Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Sep 24 01:41:25 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / Nim - an intervention
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 14 06:40:40
RE:

"And btw you lying cunt. You didn't say "consensus mechanism" your said proof of work was a fundamental USP to crypto. And I gave you 3 protocols with proof of stake, and then you switched it to "consensus mechanism is important"

Take a huge fucking deep breath and consider what you are trying to prove here.

You are quoting piecemeal from a thread where I started with an explicit recognition that there were multiple consensus mechanisms:

"cryptos, particularly any Proof of Work based cryptos, are off the charts in terms of energy consumption."

This sentence only makes sense if there re crypto currencies based on things other than proof of work.

I did not go into huge detail about all the other types of consensus mechanism that exist because:
a. It would add complexity to the post
b. The critiques of PoW consensus generalise, even if they are not identical
c. PoW even now remains the dominant consensus mechanism involved in most transactions.

You are accusing me of lying because this sentence here:

""All in all, it's difficult to get the economics right to deliver decentralisation and low transaction times, and so massive inefficiency is built in - not from the cryptography of building a Merkel Tree (which is trivial) - but from the competing nodes and proof of work piece which are fundamental to the basic USP of cryptocurrency"

This is spectacularly autistic cherry picking.

Ok, I said "proof of work" when I could more accurately have said "Consensus mechanism". But that does not obviously prove that I did not know there were others - otherwise the first quote would not have been written how it is. As I said previously, I'm using it (perhaps sloppily) as a stand in for all consensus mechanisms because *all* of them involve performative wastage of a scarce resource in order to prevent the consensus being hijacked - which makes them always inefficient (particularly in energy) compared to conventional payment systems.

I am not lying, you are just approaching this whole argument in spectacularly bad faith, attempting to manufacture proof of something that isn't there.

And you are doing this across multiple subjects. It comes off as deranged, because it is actually deranged.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 14 07:54:30
"Take a huge fucking deep breath and consider what you are trying to prove here."

You quoted what I am trying to prove, right there in the first sentence.

"This sentence only makes sense if there re crypto currencies based on things other than proof of work."

You were all over the place and that is exactly the behavior I expect from someone who talks more than they understand. You are not here to understand anything, you are here to debate. Those are two very different things. On paper debating can be educational, but when people lack honesty and have a chronic problem misunderstanding their opponent, it is largely corrosive to understanding anything.

"Ok, I said "proof of work" when I could more accurately have said "Consensus mechanism"."

More accurately you said "a combustion engine is a fundamental PoW to automobiles". You didn't understand the comparison.

Your response was "consensus mechanisms are important". Who were you explaining that for? For the person who had just given you 3 examples of up and running PoS protocols?

You are a dishonest person with a fragile ego who simply can not take being corrected on anything because you view almost everyone here inferior in every way imaginable.

Treating you the way I do isn't bad faith, it is the only rational recourse you have left. We can pretend that this is the first time I am conveying these very sentiments to you about being dishonesty and having an ego. Do you still remember "all the homophobic stuff is in the old testament". It was such an insignificant error, that you refused to admit to.

We come back to you as a person, because it is you as a person that have flaws and they get in the way of any supposed ability you possess to reveal the flaws in other peoples arguments. You want to call that ad hom, then you do not understand the difference between ad homs and personal feedback. And I think conceptually you understand that calling out dishonesty and shitty behavior is not a spurious insult, you just think it is misdirected when lobbed against you. I don't expect you to internalize anything I am saying, just an FYI.

Across many topics I tried giving you the benefit of doubt and challenged you to summarize my position, you never did, because you can't. You suck at debating and learning.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 14 08:03:15
No Nim, I was not all over the place.

I was pretty clear that I was focusing on PoW based chains because I repeatedly caveating as such; but clear right at the beginning that the point generalises.

Your entire insane diatribe is based off the fact that right at the end I was not as perfectly explicit as I could be.

Your atomistic attempt to take each line of a post individually and without context in a forensic hunt, conducted in bad faith, to support your unhinged witchunt does not make me "all over the place". It does not make me a liar either.

It makes you a swivel eyed loon.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 14 08:19:00
Look how dishonest you are here:


You chose to truncate the quote:

"proof of work piece which are fundamental to the basic USP of cryptocurrency"

...
Full quote:

"but from the competing nodes and proof of work piece which are fundamental to the basic USP of cryptocurrency"

Yes, PoW is only one consensus mechanism, but it is fucking clear from the sentence you are talking about the issue is competing nodes and the need to build consensus from them.

And from the post you are quoting from, it is also clear I am aware there are others.

Your entire point boils down to something like:

"Well, cars use energy, and particularly those powered by Internal Combustion Engines.

...

So whatever you do, you will always have the need to turn those wheels with that combustion engine, it's kind of the unique selling point of cars."

To which you have responded with an insane diatribe:

"You clearly don't understand what you are talking about, there are things other than internal combustion engines"

"Yes, I know, the first sentence explicitly allows for that"

"You lying cunt! You said an internal combustion engine is the unique selling point of a car!"

I can't help you here - this is a spectacularly bad faith reading.

And no, I don't fucking care about your subsequent examples of PoS systems because:


1. It's irrelevant to the fucking point, which is yes, I knew then (and it is obvious I knew then to anyone that has an ounce of nuance and is able to follow a piece of written text) that there are alternative consensus mechanisms

2. They still underperform visa or any conventionally based systems by orders of magnitude (i.e. off the chart) despite being better than PoW - because they involve redundant calculations per node and redundant nodes.

I'd say your point was entirely semantic, but it's not because for it to be semantic you'd actually have to have understood what was written in the first place; rather than contrived as hard as possible to misread it.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 14 08:21:35
You don't seem to understand, that it wasn't the mistake you did back then, but the fact that you couldn't admit it was a mistake in the previous thread! And instead scrambled to make it sound like *I* (the person who presented 3 PoS protocols, who now intimately through user experience knows this) was saying CM isn't important. You further showed this by not understanding the perfect comparison to the motors in automobiles. The motor being the CM and the specific instantiation, the combustion engine being PoW. Instead you waffled about how wings on an airplane are important.

Which btw a shitty example showing you do not understand fundamental aerodynamics! An airplanes needs LIFT and the most common way to provide that are wings. The wings are comparable to PoW and the ability to provide LIFT is comparable to consensus mechanism. You need lift, not wings necessarily. A crappy examples since wings are by far the best way to provide lift to an airplane. Anyway I digress..

lol you don't even understand what the problem is! EVERYONE makes mistakes, I was not even myself that familiar, I sorta knew and had heard about PoS, but I was all BTC back then.

You completely misrepresented me about the Binances card, you referenced that I had brought it up in the nat gas thread (false), when I was not even aware of the binance visa card back then. And clearly Nhill understood what I said, to which you falsely responded "it was in another thread before you came back".

You don't see how fucking dishonest and piece of shit move that is? Luckily I could pull up the thread and shame you.

It is a badge of merit to have a dishonest cunt like you call me a loon. FYI.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 14 08:40:08
"You chose to truncate the quote:"

Amazing, the full quote still says that PoW is a fundamental USP of crypto. It is as if I actually read it! And then chose not "add complexity to the post".

Lets's read the next sentences:

"You can't ditch the proof of work without ditching the decentralised untrusted properties."

Are you sure about this?

"Without proof of work, you need a trusted third party who can write to the chain, and all you have then is a central bank writing entries in a publically audited ledger structured as a Merkel Tree"

Or this? Mistakes?

Seriously just stop.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 14 09:33:14
Nim:

Because it's not a mistake, it's your inability to read a fucking sentence.

Even if you want to call it a mistake, the most reasonable interpretation is that I wrote proof of work when what I clearly meant was consensus mechanism generally.


Instead you are going on about lying cubts etc.

You've turned into fucking unhinged little shit eating goblin like Sam Adams.

Go have a lie down.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 14 09:34:25
And I'm not reading the rest of your crap because there's literally no point feeding your stupid little witch hunt. Your evidently not engaging in good faith.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 14 10:03:46
No worries I will C&P the most relevant parts:

The full quote still says that PoW is a fundamental USP of crypto. It is as if I actually read it! And then chose not "add complexity to the post".

Lets's read the next sentences:

"You can't ditch the proof of work without ditching the decentralised untrusted properties."

Are you sure about this?

"Without proof of work, you need a trusted third party who can write to the chain, and all you have then is a central bank writing entries in a publically audited ledger structured as a Merkel Tree"

Or this?

These are very specific claims, strawmen in fact, because the blockchain solution is PoS. Which you do not give as a solution.

Now despite not understanding PoS that well, I knew of it back then. I could have simply thrown it out. I didn't and you can read why in that thread, because I knew your resistance was not on technical grounds, but as a matter of principle and you have since then confirmed this over and over.

"little witch hunt"

You created this thread as the proverbial "intervention" on my behalf. The audacity and complete lack of introspection is dukhat level here.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 14 10:24:34
FFS Nim, I've explained this already.

1. Pretty much everywhere I'm saying something that's specific to PoW blockchain, I say PoW based systems.

2. I'm explicit there are other systems.

3. Almost all of the instances where I make a criticism that generalises, it's clear that I'm using pow as a specific example.

You are lifting random quotes together to do what exactly? Prove that at best in a few places I've said proof of work rather than "consensus mechanism" because at that point the back and forth is using pow based systems as a specific example?

And from that you get to "lying cunt"

Fuck off Nim.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 14 10:26:40
Christ, all the times you've accused me of being reductionist to the point of autism, and here you are trying to atomise sentences across an entire thread that covers pages of A4 text, strip them of context and stitch them back together.

This is the definition of dishonest bad faith bullshittery that has become your hall mark.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 14 10:28:21
Look, believe what you want. I no longer care.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 14 10:50:20
I mean look at the dishonesty.

If you go back to the source thread, I'm responding to Sam in a conversation specifically talking to him about Bitcoin.

http://www...hread=87979&time=1618997840541


Then you have slapped that into a list of statements here:

http://www.utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=88567&time=1631540138678

that come from different posts.

This is the definition of dishonest cherry picking.

Your just lying Nim. Over and over again.

Here's another example of you decontextualising:

""Currently there's no way to do that. The closest is PoW based cryptocoins."

That really screams "I know of other consesus mechanisms", right?"

Full quote:

"Yeah, I get it, you want a digital token that holds value, is widely accepted as payment, and which isn't subject to a central authority.

Currently there's no way to do that. The closest is PoW based cryptocoins."

At the time all the most widely accepted coins that meet these criteria - including being widely accepted - are proof of work based.

So while it's great to talk about the promised energy efficiencies of other consensus mechanisms*, currently the vast bulk of transactions all occur on the proof of work based ones.

*No blockchain, no matter the consensus mechanism, compares with Visa, and that's before you get into the energy embedded in the physical infrastructure that is duplicated or, in the case of proof of space, embedded in the wasted hardware.

We could go on and on here, but it's manifestly clear you are being staggeringly dishonest.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 14 12:46:00
"At the time all the most widely accepted coins that meet these criteria - including being widely accepted - are proof of work based."

And there it is, the weasel clause "at the time", not going to work.

First of all, it is highly debatable if _any_ coin at the time or currently meets all those critera, especially being widely accepted, unfortunate use of words, but we _are_ communicating in your language and it was your choice. Secondly this perfectly embodies you chronic problems comprehending things and stuff. I said it, with other words in the nat gas thread at the time (I will be using this a lot), I believe in the technology and the paradigm being presented, because I think this will solve what I see as problems.

I don't care about the current instantiations of blockchain and recently I have begun to appreciate the fact that there now is a large community of developers and investors who believe in the same things I do and see the same problems that I do, working to solving them.

"Currently there's no way to do that. The closest is PoW based cryptocoins."

This was conceptually and factually at the time INCORRECT, PoS has been around for some time and you guessed it even at the time. There was thus at the time, a way to do it, infact it was already done, at the time, with PoS protocols like Solana and Luna. I was not aware of them though, only heard about PoS in the perifery, I was ignorant at the time and admittly overwhelmed by the sheer volume of tokens, concepts and technology. You say you were not, you say you sat on this wealth of knowledge, at the time, but instead of educating me further, you spent the entire thread arguing about PoW, Mr see-the-horizon.

"My point is that none of the consensus mechanisms look viable to operate at the scale of visa in principle."

Here is another completely bullshit and factually incorrect statement from the last thread. Solana can handle 50 000 transactions per second with the ability to scale further. Go google how many Visa and mastercard can handle, mr horizon gazer. The biggest figure is 24 000 from Visa, which while highly debated if this is true, is still less than 50k.

Repeat after me: I was factually incorrect about this claim as I am about everything related to crypto. Thank you Nimatzo for correcting me.

You are welcome seb, I only learned this stuff in the last few weeks and would be more humble if you were not such an obnoxious bullshitting piece of shit.

Seriously, as entertaining as this meltdown you are having is, it is a completely waste of time. I am glad that your understanding of this stuff has grown, but tragic that you are still a midget in terms of personal development and feel like you need to maintain this illusion of superiority and polymath level of understanding of the world. At least I know I am ignorant, that way I can do something about it.
nhill
Member
Tue Sep 14 15:22:38
This is all very early and unproven, but Fantom has a theoretical capacity of 300,000 TP, which should be more than enough to spank Visa/Mastercard.

For such capacity to realized it would need to be in ideal network conditions and they'd need a lot more than the 44 validators (I think that's the number) currently being ran. The realistic limit is somewhere around 70,000 TPS, as theoretical limits (see: network bandwidth in general) are never reached in practice.

But, point being, I would table the discussion on crypto's ability to scale. Even in these early days Fantom has achieved 13,000 TPS in stress tests on the current network, and I believe Solana also has achieved around that level.

There are no set technical limitations, is the important point. And transactions settle in less than a second on some networks (Avalanche actually has sub-second settlement built into the standard). VISA transactions take 1-2 days to settle, and a few seconds simply to authorize the transaction.

Technology is not the place to postulate killer arguments against crypto-- that's what crypto does best. ;)

There are certainly other valid arguments that Seb and others have brought up, but this one ain't it.

Y'all may resume-- just wanted to make sure we have the facts straight on that one!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 14 16:22:01
I am highly ignorant about crypto, I have only scratch the surface, but even then in my even more ignorant stage months and years ago, it never occurred to me that PoW was a problem for the crypto project at large. It's fucking code, you can just change it and start over! The only thing that matters is that Satoshi figured it out in code. And now there are 6000 projects and protocols are forking left and right, it's like watching the evolution of species.

To sober up, I remind myself that 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct.
nhill
Member
Tue Sep 14 16:40:17
Yep that's why I refer to this as the Cambrian Explosion of crypto. :)

Fun to watch but only a dozen or so of this current slate of projects will survive, imo. Gotta be nimble and diversified.
nhill
Member
Tue Sep 14 16:42:03
e.g. Solana got DDoSed today and it took down the network. These things happen. They've mitigated it in code and are in the process of deploying it to their beta network at the moment.

But prepare for a lot of Solana FUD. Once mainnet is back up people will finally be able to move their coins and it'll be a selloff, IMO. I'm prepared to buy the dip.

Dropping Solana right now is like selling Amazon stock after their site gets DDoSed. Kinks to be worked out.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 06:15:02
Nim:


"And there it is, the weasel clause "at the time", not going to work."

Are you out of your fucking mind? You want to accuse me of *lying* based on a thing that was not there at the time?


"First of all, it is highly debatable if _any_ coin at the time or currently meets all those critera, especially being widely accepted"

Indeed. Lets look at what I said:

"digital token that holds value, is widely accepted as payment, and which isn't subject to a central authority."

Currently there's no way to do that."

Are there any coins on the market now that do all of that?

"The closest is PoW based cryptocoins." - at the time, and I think now, the most widely accepted coins are all PoW based - network effects dear boy. They don't hold value (volatile as fuck), they aren't widely accepted, but in-so far as we look at the market of people that are willing to accept a cryptocurrency for payment of non-financial-trade goods and services (the fact people are playing speculation between coins is not meaningful activity), at the time and I think now, it's overwhelmingly Bitcoin and Etherum - both currently PoW.

"This was conceptually and factually at the time INCORRECT,"

Really, lets look at the criteria again because you keep dishonestly deleting them to perpetuate your lies:

"Yeah, I get it, you want a digital token that holds value, is widely accepted as payment, and which isn't subject to a central authority."

Was Solana then or now something that:
1. Holds it value
2. Is widely accepted as payment
3. Not subject to a central authority

Only 3.

You have done a bait and switch here - in a sentence where I explain only the PoW based systems come remotely close to being digital gold (and that these are not very good for a number of reasons) - you have tried to suggest that the issue is around whether alternatives to PoW exist.

They do, they suffer from similar issues that prevent them from being "digital gold" also.

Further, your (irrelevant) point that PoS coins might be able to scale to replace Visa, I remain fundamentally unconvinced that any of the existing blockchain consensus mechanisms will be able to scale to the same volume *and cost* that Visa or conventional systems can operate at.

The fundamental issue is the economic wastage involved in competing nodes and performative waste of some scarce resource to stop trivial hijacking of the consensus.

Solana clearly doesn't meet the criteria I set out; and you are lying about that, and also lying about what those criteria are.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Sep 16 07:22:09
6200

1300
3300

4600

"Are there any coins on the market now that do all of that?"

I explained to you that there was not, neither then nor now. Making your usage of "at the time" completely meaningless.

"Solana"

Was a direct response to your "The closest is PoW based cryptocoins". This is both *conceptually* and factually incorrect. The closest thing is a PoS based crypto. Relevant to point out to someone who claims knowledge about this stuff, but didn't think of mentioning PoS a single time. This is what makes your "horizon" stuff so comical.

"being digital gold"

As I crossed the horizon, instead of debating with you, I learned there is more to crypto than digital gold. FYI, old news.

I do not care or value the criteria you assert must necessarily be met today, so that you personally find the underlying technology and paradigm presented as interesting. You can waffle all you like about how fundamentally and physically impossible this or that is until you turn blue in the face.

"The fundamental issue is the economic wastage involved in competing nodes and performative waste of some scarce resource to stop trivial hijacking of the consensus."

This is only a waste if one does not think that energy or "overhead" is solving any problems. I do, you don't, there is a fundamental difference in how we view the world, which I explained in the first thread we have confirmed across many topics and years. You are welcome to go an try to solve the problems you see in a better way with merkel trees or by planting actual trees.

"I remain fundamentally unconvinced that any of the existing blockchain consensus mechanisms will be able to scale to the same volume *and cost*"

And thus in light of your ignorance and chronic personal short comings, I fundamentally do not give a fuck about what you are or are not convinced about.

Not here to sell you anything, not here for a "debate" and as far as learning goes, someone who does not mentioned PoS (trivial and fundamental to the development in this space), the ascending CM, and waffles about his ability to see the tech horizon, does not have anything to teach me. At least nothing that can not trivially be figured out elsewhere without the obnoxious behavior and constant bullshit of said horizon gazer.

I suggest you not waste more of your time.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Sep 16 07:23:20
hehe those numbers are just from the clipboard where I wrote this.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 07:46:53
Nim:

"I explained to you that there was not, neither then nor now. Making your usage of "at the time" completely meaningless."

Not meaningless: because *I* haven't looked subsequently, and *you* have already proven yourself to swoop upon any lack of caveat or precision as proof of dishonesty. Your serial dishonesty and bad faith makes these caveats necessary.

"The closest thing is a PoS based crypto."

You are confusing two different points. PoS is more efficient - but it is not any closer to being digital gold, at least by the criteria I set out.

Are PoS based systems:
1. Better at holding their worth? No. Nothing about a PoS system makes it more fundamentally likely to hold value than a PoW system.

2. More widely accepted? Nothing about PoS systems are likely to make vendors more likely to accept a token form a PoS based chain than a PoW based one? No. And the ones that are most widely accepted are PoW based.

3. Less subject to central authority? Debatable - I'd argue centralisation of mining affects both, it is probably mildly worse for PoS based systems.

You are lying about what was being argued about to try and define yourself, dishonestly, as having been correct.

"As I crossed the horizon, instead of debating with you, I learned there is more to crypto than digital gold."

I see, I'm a lying cunt because you have decided that you are not interested in digital gold anymore, even though that is *specifically* what we were discussing at that point in time.

What the fuck is wrong with you Nim?

"This is only a waste if one does not think that energy or "overhead" is solving any problems."

You do not understand the point. The way the scheme works is to make mining artificially costly in order to prevent a single controlling interest trivially operation an arbitrarily high number of nodes. Irrespective of arbitrarily defining this as utility, it does mean that it will always be more costly to perform a blockchain* based crypto transaction than a conventional system.

"I fundamentally do not give a fuck about what you are or are not convinced about."

Then either you do not understand what the term "lying" means, which involves intention, or you are "all over the place" as you put it - which might explain why you keep cherry picking random quotes from different posts and threads, putting them together, and expecting them to form a coherent whole independent of their original context.

You are lying, stupid or both.

*to avoid you having a paddy in six months time when you discover what a hashgraph is, trust me when I say I use this qualifier advisedly, and that you are a moron.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Sep 16 11:00:54
"I'm a lying cunt because you have decided that you are not interested in digital gold anymore"

Yes you are because you quoted what I said and then intentionally chose to write what you wrote here.

Now fuck off you lying cunt.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 12:29:20
Nim:

I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean, but the only one who has been lying here is you.

You lied about what you originally wrote - the definition of digital gold vs scalability - you lied about my response, and you fabricated a summary of my position by picking a bunch of quotes from a number of different posts to different people, and assembling them in a single context.

And you are lying again now.

It's exactly what Sam does.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Sep 16 14:22:51
"I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean"

At some point you stupid fuck, after endlessly saying "that isn't what I said" across a range of topics from Islam to crypto I had to come to terms with the fact that you are doing it on purpose. It dawned on my very early, but I am a fairly forgiving and patient person. I think the straw that broke the camels back, was the BLM threads last year, where I thought I was having a nuanced discussion about racism and you told me I was being "willfully blinkered". Go fuck yourself. I warned you back then that my patience with your bullshit had grown really thin.

It's not me, it's you. Whatever my part is in this, it is a fraction of the obnoxious Cathy Newman retardation that you bring to the table and eclipses any personal short coming that I have.

Sincerely Nima

P.S Go fuck yourself.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 14:29:51
Listen you cretin, you had to mine multiple posts from multiple conversations across multiple threads to create an impression I said something I didn't.

You are the one lying.

What I said it's there in black and white and it stands.

Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 14:31:41
Yes, you are being willfully blinkered her, thinking proof of stake addresses any of the three criteria mentioned.

Clearly, what you want me to have said is:

"No consensus mechanism can ever offer the volume per second that visa offers".

But that's not what I said.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Sep 16 15:17:03
"an impression I said something I didn't."

You mean like when you lied that I had brought up the binance card in another thread? Or that it was mentioned as an example of on chain scaling, when the other person understood fully what I meant? Whatever misrepresentation you have hallucinated here does not even come close.

I can summarize the supposed quote mines in: idiot who claims to understand blockchain, spends posts after post arguing against PoW, does not mention any other CM**. Then when the discussion moves forward months late, he flips the script and says "Without a consensus mechanism, you can't have distributed, untrusted* ledger."

*And the idiot keeps calling it untrusted, instead of trustless, because he doesn't even understand his own language, let alone crypto.

**And your complete ignorance on this specifically became so obvious when Nhill came and in some details explained all the CM's. One would think that an honest and knowledgeable person would have done that in the nat gas thread. Well that person isn't you.

You are a lying piece of shit, instead of instantly admitting, you tried to change the narrative to CM-s being "key". Twatsplaining it to the person who gave 3 examples of PoS protocols.

Made completely moronic comparison to the wings of an airplane, further proving that he does not understand the fundamental basic concepts in such a way that he can abstract to "off chain" analogs.

I am sorry that I understand the things you are suppose to understand, better than you. I am sorry you feel like you need to show us how well you understand this, but throwing in irrelevant jargon (hashgraph LOL) and yet miss the big picture because you are busy trying to win the debates. I am sorry that you are so stupid. But I do understand why you are having this meltdown. I would too if I had dugg this hole so deep.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 17:07:49
Nim:

"You mean like when you lied that I had brought up the binance card in another thread"

The thread I'm referring to is literally the one you've quoted from, and you did bring it up.

What's the fucking lie Nim?
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 17:08:10
Jesus, you've lost the plot.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 17:12:45
"And the idiot keeps calling it untrusted, instead of trustless"

Untrusted has been the standard term for describing networks that don't have security etc. Coiners rebranding it as trustless because untrusted sounds like distrusted, doesn't make that term definitive. If it's good enough for CSEG it is good enough for me.
Seb
Member
Thu Sep 16 17:13:29
God save us from Johnny come lately "experts" that think they own the glossary.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 06:48:43
Shannon:


The Collins LEP takes end date from 2026 to 2036.


http://www...g=AOvVaw2Jp8E05PYPlsr5iH7jG39T
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 06:51:48
Though, if you went from 12 to 6, you could stretch the in service date for the new Aussie nuclear attack sub to c. 2038, but that means you want the first one in the water c. 2036/7 for shakedown etc. unless it's really fully of the shelf no changes to anything at all astute or Virginia. So same Comms, no additional systems integration etc.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 06:52:31
Whoops, wrong tab
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 17 08:21:01
I am gonna call a unilateral cessation of hostilities, because this is not going to lead anywhere, as both of us are entrenched and literally accusing the other of the same things. This is just toxic.

I will extra care in the future to avoid these sort of toxic traps and I hope you do the same. Treat each other with respect, dignity and put more effort into understanding each others position before constructing arguments against them.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share