delete

[drawingthemoon]

We are not enemies.

I rather fancy the idea of publishing the sender of (most) every ring signature on the block chain instead at a future date of my choosing.

I warned you don't fuck with me.

I will make sure BBR has the mitigation ready assuming they are still cooperative with me and they don't give my mitigation to XMR.

You are not dealing with BCX any more. You are dealing with me. Capice.

This is not how friends operate, "friend." Please do not piss on our legs and then infer something about the weather.

Go further back and see fluffypony instigated that reaction from me, as it seemed he was trying to not show appreciation for any outsider helping. See jl777 imploring him to show appreciation and fluffypony rejecting it. And it was aided by my interpretation of Risto's 4 - 8% proclamation meaning I wouldn't find anything. Risto clarified that his random variable was just whether BCX would attack, but when I blew up above I didn't know that is what he meant.

Your work on the analysis of the whitepaper is not being criticized. If the MEW or anyone expects you to be omniscient, then they are unrealistic. Lack of omniscience is precisely why open source bazaars kickass on well organized top-down cathedrals.

I feel now a sense of duty to attempt to help jl777 with his anonymity design (which I will be going in PMs), because he has shown that he appreciates the gift culture of open source. It is all about showing respect and appreciation to each other. Some are more talented than others in specific areas (e.g. yourself I am sure more knowledgeable than me about the math of cryptography) and others have other attributes to contribute such as their work ethic and their great attitude.

fluffypony and aminorex are the biggest reasons for fueling the negative energy between the two projects. Do not let them get to you. They will cause lasting and maybe permanent damage to one camp because their target is to get rich quick and nothing to do with advancements in software.

snip

Actually you are detrimental to both Monero and Boolberry projects. I think without you, both would have had substantial progress by now. How are you a lead dev of anything without knowing how to code is beyond shocking. Can you point to any lines of code of significance that you have authored till date to the project? or any open source projects of significance?

The actual coders and contributors of Monero are the ones who should be driving the project forward. You are just a poison everyone has to deal with. If you were fired from the position, both projects would move forward with great pace and no one is going to miss you and we don't have to withstand the army of the gullible that feed off of your negative energy.

Your posts are always vitriolic and you have smeared zoidberg countless number of times. This was an occasion where you could have shown professionalism, but I think the biggest compliment for you is that someone even mentions your name. You are a delusional piece of insignificant garbage.

[TheFascistMind]

I am hoping it is positive. Everyone has won, except for those investors who sold (maybe to BCX, or to Risto further concentrating ownership). Afaics, XMR has gained stature for becoming yet again stronger with further analysis of its potential weaknesses.

If MEW would be changed to CEW, my opinion is we would have made really great strides on seeing a proliferation of innovation and community spirit.

[NewLiberty]

The community-at-large wants to see more "working together" and "building things" and less "turf battles" and "yo moma is a ho".
...
Open source is not just about source code being shared. It is a gift culture of sharing[2].

[2] The Bibles about open source from Eric Raymond (the man who invented the term open source), specifically the Magic Cauldron.

This.

Eric Raymond is an amazing man.  Worked on a trial with him a while back.  Good times.

Maybe its just me, but I see all these "turf battles" as less of a gang war, and more of good natured prodding?  I suspect that there are places where this culture clash boils over, I may just be missing it.  

Seems like a couple of New York friends saying "Fawk yoo, no, Fawk YOO" over who has the best code, and then going out to grab a drink together and having the same argument over who gets to pick up the tab.  We are all in this together, like it or love it.

The BBR vs XMR rivalry to me doesn't bug me a lot.  It seems an artificial competition, and mostly out on the fringes where the trolls live.  In the central groups, just about all I hear is mutual respect, though I'm mostly just privy to the XMR sentiment, I'd guess its the same with BBR.  I'd bet that when you took this message to Risto, he probably just smiled and nodded.  The rivalry has its uses, to keep folks on their best game.  

Back to this thread... The same is true with the BCX game.  BCX played the 'villain' card, and did it with some panache.  The pressure worked.  Not everyone saw the threat, but everyone came together to get out a fix.  We were red teamed.  Folks placed bets on how it would come out.  We were energized.  Good times.

[StealthCoin1]

Still no proof, smile FUD to me.

[TheFascistMind]

Edited to add:

What is inflaming the emotions is the sense whether correct or not that some (not all) in the XMR camp are arrogant (or insecure and defensive thus perceived as arrogance).

Please see above quote for irony.

I apologize if I didn't find better words to express my point. What I am trying to say is factual not my opinion. Thus you can't get offended by facts.

The fact I am trying to convey is that open source is the only known positive scaling law of software engineering.

Open source is appreciating everyone's contribution no matter how small, and not criticizing other open source projects.

It is thus inherently anti-political action. It is bottom-up organic action.

It is a culture of "talk is cheap, show me the code".

Edit: I already did a mea culpa upthread on my past criticisms of projects.  Constructive criticism (i.e. offering some improvement or some research on characterizing the problem better) is best and I am trying to reform myself.

Edit#2: If a project is not producing code, it is not an open source project regardless if the cloned source is open. If it is just a clone to do pump and dump, this can be legitimately destructively criticized.

[Este Nuno]

The community-at-large wants to see more "working together" and "building things" and less "turf battles" and "yo moma is a ho".

Get used to it.  All crypto will always be under threat.  You can enjoy the comfort of knowing that the team managing the process has some quite respectable skill at doing so, thus differentiating it from the various one-man shows.

I sent a PM to rpietila thanking the MEW for paying me a bounty. I lamented the dirty tactics by the opposition that digs up dubious (there is always at least 2 sides to any story...I don't want to discuss it or dig it up) skeletons in Risto's past life. I have suggested to the MEW via Risto that they consider not being monogamously aligned with XMR and spread some token love (in the form of investment holdings) around to synergistic altcoins such as BBR. I think this would go a long way to diffusing the war attitude around here, and fostering goodwill. When pooling capital, you are a political target whether you like it not. I am suggesting how to diffuse that phenomenon and for best results on our mutual goals.

To frame the goal of crypto-currency conquering fiat as divide-and-conquer war amongst the innovators seems to be less astute.

We are not enemies. The only justification for such an attitude is wanting to be richer than the next guy, for bragging rights. Even if that desire remains, it can be done with gentleman's mutual respect and good will. The potential for crypto-currency appreciation is enough to make us all rich, and especially if we stop tearing each other down. The other justification would have been to not proliferate dilution of the money supply of crypto-currency, but this will happen organically if one altcoin can rise up.

While Apple Pay and Paypal are off conquering the world of electronic currency adoption, we are dividing-and-conquering ourselves. We need many small fish making experiments. The big fish can swallow the best innovations, or the small fish can out race the big fish until it is bigger. The innovation and then the market's digestion of the innovation will decide any way, no amount of verbal posturing can decide it.

XMR is way ahead of where bitcoin was at this age, in every reasonable metric of merit that I have considered - and I have considered many.

Selling would be foolish in my opinion.

I have no qualms with MEW making XMR its #1 focus and investment. Seems rational. Should it also have a #2, #3, etc.? Monogamy has the cost that the community-at-large will always resist helping efforts that anoint themselves. I prefer a larger community of gentleman's competition, thus arriving at a greater result faster. When the winning inertia accumulates organically rather than forced from the top-down, it is accepted by the community as fair play and good will.

I could do without anonymint's "if P=NP then there are many vulnerabilities" posts.  He's pretty accurate and insightful, but he completely misleads most readers, and quite recklessly.  Arguing math in a troll thread is asinine.  I doubt that he's done more good than harm at this point.

I have a new insight into my algorithm which I think obviates that comment smooth made in private about the P=NP question.

Assuming the algorithm works then if CN implements the mitigation, thus it will be removing input address from contention as they are found to be in "spent" groups (i.e. yes my algorithm is also a form of pruning) from a rolling history thus the algorithm will not consider the entire history but rather incrementally, thus it is not an NP search. Also I provided some ideas for locality of the search.

All the posturing and threats and chest thumping are just pathetic.  I have been there and done that, and I hope I've grown past it.  Not much I can do to wean these wet-nappied wailers, though.  Pearls would just be trodden anyhow.

An attitude of selfishness is the source of most of the trolling. I would never have gotten inflamed in this thread had I not felt that there was defiance behind the scenes to "anything not invented by us" or at least "if not invented by us, it better be 100% implemented attack or there is no urgency, I can still go to the beach".

What is inflaming the emotions is the sense whether correct or not that some (not all) in the XMR camp are arrogant (or insecure and defensive thus perceived as arrogance). I don't think anyone is seriously doubting the level of talent. But no talented group can see and do everything. Not even Microsoft with 10,000 employees. The entire point of open source bazaars is they kickass on large cathedrals[1].

Open source is not just about source code being shared. It is a gift culture of sharing[2].

[1] http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

[2] The Bibles about open source from Eric Raymond (the man who invented the term open source), specifically the Magic Cauldron.

Just want to say that this is pretty much the philosophy of jl777's superNET. The point is to unite cryptocurrencies in to a single network to work together to absorb as much fiat as possible.

I wonder how much different the alternative currency scene would be if everyone took this view. Whether they're interested in superNET or not is irrelevant really, tearing each other down just drives people away and stops new people from wanting to find out more.

[drawingthemoon]

Just want to say that this is pretty much the philosophy of jl777's superNET. The point is to unite cryptocurrencies in to a single network to work together to absorb as much fiat as possible.

I wonder how much different the alternative currency scene would be if everyone took this view. Whether they're interested in superNET or not is irrelevant really, tearing each other down just drives people away and stops new people from wanting to find out more.

couldn't have said any better. How many remember the vitriol and smear started by aminorex against the IPO and jl777 leading upto the days of SuperNET ICO? Polonoiex had just finished conducting another ICO and they had to retract their business all because of the "facts" thrown (yes they were true facts) by certain individuals who just didn't feel right about jl777 helping Boolberry. They don't treat fiat as the enemy. They couldn't care less about advancing technology otherwise even blind men can see how to best progress CryptoNote and other competent projects.

[TheFascistMind]

Afaics, the SuperNet needs to be better explained. Thus I can't comment constructively until I really understand all it, including the monetization and economics.

The is constructive criticism. I am not at-once trying to destroy it with my subjective opinions, yet I am also throwing caution at the point that I can't yet understand it all (at least the documents I read thus far).

For example, if Risto said he doesn't recommend investing in the SuperNet at this time, because he has not been able to ascertain all of the metrics of its design and intent. I would view that as open to the future of it, but constructively explaining what is lacking for even reaching a first decision, and without making any binding promises.

If latter Risto decided after understanding the design fully that James controls too much of the Unity tokens or what ever (hey I don't understand it so don't ask me to explain), he would present some economics analysis and inviting discussion. This open form of constructive criticism can not be viewed as turf battles if participants are very careful to state and differentiate opinion from facts.

If latter Risto didn't find any flaw in the design and economics, but doubted the ability of the developer(s) to deliver SuperNet, he could state that he will refrain from investing until he has ascertained that the developers have implemented the design as specified and gained market acceptance.

If you are going to lead pooled capital, politics unavoidably follows you.

Edit: the comments I saw from Risto about SuperNet seemed to imply maybe that he was judging the man, jl777, and not the design and economics. That is not going to be good politics. Even if there is a reason to believe a particular coder has weaknesses, we must win our logic on the merits if we want the political protection that open source organization offers, not on the subjective no matter how much more efficient the former might be.

Edit#2: jl777 has himself written he forms designs in some part from trial and error as he works through the implementation. So that could be viewed as a weakness or strength for example, but that is a subjective opinion. Thus not worth arguing about. The proof is in the pudding. I don't think there is any doubt about his rate of coding being quite high.

[smooth]

I could do without anonymint's "if P=NP then there are many vulnerabilities" posts.  He's pretty accurate and insightful, but he completely misleads most readers, and quite recklessly.  Arguing math in a troll thread is asinine.  I doubt that he's done more good than harm at this point.

I have a new insight into my algorithm which I think obviates that comment smooth made in private about the P=NP question.

For the record aminorex's comment had nothing to do with the comment/joke I made in private about P=NP, since I had not disclosed that to anyone.

[rdnkjdi]

This open form of constructive criticism can not be viewed as turf battles if participants are very careful to state and differentiate opinion from facts.

^ this.  With money incentives around here - it completely makes objective opinions almost impossible to weed out.

[dEBRUYNE]

Afaics, the SuperNet needs to be better explained. Thus I can't comment constructively until I really understand all it, including the monetization and economics.

The is constructive criticism. I am not at-once trying to destroy it with my subjective opinions, yet I am also throwing caution at the point that I can't yet understand it all (at least the documents I read thus far).

For example, if Risto said he doesn't recommend investing in the SuperNet at this time, because he has not been able to ascertain all of the metrics of its design and intent. I would view that as open to the future of it, but constructively explaining what is lacking for even reaching a first decision, and without making any binding promises.

If latter Risto decided after understanding the design fully that James controls too much of the Unity tokens or what ever (hey I don't understand it so don't ask me to explain), he would present some economics analysis and inviting discussion. This open form of constructive criticism can not be viewed as turf battles if participants are very careful to state and differentiate opinion from facts.

If latter Risto didn't find any flaw in the design and economics, but doubted the ability of the developer(s) to deliver SuperNet, he could state that he will refrain from investing until he has ascertained that the developers have implemented the design as specified and gained market acceptance.

If you are going to lead pooled capital, politics unavoidably follows you.

Edit: the comments I saw from Risto about SuperNet seemed to imply maybe that he was judging the man, jl777, and not the design and economics. That is not going to be good politics. Even if there is a reason to believe a particular coder has weaknesses, we must win our logic on the merits if we want the political protection that open source organization offers, not on the subjective no matter how much more efficient the former might be.

Edit#2: jl777 has himself written he forms designs in some part from trial and error as he works through the implementation. So that could be viewed as a weakness or strength for example, but that is a subjective opinion. Thus not worth arguing about. The proof is in the pudding. I don't think there is any doubt about his rate of coding being quite high.

Did you read this? It's pretty clarifying: http://www.coinssource.com/supernets-coin-offering-raises-over-2000-bitcoins-hours/

[NewLiberty]

Did you read this? It's pretty clarifying: http://www.coinssource.com/supernets-coin-offering-raises-over-2000-bitcoins-hours/

I read it.
There are a lot of new words in that document that I don't understand.
Many of them are words to describe things that are planned.

With that understanding, the "100% coding, 0% marketing" phrase seemed, at least that phrase, to be 100% marketing.
Marketing deals with forward looking projections, plans, and public communications.

As much as the plan seems a great one...
Is there another communications document that only describes what exists already today?

[TheFascistMind]

Did you read this? It's pretty clarifying: http://www.coinssource.com/supernets-coin-offering-raises-over-2000-bitcoins-hours/

I read it.
There are a lot of new words in that document that I don't understand.
Many of them are words to describe things that are planned.

I agree there are concepts and words which are not formally specified. I will be learning more about this as I volunteering some review with jl777 of some of the design concepts. I've just started this, so I don't know yet how deep I will go into it. Please do not spread a rumor, "AnonyMint put his seal of approval or helped to audit the Teleport network". Unless I or jl777 will say something else on the matter, then the extent of my review will remain unspecified publicly.

It appears to be a way to provide some common features to all participating coins, with the most paramount initially being an anonymous transaction send (you can contrast it I guess to XMR's planned I2P integration if that is still proceeding?). I can not yet comment on the quality of the proposed anonymity. I may not comment on it, might rather encourage them to document it formally.

Afaics, the nodes of the SuperNet are not doing merged mining of all the participating coins. I am not saying they should, rather just pointing out this means the features (that can be) offered must be orthogonal to mining. This is the sort of generative essence insights I do. But I need details before I can do such genre of analysis.

Where I stand right now on the SuperNet, is the specification I've read thus far is lacking sufficient details for me to make a fully informed analysis. I've learned enough to see that it is interesting enough to learn more about. But I don't have time to go wading through discussion groups or source code to learn. And I already found one fundamental limiting factor of the design choice mentioned above. I will communicate with jl777.

Note I didn't write anything about the monetization or economics of the SuperNet.

[Este Nuno]

Did you read this? It's pretty clarifying: http://www.coinssource.com/supernets-coin-offering-raises-over-2000-bitcoins-hours/

I read it.
There are a lot of new words in that document that I don't understand.
Many of them are words to describe things that are planned.

With that understanding, the "100% coding, 0% marketing" phrase seemed, at least that phrase, to be 100% marketing.
Marketing deals with forward looking projections, plans, and public communications.

As much as the plan seems a great one...
Is there another communications document that only describes what exists already today?

Things that exist today are the MGW(https://github.com/jl777/multigateway) and libjl777(https://github.com/jl777/libjl777). They're just elements of the whole though, there's still a lot of work to be done linking everything together and then creating a good UI. The project is just beginning and there's still a lot of work ahead, but a lot of work as been done already.

I guess you could also say that BTCD, BBR, coinomat(fiat gateway), NXT AE, and BTER also exist today since they're all going to be essential elements of the network. But libjl777, MGW, instantDEX and other tech that's still in development is going to be what actually connects all these elements together. So there's been a lot of work completed already, but there's still a lot more to be done for such a large project.

[TheFascistMind]

Somehow I feel we are doing to XMR what we accuse them of doing to others, which is hijacking a thread about XMR (or CN coins) exploit and promoting SuperNet. Couldn't we move that discussion to an appropriate thread and provide a link?

Just saying.

[robinwilliams]

Somehow I feel we are doing to XMR what we accuse them of doing to others, which is hijacking a thread about XMR (or CN coins) exploit and promoting SuperNet. Couldn't we move that discussion to an appropriate thread and provide a link?

Just saying.

i doubt bcx cares 

[Este Nuno]

Somehow I feel we are doing to XMR what we accuse them of doing to others, which is hijacking a thread about XMR (or CN coins) exploit and promoting SuperNet. Couldn't we move that discussion to an appropriate thread and provide a link?

Just saying.

That certainly wasn't my intention but I had considered that when I just submitted that last post.

I just wanted to highlight the connection between your original post and James' philosophy in the post where I bought it up. Didn't mean to derail.

So we can nip this in the bud now and move on.

[iCEBREAKER]

The entire point of open source bazaars is they kickass on large cathedrals[1].

Open source is not just about source code being shared. It is a gift culture of sharing[2].

[1] http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

[2] The Bibles about open source from Eric Raymond (the man who invented the term open source), specifically the Magic Cauldron.

Cathedrals and bazaars are mutually supportive, not antagonistic.  Each is well suited for its respective purposes in a positive-sum economy.

One interesting thing about the myth of Ceridwen's magic cauldron is its synchronicity with the peddler's iron cauldron in the stone soup fable.

http://www.nahee.com/spanky/www/fractint/stone_soup.html

(Fractint had an enormous influence on little iCEBREAKER, years before Raymond's allegedly seminal essays.   )

[NewLiberty]

Somehow I feel we are doing to XMR what we accuse them of doing to others, which is hijacking a thread about XMR (or CN coins) exploit and promoting SuperNet. Couldn't we move that discussion to an appropriate thread and provide a link?

Just saying.

I just wanted to highlight the connection between your original post and James' philosophy in the post where I bought it up. Didn't mean to derail.

The philosophy is not unusual.  Despite the loud "this is better than that", the truth is often that both tend to better than either individually.
People are like that too.

Gathering a bunch of xNTJs and watching the judgement fly is still sometimes fun, but at the end of the day we have a lot more in common than our differences.

[TheFascistMind]

The entire point of open source bazaars is they kickass on large cathedrals[1].

Open source is not just about source code being shared. It is a gift culture of sharing[2].

[1] http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

[2] The Bibles about open source from Eric Raymond (the man who invented the term open source), specifically the Magic Cauldron.

Cathedrals and bazaars are mutually supportive, not antagonistic.  Each is well suited for its respective purposes in a positive-sum economy.

One interesting thing about the myth of Ceridwen's magic cauldron is its synchronicity with the peddler's iron cauldron in the stone soup fable.

http://www.nahee.com/spanky/www/fractint/stone_soup.html

(Fractint had an enormous influence on little iCEBREAKER, years before Raymond's allegedly seminal essays.   )

Even assuming the iron cauldron is an example of an Inverse Commons, I don't see how it logically supports the position that large cathedrals are mutual supportive of bazaars in sense that the larger and fewer they are the more supportative?

I do see how inverse commons can be shared by those cathedrals which are competing, e.g. IBM funding some open source project, but the more decentralized and finer grained those cathedrals, the faster will be the innovation.

I am so excited about the collapse of the medical industry, and within decades of that we will have innovations that have been stunted for decades such as hopefully a repair for my 90% blind right eye.

Get ready for designer offspring too, e.g. we can already select the gender and eye color. Once the regulation falls away, the options will proliferate.