IOTA - Permissioned ledger Russian extortion scheme

[Come-from-Beyond]

What about the fact that cryptocurrency is an engineering task to create a decentralized price peg, so that if you remove the accessibility aspect, you have created in this case, both a permissioned ledger and extortion scheme?

One bet at a time.

[1714944607]

1714944607

[1714944607]

1714944607

[1714944607]

1714944607

[1714944607]

1714944607

[1714944607]

1714944607

[cryptohunter]

You are talking about a given coin, I'm talking generally about PoS coins. You also know that very well to build a mining farm what can mine a meaningful amount of coins can be expensive (depending on the chosen type of coins). Running such a farm cost a lot. Also such farms are not holding their value and going to be obsolete relative quickly. On the contrary if I pick a PoS coin, after my initial "investment" I do not need to spend too much more on it.

Meaningful? The fair amount of coins you should have compared to others having the same machine and using the same energy to mine?

Yes that's how it should be.

I agree buying coins and holding for POS only is easier to accumulate big chunks of the minting. However, the source you are buying them from is able to manipulate the entire market from behind an ICO. This is where the scams set it.

With POW you can mine and use the same energy and invest the same as others in machinery or you can buy from exchanges after the coins have been mined and distributed at the market rate set by all miners selling and all those willing to buy.

[achimsmile]

With POW you can mine and use the same energy and invest the same as others in machinery

So you're a multi millionaire. Congrats.

Btw iota uses PoW, not PoS

[Videodrome]

What about the fact that cryptocurrency is an engineering task to create a decentralized price peg, so that if you remove the accessibility aspect, you have created in this case, both a permissioned ledger and extortion scheme?

You are in the wrong forum.

[Come-from-Beyond]

r0ach hasn't accepted the bet showing that his words are worth nothing. So be it.

[r0ach]

r0ach hasn't accepted the bet showing that his words are worth nothing. So be it.

You never gave descriptive enough betting nomenclature for the first bet for anyone to accept.  For the second one I said sure, still awaiting payment:

Having said that, the distributed security part is also full of a lot of holes. 

This is worth another 50 BTC bet which we'll do after sorting out the first one, right?

I'll be happy to accept that bet.  Anything with a probabilistic security model is by definition "full of holes".  It's designed to fail in other words.  The only thing that gives it any usability is it's fault or state recovery.  You're inherently trying to create a perpetual motion machine based on human desirability to constantly reboot the system afterwards.

The 50 BTC payment by one of you or your associates can be sent here:

13Vec94iVPETRahJjf9zWwoyuJV6uh2o1e

"...which we'll do after sorting out the first one". One bet at a time. So, what about the first one? Do you accept it?

I did not receive payment for this one yet.

[Come-from-Beyond]

You never gave descriptive enough betting nomenclature for the first bet for anyone to accept.

I used negation of your own definition. But now it doesn't matter anymore.

[TPTB_need_war]

While I was sleeping you transformed this thread into IQ measuring contest. It's common knowledge that men tend to exaggerate size of their IQs, so I suggest to post here pictures that could prove your words. Pic or it didn't happen.  

I have something better:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

Claim the 1 million USD with a proper proof or it didn't happen

I may be very close to doing that. I haven't had free time to pursue what I laid out already.

Genius is a lot about being able to look problems in ways and detect features that most others miss. I been doing that habitually throughout my life. Again a 150 IQ is only one-in-a-thousand rarity, so it isn't like every genius becomes the next Bill Gates. Michael Jordan, or Steve Jobs. That requires functional intelligence and also other attributes such as extreme competitiveness, intense focus and discipline, etc.. IQ tests can't measure all these attributes. At the far right of the bell curve, IQ tests may have very little predictive power and be essentially the same as a random number. So my thought is an IQ test has exponentially less and less predictive power above a 'g' of roughly 130 or so.

While I was sleeping you transformed this thread into IQ measuring contest. It's common knowledge that men tend to exaggerate size of their IQs, so I suggest to post here pictures that could prove your words. Pic or it didn't happen.  

Make it clear who the "you" is you are referring to, i.e. the one who responded to my factual argumentation about Iota by making ad hominem attacks on my capabilities on my own projects (as if that is at all relevant to the facts of Iota):

The delusion of (even very smart) humans is incredible to me.

I'm sure you have, I know how smart you are... I also know that the likelihood of you pulling off what you want is 0.00001%.

I explained this to MadCow yesterday:

My reply was not only targeted towards you but also to those who constantly attack my technological statements by attacking my motives instead of attacking the logic of the statements. It changes the topic from the technology issues of the CCs I am analyzing to an analysis of myself and my plans.

One of your points was asserting or positing that I need to win support from this forum, which I want to refute. My early adopters will not come from this forum. Even if I had no reputation and no presence on this forum, my plan would proceed outside this forum.

The main purpose of this forum for me has been to learn about the technology and what to not do for a CC project. And also it provided the contacts for the minimal angel funding that sustained me while I completed my learning process, worked on my health, and is sustaining my initial development work until I can get the project crowdfunded (not selling tokens).

I don't need P&D speculators in my coin [...]

[Come-from-Beyond]

I may be very close to doing that. I haven't had free time to pursue what I laid out already.

Let's assume that P = NP. Does it mean that it's possible to revert any hashing function?

[TPTB_need_war]

I may be very close to doing that. I haven't had free time to pursue what I laid out already.

Let's assume that P = NP. Does it mean that it's possible to revert any hashing function?

Sorry I am not going down the complexity class rabbit hole today. I have other work I need to do.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Sorry I am not going down the complexity class rabbit hole today. I have other work I need to do.

Hm, the answer is pretty obvious, but ok.

[TPTB_need_war]

Btw iota uses PoW, not PoS

This is what a person with a low IQ and/or incomplete understanding of the holistic analysis of block chain consensus would conclude.

Rather Iota actually devolves to either a proof-of-reputation or centralized proof-of-work because of the loss of the Nash equilibrium which I explained upthread, thus forces centralization in order to force convergence over choices of conflicting DAG branches. How this centralization is maintained will determine whether it is via reputation of which servers payers and payees trust (if these servers can sign these transactions somehow perhaps) else devolves to who has the most efficient ASIC mining farms same as for Bitcoin.

[IOTanus]

Ok IOTa is permissioned ledger. So what? Why does it matter?

Is permissioned ledger same thing as private blockchain?

[r0ach]

Ok IOTa is permissioned ledger. So what? Why does it matter?

It matters because any system that isn't a permissionless ledger is a system of extortion by default.  Somewhat explained in the following quote, then real world example after:

In the Austrian school of money, "money" is required to have scarcity, but because money is a unitary instrument, it's also required to have accessibility.  Gold accomplishes this permissionless and unitary system because most any nation can acquire it, even if they have to go straight down a few miles.

When I say, "unitary instrument", it's because you have to have a price peg in which all other objects are pegged to so that you can say "one chicken = 1/10th a hat".  Bitcoin follows and actually improves upon gold in this case of accessibility.  It can be acquired wherever you want, and the accessibility never stops due to permanent coin turnover via transaction fee block reward.  If there is no accessibility, there can be no unitary price peg, and the entire thing just turns into an extortion scheme, so here we are in this thread.

The way Bitcoin is designed is honestly somewhat of a work of art by someone with the understanding of a renaissance man.  CFB either did not understand why that coin turnover was required or did not care because he wanted to issue an IPO at all costs.

Real world example

Let's say North Korea is sanctioned by every nation on earth for smoking too much marijuana.  They're now cut off from all international trade and economically suffering.  If Bitcoin is the world reserve currency, they can use their technological know how to start mining Bitcoins because it's a permissionless system.  They now have a currency they can use to buy food and supplies from a semi-friendly but not complete ally proxy nation like China.

If IOTA was the world reserve currency, they do not have a permissionless entry point into the system at all because Bitcoin is a system of permanent coin turnover and IOTA isn't because it's a permissioned ledger.  They're now forced to attempt to trade something with China to acquire IOTAs, but maybe they don't have anything China wants so they can acquire no coins at all and they're completely locked out (obviously not a permissionless decentralized currency).  

Their best case scenario is, since China only sees them as useful idiots and not a real ally, they will then charge them with a markup for coins, along with another markup for whatever proxy goods they want through them.  Let's not forget the Come from Beyond day 0 extortion tax either since he cornered the market by design at release.  Thus, you have now been extorted three times in this chain of command due to it being a permissioned ledger and not a real decentralized currency.

[IOTanus]

What about company shares which are freely traded on exchanges. System of extortion by default?

[r0ach]

What about company shares which are freely traded on exchanges. System of extortion by default?

The network effect is a double edged sword that causes this extortion/coercion in a system that isn't permissionless.  In Bitcoin, you can go straight to the system itself and pluck the money off the tree.  It never ends, you can always do this.  It has removed friction from the economic system by removing the ability of the middle men to insert themselves and extort you.  The fact that it has permanent coin turnover means Bitcoin is essentially always running a decentralized exchange in the background to allow you to always bypass humans and you will always be paying fair market price.  In permissioned systems, that's not the case.  Most people don't even realize Bitcoin has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.

Since, like I said, money is a unitary instrument, an engineering problem to create a decentralized price peg so that you can say 1 hat = 1/10th a chicken, the entire purpose of money's existence is to become a monopoly.  If the money is built by design as a permissioned ledger, it's usefulness to any person or nation on earth will be minimal and negative if it was to become a monopoly because it's too wide open to abuse.  It will either not be adopted at all, or scammers will try to force it onto people to extort them.  A permissionless system would have mutual value for all parties involved.

As for the company stock example, there are few companies that make things all humans are required to have.  When they arise, they're usually referred to as "monopolies" and broken up by laws, pitchforks, whatever.  The company isn't exactly the same category as "permissionless currency".  The main reason a country would want to resist a real permissionless currency, is so they can do things like devalue it to raise their exports, thus cheating other nations via currency wars.  There is a Nash equilibrium in every country adopting the permissionless currency to prevent each other from doing this.

[tangleNinja]

You never gave descriptive enough betting nomenclature for the first bet for anyone to accept.  For the second one I said sure, still awaiting payment:

This is bullshit and you know it.
A bet is not a bet if you just demand payment without putting your own money on the line.
Get escrow and lets do this already.

[r0ach]

You never gave descriptive enough betting nomenclature for the first bet for anyone to accept.  For the second one I said sure, still awaiting payment:

This is bullshit and you know it.
A bet is not a bet if you just demand payment without putting your own money on the line.
Get escrow and lets do this already.

How about actually try to address the last post I made.  Removing permanent coin turnover from Bitcoin is obviously a fatal flaw.

[TPTB_need_war]

Most people don't even realize Bitcoin has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.

Which only 0.001% of the population can participate in profitably. And it ceases roughly 2033 or unless transaction fees scale up but there is a Tragedy of the Commons dilemma there as well.

[r0ach]

Most people don't even realize Bitcoin has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.

Which only 0.001% of the population can participate in profitably. And it ceases roughly 2033 or unless transaction fees scale up but there is a Tragedy of the Commons dilemma there as well.

It doesn't really even matter if it's profitable or not.  You can define Bitcoin in one sentence:

The purpose of mining is to create a permanent two way peg, decentralized exchange, which thus results in a permissionless system.

The economic incentives are a side issue, but seem to work thus far.  It's designed to bounce back and forth between profitable and unprofitable.  The fact that it's deflationary creates a time opportunity cost reward to generally remain profitable over the long haul.

But as it pertains to this thread, we are obviously missing those elements here, and Come from Beyond, who is supposed to have a 4000 IQ, is unable to come up with any sort of argument whatsoever.