Topic: IOTA - Unmoderated thread - page 20. (Read 70768 times)

How fitting. Not only are you so pathetic that you want to fight physically over some imaginary internet drama you've concocted in your head, you're also a sexist

Still waiting to accept my challenge.
Women talk. Men act.

how ironic, I responded faster than your post claiming I was so slow as if I was scared.

Haha, Androklis Polymenis, how far you have fallen. You were always a loser, but this is another realm of pathetic entirely.

What a pussy, so fast to answer every time except now.

I thought you were a beta male but it turns out you are a C like C-fB

Where you born without a pair or you end up an eunuch by your drunk father beating you when you were a child? Or they are in Wesley's mouth?

Stupid fucking bastard

Some guy in his 40s, who lost hundreds of BTC (which he only had because of guys like CfB and me) by keeping his passwords in cleartext in a .txt file on a random dropbox account, is randomly after 2 years challenging me to a 'fight' because he can't reach me to my ankles intellectually. How cute

I'm sorry, I don't fight people with serious mental and physical disorders, nor would I ever waste my time to 'fight' some old loser who never achieved shit in his life after having demolished them intellectually prior. It's quite funny that you're talking like some 13 year old kid on Xbox live.

STFU girlie man

Good that everyone sees now your true personality.

I would never touch anything this charlatan CfB does (just see Elastic last posts for his gigantic charlatanism) and you are invited to a bear hand fight.

Enough of talks bitch, come here to fuck your skull.

You know, nothing makes me more satisfied than the fact that kLee refused to buy IOTA because of his personal vendetta towards me ever since I exposed him as an incompetent liar. I would absolutely loathe the idea of my work profiting him, so from the bottom of my heart: thank you kLee for me not having to go through that cognitive dissonance.

How is the circus going? People coming to see ya clown I see 

Where is your bloated bitch tit body guard Dave the girlie man? His bitch Wesley?

Give me back the coins you stolen from me bastard! Police is informed....

I wonder who are these idiots who invested in a punk & a clown!

I will make a Future product to short the shit out of this clusterfuck 

You ought to be sterilized.

Why do you always contradick your own slimy ethics:


Where is your proof? (I have no obligation to reveal any more of my personal details than I wish to, so expect I will ignore your other unproven accusations and quotes taken out-of-context, but for example I pay my child support)

Btw, I arranged to bill $600 a day for my services recently and if I take that contract, I will be working 2 days a way on contract and 5 days a week on my own project. Or I might just work only on my own project, since it has a much higher upside and I am not afraid of risk, because I know dam well I have the technology for a Bitcoin killer.

As for that uber talent, the young gmaxwell destroyed you in 5 sentences.

I assume the 20% estimate is only for when the optional index is present. So it is presumed someone would use an index only when that 20% was justified by their use case. Again I argue you should not remove degrees-of-freedom and hinder the optimization of use cases which you did not envision because no group or person is omniscient.

And how is not having the index any worse than not allowing an index. I fail to see the logic. Seems you are arguing that the receiving end will expect indexes and not be prepared for the case where indexes are not present. But that is a bug in the receiving end's software then. And in that case, there is no assurance that software would have done the index-less seeking more efficiently for the status quo of not allowing an index. None of this makes sense to me.

Also I don't understand how you calculate 20% increase in file size for adding an index. For example, lets take an average 180 second song consuming roughly 5MB for VBR encoding. Let's assume my users are satisfied with seeking in 1 second increments, so that means means I need at most 180 of 22-bit indices, so that is only 495 bytes which is only a 0.01% increase! On top of that I could even compress those 22-bit indices into relative offsets if I want to shrink it by roughly 75% to 0.0025%.


I have alluded to scenarios in this post. Permute them. And there are use cases that neither of us are aware of. We are not omniscient. We should not top-down remove degrees-of-freedom. Some of the people designing Web standards these days are doing it wrong and are not of the same pedigree as Vint Cerf. I butted heads with them in the past (including Ian Hickson!), and I am tired of arguing with you guys. Just do what ever you want, I am going to route around the failure.

I am uber talented

Thanks for the link. So you discovered David Stockman? I bought his book The Great Deformation when it came out & read it three times. He's very good at a skill that I'm not good at: namely, detail-oriented analysis. In this sense, his book is like the works of Thomas Sowell. Both offer "over-the-shoulder" lessons on how to fetch up facts & measure emotionally-gripping notions against those facts.

Anyhoo, I'd better bow out & not get in the way of the arguing.

On the note of FED here is the view of a wise man. Interesting what he says about the FED
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-06-08/david-stockman-s-view-of-trump-vs-clinton