Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin? - page 4. (Read 95231 times)

Diet is the most important thing you need to change probably. Exercise also helps to satiate appetite and improve cravings for the healthier food. For example, I buy a whole 3 kg tuna freshly caught (skin, bone, everything), have it chopped up, then boil for 5 minutes with onions, garlic, ginger, salt. Then turn off the fire and put some shallots and leafy greens on top and cover it. Eating this once a day will do wonders for you. In general munch on a raw carrot and eat salads without any dressing nor oil. No mercury issue in the small 3kg tuna, especially here in the Pacific ocean in SE Asia where I am.

Avoid farmed salmon, as they feed it GMO pellets and it is no longer healthy.

Eat oatmeal in warmed water every day. This is like a sponge and will clean out of the bad LDL while not reducing the good HDL. It is the most healthy grain you can eat by far.

Cut out all vegetable oils. They are the killer. Perhaps a little bit of coconut oil for cooking. Try to buy your bread and other foods without oil.

For fat, eat organic eggs. Also ground beef (sirloin) sometimes but with lots of salad or veggies. Goat is fine also. Try to not eat chicken nor pork, or at least not often.

The sublingually taken oregano oil is a fabulous herb and will surely help your health. You could also take curcumin capsules also, but these are expensive. I buy the powder then add it to coconut milk and is yummy (but haven't been taking it lately because apparently I don't have a problem with diabetes nor cancer). That is known to help also with diabetes.

We know Haskell won't be preferred by many programmers, because it has been around a long time and is still stuck at 0.5% market share

Apology I was beyond too sleepy yesterday to really think clearly. Then I got sidetracked most of the day today on discussions in my former community of Bitcoin (trying to reduce my involvement there, but have some lingering communication obligations that are gradually pruning down).

1. I've just glanced at your cited references and of course reminded that System F isn't generally decidable for principle typings inference. If I understand correctly, all your concern with first-class unions and intersections is due to the need to have principle typings inference. If we annotate all free standing function declarations (lambdas in function argument expressions excepted), then the concern would be vanquished. Correct?

2. You are concerned that function annotations could become very noisy because for example intersections of trait bounds could become quite large. For example, a function needs certain trait bounds for the operations it performs in the function body, plus it needs to require all the trait bounds for any functions it calls. I have an idea for a solution to this if we (or I) were to decide to abandon principle typings inference. We could have each function only declare the trait bounds that it needs in its function body, and the additional trait bounds required by functions called within the function body, would be inferred onto the calling function's trait bounds. Since those called functions explicitly declare their trait bounds, then this is decidable. It is a tree structure.

3. Afaics, the ability to exclude certain traits is inherent in my complete solution to the Expression Problem, because the dictionaries are supplied to the function orthogonal to the objects that contain the data types; thus it is impossible to cast a polymorphic data type downstream to any trait bound that wasn't annotated on the function declaration. Thus to specify NoIORead, then simply don't declare an IORead trait bound on the function. But you wanted to infer the function's types, because of #2 above. Apparently one of the reasons you think the intersection of types would be so large, is because you want to infer the fully generality of the principle typings, thus you allow for a larger set than the function even desires, e.g. if the `append` method is employed within the function, you would infer any trait bounds with any `append` method. But this seems too dangerous. I prefer for the programmer to be explicit about his/her semantics. So if the programmer must constrain the `append` method, then he might as well just write that constraint as a trait bound annotation on the function signature. So really I am failing to see the benefit of principle typings inference?

4. The interaction of HRT (and I presume HKT) with first class intersections and unions complicates principle typings inference, and likely makes it undecidable if not just incredibly complicated. Another reason to abandon principle typings inference, because first-class unions and intersections are essential from my perspective in order to make the code more elegant and less boilerplate.

5. You have an idea to enable callers to allocate on the stack all the memory used by the tree of functions called, so as to optimize allocation and deallocation of memory. Of course this can only be useful in limited circumstances and not in general, because it is undecidable how much memory is consumed by the tree of computation in a Turing complete language. I can imagine many common scenarios where this becomes unwieldy and turns the elegance inside-out. For example, you call a function that filters some collection based on some other computation it does and creates another collection as a result. There is no way for the caller to know how much memory the called function needs for the built collection. Trying to shoehorn all computation into a stack allocation model is the same mistake that Rust made with their borrowing. Algorithms don't in general conform to a tree. So although that could be used in some circumstances, I am also doubting the value of it, because a very fast and well optimized GC can do essentially the same optimization by keeping allocations well localized together and then freeing them in by simply incrementing a pointer and then reusing the same memory. The memory won't become fragmented if we use power-of-2 chunk size pools, so that we always allocate and free a constant power-of-2 chunk size. This is what Google's V8 JavaScript VM is already doing, so we will get that for free if we compile to JavaScript. I'd rather spend more effort optimizing GC years later than clutter the language now with inflexible special case attempts at premature optimization. I view this as the same category of design mistake Rust made. Apology but I need to be frank and honest, because I want to design a popular programming language. So I have to stick to those key design principles that are sort of embodied by the quotes of Paul Graham I provided on the forum.

6. If we proceed much further, I suggest we have discussions in a public thread on GitHub, so our design decisions will be open sourced for public record.

Keep dreaming sore loser and scam promoter of the Synereo AMPS scam.

Aint nobody going to fund your bullshit.

You're anti social.

What I don't think is wise is to take a lot of funding at the angel stage (nor presell illegal unregistered securities tokens as Ethereum and Synereo did),...

Yes, but most likely not without a lot of funding. You seem more interested in doing it cheaply, as you have in the past developing a successful product living a nipa hut.

Few top developers will go there these days. Even in the past, people who built major successes pre-funding (at least got them off the ground) have tended to be very young and inexperienced. They may be very talented "top developers" in a sense, but you will have extreme trouble finding and connecting with them. Close to literally impossible.

Possibly, you find and connect very strongly with someone who is an identifiable top developer and it becomes their passion as much as it is yours, and they share your vision of building it on a low budget.

Otherwise, you will likely just have to build to point of relative maturity yourself, then bring in others (and still, some sort of funding). I have a feeling that does not discourage you, which is good.

There are so many talented developers out there, but most of them see no point in working in CC

whereas, with my programming language and app browser initiatives I may be able to pull in top developers from outside of CC

Like clockwork, the truth is normally found at neither extreme but somewhere in the middle. I agree about doing nothing is not a solution.

Having said that, that the war is already started, doing nothing is not a solution.  Even if you actually believe this Armstrong guy is right, not everyone is a day trader.  It doesn't matter about chasing money left on the table.  All that matters is making sure you have something that has some type of fundamentals which isn't going to zero the day the great reset happens.  You know that day is coming soon.  You also know that Bitcoin will likely function perfectly fine when the day comes. 

What wild variant of oregano are you using? My girlfriend takes oregano oil when she feels sick.

I am very happy to report that sublingual oregano oil appears to be normalizing my health gradually. I am starting to get back some of my "macho" feeling from time-to-time.

I find it best to take high dosage at night before I sleep. Otherwise it makes me drowsy throughout the day.

(I am dissolving capsules with the correct wild variant of oregano oil until my tongue with the oregano oil diluted in olive oil to minimize the sting)

I've had some very good breakthroughs on the Rust forum. Making great progress. Full speed ahead.

I really doubt that "sublingual oregano oil" will do the healing what would be needed in this special case...

I am very happy to report that sublingual oregano oil appears to be normalizing my health gradually. I am starting to get back some of my "macho" feeling from time-to-time.

I find it best to take high dosage at night before I sleep. Otherwise it makes me drowsy throughout the day.

(I am dissolving capsules with the correct wild variant of oregano oil until my tongue with the oregano oil diluted in olive oil to minimize the sting)

I've had some very good breakthroughs on the Rust forum. Making great progress. Full speed ahead.

the putrified nature of any forum, comes from abusive, divisive, and threatening individuals like you.

Of course I disagree with it, otherwise I wouldn't own any Bitcoin.  The marginal cost over time of Bitcoin shows an ever increasing percent being energy costs.  This means sha256d will likely be commoditized.  There is no Chinese monopoly after that happens.

It isn't just the pools that are the problem, but that the mining farms are large and concentrating the 51+% amongst a few oligarchs. This will only grow more centralized over time, because TPTB_need_war explained in his technical analysis, that profitable proof-of-work always accrues over time to maximum economies-of-scale. There are several reasons for that including propagation advantages of being the first to win more blocks, so don't waste hashrate mining on the wrong fork for a short period, which over time gradually depletes the other miners of relative profits. It is more complex than that. You need to read his entire analysis to understand.

There are several technical factors you need to take into account. For example, the greater the hashrate (of the pool if not solo mining), the more often the miner is mining on the block that won't be orphaned. The propagation delay of block announcements (or any group with 33+% of the hashrate colluding to delay block announcements, which was explained the research paper Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable), means that those with more hashrate are more profitable given the same unitized hardware and electricity costs. Ditto that every miner (or pool) has the same cost of validation regardless of their hashrate. This means that even if everything is fair and equal, naturally over time the mining will centralize to an oligarchy. This is a property of profitable proof-of-work and there is nothing that can be done to fix it. TPTB_need_war made an entire thread about this to discuss it in detail. The flaws of proof-of-stake are also discussed in that thread and I urge Minecache and others not to turn this thread into a PoS vs. PoW discussion. Bring the PoS vs. PoW debate over to that other thread, other such thread if you want to debate that.

What TPTB_need_war concluded is that the only design that can remain economically decentralized is UNprofitable proof-of-work. This means that every spender would send some PoW share with each transaction. The details are complex and it can't work the same as Satoshi's design. Most of the details are already explained in various posts that TPTB_need_war has made spread out over many different threads. But he is not implementing this design right now, because he is busy on the other programming priorities I mentioned.

Any way, there is no solution to that will remain immune to the fact that humans are manipulated like a herd when it comes to politics. And they are lazy. And they are easily duped by the elite. So even if TPTB_need_war implements his solution, it is likely that the people will still end up sending their PoW shares to an oligarchy of "pools" even though unprofitable PoW means no one gains by using a pool. People are just dumb. But we might have a fighting chance with this redesign of Satoshi's flawed design. Many people have criticized this UNprofitable PoW thinking it won't work because there is not the proper incentives and Nash equilibirum. TPTB_need_war says they are wrong and he will eventually publish a whitepaper to better explain all the details.

I don't know where we will end up with all this. But my guess is the elite will win and the people will lose. But some people are working on hard. Please don't disrespect TPTB_need_war. His is working as furiously as he can, and no one helps him. Maybe one day he will get some assistance and be recognized for his efforts. But he doesn't care! He is doing what he is doing as a labor of love and because he loves the challenge.

Of course, China being the top producers of Bitcoin isn't even a Bitcoin problem in the first place.  It's a symptom of China controlling manufacturing for everything on earth as corporations use their slaves for global labor arbitrage.

Alts used to pump on legit news not so long ago. Now the only movement up is on P&D scams like the recent EXE action on Poloniex.

I am speaking on behalf of TPTB_need_war aka AnonyMint, who is quoted in the OP, because he is currently banned for 9 more days due to calling theymos and gmaxwell out on their censorship of a potential technical back door in Bitcoin. There is a simpler explanation of Satoshi's obviously intentional technical error. It is obviously intentional because it was quite well known by 2009 that the HMAC formulation is more secure yet Satoshi used the more suspect double hashing everywhere in BitCON.

Thanks for your interesting posts in this thread

1)  Geographical Location is Irrelevant.  

Thank you!  We can just stop there with that statement and move on.  Personally I just got back from another trip to the capitalist and haven known as China, and have my own opinions about various different dialects, ethnic groups, provinces, competing powers, projects, firewalls, etc.  As you said it's irrelevant.  The only reason to mention a nation further in this kind of discussion other than as an identifier is to let people know you are immature and can easily be ignored.  I mean what is this, an appeal to racism?  Lol.

The only relevance of China, is that China has the right Communist corruption to facilitate building these ASIC mining farms with much lower cost, because the electricity is likely subsidized at near 0 cost to the miner by the State. For example, the $billions spent by the taxpayers to construct the environmental disaster Three Gorges Dam (actually in China the tax is the low interest rate paid on savings accounts offered by State controlled banking which the LGUs then borrow at near 0%). The ostensible fact that China is a totalitarian/fascist command economy is relevant in the sense that it means the owners of the mining farms are necessarily beholden to the Communist Party leaders and their commands.

[...]

They blocked Bitcoin Classic and XT and appear to be deciding for the us that SegWit is the protocol hard fork that will be forced on all of us. And there is not a damn thing any of us can or will do about it. Note the Great Firewall (GFW) of China is not a valid argument to be against larger blocks, because the pool server could be located outside and only the hash of the block needs to be sent across the GFW.

2)   Segregated Witness Includes a Diablocal Trojan Horse.  

Color me unfrightened by blockstream's trojan horse here.  Perhaps I haven't seen what they are going to release yet, but hey - if it's not open source and understood only fools will run it.  Let them push whatever nonsense if that's what they are up to.  Sure, I share your skepticism and conservatism but not your fear.  I can always run another wallet and request my TX in whatever form I like.

3)  Decentralization is the only difference from Fiat

Wow, I could scarcely disagree more here.  WTEF?  Fiat is a privately released dimensionless token!!  Bitcoin is a public coin!!  The money supply is public and every unit is tied to an expenditure of energy.  Public money!!  Publicly verified transactions!!  How can you say this is anything like privately issued dimensionless corporate scrip, where nobody ever knows how much is being issued and no transactions are ever verified?  Making an apple slightly more rough and round doesn't make it an orange.

4) Bitcoin can't be fixed

The thing continues to work as advertised 8 years ago with almost no changes.  What are you trying to fix?  My guess is that your car broke down and you are blaming "the wheel".  And btw you are wrong about altcoins too.  They also work as advertised and do very much have enough security and traction for use as exchange commodities.  

I posted this over a year ago when someone else was soiling themselves about a potential Chinese takeover and I'm pretty sure the same applies here: