Could someone tell me the KDA controversy from a few months back?

[Anonymous No.51004832]

I remember seeing someone post about how KDA doesn't really scale or something like that.

[Anonymous No.51005213]

I would like to know as well, but it seems the LGBTQ+ crypto community is currently asleep

[Anonymous No.51005231]

>>51005213
you forgot the P

[Anonymous No.51005329]

>>51004832
Its just a bunch of fucking sidechains. Do you understand how fucking retarded that is? By that logic its actual analogous competitor is eth matic arbitrum all together. Its fucking retarded. Side chains don't solve the problem at all because you need scalability on l1 for atomicity.

[Anonymous No.51006570]

>>51005329
lowest IQ post of the month

[Anonymous No.51006591]

>>51004832
she gets blacked in that movie

[Anonymous No.51007449]

>>51005329
this unironically, makes sense tech illiterate biztards who couldn't even explain how a blockchain works would fall for this shit

[Anonymous No.51007652]

>>51005329
Your post reads like a dumb person’s take on what a smart person thinks about the crypto world.

Ie: you are a dumb shit and should stop posting before being thoroughly embarrassed.

[Anonymous No.51008077]

>>51004832
That was me, I made it up.
>>51005329
It's not side chains, side chain implies a main chain. And a lack of security across side chains.
Second, you cannot scale a single chain without increasing blocksize.
>>51007449
You fell for it nigger

[Anonymous No.51008216]

>>51005329
i don't remember if /biz was any smarter in 2016, but the incredible retardation of the average poster her is depressing
yesterday someone asks for the difference between a write-only Excel sheet and a blockchain
the replies were filled with people who don't know what a blockchain is
you guys are just genuinely fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.51008300]

>>51008216
>yesterday someone asks for the difference between a write-only Excel sheet and a blockchain
I refuse to believe this. I demand sauce.

[Anonymous No.51008373]

>>51005213
>casually omitting IAPK2
Bigot.

[Anonymous No.51008807]

>>51007652
>>51008077
>>51008216
>react emotionally
>explain nothing
Are you sure you're not the dumb ones? It's pretty NPC of you all to suddenly have the same reaction

[Anonymous No.51009068]

>>51008807
I explained in detail why he's wrong

[Anonymous No.51009150]

>>51008807
see >>51009068

[Anonymous No.51009749]

Karina is a scam, caldina is best

[Anonymous No.51009937]

>>51008077
Faggot it wasn’t you, I made the post. The issue is when it comes to meaningfully using any of the chains in a single dapp. The way you have to use them basically is just like having 20 chains separately that need to communicate with each other. The transactions between them are too slow to have live data exchanges between all of them and use them as the team and everyone who shills it intends to use them.

[Anonymous No.51010199]

>>51009937
aha very cool post

[Anonymous No.51010349]

I NEED MY DICK SUCKED

[Anonymous No.51010367]

>>51010349
do you like cute 32 year old boys?

[Anonymous No.51010419]

>>51010367
Sure anon but you live in Russia

[Anonymous No.51010478]

>>51010419
yes i do, just come russia, its nice here, trust me bro

[Anonymous No.51010881]

ok im rich now, time to dump babena
laters nerds

[Anonymous No.51010916]

>>51010881
Send it

[Anonymous No.51010963]

>>51006570
>>51007652
>>51008077
>>51008216
You're all Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Kadena does not scale in the way that matters to L1 which is L1 volume on which atomic transactions can be implemented. Your woven parachain bullshit is a gimmick that doesn't permit higher volume across a space on which atomic transactions can be implemented. This means that the utility of these woven parachains are essentially the same as that of the side chain scaling solution except in theory more secure (yet to be proven) with the added cost of complexity and the risk of exploitation that comes from that. So in practice: worse.

In short. You are stupid niggers.

See: >>51009937 an anon who gets it

[Anonymous No.51010990]

>>51010963
>Kadena does not scale in the way that matters to L1 which is L1 volume on which is unlimted tps on a single chain
do you want to invest in my pocket sized nuclear reactor project
>cost of complexity and the risk of exploitation
Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

[Anonymous No.51011025]

I'd rather eat glass than discuss this for the 1,455,257,128th time.

Read
>>50996809
>>50996888
To understand how blockchains even work and how you cannot have atomic comost on a scalable blockchain ever.

[Anonymous No.51011029]

>>51010963
why do you need atomic compost in the first place, name one thing that would require that

[Anonymous No.51011094]

>>51011029
The argument isn't if it's needed but how it could possibly be realistic.
>oh this sequence of blocks need to scale but having parallel block production makes efficient composability worse, let's just scale without doing that! uh.. so how? uhm.. big blocks?
It's not possible if you want to scale.

Keep in mind composability is retained without issue, the problem of radish fags is that they want efficient composability so that you can make transactions as if the network isn't partitioned. Which is like saying that you think hyperloop is a realistic proposal.

[Anonymous No.51011561]

Some Italian dude stole a bunch of money from the community, the core dev team has lied like 10 times in a year. Haven't made any progress after dumping on the community at $28. Team hates all projects that aren't their own. Code is broken and sucks. Doesn't scale. Kaddex lies 10 times. Can't get a namespace because it's centralized. The business team is incompetent. One of the main founders bounced over the summer. etc etc...

[Anonymous No.51011583]

>>51011094
no the argument "is it needed", answer is "no", if you want to go with a "is it possible" i should suggest you propose adding a "cumshots while riding a dildo" per block for radix stakers as only way of getting rewards
is it possible? probably yes. is it needed? well i don't think so

[Anonymous No.51011640]

Tomboy 1

[Anonymous No.51011656]

>>51011640
Tomboy 2

[Anonymous No.51011661]

>>51011656
that looks dangerously close to a man, anon

[Anonymous No.51011687]

>>51011583
>no the argument "is it needed", answer is "no
Yes. it's nice to have the same way a watch sized quantum computer is nice to have
>is it possible? probably yes
Nigger did you read a single thing I wrote
>>51011561
All this is true except for the doesn't scale part.

[Anonymous No.51011802]

>>51011687
i stopped reading here
>The argument isn't if it's needed

[Anonymous No.51011817]

>>51011561
>One of the main founders bounced over the summer.
Who?

[Anonymous No.51011825]

>>51009068
>>51009150
No you didn't
Two lines of text is not an explanation, if you aren't a brainlet you would have used more "detail"
But you don't, you're just baggies pretending to be smarter when you're actually the greater fool

[Anonymous No.51011843]

>>51011825
What a weird post, explain how I'm wrong instead of complaining about me btfoing something in two lines
>>51011802
The point here isn't if it's needed, because it's not and that's a dumb point to argue. We are on the same side dipshit.

[Anonymous No.51011899]

>wtf you only took 2 lines to prove how he's wrong noo you're not supposed to do that

[Anonymous No.51011901]

>>51011843
You didn't btfo anything, you didn't explain how Kadena works, all you said was
"no it's not sidechains, a single chain doesn't scale"
You didn't mention anything about why Kadena has 20 chains deployed (why not 50 or 100), you didn't mention anything about cosmos, and ctrl+f'ing "Kuro" yields zero results in the thread
You don't really seem to have deep knowledge, as much as an inflated sense of self-importance for being only mildly knowledgeable about what for you is probably a heavy investment you have emotional attachment over

[Anonymous No.51011913]

>>51011899
Um dude don't you know we can see you IDs? Spamming replies because you're mad is pathetic

[Anonymous No.51011938]

>>51011901
kuro is dead
I don't need to explain how it works because he was not asking how it works and I expect people who care about kadena to know the basics.
Explain how what I said is wrong instead of complaining how I didn't explain chainweb for no reason.
>as much as an inflated sense of self-importance
literally me

>>51011913
>you're mad is pathetic
I'm mad and pathetic? not really my problem now is it

[Anonymous No.51012000]

>>51011938
I'm not getting dragged into a false argument with a jeet up past his bedtime
I said "two lines is not an explanation"
Not "you are wrong"
The statements you made are correct, and the statement I made about "explaining nothing" is also correct, because as you admitted you explained nothing
>Kuro is dead
Lol no

[Anonymous No.51012070]

>>51012000
>nooo you need to explain it better
next time buddy
>because as you admitted you explained nothing
not nothing, it explains everything if you are familiar with kadena, it probably explains less if you never head of kadena but that doesn't really matter, mostly because I don't care.
>>Kuro is dead
>Lol no
I'm sorry to disappoint oldfag anon, but it's dead, it has nothing to do with kadena anymore, not in the slightest.
The team admitted to it being a dead end because enterprise isn't early/ready for blockchain.
Future L2 fun stuff is going to happen via zk as said so by emily.
keep up grandpa

[Anonymous No.51012089]

forgot very important image

[Anonymous No.51012176]

>>51004832
That movie had, quite literally, the worse one liner I’ve ever experienced.
>>51006591
And then cheated on.

[Anonymous No.51012355]

>>51011025
lol what bullshit.
> a blockchain is like a folder, uh, a block is I mean
And the Internet is a series of tubes. KDA technical literacy, everyone.

[Anonymous No.51012373]

>>51012355
I was trying to explain it to some cartoon poster, I highly doubted he even knew what a folder was, maybe I should have said fortnite squad

[Anonymous No.51012405]

a blockchain is like a squad in fortnite, you can only have 4 player, so if you want to make another block you are limited to 4 players, how do you scale this? You can't increase the squad size, the answer is make a bunch of accounts and fill those squads up to play in parallel, now you can do 8 players!

Genius

[Anonymous No.51012473]

>>51012373
lol you wrote that? what an opportunity to call the author a nincompoop to his face!
Listen, little buddy, you shouldn’t be trying to explain things you don’t understand, especially in a patronizing way (what you confuse for “dumbing down”). The point you so patiently try to explain to your victims is that is is logically impossible to do what millions of distributed databases do every day, which is to coordinate transactions over distributed resources. Tell me, do you actually even know how that works?

[Anonymous No.51012481]

>side chains
they're not side chains, they're main chains. it's all main chains. instead of doing everything on one main chain. or doing everything on a bunch of side chains then settling with the main chain. it does it all on main chains, as many main chains as needed, spreading the load evenly across all the chains. with no settling on any main chain because all the chains are the main chain.

[Anonymous No.51012493]

>>51012473
> millions of distributed databases do every day
Show me an example of this working with decentralized chains. Go on, I'm waiting.
Near might be the closest thing to that wihtout sharding yet even the founder admitted to me that it does not scale more than cosmos.
Listen, little buddy, you shouldn’t be trying to explain things you don’t understand

[Anonymous No.51012503]

i hope this gets on a dex before the bear market is over so i can buy

[Anonymous No.51012511]

>>51012473
>which is to coordinate transactions over distributed resources
by the way to kill this real quick, this is not what we're talking about

[Anonymous No.51012516]

>>51012405
>>51012373
>>51012089
>>51012070
>>51011938
>>51011899
>>51011843
>>51011687
>>51011094
>>51011025
>>51010990
>>51010199
>>51009068
>>51008077
>Samefag seething this hard without making a single argument
Fucking LOL
>atomicity isn't even needed
Absolute retardation. Anyone who falls for this deserves to be scammed so I'm not even going to explain. If some lurker really wants to know go google it and its importance to distributed data structures or even just vanilla SQL.

[Anonymous No.51012549]

imagine bitcoin across an infinite number of parallel universes with anything happening in one universe happening in all the other universes at the same time, you would turn 6tps from one universe into infinite tps. thats kadena

[Anonymous No.51012551]

>>51012516
How am I a samefag if I have the same ID, of course I am the "same". You should go back to the site you originally came from.
>>atomicity
>Absolute retardation.
Show me an example of this working with decentralized blockchains. Go on, I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.51012580]

>>51012481
>>51012549
someone please tell me if that makes sense, i'm actually still trying to understand. i think that explains it? i dunno. someone correct me if i'm wrong

[Anonymous No.51012583]

>>51012493
> aha, but then show me this working on chain
That’s the point, isn’t it? Crypto speculators tend to convince themselves that crypto attracts the best software talent. With a few very notable exceptions, this is just not true. Btc has been hardened by some of the best coders in the world, but a toy project like Kadena certainly hasn’t. So the current state of the crypto scene is you have a lot of technically incompetent but greedy charlatans who claim it’s impossible to do what the actually talented parts of the software industry do routinely.
Tell me, little buddy, would you like to see a real world example of a distributed transaction coordinator, hmm? Wouldn’t that be exciting? You’ve never seen one, have you?

[Anonymous No.51012597]

>>51012511
Yes it is. That’s what atomic composability means, but you don’t even understand what’s being discussed. Kadena posters rately do.

[Anonymous No.51012607]

>>51012583
>That’s the point, isn’t it?
Yes it's not possible glad we agree
> claim it’s impossible to do what the actually talented parts of the software industry do routinely.
Okay, yet it's not possible on blockchain, what is your point here? Are you done.

>would you like to see a real world example of a distributed transaction coordinator, hmm? Wouldn’t that be exciting? You’ve never seen one, have you?
No I don't want to see your transaction coordinator.
>>51012597
coordinate transactions != atomically coordinate transactions

[Anonymous No.51012629]

>>51012580
If you read your post again, can you detect any element of “and then magic happens” in your explanation?
> did i make sense?
Yes, if you believe in magic.

[Anonymous No.51012685]

I'm not sure what anons point is.

>chainweb doesn't have atomic tx!
yes and?
>well my centralized database has it :^)
>would you like to get in my van and see it? little buddy, hmm? Wouldn’t that be exciting?
no thank you sir

[Anonymous No.51012703]

>>51012629
imagine being quantum entangled with a million versions of yourself across a million universes. and you get paid minimum wage. but so do all the million versions of you. but your bank accounts are all quantum entangled so that combined instead of 15 an hour you each get 15 million dollars an hour. that's kadena

[Anonymous No.51012712]

>>51012685
cross chain atomic tx*
it obviously does have normal atomic tx like all single chain blockchains do

>>51012703
anon stick with the CPU analogies

[Anonymous No.51012737]

>>51012607
>atomically coordinate transactions
>yet it's not possible on blockchain
Holy fucking shit are you a fucking imbecile. I'm not even speaking to you at this point just to the poor saps who might possibly buy your horseshit.

BTC, ETH, MATIC, ALGO, AVAX literally any L1 chain guarantees atomic transactions. It's an essential feature of L1 without which you cannot guarantee the outcome of a tx. What is point of trustless sytem when your tx outcome cannot be guaranteed? A single Kadena chain has atomicity but all the chains together do not because they're not synchronized. They are in essence side chains. Therefore all the chains together cannot be considered a L1 system but rather a system of interlocked sidechains in unnecessarily complicated validation architecture. Kadena is no different than saying you're going to have infinite Polygon forks and that means Eth can scale to infinity.
>muh weave
practically useless as a security feature since most modern exploit attacks happen within span of single block. At the edge of block production,each chain is validated independently thus validation power is divided between chains. No different on a block by block basis than having 20 polygons.

[Anonymous No.51012751]

>>51012712
imagine you're trying to impregnate a chick. on average it could take weeks or months of trying. but imagine there's a million versions of you and this chick boning constantly, and if even one of those chicks get pregnant they all get pregnant. know you're knocking her up instantly with the first load. thats kadena

[Anonymous No.51012752]

>>51012607
A blockchain is just another resource, there’s nothing special about it that makes it impossible to have it participate in a distributed transaction. The issue is with the quality of people in this space, and the fact that they are mostly incompetent charlatans.
> coordinate transactions != atomically coordinate transactions
The fact that you have zero idea what you’re talking about compels you to spout nonsense. What the hell do you think a computer science transaction is, if it’s not atomic?

[Anonymous No.51012762]

>>51012703
No you each get minimum wage and that’s Kadena.

[Anonymous No.51012767]

>>51012737
>They are in essence side chains. Therefore all the chains together cannot be considered a L1 system but rather a system of interlocked sidechains
based
>in unnecessarily complicated validation architecture
not based, very wrong, it's very simple and validation is also simple PoW

>>51012752
>special about it that makes it impossible to have it participate in a distributed transaction
Ok show me a network that does that and I will move all my funds from kda to that chain, until you do I'm not sure what you're trying to get at right now, creep.
Reply to >>51012685 if you want to explain what you're getting at

[Anonymous No.51012785]

imagine you're trying to get drunk, but you only have one beer. so you create a dozen quantum entangled versions of yourself and then one of you drinks the beer, but all 12 of you are getting one beers worth of drunk. but because you're all combined as a hive mind you actually experience a 12 beer drunkening. now you're wasted, thats kadena.

[Anonymous No.51012793]

>>51012685
The point is that if Kadena were not a gaggle of technically incompetent trannies they would build a distributed transaction coordinator instead of claiming it’s impossible and spending their days aggressively defending that lie on the Internet.

[Anonymous No.51012798]

>>51012785
12? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000?
Think about that question seriously. Why stop at 12?
Because you're not solving the problem of L1 scaling you're just creating 12 x L1s.

[Anonymous No.51012819]

>>51012785
Imagine your project has such a glaring problem you try to derail every thread that discusses it.

[Anonymous No.51012820]

>>51012793
>If kda not a scam they would build a distributed transaction coordinator
okay, you think a project bad because it doesn't do what you want? I think you're done now right? see you next time.

>>51012785
>now you're wasted, thats kadena.
keep it up anon you're doing great

[Anonymous No.51012835]

>>51012798
because thats more beer then i need to get drunk.

normally creating 12 L1s they would all have to settle with each other on a main chain after doing their thing. but with kadena all 12 L1s (or as many as you need for whatever you're doing) are like a hivemind so anything that happens on one chain instantly happens on all the others.

[Anonymous No.51012845]

>>51012835
>anything that happens on one chain instantly happens on all the others
You keep saying that but that's not how kda works

[Anonymous No.51012866]

>>51012737
>practically useless as a security feature since most modern exploit attacks happen within span of single block.
Lol wait I just read this part, you think a chain is insecure because you can 51% the first block? are you retarded
You also said
>literally any L1 chain guarantees atomic transactions
Then listed single chain networks, you are very very drunk.

[Anonymous No.51012869]

>>51012845
how does it work then?

[Anonymous No.51012877]

>>51012869
See https://chainweb3d.netlify.app/

[Anonymous No.51012985]

>>51012767
> Ok show me a network that does that
As already pointed out, all serious L1s already have atomicity by merit of not being parallelized. So you’re asking about other chains with Kadena’s approach who have done it…but wait: “oh, Kadena’s approach is so unique!” Yes, because it is bad. The concept was proposed a million times during the block size wars, and always concluded to be flawed. So I guess Kadena devs missed the memo, but you don’t see a bunch of serious blockchains taking that approach, so you won’t see anyone needing a distributed tx coordinator for their own chain. So, in summary, the problem is solved everywhere where it needs to be solved, except in KDA, because it was written by a bunch of talentless hacks who didn’t even realize their whole project would be worthless without a distributed transaction coordinator that they are too basic to write themselves.

[Anonymous No.51012995]

>>51012985
>all serious L1s already have atomicity by merit of not being parallelized
>all serious L1s already are not scaled by merit of not being parallelized
>Yes, because it is bad
Because it scales, no other chain does.

[Anonymous No.51013047]

>>51012820
It’s no secret that you KDA trannies are insane. But you seem to enjoy pretending to possess some level of technical competence. You really should know that you are as little of a technical expert as you are a woman. It’s all lies. You don’t understand what you talk about but you lie and claim that you do, and when defeated you always resort to “b-but atomicity not n-needed!”
It’s quite pathetic. Bye now.

[Anonymous No.51013058]

>>51013047
Bye bye.

[Anonymous No.51013081]

>>51012985
thats where graph theory comes in

if you connect all the chains together, that creates a massive overhead of each chain updating the others. and it looks like a tangled mess.

but if you only connect each chain at 2 places then it looks like a circle and theres less overhead as each chain only needs to update 2 other chains. it takes a long time for something on one chain to connect to the farthest away chain. if theres 10 chains thats 5 hops to the farthest chain.

so what you do is connect the chains in 3 places. now its a circle but there are lines in the middle of the circle drawing a little star shape. so theres minimal overhead in connecting the chains but also only a couple hops to the farthest chain. and thats the most efficient way to connect transactions across multiple chains in terms of overhead (block size) and speed of settlement.

[Anonymous No.51013100]

>>51013081
or at least thats what i got out of reading this
https://chainweb3d.netlify.app/
it has little pictures and everything

[Anonymous No.51013111]

>>51013081
of course its not a circle because each node on the circle is a chain so its more like a lengthy space worm kinda thing floating in cyberspace and made out of math. the kadena chainworm

[Anonymous No.51013125]

i'm trying my best to understand but maybe i still don't. it's a giant inteconnected worm of chains connected in the optimal way to balance block size and speed it takes to update each chain in the overall chain worm right?

[Anonymous No.51013131]

>>51012995
> because it scales
Except it doesn’t, since what we’re talking about scaling is a system supporting atomic transactions, and Kadena isn’t that. Scaling a system without atomic tx isn’t even a challenge, but it’s also not useful, which is why nobody is doing it except the Kda trannies who aren’t aware that their approach isn’t interesting or useful to anyone.
> who needs atomicity?
You know, another way of speeding up operations a bit is to never verify that funds exist with the sender!

[Anonymous No.51013136]

cause updating each parallel chain adds information to each chain as they pass the information between each other. so connecting them all adds too much information to each chain creating massive blocks. so that doesn't work. and only connecting the chains in a couple places keeps the block size down but now theres too much distance between the farthest chains. so you link the chains in 3 places at each node thingy and then its in balance.

[Anonymous No.51013141]

>>51013131
>scaling is a system supporting atomic transactions
lol lmao
> Scaling a system without atomic tx isn’t even a challenge
Is that why no other L1 besides kda managed to do that?

[Anonymous No.51013151]

>>51013131
yeah but what about the worm. its like a worm made out of chains. and each chain is 1 dimensional but connected in such a way as to form a 3 dimensional chain worm

[Anonymous No.51013165]

>>51010963
>you shouldn’t be trying to explain things you don’t understand, especially in a patronizing way
the irony

[Anonymous No.51013169]

the shortest distance between 2 nodes is where the farthest chains connect. but also connecting to the nearest nodes. 3 connections per node.

[Anonymous No.51013178]

>>51013081
Yeah that turns the search from O(n) to O(log n), whooptie doo, that’s not the problem.
> Graph theory
It’s just binary search, son. Don’t let the tranny charlatans bamboozle you with big words. It’s not profound or impressive to add a few shortcut links to a search space. And it doesn’t make Kadena useful.

[Anonymous No.51013181]

>>51012985
>The concept was proposed a million times during the block size wars
https://youtu.be/XiWG0P1TJUY?t=179

[Anonymous No.51013187]

>>51013141
> Is that why no other L1 besides kda decided to do that
Yes

[Anonymous No.51013196]

>>51013178
>It’s not profound or impressive to add a few shortcut links to a search space
The elegance of the solution is beautiful isnt it
>>51013187
Basedo

[Anonymous No.51013198]

>>51013151
Are you trying to be funny or more hoping to derail the thread and stop the bleeding?

[Anonymous No.51013203]

>>51013141
If we don't care about atomic tx than every single fucking chain in existence connected by bridges (all of them) counts as one giant L1 system and it can scale to infinity by adding more chains. That's literally your solution and literally retarded. It's like having 20 bitcoins connected by bridges and claiming you made bitcoin 20x faster. It's profoundly dumb. Anyone who falls for this shit after reading this thread deserves it.

[Anonymous No.51013226]

>>51013198
>derail the thread and stop the bleeding
holy shit you need help, let the guy be funny and stop assuming everyone is trying to do something bad to you
>>51013203
> (all of them) counts as one giant L1 system
No because the security varies wildly, if somehow, every L1 on the planet was as secure as the next then yes it would be a huge system

[Anonymous No.51013248]

>>51013203
>It's like having 20 bitcoins connected by bridges and claiming you made bitcoin 20x faster
see, you need to read up on kadena

[Anonymous No.51013254]

>>51013196
> The elegance of the solution is beautiful isnt it
A bog standard denormalization step, caching a computable value? How elegant and revolutionary. Never heard the likes of it.
If you think this is beyond cs 101 you really are a lost cause.
> basedo
You did notice I changed your “managed” to “decided”, right?

[Anonymous No.51013263]

> this was what the block size wars were about
kek
block size wars were about block size you faggot
i.e. vertical scaling

[Anonymous No.51013266]

>>51013226
Kadena doesn't garuntee even security across chains because miners can choose to mine any of the chains they want. So you don't have even security. Even at this point the scamming premine miners can 51% ANY of the 20 chains they choose. Then bridging those funds within 1 block to another chain at which point it's woven into the hash of all 20 blocks. Thus they can poison any of the other 20 chains simply by 51% a single chain. Right now. It's stupidly insecure.

[Anonymous No.51013281]

>>51013266
>Even at this point the scamming premine miners can 51% ANY of the 20 chains they choose.
kek
> what is chainweb

[Anonymous No.51013282]

imagine you're in a room full of frends, a crowded room, and you want to pass them all a cup of beer. but every time you pass a cup of beer to a friend he has to top off the cup to add more beer for some reason.

you could pass a cup of beer to each person closest to you and then could pass the beer to the closest person to them, until everyone has a beer. but everyone keeps handing the beers to each other and each cup has to be handled by the same person multiple times. but with everyone adding to the cup every time a cup is passed you would need to hand out very large cups. the cups would be too large to pass around eventually. wouldnt work.

you could have all your friends stand in a circle so that each person only has to pass each beer once. then the cups don't need to be as large. but it takes a long time for the beer to get from one side of the room to the other and it takes too long and everyones very thristy. so that doesn't work.

so instead. each frend grabs a cup of beer, tops it off with more beer, then passes the beer to two frends who each pass to two friends. your cup size doesn't have to be as large as the first scenario because the beer is passed around efficiently albeit not as efficiently as if you were all standing in a circle. but it doesn't take as long to pass those beers then it does in the second example. then you all get wasted, and that's kadena.

[Anonymous No.51013294]

>>51013266
Everything you said is false, no pool has over 51% and security is guaranteed because why wouldn't miners mine all chains it's like throwing money away also if it doesn't happen, then the chain stalls until all blocks have been mined, you did know that right? right anon

[Anonymous No.51013296]

>>51012583
>you have a lot of technically incompetent but greedy charlatans
right
too little time to go click on the
> team
tab on the website i presume?

[Anonymous No.51013308]

>>51013263
Alternatives to big blocks, such as scaling out a la Kadena, were heavily discussed and eventually dismissed. But nobody fooled by Kadena seems to have any experience from that time, so not surprising that you’re no exception.

[Anonymous No.51013313]

>>51013308
>such as scaling out a la Kadena
prove it

[Anonymous No.51013326]

>>51013308
Stop misleading people. You didn't reply to my video
> were heavily discussed and eventually dismissed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=179&v=XiWG0P1TJUY&feature=youtu.be
They were discussed but not dismissed because it's big blocks, you tech illiterate brainlet, but because it wasn't possible to make consenus work, now however, it's working.

[Anonymous No.51013329]

>>51013296
LOL yes I have seen the “team” hahahahaha
I really hope you have invested a lot

[Anonymous No.51013346]

>>51013294
>hurr durr nuh huh
Everything I said can be easily verified.
1. You can mine any chain you want:
2. Mining power is centralized to point a pool exists (scamming premine people paying you to shill) can already 51% any single chain
>But then other chains stall
3. So then they can just sequentually 51% every chain with only 8.4% of the hash power simply by collaborating
>But they're throwing money away!
4. They're losing the delta in mining fees by stealing all the funds on a single chain.... very worth it

You have nothing. KDA is a scam. It's going to zero. Anyone with a brain realizes this and your pool of retards is bored of bear market. You're done.

[Anonymous No.51013370]

>>51013329
>yes I have seen the “team” hahahahaha
heh
you're more of a fag than the average kadena tranny

>>51013346
> what is chainweb

[Anonymous No.51013372]

>>51013346
ah you were just baiting, should have known, I guess datafag being itt threw me off but now I see it

[Anonymous No.51013382]

>>51013326
> They were discussed but not dismissed because it's big blocks
Correct, and I have said nothing that conflicts with this
> you tech illiterate brainlet
You reading comprehension challenged fucktard
> but because it wasn't possible to make consenus work
Exactly
> now however, it's working
LOL
Yes. The actual computer science literate people who dismissed it during the block size wars just forgot that you can add a third link between nodes.
You actually believe this? That the Kadena team discovered something that the people who invented blockchains completely missed when they carefully examined the alternative? Ask me how I know you’re not a computer scientist.

[Anonymous No.51013402]

>>51013382
Yes I do. Now, can you go spend time with your family instead of trying to act cool on /biz/

[Anonymous No.51013420]

>>51013370
> you're more of a fag than the average kadena tranny
So I take it you think Will and Emily are smart, well informed and competent people? You deserve everything that’s coming.

[Anonymous No.51013423]

>>51013382
At this point lurkers deserve to lose their money if they fall for it. The shills are being paid and will never concede anything just like during the bull when they scammed the jeets into YOLOing.

[Anonymous No.51013425]

>>51013420
>You deserve everything that’s coming.
Lots of monies

[Anonymous No.51013473]

>>51013402
> Yes I do.
This suddenly became really sad. You really do, don’t you? Buddy, and now I call you that without irony, you’re being had, step away for a week and have a big think.
What you believe is about as likely as Will finding a vulnerability in SHA. It’s not impossible that someone does, but it won’t be Will.

[Anonymous No.51013482]

>>51013420
as a matter of fact i do think so
don't worry about my bags, i'm doing alright

[Anonymous No.51013502]

>>51013473
My guy, it works, I wouldn't be here if kda was vaporware like other projects that have a blue and green logo and claim to scale. I have seen kda scale.
If you find another network that has sharding and has atomic cross chain tx working while not hindering network scalability then I will move to that chain.

I'm not sure why you're sad.

[Anonymous No.51013551]

>>51013502
>atomic cross chain tx working
You just spent 20 posts saying this was unnecessary and even impossible. Now it's already done and working? Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.51013555]

>>51013551
Holy shit you're drunk re-read my post

[Anonymous No.51013600]

>>51013482
Do you know anyone you trust, knows computer science, and isn’t invested in crypto - i.e. someone competent and unbiased. Ask them what they think about the statements from the team.
The Kadena team is a typical outfit that was common decades ago in software, before things got established and mature enough. It’s a rag tag crew of happy, undereducated computer enthusiasts who don’t have enough experience to understand why the path they’re headed down won’t work. Seen it a thousand times, the only difference is now it’s happening in the crypto space, on account of it still being immature enough. Always the same way it plays out, with the team debating hotly in different Internet forums, letting sheer ferociousness make up for the fact that they lose every debate, which they also never admit. The twist now is that with crypto, you also get a tail of baggie fanboys helping the team drown out the truth in forums.
I feel very bad for anyone taken in by the enormous, but unjustified, confidence of the Kadena team. They would not be considered impressive to anyone working for any FAGMAN company, you can trust that.

[Anonymous No.51013624]

>>51013600
>It’s a rag tag crew of happy, undereducated computer enthusiasts
even just by looking at their credentials you know this is BS
FAGMAN companies are filled to the fucking brim with exactly the people you're talking about

[Anonymous No.51013660]

>>51013502
> it works
What works? Atomic cross chain transactions? We know it doesn’t.
> no, I mean bridging between chains
You know, BSV “works” too. Reason nobody cares is that what it does when it “works” isn’t something anybody wants or cares about. Same with Kadena. Big blocks are not the answer to blockchain scalability despite “working” and neither are parallel chains.
In short, Kadena doesn’t “work” for any use cases anybody cares about. But it does do something incredibly irrelevant correctly.

[Anonymous No.51013740]

>>51013624
> FAGMAN companies are filled to the fucking brim with exactly the people you're talking about?
Not via hiring. Quality of candidates is high these days. We do get a few via acquisitions, that’s true. But it’s not common anymore, that was 20 years ago. Nowadays I’m almost exclusively dealing with professionals.

[Anonymous No.51013781]

>>51011029
...multichain implementation would need it. it's the only thing keeping meaningful development from happening on kadena because any intelligent dev will try and code something and realize, 'oh fuck this is actually just like making a dapp that works across multiple blockchains.. because that's all it is.'

if you want the same effect, you could just write a dapp that works on ... eth, avax, ada, bsc all at once, and it would amount to the same 'revolutionary' tech.

and look, it sucks to know this because i had high hopes for kadena. the team has done loads of work and they're on the right track, but in its current form, it's not going to scale or work how it was intended. there are still major issues that need fixed. hopefully they realize this and will move on and not just be emotinally attached to kadena forever.

[Anonymous No.51013793]

>>51013600
> we do get
kek this explains
the faggot thinks he's special too
i used to talk a lot with Apple technicians because i regularly found bugs in their SDKs back in the days
they're just boring simple CS guys like me and you
the head of the Haskell foundation, Will, 2xStuart are - i'm afraid - quite a bit above that

[Anonymous No.51013880]

>>51013624
If you’re actually in the industry, the following should ring a bell: 20 years ago there was a “type” of dev, the “framewoorker” if you will. It was the guy who would always turn every task into an opportunity to take a step back and write a framework. The fact that a better framework existed never bothered the framewoorker. “I’m writing a framework” It’s a hardcore “not invented here” serial abuser, who always thinks the business started with them, that all his insights are unique and that probably they are the best coder who ever lived.
This personality has become less and less sought-after in serious software houses like FAGMAN. Instead, they have migrated to crypto, and the Kadena team is a perfect example. It’s the guys who always insisted their homespun data access layer was better than an off the shelf one, and were always wrong.
Do you know what I’m talking about?

[Anonymous No.51013938]

>>51013880
i'm guessing i'd be that guy to be honest, it's fun to write homespun stuff
can't say i see it in the Kadena team
they tried to solve a genuine problem for which there was no off-the-shelf solution

[Anonymous No.51013956]

>>51013880
>and the Kadena team is a perfect example.
that is way too accurate

[Anonymous No.51013958]

>>51013793
Haskell isn’t exactly reeking of “industry top shelf”. I’m not going to claim Peyton Jones and Eric Meijer aren’t some of the smartest people in the business, but Haskell is a toy, a thought experiment to them, and to make an actual impact both have taken their best ideas from Haskell and introduced them to the commercial industry. The rest of Haskell fanboys are people who (unlike Jones & Meijer) have trouble keeping track of how stateful programs work.
> we
I meant as an industry. I’ve been in the business for several decades.

[Anonymous No.51013969]

>>51013938
They invented a solution to a problem no gives a shit about. If I wanted write a dapp on 20 chains I'd just write a dapp for every eth clone. It's a pain in the ass because of the atomicity problem. So instead people write dapps for a single chain because they can trustlessly and seemlessly interact with all the other dapps on that chain in an atomic manner. Then the chain gets congested and they need scaling but "adding another chain" doesn't help at all because the entire reason you even have congestion to begin with is that dapps need to be able to interact atomically thus need to be on the same chain stead of 1 dapp per chain.

KDA solves nothing useful.

[Anonymous No.51013976]

>>51013938
I was that guy too, but I eventually realized it’s not productive or professional, and that my genius surprisingly has limits despite it not seeming that way from the inside.

[Anonymous No.51014007]

>>51013958
>Haskell isn’t exactly reeking of “industry top shelf”
it's a good language for DSLs
it's a safer language
>and to make an actual impact both have taken their best ideas from Haskell and introduced them to the commercial industry.
like what?

>>51013956
>t. bootcamp webdev

>>51013969
>They invented a solution to a problem no gives a shit about
fucking shit please shut the fuck up you retard
go watch a TV show or take a nap but please shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.51014038]

>>51014007
You are stupid and should take your own advice.

[Anonymous No.51014052]

>another episode of guy projecting on something he doesn't have experice with
always lovely to have datafag in the threads.
I'm playing risk of rain 2 right now, it's kino

[Anonymous No.51014066]

>>51013781
>and it would amount to the same 'revolutionary' tech.
No it doesn't, because avax, ada, bsc don't have the same security guarantees you dumbass, this is why vitalik says cross chain doesn't work any why multichain does, i.e. multiple chains in the same network but not multiple chains with different networks.

[Anonymous No.51014099]

>>51014066
>security guarantees
Your premine scam isn't secure as I explained above. It's trivial to exploit given the current centralization of mining power.

[Anonymous No.51014114]

>>51014099
>current centralization of mining power.
when you havent checked back in for 3 months

[Anonymous No.51014133]

>>51014114
he's thinking kadena just split the chain in parts and that's it, and that the security of each chain is a proportionally reduced

[Anonymous No.51014143]

>>51014133
no I don't think he does, don't expect the worst in people

[Anonymous No.51014154]

Kadena has never scaled beyond 20 chains
It's purely hypothetical, as with their ludicrous infinite tps claim.
Not to mention their single dApp with utility in three years is a centralized dex.
lol. lmao even.

[Anonymous No.51014167]

>>51014143
he literally says so in a previous post stop gaming and concentrate

>>51014154
it's over

[Anonymous No.51014175]

>>51014114
YOU CAN MINE ANY CHAIN YOU WANT
100/24 = 8.3%
You only need 4.167% of the hash power to fuck any of the side chains
>muh stall
who gives a shit
>muh lost fees
who gives a shit you stole all the money on one of the few chains actually used

With 40% of the hash you can 51% 10 chains simultaneously. Fucking laughable.

[Anonymous No.51014185]

>>51014007
> dsl
Not really, it can help parse your expression tree if you conform to hopeless Haskell syntax, but implementing a real DSL is more about implementing what the parsed expression tree should do, where Haskell doesn’t help more than any other language really.
> like what?
Like list comprehension and its complement for streams that turned into reactive programming.
> reeeee
He’s right though, Kadena is a solution to a problem nobody cares about, in a nutshell that’s what’s wrong with it. (Well, to me what’s wrong is they pretend it’s also a solution to stuff people do care about when clearly it is not).

[Anonymous No.51014188]

>>51014154
>the year is 2023
>kadena scales to 70 chains
>everyone notices
>vitalik starts posting about it
>price goes parabolic
>anon in 2023: Kadena has never scaled beyond 70 chains
it's over
>>51014167
No he knows how it works but is too stupid to realize that miners will in effect mine all chains
>>51014175
never mind hes retarded

going back to finish the new dlc wish me luck

[Anonymous No.51014232]

>>51014175
> 100/24 = 8.3%
guess it's bait

>>51014185
oof
clearly not a Haskell programmer and a retard at that
have you read any research on it? literally any?
> list comprehensions
are you serious?

[Anonymous No.51014253]

>>51014052
What is it you imagine I don’t have experience with? Or even, what is it you imagine you have more experience with than I?

[Anonymous No.51014327]

>>51014185
>where Haskell doesn’t help more than any other language really
i'd think the biggest selling points of Haskell is its type system which is offered by pretty much no other language

[Anonymous No.51014332]

>>51014232
datafagie is a larping intern who used to work at oracle in 1986
>>51014253
For starters, remember when I said that if all you have is a hammer everything is a nail? Like, the first time you posted. It still holds up. It's literally how you work and I'm sorry but there simply is no way you can be taken seriously if you make posts like
>The Kadena team is a typical outfit that was common decades ago in software,
>They would not be considered impressive to anyone working for any FAGMAN company, you can trust that.
When they are obviously more competent than most blockchain devs, you disagree because all you have is a fucking hammer.
And there is no arguing with that because first you need to let go of your decade long grip on said hammer.
Talking to you is pointless.

[Anonymous No.51014366]

>>51014188
>no debunk
>admits to retreating into psychic bubble of delusion that is vidya
Looking real strong here bub.

I ready your whitepaper. I read your study on game theory of mining. It assumes miners are independent and don't collude. The game theory only works if every miner maximizes individual mining yield. If miners collude to choose the chain then can 51% a single chain to produce a forged block with only 4.167% of the hash power. They lose out of fees but they still 51% of the block. That's because your chain weave only secures historical blocks not new blocks.

>weave validators
So you 51% the target chain and the two validator chains requiring a mere 12.666% of the hash power. At this point your forged block is woven into 3x3= 9/12 chains. Then network is poisoned. I don't even need to be stealing anything I could just execute this attack while shorting KDA.

More chains requires more total hashpower and proportionately more decentralization of hashpower..... just as if you had forked ETH 12 times.

[Anonymous No.51014369]

>>51014332
sorry but i have to laugh at the list comprehensions
as if it's like some big feature of Haskell

[Anonymous No.51014370]

>>51014232
> clearly not a Haskell programmer
God, no! Someone calls me that, it’s fighting words!
> list comprehensions
I’m starting to wonder if you are 1) a Kda dev and also 2) from the Haskell community. It’s a community that has traditionally had a big problem with being entirely out of touch with the rest of the industry. Thus you have no inkling of the sweep that list comprehensions did over the rest of the industry thanks to Eric Meijer first bringing it to .net and then Java following suit. Yeah, list comprehensions are as basic as it gets in Haskell land. It was practically unused in the rest of the world until LINQ. Remember when google stunned the world with their brilliant map-reduce algo, taken straight from FP 101? Functional people hid from the world in their little lab for decades, then Peyton Jones and Meijer opened the lid and now Haskell/the rest of the functional world have no more special secrets, it’s all been absorbed by modern hybrid languages.

[Anonymous No.51014389]

Starting to think datafag would unironically have a blast talking to Will in person.

[Anonymous No.51014393]

>>51014327
Yes, but that doesn’t often translate into a useful domain specific type system for your dsl. But sure, the Haskell type system is very, very competent.

[Anonymous No.51014437]

>>51014369
I don’t know how often you talk to Peyton Jones or Eric Meijer but one of them told me in conversation that in their opinion list comprehensions is what Haskell essentially is.

[Anonymous No.51014482]

>>51014188
Hmmm how about
>2023
>Kaddex still centralized
>still has no utility as there is no existent DeFi Casino or anyone building worthy dApps
>dumped to oblivion by 30% total supply VCs that have been farming it since its release
>token now useless as well, back to being a complete ghost chain
>kadena team tries scaling
>everything that can go wrong, goes wrong
>everything explodes, proven unscalable and stuarts lies get exposed
>kadena dumped to oblivion
>murcko's ponzi becomes insolvent, he has one last AMA just laughing at everyone for an entire hour like frieza
>anon in 2023 (me): own my own island
shoulda got the aVax sister

[Anonymous No.51014489]

>>51014482
>he has one last AMA just laughing at everyone for an entire hour like frieza
the perfect ending

[Anonymous No.51014519]

>>51014369
Basically I’m saying something akin to “if statements are a big thing in programming”, which is true, but you’re laughing and pointing out that they are also so absolutely fundamental that even you have heard about them, so how fancy can they be?
Yes, every functional programmer knew of list comprehensions since forever. A large majority of non-functional programmers didn’t. Eric Meijer changed that. Not knowing this doesn’t put you ahead.

[Anonymous No.51014527]

>>51014370
neither, not even much of a Haskell programmer to be honest
>then Peyton Jones and Meijer opened the lid and now Haskell/the rest of the functional world have no more special secret
rather harsh statement
maybe it depends on what you mean by > functional
Haskell is a great deal more than just that, and there's still quite a lot of innovation
in my experience some of the talk about purity seems like empty promises and it can make things needlessly hard to implement
but Kadena is doing a DSL so i'd understand why they would choose it

[Anonymous No.51014545]

>However, Polkadot plays differently to Ethereum, and the transfers were quickly disabled “until a pending Acala community governance decision resolves the error”.
https://rekt.news/acala-network-rekt/

Not your proof of work not your coin

[Anonymous No.51014554]

>>51014519
i'm not saying they're fundamental, i don't think they are, they're just syntactic sugar for some particular combinations of higher-order functions
sorry but i really doubt that this happened :
> Eric Meijer but one of them told me in conversation that in their opinion list comprehensions is what Haskell essentially is

[Anonymous No.51014639]

>>51014482
th-theY CANT KEEP GETTING AWAY WIT IT

[Anonymous No.51014688]

>>51014519
Haskell is
> functional i.e. easier to do composition with, higher-order functions
> type system with phantom/existential/linear/... types
> laziness
> (typed) metaprogramming
> pure
it's a pretty powerful language and i'm pretty sure it's in the top 20
Scala has some of its features and is in the top 10 probably if not higher
some little-known languages share most features or even offer more but nobody uses them outside of academia
all in all it's a fine choice
also i am curious, you appear to work at Microsoft. what does your crypto portfolio look like?

[Anonymous No.51014703]

>>51014688
she holds ICP

[Anonymous No.51014722]

>>51014554
Here’s another quote that might surprise you, same person, another conversation:
> functional is just OO with one method per interface
The point with bringing list comprehensions outside FP is that it’s a real use case for first class functions where their composability makes sense. If all I’m doing is a for loop and applying a predicate to each item, then sending the predicate to a function that will do the iteration for me is hardly a big hurrah. However, if I’m starting to compose predicates together, then having them be expression trees that can ultimately be applied in the iteration is a big win, and that’s what took the world by some amount of storm.

[Anonymous No.51014726]

>>51014703
F

[Anonymous No.51014785]

>>51014688
> type system
Of the gods, no objection.
> pure
The promises from “pure”, including general laziness, never seem to materialize. I was a belieber, 20 years ago.
> you appear to work at MS
I was one of the framewoorkers who was a potential acquisition, I had a lot of contact with MS but with the other FAAGS too.
> folio
Yeah, like guy above said I hold BTC, ICP & LINK.

[Anonymous No.51014817]

I'm not a guy I'm a cute girl :(

[Anonymous No.51014845]

>>51014785
To be honest, basically 20 years younger me was Will, which is part of why he provokes and annoys me so and why I think its embarrassing he doesn’t take the time to read up on valid objections.

[Anonymous No.51014864]

>>51014845
Can I also be honest, I'm not really a girl after all.

[Anonymous No.51014902]

>>51014722
the quote doesn't surprise me much but it's extremely simplistic and it feels like it's a quote from the 90s. i'm 99% sure they are quotes from Meijer

>>51014785
it seems like we don't disagree except on whether or not Kadena holds any value
why don't you think KDA is secure/decentralized? because if it is, even without atomic composability which they never advertised to have, it's great progress

[Anonymous No.51014911]

>>51014845
What I actually wanted to say: as posted here >>51014389 if you had the chance (or rather the will) to talk to him I bet a lot of things would become clear and you would have a great time coming to an understanding that he's actually not the person you thought he would be. Then you would come back and say "girls I was wrong about kadoona and that one anon that kept insulting me is actually very smart and very funny"

[Anonymous No.51014915]

>>51014864
i take back my smooches
we've been duped

[Anonymous No.51014924]

>>51014915
You can't take them back I sold them on the international smooch blackmarket for xcm

[Anonymous No.51014999]

>>51014915
When are you going to tell us which contract gave free money?
I want to badmouth bad projects.

[Anonymous No.51015005]

>>51014999
>I want to badmouth bad projects.
Checked https://www.reddit.com/r/kadena/comments/wtbva2/comment/il38ubx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 and 9 upvote pilled

[Anonymous No.51015052]

>>51014902
The quote he said to me is more recent but he may certainly have held the opinion and mentioned it before.
But it’s not really simplistic, it’s kind of profound to realize that your whole system of thought can be represented by one simple constraint in an OO system
>> functions aren’t first class in OO
> but interfaces are, and an interface with one function is, abstractly, a function.
There’s nothing a functional system provides that an OO system doesn’t if you limit yourself to a function per interface. The next insight is that multi-function interfaces are actually useful, but functional doesn’t have that. Such a simple thing, and yet it’s the reason functional legends are jumping ship for OO at the same time lots of pundits think functional “won” because some concepts were lifted to OO in so-called hybrid languages (i.e. OO systems with a few pure leaf functions where they make sense)

[Anonymous No.51015108]

>>51014902
> Kadena holds any value
I’ve said it before in these threads: Kadena is a good technical fit to the payment use case. The problem is I think there is no money in the payment use case, as what the market wants is VISA and PayPal, and if they want crypto payments big block solutions would scale enough for the coming 100 years (after that Kadena might become relevant).

[Anonymous No.51015113]

>>51015005
Even Nuwu left Kaddex defense force in the end.
When you eat steak every day, you want a burger once in a while.

[Anonymous No.51015119]

>>51015113
what the fuck are you talking about asshole nuwu is vegan

[Anonymous No.51015135]

>is
was*

[Anonymous No.51015159]

>>51015119
And?

[Anonymous No.51015164]

>>51015159
s-she doesn't eat steak or burgers for that matter

[Anonymous No.51015253]

>>51015164
Gosh, get with the times!
Steak and burgers can be vegetarian or vegan, just like girls can have penises.

[Anonymous No.51015302]

>>51015253
But then it's not steak.. oh wait

[Anonymous No.51015342]

>>51012737
>exciting
Why is ALBT missing on the list? Weird

[Anonymous No.51015408]

>>51015342
10 rupees have been deposited into your account.

[Anonymous No.51015540]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzBwrJ2XHek

[Anonymous No.51016185]

Is it true that you KDA holders are probably the peak of humanity because you can make men horny and let them fuck you in the ass and then you can make women horny and fuck them in the pussy.
Like peak performance?

[Anonymous No.51016857]

>>51016185
stop posting that degenerate faggot

[Anonymous No.51016885]

>>51016857
Imagine being a woman and having a hot tranny gf to fuck you senseless though. Envy…

[Anonymous No.51016930]

>>51004832
The babena turned out to be scameda

[Anonymous No.51018168]

>>51014366
>With that, it is true that you could attempt a 51% percent attack by mining a double spent on a single chain with just a fraction of network hash rate. However, you would be able to do that only at a depth of 1 or maybe 2. At a depth of 1, you would just mine a normal orphan block, which happens regularly anyways, just by pure luck. Mining a winning fork at depth 2 is already much harder (3x in the current 20 chain graph) because you would have to replace all blocks that depend on the block that your are trying to replace. After three steps you would have overcome the hash power of the complete network.

[Anonymous No.51018183]

>>51018168
51% percent attacking a single chain at depth 1 has a name. It's called mining.

[Anonymous No.51018245]

>>51018183
yo dog, which side do you think im on here

[Anonymous No.51018253]

>>51018245
right side of my bed ideally.
but yes I'm just expanding your point I wasn't replying "at" you directly

[Anonymous No.51018273]

green retard anon doesn't deserve a clarification, but thanks for the (You)

[Anonymous No.51018282]

>>51018253
i forgot yours lmao my bad

[Anonymous No.51018287]

>>51018273
>green retard anon
she has a name!

[Anonymous No.51018294]

>>51018282
i laughed

[Anonymous No.51018721]

I just noticed Thanos isnt even in the Discord anymore. I am sad.

[Anonymous No.51019012]

>>51018721
If only you knew how utterly based her last words were before leaving.

[Anonymous No.51019059]

>>51018168
Thank you for confirming you can 51% a single chain with only 13% of the hash power. After a depth 2 fork you don't have to replace any more blocks because the depth three blocks aren't validating the tx on the forged block they're simply checking the hash of validators which has already been stamped. This problem only becomes worse if at depth 2 you have the forged block conduct a cross chain tx before depth 3.

At 40% the largest mining pool can already conduct 3 simultaneous 51% attacks against 3 chains.

[Anonymous No.51019788]

>>51019059
i wish i could explain why this was wrong

[Anonymous No.51020189]

>>51019012
I have never seen someone write the n word so many times.

[Anonymous No.51020369]

>>51014154
i like you
we should team up
you will be pushing my old fud on trannies and i will come up with new material
are you gay btw?

[Anonymous No.51021392]

>>51019012
>>51020189
elaborate
also, good morning
how do i fix a broken circadian rhythm

[Anonymous No.51021452]

>>51004832
What's this guy's name please?

[Anonymous No.51021474]

>>51021392

[Anonymous No.51021551]

>>51021474
why did he leave?

[Anonymous No.51021981]

>>51021551
francesco fault