Quote from: anunymint on June 14, 2018, 02:05:19 AM

Quote from: aliashraf on June 14, 2018, 12:56:00 AM

Quote from: anunymint on June 13, 2018, 10:30:52 PM

Why is the thread being derailed by some comments about me? What does anything I did or did not do have to do with the discussion of the technological facts of PoCW.

Really nothing, besides the need to stop you from trolling.

Please define trolling and then show that I did it. Specific links or quotes please.

no need to go so far this post of you is %90+ nothing other than trolling.

Quote

Quote from: aliashraf on June 14, 2018, 12:56:00 AM

Quote from: anunymint on June 13, 2018, 10:30:52 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 13, 2018, 07:17:51 PM

he's been claiming for 5-6 years that he's working on a "blockchain breakthrough"

I challenge you to quote from the past where I extensively made such a claim 5 or 6 years ago.

EDIT: {and a long story about what you have been bout in 5-6 years ago}
In any case, I welcome your ridicule. It motivates me. Please do not stop. And please do report me to @theymos so this account can be banned so I stop wasting time posting on BCT.

Like this. Please ... Just put and end to this if you may. You did something inappropriate, and some objections was made about it. Let it go.

What did I do that was inappropriate 5-6 years ago that was related to claiming [] he's working on a blockchain breakthrough? Specific links or quotes please.

If you cant specifically show that the SPECIFIC 5-6 years ago allegation is true, then you are the one who is trolling by stating the lie, You did something inappropriate.

I politely asked you to end this but you love twisting it more ... it is trolling in the specific context we are in .. I was not the one aho said things abut the last 5-6 years of your history, FYI.

Quote

Quote from: aliashraf on June 14, 2018, 12:56:00 AM

Quote from: anunymint on June 13, 2018, 10:30:52 PM

My technological comments stand on their own merits regardless what ever is done to cut my personal reputation down.

Absolutely not. You questioned the overhead of the validation process for miners in my proposal and I answered it solidly:

I said my My technological comments stand on their own merits regardless what ever is done to cut my personal reputation down.

That does not mean I claim My technological comments are unarguable. Only that my personal reputation has nothing to do with the discussion of the technology.

It is another and the most important form of troll you commit, repeatedly. Your argument here is void and makes no sense:
Once an objection is made and it proves to be irrelevant or false and the proposal addresses the asserted issues, , it should be dropped and not maintained the way you are putting it, every issue remains open and can be used as a toy by trollers by making false claims whenever they wish to.

Quote

Quote from: aliashraf on June 14, 2018, 12:56:00 AM

There is no overhead because there is no I/O involved because the submitted contribution shares have an exactly the same Merkle root that is already evaluated (once, when the Prepared Block has been evaluated by the miner when he decided to contribute to it afterwards).

I already refuted that line of logic in that the ratios over time have to either increase or the capitalization of the miner within your current 10,000 factor will place them in the crosshairs of having to cowtail to the oligarchy.
And I punted on the entire concept, because I stated mining is becoming ever more centralized so its pointless and futile to try to make a protocol for small miners.

one another example of trolling, after you have been clearly informed about negligible costs of validation of shares, instead of closing the case and moving on, you just deny everything by bringing forward a very weak argument to keep the issue open no matter how. You can't help it, you need issues to remain open forever to be used by you for ruining the topic.

In this case, you are saying that future increases in network hash power should be compensated by increasing the number of shares and it will eventually be problematic. IOW, you are saying 2-3 years later the hashrate will probably double and small miners would again experience variance phenomenon, then devs will improve the protocol and double the number of shares by a hard fork and now, this increase would prove that verification of shares is a weakness!

Firstly, doubling or tripling the number of shares don't make significant problem in terms of share validation costs, it is yet a cpu bound process, some very low profile nodes may require $200 or so to buy a better processor, in the worst case.

Secondly, by increases in network hash power, although it is nonlinear, we will have an improvement in mining devices and their efficiency.

Quote

Only a troller misrepresents to the thread what I wrote in the thread as explained above.

Now I am done with you.

Bye.

I should have stuck to my first intuition and never opened the thread. Or certainly never had posted after I read that horrendously bad OP description of the algorithm. That was indicative of the quality of the person I am interacting with unfortunately. I have learned a very important lesson on BCT. Most people suck (see also and also!). And they dont reach their potential. The quality people are very few and far between, when it comes to getting serious work done.

See? You are offending me, my work, bitcointalk, its members, ... very aggressively at the end of the same post that you are asking for evidence of you being a troll! I can imagine you may reply like this:
"I never told I'm not a troll I've just wanted you to give evidence about it, so I 'maintain' my inquiry for evidence. This issue, me being a troll or not is open just like all other issues we have been arguing about."!

Quote

In a lighter social setting a wider array of people can be tolerated (especially when we do not need to rely on them in any way).

Tolerance is good but trolling is not among ones that are to be tolerated, imo.