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

[dinofelis]

The problem with proposing centralization as a solution, is it simply doesn't scale in terms of ecosystems, for the same reason that closed source doesn't scale but open source does.

I'm not saying that "centralisation" is the solution.  That said, in a rigid set of rules, *whatever they are*, centralisation will happen, no matter what system of rules is used, because of economies of scale, and because of divergence of any formula which has something at stake.   

The thing is that calling PoW intrinsically centralized *because of storage and bandwidth* is, in my opinion, totally misguided, and proposing as a solution the hardcoded limit of functionality (in bitcoin, the number of transactions per second, as long as it is ridiculously small as compared with the potential market) is way, way worse than allowing the solution to scale according to technological limitations, which will remove themselves as technology advances.  No rigid set of rules should include hard limits on technology use, like Bill Gates did.

As such, of all reasons, PoW is NOT intrinsically centralized because of storage and bandwidth limits.  At the moment, bitcoin is centralizing, because of economies of scale which are SO HUGE with asics, that CPU/GPU mining is out of the question.

I agree with your statement of principle that any algorithm can be ASIC-ed, but the cost to do so, and the gains obtained can push this transition to the future.   The point is that this transition should be enough in the future for the coin to have a reasonable life time, and in the end, be obliged to fork and to become worthless.

My idea is that the only solution to avoiding centralisation, is modifying the rules regularly and having complex PoW mining, so that too big investments, for instance in ASICs, are too much at risk, so that the step to large economies of scale is always beyond the time line when the algorithms change.   There's a natural way of doing so, with continuously creating altcoins, that take over the "old" mature coins ; this could in a way be formalized by having finite block chains (that is, block chains that will only live a finite amount of time, say 10 years) and continuously forking.  The point being that a block chain that centralizes, is supposed to lose its value, because it loses its potential immutability.  The day that 60% of bitcoin mining is done by 1 entity, bitcoin will be worthless in principle.  So it is in a coin's long term viability that centralisation is to be avoided.
Another solution can be to have an inflationary pressure as a function of centralisation, in other words, a non-linear relationship between PoW and mining reward: this is a kind of transition from PoW to a diverging PoS.  The diverging PoS is necessary so that an inflationary bomb explodes when PoW gets too centralized ; in other words, the opposite of what happens in the ethereum time bomb.  As such, a centralizing coin destroys itself by hyper inflation, pushing people to a less centralized coin.  Instead of allowing wealth accumulation through centralisation, a coin should be designed so that it gets more and more worthless, the more it centralizes, instead of impossibly fighting centralisation.

The only solution to avoid centralisation, is regular "rule revolutions".  Like in real life, where war, revolutions, unforeseen events kill successful companies, and nations, so that centralisation has been avoided up to now.  We are leaving a dangerous period where centralisation in the USA was a danger, but as we see, the rules get overthrown, and the world is again diverging from centralisation, with enough wars, conflicts and uncertainty.

[HCLivess]

he has a killer for his own bitcoins

[TrueAnon]

No idea who is this person.

But I know dev of WBB/1EX will be bringing the best option for btc killer in 2017  

[rokkyroad]

We need to be a little realistic here.  How long did it take Ethereum to go from concept to release? A couple years? That was with a shitload of help. Even now, eth is still flawed.

So, one man alone has a monumental task ahead to deliver something truly revolutionary.  iamnotback might be bat shit crazy enough to pull it off.

We need to be more supportive instead of dragging him down.

I hate ICOs too. iamnotback has been around here for years and is well known. I would support his ICO depending on conditions and details.

How much money is thrown away here regularly on unknown, scammy developers?

[PikachuYou]

No idea who is this person.

But I know dev of WBB/1EX will be bringing the best option for btc killer in 2017  

the wild pussy cat coin dev has nothing on shelby

shelby is a fucking genius while the wbb dev is a fucking idiot.

fuck off

[thejaytiesto]

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.

Interesting quote by satoshi... so satoshi wanted bitcoin to be hosted by server farms instead of individual nodes? he basically wanted bitcoin to be centralized? (because centralized nodes + centralized mining... that's what you end up getting). Pretty disappointing to see. Why would satoshi claim bitcoin is p2p cash when it would depend on corporations running nodes?
Thank god people like gmaxwell saw this mistake and they decided to keep the blocksize small and put a layer on top. Satoshi did a new mistake if he wanted what the idiots on /r/btc talk about all day. He was simply wrong.

[iamnotback]

We need to be a little realistic here.  How long did it take Ethereum to go from concept to release? A couple years? That was with a shitload of help. Even now, eth is still flawed.

So, one man alone has a monumental task ahead to deliver something truly revolutionary.  iamnotback might be bat shit crazy enough to pull it off.

Thanks. You are correct. So let's stop talking about this ICO, because until I prove to myself what I can do, then I am not launching any ICO.

I did not start this thread. I have not even committed to doing an ICO. I have work to do. Who knows if it will get done. But certainly not if people are talking about me and I feel a need to waste my time posting.

Please just pretend this thread doesn't exist. There is no project yet. I am off in my own world trying to get something off the ground. Until I do, it is a waste of time to discuss it.

Thanks.

[iamnotback]

That said, in a rigid set of rules, *whatever they are*, centralisation will happen, no matter what system of rules is used, because of economies of scale, and because of divergence of any formula which has something at stake.

That is what you think and what I thought. But I propose (posit) a solution in my whitepaper. But i am not ready to release it now, so this discussion is frustratingly useless.

The only solution to avoid centralisation, is regular "rule revolutions".

You are conceptually on the right track.

[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.

You can't possibly know wether or not casper is flawed

Yes I can. It is a fundamental taxonomy of possible workarounds to the FLP impossibility result. Read my whitepaper when it is released (although I don't think you will understand it but it is written to be comprehensible for those with reasonable analytical skills).

What @jaekwon (Cosmos/Tendermint) and others may not realize is that the fundamental limitations of Byzantine agreement can't be structured around with protocol. It is a fundamental limitation (due to physics of asynchrony). So they can obfuscate as much as they want with heapings of protocol complexity, so as to hide the fundamentals from themselves. But I understand the essence of genius.

So Casper is hiding the bonding collateral in the notion of betting from collateral, but they won't escape from the fundamental limitation which is that blame can't be objective (it is always ambiguous) in Byzantine agreement. The only alternative to Byzantine agreement is probabilitistic, asymptotic (e.g. PoW and my design which is not PoW but something new). But probabilitistic, asymptotic can't assign blame to malfeasance either (for example you can't prove that Bitcoin miners are censoring transactions from blockchain data objectively, you need external social information which is not objective).

I will double-check my logic on this again when I do the comprehensive re-read of my paper. Will report back here, if I find any flaw in my analysis.

My opinion, if you really want to do something, anything, then you should join others. You have nobody to debate and you'll apply your knowledge and logic on what is already known

I engage others in debate as I did with @jaekwon but he just banned me and shut down the Github issue when he decided he didn't want to let me explain further how his project is broken and can't be fixed. He expect me to unravel the obfuscation they have done with protocol and that is not my job. I already understand the fundamental reason blame is impossible. It is their job to find out how they obfuscated this fundamental in their understanding of their design. Or later I can take the time to write or hire someone to write a formal refutation of their Proof of Accountability. Why should I encourage them to stop working on their project and wasting their time? Much better for me to have one less potential competitor and not to lose my precious time doing their work for them. At the right time, we can make it 100% proven that their projects are a total failure. And that will best done when my project is already released. Don't wake up a sleeping dog prematurely.

I decided to take a quick look at Tendermint/Cosmos's Proof of Accountability again:

Proof of Fork Accountability

...


As a corollary, when there is a fork, an external process can determine the blame by requiring each validator to justify all of its round votes. Either we will find 1/3+ who cannot justify at least one of their votes, and/or, we will find 1/3+ who had double-signed.

I explain in my whitepaper why their assumption above is incorrect. Here is the quote from my white paper:

1.2 Byzantine Agreement

The proof of the non-asymptotic form of BFT is intuitive in the example scenario where every node is a voter and each candidate blockchain block is an election epoch. If every vote is correct, BFT only applies to faults which are unresponsive nodes; thus a quorum of only a majority of votes is required to obtain an unambiguous result because any ordering of blocks is always non-conflicting (or equivalently if the coordination of voting is synchronized such that conflicting order can’t exist, but then BFT isn’t applicable per the ^* footnote of prior section). For example, if validators of transactions never vote for a conflicting transaction such as a double-spend, then given two attempted elections for a pair of consecutive blocks of transactions, the minimum number of voters which commit to both elections is fₛ = 2T - N - 1, where T is the minimum quorum size for each election. Thus T ≥ (N + 1)/2 where 2T - N - 1 ≥ 0 because 0 safety is required given every vote is non-conflicting. But in the Byzantine agreement case wherein malevolent^† and/or asynchronous (i.e. caused by random, ambiguous propagation ordering) validators can vote for blocks that contain conflicting transactions, the minimum number of voters which commit to both elections fₛ = 2T - N - 1 must be greater than the number of excess voters not needed to form a quorum fₗ = N - T, so that a quorum for a conflicting pair of blocks can’t exist because there aren’t enough uncommitted voters to vote for it, i.e. T ≥ N - fₛ.^{[^Tendermint-safety]}  Thus T ≥ (2N + 1)/3 where 2T - N - 1 ≥ N - T, fₛ is the safety margin, and fₗ is liveness.^{[^BFT-derivation]} This result which is mathematically equivalent to N = 3f + 1 where f = fₛ = fₗ, is analogous to the N = 3m + 1 generals for m traitors result for the Byzantine Generals Problem (aka “BGP”).^{[^BGP]}

Liveness fₗ in this context is the maximum number of unresponsive and/or malevolent nodes allowed for the system to not stall all quorums and/or censor for which blocks quorums are allowed. Safety margin fₛ is the minimum number of voters which must commit to a pair of blocks to prevent ambiguous ordering of blocks. Even if only a single election would ever be held for a set of signing keys which represent the voters,  applies in any nonsynchronous (aka “asynchronous”) case when there isn’t trust of a designated centralized tally, because voters can irrefutably claim that an epoch expired and they signed a new vote for a new epoch. It is even irrefutable that a trusted centralized tally did not receive a vote.^{[^he-said-she-said] [^ambiguous-fault]}

Some systems may opt for more safety margin at the detriment of reduced liveness by choosing a larger minimum quorum size T.^{[^BFT-derivation]}

Marbles in Jars Example

The proof in the Byzantine agreement case is easy to visualize with 3 voters who can each vote with marbles of one color representing their signing key: red, white, and blue. Given 3 jars representing ballot boxes for 3 elections on the consensus ordering of any two of them (wherein the jars could represent blockchain blocks), two marbles can be placed in each jar without any color voting more than twice― i.e. no voter has cheated yet the consensus is ambiguous. Declaring any of the jars as the first, results in two choices (aka “forks”) for which jar is the next. One jar has red and white, another red and blue, and another white and blue. This is why the proof requires that the excess of the quorum be less than ¹/₃ (aka “-¹/₃”). So by adding a voter with green marbles so that smallest minority reduces from ¹/₃ to ¹/₄ which is thus -¹/₃, the ambiguity is resolved because the green marble can only be placed in 2 of the 3 jars― again presuming no voter cheated to vote more than twice. Thus +²/₃ instead of ¹/₂+ is required for quorums in the presence of possible malevolence (and/or honest ambiguity due to random propagation delays) given an asynchronous network, otherwise the ordering of the quorums can’t be proven.

Note if any 3 of the 4 marbles are colluding, i.e. ²/₃ or more (aka “+²/₃”) of the voters are malevolent, they can vote for as many conflicting quorums (forks) as they wish and it will be ambiguous which of the 4 marbles is cheating, because given 3 sets of 3 jars, a different one of the 3 cheaters can vote in each set. And the honest voter has to vote on the fork which the quorum is extending, because otherwise not voting is indistinguishable from unresponsive. It can’t be irrefutably proven that the 3 malevolent marbles were cheating and colluding because they can each claim that other one became unresponsive; thus voting for more than two quorums became necessary. And the honest marble voted more than twice also. Propagation order and responsiveness can’t be proven nor disproven in an asynchronous network.

† _{The adjectives “malevolent” or “attacking” applied to nodes means a colluding or centralized controlled group of nodes.}

[^Tendermint-safety]  _{Jae Kwon, Ethan Buchman. Tendermint Wiki, Tendermint Github project, §Byzantine Consensus Algorithm: Proof of Safety, Jun 18, 2014.}

[^BFT-derivation] _{David Mazieres. The Stellar Consensus Protocol: A Federated Model for Internet-level Consensus. Stellar Development Foundation, §5.4.3. Comparison to centralized voting, Feb 25, 2016.}

[^BGP] _{Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease. The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 4, No. 3, , pp. 382–401, July 1982. Mark Nelson. The Byzantine Generals Problem. Dr. Dobb’s (drdobbs.com), Mar 18, 2008.}

[^he-said-she-said] _{Andreas Haeberlen, Petr Kuznetsov, and Peter Druschel. Practical Accountability for Distributed Systems. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Future Directions in Distributed Computing (FuDiCo III), Bertinoro, Italy, §2.2 Proofs and verifiable evidence, p. 2, June 2007.}

[^ambiguous-fault] _{Shelby Moore III, Unprovable accountability for network communication, Bitcointalk.org, “Transactions as Proof of Stake White Paper” thread, post #19, Dec 4, 2013.}

[expathos]

MIT has the Bitcoin Killer

MIT’s Ford Professor of Engineering and one of the world’s top cryptographers Silvio Micali recently published a paper called ALGORAND The Efficient and Democratic Ledger where he lays out a groundbreaking new vision of a decentralized and secure way to manage a shared ledger that provides a beautifully elegant solution to the Byzantine General’s problem.

Micali, the recipient of the Turing Award (in computer science), of the Goedel Prize (in theoretical computer science) and the RSA prize (in cryptography) has developed a new approach to proof of work –  which requires a negligible amount of computation, and generates a transaction history that does not fork with overwhelmingly high probability. In fact – over a million years statistically.

The approach cryptographically selects — in a way that is provably immune from manipulations, unpredictable until the last minute, but ultimately universally clear— a set of verifiers in charge of constructing a block of valid transactions and it applies to any way of implementing a shared ledger via a tamper-proof sequence of blocks, including traditional Blockchains.

According to Micali, best known for his fundamental early work on public-key cryptosystems, pseudorandom functions, digital signatures, oblivious transfer, secure multiparty computation, and co-invention of zero-knowledge proofs – there are much more efficient alternatives to current Blockchains.

And the basis for his solution is taking a totally different tack in the process of building a block. He noted that the idea was first seeded to him by a friend but he added that many of the Magistracies in Florence were elected by lottery.

He calls it cryptographic certation.

http://www.the-[Suspicious link removed]/2017/01/05/move-bitcoin-mit-cryptographer-silvio-micali-public-ledger-algorand-future-blockchain/

blockchain DOT com has been removed due to my newbie status.

http://www.the-blockchain DOT com/2017/01/05/move-bitcoin-mit-cryptographer-silvio-micali-public-ledger-algorand-future-blockchain/

[Spoetnik]

OP I would very much appreciate if you'd lock the thread.

Okay I will try to get out of here. Have fun with this.

WOW you got some nerve.
Why the fuck would the guy lock it ?
Because you're triggered and can't stop replying to it ?

The OP asked a question and it's our right to answer it.
"Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?"
Who the fuck are you to request it be locked ?

Red Flags galore with you man.
Things are just not right in your head.
And with out working code all we have is years worth of tech rabble.

At some point the community is going to say put up or shut up.
And locking topics will not prevent that LOL

[ROT13]

A new altcoin that claims to be superior to bitcoin because of X. 

Sounds like an amazing new development in the cryptocurrency space to me.

[iamnotback]

Who the fuck are you to request it be locked ?

The person who he claims is going to launch an ICO and I have no such ANN thread, thus he is speculating prematurely.

I can post anything I want and so can you.

But you will become even more discredited after I cause you to eat all your words.

You post here trying to overcome your subconscious that tells you that are not important. And you are correct.

Your words are not important. If you are capable of doing something important, then go do it. Until then, you and I both are just blowing hot air out of our ass.

[iamnotback]

By debating, i meant some work coleague / friend to do constructive debates with, so you learn from each other so you won't have to rely on your own logic and knowledge only, as i said.

@smooth was doing that for me, but I can't involve him in my white paper at this early juncture, because he is whale investor in Steem. Also seems @smooth has lost interest lately or is preoccupied.

I currently don't know of anyone I could trust with my invention at this early juncture, who is expert enough to actually provide peer review. My angel investors are both programmers and one of them is trying to read my whitepaper, but struggling with understanding it. I continue to try to work with him to improve the wording so it is comprehensible. There are a lot of details to cover and the topics are complex. He is astute and does ask tough questions.

Once I get to the public, open source stage of my project, then I will have peer review and expert criticism and interaction.

These are just vanity type of debates on internet (between you and that chinese guy, or whatever he is ) that can be hardly won

That "chinese guy" @jaekwon is the co-developer of Tendermint and Cosmos. He is somewhat of a domain expert and thus you are reading discussion between two experts. I have posted in this thread my whitepaper's section which is applicable to that debate (note I just added the footnotes for the cite references). Experts will understand I have unequivocally won that debate.

and where mostly non technical people are reading and where the "winner" is the one with better punchlines.

That is the way the altcoin speculation environment has worked up to now. I intend to change this.

It is time to get serious and stop the nonsense.

The fools can continue to waste their BTC in Dash wet dreams or whatever they want (free markets teach by burning fingertips up to the armpits as necessary), and I intend to go create a project with huge real world adoption and so those losers will left behind (or they can jump on the train later as they realize).

Action speaks louder than punchlines. Can I do it? I don't know. We will see. Talking here won't get it done.

And you also know that in these type of debates you don't have to win the wise understanding minority, but the large non technical majority, that's where the funds come from, for your future ICO. Tell me i am wrong.

That is the way altcoins have been marketed up to now. It is all about mining the speculators, not creating a real product with real adoption. But our speculator markets are tiny. The big enchilada is out there in the wider world. I want to market to both.

I think the best way to mine the speculators is create a real product with real adoption which solves Bitcoin's and Steem's mistakes.

I think they will be jizzing all over their underpants.

I am not in marketing mode right now. I am in R&D mode. When I shift to marketing mode, then you will see how I intend to market the project.

Also, blockchain is still uncharted territory, no one fully understands how to or the capabilities of blockchain yet, that's the reason of these 1000 type of blockchain flavors out there, and we don't have yet a fully working, without any flaw, long term product yet.

That is why my whitepaper is written to be comprehensive in explaining everything from first principles, such as starting for the Physics of total orders to FLP impossibility result. My whitepaper isn't fully polished yet (very long complex document so it is a significant effort to make it flawless), but the meat of what I need to point out is already present.

Then I explain where all the preexisting designs fit into the taxonomy, and contrast my invention.

Because bitcoin certainly isn't. Maybe ethereum, that if they manage to solve scaling and implement it without major security risks.

My stance is that Ethereum's current track with Casper is exactly where I want them to be, because they are building a clusterfuck of Rube Goldberg complexity with hidden security holes they can't see.

Ethereum is a (currently flawed) visionary concept, but my expectation is the execution is going to be more of the same as what we already have observed. Until you change the leaders, don't expect a different result. Vitalik has demonstrated already what he is good at and what he is not. The track record is there and my fundamental understanding of Byzantine agreement as it applies to Casper indicates to me more of the same is underway. However, Vitalik is young and smart, so he may adjust his methods. We will see.

So, if all along you thought all these projects were flawed and you thought you had the solution, you still had many years to come with something better.

The detailed design of what is better is already done. I don't know if the implementation in code will take many years. We will see.

Casper isn't even designed and vetted. Once they write it down formally and the vetting begins, that is when it will become clear that it is a clusterfuck of security holes. More months of wasted time before they even write it down formally. And Greg was recently kicked out of Synereo, so it is possible Casper dies one the vine and never makes it to formal specification. We will see.

From my point of view, you're staying on the sidelines, try to learn from the mystakes of those that tried something before you, meanwhile criticising all their work and research.

Once my whitepaper is published, I won't be on the sidelines any more. I will have to defend against vetting.

I am on the sidelines for the moment in the sense that I have to code the rudimentary implementation before releasing the whitepaper.

There's also a consequence of that, willingly or not, you're building hype around yourself, here on bitcointalk, where you know there are mostly potential investors.
Now, i think you may come up with something, eventually, but i don't think it will live up to the hype you're building, willingly or not. Because, when you criticise something you have to surpass them. By a long shot.

You don't know me well. When I express confidence, it is because I have something already. When I express doubt (such as about my health and ability to code), that indicates I am being honest and objective.

I didn't intend to tease with closed source. I didn't start this thread. I also asked the OP to lock the thread, but it is his free choice to make.

I don't like boasting about closed source, because nobody can vet or check the veracity.

[billybobmaryjoe]

Getting the popcorn......This is a reality TV series called "Crypto!"

[Spoetnik]

Not surprisingly you didn't get why i was bothered by your "request".
The OP did not ask YOU Shelby.. the OP asked everyone but YOU hahhaha  
But YOU yourself want the topic clocked because ?

And you keep chanting about eating my own words or others etc.
How many of us ruled you out ?
We collectively said we're skeptical.

I thought you interpret what you see & hear to mean other things in your head far too often.

What people have posted here is it's an uphill climb where many came before you and all failed.
It is what it is.

Like Shelby have you bothered to post any pictures (NOT related to your illness ?)
Post ANY lines of code ever ?
I have.
I have put my fucking money where my mouth is plenty of times here over the years.
I uploaded the source code LOL

So yeah we ARE going to be skeptical.
Because so far we hear you playing games..
I will launch an ICO but not really.
It is POW but not really.
It's POS but not really.
It's every magical cure that fixes every problem ..but not really LOL

If you can do it then good for you and hell all of us !
But i don't want to see another ICO or some other unfair crooked method of distribution.

Shelby it's hilarious beyond comprehension how every fucking word of tech babble you spew here in massive 100 page walls of text are about how all these various aspects of crypto are "UNFAIR"
Yet here we see you supporting STEEM and then prepping an ICO for fuck sakes.

Are you brain damaged or what ?
Seems you chant and scream about fairness like a motherfucker until it's time for YOU to make some money.

Like every single Altcoin that ever existed i bet you will create a rigged system so there is some type of advantage for you the dev.. why ?
Because you have spent half your time at Bitcointalk defending dev's rights to giant amounts of money up front.
Defending their right to be paid and get a cut of the crypto.

AND YOU ARE WRONG .

Dev's can launch a fair coin and have the same adavantage as everyone else period .

Further more they are not entitled to sweet fuck all.

AND.. handing over a massive paycheck (ICO) ahead of time is silly considering the context of the situation and the fact that it really does not NEED to be done that way.

Where is the motivation to get the work done when i write a check for 1 million dollars ?
Ask the BlockNET dev who cried smear campaign and had nothing done after 1 year.

You are a failure waiting to happen.
You will ask for your million dollars and then you will have problems and delays because your cocky attitude led you to bite off more than you can chew.

I would bet against you because your track record and crypto-philosophies have set you up for failure.

You ALREADY have fucked up and spewed a fuck-ton of bullshit.
You already did say it was going to be released Early 2017 then later you said something totally different.
You do have a track record of talking shit.

And by the way when is is it going to be on Poloniex ?
Seems to me you will have your ICO tokens on there chanting innovation like the rest.
Problem being is exchanges shouldn't exist.. and i bet i could quote you saying it too.
But i bet you will be plenty happy to premine a coin and get it on Poloniex.

The fact we all have given you the benefit of the doubt is a stretch.
You shouldn't have gotten that much based on the facts we DO have at hand.
You were afforded that courtesy simply because you give us the impression with long speeches about the block chain that you know things.

I think you suffer a lot with the same personality issues you were accusing reptiela of having.
You too tend to be off in your own world filtering reality to fit into your conspiracy laden world.
This is all a reflection Shelby.
If you don't like what it's in the mirror don't blame the fucking mirror.
And.. don't tell the mirror to turn off because you don't like it (locking the topic here)

I do wish you luck and i am glad you stayed and i wish you well health wise.
I want you to prove me wrong.. i will post a picture of my running shoe in my mouth eating it if you launch a coin i agree is launched fairly.. as in the initial distribution is an improvement over BTC's.
And there is no ICO at all or any variant and it's deemed fair for all etc.
A few people will see what i see if that time comes.. for example Kelsey will probably agree with me.
So if kesley says on that day.. Spoetnik.. eat your shoe! .. then i will grab some salt & pepper and go to town (with screen cap's for you all)

[iamnotback]

Momimaus was on my Ignore list from long time ago. I quoted his post so I could read his drivelopinion.

I love overconfident competitors. Add more fuel to my fire dude. Post moar.

Spoetnuts, you are close to going back on my Ignore list again, because you write very long posts which say nothing important and I don't have time to wade through it. I know you have good intentions and just want to stroke your fragileinsatiable ego, so I will try to control my urge to hide your walls of narcissistic text. After all, BCT is mostly about ego and not about expert discussion.

[iamnotback]

MIT has the Bitcoin Killer

MIT’s Ford Professor of Engineering and one of the world’s top cryptographers Silvio Micali recently published a paper called ALGORAND The Efficient and Democratic Ledger where he lays out a groundbreaking new vision of a decentralized and secure way to manage a shared ledger that provides a beautifully elegant solution to the Byzantine General’s problem.

Micali, the recipient of the Turing Award (in computer science), of the Goedel Prize (in theoretical computer science) and the RSA prize (in cryptography) has developed a new approach to proof of work –  which requires a negligible amount of computation, and generates a transaction history that does not fork with overwhelmingly high probability. In fact – over a million years statistically.

The approach cryptographically selects — in a way that is provably immune from manipulations, unpredictable until the last minute, but ultimately universally clear— a set of verifiers in charge of constructing a block of valid transactions and it applies to any way of implementing a shared ledger via a tamper-proof sequence of blocks, including traditional Blockchains.

According to Micali, best known for his fundamental early work on public-key cryptosystems, pseudorandom functions, digital signatures, oblivious transfer, secure multiparty computation, and co-invention of zero-knowledge proofs – there are much more efficient alternatives to current Blockchains.

And the basis for his solution is taking a totally different tack in the process of building a block. He noted that the idea was first seeded to him by a friend but he added that many of the Magistracies in Florence were elected by lottery.

He calls it cryptographic certation.

http://www.the-[Suspicious link removed]/2017/01/05/move-bitcoin-mit-cryptographer-silvio-micali-public-ledger-algorand-future-blockchain/

blockchain DOT com has been removed due to my newbie status.

http://www.the-blockchain DOT com/2017/01/05/move-bitcoin-mit-cryptographer-silvio-micali-public-ledger-algorand-future-blockchain/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341

This is Byzantine agreement, so it will suffer from the fundamental weaknesses of BA just as Tendermint, Cosmos and Casper will suffer:

1. The validators/signers can't be held accountable. (See my prior upthread post on the proof of that)

2. It can become indefinitely stalled if the 1/3 liveness threshold is exceeded, requiring a hard fork to unstuck. Note I refuted @jaekwon on this point also.

Sorry none of the BA proposals are a valid solution.

I will add a mention of this paper to my whitepaper explaining the issue.

[iamnotback]

Reading my white paper a bit before I sleep and I am even impressed!

Examples:

* Proof of Non-Existence for entirely offchain transactions (absolute privacy and user customizable transactions and smart contracts of any imaginable format instantly without hard forks).

* Makes exchanges theft impossible! Goodbye the exchange theft forever.

* Probabilistic, asymptotic, unbounded participation without the pitfalls of Byzantine agreement and without PoW (nor PoS)! And with instant millisecond transactions and unbounded scaling without centralization.


I am not hyping. This design is real.

Satoshi get off my lawn son.

[thejaytiesto]

Reading my white paper a bit before I sleep and I am even impressed!

Examples:

* Proof of Non-Existence for entirely offchain transactions (absolute privacy and user customizable transactions and smart contracts of any imaginable format instantly without hard forks).

* Makes exchanges theft impossible! Goodbye the exchange theft forever.

* Probabilistic, asymptotic, unbounded participation without the pitfalls of Byzantine agreement and without PoW (nor PoS)! And with instant millisecond transactions and unbounded scaling without centralization.


I am not hyping. This design is real.

Satoshi get off my lawn son.

It sounds really cool, not gonna lie, but there is a big difference from a whitepaper to actually releasing the thing to the wild and seeing it function... then we'll see if satoshi gets to stay on your lawn.

Also it will get reviewed by really smart people such as gmaxwell and the rest of the people that post here if it's really worth the time to look at.

Like I said, i will remain skeptic and will give you a fair chance, but my money is on bitcoin remaining the king of crypto because some sort of problem/tradeoff will be found in your design that makes bitcoin the better option.