Shelᖚy (TPTB_need_war) Psychoanalysis. Smartest Man in the Altcoin Discussions?

[TPTB_need_war]

IMHO you made a mistake to not working with the Gadgetcoin developers. Are they as knowledgeable and articulated as you are? No, they aren't, but they are hard working developers. They have completed their project which will be bigger than Bitcoin is. Even if you are not keen on IoT, the IoT aspect of their solution took them to many top 100 companies. That gives them credibility to make other features (token, social media, communication features) popular. The social media aspect of their project is inline with your social media ambition. You need to compromise on toolset, people, environment, etc. to get somewhere. If you are chasing the perfect environment you will get nowhere. You still have 15 years until retirement, use that time wisely!

My career has not been about working with large companies. My career has always been about producing applications that consumers use. Thus I think I should stay focused where my talent has been already demonstrated. And yeah, after thinking about it, I am not interested in IoT. No passion for me whatsoever on that. Passion is very important to succeeding on a project. I am very passionate about JAMBOX. I think I can change the world with it possibly.

I am always looking for talented developers to work with, but another factor is that too many cooks can spoil the effort especially when there is stock or a crowdfund to divvy up. My goal right now is to find one other developer who is as talented or more so than me and this should come after the crowdfunding if that raises enough money to pay a top salary.

And my other goal is to open source much of the work, so I can work with many developers in the open source model.

I don't know if I can achieve this. We will see...

Note smooth appears to be a very talented developer, but he is anonymous (even to me). And he has his focus on Aeon/Monero. And he apparently hails from FinTech which is a quite different field from the consumer apps markets I want to address and where my past talent is. Also I never wanted to involve smooth in something that could fail, because he has already a community that he enjoys and that depends on him. And smooth is incredibly expensive to hire. Of course I don't even mention other Monero devs and Bitcoin core devs, as they are of course busy on their projects.

Also frankly, unless there is an exceptional candidate that convinces me otherwise, I prefer a USA co-developer if possible on JAMBOX. For the open source collaboration, no such strong preference of course. But for whom I need to share the money with and need to work very closely with, I think the cultural differences mean I would likely be most compatible with a developer from the USA.

So for now, I don't know who will be my key co-developer. Hopefully he/she will come to me at the right time. I need to demonstrate more code and momentum first.

[1715216564]

1715216564

[1715216564]

1715216564

[yomofo]

your other 7500 posts

My TPTB_need_war and AnonyMint accounts have more than 12,000 posts combined.

can you start a thread dedicated to armstrong and your predictions about the markets? 

[smooth]

They have completed their project which will be bigger than Bitcoin is.

Impressive. I'm looking forward to testing your prediction. How long would you say is a fair time period?

[TPTB_need_war]

the only thing you did with this post was argue that cut and choose is vulnerable for economic reasons, you didnt solve a single thing or even offer solutions

Read that cut & choose thread over and over until you understand it. You do not understand the solution I provided.

Sigh.  

If anyone can think of a solution at the conceptual level (never mind what block chains currently offer), I would love to read it.

So far decentralized exchange looks to be jammable in every design I've contemplated.

further strengthening my argument, that your role is that of a spectator

It is disingenuous (or Dunning-Kruger ignorance) to quote something in the middle of a discussion that was invalidated by the discussion that followed.

your other 7500 posts

My TPTB_need_war and AnonyMint accounts have more than 12,000 posts combined.

can you start a thread dedicated to armstrong and your predictions about the markets?  

There is already a Martin Armstrong thread in the Economics forum.

There isn't one thread dedicated to my timing calls on markets. I am not wanting to start a newsletter. That is not my vocation.

Most of my macro economics predictions are mentioned in the Martin Armstrong, Economic Devastation, and Economic Totalitarian threads in the Economics forum.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am just a speculator  

How does Monero propose to resolve the fact that it's blockchain is growing faster than Moores Law and pruning is so limited?

Human populations don't grow faster than Moore's law. Duh.

Disk arrays scale to anything we can fathom.

The issue is that no block chain consensus can maintain decentralization of validation, not because of scaling problems but because of the fundamental economic reality that not every miner can have an equal share of the hashrate, thus verification costs are not shared equally. The creates an asymmetry where economies-of-scale will maximize profit and grow hashrate the fastest thus centralizing mining.

The solution requires some clever innovation on proof-of-work.

[altcoinUK]

They have completed their project which will be bigger than Bitcoin is.

Impressive. I'm looking forward to testing your prediction. How long would you say is a fair time period?

LoL I was just maybe too excited about their software. I am happy with what the developers have delivered. I always said there is only 10% chance that the Gadgetcoin developers can make it. Most likely the venture will disappear in the graveyard of crypto currency projects. However, please note the 10% chance is about 100% more than 99% of crypto projects (i.e. all BTC/LTC clones, NXT, IOTA, etc. ) have. You know better than anyone, nobody really cares about crypto currencies except this scam driven microcosmos, therefore the majority of these currencies are a dead end proposition.
Anyway, I am more and more optimistic that Gadgetcoin/GadgetNet will make it. I predict in a year time they will have more active users than Bitcoin. Their use cases determines the project for success, permit the developers keep the project on the right track.

[altcoinUK]

Note smooth appears to be a very talented developer, but he is anonymous (even to me). And he has his focus on Aeon/Monero. And he apparently hails from FinTech which is a quite different field from the consumer apps markets I want to address and where my past talent is. Also I never wanted to involve smooth in something that could fail, because he has already a community that he enjoys and that depends on him. And smooth is incredibly expensive to hire. Of course I don't even mention other Monero devs and Bitcoin core devs, as they are of course busy on their projects.

I understand you are looking for working with the best.

On the note of smooth, I understand he is brilliant, I read a few days ago his comment about the C compiler. He clearly knows what he is talking about. He is most likely in the top 5 developers of this crypto jamboree. He deserves every cents he earns, and not to talk about his money, but generally speaking, could you explain what is the business model of Monero? I understand it was a (sort of) fair distribution so I have no issue with the project, the aims of the project privacy - regardless whether it is feasible or not - make sense and I am asking in the sense of what is their business model to generate revenue? Smooth rate is - as I heard - $20-30K per month which is more than the top contactor developer salary in the UK (£600-700/day). How the monero project can come up with such development budget? Angel investment, VC funding, selling the coin?

[TPTB_need_war]

...the graveyard of crypto currency projects. However, please note the 10% chance is about 100% more than 99% of crypto projects (i.e. all BTC/LTC clones, NXT, IOTA, etc. ) have. You know better than anyone, nobody really cares about crypto currencies except this scam driven microcosmos, therefore the majority of these currencies are a dead end proposition.

I hope you understand why then my first priority is not on creating a crypto-currency (CC). Although my current software project JAMBOX does have the potential to incorporate a CC and I do have a design for a CC that I think will fix all the problems with the existing PoW designs, it is not my initial focus. I won't be working on the CC again for many months if not perhaps even until next year.

I feel more confident about my ability to stick my fingers in many pies and hopefully get stuck in one that finds a good market and is technically interesting. And that is one of the reasons I am looking at programming languages now.

I am not going to pigeon-hole myself in one corner of the Internet.

[TPTB_need_war]

I understand you are looking for working with the best.

Absolutely. The worst thing is to spend half my working time explaining everything to another developer. It was then better to have not found a co-developer, i.e. the Mythical Man Month. The further up one is on the spectrum of programming capabilities, then more difficult it is to find someone to work with that won't consume more of your time then they can contribute to offset the communication load.

On the note of smooth, I understand he is brilliant, I read a few days ago his comment about the C compiler. He clearly knows what he is talking about.

Agreed that was illustrative.

He is most likely in the top 5 developers of this crypto jamboree.

If we are requiring algebraic geometry and number theoretic math, I would say there are several others who are far more expert than smooth or I (since neither of us know much about that sort of math).

If we are referring to server side coding, then agreed and more expert than me.

Smooth and I are both polygot with programming languages and I am not sure which of us knows more languages and knows them more intimately. I'd probably assume the nod goes to him as I assume he has been coding more than me since the turn of the century. Most of my very intense coding came before Dec. 1, 1999 when I lost the vision in my right eye.

If we are testing on logic, it is roughly equal although smooth is more eloquent.

If chess, clearly I suck and smooth was apparently holding up well in the chess games I observed. You can even include rpietila in the group who can solve game puzzles faster than I can.

If we are referring to theoretical concepts and invention, I think this is where I probably have an edge on smooth.

And if we are referring to GUI and B2C marketing, I think I am more interested and talented than smooth is likely more interested and talented than me in server side and B2B.

Edit: smooth is more balanced/grounded/steady than me. I am more of a high/low personality, which typically correlates with a high degree of creativity and artistic talent. I know how to be professional, but I don't focus on making sure every small thing I write is well thought out. I will perhaps do that for something very important. I am always more interested in the rush to the next idea and creative moment. Smooth is more focused on making every statement correct, concise, convincing on all facets and diplomatic. I am more like the stereotype of a Russian hacker who can come out of the blue with something that makes people kind of wonder where did he pull that out of his hat from, yet I am not solely pulling algorithmic insights out of my hat. My mind is all over the place on ideas and concepts in cross disciplines such as economics and sociology. Note smooth has also done this at times too, for example when he explained that nothing-at-stake gaming is akin to proof-of-work, because of the computational cost of playing that game. That was very insightful. I think it is his choice and priorities to not expend too much effort down too many theoretical dead ends, and to be more of a curator than an originator. Actually that is very wise, because most of the profit is made on distilling (sieving) the best minnows that become whales.

He deserves every cents he earns, and not to talk about his money, but generally speaking, could you explain what is the business model of Monero? I understand it was a (sort of) fair distribution so I have no issue with the project, the aims of the project privacy - regardless whether it is feasible or not - make sense and I am asking in the sense of what is their business model to generate revenue? Smooth rate is - as I heard - $20-30K per month which is more than the top contactor developer salary in the UK (£600-700/day). How the monero project can come up with such development budget? Angel investment, VC funding, selling the coin?

I also don't understand how smooth is justifying his involvement with CC. I don't think he is being paid. I have only two theories:

1. It is a labor of love for him to be able to interface with a community, since I presume he otherwise worked a lot in FinTech. Perhaps he sees it dovetailing with FinTech down the line and is positioning himself to be an expert. If his true opportunity cost is $20 - 30K per month, then perhaps he is looking for the $millions homerun opportunity. Or just not really worried about money and doing it for other goals/interests.

2. (Wild ass theory only!) He is actually a mole of the national security agencies and is keeping tabs on everything for them. (I don't really think this, but I have a difficult time understanding why smooth is working in CC and the fact he is anonymous).

I think the business model of Monero from smooth's viewpoint is to build a superior design than Bitcoin and over the long-term have a payoff as the best alternative to Bitcoin. So it isn't just for the anonymity, but also for the ASIC-resistant hash function, the tail reward, the automatic resizing of the block size, etc..

As I move more and more to working on varied aspects of my software project, it could become more and more likely something very interesting attracts top developers. But I have to actually accomplish something in code.

I am not limiting my sights on just working with people from CC. I am interested in working with any great developers from outside of CC as well. I originally thought that perhaps CfB was one of those potentially talented developers, which was one of the reasons I was not so interested in criticizing Iota (also because there are some technologically interesting bits in Iota, even if the overall design fails to really work without centralization, IMO). But iotatoken and CfB attacking me every time I posted something against ICOs, ended up sort of destroying the velvet glove approach.

[TPTB_need_war]

The issue is that no block chain consensus can maintain centralization over validation...

Corrected to, "The issue is that no block chain consensus can maintain decentralization of validation".

That is caused by being in sort of a zombie state due to the illness. I was wanting to drop my head on the keyboard when writing that above. I am feeling alert right now.

I ate hamburgers (beef) for the first time in several weeks today and immediately it made me fall asleep. Then I felt strong tonight when I woke up from that afternoon nap, yet a different sort of more intense pain in my lower abdomen area. Strange change to feel stronger yet more pain. I ran and felt very strong through the run yet more painful in my gut. So something is changing or going on down there that is new. I don't know if that is a sign of a cure coming or just more health bullshit ahead. Sigh.

[yelllowsin]

I've always been sort of an impatient person because I have more things I want to do than I can do.

Would you mind telling me what are your thoughts in the matter of the spirit? 

[TPTB_need_war]

2. (Wild ass theory only!) He is actually a mole of the national security agencies and is keeping tabs on everything for them. (I don't really think this, but I have a difficult time understanding why smooth is working in CC and the fact he is anonymous).

Crazier theory is that smooth is Satoshi. And he is here babysitting CC.

[TPTB_need_war]

I've always been sort of an impatient person because I have more things I want to do than I can do.

Would you mind telling me what are your thoughts in the matter of the spirit?  

LISK    Develop Decentralized Applications & Sidechains in JavaScript with Lisk!

Ah that explains it:

Nice topic you got here TPTB.

Any thoughts on Lisk?

I have made a decision not to investigate any new coin projects, because then I would feel compelled to release my findings, which would mire me in more time wasting defenses against trolling and ad hominem attacks.

But you can probably safely assume it is another shitcoin in the mold of Ethereum. But I really don't want to enter more of these battles. I am trying to get my own software development and startup work moving at a faster pace.

"probably safely assume" - based on hearsay and gut feeling?
Man, I don't know about LISK and really don't care, but it's sad to see when "scientists" become common trolls.

Exactly why I don't investigate Lisk because then I am going to be attacked. Btw, smart contracts basically have no use cases that can actually work and sustain a decentralized Nash equilibrium (because block chains can only do that with data internal to the block chain, not external data). So I don't have to investigate to make a reasonable guess. And I did state it was a guess. I didn't state it was fact.

[altcoinUK]

I also don't understand how smooth is justifying his involvement with CC. I don't think he is being paid. I have only two theories:

1. It is a labor of love for him to be able to interface with a community, since I presume he otherwise worked a lot in FinTech. Perhaps he sees it dovetailing with FinTech down the line and is positioning himself to be an expert. If his true opportunity cost is $20 - 30K per month, then perhaps he is looking for the $millions homerun opportunity. Or just not really worried about money and doing it for other goals/interests.

2. (Wild ass theory only!) He is actually a mole of the national security agencies and is keeping tabs on everything for them. (I don't really think this, but I have a difficult time understanding why smooth is working in CC and the fact he is anonymous).

I think the business model of Monero from smooth's viewpoint is to build a superior design than Bitcoin and over the long-term have a payoff as the best alternative to Bitcoin. So it isn't just for the anonymity, but also for the ASIC-resistant hash function, the tail reward, the automatic resizing of the block size, etc..

I see. I guess it is sweat equity then. It's fine, it is not my business and he deserves it. I was just curious.

(also because there are some technologically interesting bits in Iota, even if the overall design fails to really work without centralization, IMO).

Of course there are interesting bits in it. The idea is novel and interesting. Most implementations of a relatively novel math paper have interesting bits. There are just no IoT nor revolutionary micro-processor which were sold to the greedy crowd.  

I am not limiting my sights on just working with people from CC. I am interested in working with any great developers from outside of CC as well. I originally thought that perhaps CfB was one of those potentially talented developers, which was one of the reasons

I think you pay no attention to the details in the case of CfB. I have the unmoderated IOTA thread and I came to understand better what CfB is. Is he smart? Of course he is very smart and creative. Scams like IOTA do require a high level of intelligence and creativity.
You are not paying attention because you don't realize he is not an experienced developer. Is his skill-set good enough to sell something to those greedy idiots who subscribed to his ICO and wait for the P&D to realize the dream ROI? Yes of course, his development skill is more than good enough for the scam. However, when you check his code you realize the guy is not better than mediocre. His code clearly indicates that he never worked in serious, enterprise environment nor on a serious open source project. (That's why he never can be your LinkedIn contact). A developer must be in the business for long years by interacting with more experienced developers and facing the daily issues of software development to pick up those skills which makes him an experienced developer. There are deployment issues that you need to keep in mind when you design your software. There are interoperability requirements which a project like IOTA must address. On a serious project you must think about the modularity of the software, maintainability, build process, test and other aspects of QA. He doesn't even remotely understand these because he never gained such experience. If a developer sit out a code review - which is part of most serious projects - with a really experienced developer or even if just interact with one in a team environment, then the developer will remember forever those comments about lack of error handling, use inheritance correctly, structure of code, testability of software, etc. If you are looking for an experienced partner you need to look at somebody else than CfB.

[TPTB_need_war]

You are not paying attention because you don't realize he is not an experienced developer

I had an inkling of that very early on when he shared with Fuserleer that he was using a memory mapped data structure from Java, which I can't remember the details now but appeared to me be a suboptimal strategy for the use case.

I don't know if he is inexperienced or just trying to accomplish with the least effort. He hasn't shared with any of us what he did before Nxt.

He is obviously efficient. Estimate how much money they earned on Nxt. But you can't build anything really significant via schemes which are not expanding the pie for everyone in the ecosystem.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am just a spectator.  

Regarding the future of Bitcoin and its Tragedy of the Commons economic design:

At best one would see the type of cartel that TPTB_need_war  has suggested; however my take is that this kind of cartel would only last for a short time before collapsing. Just witness what is currently happening in the crude oil market.

Cartels form in power vacuums. They must align with the greater power vacuums in order to sustain their market inefficiency (top-down control can't anneal maximum fitness). So the only way such a cartel would not fail, would be to become a fiat of the world government and be sustained by the Iron Law on Political Economics which is the perennial, inimitable power vacuum.

the only question that matters: block size!

No the only longer-term question that matters is the minimum transaction fee, since that determines the block size. Note that while transaction fees are much less than coinbase rewards, then miners might include any transaction without even a fee for Nash equilibrium reasons.

The solution to the block size problem has nothing to do with controlling the size of the blocks. It requires a different design where transaction fees trend near to costs but not to costs, thus not making the nodes of the system bankrupt.

This brings us back to the Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limit combined with a tail emission found in Monero where:
1) The cost of mining a block is set by the block subsidy

Correct, meaning the amount of hashrate miners spend will be equal to the block subsidy[1] (where block subsidy will ultimately be Monero's perpetual tail reward which is necessarily a fixed # of coins), because (as I pointed out in our prior discussion) transaction fees will trend to costs, due to that the median block size M_N will trend upwards to match market demand and thus there is no pricing power on transaction fees.

[1] Note this means the tail reward security of Monero will be very weak and insufficient.

2) The total amount in fees per block has to rise to a number comparable to, but most of the time smaller, than the block subsidy.

You wrote that before in our prior discussion:

The reason the above two scenarios do not apply to a Cryptonote coin with a tail emission such a Monero becomes apparent when one considers the economics of the total block reward components of fees and base reward (new coin emission). If the total in fees per block significantly exceed the base reward then it becomes economically attractive for miners to burn coins to the penalty by mining larger blocks. The block size rises until the total fees per block fall below a level where it is uneconomic for the miners to pay the penalty by increasing the blocksize. This level is comparable to the base reward. It is at this point where the need for a tail emission becomes clear, since without the tail emission the total block reward (fee plus base reward) would go to zero.

And it still doesn't make any sense to me. The block size will trend upwards to match transaction demand, because the penalty is driven to 0 as the median block size increases as  miners can justify burning some of the transaction fees to the penalty. That drives the median block size upwards, which drives the penalty to 0 again. The median block size doesn't have any incentive to decrease again, thus transaction fees then fall to costs.

Sorry as I told you before, Monero does not solve the Tragedy of the Commons in Satoshi's design. It does adaptively increase the block size while preventing spam surges.

I doubt John Conner's design has achieved any better, because as I explained at our prior discussion, there is no decentralized solution to that Tragedy of the Commons in the current proof-of-work designs. I have a solution, but it is a very radical change to the proof-of-work design that relies on unprofitable mining by payers.

[TPTB_need_war]

How can an community wiki answer on StackOverflow have 1000+ up votes and have 19 edits by various superstars, and yet entirely miss the point that literal values are not Javascript Objects:

http://stackoverflow.com/posts/332429/revisions (see my edit #20)

Any way, a little bit of evidence for readers that I am polygot in programming languages. Also continued to demonstrate that today with another post to the Rust forum:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rust-as-a-high-level-language/4644/55

[TPTB_need_war]

well fuck i wrote a long winded butle and hit back so now its all erased. i take back what i say about you being an idiot, but you are still a spectator, whether its your health to blame or something else.

what im trying to say is that, and writing 7500+ posts and spending all day long here is unhealthy. go outside and do something, learn to play music, or go to the park and interact with people in meatspace. you are priding yourself in what can only be considered unhealthy behavior, im am also guilty of ODing on shiny backlights 4am night after night, from time to time, so i recognize your behavior, you seriously need to get out of the house.

Your posts are almost rational, except your assumption that my posts don't include incredibly valuable technical work that applies to my coding, is where you lose the plot.

I use the forum as a place to share my technical work ongoing. As well I do my economic theory development, which is also essential to my coding work.

You don't seem comprehend the value of my forum posts. Thus to you, it appears to be a speculator. To me, I am designing the crypto currency future technology in my posts. Do you need an example?

sure i could use an example, maybe it got lost in your other 7500 posts

How many do you want?

Hopefully you know that TierNolan is respected by the Bitcoin core devs and you can review the following thread where I explained to him and jl777 the only correct way to do decentralized exchange:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364951.msg14078549#msg14078549

I solved one of the most important technical design issue that exists in crypto currency.

Just let me know how many examples you need, but I think that one is already blockbluster enough to demand your apology.

Now can I stop posting here and get back to my work?

Here is another one where I explained precisely why Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem as everyone had thought he did:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183043.msg13823607#msg13823607

Or how I explained that Monero had not solved Bitcoin's Tragedy of the Commons around block size and transaction fees:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183043.msg13844014#msg13844014

[TPTB_need_war]

And I am just a spectator  

I believe it's not only CPU miners that are at stake here. Even signatures could be validated 2-4 at a time, on the same subroutine, to get SIMD benefits. So scaling is affected as well. It would need the main routine to be adjusted accordingly instead of sending 1 for processing (per thread) to 2-4 (per thread) and expect back 2-4. Heck, even cracking speed could be improved.

Signatures should eventually be verified on GPUs (or similar SIMD units that get integrated into CPUs in time). That will happen when it is needed. CPU SIMD instructions are kind of interesting but also kind of narrowly-targeted. Processing large amounts of data in a fixed pipeline will still be more efficient on GPU-type architectures.

This is why only main memory random access latency bound proof-of-work algorithms can potentially remain GPU and ASIC resistant. And they must be carefully designed so that increased computation can not be realistically traded for latency. One of the  challenges in such a design for a memory hard hash, is that very slow speed if you want the memory consumed to be larger than the SRAM caches of GPUs and ASICs. Ideally you want the computation to be very small, so that the electrical efficiency optimization of the ASIC won't be significant.

[1] Note this means the tail reward security of Monero will be very weak and insufficient.

"Insufficient" is unclear because there is no unambiguous definition of how much is sufficient.

In large part it depends on the decentralization of mining. If mining is decentralized then you only need a small (but still nonzero) incentive because any miner can't really do anything other than follow the longest chain rule. While raw hash rate attacks are possible (i.e. temporarily centralizing mining by incurring a cost), in a larger system they will have significant cost and will only succeed as long as the ongoing cost is paid.

If mining is highly concentrated by nature then you are really only relying on the weak linear security of the block reward itself, and maybe not even that, because miners (e.g., hypothesized Chinese cartels) have all sorts of perverse incentives.

Your statement would be correct if you added ", assuming mining becomes centralized as I have claimed it will."

I will argue my statement was correct as stated, because there are other parties with significant resources and incentives who may not be mining normally but once the hashrate declines to the tail reward cost, they can then decide it is easier to attack the coin.

The better retort would be to argue that the as the adoption increases, the price will rise so the fixed size (in coins) tail reward has an adaptive valuation.

But I will retort that the value of shorting also scales up accordingly.

Rather what I do in my improved design, is to set the cost of mining to the reasonable fraction of the transaction value.

That is why I say the only way to solve the block chain Tragedy of the Commons is to require what is effectively a minimum transaction fee in the protocol. But then there is the problem of miners competing with each other to rebate the fee to the payer/payee so how to enforce a minimum transaction fee?

There is only one way to do that, which is to burn the fees. But if you burn them then the money supply declines to 0. So the only way is to burn hashrate. And that is why only my design which makes mining unprofitable will solve the problem.

Demonstrating my research on programming language (type) theory:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/8

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/most-coveted-rust-features/324/38

Or in short, why we probably don't need higher-kinded and higher-ranked types, but we do need first-class disjunctions and inversion-of-control ad hoc dispatch.

[LiQio]

You are not paying attention because you don't realize he is not an experienced developer

I had an inkling of that very early on when he shared with Fuserleer that he was using a memory mapped data structure from Java, which I can't remember the details now but appeared to me be a suboptimal strategy for the use case.

I don't know if he is inexperienced or just trying to accomplish with the least effort. He hasn't shared with any of us what he did before Nxt.

He is obviously efficient. Estimate how much money they earned on Nxt. But you can't build anything really significant via schemes which are not expanding the pie for everyone in the ecosystem.

I'm trying to interpret what has been written upthread.
And reading between the lines, can we expect a project with smooth and TPTB_need_war pair programming and altcoinUK as a project manager?