Topic: IOTA - Permissioned ledger Russian extortion scheme - page 13. (Read 20168 times)

You must have realized this AFTER iotatoken turned down your offer of collaboration, surely.

The distinction is that that there is no way to verify from the block chain whether every payee did employ the Monte Carlo judgement. Thus there is no Nash equilibrium.

Kaboom!

This is great

I would have paid money to see all you characters sparring with CFB. You're losing btw. But you should because you are all full of shit.

You guys are pretty scared of Iota I see. I wonder what a look up my ass would turn up? Smooth??

||

Take all that together with the fact that Bitcoin's consensus convergence depends either on all payees choosing to employ the same Longest Chain Wins judgement

Notwithstanding the bickering here which the users (and even most investors in a big success) of a CC are never going to read, the bottom line is which aspects are required for a CC to scale up and compete with or overrun Bitcoin?

I am of the opinion that there is really no benefit to exerting great effort to try to stop P&Ds of CCs which are going no where, e.g. Dash and Ethereum. My goal has been to primarily to make sure that the technological issues have been properly documented; and this was mostly for myself, to make sure I don't make the same technological mistakes on my coin. Notice I've given up trying to comment in every Ethereum thread, because I've realized that gamblers love P&Ds and there is nothing I can or should do to fix the Gambler's Fallacy psychosis/addiction.

I will posit that the breadth of the initial distribution of the coin is critical, because CC is not a widely used unit-of-account (i.e. chicken-or-egg dilemma) thus the HODLers are not going to be reinvesting their CC in new ventures and thus the CC won't redistribute out to employees of new ventures and thus the CC will become stagnant. With a great majority of the coins held and not recirculating, then the network effects will be limited to arbitrage opportunity cost, e.g. blowing bubbles in other altcoins. None of this will ignite a mass user ecosystem.

So it really doesn't matter if the lead developers find some way to mine 1% of the coins to reward themselves, if the other 99% of the coins are more widely distributed amongst those who will circulate them (and not just dump to HODLers as was the case for Auroracoin), than is the case for Bitcoin. Such an ideal distribution will run gangbusters over everything else. Of course if the insiders take double-digit percentages of the coins, then they have defeated their own long-term investment in network effects and thus should not be taken seriously. The problem with PoW coins distributed up to now, is they are not widely distributed amongst the ultimate users of a CC, which is why they haven't been able to gain sufficient network effects to challenge Bitcoin.

This will be the single most critical trait of a CC that will overtake Bitcoin, bar none.

I am literally opening my playbook for you.

Other than distribution, the other key aspect is whether the economic structure of the consensus algorithm can remain decentralized as the use of the currency scales up. So far, no CC has solved this dilemma.

And then I would posit that until you solve instant secure confirmations (which Iota doesn't have), you'll not be able to employ the CC in the markets where credit cards can't compete well.

Take all that together with the fact that Iota's consensus convergence depends either on all payees choosing to employ the same Monte Carlo judgement (which they are not required to do by the game theory) or on centralized servers with more PoW hashrate than the attackers, then for me Iota is doomed. But don't expect me to waste my time repeating it and trying to cure the Gambler's Fallacy. CfB and iotatoken have a right to extract from that phenomenon, but I just hope for their own sake they are aware of the laws that regulate them even though I'd prefer there are no such laws.

We both know that deep inside your heart (maybe too deep for your conscious) you have answered "yes"...

The time is going on, don't waste it if you care about your reputation. If you do NOT care, it's fine for me too.

Wow smooth, so now people need to list usernames on a spam forum filled with monero shit so they can prove to YOU or that cryptohunter that their choice of coun is legit?
You think if he puts a random of like 50 accounts in THIS forum "lol" you would be believe he's credibility to you OMG this is hilarious.
Go back to your work in coding that's if you think you are a coder after all not sure if ur a crypto developer or a spammer; I am sure you're dream to have something like Fluffy pony aeodice maybe and giving your best buddy 21000 coins just like Othe did with Fluffy pony.
This only proves you're a shit developer and all about spamming this coin hating on other people choices, Web designer shit.

No

Your English, by the way, is quite good, but I haven't noticed any improvement.

For Iota BTT doesn't matter. For me everyone of you matters. Partially because I like to troll back to improve my English, partially because I'm a soft-hearted person with developed empathy skill and I care about your well-being. Confess, when I reply to your posts you do feel yourself less useless, don't you?

You could be right. I was just thinking that it would mean creating a lot of puppets and making them look convincing too.

I know I would 100% prefer POW as a distributional method. However, it seems nothing will ever stop ICO's.
The devs always claim they need funding for their ideas which they say they can not get immediately with pow.
Some people will not buy or rent hash and they will always have a crack at an ICO.

If it was the norm for ICO to publish usernames and do 50% or 75% POW then all other ICO that did not do this would immediately ring alarm bells.
There needs to be a away to please enough people for them to get behind it and support it.
The fair release protocol that many POW devs stuck to during wave 2 was actually quite good.
Miners all saw the rules were there to ensure everyone got a equal chance and actually united to demand devs released in that way.

Would be a great to see things swing back to POW although every big release of late has been ICO of some kind.

Usernames? LOL. no. ICOs as they are currently understood are just unsalvageable in terms of non-transparency and susceptibility to abuse. All you accomplish with such easily-abused measures is to put a shinier veneer of legitimacy on them.

Why are you beating around the bush? Just put your money where your mouth is, thats all. Escrow: OgNasty

Resorting to threats now?  Come on, you know I can just send Bidji the French connection on you.

Let this be the decision of the person who pays the bounty. (*)
And would you mind removing your signature? It's kind of bizarre if you dish out "pumper" and well behave like every other signature spammer.

(*) food for thought

It would be best it was a third party entirely disconnected from a known iota supporter. It's okay i'm clear on what you were suggesting. I just don't think it appropriate.

It's good to see that you are pushing for an in depth investigation into the iota ico though. You know it makes sense to vindicate the project from here on out. All ico should post usernames of investors really. Many have in the past. It would not stop puppet accounts but would make it easier to find them and analyse.

Read again, it's a third party. A master student actually, I don't have a strong enough background in statistics.
And read the quoted statement again, you seem confused.

You're a known iota pumper. I don't think using your services to seek truth in this area would be suitable.

Better to have an objective person.

How can we really have a detailed study?? that's the problem with unregulated ico with no transparency.

I remember though NEM went through their ico list in public and vetted it for sock puppets.

Best in future to vanquish all ico or at the very least have open list of investers usernames.

I might have someone at hand. Do you offer a bounty? Detailed studies need a lot of time. Guy would be willing to work for ETH or BTC (to get rid of your XMR I suggest shapeshift.io - that's a personal remark, btw.)

Well, I've heard nearly every dev who got caught out say exactly the same thing.