Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mrrr

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7
31
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: April 23, 2014, 09:26:23 pm »

Quotes from: AdamBLevine on Today at 05:57:24 PM

Quote
...I'm a little curious what great insight you have Daniel?

Quote
launch something before you take the time to gloat about other peoples success.

Set him up, then smack him down.  Nice.

the schadenfreude was going on way before I showed up, he was not defining it just saying that he would help them fix, and of course flatly saying that nobody understands economics.

Sorry guys, I spend about 5% the time on your project I used to so I don't have time to respond to everything.  I just wish you would work instead of talking about everybody elses failings when you are so unable to deal with your own.

On a sidenote:

Your presence has a positive influence on troop morale, and, apart from that, discussions like these make it worth to browse these boards. Do stick around.

32
General Discussion / Re: Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) White Paper
« on: April 23, 2014, 07:43:19 pm »
I don't know whether this has been discussed before (if it is, do excuse me) but:

What is the incentive of the user to vote in the first place?

I'm talking about a direct incentive here.

Reason I'm asking is because of this:

Heavycoin had/has its 'revolutionary' block reward voting. I personally couldn't be arsed to change the presets of the miner I downloaded off the pool website.

Users don't have to think about it... their client will automatically vote against anyone who is not performing and otherwise vote for the default clients.  Through observation it all clients will learn who to vote for.   

Users don't have to think about who to vote for, it is all automatic unless they want to override the automatic settings.   Those wishing to become delegate must market and campaign for people to override the defaults.   This means they must provide motivation for people to take action such as:

1) increasing user dividends
2) offering other services as a side benefit

That's very smart. Thanks for the explanation.

33
General Discussion / Re: Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) White Paper
« on: April 23, 2014, 07:14:51 pm »
I don't know whether this has been discussed before (if it is, do excuse me) but:

What is the incentive of the user to vote in the first place?

I'm talking about a direct incentive here.

Reason I'm asking is because of this:

Heavycoin had/has its 'revolutionary' block reward voting. I personally couldn't be arsed to change the presets of the miner I downloaded off the pool website.


34
General Discussion / Re: A DAC is a Sovereign Co-op
« on: April 23, 2014, 06:36:16 pm »
Lol, no, not discuss: elaborate :)

I understand what you are pointing at. Sovereignty is a bit of a problematic concept though. Has been discussed by wise men with respectable beards since the dawn of times and they still do not agree.

You could define a DAC as a co-op that by definition, autonomously, acts in the best interest of its owners.

For as far as I understood it, the 'autonomous' in DAC serves a double purpose. It expresses the limits to the the extent in which external forces can influence the Company, but it also expresses the limits to the extent in which the owners (internal forces) can influence the Company.

If you use sovereign in the sense that the owners cannot influence the 'organization or business' this is not correct. If you use sovereign in the sense that forces apart from the aforementioned owners cannot influence the 'organization or business' ; might as well stick with 'autonomous'

The limit in which the 'internal forces' can control the company is what is of value in a DAC. Mondragon, 'the Miracle of Basque Country' (or the ONLY business that seemed to have survived the crisis in Spain without a scratch), went bust because the internal forces were allowed to exert too much control over it.

I hope I'm making sense here.


35
Lets break this down to the basics at the risk of creating a straw man design:

Step 1) In Bitcoin chain, suspend coins on main bitcoin block chain
Step 2) In Sidechain,  verify that the coins were suspended in bitcoin chain using light weight validation.
Step 3) Time Passes
Step 4) In Sidechain,  issue transaction that provably destroys coins.
Step 5) In Bitcoin chain, given transaction that provably destroys coins, restore bitcoins.

Assumptions:
1) Bitcoin blockchain is secure and has insurmountable hashpower
2) Side chains only need the bitcoin block headers to validate incoming transfers
3) Bitcoin miners need headers of side chains to validate Step 5
    - with proof of stake coins, headers alone may not be sufficient for light weight clients because full block contents is necessary to know who should be signing for each block.
    - this means miners will have to rely on some kind of block explorer....
    - all bitcoin miners must be able to validate all transactions.... which means that side chains require 51% support of the miners. 

Conclusion:
  Bitcoin miners determine which side chains get supported.
  Bitcoin miners are centralized which means experimentation will be limited.
  Miners would have to voice support for a side chain and only allow transactions in/out of the side chain while 51% of blocks are produced by miners that claim to recognize the side chain.

So while steps 1 through 5 sound spiffy in theory, I believe that the only way to solve step 4 to 5 in a reasonable way is to assume that all side chains are also secured by proof-of-work which can be used as the simple, generic, validation measure.   This means that side chains must be merge-mining based.   I think this is a case of them making bold claims without actually walking through the details.

Is this side chain idea good or evil? I still cannot figure out whether or not it will work or why developers would want anything to do with it.

They are evil in a very fundamental way. And this gut feeling is not about the technicalities (which I do not completely comprehend).

There is a unhealthy concentration of power in the bitcoin community. To me it seems that the 1% doesn't just hold the majority of bitcoins, but also the majority of hashrate, majority vote on development and the majority of media coverage. Of course these people made crypto into what it is today and we should be thankful for that. But I cannot view the sidechain initiative in any other way than as an attempt to concentrate power in the hands of this group. An attempt to canonize bitcoin as the only crypto equity by decree. Which would be a historical mistake.

Look up the 'Luke-JR' episode on the counterparty thread on bitcointalk to see why it is a bad idea to let the bitcoin elite decide on what counts as innovation and what does not.

I'm rather confident that sidechains would cull any innovation that goes against the vested interests of the aforementioned 'elite'. This is bad, because bitcoin is an implementation of a concept. Not the concept itself. And bitcoin is not by definition the best implementation of the concept.

Now, of course, the altcoin environment is full with scams, pumps and predators. But in my opinion it is an environment that enables innovation at break neck speeds. For developers it offers the opportunity to monetize an idea. For speculators the opportunity to make a quick buck. For miners to hit a gold vein. For investors to browse for ideas that they think will be valuable in the long run.

And heck, it works. New algorithms, new distribution models, new mining models, new 2.0 models, new marketing models, hitting the forums on an almost daily basis. Made possible by independent development and speculation.

Most of these new ideas will go down the gutter of crypto-history. But some have already made an impact, and some may in the future.

Crypto needs wild, uncontrolled evolution, and it needs serendipity. Alt coins do that. To call them a distraction is beyond stupid to such an extend that I don't have a word for it.









36
General Discussion / Re: This investment makes people fickleness
« on: April 17, 2014, 03:43:30 am »
i sometimes feel fickleness too bro, don't worry about it

37
General Discussion / sidechains so so: meet aetherium
« on: April 17, 2014, 03:24:08 am »
coin distributed by a snapshot of the BTC blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

This is a weak attemp/power grab by the Bitcoin Rockefellers. Imagine a random altcoin with a good idea but the majority of coins is owned by Luke jr.....................................
...

Standstill.

38
General Discussion / A Good Read
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:11:52 pm »
http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articles/The-People-Who-Burn-Bitcoins-bitcoin/4/16/2014/id/54627?refresh=1

Spotlights for Larimers. I say big fire and suckling pigs and big barrels of beer and we dance naked.

39
General Discussion / Re: Nodeshares
« on: April 12, 2014, 01:43:05 am »
This is why Bitcoin and other coins that don't reserve funds for developers will have problems.... they depend upon charity.

Bitcoin can handle itself... if lack of full nodes becomes a real problem then we have more to worry about than nodeshares.

I get your point, but if full nodes become a real problem it is too late already. Initiative is to solve the problem before it becomes a problem. I3 should buy nodes. It is essential to the survival of cryptocurrencies all together. As said before: I'd rather see the revolution today. Not in 2075.

40
General Discussion / Re: Nodeshares
« on: April 12, 2014, 01:04:27 am »
History and the last 20 years are very different when it comes to R&D. There has been a breathtaking explosion in development, and PC and internet has entirely changed how things work.

Bitcoin may fail and be confined to history books; but the public ledger system is going to be adopted in one form or another.

As said: Bitcoin is our best bet at the moment. Yes, its not definite, and Yes, it will be replaced in time. But not today, and not tomorrow. I understand that the public ledger system is the first important invention of the 21st century. But no invention is deterministic by default. Ergo: this shit won't happen unless we make it happen. Mass adoption of bitcoin will make make mass adoption of I3 a hell of a lot easier. Support the bitcoin network: buy nodeshares.

41
General Discussion / Re: Nodeshares
« on: April 12, 2014, 12:45:07 am »
Now that we know crypto is just a new kind of company it cannot be stopped unless the concept of company stocks having value goes away. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are right bytemaster, but in order to get the general public to accept the very concept of cryptocurrency we do need Bitcoin. therefore I3 should support nodeshares.

42
General Discussion / Re: Nodeshares
« on: April 12, 2014, 12:35:47 am »
Crypto will only happen if BTC succeeds, if BTC doesn't we might have to wait another 100 years for the crypto revolution.

I believe Crypto will succeed regardless of BTC. The genie is out of the bag now, and its the next step in the revolution which started with PC and carried through internet.

I actually believe BTC failing can boost the overall crypto space, even though it may not be apparent immediately.

IDK, I bought myself a Gridseed in order to support the LTC network. 200$ spent and lots of people ask me WTF I spent my money on. The genie is out of the bag indeed, but we ain't there yet. Genies tend to pop out of bags from time to time, but the 'POP' doesn't always mean that the forelying idea will be mass-adopted. As I mentioned before: there are plenty of genius ideas to be found in history, and plenty of them never made it.

43
General Discussion / Re: Nodeshares
« on: April 11, 2014, 07:32:28 pm »
Supporting Bitcoin should be decided on a case by case bases. Bitcoin is a competitor and a springboard....

Until my grandmother has a BTC wallet it is a springboard.

There are some over here who are positively having sleepless nights due to the upcoming blokchain 2 thingy, and you want I3 to actually support Nodeshares :o

Lap slap your laptop and peek outside through the window. Millions of people who don't use cryptocurrencies. All of them are done with our current economic model. But their entry into crypto will be Bitcoin.

'If you can't beat them, join them'

Widespread adoption of cryptoxxx (currencies/shares...) will happen anyway. The question is which "companies" (coins/altcoins) will come out as actually profitable and thus widely used...

I disagree. History is not deterministic. I live next to a highway, and I know I'll statistically live 8 years less because of that. The electric car was invented in the 1880's, and around 1900 there were more electric cars on the road than there are today. The electric car is the better idea, would have saved me from lung cancer. but it didn't happen anyway

different analogy: the tin can was invented in 1772 in the Netherlands, the first can opener was patented in the UK in 1855.

Crypto will only happen if BTC succeeds, if BTC doesn't we might have to wait another 100 years for the crypto revolution.

I don't like waiting. Buy some nodes already.


(edited for typo's)

44
General Discussion / Re: Nodeshares
« on: April 11, 2014, 06:24:23 pm »
Supporting Bitcoin should be decided on a case by case bases. Bitcoin is a competitor and a springboard....

Until my grandmother has a BTC wallet it is a springboard.

There are some over here who are positively having sleepless nights due to the upcoming blokchain 2 thingy, and you want I3 to actually support Nodeshares :o

Lap slap your laptop and peek outside through the window. Millions of people who don't use cryptocurrencies. All of them are done with our current economic model. But their entry into crypto will be Bitcoin.

'If you can't beat them, join them'

45
General Discussion / Re: Nodeshares
« on: April 11, 2014, 06:08:36 pm »
Supporting Bitcoin should be decided on a case by case bases. Bitcoin is a competitor and a springboard....

Until my grandmother has a BTC wallet it is a springboard.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7