|
iamnotback
|
 |
April 02, 2017, 11:19:42 AM |
|
Clicking this and reading the discussion over in the other thread, will give you some inkling that BitNet is intended to change the world: My understanding of Nash's mathematical theory of ideal money is that if we have unit-of-account and store-of-value for reserves (but not necessarily a medium-of-exchange!) which has a non-manipulable and predictable rate of change of its supply, then that money can form the basis of sound financial systems which correctly value the activities in the economy and thus don't create distortions which lead to for example the failure of private fractional reserve banking, depressions, and misallocation of economic resources and capital. So this is why the primary value of Bitcoin is the inability to change its protocol. If Bitcoin's protocol can be changed by anyone, then it is no longer a reliable metric in Nash's mathematical scheme. So Satoshi tried to design a monetary system which would meet the requirements of Nash's ideal money scheme. Because in theory this can bring great benefits to society, such as destroying all the fiat systems, corrupt governments and destroying the inherently correct concept of socialism and democracy. These justifications have been explained in more detail upthread (and in extensive detail in my archives on BCT), so I won't repeat that information. But as I already explained upthread, the immutability of PoW only exists for the token (blockchain) which has the greatest value, because the finance tail doesn't wag the dog. I explained upthread that whales on a higher valued blockchain can potentially manipulate a lowered valued altcoin as is the case ongoing now with Litecoin wherein they are able to change the protocol. I also explained upthread how (using MPEx as an example) finance always accumulates to the one with the most reserves, i.e. finance is inherently a winner-take-all construct. It is a gravitational system that sucks everything into itself until it is the entire economy and then it self-destructs. Thus Nash's ideal money can't exist in reality with finance. Nash wanted an asymptotic solution wherein the number of stable currencies could be unbounded and thus no one could ever gain sufficient omniscient information in order to winner-take-all the financial system. Unfortunately Bitcoin as the center of the financial universe as the only stable currency is of course an abomination and not at all what Nash would have wanted. (Note altcoins are not stable currencies because they are not immutable.) Because of course I explained already upthread how over time there will end up with one whale who has monopolized the Bitcoin economy and thus can change the protocol at-will. This is why I say Bitcoin is the NWO system and was probably created by a think tank funded by an elite globalist such as Rothschild. Nash required two incongruent things. He wanted a metric to be stable so the (rest of the) financial system could be measured against it, yet he also needed that metric to be absolute (as in its veracity/protocol not being relative to anything which could be controlled or gamed). There are no absolutes in our universe. We live in a relativistic universe which is only constructed from relative perspectives. None of us can even communicate our present to everyone and we can't even communicate our histories incontrovertibly because there is no way to prove an event happened other than by the corroboration of the memories of others who witnessed it (which is not a total ordering thus isn't incontrovertible). For example (but this is by no means the main point of what I am trying to explain here), this weakness in fungible money is why money requires a total ordering consensus so as to order the transactions globally to insure a double-spend wasn't attempted some where else in the universe. I wrote as @anonymous: O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs. Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter. I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation. So I believe what Nash worked out in his mind mathematically was that in some hypothetical asymptotic case wherein there are an unbounded number of stable, non-manipulable currencies, then it would not be possible for any player in the system to always win just because he/she held the most reserves, because that player would lack information about whether he/she held the most powerful basket of reserves, so it would thus not be a power vacuum winner-take-all outcome in the theoretical asymptotic case. So Nash was correct that in the asymptotic case, his ideal money is stable, but the problem is that such an asymptotic case isn't known to exist nor does anyone know how to make it come into existence. Even Satoshi's design requires Bitcoin to be the stable currency with the highest value otherwise as I had explained, its immutability is not assured by the game theory. Precisely four years ago, I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch, and I see now that I was entirely correct. Bitcoin is an abomination of Nash's ideal money scheme. Its end game is one globalist who controls everything. One omnipotent whale who stomps on all life. The NWO-666 outcome. Sorry I can't stand by idle and let that happen! Four years ago, I set out to try to figure out how to fix this problem. I've been working incessantly ever since on this in spite of my disseminated Tuberculosis illness (which I am now undergoing treatment to cure hopefully). But along my journey of thinking about money every since I got interested in gold in 2006 because by late 2005 I could already see in my mind that a global crisis of debt and socialism was ahead in the real world, I ended up making a discovery and writing it down some time in the period between 2011 and 2013. That essay was Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance. The generative essence of that discovery was that knowledge can't be financed, because unlike manual labor, knowledge production is not fungible. Read the essay I wrote for more explanation. Also Eric S. Raymond had discovered Linus' Law " given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" when he wrote the seminal The Cathedral and the Bazaar which launched the open source revolution and Eric had invented the term "open source" preferring it over Richard Stallman's "free software". Eric followed that up with the explanation of open source economics models in the Magic Cauldron wherein he explained the opposite of a Tragedy-of-the-Commons is an Inverse Commons which is what open source is. So what I had figured out that finance would die because the entire point of money is an information system which routes perception of value to those who help the society produce the most. Fungible money worked during the tangible ages (agriculture and industrial) because society needed to aggregate large amounts of capital (because economies-of-scale were paramount in agriculture and industry) and labor was fungible (i.e. replaceable) and thus finance was useful for maximizing production. Companies aggregate fungible resources and economies-of-scale to gain a transactional cost advantage to solve the coordination problem of the Tragedy-of-the-Commons of uncoordinated resources per the Theory of the Firm (and such transactional cost advantages decline in the knowledge age due to technological changes which enable more diverse production with lower economies-of-scale and Inverse Commons coordination). Although this system carried with it huge social problems because laborers had no pricing power unless they could restrict membership (e.g. unions) or otherwise use the government to try to redistribute wealth (or do birth control eugenics to lower their competition with each other). In other words, the broken concepts such as democracy and socialism were ramifications of the fact that labor was too fungible (replaceable) and finance was cardinal. That is why so many hate capitalism, but they don't understand that the fledgling knowledge age (which is already underway!) will change everything to a meritocracy and destroy finance and money. So we tie all this together and note that we increasingly are exchanging our knowledge and doing knowledge creation in open source Inverse Commons, especially those who produce the most in the new economy of the knowledge age. Eric Raymond had eloquently pointed out that the Inverse Commons of open source is the only known positive scaling law of engineering. And it applies to almost any field of knowledge creation that applies the open source principle (such as what we doing right now here by discussing a new concept and peer reviewing it here). So I figured out that if I could tie the knowledge production within Inverse Commons to exchange of a fungible monetary unit, I could bridge the gap between where we are now and where we are headed. And that each time some fungible money would be exchanged in this system I designed, then the value of the fungible money would not be in exchange for the knowledge but rather in exchange for the service provided to host the knowledge. Then the fungible portion of exchange would only be a small fraction of the non-fungible value created by the activity. This was a very clever and insightful and essential discovery that I made! So I had figured out a way to make new blockchain currency which would scale out larger than Bitcoin and thus defeat it while also itself not being vulnerable to manipulation because the fungible finance portion of the economy would orders-of-magnitude inferior in relative value to the knowledge portion. In other words, no one could ever monopolize it. Then I combined that with a clever consensus algorithm which doesn't require PoW. And voila I named the unpublished design the Bitcoin Killer. In other words, it achieves Nash's asymptotic ideal money by turning a person's brain into their non-fungible money (the unbounded number of brains is the asymptotic domain) and leverages that huge value creation in order to make the associated fungible token more demanded than Bitcoin. The economy shifts from a predominately monetary one into a predominately reputation and gift culture, wherein we recognize value by accomplishments and not by monetary digits. Those parasite high finance and Wallstreet thugs have to find a new vocation and actually work together in society or become irrelevant. I rather like my discovery. I think you will too if I am correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin: the cutting edge of begging technology." -- Giraffe.BTC
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
 Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
April 02, 2017, 02:45:11 PM
Last edit: April 02, 2017, 08:29:41 PM by IadixDev |
|
Not to sound insistant but ..  Well again it's not to play smarter than you game or authority contest, but im bit code addict, if I dont have my dose of coding my hands start to shake & all, it's just know where you want to get at, and how to collaborate efficiently  not turning around the pot for ever, as you say talk is cheap  https://youtu.be/IQTgQ0PNGHU If you want to make language agnostic interface definition ok, but what do you have in mind to define them ? The only systems I know of to have cross language definition is COM and ns XPCOM, with the IDL file who can be compiled to different language to define the interface in the target language and being able to call methods implemented in the host module from the client application language. With COM then the object can be used with vb,c#,js, all language who support com interface, but it's hard core Microsoft stuff, on linux it's not so great. But ultimately for it to be useful, it need a way to implement both the host side of the interface in the host component language, and the client application side of the call in the client application language. Each languages will have their own internal representation of the data, if you dont understand this, you dont understand anything at the problematic of cross language interfacing. With c++ even if the two class are defined with the exact same code in the same language, but the class implementation are compiled with different compilers, there are great chances they cant call each other methods, even if the definition is the same just because of incompatbility in the compilers. And my objective is to make interface call either to locally hosted modules with regular local language call, either remote call via http/json/rpc if the interface implementation is hosted on another node, transparently for application. The whole point of my framework is to have a network of node who host modules who implement an interface/api who can be called either locally or remotely, and make it as transparent for the app developers as possible. You say im into premature optimization but if I had to state my main concern with the design it's more memory security, and binary compatibility. Actually albeit it's C code, you will see very little direct memory access outside of stack variables and strings. All memory access can be checked, with the runtime in paranoiac mode, you could fill the whole memory with junk and it would not crash. Even if it cant allocate memory it shouldn't crash. The code is made with the main purpose of having zero memiry exception. It's also the advantage of using regular C call with pointer to result because it can return a success/failure state additionally to the result, which can allow to detected case of invalid access without triggering exceptions, which is not really possible with c++ operators. In the end, between If (!tree_get_key(object, key,value))
{
// INVALID VALUE
}
Or Try
{
Value = object [ "key"];
}
Catch
{
// INVALID VALUE
}
You cant say the code is much better with c++ in the end to have same level of safety. Let say you want to have Try
{
MyAddr=peer [2].block ["xxxx"].tx [3].output [5].addr [0];
}
Catch
{
// INVALID value
}
You could easily come up with operators for different object implemented in differents modules compiled with different compilers, and having exception thrown by a runtime different from the one who is supposed to handle it, and ending in an happy mess. The best way i though to be able program c++ app with it is to have a c++ layer on the top of the framework, to have all the c++ synthax with overloaded operators , OO design, interface definition with c++ class, iterators etc, and the application developper deal himself with binary compatibility with the c++ code. As long as the methods are implemented on top level, at application level, and dont have to be used by other applications or distributed over the network why not. Or the trick can be to define the rpc interface with C export, extract the json parameters and use the c++ code inside, this can work normally, as long as the c++ code doesnt have to be shared, the c++ OO pattern is invisible at the interface level. My objectives globally is this, having node who expose API both to local or remote application, with memory safety on dynamic type and cross language interface ( which is different from language agnostic ), and having a way to program application easily in high level language using this distributed api. If you want to get in interface definition and all why not, but which format to use to be able to easily implement different side of the interface in different language easily ? Using com IDL ? XML ? Ultimately what js application developpers are interested into is the json definition of the object, that's the only thing they will be looking at. And im ok with perfectly immutable system and protocol, I can get the idea that blockchain protocol is not necessarily a thing supposed to evolve , but that would be true if we had the actual equivalent of blockchain mathematics to define the protocol once for all without any need to change anything in it ever. Thinking you ll have the perfect protocol right at the first time from scratch is foolish. So ultimately still need way to be able to upgrade the protocol as easily as possible, even if the goal is not to upgrade it at all. Especially if the protocol is more complex, need really to see the two aspect of bitcoin protocol, the network data format aspect, and the block validation algorithm aspect. 90% of blockchain use the same network data format, but different algorithm to accept/reject the blocks, so the protocol is not only about data format definition, but also about algorithm to validate those data. if an high level representation of a blockchain is to be though of, it need also to be able to represent the block validation algorithm, so most likely as some kind of script or code who define the block validity. If a reward scheme is to be implemented in the block validation, it would happen there, Even if it's mostly likely being below application level. But if it to program full blockchain node from scratch, and you dont have clear idea of the language or framework/sdk toolset to use, and you dont want to use my design which fit my purpose, but you dont know how to get the equivalent feature, I cant help you much lol i expressed all the concern i have with the current solution I know of, and why they are not fit for my purpose. Im all for layered design and design pattern, interfaces and all, but it has to stay within the scope of the feature im after for distributed application problematics. Having distributed application coded in bare c++ for me it's only trouble. Or it need a layer of glue code between the different part of application which i want to avoid. And there isnt really much true cross platform solution, even with c++. The closest is ns XPCOM. But I dont think it's even really supported much. Other than this it all come to hacking glue code somewhere in between to have interface who can share information represented in different format by different language. By manipulating json tree in C, with the safe memory representation and access, it solve all the low level interface definition aspect. Even if the synthax is heavy, it's still very simple logic. The code is long to write, but hard to do mistake, and the purpose of each function, the type involved, and return state are obvious and explicit. So after there is very short debuging time. Can add a parameter to the interface easily, recompiling the module, copying it to linux and windows machine, restart the node, done. Js application can then use the parameters. And only the module implementing the interface has to be recompiled, and only once for all win & linux machine on intel. C/C++ programs can share binary representation of the data via the tree api, and do direct module function call in the local process memory, and remote program or js program can call the function with json/rpc over http. All working on the same data format, with sur typing possible on the C side to differentiate between different json objects. But all the data in the C side can be turned to json and vice versa. So C/C++ applications can easily call module function indepently of the location of the module, and js application can call those same functions using it's native object format as parameter via http request. Knowing it's not so much about linear scalability than about asymetric repartition of resources across different nodes. My requirement is this, either to implement low level blockchain protocol, other protocols on top of it,or distributed application . And I dont see a better way to get there than the solutions im working on. |
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 12:46:13 AM |
|
@iadix be back with you shortly... You seem to forecast further out than I'm comfortable doing. I've grown to like waiting for the charts to be fairly definitive.
You are a trader. I am a value investor (with a very strong technological slant). That is why I miss for example a good trade on Ripple. My greatest value is as a creator and programmer so I shouldn't be doing this activity. But I had a need to do this, to turn my 10 BTC into potentially 50BTC which can aid the funding of my altcoin project (given I am not doing an ICO). Also this analysis was an offshoot of diversionary analysis I needed to do anyway to make sure I understand the Nash ideal money value proposition of Bitcoin so as to understand how my project fits into the big picture. If I disappear from speculation discussion, you'll know it is because I am head in sand on my primary vocation, although I notice I am finding it too tempting lately to go off on too many polymath-like tangents. I really need to discipline myself asap. For example, I was tempted to go off and research Ripple right now to get to the essence of it, but I decided not to. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 07:22:14 AM
Last edit: April 03, 2017, 09:55:41 AM by iamnotback |
|
Satoshi our great NWO master: What you describe, what you are suggesting, perhaps, is that a benevolent Satoshi has great power to do good, and that, conversely, a malevolent Satoshi has a nuclear bomb in regard to his private keys.
If you wanted to utilize Bitcoin reserves which could not be visibly spent until it was time to enslave the world, how would you do it? What if you could print paper high powered SDRs implicitly backed by Bitcoin. And then create Basel rounds that progressively ratchet the old banking system to default by requiring Tier 1 reserves of this quality.
@traincarswreck there is no such thing as a stable fungible value. It can't exist as it violates the laws of physics. That is Nash's error. And there is no such thing as a plurality of asymptotically fungible stable values. That is a fantasy in the mind of a crazy, brilliant man who didn't quite figure out his error. His mistake was not realizing that his ideal would only be plausible in the non-fungible case. He was close to realizing that. Nash was on the right track though. We can have an asymptotic plurality of stable values, when they are all non-fungible. And my project will bring that theory into existence. Bitcoin will be destroyed. Mankind will prosper. And I will prove you are wrong. But it won't happen overnight. It will take a while yet. Fungible money will die. Slowly but it will wither away. That is what my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance points out. Yeah atoms are heavily but they don't get heavier. Relative value will decline (the absolute value will always have mass but that is irrelevant as I had pointed about to Eric Raymond on his blog, c.f. the Dark Enlightenment thread). There are no stable values in a relativistic universe. But this is a good thing, otherwise we would not exist because the past and the future would collapse into indistinguishable (the light cones of relativity would overlap) if there could be any absolute reference point because relativism wouldn't exist. End of story. I am tired of talking. The discussion is redundant. I will reply to @dinofelis' other errors then end my participation in this thread. Adios amigos. P.S. thanks to all for the discussion. No one believes you.
Any one who whoreships fungible value can never believe me, for their entire thesis is destroyed. So they will just have to be destroyed. It is their destiny. Love of money, is the root of all evil. Love of knowledge and production is glorious and fruitful. I am a true capitalist. The financiers (especially the whale-most of all financiers) are leeches and parasites. |
|
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
April 03, 2017, 10:17:55 AM
Last edit: April 03, 2017, 02:05:46 PM by IadixDev |
|
In the absolute to do something based on com & IDL, it would be easy to come up with something like this :
Class myModule : IDL_INTERFACE
{
Int method1 (int a, string b)
{
mem_zone_ref params={ptr_null};
create_obj (¶ms,"params",type_json_object);
set_key_int (¶ms,"a",a);
set_key_str (¶ms,"b",b);
module_call ("myModule", "method1",¶ms);
deRef (¶ms);
}
}
IDL_interface *myInterface=new MyModule ();
myInterface->method1 (18, "toto" );
Or the opposite
Class jsonRPCHost
{
IDL_interface myInterface=MyModule ();
JsonResult method1(string jsonParams)
{
mem_zone_ref params={ptr_null};
Int a;
String b;
tree_from_json (jsonParams, ¶ms);
get_key_int (¶ms,"a",&a);
get_key_str (¶ms,"b",&b);
myInterface->method1 (a,b);
deRef (¶ms);
}
}
jsonRPCHost rpc;
rpc.method1 ("{a:18,b:\"toto\"}");
Or can do same for passing parameters as json array instead of named values. rpc.method1 ("[18,\"toto\"]");
To have binding between com interface , json/rpc interface, and the binary modules. The code to extract the parameters need to be changed, rpc support the two modes, with my code it detect if the json is an array and the module need to adapt the params parsing if it use array or named values. By default it use an array for the moment, but using named value would allow to pass directly jsonified js objects to the rpc on the client side, here the js api build the array out of the js object for the rpc. generic module call in C
tree_from_json ("{a:18,b:\"toto\"}", ¶ms);
module_call ("myModule", "method1" ,¶ms);
the name of the method can be extracted from the full json rpc request. with "mod.method" synthax in the rpc request, the runtime function executing the call to the module method could make the call automatically with generic code for any rpc request . For the moment it use http url path to determine the module name, and the config file bind the http path to the module interface, either it's used as a cgi and extract the parameters from http query string, or with the rpc interface, both can be used. The block explorer use the cgi api with parameters from the http query string, the wallet use the rpc api. In any case, the module call can be made to local module, or to remote module via http/rpc/request, the C synthaxe just remove the boilerplate of c++ object definition, and in the end the c++ interfaces just translate parameters to/from json to c++ compiler specific data, to potentially retranform it back to json to make rpc call. The c++ interface definition just add boilerplate, break binary compatibility, and is not even very useful from js app point of view. Can make développement of module easier using c++ synthax, but that's about it. And I dont think can expect opengl C++ app too soon anyway. And other than for doing opengl app,the js api can do it, and it can still somehow handle opengl even if rpc call are slow. Maybe for programing pure server side modules without UI, it could be useful to have c++ layer to make code typing faster, but it raise certain question with error checking & c++ operators. Without using exception I dont see how to check operators error, and without operators it would end barely less fugly in c++. For the interfacing glue code can be made to interface c++/com with json for js rpc & other modules. But doing an interface to handle inter object operators is not easy. And then the module execution cant be distributed because of the operators instead of using the C synthax. With a bit more work it can embedded into IE, and script in vb,c#, and js with ie ( without rpc interface, with com runtime ), but that work only for Microsoft stuff. The equivalent of this is XPCOM which is supposed to be more portable, ff & chrome & safari can use those, even if chrome is dropping it, and will develop something else, safari have their own native plugin format, but it support the XPCOM thing. But even under linux, it's not widely used to develop application, it's mostly used by browser, to define the DOM objects, and the plugin, but outside of flash the other plugin are marginal. So in the end this can be third way to develop more a COM/XPCOM like approach in c++. Im not sure how far IDL can go with design pattern, I think you can at least define method who deal with other IDL interface, there might be way to define complex type but not sure, most likely conversion from json object to c++ method parameters need to be done manually with json object members passed manually with the good order to the IDL interface method. To have something similar to c++ operators with COM , you would have
StringInterface *A;
IntegerInterface *B;
Int value;
A=rpc->getStringInterface ("1234");
B=A; // automatic operator overload defined in the interface, return the interface to an instance of B
value=B->getValue (); // rpc call
B->deRef (); // rpc call
If A and B implementation are hosted remotely , it mean the host need to keep an instance of B as long as the client needs it, and it make three rpc request to have the equivalent of operators. And you could get to Value=A->B-->member [xx]->method1 ().result.value; With rpc call each time, but it's hard to have good error handling, or asynchronous requests with a synthax like this in c++. If one call return invalid object interface, it mean most likely crash. And it's not always possible to know if the function will succeed with remote calls. So in the end to have something safe , it will always be fugly in a way or another. In C you can get same operation in one call with explicit typing
Json_to_tree ("\"toto\"",¶ms);
module_call("A","getValueToInt",¶ms,&value);
// params contain eventually data used by the operator
// or the operand like B represented as json object if the operator use the value of B
// value is the return value represented as json object or in binary form if the return type is explicit in the module call declaration.
But it need to make each call step by step with fugly synthax. There is a single rpc request , and no boilerplate for the api call itself, but boilerplate in the code to manipulate the binary json object from C. ( but again the code is very safe, and hard to make crash, there will always be a meaning full answer to interface method call). Other than IDL I dont see other interface definition that has really practical advantage. But there is no really convenient easy way to force javascript to use a particular format out of an interface definition, or to have anyway to check the object that is passed to the rpc method call from js is the format used to define the interface in c++, or to check from js the result is the type it expect. My main concern is not optimisation but a language to program blockchain node must have good support for all these: network api, asynchronous io is a big plus, upnp is big plus http protocol, json, data format, compression, url & query string parsing, utf8 etc object serialization and hashing. Elliptic crypto. Database system. GC / ref counting is must. Simd vectorial math and opengl are a big plus. Good threading support is big plus. No need for virtual machine or interpreter is big plus. Easily work with html templating or integrated ui small plus, templating can be done in browser from json, or html can be made externally. With all this in mind there is not many language who fit the bill, and even without premature optimization once you are stuck with a language framework, there is not always good way to optimize much more, or work around certain bugs or deficiency in one area or the other. Other than C and C++ I dont see what other language can fit the bill, not even getting in resources uses, memory, performance, and access to local system/hardware resources, binary compatibility, etc |
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 10:41:55 AM |
|
^^^ LOL. Humour-free zone, obviously.  ^^^ @stereotype what can you say now that LTC is $9.50?  |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 10:48:36 AM |
|
Or either doing another script language, who recognize the module interface/api, and can make call to these modules, to have better high level node definition, and building application with this script language.
90% of application is making call to modules interface and formating UI.
If the script language can include some form of html templating , additionally to exchanging data via api, it could allow to program more of the application with this script language .
That's my intended plan if I can get it done. Not sure if I can, but if so I think it will be much more elegant. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 10:52:53 AM
Last edit: April 03, 2017, 11:13:24 AM by iamnotback |
|
Just a question from a non technical guy. I haven't really read all that you guys wrote, but i've noticed javascript being mentioned. So why javascript and not webassembly ? Apparently WASM is superior, even javascript's creator brendan eich endorses it.
I just looked into it : http://webassembly.org/docs/web/WASM is unstable, incomplete, and not supported everywhere. Can't yet target it. Also it is a low-level paradigm, so not really suitable for a programming language. Think of it more as an output target for a compiler. We use C where we need absolute performance. Otherwise we prefer to use a better high-level language. Problem is that high-level languages sort of suck. There really isn't an ideal choice yet. But C is yucky for rapid coding. Yet JavaScript is also lacking many things, especially the ability to manipulate packed binary data structures. Node.js has some verbose API for that which is not elegant. These are some of the reasons I wanted to try to create a statically typed scripting language that compiles to TypeScript. I find it very difficult to comprehend what @iadix writes. His explanations are not clear to me. Overly verbose and unable to get directly to the point. I know I could figure out his points if I wanted to take the time to unravel it, but it would be much easier if he could communicate more effectively. Sorry. I know basically that he is trying to solve the issues of how to interface modules and APIs with typed objects. Me too. He has his formulation and I was working on different one which would I think be more elegant and attract more app developers. |
|
|
|
|
thejaytiesto (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
|
|
April 03, 2017, 10:57:19 AM |
|
I was going to advice to get bitnet reddit registered but it's already registered: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitnet/Looks like it was something related to bitcoin but the guy that registered it deleted his account. Maybe is it possible to regain control of this somehow? reddit is very important for a cryptocurrency's community. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 10:59:00 AM |
|
reddit is very important for a cryptocurrency's community.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to rant. I fucking hate Redditardit. Their system is corrupt. I want to replace that piece-of-shit shit with app that runs on our blockchain. Redditardit must die. I'm serious. Many pieces-of-shit are going to die. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 11:07:00 AM |
|
With all this in mind there is not many language who fit the bill, and even without premature optimization once you are stuck with a language framework, there is not always good way to optimize much more, or work around certain bugs or deficiency in one area or the other.
I agree the programming language landscape is rather lacking. That is why I spent so much energy on attempting to create a new language with @keean. The problem is the time it takes and the resources I have being so limited. Creating a new language is a multi-year endeavor. I thought maybe I could cheat by creating a transpiler to TypeScript and using some clever design decisions. But I need to spend some more time on that to decide if it is realistic or not. Probably not, but I want to look at it one more time. |
|
|
|
|
thejaytiesto (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
|
|
April 03, 2017, 11:31:30 AM |
|
reddit is very important for a cryptocurrency's community.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to rant. I fucking hate Redditardit. Their system is corrupt. I want to replace that piece-of-shit shit with app that runs on our blockchain. Redditardit must die. I'm serious. Many pieces-of-shit are going to die. I don't like reddit too but the fact that we dont like reddit is irrelevant since if your coin gets any relevant attention a reddit community will arise anyway, so it might as well have a nice url that ranks well in google. Btw competing against reddit in this field is like competing against google in internet browsers. If you can outdo bitcoin and reddit then holders of such a token must be rich. Not an easy task tho. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 12:16:38 PM |
|
If you can outdo bitcoin and reddit then holders of such a token must be rich.
Yup. That's the plan. I'm not joking. I know their weakness. My significant limitation right now is health. More so than anything else. My liver pain and delirium returns when I slack off my exercise, because I was overworking nonstop past week or two (lost track of days and night and day). Just finished a hard run and sprinting. My liver was really bad past two days. I am still on these toxic meds for another 14 weeks (but 2 drugs instead of 4 kinds, i.e. half the dose of before). The main problem with this health condition is I am often just feeling like shit which makes it difficult to get into the focus of mind to code. I guess I am going to try to restart the barbell workouts and see if that might raise my level of health. Very frustrating to have 14 more weeks of meds to go. I need my excellent health immediately. I am a voracious coder if healthy. |
|
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
April 03, 2017, 02:25:15 PM
Last edit: April 03, 2017, 05:07:19 PM by IadixDev |
|
I know basically that he is trying to solve the issues of how to interface modules and APIs with typed objects. Me too. He has his formulation and I was working on different one which would I think be more elegant and attract more app developers.
The more elegant formulation is what im looking to do now. The three choice are : Doing the high level ui part in js, and all app with js, only the low level part in C. Doing a script language to implement rpc/json interface. Eventually doing call to lower level API. Doing c++/com interface to program app / modules in c++, and keeping json glue code for rpc remote calls . ( to do js app on top of it), or use COM runtime for Microsoft app for higher layer (vb/c#/js in IE). It's hard to get on coding something without choosing some language, and the definition of the interface need to take in account implementation in the languages too. Doing all in node.js is yuck too, and in the end for blockchain related things, im not sure it would even be that faster to write than C with different part requiring the equivalent time. And js has weak error checking in "pre run time". It can create faulty code very easily. It puts lot of pressure on the transpiler if it's the way used to produce the js code. If your goal is to make a script language with modules & OO that is close to js, im sure can get interpreter for the basics quickly. Basics is Parsing of json object Api call Simple evaluators for expressions like int a; String yy; Float xx; obj b={"key":value}; obj Obj; a=b.key; If (a>100) ApiModule.method1 ("toto"); Else ApiModule.method2({"key2":param}); Obj=ApiModule.getObjectRef (); Obj.value=yy; XX=Obj.value2; I will not necessarily do the conditional branching like this, but all the code to evaluate expressions like this and events is already made, the script would be running on top of node in standalone executable And its possible to have static type for value & objects with the modified json synthax that the api recognize, and automatic type conversion.. . And its not too hard to get to a full implementation of json/rpc interface with a script language like this. And all the low level code is already made, to deal with p2p network packet, blocks / tx validation, object serialization / hashing ,and to manipulate wallets or block explorer and raytracing via http interface useable with json/rpc or cgi style. More complex expression and runtime to handle list can be thought of, but list processing can be made in C. Or can have equivalent of map/filter/for each loops, in the script to deal with lists of objects. Filters can be made with simple expression evaluation, and I have the code to filter block list based on query string expression. Map can be made with module api calls. Other kind of list processing can easily be made with the C framework interfacing with json. If you prefer to do your thing on your own, ill work on this by myself the time you get to something equivalent or better., but my objective for the moment it's this, getting to more elegant formulation, i have different solutions to get there in reasonable time. |
|
|
|
thejaytiesto (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
|
|
April 03, 2017, 04:00:44 PM |
|
Speaking about reddit, I was checking out the litecoin one and saw this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/632yau/i_just_rented_some_hash_to_support_segwit/dfr0x1g/So according to this guy's calculations it would take around $1million "only". Of course im dreaming to have that in my portfolio but for some other guys with our same interests this is peanuts. You seem to be in contact with rpietila and (im not sure) MP which seem to be the final boss of whales. Maybe you could contact them and somehow convince them to push the hashrate up to activate segwit, I think we all would benefit. (I think they would agree with seeing segwit on litecoin because of the implications it has for bitcoin, and the speculation part is clear too: if I was able to spend 1million to activate segwit at any time I wanted, I would spend a couple weeks buying LTC low key, then activate it and pretty much have guaranteed gains) It would also force miners that are being "passive" to show their cards and see if they actively block segwit by adding more hashrate in the opposing camp. Im afraid if this isn't done soon it may get increasingly harder. Of course not sure if they are going to bother with putting 1 million on the line. Just my 2cents. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 08:33:14 PM
Last edit: April 03, 2017, 10:38:58 PM by iamnotback |
|
@rpietila is not technical, so he won't care. MP doesn't give a shit about altcoins. Read here for more. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 10:30:22 PM
Last edit: April 10, 2017, 09:50:05 AM by iamnotback |
|
@dinofelis, I realized that no PoW blockchain can have a viable changeable blockchain size solution. Every possible solution is centralization (large blocks, small blocks, unlimited blocks), including Monero's automatic adjustment algorithm.
Even LN on Litecoin will eventually fail as a political clusterfuck when the block size needs to be increased again.
Satoshi's PoW only is really viable only for power broker money on small blocks.
Satoshi's PoW is diabolical. We must destroy it.
The economic majority wins. Those who are buying LTC now are doing so because they want SegWit to be activated. Jihan Wu of Bitmain who is blocking SegWit on both LTC and BTC, created the new more efficient Scrypt miners, so I didn't realize this before. They could monopolize these in theory. So this fight might not be as easy as I thought. But the economic majority should win, unless it lacks resolve and/or patience. Already people are arbitraging and finding ways to rent hashrate in order to earn money and support SegWit. If you think the price is going up, you try to lock in a rental price that doesn't increase as the price rises, so you can profit. Others may be buying A4s if they want to maximize profits and believe the price will remain high (and going higher).
Jihan Wu needs to get his ass kicked economically so both Bitcoin and Litecoin can move forward.
It is most likely that BU is a diversionary lie. These miners simply want to gouge high fees on Bitcoin and block any alternatives. They were never going to fork with BU. It was a lie to prevent everyone from joining together to kick Jihan's ass.
If my health will improve or stabilize, my plan is to launch a Bitcoin Killer which doesn't require PoW (the design is already completed). I want to bankrupt all these miners. Their vested interests are a pain in the ass. We need to kick all their arses out into the street and turn their ASICs into door stops. I am talking long-term plan.
Those who are buying ASICs now, my plans are a year or more away from reaching any relevancy or size, so fear not. Buy A4s and profit.
Both you guys are obstructionist wolves in sheepskin. You pretend you want to make progress but you are intentionally stalling. Any one with a brain stem can see right through your deceit. ProHashing is not signaling SegWit thus they are an obstructionist. Their words are meaningless. In a meritocracy only actions count. " Talk is cheap, show me the code", wrote Linus Torvalds Also it is quite clear that BU never intended to fork Bitcoin with that Buggy Unlimited piece-of-shit, because they know damn well the economics of Bitcoin are that the whales can and will destroy any miners who attempt to fork Bitcoin. I explained this in great detail on BCT. BU is a lie and diversionary tactic in order to fool everyone. The real goal of Jihan Wu is to gouge maximize transaction fees from Bitcoin and block any alternatives for scaling. These obstructionists are block progress on both Bitcoin and Litecoin, because Bitcoin depends on Litecoin to add off chain scaling, because the whales of Bitcoin will never allow SegWit on Bitcon. Period. ProHashing by their actions is complicit. Words are meaningless. Look at your conflicting statements: He states that we oppose Segregated Witness, which is true. We do not think that SegWit is the best course for bitcoin or litecoin. We do intend to implement SegWit A majority of customers have requested SegWit, so we plan to implement it. Stalling. Deceit. An obstructionist wolf in sheepskin. the IRS doesn't move its deadline back because of SegWit, and we won't have any business at all if they come after us Miners should leave such an incompetent company. Whining in a forum about not being able to do your accounting at the same time you do your technical work. Of course it is quite clear you are just lying and deceitful. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 03, 2017, 10:31:02 PM |
|
Nash didn't make a mistake his thesis is crystal clear and fundamental. You need to explain to me why you think funable money breaks the laws of physics, in a post, succinctly, not a series of post.
I already explained the critical flaw in his thesis. The long-term failure mode is all the Bitcoin wealth will become concentrated in one whale. This is an inviolable law of finance if it is true that only Bitcoin is non-manipulated. I am not going to repeat all of the logic I expressed already about that. If you can't assimilate information from multiple posts, then you need to go back to high school. I've already explained it (several times in fact). You guys are really dumb. There is no need for me to repeat myself again. I know what I know. And I know I will kill Bitcoin and PoW. You watch and observe as idiots who are looking at "magic" that they can't understand. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke Tell me how the kilogram, the newton, the second, the degree, the watt, etc. are manipulated politically...?
Lol. You are a pretender. Just as I thought. Do you really need me to explain that to you? The Bible speaks about honest weights and measures. Does that mean there is dishonesty and manipulation in units-of-measure. Duh. All units-of-measure are relative. The government can tax your electricity, so a kilowatt then costs 1.5 kilowatts. Ditto a whale who controls a majority of the Bitcoins can do what ever he wants to do with finance, if indeed Bitcoin is the most trusted and accurate measure of reserves. That absolute power can be used at the End Times, to complete the fate we've been promised in Revelation. An absolutely non-manipulable fungible finance reserves is absolute destruction. Nash was one crazy lunatic. Of course though there isn't such an absolute. And if the elite succeed in fooling the world into believing Bitcoin is such an absolute stable reserve, then they will enslave fungible finance. But they can't enslave knowledge trading in an Inverse Commons, because the monetary component of that is very small compared to the value of the knowledge traded. And I posit the non-fungible trading of knowledge will far exceed the value of fungible finance. Because fungible finance is only applicable to fungible investments such as factories, laborers, real estate, and tangible things. Laborers are replaceable meaning that laborers are fungible with each other. Individualized knowledge and creativity are not replaceable meaning that each individual has a unique perspective that is not fungible with others. "God" (nature) made it this way. The bastard elite who are pulling this Bitcoin wool over your eyes, will not succeed in destroying all of humanity with their diabolical deceit. But those of you who fall into the trap may perish. But this will take some time so the End Times for finance may or may not come in your lifetime. Yet the knowledge age will not perish. Fungible money will perish. You will throw your useless gold and silver into the street. If you don't understand these concepts by now, there is nothing more I can say to you. You will just have to watch and observe the magic. |
|
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
April 04, 2017, 10:51:47 AM |
|
Satoshi's PoW is diabolical. I kinda agree on this I don't sort people in nwo and non nwo, but I wouldnt put satoshi in the humanist/altruiste kind that much I did my little equation also with this side lol Already important fact, pow is probabilistic, so it's like gambling, most religion would say expecting reward based on probabilistic things is not very good  all true humanist knows lack of order and chaos always favor those who have more. In casino you have more chance to make profits with larger fund, cause you have more chances to trick probabilities on the long run. It's why mining get pooled, and centralized. If people would organise like this to trick casino im sure it bankrupt for them And also the way the code is made and all, I think he is someone who is used to code for profits, not that it's bad in itself, but it still lead to lack of care of many aspect of developpement or code, to get the max profits in short time. Well cant say he looks like someone involved with open source project, linux development, or in the collaborative developpement GPL profile. Most likely someone who come from banking or financial sector, who code financial app of some sorts. He doesnt look to have the kind of human wisedom and altruist attitude too much, and be more motivated by profit ( devil) and probabilistic logic (devil , god is order), and have very materialistic takes on things. Well there can be more paranoiac theory too
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
April 04, 2017, 11:01:36 AM
Last edit: April 04, 2017, 10:13:15 PM by iamnotback |
|
The reason for the small blocks becomes much clearer.
The power brokers want to keep the general public out of Bitcoin in the future. One of the reasons is so that future regulations of blockchain currencies will not apply to Bitcoin blockchain transactions, because none of us will be able to afford Bitcoin blockchain transactions.
The power brokers are never regulated because they capture the regulators.
The masses will be taxed and regulated on Lightning Networks, other blockchains, and/or systems like SEPA.
Remember government exists to keep the masses under control.
The power brokers need a base financial system in which they can't corrupt it, thus not infighting between themselves. This is the way to organize themselves so they are united so they stop fighting each other via nation-state enclaves.
Upthread I wrote about another reason the power brokers need small blocks in order to remain in control of the blockchain. Read that post for background details on what I will write below. But there is always an inviolable flaw with fungible money. And it always finds its way into any fungible money system in some form. That is that any design for a fungible money system will always be a winner-take-all power vacuum. Bitcoin is no exception. And this is the flaw that @traincarswreck didn't know about. In Bitcoin's case, I see numerous ways that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum. As the small block size becomes dominated by power broker transactions, which ever broker pays x% of the fees, they earn x / (100 - x)% more profit per unit of hashrate than other miners (presuming electricity cost is equal), because the power broker can make sure he only sends his transactions to a miner who refunds his fees (or the power broker can run his own mining operation). Thus the power brokers become the miners, but since the one with more percentage will accumulate more percentage faster than the rest, then Bitcoin is a winner-take-all system. Tack on selfish-mining once one entity has 33% and the eventual 51% victory becomes even more accelerated. If the power brokers had to complete against all the transactions made by the masses, then it would be more difficult for them to accumulate 51%. They would need to somehow be able to manipulate the masses. My project is an attempt to take advantage of this insight. Note PoW can't do it, because unlimited blocksize has no stable fee market security equilibrium. But my project is more than that, because it also will enable widescale knowledge trading (the killer app of blockchains) so while the fungible money aspect will grow, it will grow less than the non-fungible component, thus making humanity immune to the evil of fungible money. Note that MPEx's system only settled daily and ditto LN's will have long settlement periods, thus my above math works. Note that in high finance such as MPEx (which was able to accumulate a million Bitcoins), the one with more reserves accumulates more as compared to one with smaller reserves. This is a mathematical fact of finance. And this is another reason that all the Bitcoin will become owned by one entity eventually. This is why Nash's concept was flawed and not objective. This is why Bitcoin is the system that will bring about 666 and the Revelation. All the fungible money wealth will become concentrated in one whale over time. The problem is fungible money. It is evil. We must get rid of it. I'll show you how we do this and humankind will become very wealthy. We can defeat the idiocy of the elite. Of course the elite want a winner-take-all. They think the survival-of-the-fittest. What they don't seem to care about is that it means total destruction of humankind. But they apparently don't care about that. They think it is destined and they think there is no more objective system possible. But I think there is a more objective system, not based on fungible money.
Edit: I want to add that the above logic explains why the power brokers of Bitcoin don't want large blocks, but it doesn't necessary follow that they don't want SegWit and hence LN. However, note that given any finite blocksize chosen (which can't later be increased because protocol changes are a political clusterfuck as I explained upthread), then LN will be forced to large centralized hubs which aggregate settlement back to the blockchain because the blocksize will not be able to accommodate minnows settling on the blockchain. Thus, the centralized hubs will become private fractional reserve banks, and the settlement back to the LN blockchain will become purely symbolic. These centralized hubs would keep their reserves in BTC in any case (because it is the dominant chain) and do their meaningful settlement on the Bitcoin blockchain. In other words, LTC will be only a transactional unit-of-exchange, not a unit-of-account for reserves (a mirror of the situation between gold and silver when they used to be money). Thus I think the power brokers of Bitcoin will not allow SegWit to activate on Bitcoin because they would not want that transactional settlement noise and the potential bugs it could cause to risk the dominant chains status as the most reliable and dominant chain. Thus not only do I think Bitcoin will never get larger blocks, I also think Bitcoin will never get SegWit. |
|
|
|
|
|
