Quote from: froggy512 on June 17, 2016, 03:43:08 PM

Can we just close this thread already. Well known developer posts about most important topic of the day and you guys get into 2-page pissing match over browser crashes. Sorry Kushti.

Btw, that wasn't fundamentally about browser crashes; it was addressing which high-level-language is appropriate for smart contract VMs, which was what Kushti and CIYAM were discussing. CIYAM seemed to be suggesting we should employ only assembly ~~or C~~, and I was pointing out that ASM.js is almost native speed and runs every where as JIT.

Hey I didn't want that. I had to respond to his pissing. I just suggested he not speak incorrectly about JS and be aware of ASM.js.

The likely reasons CIYAM has some vengeance towards me include:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg15233941#msg15233941
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364951.msg13926249#msg13926249 (was followup to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13580146#msg13580146)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.msg13887894#msg13887894

Quote from: CIYAM on March 11, 2016, 02:45:58 PM

I'll chime in before @TBTB comes in and tells everyone that they are stupid and only he knows the answer to everything (at that point I'll quit watching this topic as I've done with every other topic he has ruined - and he ruins every topic he posts in basically).

The relationship between "reward" and "minting" could be made less "one-to-one" but more statistically probable if you mint more blocks (thus providing an incentive to mint but not even needing to be POW).

You need ways to discern "winners" if you aren't using POW as the only measurement (although I think some amount of POW is going to always be required to help prevent the NAS attack issue which I've discovered can even occur "by accident" when using different approaches).

This is a key part of the CIYAM blockchain design (which I am not going to discuss here, however, unlike some others it isn't some silly conjecture or "academic breast beating" but already published open source code which it seems @TBTB is actually unable to understand which rather pleases me).

As a simplistic idea imagine that a block reward only occurs every X blocks but is more likely to favour the minter that has produced as many of those X blocks as possible (and also imagine that rules prevent them from being able to produce all of the blocks).