Topic: IOTA - Permissioned ledger Russian extortion scheme - page 11. (Read 20168 times)

From what I can see, Iota will be mighty profitable. For initial investors and those investing now

Ironically, the other NXT affiliates are doing the same thing.  Come from Beyond left NXT to try and create a cash grab with this coin, then the rest of them are creating some new PoS IPO coin called "Waves", which is probably mostly identical to NXT and has no real reason to exist.  It seems anyone who has ever touched NXT is a serial IPO launcher trying to get people to send them some cash.

That one would be appropriate here, and would not imply finiteness.
I think a majority of people would answer 4 if you ask for
the number of areas formed by 2 intersecting lines on a plane surface.

You're right my question is no longer relevant...

Btw, the answers to the two questions differ by the number of unbounded areas,
which is easily seen to be 2*L; one for each line-end.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/area.html

The size of a surface.

The amount of space inside the boundary of a flat (2-dimensional) object such as a triangle or circle.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/area

2. the surface included within a set of lines

5. a particular extent of space or surface or one serving a special function


They didn't state the plane is finite, because the definition of a plane doesn't require it.


Mathematicians don't cite every trivial prior art detail when they write a white paper. We don't regurgitate the definitions of every word we use when we use it.


Why is this still relevant?

The question says "their intersecting lines form 1,597 areas".
That doesn't suggest finite areas to me, or to most mathematicians.
If finite areas were meant, it would have been made explicit in the question.

Your solution should start out by stating that you interpret area to mean finite areas.

Anyway, getting back to my question:

What is the maximum number of finite areas created with L lines?

You are counting infinite regions which are not bounded:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55008.html

Those have no definable "area" as the question pertains. Thus I claim you are wrong and even the designers of the question are wrong if they expected your answer.

This isn't the first time I corrected the answer on an IQ test.  


Edit: tromp has a high IQ. That is quite clear. And he is afaik more formally trained in math than I am. I am not going to claim I am smarter than him. IQ is overrated any way, as was explained upthread.

What is the maximum number of areas created with L lines?

The russian needs more caviar

It's never enough

After 5 projects he launch a new one and noobs will give him food for one more year

I see I did take that in account in my solution. Thus I don't see the error you allege. Please elaborate on the error you claim.

The general approach you take is correct of course, but you get several details wrong.
I'll give you some time to identify them yourself...

Please elaborate.

Unfortunately, your posted answer of 59 lines is wrong:-(

U are obviously very smart, and a very nice person to hang out with.
Who doesnt dig guys like this.

~CfA~

It depends which problem one is trying to solve: a) something new to sell to speculators, or b) a system that can scale decentralized because your plans for the use of the CC require that it does.

Satoshi's proof-of-work design is flawed in that it falls to centralization due to economies-of-scale. But the interim Nash equilibrium does function until centralization is at 33% or above, as Bitcoin proved during its nascent period. (Hint: I just refuted CfB's prior post but there is a deeper refutation that I would like to see someone else articulate)

But note every known consensus system for a block chain fails to centralization due to economies-of-scale.

I think I know how to fix Satoshi's design. My future white paper will explain the threats that remain.

For me, the problem with this coin is it effectively throws away the benefits of proof of work while retaining it's drawbacks, thus not functioning as a decentralized, permissionless system as cited in the first post.  In that instance, you've created something that functionally falls into the same category as proof of stake, just with higher overhead and worse economic incentives.  The economic incentives are so misaligned, the coin doesn't even work at all at release.  The solution, CFB calls it, is "training wheels", or checkpoints.

The coin's value should theoretically increase as the security of the network does, at least that's how normal systems function.  A baseball player that hits 100 home runs a year usually makes more than one that hits 0 home runs.  With this coin, the security at release is 0, but we're supposed to believe the for-profit issuer of the coin that the price should be high when the network doesn't even work.  We're then supposed to all willingly join in on this extortion scheme and pay for security now which doesn't exist, with the naive dream it will some day in the future.  The way the coin is designed is not really conducive in creating a network effect for this to happen though.  You're buying something that needs to go from 0 to large tipping point instantly with nothing in between.  It's like hoping dogs will randomly begin walking on two feet and start talking out of nowhere.

Anyway, as I was saying, since the coin already functionally falls into the same category as proof of stake, and the outside entropy of the coin serves no real purpose, he may as well of just created a closed loop proof of stake derivative in the first place and attempted to scale via something like deterministic block production.  You'd end up recreating some system like Bitshares, which like all proof of stake systems, is also a permissioned ledger, not anti-fragile, horrific fault/state recovery, etc etc.  The point is, this coin is not a valid contendor or replacement to Bitcoin, neither are the proof of stake coins that share many of the same characteristics.

Real world example

Let's say North Korea is sanctioned by every nation on earth for smoking too much marijuana.  They're now cut off from all international trade and economically suffering.  If Bitcoin is the world reserve currency, they can use their technological know how to start mining Bitcoins because it's a permissionless system.  They now have a currency they can use to buy food and supplies from a semi-friendly but not complete ally proxy nation like China.

If IOTA was the world reserve currency, they do not have a permissionless entry point into the system at all because Bitcoin is a system of permanent coin turnover and IOTA isn't because it's a permissioned ledger.  They're now forced to attempt to trade something with China to acquire IOTAs, but maybe they don't have anything China wants so they can acquire no coins at all and they're completely locked out (obviously not a decentralized currency).  

Their best case scenario is, since China only sees them as useful idiots and not a real ally, they will then charge them with a markup for coins, along with another markup for whatever proxy goods they want through them.  Let's not forget the Come from Beyond day 0 extortion tax either since he cornered the market by design at release.  Thus, you have now been extorted three times in this chain of command due to it being a permissioned ledger and not a real decentralized currency.

Your IQ is apparently insufficient to understand what I wrote. Your rebuttal is not a rebuttal but you don't understand why.

This folks is the difference between a genius level IQ and not. I'll leave it as a homework problem for CfB or anyone else who wants to demonstrate they have genius level understanding of the Nash equilibrium w.r.t. block chain consensus algorithms.

*jots down medical notes*

Yes, yes... very good. You are showing yourself to be quite the social and focused developer you believe yourself to be. I'm glad you have "smashed" my trolling and have discovered my low IQ - also a vigilante and detective on top of world class programming skills. Bravo!

Actually it's still an insult in a big part of the world that is behind your window.