Quote from: TPTB_need_war on November 16, 2015, 04:19:07 AM

Quote from: Crestington on November 15, 2015, 11:41:24 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on November 14, 2015, 03:31:19 AM

Quote from: Crestington on November 13, 2015, 11:46:36 PM

right now you are spending all your time procrastinating, posting about conspiracy theories and making polls about nonsensical details.

Foolish statements made by blind fools are good for motivation and feedback (as well as providing a record of those who will "eat crow" soon).

The joke (and priorities suggestion) portion of your post was interpreted humorously (including the n00b, naive, humorous notion of de-prioritizing branding & marketing), but the quoted portion is not a factual statement (which you could have verified by simply checking my latest posts by clicking my profile before posting your comments).

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on November 14, 2015, 03:30:11 AM

I've been busy doing 1) math; and 2) designing how micro-transactions scale and the impacts of value hiding of (Compact or just) Confidential Transactions (which also pertains to my derivative Zero Knowledge Transactions):

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085436.msg12964946#msg12964946

2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1249015.0

Don't care about eating crow and will never invest in your Coin no matter how good it is because you continually assault anyone that have any objections. You have this "higher than thou" attitude that I find absolutely repulsive, you have a high mathematical aptitude but suck at social interactions. Time is ticking in order to gain network effect so why should I choose your project out of thousands of others when you can't manage to run a team without running them off? Are you going to solo the entire project?

Well that is good, we finally have someone who states they will never invest in anything I create. And then if what I create is spreading like wildfire to millions of users then you will simply step aside from crypto as Bitcoin dies, because YOUR EGO is bigger than YOUR RATIONALITY.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404

Quote from: original famous progenitor of "open source"

Ego is for little people

When I got really famous and started to hang out with people at the top of the game in computer science and other fields, one of the first things I noticed is that the real A-list types almost never have a major territorial/ego thing going on in their behavior. The B-list people, the bright second-raters, may be all sharp elbows and ego assertion, but theres a calm space at the top that the absolutely most capable ones get to and tend to stay in.

My claim is that egotism is a disease of the incapable, and vanishes or nearly vanishes among the super-capable.

No. Its more that ego games have a diminishing return. The farther you are up the ability and achievement bell curve, the less psychological gain you get from asserting or demonstrating your superiority over the merely average, and the more prone you are to welcome discovering new peers because there are so damn few of them that it gets lonely. There comes a point past which winning more ego contests becomes so pointless that even the most ambitious, suspicious, external-validation-fixated strivers tend to notice that its no fun any more and stop.

Im not speaking abstractly here. Ive always been more interested in doing the right thing than doing what would make me popular, to the point where I generally figure that if Im not routinely pissing off a sizable minority of people I should be pushing harder. In the language of psychology, my need for external validation is low; the standards I try hardest to live up to are those Ive set for myself. But one of the differences I can see between myself at 25 and myself at 52 is that my limited need for external validation has decreased. And its not age or maturity or virtue that shrunk it; its having nothing left to prove.

What I have to prove now is prove to myself that my illness and my age has not removed my ability to do important work, i.e. that I have not become useless.

I am not striving for your validation (as in a personal one of comparing myself personally to you or any other person for validation of my ego). I recognize the talents of others and have commended them on their capabilities when they shine such as smooth, gmaxell, vitalik, etc.. I have also expressed my disgust with individuals who abuse their skills to ridicule others (such as gmaxwel ridiculing me in some forum interactions) who are sincerely trying to contribute and always willing to mea culpa. What I am saying is that OTHERS DO THEIR DAMNED BEST TO TURN WHAT SHOULD BE A MERITORIOUS COMPETITION FOR THE BETTERMENT OF ALL INSTEAD INTO PETTY EGO BATTLES. And when I state that, then those same people (e.g. including apparently yourself) then claim it is my ego that is the source of the acrimony. It is just so nonsensical that I am reaching the point where I think the best course of action is to ignore these B-listers and just focus on what I am trying to accomplish.

The other thing I am trying to prove right now is the myopia of all those who think that the only correct way to create a better crypto-currency is the Monero way, and basically that you must join together in open source, "steal" ("improve" or "open source") someone else's invention (and claim perhaps rightly so that the inventors abused their invention), and then use groupthink to make all the creative decisions.

So many people have criticized me for refusing to join a groupthink at the nascent stage, and do not seem to understand that I want the flexibility to apply my own creativity until I have proved something that is worthy of open source collaboration.

I competed in team sports and individual sports in my youth. At various stages of my life I was an MVP in both American football (one with the helmet in playground leagues and again in college) and Track & Field (at middle distance in high school). Later in life I competed in software, several times being involved with software that reached out to millions of users. What I learned is that there is a role for individual competition (e.g. in Track and Software you are often going alone and competing against yourself) meshed with team based competition (e.g. in Football and even in Software if you create a successful open source effort).

So I have experience in discerning where the optimum sweet spots are in terms of the balances between individualistic and team based efforts. The Mythical Man Month applies especially to highly flexibility, iteractive, creative nascent stages that require an abundance of communication to accomplish within a group effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

"Therefore, assigning more programmers to a project running behind schedule will make it even later. This is because the time required for the new programmers to learn about the project and the increased communication overhead will consume an ever increasing quantity of the calendar time available. When n people have to communicate among themselves, as n increases, their output decreases and when it becomes negative the project is delayed further with every person added.

Group intercommunication formula: n(n − 1) / 2

Example: 50 developers give 50 · (50 1) / 2 = 1225 channels of communication."

Quote from: original famous progenitor of "open source"

And yet, there are people out there who are going to read the previous paragraph and think Oh, thats Erics ego again. The blowhard. Ive had a lot of time to get used to such reactions over the last decade, but its still hard for me not to collapse in helpless laughter at the implied degree of Not Getting It.

If youre the kind of person who can make it to the top even in a single field (law or CS or whatever) you may not have started out with better things to do than compete for attention and glory, but by the time you make the A-list youve almost certainly discovered subtler games to play that are much more fun. Youll maintain a reputation because a reputation is a useful tool, but its not the point any more. If it ever was. In my experience this is even more true of polymaths, possibly because their self-images as competent people.have broader and more stable bases.

I think there are a couple of different reasons people tend to falsely attribute pathological, oversensitive egos to A-listers. Each reason is in its own way worth taking a look at.

The first and most obvious reason is projection. Wow, if I were as talented as Terry Pratchett, I know Id have a huge ego about it, so I guess he must. Heh. Trust me on this; he doesnt. This kind of thinking reveals a a lot about somebodys ego and insecurity, alright, but not Terrys.

You have failure of logic and rationality as follows. Which can severely impact your ability to be an expert speculator.

Quote from: Crestington on November 15, 2015, 11:41:24 PM

you have a high mathematical aptitude but suck at social interactions.

Personal social interaction is not marketing genius or luck which drives a million user adoption. Personal social interaction scales far too slowly. Duh. I couldn't even personally interact with a million people in my lifetime.

So my personality has nothing at all to do with it. This is I presume your butthurt ego standing in front of the line of your rationality telling you that I can't possibly succeed. If you say to yourself, "there he goes again using 'butthurt' and offending the community", my response is that I am tired of this forum and the attacks. Enough already! And besides this forum does not matter to the success of my project as you will soon see once you see my marketing and distribution method.

And also your assumption that I don't excel in social interactions is incorrect and based on some nonsense forum with 99.999% males who are constantly trying to prove their big egos. I have in fact entertained large groups at Comdex exhibits.

When it comes to interacting with other programmers in an open source setting, the key is to be factual and meritorious. That is what the A-listers want, because A-listers care about results, not time wasting egos. The B-listers of course are all elbows and acrimony and that is why you want them to go "contribute" to your competitor's open source in order to bog their project down in molasses and least common denominator groupthink. That means every eyeball is helpful and welcome, but even Linus Torvalds said he has about 5 people who he trusts and everyone else is an idiot. He is very outspoken this way, yet runs the largest and most successful open source project on the planet.

Quote from: Crestington on November 15, 2015, 11:41:24 PM

Time is ticking in order to gain network effect so why should I choose your project out of thousands of others when you can't manage to run a team without running them off? Are you going to solo the entire project?

1. Time is ticking.

2. I never ran off a team, I chose not to grab the opportunity to collaborate with others who offered, because flexibility is more important in the nascent stage. And because I didn't want to suck others into my grand experiment and make them suffer for any failure on my part. A team makes much more sense when they can contribute on their own volition to something that already has a demonstrated position. To organize a team when everything is a projection, requires a partnership in risk and binds people in ways that means I really can't lead 100% without taking responsibility for the effects of my decisions on others who have staked their future on their investment (contribution of effort and time).

3. I am solo right now, because it made the most sense after all considerations. But of course no one who is serious about long-term viability is going to remain solo on an open source crypto-currency any longer than it is beneficial to do so, which is a very short nascent stage when flexibility of leadership is a higher priority than the shared resources of open source.

Note that if I had an ongoing software engineering relationship experience with another or others, then it is possible I would have made the decision to leverage teamwork during the nascent stage, because I would have had confidence from past experience with those individuals that we possessed the working synergy to make it work at the stage where the ideas around the designs and the issues are changing so fast. Even just working in the same building so able to talk at-will instead of working virtually could have impacted that decision. But given the situation I have and the time criticality of releasing something asap, the decision was made that the quickest result would be to not involve any others in the programming and engineering. I have involved the community in the naming and marketing conceptualization in this thread.

Another failure of logic is to assume that a team of 3 guys could scale a crypto-currency any better than a solo developer. Unless you can get the project to the point where many, many people are contributing, then 3 programmers can't scale it by themselves. That is why it is irrational to conclude that a project with 2 devs is somehow more likely to succeed than a project with 1 dev. A project with 3 devs might be more likely to fail, because more opportunities for the 3 devs to cheat each other and cause a devolution of the project. The only thing that brings stability is long-term popularity of the project.

Can I quote without reading? Totally didn't read it. A whole book for a 2 sentence reply?

Give me like 5 sentences or less why your project is going to be a game-changer and why.