High IQ anons FUD me out of ICP

[Anonymous No.52714146]

fud i know
>seed investors bought at 3 cents
>icp isnt actually decentralized
>icp cant accomplish what it claims it can
>glowing crypto

[Anonymous No.52714161]

besides the points you posted its actually a genius investment

[Anonymous No.52714210]

>>52714146
Icp holder. They’re going to deliver on everything but the worst thing about the project isn’t seed round since they’re going to sold off by early 2024. It’s fucking Dom. If he could could talk as charismatically like hoskinson or bill Clinton this project would have a higher market cap than eth at the moment. But since he’s an autistic genius he comes off as a narcisitc asshole that nobody understands since they are nowhere near his level of understanding.
Pretty sure that’s why they hired that other guy as a spoke person

[Anonymous No.52714220]

>>52714146
Decentralized is the big thing

[Anonymous No.52714225]

>>52714210
calm down, they got Hoskinson's ex bitch for comms

[Anonymous No.52714231]

>>52714146
ICP is inevitable

[Anonymous No.52714233]

>2 more weeks, the project

[Anonymous No.52714245]

>>52714231
Hope you faggots accumulated in the single digits.

[Anonymous No.52714306]

>>52714210
I actually laugh at dom every time he talks. His stupid high pitched bitchmade voice and his autistic rants that almost seem schizophrenic.
You can tell they beg this guy not to talk every day but he does anyways because he has a giant ego.

[Anonymous No.52714380]

>>52714231
>t. an unverifiable screenshot of a dashboard.

You can't join the network bc nodes are KYC. They could be making all those numbers up.

[Anonymous No.52714385]

>>52714245
Kek. Why are you acting like this shit has left the single digits retard?

[Anonymous No.52715157]

>>52714385
Inevitable, it's already predestined.

[Anonymous No.52715901]

>>52714210
I freaking love Big Daddy Dom. He should give more talks. Way better than PhD computer scientist #358 they emplat at Dfinity

[Anonymous No.52715976]

>>52714146
No devs building anything of value on the ICP blockchain. Literal ghosts chain except for pajeet tier nft’s and scamcoins

[Anonymous No.52716176]

>>52714146
Biggest piece of FUD which ICPshills can't squirm away from is a quite straightforward technical limitation. Because it is based on classical consensus protocols which have at minimum O(N^2) messaging complexity, throughput is limited to 500 user writes/s per subnet. Dfinity dev in the pic explains in more detail. The more nodes in a given subnet, the more messages need to be kept around and the lower the TPS performance gets. You actually saw this play out IRL recently with the SNS-1 launch. A couple subnets gagged including the NNS (which is the slowest of all because it's the biggest of all). There is no satisfactory way around this limitation. You can't just build a single dApp across multiple subnets because there's marked increase in latency as well as complexity, performance might be even lower than just a single subnet.

ICP also relies on permissioned nodes as a core of how the network operates and obtains sybil protection. There also is no getting around this without a drastic change of how the protocol works.

Nontechnically, Dom is super cringe and frankly seems unhinged when he goes off on his rants. He's fairly undereducated and the cryptoleaks/Christen Ager-Hansson shit is also absolute 5 year old tier tantrum throwing. And this dude is supposed to be in charge of the creation of "web 3.0" kek

[Anonymous No.52716314]

>>52716176
The absolute state of AVAX jeets

[Anonymous No.52716324]

>>52716314
Avax btfo ICP. Avax is best tech in blockchain crypto and has Btc integration tech much better then ICP.

[Anonymous No.52716361]

>>52714306
1k pee holder and I never heard him talk. It's a sign of weakness if they have a feminine voice like pajeets do. But I looked up a speech and he sounds normal for mainland Europe accent. You are just insecure over your Pajeet voice.

>Pls ser, do not buy the coin. Only redeem

[Anonymous No.52716375]

>>52716176
>basically I don't know what I'm talking about, but heres my take
Lmao

[Anonymous No.52716466]

>>52716375
Care to post a technical refutation?

[Anonymous No.52716500]

>>52714210
Dom is amazing at communicating the vision and the concepts. He has higher credibility than anyone in this space except possibly Ari. He has world class understanding of cryptography, systems architecture and economics. He’s clearly an alien, but that’s ok.

[Anonymous No.52716518]

>>52716176
>the biggest fud icpoids can't shake is "fud" that I just found somewhere from 1 year ago and has never ever been used as fud before
lol I've noticed this type of 'fud' a lot lately, post a word salad of technical talk that normal people won't understand saying "it's bad" and let it roll
Imagine being so obsessed with something that you spend your free time digging things off the internet about it
worst part is that if you actually understood what is written in that picture you would realize it's quite literally not fud

t. cs and blockchain dev

[Anonymous No.52716577]

>>52716518
Explain using technical terminology (which apparently is in your wheel house) why it's wrong then, just saying t. knower is not a refutation.

[Anonymous No.52716603]

>>52716176
> ICP also relies on permissioned nodes as a core of how the network operates and obtains sybil protection
This is not true.
500 tps per subnet is not bad but can be tweaked, speed of light puts a limit on latency but not on pipe width between data centers, so 500 tps is not a limit set by the laws of physics or even by standards of current tech, as you seem to imply. The way to improve throughput in a distributed system is to distribute it, figure out ways to spread the load between canisters without invoking a lot of slow cross canister communication. Proper software architecture in the dApps is the solution here, and always will be - whatever the max tps per canister, an app will quickly show up to fill it.

[Anonymous No.52716606]

>>52716324
Sad.

[Anonymous No.52716617]

>>52716577
>why it's wrong
I didn't say it's wrong. You can't even comprehend basic written english and we are supposed believe you know the meaning of what is being discussed in that picture? I said that what is written there is not fud which it isn't. The technical terminology is in the very image you posted. The problem is that you don't understand it.
You attempt at posting some 'tecchie' talk followed by a "it's...LE bad" to fud has failed.

[Anonymous No.52716709]

>>52716617
Im asserting as FUD, a subnet can only do 300-500 from user writes/sec due to limitations listed in the image, is dogshit and inadequate for dApps with web 2.0 levels of adoption. You contradict that it is not FUD and I'm posting word salad I dont understand. I am asking you to use the technical language you allegedly possess to describe the gap or fault in my argument, not which terminology is right or wrong. Can you read? Right now youre just dancing around actually refuting my argument.

[Anonymous No.52716830]

>>52716709
>I am asking you to use the technical language
And I already told you that the technical language is in the very image you posted.
Your problem is that you don't understand it and why it makes your 'fud' pointless as the 'fud' picture is, quite literally, the opposite of fud.
Even if you argued that I can give and even deeper explanation it still wouldn't be worth because if you already don't understand that picture, you wouldn't understand anything extra added to it. Even if you did understand it, it wouldn't matter because you are not here seeking actual knowledge you are here fudding for whatever personal agenda. You would argue that 2 and 2 doesn't equal 4 just for the sake of it because what you want to do is force a specific situation to happen and it won't work (not with me, anyways).
If anything, what you want from me is the exact opposite of what you claim you want. You don't want me to give a detailed technical explanation (because, AGAIN, there's one already) what you want me to do is give you an explanation as if you were a golden retriever as they say. And as that is the casee then there was no reason for you to pretend to know what is written in that image other than to fud mindlessly.

There's no moving forward from this, Anon. You should take the L and try in a different thread.

[Anonymous No.52716850]

>>52716830
>tfw 2 smart 2 tell u y u r rong
3c

[Anonymous No.52716896]

>>52716850
>get your "put some effort into it" fud vaporized
>immediately spam the same insipid fud as usual
I accept your concession.
I don't have any ICP though so you should try the 3c memefud in a different thread as well.

[Anonymous No.52717695]

>>52716176
Icp dev here, minor correction: the ingress limit is now 1k. Actual tps depends on what the messages contain, e.g 1 message which sends x tokens to n addresses would cause n updates, execution is very fast, main bottleneck is ordering messages and finality, but yeah max 1k users/canisters can interact with a subnet at a given time due to it.

Dfinity consensus is boring from this point of view, the only cool shit they did is using wasm as vm, the threshold stuff and Verifiable Random Functions, the actual consensus design is stuck in 2016/17. How does Avax improve on this front? Is it more efficient than O(n^2)? What's the security threshold and where can I read more about it? Is it peer reviewed? The random sampling logic looks cool but sounds too good to be true

[Anonymous No.52717927]

>>52716324
>Avax is best tech in blockchain crypto
>kek, tech is no longer a selling point in crypto, if not MultiversX would have been a top project with the launch of efficient and innovative projects like holoride, the first to integrate the Blockchain into moving vehicles, xFabric, a sovereign blockchain module that can host core blockchain applications and a host of others

[Anonymous No.52718556]

Quick question for all you cool cats here.
I just bought 700 icy pees, what am I in for both short and long term? Is there a way to stake them? Should I buy more? Give me all the info frens.

[Anonymous No.52718703]

So wait, we have a twitter clone, reddit clone, whatsapp clone, a CEX, etc. - all of whose original counterparts have 'messages' per second in the thousands or millions - being limited to 500 (or 1000)? Minus whatever else is on the same subnet.
How's that gonna work?

[Anonymous No.52718709]

>>52714146
I'm literally swimming in piss anon, my bags are overflowing. Why aren't yours?

[Anonymous No.52718761]

>>52718703
Oh and also, can someone not just block the network with useless transactions? The reverse gas model won't incur any costs for the attacker.
Can't an attacker similarly drain the cycles from a dapp this way?

[Anonymous No.52719227]

>>52718703
You can scale on multiple subnets but:
1) there are no guarantees cause another canister could oocupy your bandwidth

2) if you need more throughput on a single field than a subnet can provide you're fucked. Sharding isn't always possible just like its not possible to parallelize all code to run on all cores

[Anonymous No.52719236]

>>52718761
Yes and yes, the devs have to take care of cycles attack but there are no tools right now. It will become a shitshow once queries are not free anymore

[Anonymous No.52719490]

>>52716830
So you wrote that whole blogpost and still didnt actually answer or make an argument, even in golden retriever english kek. You asserted that allegedly no one here can understand what I wrote or the image in question but you do except but you yourself are bringing zero insight in your posts. Im here to make money and actually research and try to understand shit before I put my money down, so if Im wrong I dont care, great Ill make more money with new information. Thus far though youve provided 0 L to be had, youre arent even engaging with the argument at hand.
>>52717695
Avalanche is Olog(n). Liveness is ~20-25% Byzantine and safety is parametrized to 80% currently I believe. Avalabs has a consensus whitepaper on their website that gives a pretty concise overview
>>52718703
This is exactly the problem Im talking about. Like the other anon said you're basically fucked if its not something that's parallelizable.

[Anonymous No.52719519]

>>52719490
>even in golden retriever english kek
here's this fucking avax faggot again with the 'kek' thrown into middle of his posts
fucking faggot shit eating roach

[Anonymous No.52719583]

>>52718709
Is that Chip Chipperson?

[Anonymous No.52719716]

>>52719519
Triggered

[Anonymous No.52719834]

>>52716324
Sad. Many such cases- you faggot roaches are just running out. Out of FUD, out of time- chief beady eyed roach emin isn’t doin too good guys.

[Anonymous No.52719958]

>>52719490
But is their consensus approach peer reviewed and formally verified? The random sampling sounds too good to be true.

[Anonymous No.52720115]

>>52719490
Icp sub nets interoperate.
AVAX subnets (not related to Icp subnets, yet stolen verbiage anyway)
Are like independent blockchains and do not interact cross chain. AVAX is dead in the water. Buy all the AVAX and watch it fail as soon at it ‘scales’ which it won’t. It will never be tested to a high degree because it’s a fucking technological scam.

[Anonymous No.52720136]

>>52719583
No it's Jeff Benzos, the sminem of ICP

Nothing sums up an ICP investor better than a dysgenic man covered in shit who's somehow proud of it.

[Anonymous No.52720887]

>>52719490
>Im here to make money and actually research
No, you are here to fud.
If you were here to "research" you would be researching not actively attacking something straight from your first post.
If you want to fud, go ahead and fud but don't try to act like
A) You know what the actual fuck you are talking about when you are fudding with nonsense
and
B) That you are here to "research" because it's fucking clear you are not.

[Anonymous No.52721711]

>>52720887
Did you read the OP or even the thread title? Kek

What you mean to say is that you think Im not arguing in good faith. I actually am though and Im 100% open to changing my opinion, shit Ill buy ICP if you can a make a good argument. Im just of the opinion that it is not a great architecture for scaling and actually fulfilling the practical use cases for blockchain in addition to it's centralized and permissioned nature. If you cant have a reasoned debate about the technology though that doesnt really reflect well on you, and Ive yet to come across and ICP proponent who is actually able to do this. I dont see what is so hard for you to lay out a reasoned argument with supporting evidence.

>>52720115
The point of the thread is ICP discussion. But avalanche subnets do in fact talk to each other, they even use BLS signatures like icp, that tooling is currently being rolled out with the latest batch of updates. The concept of a subnetwork in computer science has been around since before blockchain was a thing though, I dont understand why ICP shills repeat Dom's autistic obsession around this.

[Anonymous No.52721767]

>>52716466
that was his technical refutation.
the community has a collective iq of like 85. from one rug to the next. pushing the only critical thinkers in the space out.

[Anonymous No.52721831]

>>52721711
>1pbtid
You forgot to jump into your old ID before replying.
Further proof that you are, in fact, arguing in bad faith.

[Anonymous No.52722965]

>>52721831
Kek no Im just phone posting today

[Anonymous No.52722983]

>>52722965
>j-just a coincidence
Sure it is, champ

[Anonymous No.52723252]

>>52722983
I think its pretty clearly still me replying on the same topic in the same style but ok.
Do you have an email out to Dom youre desparately waiting on a reply from regarding this topic. You keep talking about anything but the subject at hand.

[Anonymous No.52723283]

>>52723252
You got caught samefagging buddy. Keep moving the goalposts.

[Anonymous No.52723519]

>>52723283
Goalposts have not moved, you're still running circles around mid field tho while the facts around ICPs bottlenecks stand unchallenged kek
Seems to me you're just trying to slide the fact that ICP is bottlenecked by consensus.

[Anonymous No.52723548]

>>52714146
Just look at its tokenomics.

[Anonymous No.52723563]

>>52723519
>still doesn't understand what he posted at the beginning of the thread
You unknowingly admitted to be a dumbass AND got caught samefagging your fuds. There's literally nothing you can do in this thread to make yourself look like less of a fool, Anon.
All for researching purposes, of course.

[Anonymous No.52723923]

>>52723563
Im sorry anon, this is a high IQ thread and youve made it apparent you dont belong here, your rhetorical grift is quite transparent. For anyone else interested though I'll let your own devs confirm that consensus is the bottleneck and the limitations on ingress messages and therefore user writes: https://forum.dfinity.org/t/what-is-the-theroretical-number-for-txns-per-second-on-internet-computer-right-now/14039/19
Note: the important point isnt 500 writes/sec vs 900writes/sec. 1000 writes/sec is an order of magnitude or two off whats needed.

[Anonymous No.52723949]

>>52723519
>>52723283
>>52723548
>>52723563
>>52723923
doesn't matter its a scam
and you're some paid wagie so I doubt the IQ is that high

[Anonymous No.52723972]

>>52723923
>STILL doesn't understand anything of what is posting
>keeps posting anyways
>unknowingly keeps calling it fud
>it has even been explained in layman terms why he is wrong in this very thread
>and STILL doesn't understand why he is wrong in his assumption
very high Q indeed

[Anonymous No.52724004]

>>52721711
>But avalanche subnets do in fact talk to each other
They do not transact trustlessly with eachother. It's just another MATIC jeet chain. It's retarded and slow and cannot scale or even come close to running super mario.

[Anonymous No.52724009]

>>52723923
>thinks every transaction with a canister needs to be written on chain
you're fucking retarded and don't even begin to understand how ICP works

[Anonymous No.52724158]

>>52718556
Google NNS staking tutorial, stake 8 years non desolving, spawn rewards every month, double your stack in 5 years, after that free pees

[Anonymous No.52724233]

>>52723972
Icp dev guy did not contradict my general point, altho the ingress message limit being bumped is new. Theres only so much that can be pushed and theyre already about at the limit. Keep spamming the green text and pepes tho its funny.
>>52724009
Never stated this and Ive been quite specific with what type of transactions im talking about.

Avax subnet communication is trustless, subnets just dont have to accept messages from others automatically, which is good fault isolation.

[Anonymous No.52724320]

>>52724233
>Icp dev guy did not contradict my general point
>except when he did
>but doens't matter though because despite not knowing 15 seconds ago about any of this, I already know that they are already at the limit of it somehow
You are a prime example of what pure Dunning-Kruger+autism mix is. Keep posting please, I'm actually quite entertained every time I get a ping to this thread.

[Anonymous No.52724731]

does anyone have a link to show psychadelic leaving ICP?
looked at their medium cant find it

[Anonymous No.52724795]

>>52724233
i want my own subnet with validators on avax
how much does it cost?

[Anonymous No.52725097]

>>52724731
Not really leaving it’s more that they are focusing the majority of their attention to fleek since they received $25 million in funding from polychain capital

[Anonymous No.52725597]

>>52724320
So your issue is that I thought the max ingress was 300 and not 1000? Thats your gotcha? Take your devs words regarding being on the limit not mine though. 1500TPS (from user writes in ICP's case) is actually about what classical protocols do. 300tps was pretty pitiful given the hardware, that was more surprising to me than 1000. 300 or 1000 it doesnt matter though, youre consensus bottlenecked and classical consensus protocols don't actually scale. Its the whole reason ICP is architected as it is with permissioned nodes in low node count subnets that implicitly trust each other using a bunch of cryptography to make it all work.

>>52724795
What are you building? How much security or replication do you need i.e. how many nodes do you need? Its 2k AVAX per validator.

[Anonymous No.52726000]

you don't really need anyone to tell you why you should buy matic instead of icp, simply look at this year's growth where polygon dapps had an 8x jump in 4 months only, powering over 53k dapps