On the way to the post-Ethereum world

[iamnotback]

Wake me up when you realize the relevance of "no GC" to your point about the browser crashing.

What on earth does GC have to do with that?

Oh please Lord never let me forget to never discourse with a Dunning-Kruger idiot.

[CIYAM]

Wake me up when you realize the relevance of "no GC" to your point about the browser crashing.

What on earth does GC have to do with that?

Oh please Lord never let me forget to never discourse with a Dunning-Kruger idiot.

Just as I predicted - you can't answer my question and resort to further insults.

You are a rather predictable troll (and in fact maybe not actually @AnonyMint after all)

[w0t4n]

A note: I worked for Nxt(core dev) in 2014 and now working on Scorex ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1103640 ).

Nxt core devs were sceptical about smart contracts inclusion into core. I myself was also sceptical about some things included into Nxt core  

Bitcoin developers switched off many opcodes for a reason ( http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25225/what-was-the-vulnerability-in-v0-3-4-that-allowed-an-attacker-to-steal-coins ). Then Vitalik complicated security conundrum with its "Turing-complete" approach.

Now Ethereum guys are making the biggest error in their career going to do a hardfork, because not all the contracts are equal and some of them are too big to fail. There are some talks(copied from Bitcoin community) on "miners will decide", but it is unlikely miners will have any reasonable discussion. Instead, they will just follow the "digital Lenin".

It is time to go another path. The core must be as simple as that. But it also need to be powerful enough to support protocols and applications built outside the core.

There are many designs possible, and there are many open questions and concerns about them. Nevertheless, as the topic is going to be hot, I would like to propose one design in July or August (after Scorex 2.0 release).

What does hardfork even mean?

[iamnotback]

Wake me up when you realize the relevance of "no GC" to your point about the browser crashing.

What on earth does GC have to do with that?

Oh please Lord never let me forget to never discourse with a Dunning-Kruger idiot.

Just as I predicted - you can't answer my question and resort to further insults.

You are a rather predictable troll.

Since you've entirely derailed this thread with your frantic, juvenile ego, I will remind you that your browser crashing is most often due to memory leaks and the fact that GC does not prevent semantic memory leaks.

[CIYAM]

Since you've entirely derailed this thread with your ego, I will remind you that your browser crashing is most often due to memory leaks and the fact that GC does not prevent semantic memory leaks.

My browser crashes are not due to memory leaks so your stupid smart-arse stuff is just proven to be wrong.

(only an idiot would "assume" that GC is the cause of all browser crashes)



So in fact it is your stupid ego that has derailed this thread because you just can't resist trying to attack me.

Fuck off troll!

[iamnotback]

Since you've entirely derailed this thread with your ego, I will remind you that your browser crashing is most often due to memory leaks and the fact that GC does not prevent semantic memory leaks.

My browser crashes are not due to memory leaks so your stupid smart-arse stuff is just proven to be wrong.

You've proven nothing. Do I see any proof? Most browser crashes that are attributable to JavaScript (since that was the point we were discussing) are due to memory leaks. Do some research.

If you are pointing out that your browser crashes not due to JavaScript, then that is irrelevant to the entire conversation about ASM.js.

[CIYAM]

Since you've entirely derailed this thread with your ego, I will remind you that your browser crashing is most often due to memory leaks and the fact that GC does not prevent semantic memory leaks.

My browser crashes are not due to memory leaks so your stupid smart-arse stuff is just proven to be wrong.

You've proven nothing. Do I see any proof? Most browser crashes that are attributable to JavaScript (since that was the point we were discussing) are due to memory leaks. Do some research.

I don't need to - as unlike you I know how to "debug" my .js.



(thought you said you were a "coder")

[iamnotback]

Since you've entirely derailed this thread with your ego, I will remind you that your browser crashing is most often due to memory leaks and the fact that GC does not prevent semantic memory leaks.

My browser crashes are not due to memory leaks so your stupid smart-arse stuff is just proven to be wrong.

You've proven nothing. Do I see any proof? Most browser crashes that are attributable to JavaScript (since that was the point we were discussing) are due to memory leaks. Do some research.

I don't need to - as unlike you I know how to "debug" my .js.



(thought you said you were a "coder")

Perhaps you don't know how to use terminology correctly. CPU hogging or infinite loop is not a "crash" and both can be written in any language. A crash is when there is an exception and the program can't continue executing. Since JS is memory safe, the only way to accomplish that is to exhaust resources.

Now that you've been spanked by an expert, go cry to moma.

[CIYAM]

Perhaps you don't know how to use terminology correctly. CPU hogging or infinite loop is not a "crash" and both can be written in any language.

You really are an idiot aren't you.

Supposedly if one engages in discussion with you then one needs to first check "your personal dictionary" about what words to use.

You wouldn't get a "crash" according to your definition with a GC issue either.



Why don't you just stop trying to be a smart-arse?

(no-one admires you for it)

[iamnotback]

You wouldn't get a "crash" according to your definition with a GC issue either.

Learn to read:

A crash is when there is an exception and the program can't continue executing. Since JS is memory safe, the only way to accomplish that is to exhaust resources.

Now that you've been spanked by an expert, go cry to moma.

Why don't you just stop trying to be a smart-arse?

(no-one admires you for it)

Hey I just informed you about ASM.js and you got all offended and derailed the thread. You wanted to pick a fight, and so you induced me to fight back. See how that works.

[CIYAM]

You wouldn't get a "crash" according to your definition with a GC issue either.

Learn to read:

A crash is when there is an exception and the program can't continue executing. Since JS is memory safe, the only way to accomplish that is to exhaust resources.

Now that you've been spanked by an expert, go cry to moma.

Sorry - you just don't understand how .js works do you?

(now go and read up yourself and apologise after you work out your mistake)

I am enjoying making fun of you.

[iamnotback]

You wouldn't get a "crash" according to your definition with a GC issue either.

Learn to read:

A crash is when there is an exception and the program can't continue executing. Since JS is memory safe, the only way to accomplish that is to exhaust resources.

Now that you've been spanked by an expert, go cry to moma.

Sorry - you just don't understand how .js works do you?

Please don't lie.

Your slimy ethics are coming clear to all readers now.

[CIYAM]

Sorry - you just don't understand how .js works do you?

Please don't lie.

Your slimy ethics are coming clear to all readers now.

I didn't lie (and you have failed to admit your mistake).

The only one with "slimy ethics' here is you (and I have now "caught you out").

Please educate yourself: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.javascript/332YSnPsw_w/discussion

[iamnotback]

Sorry - you just don't understand how .js works do you?

Please don't lie.

Your slimy ethics are coming clear to all readers now.

I didn't lie (and you have failed to admit your mistake).

You have failed to point out any mistake.

Memory (semantic) leaks are the only way I know of to exhaust resources and cause a JS program to halt in a way not encoded intentionally (e.g. throw) in the source code (other than killing the thread which the browser may even prompt the user to do but that isn't a "crash").

Of course I guess you can apply those leaks to any exhaustable resource, not just memory such as disk space.

This is not really a crash if you ask me. It just makes the browser unresponsive by using all the CPU.

You should ask yourself who would benefit from making someones browser unresponsive. Not site owners, they generally like their users. Not hackers, they would only crash your browser if it allowed them to run privileged code on your machine. That leaves trolls.

But assuming this is a real issues, think about how you could stop it.
Most browsers already do detect infinite loops and let you stop the script.
But in the complex case, how do you distinguish a CPU intensive page from one that intentionally hogs the CPU? You can't, so you'd hamper JS games and the like by limiting their CPU usage.

Edit: just in case someone is thinking that JS can crash with an exception due to dynamic types, e.g. when calling a function that expects a certain type and throws when it doesn't ... please make sure you remember that my point was ASM.js eliminates the dynamic typing (and GC). That was already factored into my logic.

[CIYAM]

You have failed to point out any mistake.

I provided a llink (which you didn't quote) - read it.

And again debating about the meaning of the word "crash" is just your way of trying to save face.

If you didn't try to be such an arrogant "know it all" asshole then these "discussions" wouldn't occur - ever considered that maybe you should try and "tone it down" a notch or two?

[iamnotback]

Please educate yourself: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.javascript/332YSnPsw_w/discussion

Memory is a finite resource and the OS will be forced to kill the thread as virtual memory is exhausted else the entire OS will come crashing down.

So sorry, that is the only way to crash JS as I said.

CPU hogging can be handled by setting the thread to lower priority. But memory exhaustion can't be handled without halting.

Sorry you are still wrong.

I've
seen browsers use all available memory and then start to fill the swap
space (aka page file), consuming gigabytes or memory, I've seen browsers
return "out of memory" errors for much less, and I've seen browsers
"vanishing" abruptly because the process was killed by the OS due to
excessive memory usage. Some systems need to be more strict about
runaway processes than others (for example, mobile platforms or
servers).

Famous quote (quoted in case he deletes his upthread posts):

(only an idiot would "assume" that GC is the cause of all browser crashes)

Wake me up when you realize the relevance of "no GC" to your point about the browser crashing.

What on earth does GC have to do with that?

Btw, memory leaks without GC often result in a crash by accessing a pointer after freeing the memory. In JS which is memory safe, the crash is by exhausting all resources.

[CIYAM]

If you won't even bother to read the information then there is really no point in any discussion.

I'm sure that the @OP is sick of this so I am going to unwatch and leave you to your stupid "final troll" (am sure you will).

(the thing that will piss you off is that I won't read your final troll post and don't give a fuck about you or your stupid posts anyway)

[iamnotback]

If you won't even bother to read the information then there is really no point in any discussion.

You have failed to point out any mistake on my part. I did read it. They confirm what I am telling you.

I maintain you are wrong. You are welcome to point out what you think is my  mistake. Until you do, you are a liar.

[froggy512]

Can we just close this thread already. Well known developer posts about most important topic of the day and you guys get into 2-page pissing match over browser crashes. Sorry Kushti.

[iamnotback]

Can we just close this thread already. Well known developer posts about most important topic of the day and you guys get into 2-page pissing match over browser crashes. Sorry Kushti.

Btw, that wasn't fundamentally about browser crashes; it was addressing which high-level-language is appropriate for smart contract VMs, which was what Kushti and CIYAM were discussing. CIYAM seemed to be suggesting we should employ only assembly or C, and I was pointing out that ASM.js is almost native speed and runs every where as JIT.

Hey I didn't want that. I had to respond to his pissing. I just suggested he not speak incorrectly about JS and be aware of ASM.js.

The likely reasons CIYAM has some vengeance towards me include:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg15233941#msg15233941
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364951.msg13926249#msg13926249  (was followup to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13580146#msg13580146)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13887894#msg13887894

I'll chime in before @TBTB comes in and tells everyone that they are stupid and only he knows the answer to everything (at that point I'll quit watching this topic as I've done with every other topic he has ruined - and he ruins every topic he posts in basically).

The relationship between "reward" and "minting" could be made less "one-to-one" but more statistically probable if you mint more blocks (thus providing an incentive to mint but not even needing to be POW).

You need ways to discern "winners" if you aren't using POW as the only measurement (although I think some amount of POW is going to always be required to help prevent the NAS attack issue which I've discovered can even occur "by accident" when using different approaches).

This is a key part of the CIYAM blockchain design (which I am not going to discuss here, however, unlike some others it isn't some silly conjecture or "academic breast beating" but already published open source code which it seems @TBTB is actually unable to understand which rather pleases me).

As a simplistic idea imagine that a block reward only occurs every X blocks but is more likely to favour the minter that has produced as many of those X blocks as possible (and also imagine that rules prevent them from being able to produce all of the blocks).