Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?

Ethereum's Casper shit is more of the same proof-of-stake (nothing-at-stake or centralization by economic weight, e.g. DPoS) nonsense. The betting stuff enables what Vitalik refers to as "dark uncles" or "dunkles", which Vitalik incorrectly thinks will solve the nothing-at-stake problem. Also Casper has the problem that all deterministic finality PoS and Byzatine agreement systems have, which is a 33% liveness threshold which if that many validators balk or stop processing, then the chain can't move forward without a hard fork.

Major casper issues have already been solved, i think you're stuck with 2015 infos about casper. https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/minimal-slashing-conditions-20f0b500fc6c
https://github.com/ethereum/research/blob/master/casper4/simple_casper.v.py
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ

Also casper does not assume rational attackers, so if a 51% attack happens in POS, at curent prices, the attackers would have to burn 100-500mil $. In which case they would rather do it now than later because it would cost them 10 times less. With ~30$ mil you can even attack bitcoin.

@anonymint tells me in private chat that Vitalik hasnt solved anything. Here are some of his initial thoughts:

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/i-dont-see-how-it-s-plausible-for-parallel-forks-of-the-hash-chain-to-be-finalized-concurrently-cb57afe9dd0a
https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/first-apparently-youre-not-aware-that-the-casper-slasher-design-work-appears-to-be-fundamentally-c2a72d18f5fa
https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/the-caveat-though-is-that-when-the-attacker-can-fork-the-vested-interests-of-some-of-the-users-9340dd037a61
https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/ftfy-for-the-both-to-be-finalized-then-at-least-%E2%85%94-of-the-validator-set-of-the-parent-block-must-6da5da9197cc
https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/my-analysis-of-vitaliks-logic-doesn-t-allow-for-new-stakers-to-restart-the-stalled-chain-91016ee63587

And he says a new blog is coming that will detail many more flaws in the plans for sharding in Ethereum.

Quote from: korchenkov on March 13, 2018, 05:29:15 PM

I have news for you folks. Vitalik Buterin is not a human being. He is an alien from a galaxy on the other side of the universe. He came here through a portal to save our world.

Again from @anonymint:
"After reviewing the above links, I think you will be sad to learn that Vitalik is human, fallible, and apparently quite inept at designing a new blockchain consensus algorithm."

@anonymint asked Elon Musk if he would like to collaborate:

https://twitter.com/iamnotback/status/1000312347485847553

@anonymint remarked:
"I know he wont collaborate. Im just trolling him because I presume he wasnt imagining what happens when we decentralize his concept. Also I think hes probably just political grandstanding. And I just want him to kick himself later. As Warren Buffett kicks himself for not buying Amazon."

EDIT:

Quote from: Traxo on May 27, 2018, 07:47:24 PM

Quote from: Traxo on May 26, 2018, 08:52:11 AM

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/i-dont-see-how-it-s-plausible-for-parallel-forks-of-the-hash-chain-to-be-finalized-concurrently-cb57afe9dd0a

@anonymint informed me that he added a very significant EDIT in the middle of that linked Medium post,
wherein he analyzed the OmniLedger (and Byzcoin) consensus ledger design in the context of his rebuttal of Vitalik's blog.
It turns out that OmniLedger is exactly the same as the design @anonymint had conceived of as of early 2016,
but he had discarded that design due to some flaws which he explains in the new EDIT.
He also explains how his current design improves upon those remaining flaws in OmniLedger and EOS.