generalizethis I don't mean you are butthurt, but these past posts of mine reinforces my point that resilience requires imperfection:
I agree.
Hilarious to observe these two clowns circle-jerking each other while the rest of the forum ignores them.
Any one following these two hollow-threat-making-diarrhea, excuse-proliferating, do-nothing, rocking-chair-finger-up-their-anal-ysts clowns is going to miss out on 10, 100, 1000 baggers (but no specific endorsement of Iota intended).
That is because you still don't understand Physics, i.e. you don't understand that 'quality' can't be distinguished a priori, because the Butterfly Effect is unpredictable, i.e. there is no top-down omniscience (you two clowns still haven't grasped the underlying entropic theory and that the reversibility of time/entropy[1] would only be possible if the speed-of-light was not finite, which is why you continue babbling nonsense about some impossible nirvana where you want to be the regulating top dick sergeants):
...But there are some ideas in each development that are perhaps worthy. I have borrowed for example some concepts from Iota, even though I have explained that (afaics) the DAG can't be a decentralized consensus algorithm. So you can't say that it has all been worthless, neither from a marketing development nor technological concepts development perspective.
Nature meanders on the path of annealing optimum fittness. The noise is necessary in order to not get stuck in a local minima. Study simulated annealing algorithms over N dimensional spaces.
I am not going to criticize the projects of others. I think the speculators have to wise up or lose their lunch money. That is life. After all, even you are playing the speculation musical chairs game. The market is what it is. If I deny reality, I am diminishing my opportunities to succeed...
Nature meanders on the path of annealing optimum fittness. The noise is necessary in order to not get stuck in a local minima. Study simulated annealing algorithms over N dimensional spaces.
I am not going to criticize the projects of others. I think the speculators have to wise up or lose their lunch money. That is life. After all, even you are playing the speculation musical chairs game. The market is what it is. If I deny reality, I am diminishing my opportunities to succeed...
Thanks for proving to everyone what a low class loser you really are...
I agree.
Hilarious to observe these two clowns circle-jerking each other while the rest of the forum ignores them.
Any one following these two hollow-threat-making-diarrhea, excuse-proliferating, do-nothing, rocking-chair-finger-up-their-anal-ysts clowns is going to miss out on 10, 100, 1000 baggers (but no specific endorsement of Iota intended).
I've always believed in quality over quantity.
That is because you still don't understand Physics, i.e. you don't understand that 'quality' can't be distinguished a priori, because the Butterfly Effect is unpredictable, i.e. there is no top-down omniscience (you two clowns still haven't grasped the underlying entropic theory and that the reversibility of time/entropy[1] would only be possible if the speed-of-light was not finite, which is why you continue babbling nonsense about some impossible nirvana where you want to be the regulating top dick sergeants):
...
AnonyMint critiqued the ludicrous tech of Factom.
But that is irrelevant. Max brings awareness to crypto, brings more lunch money to the table.
From this cesspool can rise aBitcoinTrojanHorse killer. Processes aren't noise free because there can't exist omniscience on which is the noise and which is the signal a priori (it can only be known in retrospect and even then perspectives will differ on the account of history).
It isn't usually possible to throw the bath water out independently of the baby when the baby is a decentralized market. You say you want decentralized markets, yet you are unwilling to accept their imperfection. Imperfection is required to have any dynamic system. Otherwise you have top-down control, which is the antithesis of existence, because the speed-of-light is necessarily finite (otherwise past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal nothingness) and thus a top-down observer can't anneal distributed processes in real-time.
Nature is simultaneously ugly and fabulously diverse and interesting. I wouldn't prefer the disinfected nirvana of absolutely no possibilities.
Yeah HODL some Bitcoin. It is the most stable CC so far. HODL your nose and realize the altcoin cesspool is necessary.
Max Keiser wander in and pump Factcom to the moon as just a long shot gamble even though he has no idea if it's a viable system or not, which then attracts random noobs into thinking it might have value.
AnonyMint critiqued the ludicrous tech of Factom.
But that is irrelevant. Max brings awareness to crypto, brings more lunch money to the table.
From this cesspool can rise a
It isn't usually possible to throw the bath water out independently of the baby when the baby is a decentralized market. You say you want decentralized markets, yet you are unwilling to accept their imperfection. Imperfection is required to have any dynamic system. Otherwise you have top-down control, which is the antithesis of existence, because the speed-of-light is necessarily finite (otherwise past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal nothingness) and thus a top-down observer can't anneal distributed processes in real-time.
Nature is simultaneously ugly and fabulously diverse and interesting. I wouldn't prefer the disinfected nirvana of absolutely no possibilities.
Yeah HODL some Bitcoin. It is the most stable CC so far. HODL your nose and realize the altcoin cesspool is necessary.
...
Please enlighten us why "free will" is immoral (i.e. the free will to choose to participate in a randomized redistribution of bets).
Seems immoral to want top-down control to remove "free will", for it is the antithesis of the physics of existence:
If Satoshi's idealism was decentralization, you don't want it.
Now readers will understand why I referred you to your own request to look up the definition of 'idiot'. You aren't one of sharpest Qtips in the medicinal cabinet.
Please enlighten us why "free will" is immoral (i.e. the free will to choose to participate in a randomized redistribution of bets).
Seems immoral to want top-down control to remove "free will", for it is the antithesis of the physics of existence:
It isn't usually possible to throw the bath water out independently of the baby when the baby is a decentralized market. You say you want decentralized markets, yet you are unwilling to accept their imperfection. Imperfection is required to have any dynamic system. Otherwise you have top-down control, which is the antithesis of existence, because the speed-of-light is necessarily finite (otherwise past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal nothingness) and thus a top-down observer can't anneal distributed processes in real-time.
Nature is simultaneously ugly and fabulously diverse and interesting. I wouldn't prefer the disinfected nirvana of absolutely no possibilities.
Nature is simultaneously ugly and fabulously diverse and interesting. I wouldn't prefer the disinfected nirvana of absolutely no possibilities.
If Satoshi's idealism was decentralization, you don't want it.
Now readers will understand why I referred you to your own request to look up the definition of 'idiot'. You aren't one of sharpest Qtips in the medicinal cabinet.
| [1] | http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Entropic_derivation (AnonyMint's blog) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg14270820#msg14270820 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg14286635#msg14286635 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg11218201#msg11218201 (from 2015 when AnonyMint got CoinCube interested in the entropic force) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg9885459#msg9885459 (from 2014 when AnonyMint aka contagion got CoinCube interested in the entropic force) |