Topic: EOS - Asynchronous Smart Contract Platform - (Dan Larimer of Bitshares/Steem) - page 147. (Read 189738 times)

Do you really think he is the only person with that idea and the only group working on that idea. Heck Mark Zimmer of Apple Computer (a programmer/founder/CTO I used to work with/for, who was personally recruited by Steve Jobs) gave me that idea on his blog several months ago, of automating the things for companies that are being stolen such as customer logins and identity (do you want the link?). Come on. I remember when I pointed out to Dan in a Steemit comment in 2016 that SSL certificates could be made more secure on the blockchain and he thought that was a really cool idea. So maybe I am the one who started his thought process down the direction it is now. Who knows.

Execution is what matters. And decentralization.

If they were sure of their own execution, they would not need to cash out¹ before they even produce it.

Ideas are like assholes, everybody has them.

Do you have any idea how many people are working on ideas in this world? Expect the number of token projects to multiply by another factor of 10 by next year. Execution is what matters. There will be an oversupply of ideas.


There is a lot more to making an investment than just an idea. Do you support their ethics? Is the token sale transparent and above board (did you not see upthread that the token sale is being gamed algorithmically)?

Do you want to invest in centralized ledgers? Is centralized governance via voting the direction you think our future will go? Did we get into crypto because we wanted to replicate the horrific political-economics of governments?

Etc, etc, etc.

Only you can decide what is important to you.

Personally I got interested in decentralized ledgers (decentralized coordination) because I wanted to try to see if we could change the structure of the world, not right back to same ole shit. Wallstreet, money, governments, and corruption. EOS appears to be knee deep in that shit.

If you just want monetary gains from speculating that others will speculate. Then by all means grab some of the FOMO train and ride on.

¹ Even if they’re collecting the funds to form an investment fund in app developers, that is still not a valid reason they need to take it upfront. They could have instead executed first, then sold tokens into the market to raise funds after they proved their execution. But they apparently think they have avoided securities laws by structuring it the way they have, but I do not think so. I think the securities law avoidance is just an obfuscation of their desire to cash out because they’re not sure if they can really execute. Execution is more than just producing a functional blockchain. It is about also proving they can get any market uptake and interest from real adoption in the corporate market they’re targeting. Perhaps they think they can with $2 billion in funds essentially bribe/incentivize interest to adopt, but markets can not be created artificially. There actually must exist use cases. If the funds can be employed to develop for actual use cases the markets have, then it works. But they have not proven that they have these marketing and development chops (a combined skillset). So far I do not see any accomplished software product marketers on their team listed on their website. They have enough funds to hire some. For example, I could refer them to Steve Guttman who I worked with when I worked with Mark Zimmer. Steve was a VP of Marketing at Adobe and made Photoshop the king of commercial graphic editors. He was VP for us at Fractal Design and he went on to be a VP of Marketing at Microsoft. If I see them hire someone of that caliber, then maybe I will think they’re serious about execution. So far all I see is mostly these ii5 people from Hong Kong who are roughly in their 20s and have no experience.

Btw, EOS apparently did no KYC and thus backlash is coming:


And EOS will add another $2 billion.

AML law typically says that if selling a convertible virtual currency, then must do KYC. I have no idea what quality of attorneys are advising EOS. Are they ignorant of AML laws  

Possibly Dan et al are going to have bigger problems to worry about than coding and execution.

Disclaimer: I am only expressing personal opinions. IANAL nor an advisor of any sort.

I am starting to read and research more about EOS. I am still not convinced to investing, but every day looks like a great idea.


This idea in the paper is awesome. But is too difficult to accomplish. And he is not even close to the goal.

Yet you are incapable of debating any of the technological arguments. I have challenged you to do so and you can only reply with childish drivel and no technological points. And yet Vitalik and PhDs from Tendermint Github agree with me (or we can say I agree with them). And yet no one credible is supporting your drivel. And don’t you dare try to claim something that @smooth did not write. I know very well his opinion.

Delusion much.

We’ll see who wins EOS or my project. I expect you will run away and refuse to admit it later.


Prove it.

Upthread you claimed I am scamming and I challenged you to provide any evidence and you have none.

Every claim you make is lacking of sufficient evidence or technical exposition.

Goodbye loser.

At this point you’re just a useless troll that is wasting everyone’s time. I put you on Ignore now. Goodbye.

You have not made a single useful or correct point in the past several pages of drivel.

You remind me of DecentralizeEconomics who was trolling me because I was stating that Greg Meredith of Synereo was a hypester and the technology he had was all smoke & mirrors. So in the end I was correct and DecentralizeEconomics ends up filing a lawsuit against Meredith. But this was after he slandered and trolled me to no end, even claiming all kinds of drivel about me that was not true.

I am going to laugh when the DPoS ”scratch my back if I scratch yours” oligarchy of whales clusterfuck implodes and y’all are attacking each other.

You are yet another in a long-list of anonymous troll scumbags who will end up being incorrect.

I still do and you are perhaps the only person that can't see it. You are so obsessed with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTeehzvymqI&feature=youtu.be&t=09s GET OVER IT and MOVE ON.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iznogoud




And yet you are lying, once more.

It's your blantant lies that the mods deleted from this forum and it's YOU that have been banned numerous times from this forum! Do you care to tell us how many times exactly you have been banned and the exact reasons?

Ah I would not count on that. When BTC peaks, then there might be a lot of FOMO money spilling out into alts. And looking at major alts, there are not that many solid choices. So many speculators are perhaps going to look at ETH at $28 billion marketcap and EOS at $0.5B mcap, and somehow equate the two since EOS will have a first-mover advantage higher transaction volume capability (even though it is just vaporware and a lot of work to get to point that ERC-20 tokens are being issued on EOS someday).

Betting against FOMO-fever is not wise. It will all probably come crashing down someday, but probably not in 2017. I think the prior decline in price before the recent hype about accelerated progress, was probably the down move for 2017. Alts are about to catch a bid after mid-November.

There’s no argument from me about them being astute at money grabs. Their timing was impeccable.

Unlike @chryspano, I am not going to intentionally lie to you to try to force the reality to be different than it is, so I can end up being wrong later. I’ll call a spade a spade.

Even the 0.5 billion shares still to be issued, does not put EOS at $28B mcap yet. Isn‘t the FOMO-fever capable of pushing EOS up to near ETH’s mcap in spite of it being not yet launched, nor even to be a mature product when it is launched in middle of 2018?

Please do not tell me that suddenly our ecosystem will become prudent and virtuous. It’s all about flipping bags to grandmas and millennials. Get on board the train man so no child left behind!

Do not forget that we have Dan’s “sui generis, blockchain mogul” reputation on sale here. Afair, Steem peaked briefly as a Top 5 mcap, or surely it was Top 10.

me too, it seems the price will not rise high until the ico end, the market recently may prove that, pump only a few days then falls

this ICO is too fishy for me haha
non stop ICO when they said that they already funded  XD

Vitalik might agree:

https://btcmanager.com/vitalik-buterin-speaks-out-against-raiden-ico-donates-advisor-proceeds-to-charity/

IMO, Dan will never create anything truly decentralized (well anything is possible, but I am talking about not winning the lottery odds). Because up to this point, all of his designs have been Rube Goldberg obfuscations. Even the pegging of BitAssets is not viable. Pegs can never be maintained (this can be proven mathematically) and they require centralization to hold up for the limited time until they ultimately fail. I can not find anything he has ever designed that had any prayer of actually being decentralized. It is all adhoc (not researched) bullshit.

As far as I can tell (after watching numerous videos, interacting with him on these forums in 2013, and observing his designs hence), Dan is not a genius. He is a moderately intelligent aerospace engineer who switched over to computer programming. Evidently, he is in way over his head in terms of trying to solve the decentralization of the Byzantine Generals Problem. Have they hired any academics or researchers who are capable? Afaics, Ian Grigg is not an expert in Byzantine Fault Tolerant decentralization. I saw his presentation trying to justify the governance of DPoS.

EOS will scale transaction volume, but because it is controlled by an oligarchy of whales. And this is not resilient, trustless, permissionless, nor decentralized control. Thus it will never Internet scale, because it will fall to the political-economics of centralization and voting.

Vitalik is closer to a genius, and I am sure he is much smarter than Dan. Dan is pragmatic. Vitalik is idealistic and trying to find an algorithmic solution. It’s possible that Vitalik's idealism may end up causing Ethereum to fall behind in the race for transaction volume scaling. Dan’s pragmaticism is to go after transaction volume scaling pronto and disregard the idealism for a decentralized solution, and instead pretend DPoS is decentralized.

Any way, EOS and Ethereum are not the only horses in this race. Surprises are coming. There is already Cardano which was produced by academics. That is from Charles Hoskinson’s IOHK (the co-founder Dan kicked out of Bitshares and broke verbal contracts with). There is the RBB academic work out of Australia. And there are others coming up in 2018 as well.

Nobody is against Dan doing his thing and putting his hat into the ring. But the lying and bullying of respected experts is ridiculous. Dan participated in a technical discussion on Tendermint’s Github (and I heard PhDs participated), then he runs to his whale controlled circlejerk on Steemit to write some nonsense to his faithful n00b idiots like @chryspano. Ditto in the debate with Vitalik.

Instead Dan and Block.one are not driven by the goal of academic research and acknowledging all feedback and working for the best outcomes. Clearly instead they are motivated by money and money and money only. They will do anything and say anything to get money, even when by doing so they are suppressing the advancement of the science. I had the thought that maybe Dan became more insecure about sufficient funding after Bitshares exhausted their funds. Yet he claims they already have enough self-funding from their Steem premeditated, sneakyfastmine money grab.

And srsly, going for a $2 billion fundraising and lying to get there, is of course going to cause blowback as what you are seeing here now. If he was really serious about the work, he does not need $2 billion all at once. He could have held tokens and built up the project, then his tokens over time would be worth much more than $2 billion if he actually succeeded. But no, they want to do it some scammy way where they get all the ETH and they get the tokens also (by manipulating/gaming the token sale), and then advertising to grandmothers with billboards and taxi cab ads in New York.

What really set me off is when @chryspano seemed to think that Dan is superior to me in research and knowledge about decentralized ledgers. Even after I wrote a blog demonstrating he is mistaken, he refuses or is incapable of acknowledging reality.

It is not really a big deal to code up DPoS (yes of course any significant coding project requires effort and man-years). The more difficult challenge is finding the design that can actually remain decentralized.

Also the zero transaction fee design has tradeoffs. Do you see EOS being open in their prospectus about the tradeoffs? Or are they claiming that everyone else is incorrect and their solution is perfect!

Srsly going for a $2 billion token sale and not even having a quality white paper.  

Decentalized OS is a really big deal and I'm absolutely sure that there are a lot of challenges that must be overcome to get high performance, sustainability and infinitely scalable system
It would be better developed as a academical project, not as startup
that's why I have my doubts, it's not about prices, it's about technical stuff

I'm a software engineer and I can recall a lot of projects where initially brilliant ideas has been later broken by hardware and other limitations

You have no evidence to support this accusation.

Frankly I do not see what is the transgression with replying to people who had expressed some prior interest in being angel investors and who are accredited or if not who reside in countries that do not require investors to be accredited (yet should still be sophisticated).

And btw, I hope you realize that your inane warnings are not going to hinder my project. Do you always have such childish fantasies about your power?

You are incapable of refuting any of the facts I have presented against EOS.

You are handling what should be a mature debate of the facts as the childish idiot that you are.

You lie to the readers about everything. Including lying about the factual nature of my technological exposition and the exposition of facts about the legality/transparency of the EOS token sale.

And course this makes you livid, as is quite apparent to all the readers here.

How many more tirades are you going to make today about me, while you continue to avoid any of the facts that have been presented against EOS?

As for the personal matter between you and I, again I am ready any time you want to set a time and place. I will spend my own funds and go out of my way to settle this man-to-man with you, if you provide sufficient bond that will be forfeited if you do not show up. That is if you are even a man.


It is spelled ‘pity’. You do not pity anyone. You are a cold blooded, anonymous profiteer.

And I am confident they will be laughing at you.

Be carefull of this scammer, I pitty the fools that trusted him with any sum of money.

I see a huge "Conflict of interest" in what you do here dear Iznogoud, you FUD legitimate projects while at the same time you try to gain support for your own never ending scamproject.

"Something is being finalized that you don’t want to miss" I did not know it was so easy to fool people! How much funds did you get so far? is there any transparency in this?

No, go find someone else to play with.

 

@chryspano are you 5 years old?

==================================



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iznogoud

This has to be added to the whole picture...

Iznogoud is back folks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iznogoud




[Edit] I like that iznogoud is deleting his post and reposting it again to "frontrun" this thread, it's one of the silly "tactics" he has]

1. Claiming they are not subject to US securities laws because they claim they did not sell to US persons, yet it is documented that US persons did purchase the token sale. They refused to do KYC to prevent US persons from participating. Ditto for Chinese, Koreans, UK, Canadians, and other countries which have strict securities laws and are cracking down. So they incorporate in the Caymans and presumably expect to hide behind layers of lawyers. Let’s see how that works out for them and those accomplices affiliates like @chryspano.

2. Running the ICO for a year so they can pump hype about being ahead of schedule, cause the price to jump way up so they can sell, then let the price crash back down so they buy their own ICO. Recycling their money over and over again to extract maximum rents from the ecosystem while ending up with most of the ICO tokens for themselves via numerous sockpuppets same as they did for Steem. Running their tokens through Bitfinex in Hong Kong with that Tether et al scam that Brock Pierce is involved with so presumably they can obscure the disposals of the funds to fiat so as to obscure how their extensive organized crime syndicate is buying their own ICO. Look into the conglomerate structure of the parent companies of Bitfinex and climb down that rabbit hole. Even Dan announced in a blog that they would do this admitting in writing that he is scamming.

3. Documented upthread that the ICO is designed to be algorithmically gamed (details linked upthread) so that this is unfair. Dan was warned about this before launch and chose to ignore it.

4. Terms of the token sale claim that the tokens are not be part of any future software distribution, and that there is no common enterprise because the funds raised are not being used to create such a software distribution, yet in videos  and promotions they claim exactly the opposite that they are using the funds to develop what will be the software distribution. Clearly all the speculators here expect the tokens to be the tokens of the software distribution.

5. Lying about their technology. Ridiculing other experts (including PhDs of computer science from Tendermint, Vitalik, and myself) who write correctly about their technology.

6. Failing to admit that DPoS only functions properly if the stake (tokens) are controlled by an oligarchy of whales.

7. Lying about the past performance of the technology, even having their shills here declare me a liar when I point about that the Steem system has been DDoS attacked numerous times because the zero transaction fee nonsense does not fund the perimeter nodes of the system.

Vitalik was interviewed:


Is this childishness representative of the EOS project?

I can play this game too

You still delete and repost your posts iznogoud? You never got away from this silly habit of yours.

Do I have to take pics everytime you post something?

I'm doing daily EOS technical analysis on YouTube using Elliot Wave Theory and Trend line analysis.

Please check it out if you are a day/swing trader as it help you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-DFnlrOIrM

There is no need to "technologicaly rebuttal" the crap you spew out dude. I'm not here to convince anyone for anything, you are.



The only idiot here is the one that thinks that he is better than Dan. You spent too much effort to this, do you see him in your dreams?



Yes, it seems you actually see him in your dreams, you are no mach for him, get over it.