Download Mod APK - Latest version of the best Android Mod ...
Steam Workshop::High-Quality Mods for Unturned
Home Power GTA V Mod Menu
Buy Bitcoin Online: 21+ Trusted Sites (2020)
Alternate future (with no NIghtsister nerf)
I got the Delorean up to 88mph and went back in time to before some clever cookie worked out how to cheese phase 3 again. I dressed up as a visitor from another planet in one of the comic books CG TopHat likes to read and I broke into his house in the middle of the night Long story shorter - missing out the desciption of my Ray Gun and voice synthesizer- I was able to persuade him into not nerfing the Nightsisters. I went back to my time - October 2018. I thought all would be well. I logged on to reddit. Here is a sample of some of the comments. . . . . “Heroic Sith is brutal, we all farmed Nightsisters to get 5 million damage and now 90% of players can’t even play them” “This is utter b******, why couldn’t CG have seen this coming. Don’t they play test? No because all they care about is their bottom line. This game is just a cash cow for EA” “I’ve had enough - I quit, you should too, and get all your money back from apple, then emulate onto Android and ask them for a refund too (even though you’ve not spent anything, just make a noise)” “I spent months farming the NS and giving them 4 zetas and now I can’t play them. I see phase 3 with 7% left and I’m waiting for 1 or 2 more Grex Mex teams to go so I can start my run but - BOOM - it goes straight to halfway through phase 4. I can’t touch Nihilus at all” “We’re locked out of the part of the raid we’ve been farming months to get damage in. How’s that for pride and accomplishment.” “Great, so the small percentage of players who were able to get the G12 4&5 pieces on the NS and slice some offence mods for Assaj can now full solo Nihilus consistantly after doing 8% in phase 3” “Guess what CG. i can’t do 8% in Phase 3. Nor can 99% of players. But screw us eh? Screw the NS farm, screw those 80 zeta mats we put there.” “What’s the point in having Nihilus in phase 4, by the time we’ve farmed the team that can do well against him we’re locked out of that part of the raid.” “This has torn my guild apart. They’re the only reason I play this game. I’m still mad about the precrafting of furmaces from 2015 or whatever. I’m going to quit and this time I mean it.” “Any idiot could have seen this coming, they should be in real guilds when they playtest so they know how people actually play the game. I could do better, they’re all made out of mince at CG.” “It’s pay to win, CG don’t care at all about their players” “Turn your reviews into 1 star, then burn down California” . . . . . Someone did (burn down California) and I felt a bit bad (and I was pissed I couldn’t use my Nightsisters) so I had to fix things. The Delorean was broke so I Quantum Leaped into CG Carrie’s body and told CG TopHat to go leave the room and get everyone some coffee in the meeting - before he was able to start banging his fist to not nerf the NS. Coffee I think was decent but I leaped back before I could taste it properly. All is well again in October 2018 - we got the car fixed and I went back and forward a couple more times, had to sell my bitcoin. While I’m here I thought I’d write this post. oh remember to only buy blue mods from the shop guys. See you in a few months.
The long and winding path that led us to where we are today, broken down by major events
I want to be clear, this is my interpretation. As a former /bitcoin subscriber I know this is not the way these events are viewed in that subreddit, but this description is my honest understanding up to this point:
Shortly after Satoshi Nakamoto publicly released bitcoin to the world he chose two people who would have a significant stewardship role over bitcoin: Gavin Andresen and Theymos (who has a real name but we don't use it often and it might be seen as doxxing).
Satoshi Nakamoto decided it was time for him to end his presence with bitcoin so that his present activities weren't inextricably linked to the growth of bitcoin. (He chose not to be a dictator)
Gavin Andresen was the original lead developer of bitcoin-core after Satoshi went underground but he later took a role as the "Chief Scientist" of bitcoin so that others could focus on developing bitcoin-core. This prevented Gavin from being a dictator of bitcoin (benevolent or otherwise). Theymos managed the public relations side of bitcoin by running bitcointalk.org and moderating /bitcoin.
Several of the post-Gavin bitcoin-core committers founded a company called Blockstream and accepted VC funding. Theymos (mod of /bitcoin and owner of bitcointalk.com) is not publicly affiliated with Blockstream, but the agenda on the forums he moderates is closely aligned to their wishes. Blockstream claims no affiliation with Theymos, and has publicly discouraged censorship in these forums, but they continue to benefit from this censorship to this day.
The current bitcoin-core committers began "re-envisioning" the bitcoin-core roadmap to include blockstream innovations, and the potential for them to profit handsomely. The primary innovation is moving transactions off of the bitcoin network and onto sidechains (see: Lightning Network) that could be more profitable, in this case, bitcoin would only be seen as a settlement layer with very few transactions while other networks would do the heavy lifting. It is possible that this transition is being made to satisfy VC funders who have their own plans for profiting from bitcoin & blockchain tech in general. From this point forward, I may refer to the github for bitcoin-core as "blockstream-core" to point out the shift in vision, please note that blockstream-core is not a real software product.
The chief control point that blockstream-core has leveraged is the size of every blockchain block. Satoshi set the size of each block to 1Mb to reduce spam and openly described the need for that to increase as transaction volume increased. Blockstream-core uses this 1Mb limit to limit the number of transactions in each bitcoin block and promote the illusion that bitcoin is at full capacity, and that raising the 1Mb limit would be disastrous for bitcoin. (Though they have recently acknowledged that the blocksize should be increased, there isn't much evidence of this occurring in blockstream-core.)
Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, and other* adherents to the original vision of bitcoin as described by Satoshi Nakamoto in the white paper were upset by unwillingness of blockstream-core to increase the blocksize limit and forked bitcoin-core into clients that would accept larger blocksizes, like bitcoin XT, bitcoin classic, and bitcoin-unlimited (in this case, a fork keeps the original coins, but makes a change to increase the blocksize so that the bitcoin nodes can handle larger blocks, thus eliminating the need for the sidechains mentioned earlier). Note that prior to the blockstream hostage crisis other clients were welcomed and encouraged because they promoted a healthy environment for bitcoin to flourish.
The blockstream-core folks worked diligently to silence the voices of "Satoshi's bitcoin" by publicly regarding anyone who ran a forked bitcoin node as an "altcoin user", and removing discussions of "Satoshi's bitcoin" by heavily censoring their comments in /bitcoin. Theymos, the moderator of /bitcoin states that there is no debate, while quietly banning and deleting any comments and users that do not support blockstream-core. Somewhere along this path Theymos made the mistake that both Satoshi and Gavin avoided - he decided that his most important role was that of dictator. I don't say this resentfully, it's just a matter of record.
Many adherents of Satoshi's bitcoin (rightfully) felt persecuted (and were probably banned) from /bitcoin, so they moved to a new subreddit, /btc.
The CEO of coinbase stated publicly that he was interested in researching what was best for bitcoin, and this included running bitcoin nodes using an increased blocksize limit ("Satoshi's bitcoin"), the blockstream-core followers became upset and since they are managing the github for bitcoin.org, they issued a pull request that removed coinbase.com from bitcoin.org because it promotes an "altcoin" (note, in this case, the altcoin is bitcoin with an increased blocksize limit).
Many people on all sides of the argument believed that Coinbase is a company acting in the best interest of bitcoin - not just Satoshi's bitcoin or blockstream-core, and they recognized that removing coinbase from bitcoin.org would confuse users and lead to questions about coinbase's legitimacy for new users.
Since the appearance of ASIC miners, bitcoin mining has been moving to mining farms in China due to low chip production costs and cheap electricity. From 2014-2016 four large solo miners in China accounted for about 90% of found blocks. (Please help me verify the accuracy of this)
Beginning December of 2015, many blocks were at or near the 1MB capacity. It was not uncommon to see 8-10 hour stretches of time with over 10,000 unconfirmed transactions. Though Blockstream Core had indicated a willingness to increase to a 2MB blocksize, this never materialized. Instead, they described unconfirmed transactions as dust, or the sender was blamed for choosing not to send enough of a fee for the transaction. This caused public frustration for casual users who simply wanted to use the network without engaging in politics.
Around this time, Andreas Antonopolous began describing a concept of "failing gracefully", suggesting that many historical technologies, like the Internet, were perpetually on the brink of being overloaded, but they were successfully maintained by "kicking the can down the road", or only implementing small fixes that would allow the technology to work for a few more months/years. This appeared to be a change in sentiment from Andreas who spent several months lamenting the impending crisis.
In February, 2016 representatives from Blockstream Core went to China to meet with miners regarding Segregrated Witness and the block size. It appeared to those in /btc that the intent of Blockstream Core was to pressure miners in China to side with Blockstream Core's 1MB block size limit and reject a 2MB+ limit. By all outward appearances this goal was achieved.
"The Terminator" is a post made to a Chinese language forum that described a concensus by miners in China to switch to the Bitcoin Classic client and endorse a 2MB hard fork. This is supposedly in response to miners feeling manipulated by the Blockstream Core Devs during the meeting in China and their failure to implement the 2MB hard fork in the Blockstream Core client.
tl;dr: Theymos allowed himself to become a dictator of bitcoin and is currently having some success subverting the original will of Satoshi Nakamoto by becoming deeply involved with a company called blockstream and promoting a malicious groupthink so aggressively that he may actually believe he's doing what's best for bitcoin.
* Readers will note that /bitcoin is 10x larger than /btc, this is not an accurate comparison of argument strength because /bitcoin was founded in 2010 while /btc was founded in 2015. Subscriber base does not equate to active participation. For a more accurate comparison of growth see redditmetrics for bitcoin and redditmetrics for btc. It should also be noted that /bitcoin censors any acknowledgement that /btc exists. I added a few edits to this. Clarifications and suggestions are welcome.
Truth about Ethereum is being banned at Bitcointalk
I have been making factual posts about Ethereum (and Synereo) and all the following posts have been deleted by the moderators and they have banned my username for making factual posts about Ethereum. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote
Quote from: damn_the_truth on Today at 05:06:30 AM TPTB_need_war was banned for 3 days for writing in big red letters that "Ethereum is broken and can't be fixed" and proceeded to defend this point factually. And so the mods have now demonstrated they are involved in the pump of Ethereum. So much for the objectivity of this forum.
They allow excessive trolling and scams no problem though.
Note TPTB_need_war posted the same statement about ETH in three threads, because suddenly 5 or 6 new threads all about pumping Ethereum appeared today. If the pumpers can make three threads, then why can't they all be rebutted? They can spam, but the opposing opinion and facts can't be. As if the opposition is the spammer but spamming the Altcoin Discussion with a proliferation of Ethereum pump threads is not spamming. Roll Eyes The thread that in particular incited me to post so forcefully in opposition is the one that as a title implying if Ethereum will go challenge Bitcoin's market cap. That is clearly manipulative of the readers inducing them into a mania based on some totally implausible proposition. How can a broken block chain design that hasn't solved the most fundamental issue pertaining to verification and scaling of long-running scripts have any chance of challenging Bitcoin's market cap. Ridiculous. Someone may want to quote this, as surely the drunk mods will delete this and permanently ban ban_the_truth (and probably they will permanently ban TPTB_need_war). Doesn't Theymos understand that you can never silence a person who knows he is just and correct. A person will fight to the death when they know truth is on their side. And will eventually win. Those who try to obscure truth will always eventually lose. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote
Quote from: WilderX on Today at 08:36:10 AM y0 newbs, you talking about issues with mining? Did you know ETH goes POS this year?
Yo clueless n00b, do you not understand the PoS doesn't rectify the fundamental flaw in the economics of the verification of long running scripts that I explained upthread and for which I have been banned for trying to point out in the numerous threads pumping Ethereum that spammed the Altcoin Discussion forum today. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote
Quote from: stoat on Today at 05:58:42 AM You still don't get it do you? The hype for ethereum is actually real. As in, it's our best hope. And people who actually want crypto to succeed as an idea will get behind it.
Oh because it is our only hope, then we have to ignore the fact that after more than a year since they took and spent ICO money, they still haven't solved the most fundamental issue of the block chain technology required for long running scripts (if they want scaling and decentralization). Put Vitalik in a live debate with me right now and I will be able to force him to admit that is the truth. Or ban_the_truth so you can sucker more n00bs into being bagholders to the insiders can cash out.
Quote from: stoat on Today at 05:58:42 AM Tptb want war, well, the entire time ive visited this forum he is either wasting everyones time with mental masturbation or simply stumbling from thread to thread FUDDing down every coin that would dare to challenge his "intellectual superiority".
Because you are not interested in actually solving the core technical challenges that inhibit cryptocurrency from scaling out to the masses and being compatible with marketing strategies that can do so, such as the one I will drop on the world. All you want is something you can pump up. And you want it sooner than it is ready. And so thus you think I am not worthy, and you think the broken Ethereum is. I never took $millions of ICO while I was researching and developing the solutions we need. Ethereum did and still didn't solve the most basic issue they need to. Whereas I have solved the major fundamental issues. Sorry if the good stuff takes time. If you are in a rush, then feel free to give your money away to those who are willing to take it. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote
Quote from: Elokane on January 25, 2016, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 24, 2016, 05:27:06 AM
Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 24, 2016, 03:28:48 AM I think social media can possibly be taken over by cryptocurrency/decentralized/blockchain technology. Think about it... Facebook has a market capitalization of 266.3 billion. What if a portion of their net profit was distributed to its users instead? Which service would you use... one that makes money off of you providing you nothing in return, or one that pays you to use its service? There are likely a few projects attempting to capitalize on this space. The only one off the top of my head I can name is Synereo and I am on the fence as to whether it is is a legit project or a P&D... I am waiting on the sidelines for now. http://www.synereo.com/
I will respond to the rest of your informative post later (as I need to go outside on this Sunday). I think Synereo may be conceptually on the right track, in that ads should preferrably be content that users want to see. I can envision content providers being creative in how they advertise products within enjoyable content. The bottom line is the economics per my prior post in reply to TechorMarketing. There were one or two ads on Google that were so interesting to me, I wanted to save a copy of the video ad. Meaning the way to beat Google is by making the advertising more efficient, thus superior ROI for all participants (advertiser, content creator, and viewer). If the superior algorithms require decentralization and cutting out the middle man, then Google with all its technical prowess can do nothing to compete.
Quote I only scanned a portion of their white paper. I believe they may have Sybil attack problems in their attention model (thus being gamed and not having the result intended), but I can't yet judge that with any certainty as I need to study it more carefully. You've given me something very intellectually deep to chomp on, so thank you. I love conceptual paradigm shifts and I like to analyze models. I will need more time on this. Looks to me as though they are serious. The devil is in the details on their technical model. They have a brainy looking CSO mathematician, so perhaps some of the model theory is originating from him.
The attention model is mine. We've designed it carefully against Sybil attacks. If you think you've identified an attack vector, do let us know -- I'll give you with an AMP bounty for it. Feel free to join our Slack channel at slack.synereo.com and chat with us there directly.
So you must be younger guy Dor who I've viewed in the Hangout videos in the Synereo channel on YouTube?
Quote from: Elokane on Today at 12:01:35 PM It is common knowledge that Greg, Synereo's CSO, is leading the design of Casper, Ethereum's new proposed Proof of Stake blockchain: https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/12/28/understanding-serenity-part-2-caspe He has spoken about the design principles of the technology underlying this effort, what would allow it to scale, in the recent Ethereum developer conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzahKc_ukfM Synereo is NOT building their technology on Ethereum. Rather, it is Ethereum who are using Greg's decades of expertise in the field, and Synereo technology, to build their own. Ethereum has provided Synereo with developer grants for this purpose. Hopefully, collaboration will continue in other ways as well. We also believe that our notion of a "smart contract", which we call a social contract, is more advanced, mature and scalable than anyone else's. People in the industry are starting to get a sense of this as well, including our friends at Ethereum. http://blog.synereo.com/2015/03/06/social-contracts-pt-ii/ A comprehensive post going into detail about all of these subjects are in the works. Feel free to ask any other question about this here or on our slack channel at slack.synereo.com.
And appears Greg is the greying long-haired mathematician in Seattle that I've viewed on the same videos. I am doing an in depth study of your system and I am not yet ready to offer all my feedback because I am in the midst of analyzing it. However I do want to start with a few observations. First I want to thank you for providing those Hangout videos because I am gaining much information from listening to the feedbacks from the musicians. That has been very useful for my marketing research.
I will expend some time studying Casper's design, but I already watched some videos of Ethereum presentations about the strategy for shards and proofs against cheating in the attempt to achieve decentralized scaling with verification of long-running scripts. And I have explained why it will never work. I have an entire thread dedicated to discussing the finer issues with block chain consensus and the CAP theorem is fundamental. Essentially you can't use propagation as a consensus rule thus proofs against cheating will fail as methodology. You simply can't solve the Tragedy of the Commons verification problem without centralization. Period. You will eventually face come to this realization that your ideas are fundamentally flawed and can't be fixed.
An attention model based upon users approvals is probably going to suffer from the same phenomenon I observed when I asked my gf why she was rapid clicking every Like on her timeline without even reading the posts. She said because they are my friends and will Like all my posts also. But I need to study your model in detail in the white paper before I can comment further on it.
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote
Quote from: tokeweed on Today at 09:55:40 AM I appreciate that you're trying to get your argument out. And you do have some points to think about. But this is a time of less talk and more trades. There's profit to be made in this current price run, which could be one of the largest runs we've seen in altcoins.
You can't speak for all readers, because you are not all readers. Those of you who bought Ethereum at lower prices are in a different risk situation compared to those who are reading your pumping and considering whether to buy at these nosebleed levels. I am not making any guesses about whether the price will go much higher or not (manias often do). Rather I am providing balancing information for those readers who might think they can't lose because of some fundamental long-term value, which I assert does not exist because Ethereum hasn't solved the fundamental technological issue required to scale their system in terms of decentralized verification of long-running scripts. And in fact, they will not be able to solve this problem, not with Casper or anything else because it violates the CAP theorem. The only solution will end up being centralization and then therefor those who are talking about building decentralized apps on top of Ethereum (e.g. this Synereo which I will be commenting on next) are apparently in technical delusion also. Btw, I have been watching the YouTubes of this Greg @ Synereo who I just read is claimed to be the lead dev on Casper, and I will be explaining that he doesn't seem to understand block chain consensus technology. Stay tuned, this is going to get much more informative and interesting... (sorry again that TPTB_need_war remains banned by drunken mods for 3 days so ban_the_truth must communicate interim) A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote
Quote from: Elokane on Today at 01:16:08 PM 2. Well, we think we have a solution! Would you like to take a look at the post Greg is writing on the subject? We'd value your direct feedback on it. This approach is different from the one Ethereum espoused before, and both Vitalik and Vlad are working with Greg to develop it now.
Will do after I finish watching the video.
Quote from: Elokane on Today at 01:16:08 PM 3. We have a mechanism taking into account a few parameters to make it so people who behave in exactly the way you describe have very little, if any, impact on this economy. Generally, we're looking for actions that have high entropy; if "B", your GF, is essentially a copy of "A", you, there's very little information there.
Is that specifically covered in the white paper or a design improvement hence? A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote
Quote from: Elokane on Today at 01:23:51 PM He's providing valuable constructive feedback, which we always welcome!
Thanks. Academics understand their life is finite and thus peer review in valuable so they don't waste time down a dead end. A welcome change in tone compared to others who attack me relentlessly for trying to share/collaborate on research and analysis. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote Another thought off the top of my head is where Greg explains why the bar of implementation is so much higher and Dor astutely points out that they are competing against very well entrenched and well vetted user interfaces (Facebook, etc). I appreciate that honesty and I believe in separation-of-concerns, orthogonality, and modularity, because no only it provides more degrees-of-freedom, but it also means you don't have to necessarily implement everything yourself. It may be better to let others build those user interfaces for example from an API. But this is very complex to analyze because of the integration with the complexities of the attention model, etc.. I am just cautioning you that building all yourself, meaning you are limiting the network effects and making the scalability of the system (from the programming standpoint) funnel through your one organization. I am thinking about a marketing strategy that is much more modular and encourages others to build on top of what my project would provide. But I am also thinking about how what I am contemplating is differentiated from what Synereo is proposing and whether there are collaborative opportunities or... (conclusions still not yet clear to me) A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote I need to correct an error I made upthread. I stated that the reason payers would not pay for ASIC mining farm to compute the PoW share the payer must include with the transaction, would be because the PoW share could be computed locally faster than the latency for a round-trip network request for the PoW share generated on the lowest cost ASIC mining farm. And I stated that this was because the payer would sign the PoW share, so the "provider" receiving the transaction (with the attached PoW share) would not be be able instead compute the PoW share for the payer (without the round-trip latency delay). I had stated this was a difference from Iota's design which can't allow payers to sign PoW, because Iota's defense against certain attacks requires that anyone can recompute the PoW share and reattach a transaction to a different branch of the DAG. That will not work in my design because the payer has to do a roundtrip request to request the current "intra-block chain" hash from a "provider" to include in the PoW share (otherwise the same PoW share could be submitted to multiple providers and thus payers have no vote in the LCR). Therefor the PoW share computation can be outsourced at no extra latency cost. However on further analysis this does not entirely weaken the intent of my design to remain decentralized. The key is the power remains in the hands of the payers to choose which provider to submit their transaction to and thus can choose to route away from any malfeasance (since they are paying for the PoW share via a transaction fee to the provider). Although it means mining capital costs will be reimbursed (unlike in the case where the payers' computers would compute the PoW share then the non-payers mining capital costs would be unreimbursed given the block reward would be 0 or very small relative to the difficulty), mining equipment will not be wildly profitable as in the case for Bitcoin since the reimbursement is only for costs, thus still the point remains that mining equipment won't be well capitalized for making LONG-TERM 51% attacks on the protocol (even if forced to by regulation as could be the case in Bitcoin) because the payers can send their PoW share computation else where in a heart beat. This also makes more sense because mobile users are not going to want to compute PoW shares and drain their battery. One issue is a mining farm located next to a hydropower plant would maybe have (including better economy-of-scale capital costs on equipment) up to a 10X cost advantage over a provider server that is located any host any where. Perhaps the latency to the mining farm could still be an issue (delay the transaction by another sub-second perhaps) and this could force providers to be located in the datacenters of mining farms to lower latency (which would be catastrophic to remaining decentralized since the choice of providers available to payers would be limited by such confining requirements). OTOH if the cost of the PoW is miniscule relative to the value of the transaction, then PoW share can be computed by a provider with up to 10X greater cost without impacting the payers decision which provider to choose. But remember also that the computation cost of the PoW share needs to be much greater than the validation cost of the transaction overall, but that should be doable since transaction verification is such a miniscule cost. Again remember I suggested that payers' clients (wallet software) could be induced to move to other providers when a providers PoW share exceeds 5% or so. Also it is not impossible to design the system such that payers are always listening for the current "intra-block chain" hash updates and so the original point of my latency design could remain. But this would require all payers to be receiving communications from the block chain network at all times, which would increase network load and there are Sybil attack and centralization issues about who pays for this (perhaps payers can pay a provider to provide this data feed). So it is not impossible to envision retaining my original design, but it seems to be workable only for desktops and not for wireless mobile. If latency becomes the main issue for wireless mobile then telcoms may have the upper hand any way. So it seems that the key is to keep PoW shares small enough to be miniscule relative to typical microtransaction values yet large enough to be greater than the verification cost. Also PoW has to be large enough to prevent spam on the network (which is essentially saying significantly larger than the verification cost, since the storage cost will be assumed to be even lower than the verification cost but I need to run some calculations to confirm this intuition). I am probably missing a few details in this quickly written post. The entire design could be explained more coherently in a white paper (hopefully forthcoming). P.S. Note that Iota has the similar issues, and this aspect of Iota was not my main concern expressed upthread about Iota's ability to remain Consistent about double-spends and whether that will lead to divergence (chaos). Note the above post was deleted by the mods, so I am reposting it. Someone may wish to quote the above technical discussion before some drunk mod goes "happy finger" again.
Purchase with Bitcoin. ALL PC PLATAFORM. INSTANT DELIVERY . FAQ I need purchase again in next updates gta online? No. All updates are free! How do I get the menu after the purchase? We send the key to your email address. This menu works on PC/PS3/Xbox 360? PS3 and PC! How get the new updates? In our login panel Where do I download the menu? in our login panel. +5k Users. We exist since 2015 ... Browse and download Minecraft Money Mods by the Planet Minecraft community. Bitcoin's price in US dollars during 2015 and 2016. It's impossible to say when to buy. Use tools like our Bitcoin price chart to analyze charts from other Bitcoin trading sites. These charts will help you understand Bitcoin’s price history across the many global Bitcoin exchanges. Why Does Buying Bitcoin Take So Long? Long wait times are usually a problem with existing payment systems, not ... Revolut Adds Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin Support for US Customers. Following the launch of Revolut’s new crypto exchange in the U.S. the company has added bitcoin cash and litecoin support. Farming Simulator 15. Follow. 5 years ago 24 views. 1# Farming simulator 15 RP La Campagne Belge. Report. Browse more videos. Playing next. 18:21. farming simulator 15 les fermiers belges #4 TOUT A PLANTER ON RECOMMENCE TOUT ...
Tutorial como descargar e instalar mods a Farming Simulator 2015 y 2013
This guide is aimed for players of EFT to be able to loot the Shoreline for Bitcoins efficiently in a speedy manner and find all the keys needed to open the ... FaceBook:https://web.facebook.com/groups/1559621120939004/?ref=bookmarks -----... Developer website: http://www.farming-simulator.com Website mods: http://modsgaming.ru FS 2015 fan group : https://vk.com/farming_simulator_2013_game Link to... Today in this video we explore a mining and construction maps with excavators, dump trucks , and more!!! Subscribe Rate Comment!!! Mining Map-http://uploadas... Farming Simulator 2015 - Paraná Map (VERSÃO FINAL) Canal do Juliano: https://goo.gl/V6GnjJ Inscreva-se no Canal https://goo.gl/BgOnvP Melhores Equipamen...