Topic: EOS - Asynchronous Smart Contract Platform - (Dan Larimer of Bitshares/Steem) - page 153. (Read 189738 times)

I have a question, it is OK to use eos chain as a private chain,e.g. like some project modify bitcoin chain as their own chain?

Dan Larimer on the Future of EOS and Decentralized Applications.
And Dan Larimer will be one of many great speakers at Cryptopulco,
 part of Anarchapulco from February 15-18th followed by the TDV Internationalization &
 Investment Summit on February 19th. You can check out all those events and register now at Anarchapulco.com.
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@dollarvigilante/dan-larimer-on-the-future-of-eos-and-decentralized-applications

i just dont believe in this dan larimer
he is not working on his old coins, just earned money from them and left
who said he wont do it again?
also EOS is erc20 token...  :|

Here's a brand new EOS community Forum:


https://eosforum.org/


Have fun.

Indeed, and I believe that leaking private/personal conversations says a lot about someone's character, no matter how the mods react on this matter.

I don't know what other proof someone needs that you can't be trusted for anything.

On the other hand they deleted your lies about steem's blockchain/DPoS being offline/down, you had copy pasted your lies 5 or 6 times, too much work reporting them all. I believe I forgot to report one though.

Btw EOS warchest is filled with much more than $200.000.000, is growing by an aditional 1 million per day and has more than 13 devs working right now, how much funds did you manage to gather for your project? considering that you spend a portion of your time openly slandering, fuding, lying, using Goebbels tactics and leaking private/personal messages on the forums.



Once again you are trying to be at the center of attention.

Your ego is huge, you "radiate" it even in the letter you send to Armstrong in the other thread.

Here is a title for your autobiography... "ME, MYSELF AND I by Hyperme.sh"







  You really made me laught!

Afair from the last time I tried to use Telegram, forcing us to install a mobile app and give up a mobile #. The web signup (pertaining to a different altcoin project) did not seem to sufficient by itself when I tried it from my location a few weeks ago.

In this case, please do not claim words I did not write nor intentions I did not intend. I did not say for sure what is the case. I explained what happened to me in a similar situation.

---

@smooth thank you for your fair and logical reply.

I should also acknowledge that my original comments could have been construed to mean by some people that every facet of the system was down especially the concept of a blockchain as distinct from the ecosystem built around the potential forward progress of the ledger (regardless of whether most of the ecosystem could not send a transaction) and the nodes which are relied upon to serve the historic data, and thus you were correct to correct me on that point. I stand corrected and I admit I was wrong to give such a broad scope impression to those who interpreted my words as such. In my haste, I admit I failed to be as circumspect as I could have been in properly articulating myself to avoid angst and incorrect interpretations. And I admit that those who have railed against me are probably correct that I had some intention in my mind to draw a bad light on this fundraising effort (for the various reasons I had mentioned), so it is quite understandable that they would dig into me about this issue.

John has finally decided to open a dialogue and is pointing to this comment I made (extracted from a lengthy list of issues I raised):


Again I believe he is reading what he wants to read and not my intention. I am clearly linking there to:

http://archive.is/http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/steemit.com.html

Obviously that is not a link to any full node proof or claim that the block producing nodes are still up (even though that link does give a good indication that most of the forward progress of the blockchain would be stalled and thus down).

The context of that post was I was making general criticisms of DPoS and for example another criticism which has come forth is that the design of DPoS apparently does not fund these servers/nodes which have to supply the data from the history of the blockchain. To me, that is part of the blockchain, because it influences whether there will be (significant) forward progress of the blockchain because most of the users depend on it (as currently implemented afaik but no documentation for me to be sure unless I dig around in source code and such).


I have vacillated over the past 16 years on the global elite conspiracy theme. I became burned out on it for several years and was tired of listening to nutcases rail on and on about chemtrails, reptilians, etc.. But then recently I decided to watch some videos produced by PhDs and scholars about the evidence and arguments that Mossad did 9/11. And frankly, I can not refute that very compelling exposition.

Do you really believe that 9/11 was done by some Arabs who could not fly airplanes well in flight school who boarded the planes with box cutters (yet our government refuses to release the full length of the surveillance videos same as in the recent Las Vegas massacre). What is your explanation of this event ^{(other than to just ignore it and focus on the ass of the sheep in front of you)}?

I have an inquisitive mind.

I am interested in understanding the Zionists as it may pertain to what type of monetary systems, laws, and regulations we are headed into, so that my altcoin project has taken this into account as much as possible. It’s actually a very responsible action I am undertaking.

The reason this is so important is because who ever controls the one-world reserve currency can basically turn the world into slaves via debt similar to what is happening to Greece now and what will happen to the entire world soon due to the short dollar vortex underway:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/c192cedaed52ef11ef97acb239dc5986#euro-is-a-monetary-enslavement-paradigm

---

And “wet cats” also:


Asked the mod to delete the “content-free” post above and my response but nothing happened.

---

And whose fault is that for amplifying the attention in this thread on me.  

Don’t complain if you build your house next to an active volcano, then later have lava in the living room.


Hopefully this is my last post in this thread.

---

Trolls who falsely accuse others in public (thus resorting to guerrilla warfare tactics) should not be surprised when someone demands they’re culpable and that the issue is brought to light in public to clear the innocent person’s reputation.

You’re clearly resorting to similar tactics which thus demonstrates what a slime ball you are as well. Which is to be expected given your affiliation with Dan and his obfuscation money grabbing schemes.

You will reap what you sow. Continue flaunting the securities laws and such.


Since I am not planning any $300+ million pre-functional token sale money grabs, nobody needs to trust me for anything. The entire point of decentralized ledgers is they should be trustless and permissionless, but your leader seems to not think so, since DPoS is permissioned and requires trusting the whales.


There is no amount of money or resources that can give you the advantage, because since I first started trying to convince him in 2013 not to do so, your leader has never learned to remove collectivism and and inherent centralization from his designs[Rube Goldberg obfuscation schemes].


And left all his other projects. So we should really trust him with all our money and all our efforts and careers.


ftfy.

I’m at the center of attention because I’m writing important information. Because I’m an expert. And I do not need to convince you. The facts speak for themselves. The readers aren’t all as stupid as you and Dan apparently think they are.

The ultimate outcome will determine who has bragging rights. We’re still in the early innings of this contest.

Try the official telegram https://t.me/EOSproject

Does anyone know the answer to this?

I don't disagree on that point, as I said it was an important application (or part of the "system" if you want to call it that) that was down.


You are right on this point and it relates to EOS (and competitors such Ethereum) as well in the sense that no one has really explained how these so-called dapps are supposed to work, how they are hosted, etc. IMO this is largely because the capital driving it all does not really care about all that beyond the minimum necessary to sell some sizzle and just wants to trade tokens. Vague claims about 'world computer' and '100k tps' (hasn't Dan been selling that same line since BTS where it was just as meaningless and has not and never will be delivered?) are enough to do that.

Okay, which one of you clowns  linked to one of my informative posts? ...


Translated: There are some real sick puppies on this forum. 

As the title states, I have contributed ETH for EOS during multiple contribution periods and have 2 questions:

     1) My understanding is that I do not need to claim EOS tokens to my ETH address for me to get the allocation when the EOS blockchain goes live in June 2018.  
          The only requirement is that I register an EOS public address to my ETH address.  Is this correct?

     2) How can I view how much total EOS (which I have not claimed yet) is allocated to me using the contract function?

Well you know how the “claim is unproven” stuff goes.

That has been said about democracy for the past few 1000s of years and the argument goes on incessantly never to be unequivocally accepted as proven. Yet voting keeps causing megadeath but nobody quite seems to ever acknowledge the inviolable generative essence of the issue.

But do not mind me, I am just a delusional nutcase who believes in some expositions that 160 IQ genuises write about generative essence.

Instead of accepting my gracious offer (meaning to take scarce time away from other important work, because I cared enough) for a private or public verbal debate, he has stuck to his guns and run away which exhibits to me a lack of conviction and ethics:


If John wanted to stand on the high ground, he would pick up the phone as I offered.

I brought this public because he did. He decided to attack, I offered to settle in a private verbal conversation, he doubles-down (digs in his heels) on slander. So he reaps what he sows. I think all those who know me on a personal level, know I am reasonable person to those who are also reasonable. Who on this forum also writes self-deprecating disclaimers like this:


Maybe "Gleb Gamow". I loved his altcoin announcement. Lol.

What can I do with trolls[the self-anointed, omniscient ethics judges] who refuse to have any sort of reasonable interaction? Just refute, move on, ignore.


A few facts which John Titor can not deny (unless he wants to lie):

• Someone misquoted me with a verbatim quote that alleged I wrote verbatim “dpos was down”. I never wrote those exact words and it is trolling to insert words into a quote which someone did not write verbatim. John apparently claims I am lying about claiming I did not write those exact words. Thus John is lying. Notwithstanding that he says he read my discussion with @smooth and any interpretation he chooses to make from that discussion (which I may disagree with), but in no way can that cause those exact words to be what I wrote when I factually never wrote those exact words.
• The major websites that drive data to the decentralized ledger of Steem/Steemit were down. This affected 1000s of users. I was not lying when I claimed that the ledger was essentially down, because most of the users were presumably unable to send any transactions.
• I never wrote that the block producers or every specific aspect of the decentralized ledger was down. I wrote that Steemit DPOS as seen from busy.org (and steemit.com and steemd) was down. That is what I wrote, yet somehow John claims I am lying.
• I pointed out that this could possibly affect other altcoins which also employ DPoS and my thinking on that was further explained in the recent discussion where I explained for example that collectivized transaction fees apparently means there is no direct revenue model to fund these “sites” aspect of the (interaction with) ledger which are necessary for the users to be able to interact and send transactions to the ledger.
• Afair, I also went to steem.org and tried to find a block explorer or any documentation which would have given me any additional insight and was entirely unable to find anything in short order that would be applicable. The salient point being that the project is highly disorganized and lacks even technical documentation, reliable block explorers, etc..

I have no idea what the hell is wrong with him. I wanted to speak with him and get some clarifications. I tried.

I certainly do not understand how the above stance is delusional. I would like for him to explain that allegation to me. But based on his communications, I do not think he is interested in truth.

Srsly John, if you wanted to pick an issue to try to nail me to the cross with, you’d pick one with less ambiguity so you could have the unequivocal proof you need. Opinions are like assholes not like unequivocal facts.

In short, you made a mountain out of a molehill, beat a dead horse, and slandered a person who is working as hard as he can to try to counteract very serious problems in our ecosystem and in the coming global world order.

Oh but I am delusional so I just think I am doing that and it is all in my imagination. In fact, I ingested magic mushrooms and I am hallucinating about it all. Gotcha. You hold on to that thought. Put it in your pocket and do not lose it.

It is not an issue of myself being unwilling to accept being wrong. I accepted @smooth’s factual assertion that the block producing nodes were not down and his argument that this meant technically that the “blockchain” was not down from his perspective of what it means for a blockchain to be functional or not.

I will not accept someone falsely accusing me of lying and accusing me that I claimed something I did not claim. If I had 100% certainly that every aspect of the blockchain was down, I would have written that! Instead I wrote what my observations were that Steemit DPoS was down as observed from busy.org, so I qualified my assertion by mentioning what I had checked. Do you not think that myself being a programmer that if I had certain knowledge of the inner most core of the ledger system of Steem/Steemit being down that I would not have harped on that   Come on man. Use your brain.

And again, I do not feel any remorse at all for mentioning that it was down, because as I said, it was down effectively for 1000s of users.

In the software business, defensive positions about definitions are for losers who do not understand the bottom line. When the shit is down for 1000s of users, then you have a serious fucking problem.


1000s of users who afaik supply the vast majority of the data for the Steem blockchain were not transacting because the shit was down. I do not understand why that is so difficult for people to appreciate.

Again it was not only Steemit that was non-functional because of the inability to pull data from the blockchain. It was also busy.org and also steemd was non-functional (an error about something) at the same time. I would quesstimate that 90+% of the traffic to the block producing nodes was non-functional and not sending transactions.

Again it was apparently not the websites which were non-functional as the web pages were loading. Yet it was the data from the ledger which was not being served. Now you claim these servers/nodes which supply the data from the blockchain to these sites is not part of the blockchain. That is your definition. There is no conspicuous official documentation I have ever seen which makes all of these definitions you are claiming to be the official ones. Heck there is not even a proper whitepaper for the DPoS blockchain. It is not even clear if there is any funding and economic model for these nodes/servers which are suppose to provide the data from the blockchain to the front-end sites.

Yet somehow you still claim that the system was functional. Yeah functional for a few whales and nerds, but not for the users. Isn‘t that just a wee bit disingenuous or facetious to claim it was functional?

It's akin to arguing with your girlfriend that you only broke her arm in one place and not two. Only a clueless nerd would try to argue the distinction. Steve Jobs would fire the person who claimed it was functional when 1000s users were offline.

Other apropos analogies are “I puffed but I did not inhale“ and “just do not hold it that way”.

If it is my project, I would not be making fucking excuses about definitions and trying to discredit the person who reported the flaw based on arguing about definitions. I would say, “yeah we need to fix that”. And get to work on fixing it.

BCT debates are so efficient.  

@Hyperme.sh

I agree that spammers with very large stake (and as you say, possibly little or even negative economic exposure; btw, this need not be direct shorting, etc., it could include having a positive exposure to a competing system) can disrupt by spamming. They could also disrupt by electing malicious or just poorly-performing block producers, especially given the natural and inevitable voter apathy problem where a large portion of stake does not and will not vote intelligently or at all. (It is quite plausible to me that a motivated 10-20% stakeholder could either vote all block producers or disrupt the voting sufficiently to cause other problems.) I'm not sure how much the spamming angle adds to this sort of vulnerability, but maybe it does. Overall, I'd rate this claim as unproven by both sides.

I take that is not quite being what Vitalik was claiming, but who knows.


I'm not sure what you were talking about here. The ledger was not down. Exchanges (which run their own nodes) were still able to transact. Other people running their own nodes (including myself) were able to transact. Some lesser known web-UIs running their own nodes were still functioning.

The steemit web UI (along with others that use the steemit-provided nodes) is essentially an application that uses the blockchain, and it is an important one, but it isn't the only one.

As a long-time forum lurker, I appreciate the time and effort that was taken to make some of the thoughtful posts in this thread.

supply should pretty much triple, so most people roughly expect 1/2 to 1/3 of current price bottom at constant cap, kinda like zcash did. it's really not designed to be profitable for buyers.

Btw, I could careless about the price. I was not posting in this thread to try to collapse the price or with any delusions about having any impact at all on the eventual FOMO outcome.

I post mainly to share what I know when I observe no one else is sharing similar to my perspective, and to learn from any discussions which are spawned. It is a way of testing my analysis to it if passes mustard, so that my decisions will rely on somewhat vetted analysis.

There are rare instances where I observe someone else making the arguments I would want to make or the arguments are not important enough to lose time making, so I just remain silent or perhaps add a terse +1 post.

I would say this post is very close to borderline being “not important enough to lose time making”, yet I think it is important to note that I have no objective other than what I stated above and to rail against our ecosystem incentivizing bad disclosure by rewarding $300+ million to a guy who is making technological (and potentially legal/criminal) blunders and obfuscating/hyping/overstating/omitting material facts.

Edit: out of curiosity I looked at the price chart of the first time ever, and it appears to me it is in the long bottom fishing period where the whales accumulate before the FOMO pump.

IMO, the price is great and only getting better... 

Can we have a discussion about EOS, please?