IOTA - Permissioned ledger Russian extortion scheme

[TPTB_need_war]

TPTB, do you happen to also have Asperger's syndrome? Reading your responses makes me think of a less genius version of Von Neumann... some people can be so smart and fail to see very simple things right in front of them.

It exhibits a very low IQ to not even fathom that a developer who is focused on technological issues and is off in his programming cave focusing there, may not care about the useless shit you P&D gamblers waste your time on.

So not conceiving of that obvious scenario due to your low IQ, you would then propose the ludicrous idea that I have Asperger's syndrome, when in fact I have demonstrated in this forum and in my career the ability to communicate socially with a wide range of people.

Just because I smash trolls like yourself as I am doing in this post, doesn't mean I am anti-social. Illogical. Your low IQ is evident for everyone now.

[NextGenCrypto]

@cryptogay : Who in the hell gave you any rights to ASK???

What is this, fucking 1942 when being "gay" may have been an insult?

My guess is you're some poor fuck from a third world country sitting in some internet cafe jerking off while trolling on bitcointalk in piss poor English.

Grow up, dumbass troll.

[nexern]

[Come-from-Beyond]

What is this, fucking 1942 when being "gay" may have been an insult?

Actually it's still an insult in a big part of the world that is behind your window.

[rtrtcrypto]

*jots down medical notes*

Yes, yes... very good. You are showing yourself to be quite the social and focused developer you believe yourself to be. I'm glad you have "smashed" my trolling and have discovered my low IQ - also a vigilante and detective on top of world class programming skills. Bravo!

TPTB, do you happen to also have Asperger's syndrome? Reading your responses makes me think of a less genius version of Von Neumann... some people can be so smart and fail to see very simple things right in front of them.

It exhibits a very low IQ to not even fathom that a developer who is focused on technological issues and is off in his programming cave focusing there, may not care about the useless shit you P&D gamblers waste your time on.

So not conceiving of that obvious scenario due to your low IQ, you would then propose the ludicrous idea that I have Asperger's syndrome, when in fact I have demonstrated in this forum and in my career the ability to communicate socially with a wide range of people.

Just because I smash trolls like yourself as I am doing in this post, doesn't mean I am anti-social. Illogical. Your low IQ is evident for everyone now.

[TPTB_need_war]

No. Because anyone who has greater than 33% of the hashrate must employ the Selfish Mining as their optimum strategy and everyone else must mine on the visible longest chains as theirs.

You say that "white" is "black". It doesn't make sense to continue after this point.


PS: Those who are interested in the subject can check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium#Informal_definition ("Informally, a set of strategies is a Nash equilibrium if no player can do better by unilaterally changing their strategy."),

https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcFC.pdf ("We presented Selfish-Mine, a mining strategy that enables pools of colluding miners that adopt it to earn revenues in excess of their mining power.")

and https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf ("Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it.")

which clearly show that Bitcoin doesn't operate in a Nash equilibrium and still achieves consensus thus making TPTB's claim ("Thus there is no Nash equilibrium.") look out of place, because it shows/proves nothing.

Your IQ is apparently insufficient to understand what I wrote. Your rebuttal is not a rebuttal but you don't understand why.

This folks is the difference between a genius level IQ and not. I'll leave it as a homework problem for CfB or anyone else who wants to demonstrate they have genius level understanding of the Nash equilibrium w.r.t. block chain consensus algorithms.

[r0ach]

For me, the problem with this coin is it effectively throws away the benefits of proof of work while retaining it's drawbacks, thus not functioning as a decentralized, permissionless system as cited in the first post.  In that instance, you've created something that functionally falls into the same category as proof of stake, just with higher overhead and worse economic incentives.  The economic incentives are so misaligned, the coin doesn't even work at all at release.  The solution, CFB calls it, is "training wheels", or checkpoints.

The coin's value should theoretically increase as the security of the network does, at least that's how normal systems function.  A baseball player that hits 100 home runs a year usually makes more than one that hits 0 home runs.  With this coin, the security at release is 0, but we're supposed to believe the for-profit issuer of the coin that the price should be high when the network doesn't even work.  We're then supposed to all willingly join in on this extortion scheme and pay for security now which doesn't exist, with the naive dream it will some day in the future.  The way the coin is designed is not really conducive in creating a network effect for this to happen though.  You're buying something that needs to go from 0 to large tipping point instantly with nothing in between.  It's like hoping dogs will randomly begin walking on two feet and start talking out of nowhere.

Anyway, as I was saying, since the coin already functionally falls into the same category as proof of stake, and the outside entropy of the coin serves no real purpose, he may as well of just created a closed loop proof of stake derivative in the first place and attempted to scale via something like deterministic block production.  You'd end up recreating some system like Bitshares, which like all proof of stake systems, is also a permissioned ledger, not anti-fragile, horrific fault/state recovery, etc etc.  The point is, this coin is not a valid contendor or replacement to Bitcoin, neither are the proof of stake coins that share many of the same characteristics.

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 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.

[contraband]

For me, the problem with this coin is it effectively throws away the benefits of proof of work while retaining it's drawbacks, thus not functioning as a decentralized, permissionless system as cited in the first post.  In that instance, you've created something that functionally falls into the same category as proof of stake, just with higher overhead and worse economic incentives.  The economic incentives are so misaligned, the coin doesn't even work at all at release.  The solution, CFB calls it, is "training wheels", or checkpoints.

The coin's value should theoretically increase as the security of the network does, at least that's how normal systems function.  A baseball player that hits 100 home runs a year usually makes more than one that hits 0 home runs.  With this coin, the security at release is 0, but we're supposed to believe the for-profit issuer of the coin that the price should be high when the network doesn't even work.  We're then supposed to all willingly join in on this extortion scheme and pay for security now which doesn't exist, with the naive dream it will some day in the future.  The way the coin is designed is not really conducive in creating a network effect for this to happen though.  You're buying something that needs to go from 0 to large tipping point instantly with nothing in between.  It's like hoping dogs will randomly begin walking on two feet and start talking out of nowhere.

Anyway, as I was saying, since the coin already functionally falls into the same category as proof of stake, and the outside entropy of the coin serves no real purpose, he may as well of just created a closed loop proof of stake derivative in the first place and attempted to scale via something like deterministic block production.  You'd end up recreating some system like Bitshares, which like all proof of stake systems, is also a permissioned ledger, not anti-fragile, horrific fault/state recovery, etc etc.  The point is, this coin is not a valid contendor or replacement to Bitcoin, neither are the proof of stake coins that share many of the same characteristics.

But proof of work is old. Its washed out. Get with the times

[TPTB_need_war]

But proof of work is old. Its washed out. Get with the times

It depends which problem one is trying to solve: a) something new to sell to speculators, or b) a system that can scale decentralized because your plans for the use of the CC require that it does.

Satoshi's proof-of-work design is flawed in that it falls to centralization due to economies-of-scale. But the interim Nash equilibrium does function until centralization is at 33% or above, as Bitcoin proved during its nascent period. (Hint: I just refuted CfB's prior post but there is a deeper refutation that I would like to see someone else articulate)

But note every known consensus system for a block chain fails to centralization due to economies-of-scale.

I think I know how to fix Satoshi's design. My future white paper will explain the threats that remain.

[From Above]

I think I know how to fix Satoshi's design. My future white paper will explain the threats that remain.

U are obviously very smart, and a very nice person to hang out with.
Who doesnt dig guys like this.

~CfA~

[tromp]

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html (published my solution to a question on an IQ test that indicates I would score above 148 IQ on that test)

Unfortunately, your posted answer of 59 lines is wrong:-(

[TPTB_need_war]

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html (published my solution to a question on an IQ test that indicates I would score above 148 IQ on that test)

Unfortunately, your posted answer of 59 lines is wrong:-(

Please elaborate.

[tromp]

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html (published my solution to a question on an IQ test that indicates I would score above 148 IQ on that test)

Unfortunately, your posted answer of 59 lines is wrong:-(

Please elaborate.

The general approach you take is correct of course, but you get several details wrong.
I'll give you some time to identify them yourself...

[TPTB_need_war]

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html (published my solution to a question on an IQ test that indicates I would score above 148 IQ on that test)

Unfortunately, your posted answer of 59 lines is wrong:-(

Please elaborate.

Oh never mind I already see the obvious error.

Each triple can insect the enclosed area of every other triple.

I see I did take that in account in my solution. Thus I don't see the error you allege. Please elaborate on the error you claim.

[houlala1]

The russian needs more caviar

It's never enough

After 5 projects he launch a new one and noobs will give him food for one more year

[tromp]

I see I did take that in account in my solution. Thus I don't see the error you allege. Please elaborate on the error you claim.

What is the maximum number of areas created with L lines?

[TPTB_need_war]

I see I did take that in account in my solution. Thus I don't see the error you allege. Please elaborate on the error you claim.

What is the maximum number of areas created with L lines?

You are counting infinite regions which are not bounded:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55008.html

Those have no definable "area" as the question pertains. Thus I claim you are wrong and even the designers of the question are wrong if they expected your answer.

This isn't the first time I corrected the answer on an IQ test.  


Edit: tromp has a high IQ. That is quite clear. And he is afaik more formally trained in math than I am. I am not going to claim I am smarter than him. IQ is overrated any way, as was explained upthread.

[tromp]

You are counting infinite regions which are not bounded:

Those have no definable "area" as the question pertains. Thus I claim you are wrong and even the designers of the question are wrong if they expected your answer.

The question says "their intersecting lines form 1,597 areas".
That doesn't suggest finite areas to me, or to most mathematicians.
If finite areas were meant, it would have been made explicit in the question.

Your solution should start out by stating that you interpret area to mean finite areas.

Anyway, getting back to my question:

What is the maximum number of finite areas created with L lines?

[Fuserleer]

For me, the problem with this coin is it effectively throws away the benefits of proof of work while retaining it's drawbacks, thus not functioning as a decentralized, permissionless system as cited in the first post.  In that instance, you've created something that functionally falls into the same category as proof of stake, just with higher overhead and worse economic incentives.  The economic incentives are so misaligned, the coin doesn't even work at all at release.  The solution, CFB calls it, is "training wheels", or checkpoints.

The coin's value should theoretically increase as the security of the network does, at least that's how normal systems function.  A baseball player that hits 100 home runs a year usually makes more than one that hits 0 home runs.  With this coin, the security at release is 0, but we're supposed to believe the for-profit issuer of the coin that the price should be high when the network doesn't even work.  We're then supposed to all willingly join in on this extortion scheme and pay for security now which doesn't exist, with the naive dream it will some day in the future.  The way the coin is designed is not really conducive in creating a network effect for this to happen though.  You're buying something that needs to go from 0 to large tipping point instantly with nothing in between.  It's like hoping dogs will randomly begin walking on two feet and start talking out of nowhere.

Anyway, as I was saying, since the coin already functionally falls into the same category as proof of stake, and the outside entropy of the coin serves no real purpose, he may as well of just created a closed loop proof of stake derivative in the first place and attempted to scale via something like deterministic block production.  You'd end up recreating some system like Bitshares, which like all proof of stake systems, is also a permissioned ledger, not anti-fragile, horrific fault/state recovery, etc etc.  The point is, this coin is not a valid contendor or replacement to Bitcoin, neither are the proof of stake coins that share many of the same characteristics.

But proof of work is old. Its washed out. Get with the times

POW is far from washed out, it's just not being used in the most efficient way in Bitcoin et al. at present.

It is still, by far, the best way to regulate participation in consensus, and whoever manages to utilize it to its full potential, while solving the current inherent problems, will be sitting on a nice gold chair with a heavy crown on their head for years to come.

IOTA is one of a small few that takes a different approach to its use.  Maybe it will catch on, maybe it will fall flat on its face, or perhaps even there will be a flaw, but at least someone is trying something new instead of the same old same old.

[TPTB_need_war]

The question says "their intersecting lines form 1,597 areas".
That doesn't suggest finite areas to me, or to most mathematicians.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/area.html

The size of a surface.

The amount of space inside the boundary of a flat (2-dimensional) object such as a triangle or circle.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/area

2. the surface included within a set of lines

5. a particular extent of space or surface or one serving a special function

If finite areas were meant, it would have been made explicit in the question.

They didn't state the plane is finite, because the definition of a plane doesn't require it.

Your solution should start out by stating that you interpret area to mean finite areas.

Mathematicians don't cite every trivial prior art detail when they write a white paper. We don't regurgitate the definitions of every word we use when we use it.

Anyway, getting back to my question:

What is the maximum number of finite areas created with L lines?

Why is this still relevant?