Pages:
Author

Topic: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? - page 32. (Read 79977 times)

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
I entirely agree.  This is always the same law: predictions are difficult if they concern the future.  It is the crypto equivalent of Malkiel's thesis, that there's no "smart investor" that *systematically* can outsmart the market, and that in the long run, monkeys playing on the stock market do just as well as hedge fund managers.
 
But of course, on every time slice, there are lottery winners, who think they have something special.

Well not in the small of uniqueness, but as I presume you know, there are ordered repeating patterns in chaos on the large aggregate perspective, i.e. the Sun rises every day and humans have on the average a consistent lifespan and age of maturation. I believe Martin Armstrong taps into this order to increase his odds of being correct about the future macro environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor#Strange_attractor
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
Any takes on why in the fuck is freaking Dash skyrocketing?

Roger Ver promoted it on Casey Research. Given the tiny actual float of Dash (i.e. most of the market cap is locked up in masternodes and otherwise controlled by "Evan Inc"), this has been sufficient to create a situation of demand far outstripping supply of liquid tokens.

I want to stop writing about Dash, because I don't believe it is a trustless blockchain. I believe (or let's say it is alleged with strong corroborating circumstantial evidence) it is controlled by "Evan Inc".
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
Any takes on why in the fuck is freaking Dash skyrocketing?

Im happy that I didn't buy any altcoins and decided to stay all in on bitcoin as I predicted it was going to keep climbing.

On the other hand, im more interested in making more BTC rather han making more USD, and im mad that im not holding Dash, but then again, of all the altcoins.. who would have known Dash would fly?

Did they make any advancements in the technology or this the mere result of agressive marketing thanks to Amanda B Jonhson plastered all over Youtube? In that case, I expect a big ass dump.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
but there must be a better solution.

There is.
full member
Activity: 532
Merit: 101
One argument against PoW is that it require inflation to secure the network but actually it is not an issue with a proper distribution model the issue with btc is that the blockreward decreases exponentially with time which isn't even needed for limited supply, does not really matter anyway since bitcoin is likely to have been replaced way before that becomes an issue.

Asic farms securing the network has both disadvantages and advantages, but maybe we will have to accept that it is impossible to have a cryptocurrency that remqins centralized. Mining farms have unlike GPU miners invested into decuring the network and would thus lose money from killing the coin.

DPOS does offer fast transaction time and good scalability, but there must be a better solution.

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
go buy a laptop loser.

again, look in the mirror and say out loud...

eye wee todd did

The powerful logic of those who like ICOs and centralization.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
Our OpenShare project now has one facet of its mission statement and raison d'être.



are you saying that dev shouldnt make any money ? dont you remember that even smooth makes money from steem ?
honestly i dont care how much Evan earn. as long as the product work as advertised, i buy it.

No. Yes. But doing in a way that violates SEC regulations isn't going to end well. (btw, I think you may be correct and I may have mischaracterized Steem on the Coinbase Securities Law test and I will go check that now)

My issue with it is that if it is true that it is not an aggregate market, then it can in theory be manipulated such that n00bs are fooled into buying not based on rational free markets.

And that would mean a project is extracting disproportionate capital from the ecosystem relative to its real contribution to benefits for the ecosystem.

I don't want to make money cheating people. I want to make money helping people. I want to compete in a meritocracy. It is a fundamental difference. A society of fraud collapses into MadMax destruction.

go buy a laptop loser.

again, look in the mirror and say out loud...

eye wee todd did
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
As btc nears gold parity the gold bugs have come out against btc hard.

The so called "gold bugs" have been right all along, just none of those guys know enough about bitcoin to articulate why.  The fact is, bitcoin does NOT function as a store of value, period.  The way bitcoin is designed pigeonholes it into acting as a settlement layer, and what is the #1 attribute needed for being a settlement layer?  ...being a store of value.  This makes it kind of inherently designed to fail at what it's supposed to do because bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum, it has to compete against the noble metals.  The noble metals are orders of magnitude better in anti-fragility, store of value, and even decentralization than bitcoin is.

As I said before:

A settlement layer has to compete with or beat gold as a store of value.  Bitcoin cannot accomplish that task so it has to do something else besides being a settlement layer or there is no point!

This means bitcoin's value has to be floated by raw transaction flow instead of people hoarding it for no reason as a store of value.  It is my estimate that you would need something like 5000 TPS in order for bitcoin to function as a raw transaction handler instead of a store of value.  And the following post explains why bitcoin isn't a store of value in the first place:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-vol-7-bitcoin-is-not-an-actual-store-of-value-because-there-is-no-real-price-floor-or-inelastic-demand

I actually agree that you need very high adoption and TPS to achieve any lasting system with crypto. What do you think I am working on!
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
I didn't take the time to read all 16 pages, but regarding the financial elite turning off financial transfers in a doomsday scenario, thus forcing miners to turn off their machines, why wouldn't the electric provider accept Bitcoin or litecoin as payment for their service?

I'd rather not focus on that upthread diversion. It wasn't a particularly strong point. That is not the main problem with Bitcoin.

The intended point was simply that if we didn't have to rely on PoW (and its numerous disadvantages), it would be better (assuming all of PoW's positive attributes were retained).
newbie
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
I didn't take the time to read all 16 pages, but regarding the financial elite turning off financial transfers in a doomsday scenario, thus forcing miners to turn off their machines, why wouldn't the electric provider accept Bitcoin or litecoin as payment for their service?
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
Our OpenShare project now has one facet of its mission statement and raison d'être.



are you saying that dev shouldnt make any money ? dont you remember that even smooth makes money from steem ?
honestly i dont care how much Evan earn. as long as the product work as advertised, i buy it.

No. Yes. But doing in a way that violates SEC regulations isn't going to end well. (btw, I think you may be correct and I may have mischaracterized Steem on the Coinbase Securities Law test and I will go check that now)

My issue with it is that if it is true that it is not an aggregate market, then it can in theory be manipulated such that n00bs are fooled into buying not based on rational free markets.

And that would mean a project is extracting disproportionate capital from the ecosystem relative to its real contribution to benefits for the ecosystem.

I don't want to make money cheating people. I want to make money helping people. I want to compete in a meritocracy. It is a fundamental difference. A society of fraud collapses into MadMax destruction.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
Buyer buys a software token. He gets what he buys on that day same as any other owner of tokens selling his copy of the software, not future promises. A free market.

Is it the same model that David and CfB did with IOTA, labelling the token as a software?

Ostensibly IOTA sold future promises, a timeline, etc. Afaik, the IOTA blockchain software wasn't even running live when they sold tokens. Afaik, it wasn't even possible transfer tokens to another party for some time until after tokens were sold.

True. I didn't consider this point. To provide with you income I assume your tokens would come from a premine. Premine should be OK in this corrupt swamp what cryptocurrency movement became.

More details on the differences in the Coinbase Securities Law Framework scoring system.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
Buyer buys a software token. He gets what he buys on that day same as any other owner of tokens selling his copy of the software, not future promises. A free market.


Is it the same model that David and CfB did with IOTA, labelling the token as a software?

Ostensibly IOTA sold future promises, a timeline, etc. Afaik, the IOTA blockchain software wasn't even running live when they sold tokens. Afaik, it wasn't even possible transfer tokens to another party for some time until after tokens were sold.


True. I didn't consider this point. To provide with you income I assume your tokens would come from a premine. Premine should be OK in this corrupt swamp what cryptocurrency movement became.

You will not be able to get a lot of distributed coins without doing significant work (or paying someone to for you). In essence my distribution scheme is a "proof of work" but not a computational Proof-of-work.

Several developers have been working on this. Some try to attach charitable activity to the coin. Others require large amount of verifiable artistic work. Satoshi's proof of work leads to centralization of influence and it is clearly a problematic method. With your skills you should be able to create a competitive and attractive method.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
This guy thinks Vitalik will go to jail.

Liar:

However, given Vitalik's rich father's political connections, I would doubt he will go to jail. We live a corrupt world.

...

Who knows. My popcorn is ready.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
This guy thinks Vitalik will go to jail. He doesn't know what he is talking about.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
@mining1:

Thanks for your cordial post. My counter argument is the following essay by Nicholas Taleb:


Before you read this, please read Surgeons Should Not Look Like Surgeons by Nicholas Taleb, the progenitor of antifragility.

Hahaha Smiley  The problem with that statement is that you get an unsolvable game-theoretic recursion.

If, to be *recognized* as a successful surgeon, you have to look like a lumberjack, then the smoothest of actors will of course adapt to this perception, and most scammer-fake-surgeon charlatans will look like lumberjacks, to adhere to the image that the best surgeons "don't look like a surgeon"...

Yeah I thought of that too, but by that implication he was intending that you will use no criteria at all to predict that which can't be predicted and the great failures cost of groupthink instead of decentralized annealing. But you may be missing Taleb's point as you are apparently reading it too literally and not focusing on the generative essence he is trying to convey. His point (as evident in the opening where he writes "Business plans are for suckers — Donaldo Hiring practitioners –the glory of bureaucracy") is that we can't know creativity and fitness a priori. He is making the point that IQ tests are abused "on the other side" of the mean as you (correctly) stated.

Past performance and well scoped plans of mice and men are not the predictors of success in the game of unknowable creative discovery and achievement. For more than a decade after my successes of WordUp and CoolPage, I produced only flops (aka lemons).

This is why speculators should not buy an ICO and instead buy that which is already launched and clearly a successful divergent paradigm-shift.

It also means that after 3 years of waiting for Ethereum to gain millions of adoption, its established inertia is not necessarily indicative of future success. Inertia tends to metastasize and rot. Saplings grow to oak trees, but aging oak trees don't grow to the moon. The early adopter exponential phase of Ethereum's growth is over. Just like Bitcoin, the dynamic headroom of what it can be is already baked into its inertia. ETH and BTC have one more 10 bagger (up to and less than 100X) run in them (per the technology adoption curve since they passed the first hump already), but that is all. Ditto Monero and Dash.

Speculators are attempting to know what is impossible to know too early. And thus they are being taken in by 100s of ICOs and going to end up in an ICO graveyard.

It used to be that speculators could perhaps gauge which ICOs had a superior level of hype and marketing, so they could speculate not on actuated creative technological achievement, but on the ICO being the actual launch of the manipulation of the minds of speculators (aka "mining the speculators"). But now we are entering a new phase where there will be an an oversupply (market saturation) of ICOs which have copied that "the ICO is the launch of the reality distortion field" paradigm. Ethereum is spawning offspring (i.e. smart contract) copycats of its own reality distortion field business model, which may cannabalize ETH itself.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
1 Also I want to clear up something. I don't claim to have a genius level IQ as measured by a standardized IQ test. My IQ is above 130. When I have admonished about IQ, this was about those who do not seem to understand Taleb's point above. And I often equated such people to those who seem to not even have the level of IQ to comprehend, i.e. let's grab out of our ass a 115 IQ cutoff point roughly. Many IQ tests don't seem to measure divergent thinking, which was the point of my essay Essence of a Genius. High IQ is indicative of some cognitive powers which are very helpful for cognitive production, but what IQ measures is insufficient by itself to guarantee great accomplishments. For example, a person who scores higher than me on a Raven matrices IQ test, would solve Rubik's cubes faster than me and beat me in most well established games where the strategy can be enumerated, but that doesn't mean they will necessarily beat me in a game of creative divergent opportunities where the established patterns are unknowable because they don't exist until they are created, i.e. the future in chaos theory can't be computed. My Myers-Brigg profile type is ENTP and I am 88% on iNtuition. My Myers-Brigg type are those who are the visionaries.

It is essentially impossible to "measure genius".  IQ tests were developed as a medical tool to diagnose mental deficiency in children.  It is entirely abused "on the other side of the scale".
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
@mining1:

Thanks for your cordial post. My counter argument is the following essay by Nicholas Taleb:


Before you read this, please read Surgeons Should Not Look Like Surgeons by Nicholas Taleb, the progenitor of antifragility.

Hahaha Smiley  The problem with that statement is that you get an unsolvable game-theoretic recursion.

If, to be *recognized* as a successful surgeon, you have to look like a lumberjack, then the smoothest of actors will of course adapt to this perception, and most scammer-fake-surgeon charlatans will look like lumberjacks, to adhere to the image that the best surgeons "don't look like a surgeon".  It is then the good surgeon that doesn't need publicity as "good surgeon looking like a lumberjack" that will dress nicely because he has the money and doesn't need to play his "lumberjack" role to get to a job, because he's good enough to do without image building (like argued in the blog article).
However, once that's the case again, most actors-charlatans will again look like fancy dressed people, because they don't want to look like the charlatan-lumberjack fake surgeons.  And so on.

There's a world where this "lumber jack attitude" is in fact often the case: computer science and physics.  The smooth guy in a fancy suit is never going to get hired, because the image of the brilliant computer scientist or physicist is the dirty porky fat guy in front of his terminal, slurping coca cola and eating pizzas while looking at his code / data / calculations.  But this is now so much part of the image of a good physicist or computer scientist, that if you go for a job interview, you better DON'T dress fancy.

So a physicist that can "afford" to dress nicely, must be one hell of a physicist,  because he doesn't need his "porky fat man image building".

etc...

 
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
@mining1:

Thanks for your cordial post. My counter argument is the following essay by Nicholas Taleb:


Before you read this, please read Surgeons Should Not Look Like Surgeons by Nicholas Taleb, the progenitor of antifragility.

The high IQ1 genius Nicholas Taleb will publish his blogs to the blogging platform with the most readers, the best tools, and also the one that is the most antifragile (and a blockchain controlled by whales doesn't qualify as antifragile).

Thus I will welcome him to OpenShare (http://opensha.re). He and I have traded a single, terse email in the past.

Note that in open source, the resources needed come naturally to the project which is the most needed by the ecosystem.

1 Also I want to clear up something. I don't claim to have a genius level IQ as measured by a standardized IQ test. My IQ is above 130. When I have admonished about IQ, this was about those who do not seem to understand Taleb's point above. And I often equated such people to those who seem to not even have the threshold level of IQ to comprehend, i.e. let's grab out of our ass a 115 IQ cutoff point roughly. Many IQ tests don't seem to measure divergent thinking, which was the point of my essay Essence of a Genius. High IQ is indicative of some cognitive powers which are very helpful for cognitive production, but what IQ measures is insufficient by itself to guarantee great accomplishments. For example, a person who scores higher than me on a Raven matrices IQ test, would solve Rubik's cubes faster than me and beat me in most well established games where the strategy can be enumerated, but that doesn't mean they will necessarily beat me in a game of creative divergent opportunities where the established patterns are unknowable because they don't exist until they are created, i.e. the future in chaos theory can't be computed. My Myers-Briggs profile type is ENFP and I am 88% on iNtuition. My Myers-Briggs type are those who are the visionaries or inspirers.

Pages:
Jump to: