The Ethereum Paradox

[hv_]

Who runs that node?

Iota team.

Guess, that could be seen as a systemic risk, correct?


Did you communicate that in some paper transparently ?

[1714046053]

1714046053

[1714046053]

1714046053

[1714046053]

1714046053

[1714046053]

1714046053

[Come-from-Beyond]

Guess, that could be seen as a systemic risk, correct?

Did you communicate that in some paper transparently ?

Paper is not ready yet.

[hv_]

Guess, that could be seen as a systemic risk, correct?

Did you communicate that in some paper transparently ?

Paper is not ready yet.

hm, but you're already selling. That's not ok.

[monsterer]

Profitable PoW just seems harder to attack by irrational actors than unprofitable PoW on an unpartitioned system.

Rational actors in unprofitable PoW have no incentive not to attack the system. At least if it's profitable there is the mining incentive.

This is utterly dumb confused crap, especially after I had already explained to you recently the profits from 51% attacking.

Your explanation was, frankly nonsense. I gave up trying to argue with you.

[Come-from-Beyond]

hm, but you're already selling. That's not ok.

Software doesn't require whitepaper to be sold.

[TPTB_need_war]

Profitable PoW just seems harder to attack by irrational actors than unprofitable PoW on an unpartitioned system.

Rational actors in unprofitable PoW have no incentive not to attack the system. At least if it's profitable there is the mining incentive.

This is utterly dumb confused crap, especially after I had already explained to you recently the profits from 51% attacking.

Your explanation was, frankly nonsense. I gave up trying to argue with you.

Sorry you just don't comprehend. Will I receive your apology when you later realize you were wrong, as you did on Iota and again on your other failed idea for DAG-like design.

How many times I have taught you, yet you still don't respect me. Sigh.

[monsterer]

Sorry you just don't comprehend. Will I receive your apology when you later realize you were wrong, as you did on Iota and again on your other failed idea for DAG-like design.

How many times I have taught you, yet you still don't respect me. Sigh.

You are hilarious. Lets see your fabulous white paper - I look forward to it with the utmost enthusiasm.

[hv_]

hm, but you're already selling. That's not ok.

Software doesn't require whitepaper to be sold.

Agreed, for Investments it's a bit different. It's a grey zoon all here ...

[Minecache]

This thread should be locked down because the OP is simply trying to spread FUD so he can fill his bag with cheap ETH. Why do people think he has an interest in cheap coinage.

[TPTB_need_war]

Sorry you just don't comprehend. Will I receive your apology when you later realize you were wrong, as you did on Iota and again on your other failed idea for DAG-like design.

How many times I have taught you, yet you still don't respect me. Sigh.

You are hilarious. Lets see your fabulous white paper - I look forward to it with the utmost enthusiasm.

I am not hilarious. I guarantee you are wrong. If you could simply wrap your mind around the fact that no one will attack if it is not profitable for them to do so, and the analyze the ways they can profit, then you will likely realize your error.

[TPTB_need_war]

This thread should be locked down because the OP is simply trying to spread FUD so he can fill his bag with cheap ETH. Why do people think he has an interest in cheap coinage.

FUD.

Is that the best you can do?

[monsterer]

I am not hilarious. I guarantee you are wrong. If you could simply wrap your mind around the fact that no one will attack if it is not profitable for them to do so, and the analyze the ways they can profit, then you will likely realize your error.

I shall wait for your white paper with its ever decreasing list of killer features:

99% attack resistant
no mining pools
censorship resistant

[TPTB_need_war]

I am not hilarious. I guarantee you are wrong. If you could simply wrap your mind around the fact that no one will attack if it is not profitable for them to do so, and the analyze the ways they can profit, then you will likely realize your error.

I shall wait for your white paper with its ever decreasing list of killer features:

99% attack resistant
no mining pools
censorship resistant

Stop criticizing that which you do not understand. There is nothing announced. Nothing for sale. And no white paper.

You will have ample time to apologize to me when there is.

[TPTB_need_war]

The PoW is negligible, I assume that OP is talking about For All Practical Purposes free transfer, not some breaking the conservation of energy and flattening the curvature of the space-time continuum in a holographic principle type of manner 'free'. And as CfB has pointed out: the rest of your post is nonsense. Why the constant dishonest hyperbolic statements about IOTA from you?

Actually if you review my prior reply to CfB, then if I am correct that Iota must centralize in order to maintain convergence of consensus (which I am), then the centralized agents will be the ones resubmitting transactions (and redoing the PoW) to put the transactions on a branch that respects the enforced mathematical algorithm.

Thus these centralized agents will need to reimbursed and thus they will end up charging fees.

I am sorry but you and CfB are both wrong.

And proof-of-work is not any more negligible than the actual cost of processing transactions in Bitcoin (for the same hashrate security level). It is rather the centralization that drives up fees due to the power it enables to grab greater profits.

Please don't hype bullshit features.

The gloves come off with Iota. Sue me David as you threatened to do in a private message.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Code:

99% attack resistant

Impossible.

[TPTB_need_war]

Code:

99% attack resistant

Impossible.

What does that even mean? How can something be impossible when it is ill-defined.

[TPTB_need_war]

Nobody knows how to scale a block chain decentralized. Iota neither.

That is the issue that isn't solved and Ethereum sharding direction will never work because it is fundamentally mathematically impossible to make it work.

I have an idea of how to scale a block chain with decentralized control.

On top of that, scripting can break the security of the block chain by opening new income for 51% attackers. So it is another step to solve after solving the scaling problem.

None of these 2.0 clones are any where near to those solutions. Ethereum is flying off in the wrong direction, which is perfect for me. I hope they continue with Casper. The smartest thing I could for my coin is to shut up so no one tries to go review my past descriptions and figure out how to do it.

[Come-from-Beyond]

What does that even mean? How can something be impossible when it is ill-defined.

I thought standard assumption of an adversary controlling 99% of the hashrate had been used.

[TPTB_need_war]

What does that even mean? How can something be impossible when it is ill-defined.

I thought standard assumption of an adversary controlling 99% of the hashrate had been used.

Oic. Monsterer is referring to something I wrote many months ago then, which I told him was flawed and was abandoned (that was well before I started the Decentralization thread about the CAP theorem and the Satoshi Didn't solve the Byzantine Generals Problem thread wherein it is has become quite clear that 33 - 51% is the maximum ... it also happens to be when I was in delirium in the August to October timeframe due to a 10 day water only fasting and precipitous decline in my health which I have since improved considerably). He somehow conflates that with the design which has gelled since I started the Decentralization thread.

I am not claiming resistance against a 99% hashrate share proof-of-work adversary.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I am not claiming resistance against a 99% proof-of-work adversary.

"Impossible" was more about impossibility of you claiming such the nonsense than about impossiblity of such a protection.