Quote from: RGBKey on March 02, 2018, 11:18:32 PM

Quote from: alia on March 02, 2018, 10:59:09 PM

Like I said, many, many times... not everything has to be 100% math based. My aim is to make profit for people, and I am doing it. That is my end goal. Not to fit your stupid equations (which are not even relevant since you don't know the intricacies of how my script works)

I'm perfectly able to make entirely valid observations about the claims that you have made without needing to see your script.

Additionally, these very sites that you're betting on attempting to prove your script are "100% math based" and run using "stupid equations". That's how the entire provable fairness system works, using cryptography and statistics, two very important fields of math on which you are very intent on dismissing as they tend to go against your claims. But hey, if you want to ignore millennia of advances in human thought and just go "it just works lol" then be my guest, but I'm not going to remove my trust because the burden of proof is on the person making the claims.

As Bitcoin itself. Bitcoin is 100% math based, fit [to] stupid equations, pure mathematical mumbo jumbo.

Bitcoin as a whole is based on cryptography. Among other significant pieces thereof, the mining system is also based on probability and statistics. I explained this upthread:

Quote from: nullius on March 01, 2018, 09:25:25 PM

For the non-gamblers like me who are unaccustomed to talk of games and busting, I have an analogy:

Alia outlines what I will here call a (fallacious) calculation over collective probabilities. A (correct) example of such a calculation is Bitcoins difficulty adjustment. The mining process is pseudorandom, a probabilistic searcha sort of gambling. Difficulty is targeted such that on average, the time between blocks will be around 10 minutes. Yet if you watch the blockchain, you will notice that the time between blocks is quite variable.

Due to the targeting at 10 minutes, you might expect intuitively that too-short times would be followed by too-long times. Sometimes, by happenstance, that is what occurs. But other times, not. Sometimes, a block is mined very quickly, followed by another block mined very quickly. Sometimes, the opposite. Sometimes, neither.

The only (almost-)true prediction¹ which could be made from this is that over the course of many blocks, assuming constant global hashrate, the average of block generation times will be close to 10 minutes. This is analogous to predicting that over the course of many games, ROI will be close to -1% (the house edge). The former wont even be exactly 10 minutes, and the latter wont be exactly -1% (negative one percent), because the processes are probabilistic.

Whereas what Alia claims this script to do is tantamount to claiming that you can semi-accurately predict the next block generation time based on the past few block generation times. Um, no. Try this concept for free: Watch the blockchain, and try to guess about how long it will take the next block to come in. Sometimes, by pure luck, you will come close with your prediction. But mostly, you will just find the experience very frustrating.

[...]

1. Actually, I stated the matter somewhat backwards: The difficulty adjustment is done every 2016 blocks retrospectively, by looking at how far away from the desired 10-minute target the past 2016 blocks average comes out to. But this is only necessary due to changes in global hash rate; and I here oversimplify by omitting all discussion of fluctuations in hash rate. If hash rate were constant, then you could reasonably make a forward-looking prediction that the next n block generation times would average out to about 10 minutesfor any large enough n. Also then, difficulty adjustment would never be required.

Vires in numeris. If you dislike mathematical mumbo jumbo, then why are you in Bitcoin at all? Understanding Bitcoin requires a radically new mindset of the divine right of numbers:

Quote from: nullius on February 26, 2018, 05:49:52 AM

Quote from: BenOnceAgain on February 26, 2018, 02:42:29 AM

My view: I am far from an expert on cryptography but I will say this, cryptocurrency depends on rock-solid, secure cryptography. It is exactly where the trust is placed in an electronic money system.

Its sad how few people understand this. Bitcoin is not merely a new mechanism of transmitting money: It is a radically (from radix = [at the] root) new and different kind of money.

This misundersanding also explains why so many people parrot vires in numeris who neither speak Latin, nor use PGP, OTR, etc., etc. to secure their communications. Uptake of crypto in the cypherpunk sense is abysmal amongst people who talk about cryptos all day.

And apropos the topic, I think youre right: This lack of fundamental comprehension has serious consequences when people who do not get it set their hands to cryptos, whilst neither undersanding nor caring much for the crypto. Bitcoin requires a new mindset. To handle it, you must understand on a very deep level that mathematical algorithms rule as by divine right. There is no higher court of appeal, no chargeback, no kill switchnothing to help you if you muss the maths, lose your secret keys, etc.

If you get that, then you will pay careful attention to the quality of your code. Also, you will much respect Corebecause they get it, too. And if you dare to make your own currency, you will not start by designing your own hash function as IOTA did! That really wrecks any credibility they ever had.

I dont have any gambling background. (Earlier today, someone had to explain to me that many gambling sites have faucets for new users. I had never heard of that...) But as a Bitcoiner, I know and respect my numbers! Trust the numbers (and nothing else) is Bitcoin ideology.

Quote from: Quickseller on March 02, 2018, 11:13:57 PM

I wonder if aTriz is able to produce a script of any kind that he was vouching for...

I think it was shaken out rather clearly in those threads that aTriz doesnt have any scripting ability worth speaking of.