipulation going on right now. Once the promised features are released, the hype will die out and people will sell.

Remember, buy the hype, sell the news.

What happens when they release features that don't work decentralized or they don't release features because they realize their design can't work decentralized?

Actually it doesn't matter. Speculators do not care whether anything will work or not.

Shams sell well. Buy the shams. Long live the shams.

stoat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 02:06:00 PM
 #499

The only sham is you my friend.  Using 'computer programmer' as a cover for your pedophile activities

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

Activity: 322


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 02:15:48 PM
 #500

You are the one who is trolling.  You are strawmanning and FUDing code which you haven't seen.

You claim to be a cryptocurrency expert but all we do know is that you are a child molesting fugitive from the law.

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