Remonster
(burbuja member):
Do not give me the expert, that 's you. I do not need to get into the details. I have enough experience to detect fakes as academic Irvine, and the limited like you. You just try to discredit, and just do the ridiculous. No answer simple questions, such as why the “bright” Irvine contributions have not been published in prestigious computer magazines? He has had time since 10 years he has been mulling over the issue does. You’re not capable of linking to an article with the detailed description of the algorithms. Actually just read a little to know that do not exist. Just analyse some of Irvine responses to see him pulling balls out when asked for details. A whiff of the host …
Honestly I am concerned nothing can Maidsafe can do to overshadow bitcoin. But you’re worried a lot about what you’re begining to perceive … that Maidsafe is a fiasco. Actually the one that does not know shit is you, and you’ll end up realizing. From here, in two years Maidsafe will be nothing. —
This has to be a joke.
I’m going in my head.
I’ve been freaking out too
And the interview is today ??? Be responsible for communication … this is ifyou have no ****** idea what he’s saying.
Martinix
(burbuja member):
Irvine talked today about double spending, certainly in a thread where the same thread mentioned: -I wonder if someone might speak me the TLDR on how Maidsafe Prevents double-spend?
Irvine:
It’s atomic network. So you own coin Y and want to transfer to me. I ask network for coin And it says you own it. Ok We have a deal. Then you send to me and the group and see all your signed update to make me the owner. That When complete (they All have seen it) I can ask again and will be returned And as I safecoin as current owner. So cool. However, you then try to double spend. So you make a deal Also with John who does same as me. You send two messages to group Y, making me one owner and one making John owner. Group And get these very close together. Some think I own it, some think John owns it. If there is no QUORUM Then it does not accumulate and is in fact lost. the hacker losses and rightly so. So spend double the results in loss of Attempt That coin, but at no time did John or I even think we owned it. Hope That helps.
Source: What is our solution to the byzantine generals problem? - Development - SAFE Network Forum
remonster:
Good example of the level of accuracy of Irvine.
Why call And the coin and the group at the same time? 
If there is no quorum the coin is destroyed … how is that “quorum” established? (remonster: that is the problem of the general!)
How to prevent a sabotage group transactions?
What is the timing and the timing of the whole process? What if certain network nodes are not “available” for technical reasons ( “they All have seen it”)? When I can go back to spend the coin received? How long I have to wait on average?
And remember that safecoins not exist … there are many cryptos and you invest in one for which there is only colored coins simulation! So cool … !!!
javi618
(burbuja member):
Remonster, it is clear that those questions have Irvine cornered. Surely all questions you have are shrewd and hasn’t even gone through Irvine’s head (for what, the forum is already filled with few hundred unwary members).
I think if you go to this scoundrels forum and hit him in the face with these four, showing that all the work done in recent years he and his team have done is a scam, many followers that believe the first thing Irvine says will thank you eternally.
I tell you because it has become clear that this forum has remained small, here no one can refute your arguments. It’s time that you hit Irvine with some strong shots as Vitalik did recently and how nicely Majon “translated” it.
Really, I’m looking forward to seeing you humble Irvine on his own forum. It will be epic. ! Go for it !
Edit: I see you went by the Maidsafe forum, great! Poor Irvine, which awaits you …
remonster:
Note that although I resist wasting time with this I just did:
Is there a required reference for all this process? I understand that “reaching a QUORUM” is equivalent to solving the problem generals Which is the original The question in this thread.
(to see if it captures “the snake that bites its tail” to expose him in the last part) But I do not think that he’ll answer. Nor do I pretend that something like what he describes can not work, but certainly to know if it works we need a precise and detailed argument that is not.
—END—
Rather than attacking the obvious flaws in their arguments, I instead want to point out the benefits of avoiding too much academic review. By minimizing exposure, David dodged negative criticism of a constantly evolving idea and ensured that academia would not solidify its judgments prematurely as has often been the case with many bleeding edge concepts. Allowing him and his team to bury themselves in code. Sparing them an even greater headache than the one they have until now experienced from their peers/community.
Enough time (several years IIRC) was spent opening the minds of investors to the potential of a decentralized internet. Such is the plight of visionaries. The late Nikola Tesla is a perfect example. Many times he has designed technologies without first entirely working through the details. He took it one problem at a time until completion. Of this David reminds me. I believe I’m witnessing the output of a visionary who refuses to accept failure. Problems will be solved and goals will be achieved. I don’t think the man can tolerate anything less. 