Pages:
Author

Topic: Shelᖚy (TPTB_need_war) Psychoanalysis. Smartest Man in the Altcoin Discussions? - page 2. (Read 8853 times)

sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
Anyone taking this guy seriously on anything he says is pretty delusional.

You would have a more intelligent conversation with a 13 year old programmer.

OP fails, offer something better then - oh wait you can't.

He often ends things with "oh need months to explain" "too complex to explain" etc when in reality he is the type to over complicate even something simple beyond understanding and would fail explaining why 2+2=4 to anyone.

In other words - he is full of shit.

If you believe you are correct, then since I am not anonymous and my reputation is at stake, please provide your real identity so your personal reputation will be destroyed when you are proven to have been embarrassingly wrong in your ad hominem statements.

Btw, this isn't helping you. Astute readers can read and ascertain the level of my competence. Your remaining days of being not totally ignored are numbered.

Note I have flagged your post to the moderator since it is ad hominem trolling a technical thread. You provided no technical arguments.



[1] Find my posts in this thread and note that TierNolan is one of the original inventors of the DE protocol, but it had a jamming flaw until I fixed it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/atomic-swaps-using-cut-and-choose-1364951

How altruistic you are anonymint! Yes so jealous Smiley

Why do you assume my point was about altruism  Huh Maybe I am just pointing out that I am more important than you belittle me.



Exactly. MA does worse than a coinlip on average. His reverals target "forecasting" is so hilarious I can't understand how he is able to even publish shit like that  Grin I'll bet he counts on that enough people reading do not understand trading and markets at all, or backtesting.

well my financial astrologist does the same thing... planets affect moods. He says dow 32k with usd and us equities rising together (which already started). Hes bearish gold. Has never really been that wrong.

Hey idiots as I had explained before in the quote below, the point is the investor can react to the market action with greater than 50% odds. You guys are too dumb to understand that a prediction for a static point in time with no conditionals, is a point sample and point samples are subject to aliasing error; thus MA does not provide such ridiculous point sample predictions. You try to force his statements to be point sample predictions, thus it is unsurprising that you see his statements as a failure. I won't bother to explain fundamental relevant science to you such as the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem, Fractals, and Chaos Theory, because you are too dumb to understand.

Armstrong is for smart people. The low IQ trolls need not apply.

The benchmarks stated that the USA dollar and and USA stocks had to start moving in unison as another criteria and if this wasn't the case, then the benchmark low would be pushed out in time until they do.

Thus none of his predictions have failed. Those who expect him to say "this will happen on this date" are building a strawman illogic, because MA never predicts such. His method is to provide a "if this, then that" analysis of the computer model's outputs.

[...]

MA's model provides key dates and it provides indications such as "Panic Cycle", "Directional Change", etc. on each asset analyzed. His model also provides "if this, then that" benchmarks on price reversals in both directions.

From this, the speculator can watch the market and try to interpret how the real world is matching the model and then infer decisions with a much better than 50% probability.

Something important does always happen on the ECM turn dates. For example:

[...]



I'd add that the Elite have less control than you suggest...

Who is you? I had written the same point:

Edit: you also believe in the totality of the elite's "monopoly" control.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
It is interesting to note how men relate to each other. We don't allow another man to have a position of superiority unless we identify him as an alpha-male who we can trust to lead and accomplish what we want (and also we prefer if he appears to be humble so that our attention isn't focused on his superiority in a particular field or if we can pigeonhole his superiority to one field and maintain in our own ego that he is not superior in all fields).

Some relevant essays:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404 (Ego is for little people)

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3000 (about beta-males versus alpha-males in competition for women which determines evolutionary impact)



In movies like "Margin Call", which is a pretty accurate representation of our civilization, the smartest people tend to be involved in creating Rube Goldberg financial products to siphon wealth from the majority.

Because that is the easiest way to become filthy rich. And little people with big egos feel that money is their most important achievement.

Some few of us realize that most significant accomplishments require extensive sacrifice and hard work over a long period of time. But if it is a labor of love, then it fit those of us who want a more difficult challenge. Genghis Kahn would be a prime example, and I've read some statistic that something on the order-of-magnitude of 1 in every 5 people have his genetic code because he fathered so many children. The hard work was the wars he waged to unify Mongolia and advance the economy of his people by doing so.

Edit: I am not referring to Vitalik in either case above. He is smart math geek who got in over his head and is more like a kid in a candy store and fantasizing about technology but doesn't have enough experience yet to see the pitfalls in advance.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
No possible doubt Shelᖚy is the smartest Man here. Absolutely no doubt his IQ is over 150.

The strange thing about him is that he's an EXTROVERTED GENIOUS, and it's very difficult for these two words to coexist in harmony:

As any other genious, Shelᖚy doesn't care and hates vulgar things from "inferior" people (althought he doesn't say it in public).

The "problem" is that he has an extroverted nature: he needs attention from others, he wants to share things with people, he needs appreciation from people.

And when this two concepts coexist together, the result is an individual as Shelᖚy: A genious that tries to communicate with other people but most times cannot do it because of the notorious "level" difference. Then, when he cannot communicate the way he would like to, he starts getting attention by "trolling" vulgar people (he basically tells them how idiot and wrong they are, with solid arguments).

The question is how is possible for Shelᖚy to be happy (in the sense of spiritual happiness).

The project he's working on pretends to fill this impossible spirit he has. He wants to create a thing that changes millions of people, and he wants to be recognized for it. That's all.


BUT Shelᖚy, you cannot do it alone, even if you have a +300 IQ. To be truly recognized, you must get people into your cause.

WHAT IS YOUR CAUSE?

Quoted from the other thread From-Above created about me:

I can never become anonymous again. If ever I earn a lot of money, my life will be somewhat destroyed as it is improved. It would be best for me to not earn too much money. Too much money makes you a target for the rest of your life. What I'd probably do if ever I have too much money, is start giving it away to projects I believe in. On the simplification on the communication side, this is sometimes very difficult to accomplish. It consumes times and effort. For some polished documents, it is worthwhile. My knowledge of "moon math" is not as high as other experts in crypto, but it is sufficient for my role. All major crypto projects hire a mathematician/cryptographer specialist. Note I could likely have become a mathematician, but my other interests and priorities interfered with that focus. I am not a polymath genius as in a Leonardo Da Vinci, Shakespeare, or Galileo. I am more at the level of a Mark Twain or George Washington. I just have a passion for what I like to do, and I like to juggle conceptual paradigms.

Thinking about my rarity given for example my recent discovery of the solution to a previously unsolved major problem in computer science, I would suppose that in terms of rarity in the fields I show a talent for, I am some where in the realm of 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100,000 of the general population, so thus my specialized IQ is in the realm of 150 to 170. But note that the "g" of IQ is not testing for specialized talent, but rather general talent, so it is not correct to compare "g" rarity to specialized talent rarity. I have noted in other posts that my IQ tests for "g" have ranged from the 120s to 140s afaik (with the most official test occurring when I was in elementary and I was sick that day from having my eyes dilated right before the exam and also I was not at all interested in the crap they were asking me questions about). My SAT test indicates a 131 IQ but note I was a slacker and full-time middle distance track athlete, so I didn't really prepare for it. Just suffice it to say that in terms of where my interests, passions, and talent lie, I am quite rare. But aren't we all in some way?

Some more evidence:

http://unheresy.com/Essence%20of%20Genius.html (published my solution to a question on an IQ test that indicates I would score above 148 IQ on that test)

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

Please elaborate.

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...


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.

What is the maximum number of 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.  Wink


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.




And supporting VultureFund's point about how I get frustrated:

TPTB, do you happen to also have Asperger's syndrome? Reading your responses makes me think of a less genius version of Von Neumann... some people can be so smart and fail to see very simple things right in front of them.

It exhibits a very low IQ to not even fathom that a developer who is focused on technological issues and is off in his programming cave focusing there, may not care about the useless shit you P&D gamblers waste your time on.

So not conceiving of that obvious scenario due to your low IQ, you would then propose the ludicrous idea that I have Asperger's syndrome, when in fact I have demonstrated in this forum and in my career the ability to communicate socially with a wide range of people.

Just because I smash trolls like yourself as I am doing in this post, doesn't mean I am anti-social. Illogical. Your low IQ is evident for everyone now.



Let me make it simpler. All the coins mentioned above will fail. Only own them for the P&D gambler's gains.

Summarizing all detailed arguments for layman is something on my future todo list. I really don't think you are going to understand unless we have a 1 month lecture series that every speculator needs to pass with a grade of at least a B. For example, how do I explain esoteric computer science topic of "dependent typing" to a layman  Huh

The ignorance is strong with this one.

Don't take advice from someone who clearly does not know what he is talking about.

A 13 year old programmer knows more than this guy.

The guy who solves a 50 year old major problem in computer science and who is designing a new computer programming language is what is known as a 1 in 50 rarity top programmer:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14715888

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14685179

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14698495

There aren't any 13 year old programmers on the planet who can match my computer science expertise. If you randomly picked 100 programmers, there is a good chance I am in the top 2.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
Quote
You need to learn macroeconomics.

thanks for your opinions ... if they were rare (or even correct) they might be worth something, indeed you are prolific.

You're welcome to try to refute Michael Pettis (PhD professor in China) who has been consistently correct in his predictions on China while being the skeptic that everyone thought should be ignored. Now he is respected because he was correct all along. Read his blog so you won't be so ignorant...or remain blissfully Dunning-Kruger as it is your prerogative.

Try not to be such a tosser ... as from past experience a debate with you is worthless, to both sides concerned, good luck. Michael Pettis is knowledgeable on bitcoin mining?

There is no debate, Chinese miners are killing it, that's all you need to know ... nothing in chinese macro-economics is going to change bitcoin mining in the foreseeable future, you're just out-to-lunch crazytalking again, seeking out conflict?
Yeah don't bother your wasting his precious time anyway while he "codes" the bitcoin killer... lol

Hey you two butthurt trolls, I was addressing the bolded statements as quoted below. I was obviously not refuting anything about China's control over mining. Duh.  Roll Eyes  (that is obvious below even if you hadn't seen the numerous times I have mentioned that China is taking over Bitcoin mining)

Smells like a lot of hurt white Western butt in here because they couldn't build computer hardware better, faster, cheaper than the chinese. Western white males measure themselves on technological success and they are getting pasted on the bitcoin hardware stakes so far ... time to up their game if they want to stay competitive. Harden up dudes.

Is this technology or more manufacturing brute force.   China is leading as they can turnover and make the cheapest hardware fastest which leads them to immediately use it for mining advantages.
But yes the West has lost of its great past in skilled manufacturing

Saw this posted, seemed a very well balanced discussion on progression of the bitcoin difficulty vs miners etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieP8kxaklUk

The technology of mass-production manufacturing is THE race, for now anyway. Who knows bitcoin itself may have originated out of an Asian mind ... not that it matters.

You need to learn macroeconomics.

Pegging the Yuan to the dollar, they were able to steal from their citizen's savings to subsidize a negative profit manufacturing industry. Read China expert Michael Pettis.

China bit off the dying Industrial Age. However there are network effects that come from this, such as moving up to developing software, etc..

But their manufacturing domination and oversupply (making the rest of the world uncompetitive by artificially depressing the international value of their own wages via the peg) was due to corruption and will cause China to have a meltdown until 2020, when they have finished rebalancing.

I agree with not whining. Compete. Hard to compete in manufacturing when China was gobbling up debt by repressing savings deposit interest rates and otherwise subsidizing their oversupply in manufacturing capacity. The reason Singapore exists is to hide profits offshore for these well connected fatcats who own the State SOCs (state owned enterprises).
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
Smart, but a paranoid sociopath would have been my choice.

...

Someone has accused me of being Anonymint 3 times, Fontas twice, and Come from Beyond once.

I thought the same by the way. But Anonymint is too much the paranoid sociopath, so although intelligence is on the same high level, I concluded you are not the same person.

Please put your comments in the "Shelᖚy (TPTB_need_war) Psychoanalysis. Smartest Man in the Altcoin Discussions?" thread. Any slander you want to post is acceptable there.

I'm reporting your post to the moderator. You don't even factually substantiate your vicious ad hominem attack.

I was not aware of the existence of such thread, but I now posted my comment there as well. Unlike yourself I am not comfortable writing walls of text and prefer to say things in a few sentences rather than in a few pages. I would leave it to others to decide whether my statement is accurate or not.

I never knew that writing a lot is a symptom of sociopathy.  Roll Eyes
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
Looking for shmexy coins!
Smart, but a paranoid sociopath would have been my choice.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
I can detect my health is really improving a lot, because I am starting to get back the energy (and thus mental locomotion, intense focus, and clarity) to make research level insights again.

Research level insight first published on Rust’s forum by myself:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/30

(Don't know if anyone else made this point in the prior art, I presume probably yes)

P.S. I doubt Bitcoin core devs can do the above, because programming language typing is not their area of specialization (especially the number theorists/cryptographers). We have different talents and specializations, so we need to learn to respect each other.



Margin long BTC at maximum leverageI am hedged because I am spending that cash on my expenses so I can have the time to do more important programming which is my best chance for having a good income again.

Haha. You don't have much confidence in my programming and marketing abilities.

As you know, maximum leverage can fail even if the prediction is correct, due to volatility, margin calls, and timing.

I'll take my 33% chance with my programming and marketing over the 5% chance of a maximum leverage position.

There are only three types of people in the world:  poor people, margin traders, and poor margin traders.

Haha. Good one. True. And I am always highly leveraged on my projects. And I've hit at least 3 homeruns already in my life. Being sick from 2006 to present (chronically since 2012), blinding of one eye end of 1999 with many months of followup surgeries, and a maelstrom of broken marriage/kids issues from 2001 forward, toppled my juggernaut applecart.

But I think I've got the Hotwheels back on the cart now...hopefully age 51 isn't too grandpa-esque...
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
Formal education is the way we perpetuate our mistakes forward. When I hire, I do not look at fake degrees. I look at the person and their thinking process. Samuel Butler (1835–1902) the iconoclastic Victorian-era English author, defined genius as “a supreme capacity for getting its possessors into trouble of all kinds.” If your child does not do well in school because they are bored rather than incapable of understanding such subjects, then they may be what people call a genius. Geniuses are often misunderstood in classrooms and are typically poor students whom teachers dislike because they are non-conformists. Studies at the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota have found that teachers smile at children with high IQs and frown upon those with creative minds. When we had young people coming into the company who had to take their Series 7 exam, they would ask me questions. I quickly responded, “Do not ask me anything for if you do as I say you will flunk. Just memorize the answers, put them down, and then forget them and we will begin your REAL education in markets.”

The intelligent yet uncreative students accept conformity, never rebel, and complete their assignments quickly and perfectly. The creative child questions everything and accepts nothing. They are much more manipulative, imaginative, and intuitive growing up. They will often play one parent against another. In school, teachers dislike them because they will harass the teacher with questions that expose the illogical dogma they teach.

These genius children are often viewed as wild, naughty, silly, undependable, and lacking in seriousness or even promise. They even said that of Albert Einstein. Their behavior is typically distracting and they will often appear lazy, bored, and lacking any effort to try to advance, but in truth, they are absorbing everything around them. Such children will also give unique answers to banal questions because they are connecting the dots around them. Other children who are linear thinkers will typically reject these children which can cause them to be loners.

Ellis Paul Torrance (1915-2003) was an American psychologist who studied this subject and found that 70% of pupils rated high in creativity were actually rejected by teachers when picking a special class for the intellectually gifted. In a Stanford study, M.G. Goertzel, V. Goertzel, and T.G. Goertzel concluded that teachers would have excluded virtually everyone we consider to be a genius from Einstein and Edison to Picasso and Mark Twain. There is even a book on this called “The Price of Greatness: Resolving the Creativity and Madness Controversy” by Arnold M. Ludwig (1995) which explores the lives and achievements of over 1,000 extraordinary men and women. This book sought to answer the age-old questions about the relationship between mental illness and greatness. It also goes into factors that predict creative achievement in people. You will find a long list of very colorful stories about some of the most eminent artists, scientists, social activists, politicians, soldiers, and business people of our time.

Formal education is terrible. More than 60% of graduates cannot find employment in their field of study. Degrees are only useful to get jobs in brain-dead institutions that lack creativity themselves. Encourage your children to see the world dynamically and look for the connection between the dots. In ancient times, the key education was apprenticeship where you learned the field from the people actually doing the work rather than by those who lack experience. As they say, there are those who do and those who teach. I have been asked to teach at three of the leading universities. The problem is that I have no time. Those of us who really do things would find it boring and unfulfilling to simply stand up and teach a small class of kids. I might as well be a rock star singing the same song for 40 years (which is why rock stars need drugs to constantly do the same thing until they die).
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
And reading between the lines, can we expect a project with smooth and TPTB_need_war pair programming and altcoinUK as a project manager?

On altcoinUK as the manager, absolutely 0% chance. No disrespect, but one thing I don't want are managers (as opposed to organizers). I prefer a lean approach where every worker is their own manager. altcoinUK as an investor or as a coder perhaps (but also not pursing this as he has retired from coding and I am shooting for crowdfunding donations instead of investors at this stage if possible). On the potential of smooth and I working on the same project, this potential always exists in open source projects as we are all free to choose what we want to contribute to. As to the likelihood of smooth and I partnering to create a project (CC or otherwise), smooth and I talked before in mid-2015 about that (and not since) and it is not outside the realm of possibility but it isn't likely. I think probably the main reason is because smooth's focus afaics is for any project to be strictly modelled in the open source model, and I am instead wanting to combine aspects of closed source and open source and using some commercial marketing concepts. I get the impression this is foreign to smooth's desires, as ostensibly evident by his recent statement about the advantages of Monero:

in the long run, moneros inflation is irrelevant tho... what matter is when all top 10 coin has anonymity implemented, how would xmr will stay relevant Huh

ASIC-resistant pure-PoW coin with many independent miners, fair launched, healthy distribution (objectively shown by high available liquidity), vibrant and inclusive open source project that demonstrably attracts developers, integrated into a privacy-centric development effort including the privacy-enhanced cryptocurrency and I2P router development, deployed and proven dynamic block size scalability, 2-year project and code maturity, well-defined governance, strong experienced core team with diverse skills, proven forum funding system (crowdfunding).

I just looked at the top 10 coins. None have a very strong subset of these qualities. There is no risk to Monero's differentiation in the foreseeable future.

Quote
honestly i want to hear more good news from xmr community regarding their wallet, as i too once xmr holder and convert all of them when i realize xmr dev seem ignoring investors call for improvement.

I guess you are not aware of the active project underway, funded by the community, to complete development of a brand new GUI wallet. If you were I doubt you would characterize that as 'call for improvement' being ignored.

However, since the plans for my project include many sub-projects, it is possible to imagine that those aspects which are pure open source, could possibly be fit to smooth's ostensibly preferred model.

There are other issues as well, such as the very high level of remuneration smooth normally receives, but this is also flexible I think depending on whether the project is purely open source, donation model or not. I think though that smooth is probably quite busy already with his community role for Monero and lead developer for Aeon.

Also there are many talented people and interesting projects for smooth to work with on. There is no super strong reason he should choose to work with me on my projects. I haven't shown much coding yet. "Talk is cheap, show me the code" said Linus Torvalds. And I had been chronically ill for 4 years (and slightly ill for 7 - 10 years), so that is another risk (although I indicated I am hopefully making strides with the Oregano oil).

So actually I find the presumption or implication of the question to be a bit embarrassing for myself.


Edit: the anonymity of smooth is a hindrance to doing crowdfunding and Seedr IPO. Investors can't evaluate an anonymous lead developer.
legendary
Activity: 1181
Merit: 1002
You are not paying attention because you don't realize he is not an experienced developer

I had an inkling of that very early on when he shared with Fuserleer that he was using a memory mapped data structure from Java, which I can't remember the details now but appeared to me be a suboptimal strategy for the use case.

I don't know if he is inexperienced or just trying to accomplish with the least effort. He hasn't shared with any of us what he did before Nxt.

He is obviously efficient. Estimate how much money they earned on Nxt. But you can't build anything really significant via schemes which are not expanding the pie for everyone in the ecosystem.

I'm trying to interpret what has been written upthread.
And reading between the lines, can we expect a project with smooth and TPTB_need_war pair programming and altcoinUK as a project manager?
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
And I am just a spectator  Roll Eyes

I believe it's not only CPU miners that are at stake here. Even signatures could be validated 2-4 at a time, on the same subroutine, to get SIMD benefits. So scaling is affected as well. It would need the main routine to be adjusted accordingly instead of sending 1 for processing (per thread) to 2-4 (per thread) and expect back 2-4. Heck, even cracking speed could be improved.

Signatures should eventually be verified on GPUs (or similar SIMD units that get integrated into CPUs in time). That will happen when it is needed. CPU SIMD instructions are kind of interesting but also kind of narrowly-targeted. Processing large amounts of data in a fixed pipeline will still be more efficient on GPU-type architectures.

This is why only main memory random access latency bound proof-of-work algorithms can potentially remain GPU and ASIC resistant. And they must be carefully designed so that increased computation can not be realistically traded for latency. One of the  challenges in such a design for a memory hard hash, is that very slow speed if you want the memory consumed to be larger than the SRAM caches of GPUs and ASICs. Ideally you want the computation to be very small, so that the electrical efficiency optimization of the ASIC won't be significant.



[1] Note this means the tail reward security of Monero will be very weak and insufficient.

"Insufficient" is unclear because there is no unambiguous definition of how much is sufficient.

In large part it depends on the decentralization of mining. If mining is decentralized then you only need a small (but still nonzero) incentive because any miner can't really do anything other than follow the longest chain rule. While raw hash rate attacks are possible (i.e. temporarily centralizing mining by incurring a cost), in a larger system they will have significant cost and will only succeed as long as the ongoing cost is paid.

If mining is highly concentrated by nature then you are really only relying on the weak linear security of the block reward itself, and maybe not even that, because miners (e.g., hypothesized Chinese cartels) have all sorts of perverse incentives.

Your statement would be correct if you added ", assuming mining becomes centralized as I have claimed it will."

I will argue my statement was correct as stated, because there are other parties with significant resources and incentives who may not be mining normally but once the hashrate declines to the tail reward cost, they can then decide it is easier to attack the coin.

The better retort would be to argue that the as the adoption increases, the price will rise so the fixed size (in coins) tail reward has an adaptive valuation.

But I will retort that the value of shorting also scales up accordingly.

Rather what I do in my improved design, is to set the cost of mining to the reasonable fraction of the transaction value.

That is why I say the only way to solve the block chain Tragedy of the Commons is to require what is effectively a minimum transaction fee in the protocol. But then there is the problem of miners competing with each other to rebate the fee to the payer/payee so how to enforce a minimum transaction fee?

There is only one way to do that, which is to burn the fees. But if you burn them then the money supply declines to 0. So the only way is to burn hashrate. And that is why only my design which makes mining unprofitable will solve the problem.



Demonstrating my research on programming language (type) theory:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/8

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/most-coveted-rust-features/324/38

Or in short, why we probably don't need higher-kinded and higher-ranked types, but we do need first-class disjunctions and inversion-of-control ad hoc dispatch.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
well fuck i wrote a long winded butle and hit back so now its all erased. i take back what i say about you being an idiot, but you are still a spectator, whether its your health to blame or something else.

what im trying to say is that, and writing 7500+ posts and spending all day long here is unhealthy. go outside and do something, learn to play music, or go to the park and interact with people in meatspace. you are priding yourself in what can only be considered unhealthy behavior, im am also guilty of ODing on shiny backlights 4am night after night, from time to time, so i recognize your behavior, you seriously need to get out of the house.

Your posts are almost rational, except your assumption that my posts don't include incredibly valuable technical work that applies to my coding, is where you lose the plot.

I use the forum as a place to share my technical work ongoing. As well I do my economic theory development, which is also essential to my coding work.

You don't seem comprehend the value of my forum posts. Thus to you, it appears to be a speculator. To me, I am designing the crypto currency future technology in my posts. Do you need an example?


sure i could use an example, maybe it got lost in your other 7500 posts

How many do you want?

Hopefully you know that TierNolan is respected by the Bitcoin core devs and you can review the following thread where I explained to him and jl777 the only correct way to do decentralized exchange:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14078549

I solved one of the most important technical design issue that exists in crypto currency.

Just let me know how many examples you need, but I think that one is already blockbluster enough to demand your apology.

Now can I stop posting here and get back to my work?

Here is another one where I explained precisely why Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem as everyone had thought he did:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13823607

Or how I explained that Monero had not solved Bitcoin's Tragedy of the Commons around block size and transaction fees:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13844014
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
How can an community wiki answer on StackOverflow have 1000+ up votes and have 19 edits by various superstars, and yet entirely miss the point that literal values are not Javascript Objects:

http://stackoverflow.com/posts/332429/revisions (see my edit #20)

Any way, a little bit of evidence for readers that I am polygot in programming languages. Also continued to demonstrate that today with another post to the Rust forum:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rust-as-a-high-level-language/4644/55
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
I am just a spectator.  Roll Eyes

Regarding the future of Bitcoin and its Tragedy of the Commons economic design:

At best one would see the type of cartel that TPTB_need_war  has suggested; however my take is that this kind of cartel would only last for a short time before collapsing. Just witness what is currently happening in the crude oil market.

Cartels form in power vacuums. They must align with the greater power vacuums in order to sustain their market inefficiency (top-down control can't anneal maximum fitness). So the only way such a cartel would not fail, would be to become a fiat of the world government and be sustained by the Iron Law on Political Economics which is the perennial, inimitable power vacuum.



the only question that matters: block size!

No the only longer-term question that matters is the minimum transaction fee, since that determines the block size. Note that while transaction fees are much less than coinbase rewards, then miners might include any transaction without even a fee for Nash equilibrium reasons.



The solution to the block size problem has nothing to do with controlling the size of the blocks. It requires a different design where transaction fees trend near to costs but not to costs, thus not making the nodes of the system bankrupt.



This brings us back to the Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limit combined with a tail emission found in Monero where:
1) The cost of mining a block is set by the block subsidy

Correct, meaning the amount of hashrate miners spend will be equal to the block subsidy[1] (where block subsidy will ultimately be Monero's perpetual tail reward which is necessarily a fixed # of coins), because (as I pointed out in our prior discussion) transaction fees will trend to costs, due to that the median block size MN will trend upwards to match market demand and thus there is no pricing power on transaction fees.

[1] Note this means the tail reward security of Monero will be very weak and insufficient.

2) The total amount in fees per block has to rise to a number comparable to, but most of the time smaller, than the block subsidy.

You wrote that before in our prior discussion:

The reason the above two scenarios do not apply to a Cryptonote coin with a tail emission such a Monero becomes apparent when one considers the economics of the total block reward components of fees and base reward (new coin emission). If the total in fees per block significantly exceed the base reward then it becomes economically attractive for miners to burn coins to the penalty by mining larger blocks. The block size rises until the total fees per block fall below a level where it is uneconomic for the miners to pay the penalty by increasing the blocksize. This level is comparable to the base reward. It is at this point where the need for a tail emission becomes clear, since without the tail emission the total block reward (fee plus base reward) would go to zero.

And it still doesn't make any sense to me. The block size will trend upwards to match transaction demand, because the penalty is driven to 0 as the median block size increases as  miners can justify burning some of the transaction fees to the penalty. That drives the median block size upwards, which drives the penalty to 0 again. The median block size doesn't have any incentive to decrease again, thus transaction fees then fall to costs.

Sorry as I told you before, Monero does not solve the Tragedy of the Commons in Satoshi's design. It does adaptively increase the block size while preventing spam surges.

I doubt John Conner's design has achieved any better, because as I explained at our prior discussion, there is no decentralized solution to that Tragedy of the Commons in the current proof-of-work designs. I have a solution, but it is a very radical change to the proof-of-work design that relies on unprofitable mining by payers.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
You are not paying attention because you don't realize he is not an experienced developer

I had an inkling of that very early on when he shared with Fuserleer that he was using a memory mapped data structure from Java, which I can't remember the details now but appeared to me be a suboptimal strategy for the use case.

I don't know if he is inexperienced or just trying to accomplish with the least effort. He hasn't shared with any of us what he did before Nxt.

He is obviously efficient. Estimate how much money they earned on Nxt. But you can't build anything really significant via schemes which are not expanding the pie for everyone in the ecosystem.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


I also don't understand how smooth is justifying his involvement with CC. I don't think he is being paid. I have only two theories:

1. It is a labor of love for him to be able to interface with a community, since I presume he otherwise worked a lot in FinTech. Perhaps he sees it dovetailing with FinTech down the line and is positioning himself to be an expert. If his true opportunity cost is $20 - 30K per month, then perhaps he is looking for the $millions homerun opportunity. Or just not really worried about money and doing it for other goals/interests.

2. (Wild ass theory only!) He is actually a mole of the national security agencies and is keeping tabs on everything for them. (I don't really think this, but I have a difficult time understanding why smooth is working in CC and the fact he is anonymous).

I think the business model of Monero from smooth's viewpoint is to build a superior design than Bitcoin and over the long-term have a payoff as the best alternative to Bitcoin. So it isn't just for the anonymity, but also for the ASIC-resistant hash function, the tail reward, the automatic resizing of the block size, etc..


I see. I guess it is sweat equity then. It's fine, it is not my business and he deserves it. I was just curious.


Quote
(also because there are some technologically interesting bits in Iota, even if the overall design fails to really work without centralization, IMO).

Of course there are interesting bits in it. The idea is novel and interesting. Most implementations of a relatively novel math paper have interesting bits. There are just no IoT nor revolutionary micro-processor which were sold to the greedy crowd.  


Quote
I am not limiting my sights on just working with people from CC. I am interested in working with any great developers from outside of CC as well. I originally thought that perhaps CfB was one of those potentially talented developers, which was one of the reasons

I think you pay no attention to the details in the case of CfB. I have the unmoderated IOTA thread and I came to understand better what CfB is. Is he smart? Of course he is very smart and creative. Scams like IOTA do require a high level of intelligence and creativity.
You are not paying attention because you don't realize he is not an experienced developer. Is his skill-set good enough to sell something to those greedy idiots who subscribed to his ICO and wait for the P&D to realize the dream ROI? Yes of course, his development skill is more than good enough for the scam. However, when you check his code you realize the guy is not better than mediocre. His code clearly indicates that he never worked in serious, enterprise environment nor on a serious open source project. (That's why he never can be your LinkedIn contact). A developer must be in the business for long years by interacting with more experienced developers and facing the daily issues of software development to pick up those skills which makes him an experienced developer. There are deployment issues that you need to keep in mind when you design your software. There are interoperability requirements which a project like IOTA must address. On a serious project you must think about the modularity of the software, maintainability, build process, test and other aspects of QA. He doesn't even remotely understand these because he never gained such experience. If a developer sit out a code review - which is part of most serious projects - with a really experienced developer or even if just interact with one in a team environment, then the developer will remember forever those comments about lack of error handling, use inheritance correctly, structure of code, testability of software, etc. If you are looking for an experienced partner you need to look at somebody else than CfB.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
Quote
I've always been sort of an impatient person because I have more things I want to do than I can do.

Would you mind telling me what are your thoughts in the matter of the spirit?  Roll Eyes


LISK    Develop Decentralized Applications & Sidechains in JavaScript with Lisk!

Ah that explains it:

Nice topic you got here TPTB.

Any thoughts on Lisk?

I have made a decision not to investigate any new coin projects, because then I would feel compelled to release my findings, which would mire me in more time wasting defenses against trolling and ad hominem attacks.

But you can probably safely assume it is another shitcoin in the mold of Ethereum. But I really don't want to enter more of these battles. I am trying to get my own software development and startup work moving at a faster pace.

"probably safely assume" - based on hearsay and gut feeling?
Man, I don't know about LISK and really don't care, but it's sad to see when "scientists" become common trolls.

Exactly why I don't investigate Lisk because then I am going to be attacked. Btw, smart contracts basically have no use cases that can actually work and sustain a decentralized Nash equilibrium (because block chains can only do that with data internal to the block chain, not external data). So I don't have to investigate to make a reasonable guess. And I did state it was a guess. I didn't state it was fact.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
2. (Wild ass theory only!) He is actually a mole of the national security agencies and is keeping tabs on everything for them. (I don't really think this, but I have a difficult time understanding why smooth is working in CC and the fact he is anonymous).

Crazier theory is that smooth is Satoshi. And he is here babysitting CC.
full member
Activity: 236
Merit: 100
Quote
I've always been sort of an impatient person because I have more things I want to do than I can do.

Would you mind telling me what are your thoughts in the matter of the spirit?  Roll Eyes
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
The issue is that no block chain consensus can maintain centralization over validation...

Corrected to, "The issue is that no block chain consensus can maintain decentralization of validation".

That is caused by being in sort of a zombie state due to the illness. I was wanting to drop my head on the keyboard when writing that above. I am feeling alert right now.

I ate hamburgers (beef) for the first time in several weeks today and immediately it made me fall asleep. Then I felt strong tonight when I woke up from that afternoon nap, yet a different sort of more intense pain in my lower abdomen area. Strange change to feel stronger yet more pain. I ran and felt very strong through the run yet more painful in my gut. So something is changing or going on down there that is new. I don't know if that is a sign of a cure coming or just more health bullshit ahead. Sigh.
Pages:
Jump to: