Quote from: tokeweed on February 12, 2016, 11:45:02 AM

I find it hard to believe that Satoshi is 'money grabbing'. He believes in Ethereum.

Szabo apparently believes in taking free money from dumb speculators.

I linked upthread to where Nick Szabo stated he is not Satoshi, yet you continue to promote Ethereum. You are a scammer and I want no association with you.

Here is more evidence of Szabo's lack of technical knowledge:

Genius Huh

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 12, 2016, 10:29:14 AM

Quote from: enet on February 12, 2016, 09:30:12 AM

Bitcoin implements a [unambiguous via longest chain rule] partial order of transactions and Smart Contracts's need total order. It is not that hard to come up with some models of event ordering [that show that total ordering is required].

This is an interesting post, and shows more the direction, although I don't agree with NS[Nick Szabo] on ethereum.
unenumerated.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-dawn-of-trustworthy-computing.html

This is another essence of my technological point which I have stated previously as follows:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 31, 2016, 02:57:44 PM

Quote from: enet on January 31, 2016, 11:50:10 AM

* computers are electronic elements with billions of components. how does such a machine achieve consistent state? see: Shannon and von Neumann and the early days of computing (maybe even Zuse)

* partitions, blocks, DAG's, .... all this stuff generally confuses the most fundamental notions. after investigating this matter for a very long time, I can assure you that almost nobody understands this.

I can assure you I've understood the point deeply about the impossibility of absolute global consistency in open systems (and a perfectly closed system is useless, i.e. static). Go read my debates with dmbarbour (David Barbour) from circa 2010.

Laymen let me attempt to explain this to you.

Putting Smart Contract data on a global block chain means that as those contracts interact, it is impossible to prove that the order that the contracts are run is commutative and that the contracts will halt.

This is well known because Turing Completeness (the ability to run any logic) requires unbounded recursion. This is the essence of the famous Halting Problem.

All you laymen need to know is that Ethereum and Nick Szabo propose that which is impossible. I told Charles Hoskinson this in Skype when he was contemplating forming Ethereum with Vitalik (I guess before it became a bigger thing with many others involved).

Ethereum responded by inventing gas, so that scripts would halt by failing once their gas is exhausted. This is horrific because it means the state machine is put into an indeterminate state. Indeterminism manifests as errors and chaotic machines that do random actions. On top of that, Vitalik recently admitted in one of the videos I watched that they know Ethereum violates commutativity (and they have no real solution).

WATCH IT BLOW UP FOLKS!

Nick "Satoshi" Szabo has just made another huge blunder by not realizing the above, as enet correctly points out. So please stop telling me Szabo is at Satoshi's level. Not even close.