Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?

[StinkyLover]

Glad to see this is still being talked about. I'm still very sceptical.

I also have ideas that could change the world "if only I could get the funds to build a team of architects/programmers/marketers/executives". Sounds like big ICO talk with no guarantees. Sounds just like Ethereum (and so many other crowdsales). Gimme your money now and pray that I build exactly what I've said I'll build.

But that's the biggest problem. What you think you're building ain't always what's left on the table when the tools are put down. This will be building an unproven concept not a 3 bedroom townhouse where architects plans are exact representations.

I still remain sceptical that the project will ever get off the ground. All I see now is an upcoming ICO/IPO. A few of the popular guys on BitcoinTalk will get rich in crowdsale BTC while their faithful followers pray to turn a profit... someday. Doesn't matter if it works or not, just get that bugger onto the exchanges!

Shame because I was actually thinking something different might happen here with this one. I was expecting to see some code some day. Looking forward to eating my words (or maybe just stand wrong and strong - hadn't decided). Now all I see is a big fat greasy IPO/ICO.

Meh

[iamnotback]

Reading the following thread can give some insight into the knowledge I have gained from organizing the whitepaper:

https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/47

Following up on why Cosmos is insolubly broken:

https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/47#issuecomment-270377327

Well they banned me because they don't want to hear the truth that bonded validators can't ever work (not in Casper, Tendermint, Cosmos, or any other).

Any way, here is what I was going to post there next:

and added the ability to attribute blame to 1/3+ in the case of double spend forks, no matter the % of Byzantine voting power.

And that is your error as I have stated twice already. You can't assign blame in Byzantine agreement. Study it fundamentally, then will realize your mistake. Reading my whitepaper will provide the necessary understanding of the error in what you added.

P.S. What is this with open source projects banning those who want to report fatal flaws? Censorship is the antithesis of open source.

[bathrobehero]

And we're also practically flying towards cheap renewable energy so PoW in general becomes less of an issue every day.

Now you've totally ruined your credibility. I suggest you get an education in Economics before you try to challenge me:

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/

The security of PoW is the amount spent on energy. If energy gets cheaper, then the hashrate will increase so that the total amount spent remains the same.

I think the security of PoW is more about the total cost of the network - heavily discounted by centralization of the miners - and not just energy.

Universally cheap electricity would definitely make mining more accessible and less of a problem in general (eg. environmental concerns, miner centralization) and definitely not make it any less secure.

I mean miner centralization is party there because not everyone has access to cheap electricity and it's not like the biggest farms doesn't already work with dirt cheap electricity anyway, because they do.

With cheap renewable electricity the importance of geological location or having to have ties to obtain cheap electricity would be a thing of the past and almost all the investments would go into ASICs potentially allowing more people to start mining.

More miners = less centralization and renewable electricity = less environmental concerns so I stand by what I said.

Not sure why the hostility and quick judgement though.

[iamnotback]

Not sure why the hostility and quick judgement though.

Because you said what I wrote was "stupid"― which is hostile and quick judgement. That is a strong word to use against someone who is not stupid. What you do you think Satoshi would have done had you said he wrote something stupid? He would have roasted you, the same as he did to Daniel Larimer (the developer of Bitshares and Steem).

Discussion can be cordial or violent. You decide. I have no problem with cordial debate.

It doesn't mean I am infallible. I even have made some careless decisions in my life in my youth which can be characterized as stupid. But I don't think I often (if ever) have written stupid comments on serious topics on this forum. Some may totally disagree with my position (and that can often be to lack of understanding of each sides' views), but that doesn't mean it is proven that I wrote something stupid.

[iamnotback]

And we're also practically flying towards cheap renewable energy so PoW in general becomes less of an issue every day.

Now you've totally ruined your credibility. I suggest you get an education in Economics before you try to challenge me:

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/

The security of PoW is the amount spent on energy. If energy gets cheaper, then the hashrate will increase so that the total amount spent remains the same.

I think the security of PoW is more about the total cost of the network - heavily discounted by centralization of the miners - and not just energy.

Universally cheap electricity would definitely make mining more accessible and less of a problem in general (eg. environmental concerns, miner centralization) and definitely not make it any less secure.

I mean miner centralization is party there because not everyone has access to cheap electricity and it's not like the biggest farms doesn't already work with dirt cheap electricity anyway, because they do.

With cheap renewable electricity the importance of geological location or having to have ties to obtain cheap electricity would be a thing of the past and almost all the investments would go into ASICs potentially allowing more people to start mining.

More miners = less centralization and renewable electricity = less environmental concerns so I stand by what I said.

You are moving the goal posts. I was talking about whether mining farms would be vulnerable if Jim Rickards' prediction of a financial system blackout became a reality.

Now you want to talk about if mining will become decentralized in the future due to an end of specialization in the efficiencies of energy production such that anyone can produce energy at the lowest cost at any position on the earth with any level of economies-of-scale.

Well your expectation is ludicrous. It is the fantasies of those illiterate in physics who think perpetual motion machines are coming. Society and technology are moving to higher specialization (also maximum division-of-labor) and efficiencies thereof, not the other direction.

Leftists expect equality and all they get in return is an end game of totalitarianism. Sorry these fantasies about equality, destroy civilization.

Refer to a post I wrote today:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg17396067#msg17396067

[r0ach]

he's fucking nuts enough that it will either succeed or burn spectacularly

[alkan]

The most catching-eye part is the way you will be securing it, neither by PoW nor by Steem (hopefully this is also a disaster), but by something new. I'd enjoy very much if you could enlight us a bit about this because I think you have something interesting under hood !

I'm also excited to know more about iamnotback's cryptocurrency and check if it bears some similarity to my own latest proposal for an alternative system of securing a cryptocurrency: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1719396.msg17365846#msg17365846.

My proposal can be characterised as Proof-of-Stake AND (Proof-of-Time OR Proof-of-Trust). While PoS can be beaten by any attacker who is wealthy enough, time is a resource that is non-renewable and non-transferable. On the other hand, trusting people who could easily steal your stake is a high-risk game, especially if it's clear to them that you are acting with an intent of attacking the coin. Both aspects along with good old Proof-of-Stake are to secure the integrity of the blockchain that I'm currently desiging.
 

[iamnotback]

Now all I see is a big fat greasy IPO/ICO.

You won't see that. It will be limited. And you will have to fight to get in (don't know yet how I will handle this, perhaps first come first serve and also a minimum BTC level perhaps 10 BTC). Maybe ~$1 million raise (maybe less, maybe slightly more because I haven't written down any budget yet nor analyzed all the factors). Not $5 - 18 million cashout as other devs have been doing (ETH, LISK, WAVES, etc). It will not be enough to cashout and quit. Look I am age 51 and I see this as the last major project of my career. I am bankrupt. $1 million is not enough for me to retire on. I have much higher expectations than that. I didn't put 4 years of my life into this for $1 million. I was earning (inflation adjusted) $1 million a year back in 2001 with CoolPage. My minimum expectation for my eventual long-term (over many years) cashout is $10 million, but I would like to go for $100 million. I am shooting for a $100 billion market cap social network. If we simply duplicate Ethereum's market cap, that would still be a success any way. I am not going to start pitching that now. Wait until there is a real working system that we can be boast about. Right now this is all just vaporware and I didn't start this thread. Nor did I instigate the OP to create this thread. I was shocked to see this thread. I had no desire to discuss this now at this premature stage.

It is just enough to see the project through to maturity of development. I will earn my cashout on the tokens I will hold (which should be worth a hell of lot more than $1 million by the time we are done). But I really want to refrain from making any predictions about investment or anything like that because runs afoul of SEC regs and I am a USA citizen (unless perhaps we only sell to qualified investors or I can find a proxy to handle the ICO for us who is not a USA citizen, but the more mouths to feed the more waste). Thus you guys can go on writing comments like this and I will simply have to not respond. But my silence won't mean I agree with your comment.

Steem reached $400 million marketcap. I think I have solved the design problems that plagued Steem. How much is fixing Bitcoin's scaling and decentralization worth?

Glad to see this is still being talked about. I'm still very sceptical.

I also have ideas that could change the world "if only I could get the funds to build a team of architects/programmers/marketers/executives". Sounds like big ICO talk with no guarantees. Sounds just like Ethereum (and so many other crowdsales). Gimme your money now and pray that I build exactly what I've said I'll build.

But that's the biggest problem. What you think you're building ain't always what's left on the table when the tools are put down. This will be building an unproven concept not a 3 bedroom townhouse where architects plans are exact representations.

That is a valid skepticism. Frankly I worry about that too. I worry most about my health and its impact on my production (which is why I spent the past week just doing intense sports and barbell and being in the sunshine but now here I am again working allnite and it is 5am here). And I also worry about my age and that I haven't coded a lot since I got ill in 2006. And I worry about the complexity of this project and the management load of all this. It seems quite huge and I wish I was in perfect health and more youthful excess of energy level. And the best way to conquer that is to do action. So that is why I will shut up and generate code. That is a confidence builder in itself. But the white paper was also just as important as the code and I did complete that. So that is already a confidence booster.

But for example whereas Ethereum never had a consensus system design ever locked down ever. Not even now. I have my whitepaper with the design all spelled out in great detail and locked down already.

And before any ICO, I will have something working on a testnet so tokens can be traded immediately after ICO.

So just compare to Ethereum with it's $18 million raise, never had a solid design, too many talkers not enough coders, hyperventilated project, etc. And what was ETH's peak market cap?

Yet Ethereum did have a lot of others helping and they had good marketing. I will get to that later. First we need to have code and a working system. I don't want to start with complete vaporware as Ethereum and others did.

I still remain sceptical that the project will ever get off the ground. All I see now is an upcoming ICO/IPO. A few of the popular guys on BitcoinTalk will get rich in crowdsale BTC while their faithful followers pray to turn a profit... someday. Doesn't matter if it works or not, just get that bugger onto the exchanges!

Didn't you profit big on the Ethereum ICO?

Shame because I was actually thinking something different might happen here with this one. I was expecting to see some code some day. Looking forward to eating my words (or maybe just stand wrong and strong - hadn't decided). Now all I see is a big fat greasy IPO/ICO.

Meh

It will be different.

[bathrobehero]

@iamnotback

I didn't say you were stupid, that statement was. It wasn't personal. Not to restart our conversation but in such a chaos scenario, if anything, bitcoin would become golden (depending on the scale of the chaos) and possibly part of the solution (wishful thinking) but I'd highly doubt miner's electricity prices and the security of the network would be a major issue.

I'm certainly don't feel like I'm moving the goal posts; you were arguing against PoW while I tried to defend it with a few points, one being the advancements in renewable energy is also increasingly beneficial to PoW.

If anything, I think you're muddying the water with a lot of assumptions, politics and just general ego.

Anyway, we'll see what your big thing will be and I'll leave it at that.

[iamnotback]

I didn't say you were stupid, that statement was. It wasn't personal.

I should say thanks for be conciliatory, but I must also say that saying someone's statement is stupid is akin to saying they are stupid. There seems to be no way to avoid that, when using that word.

I am acknowledging your conciliatory tone. I still don't agree my statement was stupid.

Not to restart our conversation

But you did, so I will reply.

...but in such a chaos scenario, if anything, bitcoin would become golden (depending on the scale of the chaos) and possibly part of the solution (wishful thinking) but I'd highly doubt miner's electricity prices and the security of the network would be a major issue.

I never wrote anything about miner's electricity prices. What I wrote implied (or was intended to imply) that miners possibly wouldn't be able to source any fiat to make a payment for their bills if Jim Rickards' prediction comes to reality.

To repeat my prior point again, I agree that some crypto-currency might become more golden in such a chaos, and I think it will be mine (or you could argue for a PoS variant) which doesn't have vulnerable security that relies on the functioning of the fiat system. Bitcoin's security is conflated with the fiat system, which was my entire point. When the shit hits the fan, and people can see that there is a better system that has no such reliance on the fiat system, they may prefer it.

I believe I am going to pretty much discredit PoW as the preferred system with my whitepaper. So be forewarned. That doesn't mean I expect PoW and Bitcoin to die quickly because of it. I don't know what the transition will be. We make a system and put in the wild and see what society does.

I'm certainly don't feel like I'm moving the goal posts; you were arguing against PoW while I tried to defend it with a few points, one being the advancements in renewable energy is also increasingly beneficial to PoW.

I already explained how you moved the goal posts from the issue of being able to make fiat payments for electricity to one of whether equality of energy will solve PoW's centralization quagmire. And I also already alluded to (or asserted) that your expectation of renewable energy having equality of economies-of-scale and distribution is a fairytale that will never happen. It violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You don't realize it but you are actually predicting that the future will become indistinguishable from the past and the light cones of Special Relativity will collapse.

I mean I am being polite because I really should just call you a kook and put you on Ignore, except you are being cordial so I am trying to be patient even though you are not making any sense.

If anything, I think you're muddying the water with a lot of assumptions, politics and just general ego.

Please don't slander me with the fact that you don't understand of all the factors I am looking at. I mean I understand Physics, you don't. I understand political economics, and I doubt you do, Etc. Sorry man, I just know that most people are not that knowledgeable even though they think are. Does that make me egotistical? In my life I always tried to tell myself that everyone could understand if I would just explain. But it doesn't work that way. People have different levels of knowledge, attention spans, effort, attendance, etc and I could write another 30,000 posts and that still wouldn't change. There will always be 100s or 1000s of people who think I am full of shit and maybe even one or two of them will be correct.

Again it doesn't mean I (or any person) am (is) infallible. I am not claiming that. Please do continue to express your thoughts. That is good. I hope you understand that I respond frankly too. Sorry I don't know how else to respond, other than to ignore.

Anyway, we'll see what your big thing will be and I'll leave it at that.

Yeah I really think all this talk is cheap. Wouldn't you agree?

The bigger challenge is actually getting something done. Let's stop talking.

[Spoetnik]

I don't pay a lot of attention to iamnotback mainly because of verbal diarrhea(sorry iamnotback). He is one of our more well known characters for better or worse ... something like Spoetnik.

Hard to say if he can produce something unique. He might be the next "satoshi". Genuis comes in many forms and is often mistaked for idiocy.

Would I buy his coin? Hell ya. The entertainment value alone would be worth the few bucks. Can you imagine the shit storms?

I found that offensive... but accurate ROFL   

And quote it or it didn't happen ?
It did happen then you say "might" and make excuses for your notorious behavior.
You have derailed some topics about Monero before for a 100+ pages running with each comment being a long winded rant that makes my comments look short in comparison.. and that is one example i could easily go "quote" for you.
And in that example i kept trying to point out to you and that knob smooth or smoothie (forgot which one) that you two were getting way too technical and anal and long winded alienating every person here.
Turning it into a giant wank fest..
Point being is you were lecturing to deaf ears ..again.
Get it ?

I hope so because i have tried to relay that exact concern to you countless times.
I can guarantee you Shelby people tune you out chronically.
Trust me i'd know.., they do it to me too for similar reasons LOL

And don't forget bud.. i am the smart on here . 

I fucking told you all that this guy was planning on launching his own ICO
..while simultaneously saying they are ALL bad by design (hopping on my coat-tails)
While carefully verbally positioning himself here leaving the door open for him to launch his own later.

and.. he just said this below

A creative person loves to talk about and share his creations, but I can't reveal my invention before it is ready to release (ICO) because of competition reasons. Sorry I can't tell you anymore than I have already written in the Decentralization thread.

I am the knower and haver of everything seen & known in crypto now and forever kidiots !
I know what you are all going to do before YOU do and i post comments publicly predicting it all the time then i get to say, I Told You So later.

[Shiroslullaby]

I would love a chance to read the whitepaper.
Although I haven't been on this forum long, I've seen some posts from iamnotback that are definitely very interesting.
There are still lots of great ideas out there. Bitcoin is the beginning, not the end.

[rokkyroad]

Spoetnik really surprises me with his eloquence at times.

I can guarantee you Shelby people tune you out chronically.

Point being is you were lecturing to deaf ears ..again

long winded alienating every person here

100+ pages running with each comment being a long winded rant

That's what I meant about "verbal diahrrea".  iamnotback insists its not him, its our lower than average intelligence ... lol.

[TaunSew]

"Bitcoin killer" is another way of saying "innovative coin" and innovation doesn't cut it anymore.  The biggest gains I saw in 2016 were all coins who networked in some capacity, whether it was legal networking or illegal networking.  The technological side of Monero and PotCoin are pretty weak and yet they saw some of the most ROI in 2016.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1732516.0

Monero got into the dark net markets.  Potcoin got users from the cannabis industry.  NEM networked around in Malaysia and Japan and some businesses / banks took them on.

Iamnotback's "Bitcoin killer" is pretty useless and doomed to fail if it's just him trying to push his coin on Bitcointalkers.  Other innovative projects, who don't have networking, are also having hard times and I doubt that'll ever reverse.

[maku]

"Bitcoin killer" is another way of saying "innovative coin" and innovation doesn't cut it anymore.  The biggest gains I saw in 2016 were all coins who networked in some capacity, whether it was legal networking or illegal networking.  The technological side of Monero and PotCoin are pretty weak and yet they saw some of the most ROI in 2016.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1732516.0

Monero got into the dark net markets.  Potcoin got users from the cannabis industry.  NEM networked around in Malaysia and Japan and some businesses / banks took them on.

Iamnotback's "Bitcoin killer" is pretty useless and doomed to fail if it's just him trying to push his coin on Bitcointalkers.  Other innovative projects, who don't have networking, are also having hard times and I doubt that'll ever reverse.

At this point isn't everything marketed as "Bitcoin Killer" is pretty much destined to fail?
Since bitcoin inception every single coin was created because developers thought that they grasped the situation and are creating "Bitcoin Killer".
It all started with Litecoin's concept - it was advertised as bigger, faster, better bitcoin.

Where are all those coins now?

[WeedToker420]

Proof-of-work coins such as Bitcoin, Monero, and Zcash will lose all their security in the coming crisis, because miners won't be able to exchange BTC for fiat to pay their electricity.

Considering how stupid that statement is, I highly doubt the answer is yes.

Did he actually say that?

What a stupid cunt.

[Spoetnik]

Shelby i will support your project if it is launched fairly.
Problem is you will launch another ICO and sorry bud but i can't make exceptions.
Even though i bet you could offer more innovation than most other shithead "dev's" here.
I have no hate on for you eh.. but i will rub your face in it  
Let's recap WHY i might be skeptical of your claims posted here.
First off you have been here talking about your coin "coming soon" for years now..
(I don't recall seeing a snippet or preview of code even once before)
Then..
You claimed you were banned for posting Ethereum FUD and created a new account right away..
Then posted in the Altcoin section your grand farewell because you were leaving.
Wasting all our time saying goodbye etc.
..because you never did leave.

I also have a hunch you have far more than 2 accounts here.

I also find it amusing your agreed with me on how scammy STEEM is..
Yet you parade around your links like an affiliate guy count his ROI's. (see previous page for an example)
On a coin scheme you shouldn't be supporting out of principle.

And by the way.. Ethereum FUD ?
Kinda funny i can not even recall staff here deleting one of my Ethereum comments let alone banning me over ETH/FUD.
So to point out the obvious..
Don't you all think the staff would be far more likely to kick my ass over ETH FUD and not him ?
Doesn't add up does it ?

Sorry Shelby i hate to rag on ya but you have in fact been caught up in a but load of jack-ass behavior here.
Nothing personal i wish you well.
You will recall when you posted your "I'm Leaving" topic i said STAY !
You are an asset to crypto and have shit to contribute.
More about altcoins than your crazy ass political views (mainly posted in the Political section here)

PS:
I still disagree with your assertion Bitcoin was launched by some nefarious govt NWO Illuminati agencies to topple FIAT markets etc.

I also disagree with your claims that large projects can not be created with out a million dollar ICO cash prize *up front*
For example i have seen and made programs for free and i only use my BTC for donations for dev's.
There is no realistic need for a dev to have a check written out in his name for 1 million dollars in cash so he can code a coin etc.
The fact you argued relentlessly about this with me before was a sign you PLANNED all along on launching your own ICO yet until TODAY would never admit it.

Bottom Line:
All the bullshit aside if you can launch a truly better coin with real innovation with out doing an ICO then absolutely you have my full support.
I am leaning towards thinking you have the skills to do that... BUT !
I actually have not seen proof you have the required coding skill level (pertaining to crypto) to pull it off.

Your claim of an "Early 2017 Launch" ? = Good luck

I guess it's plausible if you unload yet another ICO (YAICO) and then kick back and say "Coming Soon"
Then yeah... you could launch it "Early 2017" hahhahhahahhahaha

[okiefromokc]

Bottom Line:
All the bullshit aside if you can launch a truly better coin with real innovation with out doing an ICO then absolutely you have my full support.
I am leaning towards thinking you have the skills to do that... BUT !
I actually have not seen proof you have the required coding skill level (pertaining to crypto) to pull it off.

Your claim of an "Early 2017 Launch" ? = Good luck

I guess it's plausible if you unload yet another ICO (YAICO) and then kick back and say "Coming Soon"
Then yeah... you could launch it "Early 2017" hahhahhahahhahaha

So if I come to the table with a completed fully functional self funded cryptocurrency, that is running in an Open Beta, you would not have a problem with an IPO/ICO open to everyone at the same buy-in cost of say $010/coin?

Also, when I said fully functional, it has a market place, chat, alternate user wallet names, etc.

Just wondering...

[CryptoSporidium]

Bottom Line:
All the bullshit aside if you can launch a truly better coin with real innovation with out doing an ICO then absolutely you have my full support.
I am leaning towards thinking you have the skills to do that... BUT !
I actually have not seen proof you have the required coding skill level (pertaining to crypto) to pull it off.

Your claim of an "Early 2017 Launch" ? = Good luck

I guess it's plausible if you unload yet another ICO (YAICO) and then kick back and say "Coming Soon"
Then yeah... you could launch it "Early 2017" hahhahhahahhahaha

So if I come to the table with a completed fully functional self funded cryptocurrency, that is running in an Open Beta, you would not have a problem with an IPO/ICO open to everyone at the same buy-in cost of say $010/coin?

Also, when I said fully functional, it has a market place, chat, alternate user wallet names, etc.

Just wondering...

Fuserler's ostrich ...

[okiefromokc]

Bottom Line:
All the bullshit aside if you can launch a truly better coin with real innovation with out doing an ICO then absolutely you have my full support.
I am leaning towards thinking you have the skills to do that... BUT !
I actually have not seen proof you have the required coding skill level (pertaining to crypto) to pull it off.

Your claim of an "Early 2017 Launch" ? = Good luck

I guess it's plausible if you unload yet another ICO (YAICO) and then kick back and say "Coming Soon"
Then yeah... you could launch it "Early 2017" hahhahhahahhahaha

So if I come to the table with a completed fully functional self funded cryptocurrency, that is running in an Open Beta, you would not have a problem with an IPO/ICO open to everyone at the same buy-in cost of say $010/coin?

Also, when I said fully functional, it has a market place, chat, alternate user wallet names, etc.

Just wondering...

Fuserler's ostrich ...

Just check his twitter...