Topic: IOTA - Unmoderated thread - page 65. (Read 70768 times)

I stand corrected. I unignored you because it is unfair to post in this thread and not read what you are saying. I don't want to Ignore you if please don't pesker me in my thread so I won't be bogged down (trying to do coding).

Note to readers, this doesn't change my statement about the consensus not converging without centralization.

Jabo38 was in my inner circle in 2014 so perhaps some of my ideas rubbed off on him when he saw that my progress was too slow so he found that opportunity and apparently ran with it.

He will never do such thing because he knows that he will lose.

You are wrong, Iota uses Winternitz signing, unfortunatelly, you don't see this message.  

Yes, that's correct.


Precisely, and that is what matters in the wider context of crypto currency movement. This scam driven crypto microcosmos is a cancer for the decentralized crypto currency idea. I am a long time supporter of Bitcoin, 95% of my crypto holdings has been and it is in BTC, but I fully understand the need of novel technologies for decentralized crypto currencies. On the other hand P&D schemes like NXT  -that is uised by nobody in real world application and businesses-  brought nothing but bad name to crypto, even that several applications emerged from the NXT ecosystem. So yes, absolutely, the answer is what you are trying to achieve: real adoption. (I am so pleased to see that the NEM developers in Japan make a very good progress in the real adoption, so apart from the scams there is some good progress in real adoption and I have no doubt yours will be the next).

Well, I asked you 3 times. You evaded 3 times. The case is clear to everyone who reads this thread.

I noted that aspect of Iota's proof-of-work (hash-based) design is clever. Another example to AltcoinUK that Iota has some important ideas. But it doesn't change my conclusion that the consensus algorithm can't converge (will diverge) without centralizing the system.

Note Iota's transaction signatures are not quantum resistant, because they use ECC.

@altcoinUK

You're just a speculator who is afraid of revolutionary technology such as IOTA. It is resistant against Quantum computers.

Quantum computers are a big problem to the existence of bitcoin and other altcoin.

As a speculator, who sells "many years" on the stock exchange you are afraid for your investments.

Your goal is not to warn us (Iota community), and save your speculation. 

You must not be afraid of IOTA, but Quantum computers. 

IOTA is not not the enemy of bitcoin.

And by the way, CfB and other Iota devs has years of solid repatation, also in Nxt community. You can only criticize because you are afraid.

I understand your reaction. All scammers in my extensive experience in dealing with frauds (Moolah, Bitbay, Banxshare) acted exactly the same way as you do. You are in stage one in the scam busting process, and therefore your trolling of this thread is a very natural reaction. You will come around, and you will feel that you must answer the questions about your P&D, the lack of business plan and the inevitable bagholders at the end of the process.

AltcoinUK, the problem is that most readers do not understand the CAP theorem conceptualization of consensus problem nor will most users understand that Iota is based on a mathematical model that has to be enforced on all payers on their choices of which branch to attach their txns and on recipients in terms of what recipients compute is a probabilistically confirmed txn. If the Monte Carlo math can be enforced then consensus should converge, but there is no way to force decentralized actors to follow one math model when the system can't enforce it without centralization. Thus I stated Iota/DAG only converges if the system centralizes. As opposed to Satoshi's PoW which always converges because of the longest chain rule.

So it is extremely difficult to take an aggressive position when most readers won't even comprehend. Why is a speculator going to trust my assessment when they can't understand or don't have the attention span to digest my 33 page thread on Decentralization. Also I haven't written a white paper yet, so all that is not well formalized.

As for the JINN labs and trinary logic aspect, I am not involving myself in that at all. I have no interest in hardware other than to read specification sheets for when I am writing assembly language code.

I think perhaps you've over personalized your friction with CfB. I understand you feel he is willingly intent on being part of a scam. The way I see it is David is probably the scammer (if there is a scam and I am not asserting there is bcz I haven't studied the JINN aspect) and CfB is an astute developer who is trying to earn money while working on something interesting (so he let's David run the scammy parts and he focuses on the technology). You seem to think CfB has a long history of being involved in pumping half-assed technology (my presumption of your opinion of Nxt) where you claim insiders profited at the expense of the greater fools. Yes David threatened me with legal action, but he can't touch me. I am some guy with no money who lives in Mindanao. His attorney will advise him that they can't sue to draw blood from turnip. Besides offering my opinion in a forum is not slander. I am just not interested in adding more fights to my plate. I am interested in coding and doing my own project. If I waste my time by creating more fights, I will never accomplish anything.

Nxt got a lot speculators excited about investing in altcoins. For anyone who ever does produce an altcoin that has the adoption and capability of overtaking Bitcoin, then that interest in altcoin stoked by Nxt is perhaps actually helpful.

In other words, I think we have to accept speculation markets are what they are, an imperfect Wild West system of stimulating R&D.

I haven't been able to pin anything on CfB specifically that would tell me he is nothing but a douche bag scammer. I rather see him more as developer trying to find a way to earn money in crypto. My ethics and standard for my work is higher. I have set the bar that I have to achieve via real adoption, not speculation alone. But I can't expect that every person is as crazy risk taker as I am.

Hasn't anonymint even celebrated iota's design? even though he has said there were some flaws in it.

How can this be if he can't code at all?

Not saying it is or isn't going to turn out a bad investment. Just interested in how it is possible this guy has not tech skills but can create something anonymint says is impressive in effort but has some flaws.

I want to state i don't have any iota but was regretting missing the pre sale a little bit.

What about answering those simple questions instead of big walls of philosophical texts? Or that was a lie like in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13530000 case?

Of course he does. Any opinions that point out the infeasibility of his business plan and in fact the lack of business plan or point out flaws in design and implementation are interruptions in the pump and dump process, and therefore since they unable to provide counter arguments they have to ignore them. Still, your opinion is very important as the target audience - who supposed to buy into the P&D once the coin is on the exchanges - could read your expert review.

Well, it's not really a fight, not even a dislike from my part. From my viewpoint, I am just dealing here with an other scammer like I did in the case of Moolah, Bitbay or Banxshare (all of them are in law enforcement stage right now). As a I said above, it is important to inform the naive users about the nature of his fraud. Regardless that there are truths in your assessment that based on his work some technology emerged, I am fully convinced that - even if there are useful elements in his work -  he is a low life scammer (see my opinion how ridiculous his JINN project is). A serious and honest man don't collect money for a nonsense like JINN and IOTA by promising a microprocessor and an IoT system respectively, while they have zero experience in the particular fields.

Other aspect of this thread, which I haven't said here, that I am actually well aware of your opinion about the flaws in IOTA. Additionally, I witnessed how this wanker tried to ridicule and silent you in your own thread by trolling your thread (exactly same as he does in this thread). You have provided a de facto peer review with good faith and instead of discussing the technical aspects of your opinion this CfB wanker ignores your arguments, but trolls your thread. Now, that is another low life action but in that case it is on professional level.

I can feel that you are intimidated a bit from these scammers like the legal threat of that pathetic David boy. I think so, because I sort of know you, and I know how you would be normally react to a trolling what this CfB does in your thread. I suggest don't be intimidated. What they do, end of the day has nothing to do with innovation nor with technology - it is pure fraud to lure out money from the idiots and create a P&D vehicle.

 

Some startups have succeeded in producing new architectures in what were (at least initially) vertical markets. I haven't studied these markets and the concept of a trinary logic process, so I can't comment meaningfully other than in any case I would tend to agree that 9/10 of startups fail in general and not to mention the very high capital intensive arena of custom hardware architecture.


You are ignoring my expert review of Iota's consensus algorithm. That is fine with me.

Every transaction must have a little PoW attached to it. It doesn't matter how many accounts you have, your hashing power does, just like in Bitcoin.

You will make altcoinUK your enemy this way. Unlike me, you don't enjoy such things so be careful whom you side with.

Hey CfB, regarding IOTA, how do you stop the attack where I have 10 different accounts, all of which are vouching for eachother's fraudulent transactions and creating fake chains?  In fact you could have a few different people who join a 'coalition' and agree to vouch for eachother's fradulent transactions using their multiple accounts. Maybe I'm missing something but IOTA seems to be wide open to Sybil attack.

Wasn't it you who didn't answer three simple questions? Answer them and we'll continue this discussion. Or do you hope to distract our attention to hide yet another lie?

Actually I think those comments are reasonably good. He is trying to articulate that he wants to invest in projects that could or do have technology viable to some market strategy other than just mining the speculators.

AltcoinUK's disadvantage above is that he can't quite evaluate some aspects of obscure software technology research as well as I can. I was in the Skycoin thread back when the hope was great, and I was pointing out realism that others hadn't. Afair (vaguely), I was vindicated when Skycoin released their consensus white paper and it was a dud. Skycoin was attempting to solve for consensus basically what Stellar's SCP (created by a Stanford U. professor with a PhD in CompSci and author of a very popular Kademlia DHT) ended up being and SCP will centralize in order to guarantee against Sybil preemption.

Come-from-Beyond has delivered products that do evolve some technological innovation and has produced products which get speculators excited which has brought money into our altcoin space, which thus attracts people like myself who do other fundamental research (and hopefully development too  ). There is a synergistic effect.

Of course the JINN aspect appears to be quite dubious, and I am not claiming CfB is the most awesome programmer the world has ever seen (neither am I, but I bet I am pretty far up there... we'll see), but I find it difficult to criticize him on his efforts technologically. Yeah I have concluded that Iota can't converge on consensus without centralization, but that doesn't mean our altcoin sector hasn't gained anything from that technological endeavor. I separate in my mind the JINN aspect from the technological and development work done. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

CfB is not normally shrilling in threads but he lost his cool with me recently wherein I am trying to shift from "discuss" mode to implementation and white paper writing mode. Nevertheless the above is how I stand on the issues.

I wish AltcoinUK and CfB will stop fighting. I understand the JINN aspect needs to be explained to investors. I have too have done my share of attempting to explain what I think are limitations and flaws in altcoins. I done a small amount of "scam" accusation posting, but for the most part I try to not repeat that endlessly (except perhaps in the case of Dash I need to it seems repeat that every once in a while because their shills are so persistent).

I don't know what to say other than to admit the altcoin arena is a hornet's nest of snake oil. There is some minor amount of valid R&D being done, and for me that is worthwhile.

As for my work on yet-another-coin, I won't be announcing it here on Bitcointalk, so if I succeed with my ambitious (delusional?) gambit then it will be in the user adoption markets. So I will try to do something different than has ever been done with an altcoin.