The Ethereum Paradox

[stoat]

Shrill is an adjective.  You can't "be a shrill".  You can sound shrill or be shrill but you can't be A shrill.

The word you are trying to use is "shill" as in "to talk about or describe someone or something in a favorable way because you are being paid to do it"


Please stop butchering the Queens English.

[kanazawa]

hey, ETH is very cool... let's enjoy all these cool currencies that have a meaning to exist... ETH is supported by some gof the greatest minds in the programming community.. c'mon, it's not involved in any paradox or even a scam like in the other thread started here in the forum. I'm happy to exchange ethereum and monero in the very beginning, now the values is 10 times higher, it's so cool I can't explain.

[TPTB_need_war]

Shrill is an adjective.

It is also a verb which is how I employed it, "Justify your shrilling...". It applies to the shrill sound of overly emotional defensiveness as opposed to presentation of facts and data.

Your further attempts to avoid providing "facts and data" will be appropriately ignored:

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

[stoat]

Shrill is an adjective.

It is also a verb which is how I employed it, "Justify your shrilling...". It applies to the shrill sound of overly emotional defensiveness as opposed to presentation of facts and data.

Your further attempts to avoid providing "facts and data" will be appropriately ignored:

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

I've seen you call people "a shrill" on numerous occasions.  the actual word is "shill" not "shrill"

Calling someone "a shrill" just makes you sound retarded.  Which is fitting because you are retarded

[TPTB_need_war]

While stoat plays a pathetic word game to deflect attention away from his inability to respond with "facts and data" per the substance of the prior page of this thread, he has been placed on ignore.

Snake oil salesmen use every possible technique to fool their victims. Eventually it reaches the point of absurdity such that even a total fool should be able to discern fact from shrilling.

The ETH price is fake due to insiders buying from themselves to fool their victims, as is the standard method of manipulation of shit coins. Their accomplices in this forum can offer no proof otherwise.

[TPTB_need_war]

generalizethis thanks for pointing out the range of the grammatical applicability, creativity and the concept of a living language. I was also thinking of those points, but I felt it might muddle my response if I elaborated. Also you explained it more eloquently than I would have.

Other examples I have employed in the past are Bitards, Bitcon, etc..

And the most recent usage of 'shrilling' was done on purpose to incite stoat to further attack irrelevant issues so readers can see he has no relevant technical or otherwise factual knowledge that pertains to the substance of this thread.

[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

[TPTB_need_war]

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

3. sure.

Apparently the insiders can push the price higher and higher buying from themselves because there aren't many people selling. Perhaps only the insiders actually own any now, or a few other fools who don't understand the bag they are holding.

This is the greater fool theory in action. They apparently think they are going to be able to dump this on some greater fools at nose bleed prices, if they continue to push the fake price and fake market cap higher.

I suppose there is a steady stream of new fools coming into altcoins, so the scams stay active to pilfer their lunch money.

[hv_]

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

3. sure.

Apparently the insiders can push the price higher and higher buying from themselves because there aren't many people selling. Perhaps only the insiders actually own any now, or a few other fools who don't understand the bag they are holding.

This is the greater fool theory in action. They apparently think they are going to be able to dump this on some greater fools at nose bleed prices, if they continue to push the fake price and fake market cap higher.

I suppose there is a steady stream of new fools coming into altcoins, so the scams stay active to pilfer their lunch money.

I' d rather assume - because of most is traded vs BTC - that chinese BTC pools also want to dominate ETH - and coming up PoS forces them to own much coins ... 

The good thing with all that is that there is going lot of fiat into crypto that might stay there for very Long time (as long as energy is cheap). 

[TPTB_need_war]

Well, well, if you consider that my post today basically points out that scripting on a block chain can never be secure unless the security is centralized (and you trust that centralized manager), then basically the writing is on the wall that China already controls Bitcoin and they also want to control the centralized scripting block chain.

Decentralized crypto currency and block chains are currently dead. We only have centralized. The internet is being destroyed.

China may be mining BTC with free electricity (cost charged to the collective), thus the ETH is essentially free for them at any price. And they can't sell all the BTC they mine without driving the BTC price down.

On the next halving, China's % of the hashrate will increase from the current 65%.

[generalizethis]

Well, well, if you consider that my post today basically points out that scripting on a block chain can never be secure unless the security is centralized (and you trust that centralized manager), then basically the writing is on the wall that China already controls Bitcoin and they also want to control the centralized scripting block chain.

Decentralized crypto currency and block chains are currently dead. We only have centralized. The internet is being destroyed.

China may be mining BTC with free electricity (cost charged to the collective), thus the ETH is essentially free for them at any price. And they can't sell all the BTC they mine without driving the BTC price down.

On the next halving, China's % of the hashrate will increase from the current 65%.

If you read the essay that I posted on ET, you'll see the philosophical argument that we are moving toward centralized systems in all aspects of life--the economy just happens to be one aspect of a larger network. To misquote Woody Allen, "The network wants what the network wants." Replacing capitalism with network just gets at the heart of what's being created.

[hv_]

Well, well, if you consider that my post today basically points out that scripting on a block chain can never be secure unless the security is centralized (and you trust that centralized manager), then basically the writing is on the wall that China already controls Bitcoin and they also want to control the centralized scripting block chain.

Decentralized crypto currency and block chains are currently dead. We only have centralized. The internet is being destroyed.

China may be mining BTC with free electricity (cost charged to the collective), thus the ETH is essentially free for them at any price. And they can't sell all the BTC they mine without driving the BTC price down.

On the next halving, China's % of the hashrate will increase from the current 65%.

If you read the essay that I posted on ET, you'll see the philosophical argument that we are moving toward centralized systems in all aspects of life--the economy just happens to be one aspect of a larger network. To misquote Woody Allen, "The network wants what the network wants." Replacing capitalism with network just gets at the heart of what's being created.

Could youpls post a link?

But since (crypto - ccy) trust in in decentralization, there will be always waves (buy into one crypto / out) and cryptos with too much centralisation will head down and be replaced by new ones . I simply just don't buy a BTC if I've to trust 1-2 miners , would you?

[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

[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

...and please, not just another statement from you. Show something. Anything! Even just one link to something that isn't just you making claims!

[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?

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

P.S. Even if hv_ is correct in his theory that the Chinese mining cartel is buying up ETH, this could be proven if the exchanges were investigated and complied with a demand to provide the necessary data. However I think some exchanges (e.g. Bitfinex at least) allow anonymous trading when exchanging BTC for altcoins, i.e. for as long as fiat is not involved. Note the regulators are preparing to put an end to this apparently. Note recently I have been aiding the process of developing decentralized exchanges that can't be jammed, so I am working to enable anonymous trading, but the great thing about DE will be that the market price won't really be measurable, so thus market caps won't be measurable also. And that is the way it should be because this crap is all manipulated noise any way. All that really matters is at what price did you as a speculative investor buy and sell.

[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.

[child_harold]

Oh Man, so much to read…

any chance of a TL;DR whilst I prepare my coffee?

I came in here to see whats up cause I wanted to savvy @TPTB_need_war's issue with ETH
Since I'm no propeller-head I rely on experts (and my own gut) when forming an opinion.

Personally I love Ethereum and its vision. ETH is still a baby and will grow so much in the following months/years I struggle to understand the flack it gets. The upcoming Homestead will change and improve a lot on what we're using today.

Whatever happens to Ethereum it has already changed the blockchain landscape fpr the better and opened the worlds eyes to the awesome applications of the blockchain. Whatever happens Id argue it has already been successful by changing the paradigm, as Bitcoin has done too.

In all likelihood Ethereum will grow and keep growing.

[In Crypto MTG there are cards for both @NickSzabo and @TPTB_need_war
NickSzabo is the 2nd most powerful card in the deck, only the Satoshi card can defeat him. joke ]

If Nick , the creator of BitGold and father of Smart Contracts, supports Ethereum then why doesn't everybody?

Ill have to read this through…

[TPTB_need_war]

any chance of a TL;DR whilst I prepare my coffee?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13891286#msg13891286

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13899584#msg13899584

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13900977#msg13900977

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13908428#msg13908428

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13942202#msg13942202

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg14013819#msg14013819

[child_harold]

any chance of a TL;DR whilst I prepare my coffee?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13891286#msg13891286

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13899584#msg13899584

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13900977#msg13900977

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13908428#msg13908428

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13942202#msg13942202

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg14013819#msg14013819

Hi, I was hoping for some text but I'll check these too

if you're short on time and cant respond to the full post above please consider:
1. The fact Homestead and future updates will improve Ethereum greatly
2. The fact Nick Szabo supports Ethereum. What does he see that you dont? Or vice-versa?


EDIT: Started reading your links and found you said this:

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.