/biz/ - Business & Finance

Nice try faggots, trying to lower the price so you can accumulate. This is the next LINK and a x40 moonshot from here. Stop trying to FUD it due to price swings. It's literally only going up for the past 4-5 moths you stupid larps

Imagine holding this scam when you could make bank by holding literally anything else.

>>21816747
40x is fud

>>21815868
I've read they are having problems solving something called "booleans". I'm afraid team can't solve that, don't know wether sell or not

>>21817460
Dont forget the compiling Java to Javascript issue.

>>21817485
I didnpt know about that. Is it really that difficult? Some anons were saying it's been a problem in computing for over 20 years, so why would they solve it now?

>>21817485
>>21817518
They need to rewrite the entire code in Visual Basic

>>21817518
Don't fall for the fud. They've already fixed it and made a breakthrough in computer science.

NEVER SELLING

Hurry up and go up so I can dump it already

>>21815868
lmao who even bought this garbage?
as if it wasn't so obvious after pajeets brigaded biz with forced and badly ripped off memes several times now
as if it wasn't so obvious when this shitcoin would dump EVERY SINGLE TIME
as if it wasn't so obvious when gilles would keep cashing out his rlc for sports cars
as if it wasn't so obvious when these retards have 0 adoption after 5 version releases
>b-but we're in the adoption phase now
NOTHING HAPPENING AS PER USUAL KEK
S AND H

>>21817323
FUD

>>21817485
LARP

>>21817518
LARP

>>21817825
FUD & LARP

>>21817851
Stop counter LARPing you faggot

>>21817887
FUD

>>21817957
FUD & LARP

>>21818193
Pathetic bagholder.

>>21818193
Have been in this since 0.3$. Sou yes, my light bags are getting lighter by the day. Nice FUD btw. Oh come on guys, why are you even in this thread FUDing if you don't care? If you didn't care you'd literally not even click it. BUT YOU DO. And you aren't even a lurker laughing at people who are stupid, you are willingly participating in something you "think" will fails. But you actually know it'll succeed, you stupid sand nigger

NSMDO NSMDO NSMDO NSMDO

>>21818193
Why is it larp? I honestly don't know what a boolean is. Tried understanding it on the wikipedia article but it's all complicated math and stuff I can't understand. Why would I had to know it? That's like asking for quantum physics or something I haven't really studied, you need a PHD for that.

>>21818375
Because it's fucking FUD. The "boolean problem" is literal FUD. If programmed for 2 months you'd realize that they're literally putting words together that make them sound "smart" as if they were computer programmers. They might be, but trust me when I tell you that a "boolean problem" doesn't exist. It never has and it never will.

A boolean is a value that can be 1 or 0 (true or false). It is used in programming so that you can have variables which tell you if something IS or IS NOT.
So for instance (simple retarded program)

x = true
if x == false:
DO SOMETHING IF X IS FALSE
else x == true:
DO SOMETHING IF X IS TRUE (this will be executed, because we set x to true in the first line)

And yes, I actually am a programmer, I actually know this is retarded FUD and LARPs to get more of this GEM.

>>21818375
>boolean
>complicated math
lmfao nice larp kek

>>21818507
So it's really FUD? Fuck it sounded real, I checked the SATA ports on my computer cause I had a worker running and I thought the metadatas were leaking I didn't want my computer to get all wet.

>>21818507
Also look at my thread ( >>21264492 ) for like 2 weeks ago, we destroyed every single attempt at FUD

>>21818507
FucKING LARPing LIAR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem

>>21818507
Are you retarded ? The boolean problem is the boolean satisfiability problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem)) and is not solvable in P, but the POCO protocol assumes it is. This is literally proven to be not solvable in polynomial time for larger N, where N here is the number of workers. If you didn't know this, you shouldn't be commenting. Kek, imagine thinking the boolean problem is about what a Boolean is, how new are you ?

>>21817957
Anon, I don't know how to tell you this, but it literally didn't dump this time. I made 4x on the first pump from dumb chico followers and now have 10k barrels sitting scot-free
I'm really impressed it hasn't actually dumped back to under $1

>>21818507
Wait a moment. What you're telling me makes no sense, you're the one larping. How can x = true? x = x and true = true. Also I've never seen two equal symbols together at school, how does "==" makes any sense? equals equals equal? Stop trolling I really need to know an answer

>>21818626
So what's the claim as to how this confounds the project at hand?

>>21818817
The claim is that I pulled this out of my ass. Has nothing to do with iExec. I'm just bored.
Or: everything I just said is a lie.
You decide.

>>21818572
Look at this guy, LARPing again

>checked SATA ports
>metadatas leaking
>wet computer

Do you even see how retarded this sounds. It's like looking at someone programming in a movie.

>>21818626
Wow, just wow.
"It asks whether the variables of a given Boolean formula can be consistently replaced by the values TRUE or FALSE in such a way that the formula evaluates to TRUE."
This has nothing to do with iExec RLC and is a problem that falls into the category of discrete mathematics.

>>21818686
POCO doesn't have shit to do with the Boolean satisfiability problem you stupid LARP, oh god. The FUD is getting dumber by the millisecond.

Look at me you fucks... Let's take this formula for example

A OR B

Can we somehow give the value A and the value B a boolean value so that the end result is TRUE (or 1)? Yes, if we set the value A to TRUE (or 1) the full thing will be TRUE, since there is a OR in between the two. We could also set B to TRUE and it would accomplish the same thing... So all of the below answers do the trick

TRUE or FALSE = TRUE
FALSE or TRUE = TRUE
TRUE or TRUE = TRUE
But this one doesn't
FALSE or FALSE = FALSE

This is what the Boolean satisfiability problem is... AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH iExec RLC


>>21818799
Because x = true means "X is equal to true" in computer programming. x == true means "Is x equal to true". Damn, you must be baiting me with this stupid shit... Look i'll give you a link to a python tutorial to prove I'm right (https://www.tutorialspoint.com/python/python_decision_making.htm look under the "Single Statement Suites" section)

FAKE AND GAY LARPS. TRYING TO FUD A GEM

>>21818799
== Is Boolean

>>21818879
Correct, everything you just said before this post is a lie and you're just a LARP trying to buy more of this because you know that people are so stupid that you would believe your wannabe programmer glueing random word together LARP

>>21818918
Stop acting like the boolean problem never existed. it did but they solved it. so it's all good. You're losing credibility with your lies.

>>21818880
> POCO doesn't have shit to do with the Boolean satisfiability problem you stupid LARP, oh god
Let me put this in very simple words, for a simpleton faggot like you

In computational complexity theory, the quantified Boolean formula problem (QBF) is a generalization of the Boolean satisfiability problem in which both existential quantifiers and universal quantifiers can be applied to each variable - which represents a subset of the poco protocol in the cardinatlity of workers and machine verified tasks. Put another way, POCO asks whether a quantified sentential form over a set of Boolean variables is true or false. For example, the following is an instance of QBF:

POCO-QBF is the canonical complete problem for PSPACE, the class of problems solvable by a deterministic or nondeterministic Turing machine in polynomial space and unlimited time. Given the formula in the form of an abstract syntax tree, the problem can be solved easily by a set of mutually recursive procedures which evaluate the formula. Such an algorithm uses space proportional to the height of the tree, which is linear in the worst case, but uses time exponential in the number of quantifiers.

Provided that MA ⊊ PSPACE, which is widely believed, QBF cannot be solved, nor can a given solution even be verified, in either deterministic or probabilistic polynomial time (in fact, unlike the satisfiability problem, there's no known way to specify a solution succinctly). It can be solved using an alternating Turing machine in linear time, since AP = PSPACE, where AP is the class of problems alternating machines can solve in polynomial time.

When the seminal result IP = PSPACE was shown (see interactive proof system), it was done by exhibiting an interactive proof system that could solve QBF by solving a particular arithmetization of the problem.

>>21818572
I don't know what any of this shit thread is about other than propping up a scam, but yes, your computer is leaking data through side channels known as time. More and more research has gone into isolating it, but it's still a potential upset.

>>21819049
Finally someone with a brain

>>21819049
iExec btfo. This is probably why they're distancing themselves from verification.

>>21819049
Ok, now explain why this is important for POCO, how does it affect it and why would it be a problem. I just see a lot of theoretical LARP from a "data structures 101" lesson from uni.

RLC is unfuddable. Stupid fud includes
- copy pasta
- fake image of ceo buying a car from ico money
- real image of ceo taking a selfie with a dumb story added
- other funny made-up stories
- fake problems that sound very technical but are so stupid that everyone with a coding background can have a good laugh
- current price action (corrections on the way up)
- hypothetical future price action (0.5$)
- lack of exchange listings
- lack of marketing (build first, market later)
- comparison to technological inferior "competitors" (OCEAN, RNDR, GOLEM)
- comparison to p&ds with better short-term price action
- muh "token not needed"
- "cope" when they run out of arguments
- everything including the term pajeet

You can clearly see that so many people want to lower the price to buy in cheaper. Others are fudding for fun. But nothing makes sense.

>>21819616
Cope

>>21819616
based and checked

You forgot that Gilles went to Jakarta and that he's a tranny fucked... But good list nonetheless

>>21819683
see point 13 (second from the bottom)

>>21819049
This guy is literally copy pasting from wikipedia and replacing words QBF with POCO-QBF. Just google this "In computational complexity theory, the quantified Boolean formula problem (QBF) is a generalization".

LARP harder. And I actually understand the whole block and I still think it's a LARP

>>21816275
This was a great moment. REAL LIFE CHADS.

Came here because i have problems shitting.

Your miserable fud is solving thiis for me.

Thanks biz

>>21819955
Kek

>>21819955
Exactly, the FUD is so unreal it's unbelievable. They are literally FUDing this to #1 on CMC. They stupider the FUD the faster you buy and accumulate

>>21820042
You're welcome

>>21820042
It's not FUD when it's true dumbass street shitter you're smelling curry

>>21820653
Oh god, an you get more pathetic. I know you want to buy more, stop wasting our time.

>>21818507
just a wiki search shows everything.

>>21820950
How many times do I need to repeat myself. The Boolean satisfiability problem HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH iExec RLC. IT MEANS 0. It is a general computer science problem and a discrete mathematics and/or discrete structures problem. But nice try, I'll bite into your bait just because FUCK YOU

>>21821162
duds, i never said it had anything to do wit Iexec, little bitch. I'm saying is that peeps can look up the Boolean problem and figure it out themselves. fuckface

>>21821296
Ah I am sorry, it was a miss understanding between brothers. And no, they can't. Because they're dumb monkey with 0 computer science education. Imagine a poor farmer boy who browses 4chan and milks cows during the days, he'll believe anything as long as he thinks he'll get out of the barn and drive lambos

>>21821493
cheers lad! no worries!
Check these digits!
We're gonna make it!

TRUST IS DEAD.

KING OF THE DOT

iExec street shitters makes me sick
We need flags and we need now

>>21821810
Cope. Let me guess? You think you got cashed out? Bet let me tell you this, buying RLC@1.5$ is like buying LINK@0.3$

We accept everyone, iExec RLC is about love, not hate. We love even the hater, faggots, FUDers and LARPers. Everyone is welcome

Ok still not clear about the boolean fud, dunno if it's true or false. But problem of the matrices not aligning right in the code must be real isn't it? I'm a tech brainlet but bought some RLC cause some anons kept saying it's digital oil, and when I fill the tank in my car it's expensive so I guess digital oil muist be the same and will increase in value right?

>>21822782
>Ok still not clear about the boolean fud, dunno if it's true or false

Nice pun FUDer. Oh god please stop, make some better FUD for next time

Anything in the pipeline for the next few months?

>>21823013
Yes, iExec Academy and the 2nd part of the V5 update (fog/edge computing, super important shit), after that we get a new roadmap or some time before the V5 update (can't wait for this). And we're probably getting (I'm guessing this, not really a 100% on this) a partnership announcement or 2 in until the end of the year

>>21823013
Yes, the full roadmap for 2021 will be solving the boolean problem which is a nice thing since there cant be any adoption until they solve it. So V6 Boolean Solving and V7 Adoption

>>21823381
FUCK OFF LARP. Stop FUDing the coin if you want it to go up MORE. It'll go up yes, but if you keep on fucking FUDing and LARPing like a bitch it won't go up as much as you'd like to

I held back buying this coin for months, but as someone who has been since 2015, I know to buy the fuck out of it based solely on the fud in this thread, its clever stuff really, will scare newfags off whilst simultaneously flagging to the old fags that we should buy into this shit. Good stuff guys, see you on the moon.

don't forget to join the RLC Fags discord, a magical place where we post about RLC

https://discord (dot) gg (slash) 69mXEFB
it's fantastic

>>21819049
kek gold.