Re: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?
The truth about Ethereum, i.e. borderline scam or at least technological incompetence:
Why are you displaying your ignorance about technological issues that you are apparently incapable of comprehending? Even you were in my Reddit thread where I explained it, yet you somehow still are in this delusion that Ethereum is not incompetent.
Ethereum is not better than any other scam. And it is a borderline scam or at least incompetence masked by technobabble from some young nerds who know some math and programming, but have limited capitulation to reality.
Yeah why are you doing that stoat?
And you are lying about my identity and have refused to retract your slander, when I am clearly not the two users you accused me of being and I have even shared my LinkedIn photo and identity.
Why can't you admit that Ethereum's developers suck and after $millions wasted, they still have not solved the most fundamental issue that must be solved in order to make scripting on a block chain work?
The technological challenge with a long-running script on a block chain is verification. The gas (and txn fees) are paid to the winner of the PoW block, not to all miners, but all miners (full nodes) have to endure the SAME cost of verification. Yet not all miners have the same hashrate, thus not all miners have the same income per block. Thus some miners recoup less of their verification costs than other miners. As I explained in greater detail, this forces mining to become 100% centralized in one miner with 100% hashrate.
Ethereum is off on another tangent named Casper, with shards, consensus-by-betting, etc, which is another hopeless and futile attempt to solve a problem that CAN NOT BE SOLVED BECAUSE OF THE INVIOLABLE CAP THEOREM!
Ethereum will never solve this problem and remain decentralized. Never. Thus all the scripts and products being built on top of Ethereum are headed to failure when Ethereum fails to solve the scaling problem of verification in a decentralized manner. Because centralization of scripting is meaningless, we always had that already.
I have solved the problem because I realized verification MUST be centralized (due to the inviolable CAP theorem and the correct understanding that a 100% decentralized system can not solve the Byzantine General's Problem), and thus I instead designed a way to control the centralization of verification with decentralized PoW miners (because each user submits a PoW share with their txn and because PoW mining is rendered UNprofitable for all parties).
So who will be the winner of everything? Me. Not Ethereum. Not to mention that marketing plan is light years ahead of any altcoin, because I will market directly to the millions of masses and achieve millions of adoptions (and be the first coin to do so).
Look I was there at the beginning telling Charles (one of the guys who founded and organized the creation of Ethereum) in Skype that Vitalik's PoW algorithm could be parallelized thus not CPU only, telling him that they could not solve the fundamental problem above, and telling him that they were going to raise too much $ with too many mouths to feed and still wouldn't solve the fundamental problems. Originally Charles was recruiting me to form this company, not Vitalik. But I balked and said I didn't want to raise all that money and I didn't want to start something until I was sure I had solved all fundamental issues. If you don't believe me, go ask Charles.
All the gory details about Ethereum's technical incompetence are here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/42rvm3/truth_about_ethereum_is_being_banned_at/
Enjoy the Ethereum pump while it is hot and while people are ignorant of the truth about the technical incompetence of the Ethereum developers. Eventually the truth will come out and especially when my white papers and coin are released.
Casper adds Game theory into the mix. You can fool lightweight nodes, but you will lose a lot of money after that. Security deposits solve a lot of problems in real world.
Proof-of-cheating (or by any other name) backed by deposits, is a game theory that leads to centralization. Think it out. It is not really that hard to show that. It has analogous flaws as PoS.
Edit: for n00bs, note that by definition if we will use proof-of-cheating with deposits in Casper (along with consensus-by-betting) to rely on some limited number of nodes with deposits to verify the block chain for us, then those masternodes have the same economic problem that I explained in my prior post and thus the one with the most income is the winner take all, i.e. 100% centralization. There is simply no way to avoid centralization of verification. The solution is the one I have designed and explained and which Ethereum is not implementing.
Could you please provide to us a link to this announcement by Vitalik?
How do we know the insiders did not sell to themselves and have (intentionally) created a deception which caused P&D fever?
It is quite possible that the altcoin market will be devasted by a potential decline of Bitcoin to < $150 and perhaps well below $100, because we have an unexpected global contagion coming that will be worse than 2008 when everything crashed. As we all know, when Bitcoin's price gets a flu, altcoins' prices go into comas.
Are there any exceptions?
Yes, there are!
Coins that offer unique decentralized services, "Blockchain 2.0" or other disrupting technology will be the buy-and-holds for 2016.
Some examples?
- Ethereum | Decentralized software & smart contracts on the blockchain
- Factom | Honesty to record-keeping
- Voxelus | Virtual Reality without coding
- Radium | Decentralized Services on the smartchain
- MaidSafe | Crowd-sourced internet
- Synereo (AMP) | Decentralized social network
- Sia | Decentralized storage
All those coins are doomed to fail due to insoluble fundamental technological issues which they didn't solve which render those coins entirely useless:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13842262#msg13842262
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1354274.msg13833591#msg13833591
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13043602#msg13043602 (I will be responding to AlanX's post soon)
It hasn't been scaled yet. Bitcoin's scalepocalypse will pale in comparison to Ethereum's doom in the wild. Essentially what Ethereum is designing with Casper is a technobabble wrapper around centralized verification, because either they know that verification can't be decentralized (as I have explained), or they are determined to delude themselves otherwise (with the result being the centralization occurs anyway).
With centralization, Ehereum can scale except note that will be viewed as a failure by the market, unless verification centralization can be hidden behind Sybil attacks on the verification nodes (meaning no one can prove that a 1000 nodes aren't controlled by the same entity). I have a strong suspicion that is why Ethereum is being funded by Peter Thiel and other banksters, because they understand Ethereum is a way for them to control without being detected. Satoshi had prevented this outcome in Bitcoin by setting the maximum block size to 1MB, which thus restricted verification from centralizing entirely (yet it will still be impossible to prevent Bitcoin Classic from centralizing due to the other economics of profitable PoW mining).
But centralization always leads to failure. So ultimately this will fail sooner or later.
That is because you are n00b and you can't understand the technological arguments. The points I have made are not wild at all. Do you realize I was probably the first person to predict Bitcoin's scalepocalypse in 2013 as ArticMine graciously admits today:
Seems stoat you had no clue how long I have been here in this forum and doing serious technological research.
Ignore the fud and the hype. I'm long term excited about this project.
[...]
Even though I think eth will destroy the need and market cap of bitcoin (wait and see). It won't happen today or tomorrow. You are buying into a pump. Wait until things are boring and then don't put off your purchase.
[...]
Even though I think eth will destroy the need and market cap of bitcoin (wait and see). It won't happen today or tomorrow. You are buying into a pump. Wait until things are boring and then don't put off your purchase.
Eth is already better than bitcoin. People just don't know it yet. And the ecosystem is coming down the like at an insane rate. Most popular alts are scams.
Why are you displaying your ignorance about technological issues that you are apparently incapable of comprehending? Even you were in my Reddit thread where I explained it, yet you somehow still are in this delusion that Ethereum is not incompetent.
Ethereum is not better than any other scam. And it is a borderline scam or at least incompetence masked by technobabble from some young nerds who know some math and programming, but have limited capitulation to reality.
So why are you constantly making threads spreading pointless FUD about ethereum?
Yeah why are you doing that stoat?
And you are lying about my identity and have refused to retract your slander, when I am clearly not the two users you accused me of being and I have even shared my LinkedIn photo and identity.
Why can't you admit that Ethereum's developers suck and after $millions wasted, they still have not solved the most fundamental issue that must be solved in order to make scripting on a block chain work?
The technological challenge with a long-running script on a block chain is verification. The gas (and txn fees) are paid to the winner of the PoW block, not to all miners, but all miners (full nodes) have to endure the SAME cost of verification. Yet not all miners have the same hashrate, thus not all miners have the same income per block. Thus some miners recoup less of their verification costs than other miners. As I explained in greater detail, this forces mining to become 100% centralized in one miner with 100% hashrate.
Ethereum is off on another tangent named Casper, with shards, consensus-by-betting, etc, which is another hopeless and futile attempt to solve a problem that CAN NOT BE SOLVED BECAUSE OF THE INVIOLABLE CAP THEOREM!
Ethereum will never solve this problem and remain decentralized. Never. Thus all the scripts and products being built on top of Ethereum are headed to failure when Ethereum fails to solve the scaling problem of verification in a decentralized manner. Because centralization of scripting is meaningless, we always had that already.
I have solved the problem because I realized verification MUST be centralized (due to the inviolable CAP theorem and the correct understanding that a 100% decentralized system can not solve the Byzantine General's Problem), and thus I instead designed a way to control the centralization of verification with decentralized PoW miners (because each user submits a PoW share with their txn and because PoW mining is rendered UNprofitable for all parties).
So who will be the winner of everything? Me. Not Ethereum. Not to mention that marketing plan is light years ahead of any altcoin, because I will market directly to the millions of masses and achieve millions of adoptions (and be the first coin to do so).
Look I was there at the beginning telling Charles (one of the guys who founded and organized the creation of Ethereum) in Skype that Vitalik's PoW algorithm could be parallelized thus not CPU only, telling him that they could not solve the fundamental problem above, and telling him that they were going to raise too much $ with too many mouths to feed and still wouldn't solve the fundamental problems. Originally Charles was recruiting me to form this company, not Vitalik. But I balked and said I didn't want to raise all that money and I didn't want to start something until I was sure I had solved all fundamental issues. If you don't believe me, go ask Charles.
All the gory details about Ethereum's technical incompetence are here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/42rvm3/truth_about_ethereum_is_being_banned_at/
Enjoy the Ethereum pump while it is hot and while people are ignorant of the truth about the technical incompetence of the Ethereum developers. Eventually the truth will come out and especially when my white papers and coin are released.
Ethereum is off on another tangent named Casper, with shards, consensus-by-betting, etc, which is another hopeless and futile attempt to solve a problem that CAN NOT BE SOLVED BECAUSE OF THE INVIOLABLE CAP THEOREM!
Casper adds Game theory into the mix. You can fool lightweight nodes, but you will lose a lot of money after that. Security deposits solve a lot of problems in real world.
Proof-of-cheating (or by any other name) backed by deposits, is a game theory that leads to centralization. Think it out. It is not really that hard to show that. It has analogous flaws as PoS.
Edit: for n00bs, note that by definition if we will use proof-of-cheating with deposits in Casper (along with consensus-by-betting) to rely on some limited number of nodes with deposits to verify the block chain for us, then those masternodes have the same economic problem that I explained in my prior post and thus the one with the most income is the winner take all, i.e. 100% centralization. There is simply no way to avoid centralization of verification. The solution is the one I have designed and explained and which Ethereum is not implementing.
Quote from: TrashMan
I just don't want the same thing happening to ZCash that happend to ethereum, Vitalik announced a while ago how much Ether the foundation had left and then the price skyrocketed because everybody was waiting for the whales to sell out.
Could you please provide to us a link to this announcement by Vitalik?
How do we know the insiders did not sell to themselves and have (intentionally) created a deception which caused P&D fever?
Let's start this by making myself a little less popular, saying: the altcoin scene will die in 2016
It is quite possible that the altcoin market will be devasted by a potential decline of Bitcoin to < $150 and perhaps well below $100, because we have an unexpected global contagion coming that will be worse than 2008 when everything crashed. As we all know, when Bitcoin's price gets a flu, altcoins' prices go into comas.
Are there any exceptions?
Yes, there are!
Coins that offer unique decentralized services, "Blockchain 2.0" or other disrupting technology will be the buy-and-holds for 2016.
Some examples?
- Ethereum | Decentralized software & smart contracts on the blockchain
- Factom | Honesty to record-keeping
- Voxelus | Virtual Reality without coding
- Radium | Decentralized Services on the smartchain
- MaidSafe | Crowd-sourced internet
- Synereo (AMP) | Decentralized social network
- Sia | Decentralized storage
All those coins are doomed to fail due to insoluble fundamental technological issues which they didn't solve which render those coins entirely useless:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13842262#msg13842262
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1354274.msg13833591#msg13833591
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13043602#msg13043602 (I will be responding to AlanX's post soon)
So far I see the ethereum blockchain and consensus protocol working fine.
It hasn't been scaled yet. Bitcoin's scalepocalypse will pale in comparison to Ethereum's doom in the wild. Essentially what Ethereum is designing with Casper is a technobabble wrapper around centralized verification, because either they know that verification can't be decentralized (as I have explained), or they are determined to delude themselves otherwise (with the result being the centralization occurs anyway).
With centralization, Ehereum can scale except note that will be viewed as a failure by the market, unless verification centralization can be hidden behind Sybil attacks on the verification nodes (meaning no one can prove that a 1000 nodes aren't controlled by the same entity). I have a strong suspicion that is why Ethereum is being funded by Peter Thiel and other banksters, because they understand Ethereum is a way for them to control without being detected. Satoshi had prevented this outcome in Bitcoin by setting the maximum block size to 1MB, which thus restricted verification from centralizing entirely (yet it will still be impossible to prevent Bitcoin Classic from centralizing due to the other economics of profitable PoW mining).
But centralization always leads to failure. So ultimately this will fail sooner or later.
And what I see from you is just a load of wild claims.
That is because you are n00b and you can't understand the technological arguments. The points I have made are not wild at all. Do you realize I was probably the first person to predict Bitcoin's scalepocalypse in 2013 as ArticMine graciously admits today:
I introduced this concept in 2013 in my thread Spiraling Transaction Fees and I nailed the block size as the fundamental issue in my last post in that 2013 thread.
Seems stoat you had no clue how long I have been here in this forum and doing serious technological research.