The Ethereum Paradox - page 28. | Bitcointalksearch.org

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 08, 2016, 11:01:53 AM

Quote from: iotatoken on March 08, 2016, 10:55:58 AM

The PoW is negligible, I assume that OP is talking about For All Practical Purposes free transfer, not some breaking the conservation of energy and flattening the curvature of the space-time continuum in a holographic principle type of manner 'free'. And as CfB has pointed out: the rest of your post is nonsense. Why the constant dishonest hyperbolic statements about IOTA from you?

Actually if you review my prior reply to CfB, then if I am correct that Iota must centralize in order to maintain convergence of consensus (which I am), then the centralized agents will be the ones resubmitting transactions (and redoing the PoW) to put the transactions on a branch that respects the enforced mathematical algorithm.

Thus these centralized agents will need to reimbursed and thus they will end up charging fees.

I am sorry but you and CfB are both wrong.

And proof-of-work is not any more negligible than the actual cost of processing transactions in Bitcoin (for the same hashrate security level). It is rather the centralization that drives up fees due to the power it enables to grab greater profits.

Please don't hype bullshit features.

The gloves come off with Iota. Sue me David as you threatened to do in a private message.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: monsterer on March 08, 2016, 10:20:16 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 08, 2016, 10:14:16 AM

I am not hilarious. I guarantee you are wrong. If you could simply wrap your mind around the fact that no one will attack if it is not profitable for them to do so, and the analyze the ways they can profit, then you will likely realize your error.

I shall wait for your white paper with its ever decreasing list of killer features:

~~99% attack resistant~~
~~no mining pools~~
~~censorship resistant~~

Stop criticizing that which you do not understand. There is nothing announced. Nothing for sale. And no white paper.

You will have ample time to apologize to me when there is.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 08, 2016, 10:14:16 AM

I am not hilarious. I guarantee you are wrong. If you could simply wrap your mind around the fact that no one will attack if it is not profitable for them to do so, and the analyze the ways they can profit, then you will likely realize your error.

I shall wait for your white paper with its ever decreasing list of killer features:

~~99% attack resistant~~
~~no mining pools~~
~~censorship resistant~~

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Minecache on March 08, 2016, 10:02:45 AM

This thread should be locked down because the OP is simply trying to spread FUD so he can fill his bag with cheap ETH. Why do people think he has an interest in cheap coinage.

FUD.

Is that the best you can do?

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: monsterer on March 08, 2016, 09:53:29 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 08, 2016, 09:51:57 AM

Sorry you just don't comprehend. Will I receive your apology when you later realize you were wrong, as you did on Iota and again on your other failed idea for DAG-like design.

How many times I have taught you, yet you still don't respect me. Sigh.

You are hilarious. Lets see your fabulous white paper - I look forward to it with the utmost enthusiasm.

I am not hilarious. I guarantee you are wrong. If you could simply wrap your mind around the fact that no one will attack if it is not profitable for them to do so, and the analyze the ways they can profit, then you will likely realize your error.

Minecache

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1024

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

This thread should be locked down because the OP is simply trying to spread FUD so he can fill his bag with cheap ETH. Why do people think he has an interest in cheap coinage.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 08, 2016, 09:49:31 AM

Quote from: hv_ on March 08, 2016, 09:28:12 AM

hm, but you're already selling. That's not ok.

Software doesn't require whitepaper to be sold.

Agreed, for Investments it's a bit different. It's a grey zoon all here ...

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 08, 2016, 09:51:57 AM

Sorry you just don't comprehend. Will I receive your apology when you later realize you were wrong, as you did on Iota and again on your other failed idea for DAG-like design.

How many times I have taught you, yet you still don't respect me. Sigh.

You are hilarious. Lets see your fabulous white paper - I look forward to it with the utmost enthusiasm.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: monsterer on March 08, 2016, 09:48:03 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 08, 2016, 08:17:03 AM

Quote from: monsterer on March 08, 2016, 05:16:30 AM

Quote from: r0ach on March 08, 2016, 04:44:00 AM

Profitable PoW just seems harder to attack by irrational actors than unprofitable PoW on an unpartitioned system.

Rational actors in unprofitable PoW have no incentive not to attack the system. At least if it's profitable there is the mining incentive.

This is utterly dumb confused crap, especially after I had already explained to you recently the profits from 51% attacking.

Your explanation was, frankly nonsense. I gave up trying to argue with you.

Sorry you just don't comprehend. Will I receive your apology when you later realize you were wrong, as you did on Iota and again on your other failed idea for DAG-like design.

How many times I have taught you, yet you still don't respect me. Sigh.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: hv_ on March 08, 2016, 09:28:12 AM

hm, but you're already selling. That's not ok.

Software doesn't require whitepaper to be sold.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 08, 2016, 08:17:03 AM

Quote from: monsterer on March 08, 2016, 05:16:30 AM

Quote from: r0ach on March 08, 2016, 04:44:00 AM

Profitable PoW just seems harder to attack by irrational actors than unprofitable PoW on an unpartitioned system.

Rational actors in unprofitable PoW have no incentive not to attack the system. At least if it's profitable there is the mining incentive.

This is utterly dumb confused crap, especially after I had already explained to you recently the profits from 51% attacking.

Your explanation was, frankly nonsense. I gave up trying to argue with you.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 08, 2016, 09:26:51 AM

Quote from: hv_ on March 08, 2016, 08:49:15 AM

Guess, that could be seen as a systemic risk, correct?

Did you communicate that in some paper transparently ?

Paper is not ready yet.

hm, but you're already selling. That's not ok.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: hv_ on March 08, 2016, 08:49:15 AM

Guess, that could be seen as a systemic risk, correct?

Did you communicate that in some paper transparently ?

Paper is not ready yet.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 08, 2016, 07:28:36 AM

Quote from: YarkoL on March 08, 2016, 07:14:17 AM

Who runs that node?

Iota team.

Guess, that could be seen as a systemic risk, correct?

Did you communicate that in some paper transparently ?

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: monsterer on March 08, 2016, 05:58:11 AM

Personally, I think they will be necessary throughout it's life, though, simply because there is no mining competition, therefore no bound on the network hashrate or anything to value the PoW such that transaction acceptability can be easily bounded.

That is not the generative essence issue that causes Iota to centralize. Rather it is that the choice of the mathematical algorithm to use when payers sign and payees accept, is a Prisoner's dilemma— i.e. they can't be sure that every other payer and payee is using the same algorithm and the algorithm is only provably convergent on consensus when most (a super majority?) participants choose the same algorithm.

There simply isn't enough mathematical analysis of Iota yet to fully characterize the game theory. It needs centralization to prevent edge cases.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: monsterer on March 08, 2016, 05:16:30 AM

Quote from: r0ach on March 08, 2016, 04:44:00 AM

Profitable PoW just seems harder to attack by irrational actors than unprofitable PoW on an unpartitioned system.

Rational actors in unprofitable PoW have no incentive not to attack the system. At least if it's profitable there is the mining incentive.

This is utterly dumb confused crap, especially after I had already explained to you recently the profits from 51% attacking.

You conflate unrelated economic issues and you have so confused yourself.

I told you I am not going to repeat myself again. I have no incentive to give away my design. I already described the design to a large extent and I just smile as you butcher your understanding of it.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: smooth on March 08, 2016, 04:50:15 AM

Quote from: BitconAssociation on March 07, 2016, 09:09:49 PM

TL;DR: Bitcoin, like house dealers and cool bands, was great when it was obscure. Success just doesn't become it Sad

I largely agree here. I don't know that any of these systems can truly scale, nor that any of them will ever be useful for large amounts of value.

The solution may be much the same as cool bands, or anything else (including anything "cool" that only works when it is small). Churn.

Indeed the powers-that-be are going to try find a way to control anything that is popular. Period. That is why you see everyone here has been reduced to doing P&D to steal from each other, while the whales (powers-that-be) walk away our money.

We are fucked. Society is fucked.

I'd rather try to do something about that and maybe fail, then to do nothing and certainly fail.

And I can earn some money on that attempt as well, and so can others.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: r0ach on March 08, 2016, 04:44:00 AM

If he was to try and convert it entirely to your system, it seemed to me like it would easily suffer from permanent preemption or constant service outages from government powers attacks. I'm not really sure how you get past that issue. Profitable PoW just seems harder to attack by irrational actors than unprofitable PoW on an unpartitioned system.

If the government wants to take down a coin, they can always do it even for Bitcoin. But that is a nuclear option, because there is no direct profit to 51% attacking a coin.

Whether the mining is profit or not, is irrelevant to the profitability of attacking a coin. The profitability of mining enables economies-of-scale to centralize the coin, which helps enable attacks. What you are erroneously claiming is that by overpaying for mining, then it is more secure than by paying consumerately to the level of transactions for unprofitable mining. But the latter may be 1000X more popular, thus have a higher hashrate (and use much less electricity per transaction as well as being decentralized).

Society needs for digital currency to work (which it can't if it is centralized because centralized shit always fails), so that society doesn't collapse into a Dark Age. I have to believe society will limit government, else we can all kiss our current quality of life goodbye.

Really you guys are clueless about my design and why it will work. And I like it that way, so you can't copy it.

Apparently Satoshi agreed:

Quote from: http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/4/

Quote

>[Lengthy exposition of vulnerability of a systm to use-of-force
>monopolies ellided.]
>
>You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.

Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of
freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled
networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be
holding their own.

Satoshi

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: ?? on ??

Click & scroll down for the Casper progress... don't miss the links to the hangout video!

http://blog.synereo.com/2016/03/06/Synereo-Update/

At 1:11:45, Greg Meredith claims that the Nash equilibrium can be ignored because all game theories can be considered within the Pi calculus model.

Naive viewers might assume this implies the loss of Nash equilibrium (which we explained upthread) is irrelevant. Rather what he is saying is that any effects from the loss of Nash equilibrium will be observed in the Pi calculus model. He has not shown a proof that no negative effects exist within the Pi calculus model.

Worse yet, what he doesn't appear to realize is that his Pi calculus model is incomplete. It doesn't model the economic externalities that can't possibly be captured by a model of recursive (self-referential) validation, such as shorting the coin and the value of double-spends of sharded gas to the attacker. The Pi calculus is a process model, thus it doesn't capture these economic externalities.

In short, more technobabble bullshit.

YarkoL

legendary

Activity: 996

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 08, 2016, 07:28:36 AM

Quote from: YarkoL on March 08, 2016, 07:14:17 AM

Who runs that node?

Iota team.

It's hard to see why anyone would ever let go of nanny's hand
and enter the wild west.

Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 28. (Read 99876 times)