Topic: Where are you 'Iamnotback'? - page 5. (Read 35318 times)

Afaik, NNTP is not decentralized consensus. Rather it is a single news server which is the canonical source and other servers can mirror it.


Thus it didn't have my moderation feature. And it didn't charge a minuscule microtransaction fee to post, which is the another aspect I'm planning. Steemit already does this, you don't do any activity on the blockchain without paying a fee, but the fee on Steemit is a quota instead of deduction from your token balance (yet your token balance is debased, so same effect as charging a fee). On Bitnet, the fees are burned, so the money supply shrinks and thus your tokens become more valuable.


A poorly designed and programmed system is not a refutation of my plans.


A blog page with trailing comments, and self-moderated forum thread are essentially the same thing.

However, there are advantages to the economies-of-scale of having a unified GUI and feature set for all threads.

Also I hub of threads, i.e. a forum, yields economies-of-scale in readers and content browsing/searching.


The forum canonical source doesn't need to be centralized. Perhaps you mean having the common hub or nexus of a list of threads that can be browsed and searched. Indeed.


I am up for the challenge of trying to create a decentralized forum technology that could end up being used by a billion users.

BCT is but a speck of sand at the beach, compared to what I have in mind.


There you go with your aliasing error again. You constructed a strawman. I don't need to pay a price. Just create a better mousetrap and watch the world choose to use it, instead of the inferior forum software out there now.


Decentralized forums don't need to suffer any disadvantages and can have many advantages, if they are designed well.


Not really. Please stop comparing archaic crap to my plans. Usenet is not all similar to what I have in my plans.


Correct most people are followers, not leaders. You have this habit of failing to assimilate what I already wrote upthread (like you have selective reading comprehension):

I don't think so. The whales have no incentive to allow it to change. The whales (miners and hodler whales) have and will continue to block SegWit and any other changes which remove their mathematical economic dominance as I described it. @dinofelis and I seem to agree on this point.

I even claim that Satoshi premeditated designed it this way. Of course whenever I claim that, it causes @dinofelis to accuse me of being delusional and having a confirmation bias.


This will never happen for the reason I stated above and also because of the huge investment in ASIC mining farms and ASIC engineering (e.g. Bitmain).

Litecoin has been designated the offchain (thus regulated) scaling coin. Bitcoin will remain the on chain, unregulated but only for those who can afford to pay the egregious transaction fees that are coming in the future years.


That is not a refutation of the math I provided.

You seem to have difficulty comprehending the math, as evident by your reply which makes no logical point w.r.t. math I provided.


I already stated that the dolphins (those who are $millionaires now) will. They will pay the high transaction fees because they want to transact on chain, unregulated.

The minnows are entirely worthless and insignificant. As usual, the sheep are pushed out on to the regulated farm so they can be harvested for economic parasitism by the shadow elite.

Simply in awe. The advice has been amazing. Wish I had something to contribute to the conversation. Waynes World moment...[We're not Worthy!!!]

good to see you posting again man. would you advise to take profits on LTC now at 0.0140-0.0145 range? if so what will be a good buyback price?

Next stop 0.016+.

Note how the pattern matches from April 23, except the lows are not as low, thus indicating the next rise will make a higher high instead of a lower high. And I have a theory about alternating downwards and upwards staircase steps, with the angle of ascent increasing.

I advised buying LTC when it was $7 and less than 0.006. Now it is $20+ and 0.0014+. I wrote on April 2, that LTC would have to catch up on making its ATH before BTC could make significant progress on its new ATH. Thus once again my prediction was correct.

As I already wrote, the group leader/expert should moderate asymmetrically when the subject matter is perceived to be insolent to group's mission or thesis:



You'd be welcome to go lead your own group else stop being insolent to the astute thesis of the group expert:

---

There you go again with your aliasing error. You form batshit insane conclusions from point samples, as if you looked up at a stopped clock at 6am and 6pm and concluded the clock was functioning properly.

I have no problem in a social setting when I can remove the riff-raff trolls from the conversation I am participating in. Either I am leading that group or I find the group leader's moderation to be agreeable to me else I don't participate (and that is why I no longer participate in BCT). I already explained that this forum doesn't allow one to effectively form groups:


Instead it is a one-size-fits-all least common denominator clusterfuck wherein we have paid trolls like @jonald_fyookball writing delusional nonsense as follows:

I am not the one who allows multiple duplicate threads on the same subjects, thus forcing me to copy posts to the multiple threads on the same topics.

It is not a logically valid reason for perma-banning.

I've always wondered why your mods are so derelict that they can't stop the duplication of threads on the same subject matter.


Because your ban was inane for the reason I stated above. I refuse to follow inane rules made by unorganized fools.


Thus your policy is that posting in all the threads on the same subject matter is unacceptable. And whose fault is that. Duh.


And that is why your forum will die. And is dying.

I've also heard you were also censoring on Reddit.




I will never promise to respect idiots who are corrupt, unorganized, and make inane rules.

Besides why would I allow you to be an authority over me, when I can simply disrupt your paradigm and destroy your corruption. The latter is much more sane and inspirational.

I am not coming back to your insane asylum. The final posts will be made here in this Meta thread.


If by "multi-posts" you are referring to fact that I post multiple responses to different individuals in a thread, then your rule is batshit insane. How else am I supposed to conduct myself if I am not able to discuss all the issues presented in the thread. And my posts are often incredibly detailed because of the nature of the subject matter and thus necessarily too long to merge multiple posts into a single post, even though I do that often with horizontal rules separators. I fail to see the major difference between multiple posts and multiple posts merge into one post. It is the same content regardless.

Essentially your inane rule is that you are throttling how much effort someone can put into making content for your forum. That is stupid.

You are arbitrarily silencing me because others don't like the fact that I work very hard to cover all the issues.

If you really want a throttle, then simply institute one, some maximum number of posts per hour for example.




Correct. And it will never change until you fix your problem. Or more likely, until I fix the problem and render your forum irrelevant.


You're disrupting your own forum. The end is near.


I could almost like you, if I could possibly understand your behavior in allegedly censoring at Reddit and the inane throttling of my ability to create incredibly valuable content.

It is possible to turn my attitude into a positive one, if you simply fix the inane nonsense.

I'm quite amiable with people who don't destroy value. It is not difficult to be my friend, as my friends will attest.

But corruption and inane destruction of value will justifiably continue to earn my ire. I never intentionally put myself on the wrong side of what is correct. Those who do simply have some vested interest which prevents them from doing so or blindness to the correct reality.


FMS is a messaging system, not a forum. You don't seem to understand most basic issues of technology, because there is no way that Freenet could implement a forum because afaik it doesn't have any distributed consensus on ordering of data in time. It is a P2P file sharing system, not a blockchain.

Also there are bound to be a huge laundry list with usability issues by any software created by an academic who doesn't have experience in creating commercial user facing software. For example, I don't even know if there is a web browser interface so that someone doesn't have to download an app just to taste it. And any mobile apps available?

---

Meanwhile in Venezuela.

---

Edit on May 5:

Someone sent me a PM suggesting that I try to compromise with @Theymos. I declined. The reason is because I've been compromising for the past 4 years dealing with this inane insane asylum forum. I am tired of fighting with all the trolls and being blindsided by moderation. I think I need to create something better. I don't think I need to go backwards into the cesspool. So thanks, but no thanks. If BCT is improved, I might change my mind.

To elaborate a bit, I am a pragmatic person and did choose to use BCT rather than attempt a more difficult challenge. I am normally a person who is willing to compromise in order to facilitate the most efficient path forward. But I also learned in life that once you've been severely abused, if you come back for more, you'll be abused more. The pattern we see early in a relationship never changes. I have learned from life, that what we see is what we get. People don't change.

So no! I am not going to come back for more abuse. Sorry. There is no possible compromise other than if BCT is improved to fix what is causing the problems. But of course it won't be improved ever. It won't change.

Additionally the rules are ambiguous and arbitrary and I would have to walk on eggshells. Sorry I don't want to live my life worried about everything. BCT isn't worth the headaches.

I do not want to continue discussions on a site where I have deal with so many trolls and don't have the moderation tools available so I can efficiently squelch their strife. It simply isn't worth the disruption to production. It is a cesspool of noise and strife. I don't want my important technological content being buried and obscured by trolls and subject to deletion by mods. It creates too much duplication of work and wastes enormous quantities of time dealing with crap. This time could be better invested in productive activities.

To the idiot who keeps sending me PMs and thinks he knows better than me, you're just another troll. Please stop. It has nothing to do with my ego. It has to do with stopping the daily strife, so that I can get work done. Stop being so worried about how I will market my project. I know what I am doing. And you don't! So please STFU and stop sending me PMs. I don't need your advice nor your opinion. It's just more noise. I get so much noise from this forum. If you can do something important, go do it. Stop running your mouth and causing me to waste more time explaining it to you. I don't need to explain. I know what I am doing and that is the only person who needs to know at this juncture.

A permissionless crypto-currency is not well matched to a permissioned forum. Mavericks don't attain greatness by compromising their goals and ideals and pussy footing around.

Oh btw, I never wrote that I wouldn't consider buying advertising (from @Theymos or from users' signature space) in the future. It remains a possibility, although there are other choices as well such as Coindesk, Coinmarketcap, etc.. I haven't analyzed that yet. Too premature.

Why are you on a forum where there are essentially, to your view, only two participants: "you and your sock puppets" and "us" ?

That said, it comes close to my view on the world: "me", and "the others"

Visibly your "insolence meter" is asymmetrically calibrated.  This is probably one of the reasons why you end up banned from online social interaction here, which, from an intellectual point of view, can be regrettable, but which, on the side of politeness, is understandable.


Such a rudimentary system existed in the 1990-ies as I said before: it was called usenet, and had a simple, decentralized protocol: NNTP.  Nobody ever bothered writing a filter script on top of it, but that is something that could be done with not too much hassle.  usenet died because it crumbled under gigabytes of daily spam ; but what is spam for one, is interesting for another one.  I used to hang around in the sci.physics section, where every lunatic was exposing his rants about his theories of the universe, making normal talk about normal physics essentially impossible.  That's how sci.physics.research was born, with moderation.  Now, of course, to most of us, those lunatic "original thinkers" were spammers writing every thread full of bullshit, but for a limited audience, they were of course visionaries that exposed the conspiracy and idiocy of academia.  So who's to decide ?  Of course you could add blacklists.  Yes, you could even distribute black lists.  But it was a pain.

On the other hand, if you want to vent your own opinions, the internet allows you to have your personal blog where you are master.  Nobody stops you from citing other blogs, picking out what you like, and comment it.  If you are a popular blogger, people will read your stuff.

However, attracting attention to your blog is much more work that profiting from the attraction of an existing centralized forum.  I guess that's why you are here - that's why I am here: both of us want the easiness of picking in on the existing success and social gathering of this forum, instead of going through the difficulty of trying to build such a community from scratch, with all chances of it failing.  I want to have people answering my stuff, so that I can learn from it, and I have my own method of provoking answers, which is not necessarily adversarial to the system I'm (ab)using.  The price to pay to profit from some other entities' popularity, is to accept their power and rules. BTW, this is why many decentralized systems are doomed: people, in general, are willing to pay a price of power, to get easiness back from it.   Usenet was a precursor of decentralized discussion.  People prefer, by large, centralized versions of it.   If you want to have decentralized discussion, restart usenet, and add a "Joe's moderation preferences" script to it, with a moderated group mod.prefs.joe, which contains the encodings of his daily moderation preferences ; or Joe can also put his moderation preferences on his web site.  Nothing difficult.  Nobody will use it.  Hell, there were moderated groups on usenet too, the only ones that were actually usable.  Everybody could start his own moderated group.  Most people didn't.

I've been moderating scientific discussions for a long time, until I really got enough of it.  I respect the moderators on a big forum like this: it is an ungrateful job, and it is difficult to keep one's cool sometimes.  Of course, sometimes, when things don't happen the way you think is fair, a suspicion of conspiracy against your ideas is easy, because the power structure is opaque.  As I've seen the other side for years, and if you see the free investment by people, you know that this is most likely not the case.

This is, BTW, something that crypto is entirely killing: free engagement.  Everything that was freely given away, is now subject to accountancy.  Your idle computing time that could be used for voluntary projects, is taken away because you can use it to mine some coins ; discussing on a blog becomes an act to be paid for in coins ; when free generosity becomes a matter of accountancy, there's no fun to be had any more.  Crypto is killing the last bit of freedom by trying to make everything to be paid for.

You are popular.  You can have a popular blog.  You can of course copy whatever you want from this forum to comment on your blog.  That's exactly what you are proposing.  What's the problem ?

1. If ALL the minnows are completely 100% out of bitcoin blockchain, then WHO will pay the fee to feed the miners? Nobody! Then what's the point of pushing the minnows out? There is no point.
2. If the whales are the same as the miners, then pushing out all the minnows and earn ZERO fee instead of retaining them and earn some fee is unwise.

You keep talking about pushing out the minnows based entirely on miners' greed.
You don't really understand game theory entirely.

Without the minnows, who will pay the fee to the miners?
Who will make up for the difference once ALL the minnows left?
Answer me, you retard!

If bitcoin is reserved only for the whales, the top $billionaires and $trillionaires, then I sincerely say you have no fcking idea what's the primary purpose of bitcoin.
If you think bitcoin is made to fight the tyrant governments and sideline the banksters, you are really an idiot.
Bitcoin wasn't made reserved for the top elites.
Bitcoin was made for us sheeps.
The altcoins are just 1) distraction, 2) sandboxes to test out proposals.

lol... im not falling for it.  dorky is another sock.  

whats with you man