Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 54. (Read 99910 times)

Just because I caught Szabo in a dull moment and have called attention to his myopia in promoting Ethereum when they haven't even solved the fundamental issues, that means I am bragging  

Ethereum now has a $400 million market cap and even if the price doesn't increase, the market cap will grow 18% per year due to new coins being created. If without any price increase the market cap in 10 years will be $1.6 billion just due to new coins created.

Any one think that is a good investment   Hell even if it is a good design, it will be forked. It will never reach critical mass like Bitcoin to sustain a market to a $trillion market cap.

The upside is gone. Only bag holders buying or HODLering now. Any sane person would obviously sell at these prices.

Sorry I don't have the time to write up things in more clarifying words for readers.

And I really would like to exit this thread, unless someone has a challenge to any of my points?

Please don't think I was trying to shut you up. I just answered tersely.

CIYAM just claimed that Burst and Qora are running smoothly. Please read the prior several posts of this thread.

CounterParty is running on top of Bitcoin's block chain. I wrote upthread that Bitcoin's block chain can be made Turing complete by externalities.

Here you imply that you've designed something that solves the issues we are discussing in this thread.

You didn't acknowledge the design of those block chains and the relationship of those designs to the topic of discussion I have been making in this thread.

Also you assert parallelization, but I have already stated that parallelization will only work if there are not partitions and if the VM does not accept any state changes from the current block. So what are you really claiming?

Edit: I don't understand this CIYAM. First we approached each other in PM about working together (after I commented in a public thread asking why we hadn't considered working together). Then he seems to get jealous that I am getting attention in this thread. So I Pm'ed him to ask why he is getting so offended, then he replies he never wants to talk to me again. Is this behavior of a stable person   I am just wondering what I did that set him off kilter? Does he feel I am discrediting all programmable block chains (or would cause less money to flow to him)? But that is not what I wrote:


So I can only conclude that either CIYAM just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today, or he is jealous of the attention I am getting. Or he feels I am not qualified.

Childish only for someone who doesn't understand the importance of definitions and math. Childish is attacking someone for writing:


Why so emotional? Is what I wrote above really deserving of the way you reacted?

Orthogonal means your VM can be used with any block chain design and the design your VM is not impacted by any block chain considerations. Independent means that the performance of your VM is not dependent on which block chain design is chosen.

The point is your VM will not perform correctly[1] if the wrong block chain design is chosen. Therefor you can't claim you've solved the same issues that we are analyzing about Ethereum. Ethereum's problem is not the VM but rather the verification issue and game theory of mining.

Sorry you seem to not realize what this thread has been about.

Edit: also there needs to be some overview and explanation of your VM, it's purpose, etc.. The way you organize your documentation, there is nothing for the reader to get any coherence of what is being documented and why. For example, the AT spec doesn't even define 'host'. You just jump right in without giving the reader any idea what the technobabble is about. No diagrams, no explanation of terms, no overview, etc..

I wasn't criticizing you.

[1]	from the perspective of the holistic system. Obviously the VM functions orthogonally to the holistic outcome of the system.

Getting into childish word games is surely below your incredibly high IQ isn't it?

(think I'm ready to leave this topic now)

I didn't write 'orthogonal'. I wrote 'independent'. I hope you understand the distinction?

It is running on two entirely different kinds of block chains - if you are really interested to study them go ahead but AT is orthogonal to that (it is block chain agnostic).

Apparently it is working as it has been running for over a year on these two block chains (without any serious problem) but if you say it doesn't work then I guess we should just ignore reality and listen to you.

I never wrote that which is underlined. I said the link you provided is missing specification of the mining and game theory for the block chain. Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not write.


You can't proclaim a scripting VM for block chains works, if you don't specify the mining and game theory for the block chain.

The entire point I am making is the VM isn't independent of the mining and game theory for the block chain.

If Burst and Qora are doing centralized verification, then they will run smoothly (except for any issues due to being centralized). Or if those chains are claiming they are decentralized without partitions but haven't scaled yet, then they will run smoothly (until they scale up). If they are using partitions, they will break.

Paid Ethereum shills operating from newbie sock puppet accounts want readers to be ignorant of the facts. Look at the timing of my key posts in the linked thread and compare it to turning points the detailed price history over the past days.

That's funny - first you criticise Vitalik for being too abstract and "in the clouds" and now you criticise AT for being too practical and grounded.

If you would like to do some mathematical analysis you are most welcome to but you should realise that I didn't have anything to do with either of the two blockchains that AT runs on (and AT isn't a blockchain so your question about mining makes very little sense actually as the two blockchains in question work entirely differently).

I really feel sorry for you.  Now you are even moving ETH price with your comments? Oh boy...

But I don't see anything about verification and Nash equilibrium. I do not see a complete specification of how the mining and verification works and the game theory thereof.

They are all wrong about the block size issue. The only solution is CENTRALIZATION OF VERIFICATION. I already explained why.

The reason no one wants to admit that is because they think it means admitting that decentralized crypto is dead. They think the money will stop flowing and crypto will die. So they fight on making delusion.

Note until a coin scales, the centralization issue is avoided. So when you hear smooth et al equivocate, just remember Monero hasn't scaled yet. And remember I warned in 2013 that Bitcoin would have scalecolypse. Everyone equivocated then and I ended up correct.


Hell yes! Stopping funding the delusion! I am not sure of r0ach's aim for the thread though. Perhaps he just wanted to open the discussion.


I am working on it. And I am not asking for your $18 million + more.

Any highly dedicated capable developer has sufficient resources to go work on it too (at least to produce a rudimentary proof-of-concept which even Ethereum hasn't produced yet). We don't need Ethereum wasting our money on delusion and fat cats.


I already stated it will be imperfect. The verification will be centralized. But the PoW will be decentralized and unprofitable. But we will see if I messed up any of the Nash equilibrium analysis. I will surely see this when writing the detailed white paper (for the moment it is all in my writings on the forum and in my head).

At the moment, I am focused on being healthy and coding the adoption features. The coin technology is useless without mass adoption, especially in my design because the PoW comes from payers we need a lot of users of the currency not just a speculation circle-jerk. Such things as mass adoption aren't even on Ethereum's radar.

Maybe all this is true but it just reminds me of the 1MB blockchain disagreement around BTC. All sorts of technical arguments going back and forth.

What's the ultimate aim of this discussion thread? Are people meant to pull out of ETH? Abandon it? Or fix forward (if it can be fixed)? Or is it just to educate the masses? All cryptos have their critics and supporters. I bet some people just see this as ultimate FUD.

What's the bugbear?

You're bringing out your contribution to the industry soon. I'm interested to see what it is. If it does everything you say it'll do then then I'll be more than happy to support you and it, and to see it flourish.

I'll tell you one thing. I'm in software, and I'm yet to see any product released (from any manufacturer or any visionary) that does what was promised on it's first release. Just be careful. You might be building a rod for your own back with this thread. If your contribution isn't super-duper on the button perfect on release you might get slaughtered before you've even had a chance to do anything.

If Ethereum was a "teaching tool" it would not have had a many millions of dollars IPO cash grab.  By having an IPO, you're insinuating that you have a commercially viable product, thus Anonymint's complaints about things like the Howey test come into play.  If they knew it would not work at all from day one, or that they had no idea how it would work and attempted to do everything on the fly, it would be irresponsible at best and a scam at worst.



There are obviously some conflicts of interest in this space, but if you do even a tiny bit of research, you'll discover this is not me or Anonymint suddenly trying to rain on the Eth parade out of nowhere for no reason, and there existed an almost unanimous bearish sentiment on Eth from people like Gavin, Adam Back, Gmaxwell, etc, from the start.  What I'm saying is, outside of the Eth team itself, there are not many, if any, big names in crypto who seemed to think it would be good or even viable at all.  Going further down the crypto ladder, even the lowly Monero dev Smooth believes the market for these contracts is vastly overstated because of lack of demand to expand Bitcoin scripting (op_return does not count).



Fluffy and Smooth have already commented on Eth a lot.  Fluffy thinks it's the worst thing ever and Smooth is pretty bearish.

Correct, but ostensibly you are missing my point. My point is that if validators must trust validators of other partitions[1], then they can't achieve a Nash equilibrium because they must compute the game theory incentives that the other validators have to lie. For example, shorting the coin. Thus the rational action is to no longer assume that other validators are honest. Thus the Nash equilibrium collapses. And thus consensus-by-betting is no longer a rational Nash equilibrium convergence, e.g. the loss of the deposit is not a loss so then validators can't trust others validators (and need to validate everything themself which thus means there are no partitions).

This is really a high IQ point. You've got to visualize the issue at a meta abstraction level.

And if all validators (from all partitions) compute the validation for all partitions themselves, then there are no more partitions. Thus no scaling (at least not decentralized and scaling).

[1]

because partitions impact each other due to externalities of data that can be transported between partitions as I explained upthread, e.g. the output of a state transformation on one partition becomes the input of a state transformation on another partition, not directly on the block chain but due to an externality.

Ah, I see the comment you mean - didn't recognize it. Not sure what exactly he means with that but either way, I agree with you that money won't be the problem any time soon. But I also agree in some points with the "war-guy". I'm not a programmer and without a deep understanding of the technical side, but I recognized that there seem to be some uncertainty about the Casper-solution, even in the team. Or to say it with other words: It's maybe just my personal impression after reading discussions about it, but for me it seems that they don't exactly know how to do it and what could be the result in longterm - for the entire eco-system. And everytime I've asked about Casper it seems nobody wants to discuss it - I did not ask ETH-Devs, but several times in the german ETH-Thread and also in the official one. Either way I'm kind of surprised that Ethereum wants to switch to PoS. In my eyes that's a bad decision because PoS, even if it's a modified, must lead into economically centralization. I also recognized that V. Buterin did not reply to TPTB about Casper - as if he doesn't want to discuss it deeply.

At the moment I'm not invested, just watching and "analyzing" communication and also the market to figure out if I should buy or not. And I believe to see a lot of uncertainty and risk and I also believe that the market is highly manipulated. Can't prove that and it's not even because of the price but more because of the extremely high volume. Polo just has a little bit over 100k accounts and I never saw more than about 4000 active users at a time. I doubt that that is enough to maintain >30k BTC over several days. And if it's manipulated it won't be a usual pump group.

In that reddit thread you are quoting VB says "Have been negotiating ETH sales going all the way up "

Which is obviously the smart thing to do as it is in the best interest for the foundation. If I'm not completely mistaken it implies that companies or private individuals who are looking to buy a lot of Eth have contacted Ethereum foundation and made deals. Nothing wrong about that, in fact if they didn't consideer that then I would seriously question their ability to run and develop something as major as this.

Anyways my point is that the "war" guy said Ethereum was running out of funding, which couldn't be more untrue, especially now.