Quote from: CIYAM on February 15, 2016, 03:20:13 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 15, 2016, 02:52:25 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on February 14, 2016, 03:38:27 PM

For those that aren't kids: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364594.0

(AT has been running "live" for over one year on two separate blockchains without any serious issue and supports parallelisation of smart contracts)

But I don't see anything about verification and Nash equilibrium. I do not see a complete specification of how the mining and verification works and the game theory thereof.

That's funny - first you criticise Vitalik for being too abstract and "in the clouds" and now you criticise AT for being too practical and grounded.

I never wrote that which is underlined. I said the link you provided is missing specification of the mining and game theory for the block chain. Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not write.

Quote from: CIYAM on February 15, 2016, 03:20:13 AM

If you would like to do some mathematical analysis you are most welcome to but you should realise that I didn't have anything to do with either of the two blockchains that AT runs on (it isn't a blockchain even so your question about mining makes very little sense actually).

You can't proclaim a scripting VM for block chains works, if you don't specify the mining and game theory for the block chain.

The entire point I am making is the VM isn't independent of the mining and game theory for the block chain.

If Burst and Qora are doing centralized verification, then they will run smoothly (except for any issues due to being centralized). Or if those chains are claiming they are decentralized without partitions but haven't scaled yet, then they will run smoothly (until they scale up). If they are using partitions, they will break.