Pages:
Author

Topic: Andreas M. Antonopoulos is "bullish on Ethereum" - page 3. (Read 5925 times)

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
If this is certainty true, this "attacker" is pretty brilliant. Not that I encourage it, but he is playing game theory fairly well.

Also do you know who he is? You stated in a previous post you know him.

Mircea Popescu (aka MPOE, MP, or MPeX) is brilliant:

VS
Fight!!!!


Judging by this, the maverick Mircea Popescu seems to be taking credit:

http://trilema.com/2016/to-the-dao-and-the-ethereum-community-fuck-you/


Quoth MP:

Quote
Bitcoin is a sovereign. Accepting this matter of fact is a sine qua non prerequisite for playing. No exceptions.

Please tell me why the next G20 meeting can't address this email exchange as a serious threat to their collective authority and resolve to make necessary decrees from the EU to provide the necessary legal authority to prosecute MPOE.

Also MPOE you are taking a huge personal risk here. You better not have the slightest mistake as they might find it easier to take you down with a trumped up charge.

If all else fails, a fiery car accident.

I admire people with balls but combined with some basic common sense. It does me no good to associate with people who are so careless so as to actively seek their own destruction.

You seem to feel very indignant about this and have the sort of Paul Revere attitude of "give me liberty or give me death".

I just think there are much smarter ways of fighting than out in the open. The quality of ones weapons and strategy determines if they are the victor, not the quality of resolve alone.

The Apaches were never defeated because they didn't fight in the open:

http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/02.html

I think you would have been much better served to have replied that you need to be legally indemnified before releasing private data. That is all you needed to say. You talk too much. Although you are articulate, you are clearly not an attorney and you should hire one immediately and STFU.

Note I was banned from tortilla's new forum cryptocrypt.org for essentially stating the prior paragraph.

Edit: essentially you are doing political grandstanding. You can't beat society at its own game. Politics is not the successful strategy.

Above "tortilla" was rpietila.


Below I found "MPeX" trying to prove P ≠ NP:


I still believe there is some insight to gleem from the observation (conjecture or proven?) that converting deterministic intractable problems into tractable problems makes them nondeterministic and unbounded in entropy, but I am not seeing yet how to frame it in a way that proves anything. Perhaps proving that the conversion must be unbounded would prove P ≠ NP. I need to contemplate that.

On proving P ≠ NP, I do not understand why it can't be proven that the algorithmic Kolmogorov complexity of the "traveling salesman problem" is at least O(n2(2n-n-1)), i.e. an exponential lower bound, which is just below the O(n22n) of Held-Karp algorithm which is the best known algorithm  Huh

My logic is so simple, that I must be missing something.

At best the algorithm can cache so optimal computation of each grouping of cities will only be computed once (i.e. the number of unique times), by Reed's law we get 2n-n-1 groupings of cities. And for the first leg of the path possibilities, Metcalf's law tells us there are n2 possible unique links between cities.

Afaics, it is definitionally impossible to compute at fewer algorithmic steps than the Kolmogorov complexity, because that is the minimum information content of the algorithm, i.e. the entropy.

Even if we applied some heuristic such as grouping cities in clusters, this would not be an absolute assurance of the optimum path. There is no way to get the assurance while reducing the deterministic algorithm complexity below the Kolmogorov complexity.

Since this algorithm is NP-hard and the related NP-complete problem can be reduced to it, then every problem in NP has the same lower bound. The Independent Set on a planar graph is listed an exception of NP-complete problems being EXP, but this is for edges of the graph that can't intersect, which obviously the "traveling salesman problem" can't be reduced to without some exponential blowup remapping because the links between cities can overlap.

All the NP-hard (and NP-complete reduced on them) problems revolve around exhaustively searching an exponential set of unique possibilities for an optimum. The Kolmogorov complexity can't be reduced to polynomial, because there can't exist a short-cut that destroys information and still is optimum. Once the computation is below the threshold of the Kolmogorov complexity, the result can't be deterministically optimum.

Here is a nearly duplicate proof, but he fails to multiply by n2.

One of the similar attempts at a proof I've seen is this one which also attempts to prove a lower bound of the algorithmic complexity. And in his 2014 update, he mentions Kolmogorov complexity as the justification.

Another paper on quick glance appears to try to prove all NP-complete problems are a clustering problem that can't be solved in polynomial time.

This is very well written.

P.S. I was amazed to stumble onto an attempted proof by our very own cohort MPex.


Edit: A possible reason my idea about doesn't work in a proof, from the researcher who discovered the NP complexity class:

...




If the "attacker" exposes him/herself and he/she is in the US as he said in the open letter, I think he could be sent to prison for the hacking with bad intent.

MP is the person who drained the DAO. Did you read my post above where I wrote to verify the Keccak hash?

MP is the antithesis of Craig Wright. He does not bullshit. MP is the one who did this. He is surely capable of it.

Trivial factoid: MP and rpietila were enemies since before 2013. And in 2013, MP sent AnonyMint a private message offering collaboration.

AnonyMint has grown to respect MP as a maverick peer, and in some respects in awe of MP. MP's support of Blockstream could end up causing a conflict between MP and AnonyMint at some point in the near future.  Grin Titans will do battle. Prepare your cupboard supply of popcorn.

I am confused by MP's support of Blockstream, because I thought he was for small blocks and was willing to kill XT to defend the status quo (i.e. Classic):

DA: The people behind ethereum are deceptive, for example everyone with a clue (Adam Back, Gregory Maxwell) knows that there is 0% chance for “CASPER” proof of stake to work, but yet they advertise it.

Note TPTB_need_war was the first person pointing out that Casper wouldn't work in the Ethereum Paradox thread and also on Reddit. Yet MP gives Blockstream credit for TPTB's research.  Angry
legendary
Activity: 4354
Merit: 3614
what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?
gotta admit, even as one who holds some eth and dao tokens, the entertainment value of watching this guy toss daos around like popcorn is worth losing it all Smiley

of course when "investing" in any crypto i kiss it goodby. if it works great. if it goes down in flames one can only hope its as fun watching it crash and burn as this one is.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Litecoin Association Director
Andreas is doubling-down on desperation?

If I am a miner, I will support the soft fork and freeze the stolen funds. If the DAO holders offer us 50% of the stolen funds, we will do a hard fork.

If the miners can benefit from the hacking like this and the hacker does not benefit, he may think twice before his next hacking.

Other miners will mine more profitably by accepting his offer and thus have a greater hashrate.

Checkmate. Your vote has been economically overridden.

Andreas and Emin getting frantic and grasping for straws:

https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/744769932739624960




So 2 wrongs make a right?

Nope. You all had a chance to only get a 30% haircut, but you were determined to vote, thus commit 2 wrongs and break Nash equilibrium and lose 100%:

The "attacker" was very emphathetic. He offered a 30% haircut, but you n00bs weren't contented and so you now you will lose everything.

Stoopid.

What are you taking about 30% haircut?

In the attacker's original interview, he stated he stopped draining the DAO at 30% drained, as an olive branch of sorts. But this depends of course of you not stealing his rightfully gained tokens with your insecure 51% attack hard fork.

Since you've all voted to steal his tokens, he is forced to drain the rest of your tokens and redistribute them to a new set of miners who will replace your existing miners.

You guys passed up the best chance you had to not lose it all.

If this is certainty true, this "attacker" is pretty brilliant. Not that I encourage it, but he is playing game theory fairly well.


Also do you know who he is? You stated in a previous post you know him.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
Andreas is doubling-down on desperation?

If I am a miner, I will support the soft fork and freeze the stolen funds. If the DAO holders offer us 50% of the stolen funds, we will do a hard fork.

If the miners can benefit from the hacking like this and the hacker does not benefit, he may think twice before his next hacking.

Other miners will mine more profitably by accepting his offer and thus have a greater hashrate.

Checkmate. Your vote has been economically overridden.

Andreas and Emin getting frantic and grasping for straws:

https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/744769932739624960




So 2 wrongs make a right?

Nope. You all had a chance to only get a 30% haircut, but you were determined to vote, thus commit 2 wrongs and break Nash equilibrium and lose 100%:

The "attacker" was very emphathetic. He offered a 30% haircut, but you n00bs weren't contented and so you now you will lose everything.

Stoopid.

What are you taking about 30% haircut?

In the attacker's original interview, he stated he stopped draining the DAO at 30% drained, as an olive branch of sorts. But this depends of course of you not stealing his rightfully gained tokens with your insecure 51% attack hard fork.

Since you've all voted to steal his tokens, he is forced to drain the rest of your tokens and redistribute them to a new set of miners who will replace your existing miners.

You guys passed up the best chance you had to not lose it all.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
Smooth and I discussing the optimum way of funding/launching development, and the Nash equilibrium of block chains.

Ethereum, Blockstream (Bitcoin core), BitShares, DASH all break Nash equilibrium.

I agree with smooth, there should be no DAO nor governance (i.e. no voting, not even from miners) in control of forking the block chain. The DAOs should only be for decentralizing projects and organizations (including corporations). DASH and Bitshares have this incorrect PoS+governance design and Ira Miller@DASH is incorrect about automation being unrealistic or evil:

so how can you shut down a decentralized autonomous organization?

Do you know any decentralized autonomous organization ?

I don't ..

Yes, DASH.org.  The first DAO.  

The difference: Marketing that feature is taking a backseat to development.  Doing it right I'd say.

DASH does seem to be a functioning DAO where D is distributed but sure if it is decentralized control. The stakeholders apparently vote on the actions or management of the development of the open source. The stakeholders apparently approved to have % of the mining rewards paid to a foundation which then distributes the funds according to projects approved by votes of the stakeholders. However what is not clear to me is to what degree this is all enforced by smart contract protocol or done manually by the foundation.

There are allegations however that the distribution of the DASH tokens were highly concentrated by an alleged instamine and subsequent masternode ROI scheme which may have further concentrated the tokens held by the core insiders. But I don't know if anyone has been able to prove conclusively that DASH is not really decentralized, although the suspicion is apparently strong amongst some especially Monero supporters.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
OP, no he's not bullish on ETH. He's just interested in the concept of experiment with smart contracts, not ETH specifically.

This is what I am thinking also, but kennyP does have a valid concern that maybe Andreas has sold out his reputation and will go down in flames as Roger Ver did with his endorsements of Mt. Gox near the end.

In support of your and my thought, let me quote Andreas specifically from upthread as follows:

"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody!  ...
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
If the Ethereum recovers from the current crisis, it could be stronger than ever. There are many big investors in it.
"Recovers" how exactly? By becoming a centralized, alterable and non-censorship-resistant blockchain? Any kind of fork that controls coins is a huge mistake. They're even talking about forcing a HF by investing a lot of money to rent out mining power. Roll Eyes

OP, no he's not bullish on ETH. He's just interested in the concept of experiment with smart contracts, not ETH specifically.
full member
Activity: 239
Merit: 250
If the Ethereum recovers from the current crisis, it could be stronger than ever. There are many big investors in it.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6495

"What is the difference between a government or bank which decides to override the free market, and a block chain that does the same?"

Attorney Brian Klein: "People will pick block chains so to speak based on do they want whether someone can intercede or do they want it more autonomous. Bitcoin seems to be more hands off right, and if Ethereum gets more hands on, that is going to change the perception of the people who are investing and building it. So I think maybe there will be a third block chain (that sort of a third ledger or whatever you want to call it) that rises because it offers a different variable. People will pick what they want."

Attorneys should stick to what they know, which is the law. In general (and it appears in this specific case) they know next to nothing or nothing at all about blockchain technology. A blockchain that is "hands on" accomplishes literally nothing useful. The concept is vacuous. It is like attorneys arguing over the title to an empty bank account.

Smooth I know you were rushed when you wrote that (because he told me in PM that he didn't have time today), so I want to say I agree with that attorney's analysis.

The people who want a hands-on block chain will get the clusterfuck they deserve and go down in flames with it.

Those who want Blockstream's clusterfuck centralization Rube Goldberg "improvements" (which are almost as bad as Vitalik's but atleast they know how to code), will cling to Bitcoin as it becomes ever more centralized.

And those that want something truly decentralized, with scaling for microtransactions onchain, and with secure killer app smart contracts, will need a third block chain. I am working on this project.

Everyone should be free to choose. Who I am to tell them what to do. Free will. Free markets. Techno-Anarchism. Reap what you sow.
hero member
Activity: 544
Merit: 500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6117

"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody!  ... Learned some hard lessons ... enormous funding ... will come back ... the experiment is awesome ... I'm looking forward to DAOv2.0"

what a deja vu moment ... why is Andreas flushing his reputation down the toilet for The DAO?



Quote
I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world.  For now,  I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.


Interesting perspective, do you believe Andres is flushing his reputation down the toilet because of this?

You should be aware that he offered to help them when they were going down (out of good faith im sure). Not sure if he ever worked on their code.

Andreas saying "I'm bullish on Ethereum" is designed to prop up ETH, same as what Ver was trying to do when he made that infamous video in support of Mt Gox. He's trying to use his reputation as a crypto evangelist to encourage people to not dump ETH, despite the hard fork, knowing that's there's a good chance ethereum might be fatally wounded now that the project leaders have abandoned the ideals of decentralisation to save The DAO when we all know ethereum has no known bug itself. Why is AA doing this, is it because he owns a lot of ETH and/or DAO? I don't know, but after all he has said and done the last 3 years, his 'bullish' attitude towards ethereum looks on a par with Ver's support of Mt Gox i.e. very insincere

Andreas offering support and tech assistance is one thing, but "bullish" .... I think he'll regret that video almost immediately.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Litecoin Association Director
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6117

"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody!  ... Learned some hard lessons ... enormous funding ... will come back ... the experiment is awesome ... I'm looking forward to DAOv2.0"

what a deja vu moment ... why is Andreas flushing his reputation down the toilet for The DAO?



Quote
I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world.  For now,  I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.


Interesting perspective, do you believe Andres is flushing his reputation down the toilet because of this?

You should be aware that he offered to help them when they were going down (out of good faith im sure). Not sure if he ever worked on their code.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
Edit: For starters they also need  a coin that can scale as the main chain for this to work and Bitcoin does not meet this requirement.

Thanks. That was my conclusion also.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6117

"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody!  ... Learned some hard lessons ... enormous funding ... will come back ... the experiment is awesome ... I'm looking forward to DAOv2.0"

what a deja vu moment ... why is Andreas flushing his reputation down the toilet for The DAO?



Quote
I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
...

kiklo opined a reason:

Attorneys comment on the likelihood of SEC or other regulation/action against DAOs or crypto-currency in general:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=7789

Side note, you see those dark circles under that guys eyes in the video.
Symptoms of Liver Stress or Damage, not good.


 Cool

But I also opined a reason upthread:

...Andreas makes the point that Ethereum can allow full exploration of the range of innovation because of the Turing-complete scripts, which Bitcoin can't do. So it seems he worships Ethereum because he thinks it is necessary for achieving maximum innovation.

Well I am going to try to teach Andreas that only some contracts are killer apps and those are the highest priority.

Hey I like Andreas. He is an inspiring speaker, articulate, and reasonably precise in his analysis of the details. I don't want to pick a fight with him. Perhaps he just needs some capable project other than Ethereum to "show me the code, talk is cheap". Since we are only talking, then I can't fault Andreas.

It is better to get along with everybody, except I am not going to follow the path/fantasy of the script kiddies.
legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
ArticMine, the merged mining for Namecoin with very minimal validation can't be compared to the extensive CPU resources required to verify smart contracts.

I have no confidence whatsoever in Rootstock being merge-mined by Bitcoin miners. Fuhgeddaboudit.

Rube Goldberg machines suck.

Time will tell, and I am also unsure if they will get the hashrate. They will need a percentage of the hashrate comparable to that of Namecoin in order to be secure. otherwise they could get attacked for the reasons you cited above. Of course if it fails or even if it works then one can learn from it and build something better.

Edit: For starters they also need  a coin that can scale as the main chain for this to work and Bitcoin does not meet this requirement.
hero member
Activity: 544
Merit: 500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6117

"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody!  ... Learned some hard lessons ... enormous funding ... will come back ... the experiment is awesome ... I'm looking forward to DAOv2.0"

what a deja vu moment ... why is Andreas flushing his reputation down the toilet for The DAO?



Quote
I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
I had a nice chat with MTGOX CEO, Mark Karpeles, about their current situation.
He showed me multiple bank statements, as well as letters from banks and lawyers.
I'm sure that all the current withdrawal problems at MTGOX are being caused by the traditional banking system, not because of a lack of liquidity at MTGOX.
The traditional banking partners that MTGOX needs to work with are not able to keep up with the demands of the growing Bitcoin economy.
The dozens of people that make up the MTGOX team are hard at work establishing additional banking partners, that eventually will make dealing with MTGOX easier for all their customers around the world.  For now,  I hope that everyone will continue working on Bitcoin projects that will help make the world a better place.

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
ArticMine, the merged mining for Namecoin with very minimal validation can't be compared to the extensive CPU resources required to verify smart contracts.

I have no confidence whatsoever in Rootstock being merge-mined by Bitcoin miners. Fuhgeddaboudit.

Rube Goldberg machines suck.
legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
...
Bitcoin can't validate the Counterparty invariants, thus Counterparty can't have decentralized consensus. Sorry you can't put smart contracts on the Bitcoin block chain. Rootstock is making a side-chain instead.

But the larger issue is scaling. And also of course the fact that Turing-complete scripts can blow up. To solve this, you need me. I've been working on the technological issues for 2 - 3 years.

A side chain is the proper way to do this, and it can be merged mined with the main chain. Scaling as we both know is a very serious issue so one has to start with a base coin that can scale on the main chain properly even before adding smart contracts. Then address the scaling issues of the smart contracts themselves.

Side-chains are insecure:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/side-chains-challenges-potential-1397614121
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7613520
http://www.rootstock.io/blog/sidechains-drivechains-and-rsk-2-way-peg-design

My expectation is that Blockstream (+ the Chinese mining cartel) are going to either outright break or centralize the mining/control of Bitcoin. We need to be ready with something that works correctly for when they do.

It is not that simple. Namecoin has 35% of Bitcoin's hashrate and generates only 0.063% of the miner reward revenue. 1 NMC = 0.00063 XBT. This is actually comparable to 10% of the current Bitcoin fee revenue as a percentage of the overall miner reward. Furthermore, My take is that in the case of a pegged sidechain there is actually an even lower cost to merge mine because one does not have to sell a different coin in an exchange. For many miners the hassle of exchanging the NMC for XBT is likely not worth the trouble; however in the case of a sidechain with a two way peg this exchange issue is avoided. In the case of a pegged sidechain say generating the say even as low as 0.5% of the main chain revenue one could expect and even greater proportion of the main chain's hashrate. Yes one would need 17.5 of the Bitcoin hashrate to launch a 51% attack against Namecoin; however for a Bitcoin pool such an attack has potentially a much higher downside, in the negative public relation such an attack could generate alone, than the comparably minuscule reward such an attack could produce..

This issue of double spend attacks could for example be dealt with by treating transactions between chains as coinbase transactions (120 blocks rather than 6 blocks).

I do agree that is requires a fair amount further research, but I am not prepared to simply dismiss it based on just the comments in the articles. Namecoin does provide some very compelling evidence over many years that merged mining can work even when there is a marked difference in the revenue generated by the main chain and the merged mined alt-coin or side chain.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6495

"What is the difference between a government or bank which decides to override the free market, and a block chain that does the same?"

Attorney Brian Klein: "People will pick block chains so to speak based on do they want whether someone can intercede or do they want it more autonomous. Bitcoin seems to be more hands off right, and if Ethereum gets more hands on, that is going to change the perception of the people who are investing and building it. So I think maybe there will be a third block chain (that sort of a third ledger or whatever you want to call it) that rises because it offers a different variable. People will pick what they want."

Attorneys should stick to what they know, which is the law. In general (and it appears in this specific case) they know next to nothing or nothing at all about blockchain technology. A blockchain that is "hands on" accomplishes literally nothing useful. The concept is vacuous. It is like attorneys arguing over the title to an empty bank account.

Quote
So it seems he worships Ethereum because he thinks it is necessary for achieving maximum innovation.

Maximum innovation of how many different ways you can title an empty bank account. It is clear from this episode that the entire project as constructed is pointless, fork or no fork.

"The Attacker" was one clever dude, or lucky, to find this fatal vulnerability, not only in the coding of the DAO (which can be fixed in future contracts, maybe) but in the entire foundation and premise of the project (which can not), and I'm going to go with clever.

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
Smooth and I discussing the optimum way of funding/launching development, and the Nash equilibrium of block chains.

Ethereum, Blockstream (Bitcoin core), BitShares, DASH all break Nash equilibrium.
Pages:
Jump to: