P.S stop diminishing the public by using the word. "Simpleton" it makes you seem naive.
You make presumptions about both my technical knowledge and the correctness of your technical assumptions, because you have not read my 15,000+ posts at bitcointalk.org spanning the period from 2013 to 2017.
You are simply incorrect on every one of your technical (including game theory and economics) assumptions. And I had long time ago explained why. You are yet again one of those trolls who come out of the woodwork likes worms, who thinks he knows it all challenges me without having read all my archives. This forces me to recapitulate over and over again, which wastes my precious time. I need my time for coding, not for proving that every worm is a worm.
If you write respectfully to me (admitting to yourself that you have not read my archives) then I will write respectfully to you. Then I would not label you a troll. Your presumptuousness about the completeness of your knowledge makes you a troll.
Reality is a bitch. Fact is that when it comes to technological matters, most people are simpletons. And at least most of them know that. Then there are those who have some knowledge but don’t admit to themselves that they are not as expert as those who have been studying these matters nonstop for 5 years. Dude there is very long thread at bitcointalk.org about decentralization which I started in 2015. These issues have already been covered there and/or in related threads.
At the appropriate time we will make detailed white papers explaining why your technological assumptions are incorrect.
Lightning Network is designed to be a community effort to run nodes based on regular ASIC systems, anyone can deposit BTC to create a share into the Lightning Network.
This statement is naive. It completely ignores the reality of the game theory, economics, and details of the technical facets of LN. I am not going to write a white paper in this comment to try to educate you. The fact that you would drink this Koolaid propaganda that you read somewhere is indicative of that you’re not even capable of discerning fact from fiction.
PPS(pay per share) is a direct deterrent to Winner Take all in Proof of Work. Please look up protocols of the SHA-256 platform within the BTC network.
Dude I read Meni Rosenfeld’s white paper back in 2014. I am fully aware of the different pool mining paradigms. They don’t change the reality of that proof-of-work is winner-take-all.
Also, Hashgraph isn't limited to the Dunbar Limit due to its Merkel Tree infrastructure.
We can recognize someone who is faking their technological acumen when they place buzzwords in sentences that make no technological sense. You think of a Merkle tree (not Merkel!) as some sort of magic cure all, but Merkle trees can’t do a damn thing about the fact that fine-grained reputation can’t scale because of the cognitive load. Any attempt to create hierarchies of reputation (and represent it in a hierarchical data structure such as a Merkle tree) thus removes the fine-grainedness and thus turns the system into centralized winner-take-all paradigm from an economic and game theory analysis. A WoT is unstable because of the domino effect of implicitly trusting those who you trust trust. This transitive trust scaling is prone to cascading failure when someone you trust has been duped.
Technology can’t fix the issue that fine-grained reputation doesn’t scale. Fine-grained reputation is not a viable design for anything. That’s the reason democracy doesn’t scale decentralized.
I located one of my past comments about Swirlds which Hashgraph is apparently based on.
RE: Steemit creates accounts for scammers... and nobody else?