Quote from: mczarnek on November 01, 2014, 11:42:05 PM

I was saying that this algorithm was something that Bitcoin could use as well.. yes, I happened to mention Nxt. It's a great coin. You insulted it, so I defended it.

Your first post in this thread was advertising that NXT was implementing an unspecified, undescribed, instant transaction system which you have/are patenting. Your posting history and signature are plugging NXT in many inappropriate places.

Quote

A patent isn't an attack, it's a protection to make sure that I don't do the hard work so someone else can profit off of it.

That isn't what a patent does. A patent invokes the state to prohibit people from freely communicating and acting on ideas which they invented completely independently of you. It grants you a monopoly ownership over an idea and, in the rare cases where they're actually successful (as mentioned a _majority_ of patents lose claims on review), allows you to extract rent from others who have worked hard to invent and build the infrastructure that your work rests on.

Quote

I'm grateful that a lot of work has been done in this field by people who are truly committed,

Funny, you're surely not expressing it. Instead you're promoting competing systems which have ripped off ideas from Bitcoin (and broken them), and claim to be working on extensions which you plan to exclusively control for your personal profit. Foolishly too, since as I've mentioned: we have decades of experience that patents completely suppress the adoption of cryptosystems, even very useful and powerful ones (like Chaum's invention of digital cash).

Quote

And you notice that you never just asked what the idea is?

Why would I have? If you wanted to discuss an idea you would have. Instead you wanted to promote NXT and try to ring up customers for your patent based purely on the promises that it will do something useful. I'm not interested in giving you free review for you to further go and turn a private profit off my back and the backs of others who worked for years (and even decades) inventing the things you just learner about in the last few months... though you should review my very first response to you: "If your idea is actually useful, you should make it available publicly where it can be reviewed and refined and have some chance of adoption and building your professional credibility."

Quote

But yes after you announce that you want to help invalidate my potential patent, then I don't exactly feel like sharing the idea with you and helping you do so.

You can't stop me from doing so, any patent application will be made public, My ability to make your patent commercially worthless is not reduced. All keeping what you're doing now secret accomplishes is reducing the risk that someone points out the the ideas are old (thus making it harder for you to engage in the inequitable conduct of hiding the actual prior art), or that they're unsound (stifling your ability to pump NXT or sell the ideas to an unsophisticated buyer).

Quote

And the issue with 'Nothing at stake' is that everyone argues that you could forged you could forge along multiple chains. But in order to do that you have to get a stronger chain than the competition to have the network accept it or else they will discard it. In order to do this, probabilistically 50+% of the forging power would have to participate in this to sustain it for any reasonable about of time. So yes, you do need a majority of the forging power to participate. There are other attacks as well.

This isn't true. Please take the time to actually read Andrew's paper on this. One of the points that you're missing is that "50% of the forging power" is defined _inside_ the chain and is meaningless outside of it, so your security definition is circular. Likewise, any probabilistic process repeated enough times where only one success is required tends to probability one, there is no reasonably retying limit external to the system, so the protection is, again, circular.

Quote

and in fact was offering to help out by fixing one of Bitcoin's biggest problems. You mean while have implied I'm a parasite, called alt-coins scammy, insulted my intelligence, etc.

No, if you were actually offered to do these things you would have actually helped instead of bragging about vaporware proprietary technology, which you helpfully provided no details on except to promote NXT. Give it up.

Quote

If you have really done this much great work, you should ask the Bitcoin Foundation or people if you can be paid for it. How do you keep yourself alive off for years off of the donations of a dozen Bitcoins?

I've worked full time for close to 20 years doing good and valuable work on technology that has helped people solve real problems, much of it shared with the public, and none of it abusively encumbering the ideas and work of third parties via patents (rather, I've done a fair amount of patent busting along the way). I'm not asking here for money from anyone because I don't need to, I've made money by doing work and not preventing other people from working, and as a result I don't need any more (though more is always appreciated and put to good uses). I don't begrudge you for wanting to get paid: good work deserves pay, but locking up ideas isn't work, and it doesn't deserve pay-- quite the opposite. Instead, it marks you as a wanna-be-thief in my book who would seek to profits of my own efforts and would use litigation to prevent me from inventing on my own... you could ask people to pay you to work on useful things, but given the approach that you're taking I, for one, would rather pay someone who has better ethics.

If you care to propose something technical, feel free to start a new thread. Otherwise, you're in the wrong subforum. Cheers.