Bitcoin Forum

Ok,

this is not one of them proofs. It exists for many years in real forexes, markets and stock markets. We implemented it here on Freshcoin as economic value with criteria of usability. It says: you can use your coin and get big price only if your coin is usable on real market. Real market has its rules and it means that you need to first import your coin into it. So, we did that with freshcoin importing it into games.

There is unfortunately trying to copy this idea and called it POP or other, but we have marketing plan which explain everything of it ;)

It is feasibility study also so it has measurements, criterias, analysis, exlploration and lots of stuff which is not just hot air, because we are announcing first games on 15th of October.

POM is new in crypto but old stuff in stock, so we just connected it. SO when some usability getting more, it push price. So we want stable uptrend price with usability!

cheers!

I have read your materials and they explain very little about this "proof" of market.  Can you tell me what your network proves, and how it structures the proof?  I would like to be able to verify your proofs in a model checker.  Certainly if your proofs are well formed then you should be able to guide me in doing so.

Proof of market is category of economic usability coin. It uses POW or POS or any other technical model for transactions validations which you are using. But in terms of trends as there are many coins on market and lots of them are dead we decided to make concept which has business implementation. In our model there are benefits for investors, game developers and gamers too. We call it proof of market as it use model of real stock exchanges.

It is proportionally using coin on real market and its influence on price on markets. Today we need business in crypto not just engineering of it. When you connect those two activities you got POM. It will use some changes in terms of blockchain appropriate to our marketing plan very soon. There is lots of coins with no usability on real market (most of them). Proof of market is connecting price, promotion, POW (or other validation process), real market usability in once. It is not just programming feature, it is much more spreaded category.

POM is marketing plan connected with POW/POS or any other crypto validation system!

A plan cannot be a proof.  A plan is a speculative outline with a proposal of intent.  A plan cannot be asserted as axiomatically true.  You cannot know from the structure of the plan that you will obtain the desired outcome, so nothing is proven.

To call something a proof implies that the artifact in question is axiomatic, acceptably complete, and logically consistent.  If you have something called a proof you should be able to easily and independently trace through it from any assumptions made to some "undeniable" conclusion.  (This is what I called "model check" in my prior post.)

If you cannot encode it in a logical proposition and verify it, mechanically, against an acceptable background theory then it is not a proof.  This is unavoidable.

If you cannot tell me the assumed axioms of your proof, the logical encoding of the structure of you proof, and the proposed claim arising from your proof then it is not a proof at all.

Please either clarify what gets proven by your "proof" of market, or else stop calling it a proof.  Otherwise someone might get confused and accidentally take you seriously.

It is just programming thoughts, we are talking more spread. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true, I called that proof :) and a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something it is plan :) also our white paper is feasibility study which definition is "an analysis and evaluation of a proposed project to determine if it (1) is technically feasible, (2) is feasible within the estimated cost, and (3) will be profitable. Feasibility studies are almost always conducted where large sums are at stake. Also called feasibility analysis."

So we can call proof what we did or maybe I am wrong? I will be glad to prove that our plan is our proof :) because if you look in near past it is cool for understanding that proof of what we did is in the plan! Please do not look so narrow :)

I am really good in understanding what is POW and POS or other stuff, just to clear that :) but I would be also glad for you to understand that not only word proof stays in programming crypto language :)

But this is not the theme, to prove what is proof...we need to go further to understand that crypto needs economy and vice versa :)

We are talking on two fronts, so I partly answer you on most questions, but answer me this in terms of word proof:

How can we name POW proof of work coin which is not proved (because it is not mined) it is plan to be proved but real proof is when it is mined? It will be prooved but many of them are not mined and proved so POW as a concept is just name and relationships you give are mostly philosophical. Proof is something promised a statement that is passed. That mean it takes time. POW, POS, POP is just statements which has to be done in coins. POM is also.

We did lots of work we promised, so lots of things were proved Smiley and please do not judge, it just show your behaviour Smiley and face Smiley

Dont want to defend myself but I did say that maybe I am wrong Smiley that shows my face Smiley

Sure, but that evidence must see some formal treatment of presentation in order to constitute a proof.  It must be shown to have a structured relationship with the assumptions made and the conclusion drawn.  The evidence must be inexorably "linked up end to end" so that the conclusion follows, by way of the evidence relation, from the assumptions.

  Someone needs to be able to, independently, hold all of the evidence together and be able to justify the "compelling to accept" that the resulting assertion as true.  You can't have a proof which is entirely ephemeral, where the evidence is unstructured and ambient, and claim that it compels the mind toward acceptance.


Sure.  I don't argue this.  What you have presented is unquestionably a plan-of-market.  A plan is not a proof.  A plan can be a way to construct a proof, or it can be a way to evaluate a proof, but it cannot be the proof itself.


That is great, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


You are wrong.  If it is not feasible to encode all of the assumptions, background, and evidence into a logical proposition, and then feed that proposition into a mechanized model checker that can tell us if it holds (modulo the background theory provided) or not, then it is simply not a proof by any means.  So far, we have no way to structure either your "evidence of market" or "plan of market" into a formalize-able background theory.  We have no way structure the evidence as an unbroken chain from some assumptions to some conclusions.  When we have a way that we could do that, you will have a proof.  In the mean time, don't call something a proof when it isn't.  You literally can not be more wrong about something than this. ;)


There is no question of breadth, here.  A plan cannot be a proof because it is inherently a speculative entity.  The conclusion it draws is a hope, a dream, a desired outcome.  The conclusion it draws cannot be necessarily called true or fact.  If it were a proof, we could assert the outcome as undeniable.  We can't do that with your conclusions, we can only hope for the best.


Again, I am not speaking at all about "programming" or "crypto" but simply about philosophy and the nature of reality.  We are not talking about algorithms or enciphering but about what artifacts in our shared existence can be said to assert what is true, and what artifacts can only suggest what might be.  You have no artifact that can assert that which is true, so you have no proofs.  This has nothing to do with coding, just facts.


Again, I do not disagree with you as to the relationship between economy and success of a crypto-currency.  My only issue is with your claim of having proven something about either or about the relationship itself.  I simply wish to know what it is you are claiming as evidently factual, and how you are proposing that you present this evidence in the structural form of something that we could call a proof.

If you can't do this, you don't call it a proof.

proof in this concept is price which is follower of our doings. That is called real stock proof. So in first post I said, price will follow our influence on game market. Plan is not proof but understand that POW is not POW also becuase it will be when it mine all coins so it is also Plan of work, it is phylosophy :)

The one and only POM coin I know is MICoin, and it is one of the best:

https://nxtforum.org/assets-board/(ann)(micoin)the-most-interesting-coin-in-the-world-pure-90-pom (https://nxtforum.org/assets-board/(ann)(micoin)the-most-interesting-coin-in-the-world-pure-90-pom)

90% POM as you can see.

Correct, a block which does not meet the difficulty target on its hash does not constitute a valid proof that the "necessary" work was performed.  It is still a proof of work, however, as it does stand as a proof that some hashing work was done.  It is just not a proof of sufficient work having been done, where "sufficient" is defined in the extant form of difficulty target.


All proof is philosophical.  We only consider a valid hash as a meaningful assertion because of our shared context of a reality in which sha prefix collision is a difficult task.  This is a strictly philosophical notion, predicated upon that shared reality


It is more than this, the proof is tangible, in the form of a certificate, and this is key.

In proof-of-work the "sufficiently low hash" does actually certify the work.  It is a tangible form of the proof.  We can hold it, study it, share it, replicate it, asses it, and independently know it to be true.  We can look at it and point to it.  It is an actual thing.

In proof-of-stake the stake record (blockchain itself) and modular "signer selection" form a certificate.  We can look at the chain and know that the correct stakeholder was chosen to select transactions by redoing the same modular selection math.  It is a tangible form of the proof, we can hold it, share it, replicate it, asses it, and independently know it to be true.  We can look at it and point to it.  It is an actual thing.

In proof-of-play the recorded game log showing a winning play does actually certify the play.  We can look at the record of play and know that the coin was rightly won per the rules of the game.  It is a tangible log of the game-play forming a proof that the game-play happened correctly. We can hold it, share it, replicate it, asses it, and independently know it to be true.  We can look at it and point to it.  It is an actual thing.


How?  How is the evidence about the market made tangible, in any way?  How can we hold it, share it, replicate it, assess it, and independently know it to be true?  Where is it to be looked at?  How can I point to it and refer a peer to it?

Is it an actual thing?  How is it actualized, in what form?

WHERE IS IT?

I can post a bitcoin block proof here.  Look:

Tangible proof of sufficient work having been done on that block.  You can go to the chain, pull this block, compare against difficulty target, and independently know for certain that the proof holds

I can post a proof-of-play block proof here, too.  Look:

You can go to the chain, pull this block, seed a map with the nonce, re-execute all 2,284 frames of game-play, input all 5 button presses at the appropriate time, watch the moto player reach the finish and win his coin before the timer runs out, and independently know for certain that the proof holds.

I can post a stake record and modular selection math for a proof of stake coin here, too.  I won't, because the necessary information to confirm the proof as valid would be quite a bit of data to stick into the middle of some prose post, but I could do it.  You could then take that certificate, recalculate the same modular math, and arrive at the same conclusion about the outcome of who was selected to sign the block.  You can independently know for certain that the proof holds.

Please show me what one of your proof certificates looks like.  Please show me how I can take such a certificate and independently know for certain that the proof holds.  If you cannot do this you do not have a thing that can rightly be called a proof.

If your proof can not be delivered in some tangible form for some review by others, it is not much of a proof.  If your proof can't be held, shared, replicated, assesed, and independently known to be true, what exactly can it prove and to whom?


Huh?  I don't even know what you're trying to communicate on this one.


I hope you will go from an understanding that you may be wrong to an understanding of just how critically wrong you actually are, at which point I hope you would do the honorable thing and remove any claim of proof from your materials unless you can actually present some proofs for review.

Wrong POM, but at least their form of proofs are tangible and somewhat traceable.   :D  (Though perhaps not the best thing to base distribution/subsidy on, IMO!)  I think those memes come (much) closer to constituting proofs than anything Frangomel is able to demonstrate so far.

In programming world yes...we are talking here about word proof. Nothing is not proof when it is proved, so in terms of time or when time pass and job finishes it is prooved. So nothing is prooved till it is not done. Proof of marketing in terms of price which is follower of our work, smething is done but it needs to be done in future :)

@Hunter

you are speaking about programming now, I said it is spreaded :)

POM is market proof, price proof, we are proofing something what are we doing it is more social-economic question than just hashing. I want to spread things up to do it more open for more activities than just hash. Tangible is something touchable, POW is not toungible it is measurable and POM is also measurable so from phylosophy it is time dedicated. Proof is nothing till it is proved till end.

A whitepaper > a marketing plan. If it can't be explained in a whitepaper, it's not a "proof" - it's just a gimmick. Consider that "proof of work" is actually mathematically verifiable. "Proof" means that nobody has to trust you, is that the case here?

Again, I am not talking about programing at all.  I am talking about reality, philosophy, and our notions of truth.

Proof is a much bigger subject than computers.


We share this goal.  ;)  Motocoin does not use proofs over hashing in any traditional way, as your coin does for example.  Our proofs are not about hashing but about game-play, and this is the trans-formative differentiation of proof of play.  What are your proofs about?  What are you actually proving?  What is your schema?  What axioms do you hold to begin?  What process of reasoning do you employ in your rationalization?  What conclusion do you draw, and how is it justified?  If you do not have answers to these specific questions, defining proof, then you do not hold a proof.


Amen to that.  Certainly being from a financial background you will know of the notion that if you can't kiss it then you don't own it.

Proofs are certainly tangible.  I can own it, print one out, cut it in half, paste it onto a second proof to possibly construct a third proof.  (More likely I'll end up with something that is no longer a proof, and this is what is most magical about them.)  I can hold it, kiss it, mail it to a friend for a second opinion, send it to someone on a p2p network called bitcoin, bury it in a time capsule, hide it from the world or share it with everyone, take a crap on it, burn it with fire, etc.


Any proof should certainly be both, and the two notions are deeply and inexorably intertwined.  You cannot measure what you cannot, in some way, touch.  If you can't stick a ruler to it, weigh it, bounce a photon off of it, bend some electromagnetic force around it, or otherwise make some "touch" thing happen to it, you cannot measure it.  Much of modern philosophy and logic is about this notion of measurement of proof, in particular metrics over their poly-topos "surfaces" or "shapes." (This is actually something I've been in some deep discussions about lately with the zencoin developer, randomly.)  The shapes we call ontological lattice structures and convolution based belief networks are both of particular interest lately, but mostly for reasons related to AI and that "programming" thing that you want to avoid talking about, so I won't go into it further.

Let's take programming out of the question entirely for a moment, and just talk about the most basic elements of a proof.

I know for damned sure that 1+1 is 2 not because someone said so but because
(source Metamath OFC)

This thing *is* the tangible form artifact of the "frozen into material being" knowledge that one and one are, undeniably, two.

I know for damned sure that you have no single argument against the claim that 1+1=2 because of QED at the 18th assertion, there.  I can, independent of anyone or anything else in the universe, hold this epic knowledge, this proof, with my hands, see it with my eyes, kiss it with my lips, and most importantly know it to be not only a thing but that special sort of thing that we can call a proof (I'm even blessed to be able to see that it is one specifically shaped like "closed, total, peano arithmetic form induction over ordinal naturals") and I can know this not only with my brain but with all of my heart and soul.

How can I print out one of your proofs of one of your claims, hold it with my hands, see it with my eyes, know it to be a special thing that is called QED, and then kiss it with my lips?

This claim could be any one of your claims about the market or the spot price or anything at all other than your classic PoW hash function blockchain which we'll certainly agree is the one proof your system can/does offer up. (*YAWN*)

If I can't print your claim, evidence, and reasoning out on paper and kiss it with my lips I can't own any meaningful token of open interest in it.  If I can't own it, why exactly should I buy into it, particularly when you are (perhaps intentionally, for hoodwinking, this is alt-coin land after all) mislabeling it as a proof?

I've said this before to others.  At best, you are misunderstanding the meaning of a proof.  At worst, you are attempting to defraud people.  Do you really even want to be seen as being on this spectrum at all?  Best to just retract the claim of some novel proof mechanism from your materials until you can either offer an exposition of that proof mechanism or some proofs themselves.  Certainly best not to go around calling other peoples *actual* proof models "copy paste" from your brilliant notions, in any case.  ::)


How?  Please elaborate on the structural composition of your proofs, that is all I'm asking.  Show me how to measure one in an independently repeatable (i.e. verifiable) way.  Show me one of your proofs, and how to read it, ideally. Tell me how your proofs stand as proofs.

Prove.

Prove, or don't go around running your mouth about proofs.  If you don't know what one is, if you don't understand deeply in your core being what is so fundamentally critical about the nature of the funny little turnstile |- symbol, then you're not qualified to critique them.


You're right.  You don't know how right you are.  You don't even have axioms, you are so far from the "end" that you haven't even begun.

It was almost like I posted https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=785372.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=785372.0) this just especially for you.

I'm not sure that their materials successfully fall into any of these three sorts, which is just downright hilarious to me.  They've failed to even "actually" be gimmicky.


I'm sure they will say they have some magical way to be able to assert with certainty that their coin will be super valuable and the greatest thing since sliced bread because (paradoxically?) it is the first proof-of-market coin.  They'll push how magically "special" their game related integration models are and somehow assert that this factors to spot price, even though this is inconsistent and circular reasoning.  In the end you'll be better off with WoW gold and Riot points when it comes down to it because at least they'll have some minimal security, while these guys will still be wondering why they have no miners on their broken algorithms, and still going around trying to pick fights about things they know nothing of.

Just another day in altcoinland.

Proof is written in marketing plan :) When time pass it will be proof like in POW and POS, it is not proof till time pass :)

You can trust me or not and you can watch on our work which was passed and see what we did and what we will proof on market related to marketing plan!

@hunter

Phylosophy is not reality, lets make it easy to understand 1+1 = 2 or not what is proof ;) you are speaking about your things without permission to accept another things! That is unfortunately your problem, not mine :)

look at this :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW2DFz9VaoE (it says proof in the video), but I know that 1+1=2 I will give my hand for that proof ;) so hmmmm what is tangible or what isnt....ask yourself :)

Another thing, bitcoin will never get here if there is not economy and market proof!!! Phylosophy doesnt help it much, programming did, mathematics did but economy and business mostly. If you have greatest product in the world (perpetum mobile, zero energy electric generator) it will work but should it be proved to the world if there isn't economy or business. Maybe you are great mathetamatician or phylosopher but narrow as I said, I am sorry for that :)

I really would like from you to understand this, it is up to you not me :)

You might get sued. POM is a brand of pomegranate juice  :D

ahahahah right :) I forgot that :)

POM would probably confuse Australians because that's their name for a British person.

To be serious here...POM is another strategy of doing things and it is proof of market. People who doesnt do economics do not understand it but that term is existing in our activities and means strategy concepts with measurable indexes. So sorry people, proof stays in other social flows not just in cryptos :)

No, a plan is written in the marketing plan.  After time passes, we will know if it was a good plan and came to fruition or if it was a bad plan and failed miserably.  At no point will anything written there suddenly become a proof.

Proofs are not affected by the passing of time.  A proof either holds eternally or not at all.  If you have something you call a proof and then some time passes and you discover that it does not hold as a proof, then it never was a proof to begin with.


Precisely.  "Just trust me" is not a valid assertion step in a proof.  If it were, "one plus one equals five because just trust me" would stand valid as a proof, and we obviously can't have that.  "Frangomel is an asshole because just trust me" does not make you an asshole.  "Our coin will be valuable on the market because just trust me" does not prove anything about your coin, the market, or anything else at all and this is precisely the problem.

In my experience those who resort to "just trust me" as their justification for their "proof" instead of simply retracting their claim have all had nefarious intent.  If you're really going to fall back to "just trust me" and then ask for our money, you're going to be labelled a "scammer" so fast that it will make your head spin, regardless of your actual intent.


You can collect as much evidence as you want but until you can infer, in an independently reproducible way, the conclusion from that evidence you have not structured any proof.  All you will have is evidence of correlation, no hard proof.


No, it is only the study of it.  This is precisely the concern.  You want to point to some potential future reality and say your proof can be found there.  I want to study the actualized reality that we're stuck in here.  Your potential future reality holds no proofs to be found, those can only be found in actual reality.  You know, this one.  Where we are right now.  Are you familiar with it?


Huh?  No idea what you're trying to say there.  I'm speaking about things that are inherently "ours."  Reality is, unfortunately, forced upon us as a shared construct.  We're both stuck here in it.  You are making some claims about it that don't jive with the notions the rest of us have about it.  Our notions can be measured directly within that reality, and we call those measures "proofs."  You're talking about some thing that does not seem able to be connected to that reality by any measure and calling it a fact.  This is unreasonable behavior to begin with, but to explicitly label it as rational is simply offensive.


Lots of people claim lots of things as proof.  At least he knew how to structure a proof, even if his proposed proof doesn't hold as a proof because of the logical inconsistencies of (among other other things) division by zero. At least he "made the right motions" in starting from something to be proven and working systematically to some conclusion.  His system was logically inconsistent so his conclusion can not be taken as factual and his writings can not be called proof, but he was at least going about the practice of trying to prove.  He just failed.

You aren't even carrying out the practice of trying to prove, and yet still claim to hold some proofs.  Absurdity.


I'm not sure what bearing his video has on tangibility.  His "inconsistent notion sketched out and claimed incorrectly as a proof" is just as tangible as any legitimate proof.  That is entirely beside the point.


You're simply wrong, but this is not the particular holy war that you decided to pick a fight on so we'll leave that aside.


You can prove your product successful over some span of time in the form of an existence proof, sure.  Later you can come back and say "look, I can prove my project worthwhile because, look, here it is existing and holding value."  I still don't think you could call this "proof of market" but whatever you call it it certainly wouldn't be anything novel.  Bitcoin already has this sort of proof.  Further, you certainly can't claim such a proof exists today.


I am not the one who has any obligation here.  If we never resolve our dispute I walk away from it entirely unaffected.

However, you have everything on the line, here, since you are the one making the claim.  If we don't come to some resolution that only reflects, to your potential adopters, on you.  They will forever be forced to wonder whether it is the case that you innocently lack competency and misunderstand the meaning of proof or the case that you are simply trying to defraud them through lies and trickery.

Either way, I suspect this will deter rather than inspire confidence.

I see an easy solution for you, just retract the claim in question and move on confident in knowing that there will be no question over the validity of your claim of proof.

As I said proof of market exists in other forms of peoples activites, plan is proof when time passes. Till now lots of things was proved. We are going in circles in this speak, you are not saying nothing but big posts. POW is nothing than mathematics with workflow which is time related so it is just name.

Bitcoin is POM and POW, because whole industry is created from it and price is like this because POM was stopped (POW is growing but not related to price because POM is not well), but it will go up soon further, hope so.

You are phylosophy programming oriented, I am showing you another door here, lots of people understood it. There are not hidden doors, just another complementary science into this. Phylosophy is something which is not good in here because for phylosophers truth is lie and vice versa. I do like it but not proper into this kind of business.

I suspect that you are thinking of the notion of "proof of concept" not market.  You don't even have a proof of concept to demonstrate.


If you don't think my big posts say anything then you are just refusing to listen and hear me.


Huh?


Yes, there's no place for concern about what is real and true (the definition of philosophy, which it seems you can't even manage to spell correctly) in the altcoin business.  Can't have that, people questioning what is or isn't real.  If people do that it might be harder to fleece them, right?

If you have POM in your work price should be for sure bigger, I would like you to understand that price of most of the coins is not about programming and POW and POS it is about investors, usability, real market sell etc. that is proof of market.

When I will have first coin into game (from 15th of October) it will be proof of market, because I sell it to gamer and investors and game dev. gets profit of that, so I prove what I promised and it is not all I will give them phase 2 which would be more attractive.

Bitcoin community, I am one of them from 2012. understand what is POM :) Hope that you will also :)

This is going nowhere. Frangomel, what HunterMinerCrafter (to the best of my knowledge) is trying to clarify, and me to a lesser extent, is that "proof of market" is not valid. It's a marketing term with no real meaning. The validity of PoW is that even if I am 100% sure that you're a scammer and that you're trying to con me, I can still acknowledge a proof of work that you give me. That's what the whole thing hinges on; proof is a way of saying "you don't have to trust me."

Now consider your "proof of market" concept in the same context: You claim there is proof of a market, and I am 100% sure that you're a scammer and that you're trying to con me. How can I verify your claims? How can my computer verify your claims? Will every computer in the world agree that the proof is valid?

If you understand that "proof of market" has no actual meaning, then you can say so. I'm posting this because I don't think you understand.

Wow too much claims without knowing the matter. Firstly if I am a scammer wouldnt tlk to anybody or if I try to cheat you i wouldnt open thread about this. There was so much frauds in cryptos that you are scared of anything new and honest. So lets divide unknown from cheat in your head. If you dont understand something and you think that I am scammer or cheater, that means you dont understand it.

Cryptos are mostly open source platforms. You need to understand that and it says, that you can connect lots of on it, so using another science is something new to you. Economic has different measurements and scales but still it is numbers. So POM is new live creative way of thinking. It is communication, negotiation, agreement, attraction, promotion, defying of price etc. So it had lots in common with people and its goals has to be different in terms of understanding. So do not please be scary with new things. I am not pushing anybody just explaining new kind of things. Computer cannot deal things, open negotiations, talk with people...it must done by another science. So POM i not just proof it is systematic using social business methods for implementing crypto into real market.

I dont want to fraud, scam, cheat or judge something just explaining new stuff!

POW is not always you have to trust me...because it has its holes in terms of fraud it is human mistakes or deliberately but unfortunately nothing is perfect. I want to be optimal not subjective thinking. So, POM is existing and it is step forward. There is lots of coins here which could use POM and which could be better in terms of price!

POM is usability meaning not generating coins. So you create them and then use them. We like to measure that usability!!!

First game that will use your coin, is a totally new game or is game on the market yet that will add this feature?

We are doing both, have investor fund where are coins is selled to gamers through game developers. It is done through freshonline payment platform and API in games using in-game purchase. So everything of that is POM. Coins are generated with POW system but used with POM system which is price and market cause!

We will have freshcoin dedicated games with similar as POP but better because it will use POW into games and that mined or collected coins into games will be used for sell over market. So it is circled...everything is showed in marketing plan :)

Profit of coins is divided 50/50 investors/game developers so 1$ for 1 freshcoin is our retail price. Investors profit is proportionally shared.

I'm not calling you a scammer here. Read this again, it's hypothetical:


Bear in mind that the scenario is hypothetical. I am not accusing you of being a scammer. I'm asking how somebody who wouldn't trust you to tell him the time of day can accept your "proof of market." There's no way to deny PoW, everyone will always reach the same result given the same input. The same doesn't seem to be true of your concept.
I fully support anything new and creative in cryptocurrency, I support open source projects. I want you to be aware of the flaws that I see in your concept. Because if I see them, then people much smarter than me will see them too. I'll watch, but if you want to keep refusing to provide answers, I will leave you alone.

My bet would be that you don't get the answers that are sought, because they don't seem to be there to be had.  I'm guessing you'll end up leaving him alone.

Alone is where he should be, anyway, left to himself and his fantastical universe in which proof need not prove anything, in which logic and reasoning are too "narrow" to have a place in defining reality, and in which the future value of a thing can be magically constrained to a whim.

@Willisius

Ok, I am also open for anything new thats why I looked for connecting economy with crypto. I didnt deny POW, POS or other system which is for creating coins. They are working and I am glad that they exist. Of course I am happy that this is open source so everybody can attach whatever they want.

Bad thing is that lot of scammers and FUD-ers came in crypto and make atmosphere of untrust. That is why I come into this. I couldnt watch that anymore and wanted to do something new with honest and trust. That was my first word to savale, developer of Freshcoin who made programming of this. There was another trend which is also happening now. Developers (programmers) who cant make new coin, do that and after its publishing they disappear, mostly because they do not understand that this kind of work needs team, marketing, selling, communication, design and lots of other stuff, other developers who disappear are scammers, FUD-ers or just want to fraud, or third category is those who dont want to accept another science into their work.

That is why I implement this package which is called proof of market POM and it prooves in terms of time what we want to do. In our white paper you have time table and you can measure our work. When I say market I mean everything which is connected to market coin:

1. making business system which will be automated (in our example it is investor fund, game developers, gamers and back)

2. call for investors

3. focus groups which will have special attention

4. defining the price

5. exchange politics

6. promotion and marketing

7. analysis, exploring the market

8. evaluation

So that are economy principles which is called POM, because we are proofing our work in time. I am really sorry because this trend made it not trusted, but this system is in economy for years, decades. It is business model which is used in firms. We are looking at Freshcoin as a firm which need to grow in terms of community, usability, price and everything. That is our goals. So I cant see what is missunderstandable with this. This is system from another social activity usable into crypto. I understand that programmers are looking for 0 and 1 but in economy where are living people we need more tolerant model which is called POM.

Maybe you should call it proof-of-wants, then.  Or proof-of-hopes-and-dreams.  Maybe proof-of-fantasies.

How about proof-of-"just-trust"-Frangomel?

All seem like appropriate descriptors.

These are the only things that you could prove in your "proof" of "market" system.

I would like to ignore you, because you are speaking a lot and saying nothing, but need to write just this and then I am letting you to speak with yourself.

If I am on your place, I would probably be like you because working for 10 months on coin without moving price, I would be desperate also and because of that desperate I would also attack new ideas and doing scams. So you as programmer, mathematician and philosopher, go and be desperate more on other places :). Maybe go for a walk or something :)

This is not appropiate talk for full member as you are!!!!

Now you are free to speak with yourself you will be ignored!

About POW and concept of POW, there was lots of frauds in that terms like hidden blocks, like human mistakes. System as it is works and it proofs a work of validating transactions and rewarding but in the core of it, when we say proof, it could be abused!

edit> we made a business system where all investors will get amount of profit proportionally their input into system divided with game developers claim. It would be done automatically by implementing coin into the games. SO in terms of using the coin on the market, its profitability everybody will get same amount of market share, thats why POM :)

Again, huh?  What coin do you think I've been working on for 10 months, exactly?  Do you mean HUC that I contributed a few patches to once, or MOTO which I am not actually a developer of, only a sort of volunteer code-maintainer.  I've spent nowhere near 10 months involved with either.  I shouldn't be surprised that you can't get facts straight since things like fact, proof, and reality are apparently not familiar concepts for you.


So what, exactly, changes? You were already ignoring me.  By your own admission, you have not chosen to see anything of what I have tried to communicate.

Yah, bitcoin had so many hidden blocks, after all.  POW must be broken.

These POW scam systems were working as intended.  Their proofs certainly accounted for those "hidden" blocks, regardless of whether or not anyone was silly enough to actually use the network without first assessing what was proven by it.  In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with Willisius' excellent and pointed question.


In other words, you're not going to actually answer the question, right?

I did for a few times, your wish to not understand this and narrow attitude doesnt give you opportunity to see answer and you are scamming of course. You can google it if you want and maybe you will understand then or you want me to google it for you?

Again...from the point of creating coins POW and other proofs are existing but from the point of usability there is POM, it is not about you and me it is about measuring the usability using tools for understanding like heuristics, exploring and interdisciplinary methods. Sorry but I cannot learn you how to do that, the core of the system is my proffesional experience for about 12 years in business. If you want to learn you need to open your mind first, which is not problem for most people in crypto and other industries like movie, games, sports, culture, medicine etc.

Maybe you can start with google then we can talk about POM!

I think you are still missing (or refusing to accept) that any answer to Willisius' question must be something that is not just true, but is necessarily true.  Everything you are talking about falls in the "might be" category, not the "necessarily is the case" category.  What you are purporting might be true, but not necessarily.


Yah, I'm such a scammer.  ::)

We were being very careful not to label.  Remember what I said about throwing stones?  You are not going to be earning yourself any points of favor or credibility with this.  ;)


Heuristic, itself, implies a lack of proof by its very definition.  If you have proven it then you have no need for, nor opportunity of, a heuristic measure of it.  If a thing can *only* be shown by analytic methods then it is something that inherently cannot ever be proven.

You didnt google it yet ha?

and please stop to judge me, we are talking about work, look at your post, every second one is about judging me...so this is not theme. You dont know me, you dont understand POM in other activities, I said learn it first then judge. Your point about proof is not a point it is philosophy, nothing more! Proof of market is derivate from economy, I didnt invent it I just know to use it :)

I researched the phrasing extensively before even replying to your initial posting in the other thread.  Since then I've continued to intermittently attempt to track down where you found these absurdist notions.

The etymology is particularly interesting to me.  It indicates that you were trained in a particular sector of market development, during a distinct span of time, in a very specific regional portion of the EU.  The phrase has not seen broader adoption outside of this particular origination.

Most curious is the indication that this phrase is rarely used in this unqualified form.  I've seen it in two specific qualified forms of "proof of market value" referring to an existence proof of a trade spot price (isomorphic to "proof of concept" which certainly can't be what you refer to in your materials, as per my explanation that it is a retroactive existence proof, only, and this would amount to an intractable circular reasoning on your part) and "proof of market power" which appears to be a colloquialism meaning the same as the more broadly (and accurately) applied term "traction."  From everything you have said it is pretty clear that you intend this second qualified form as your definition.

One of the best treatments of the subject (there are not many) was probably contained within the survey "EFFECTIVE USE OF DISCOVERY IN TRADE REGULATION CASES: PROVING (OR CONTESTING) MARKET POWER CLAIMS" from Enns&Archer (also interestingly one of the only usages of the phrase in the Americas that I came across, at all) which certainly held the closest thing to a meaningful formal definition.  Most to the point, it prefaces this definition with the following cautionary detail:

In other words: "that thing which I've been saying over and over but which you refuse to hear."


You were so very quick to judge proof-of-play (an actual proof model where provable things get proven, with proofs) as being some "copy paste" from your (subsequent) whitepaper.  Why should our work be subject to such hasty scrutiny but yours should stand immune?

What purpose can proof serve if not to be shared for the explicit intent of seeking judgement?  Why even claim proof if not to invite the criticism of it?  What other role can a claim of something proven fill?


I did.  I've studied (rather extensively, now) what little material has been produced (all from a specific western culture) offering any exposition of the subject.  All of the materials that I've found seem to reinforce my conclusions.  I invite you to reference some materials which don't.


Philosophy deals with nothing but "the point" and rejects anything external to it, by definition.  It is "nothing more" than the study of truth, itself.  Why you seem to readily reject this, and what your alternative definition for philosophy might be, eludes me.


This is something that has had me quite befuddled throughout this discussion.  You seem to simultaneously be claiming both some innovative novelty and some established precedent both around the same concept.  Is "proof of market" really a novel and unique feature of your coin, as your marketing materials would indicate, or is it something that every coin implicitly carries, as your discourse here would indicate?  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

P.S.
What happened to your "ignoring" plan?  I thought it sounded like a good plan, since you were refusing to hear us anyway.  Seems like it would've been less headache for all if you had stuck to it.  I hope you're better with follow through on your business marketing plan than you were with your ignoring me plan.

As you understood it correctly POM and proof of market was created as one of the parts of marketing and economy analysis and uses which could be implemented in all, lets say sort of life. When I say sort of life it means people activites. So its feature is to determine the market and to involve activity into it with giving smallest percent of risk into it. That risk which consist of more human mistakes than proofing the market have to have negligible ammount of existence.

In other term calling it "proving market power" it looses meaning and uses word power at the central point. Proof of market comes from US as defining the market using and it is lets say new area in terms of economy and marketing. That means that I need to collaborate with other parts of activities and be central point in using some product, promoting and selling it on a market. From my central point of activity I need to proove that this product would be usable and adaptable with all possible choices, opportunities and possible negative unplanned impacts. That means that I need to have plan B, plan C, plan D, which I call phases and I incorporated them into evaluation and upgrading process.

So I need to proof my intention with all possible inabilities and it could be done with using analysys, making plan B,C,D....making oportunities etc.

Proof of market is understanding future activites in terms of usability some product. So I have games which is proof. It is not to trust me or you or anybody, thats why I made paper which you look and understand. You cannot compare it with crypto proofs like POW or other becuase those are exact number predictionwhich is into of system of technology, computers, internet. In POM you have people which you cannot define on numbers but you need to translate activity into numbers (calendar, indexes etc.).

About my ignore, I am giving you one more chance :) just kidding, this talk is more precise and upgradable than just attacking on first posts.

This is inherently something that is unable to ever be proven.  You can show a correlation and disprove the null hypothesis but that is all, no more.


Intention is also something inherently non-provable.


Future potentialities are a third thing that fall into the "unable to be proven" category.


Your paper itself requires us to "just trust" it. Precisely the problem, here, is that your paper can't be taken as necessarily true.  It is speculative, instead.  It presumes a correlation and declares intents and makes predictions, but we must simply trust you that the correlation is real, that your intents are actually as stated, and that your predictions will come to pass.  Nothing can ever prove that any of these three things, either independently or in conjunction, will necessarily be the case, in any way that doesn't require an assumption of blind faith in your statements.  As such we can never prove the result, only assume it.  At best we can, as I said, disprove the null hypothesis in support of our assumption, but this still proves nothing - only disproves a thing.  ;)


Saying "you can't compare my proofs to other proofs" belies the very nature of proof.  There can only be one definition of proof, to claim two definitions of proof violates consistency of reasoning and makes any subsequent conclusion unsound.

Further, proofs do not necessarily have to have anything to do with numbers, and having a lack of numeric definition does not preclude an ability to prove.  A proof need not contain any ordinal to still hold as a proof, so this argument is spurious.

My intentions are proovements in world without 0 and 1 I need to proove it other way.

Tell me, how are banks are giving millions of $ to bussines planers and marketing planers? Because of their proof. What is that proof? Their intention that they will do something on some way with proof!!! So many many many many millions are prooven by proof of market!

How could investors invest millions of $ into movies and games? Because of proof. They are not giving money after the movie or game have been made...they are giving money because they are prooved that this movie or game will get them more. It is also proof of market work, but in movie it is called pitching and in games industry it is called claimed money. But papers which are you giving to investors for movie and games are called proofs of markets! So more millions and millions and millions of dollars are going into proofs of market.

So whatever you claims and in terms of comparing it with programming work you are right but into this world where you need to proove harder things with infinitely combinations of possibilities, you need to proof to somebody something, in this case our intention to import freshcoins into games. In movies world it is pitching money, in game dev world it is claimed money...so for many more of activities than just programming we are calling that proof of market.

So your word against billions of $ ;)

Now who is being "narrow"?


Again, proof need not having anything to do with any particular set.  While I get the impression that you are most familiar with the two forms which we might call "natural ordinal proof" (proof with numbers) and "boolean proof" (binary computation)  these are not the only forms of proof that can be.  Proof need not necessarily even be over enumerated sets, at all.  We are most familiar with notions of schema from ZFC, but ZF are not the only logics and many interesting things can be proven without even admitting any predefined set beyond the natural universe hierarchy.  Modern work in type theory is some amazing stuff, and to assume any of it has much of anything to do with numbers or booleans would be quite misinformed.

I have some suggested reading material for you, now that I better understand what your misconceptions about the nature of proof stem from.  I highly suggest you start with a simple treatment like "Logic: A Very Short Introduction" by Graham Priest, Oxford Press, for a general understanding of formalism, what can/can't be proven, and how/why.  You should then move on to the early works (check out http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/ (http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/)) focusing on the ones related to scholastic view of material reality and specifically on the nature of things knowable but external to that material.  In particular, I would read Leibniz and specifically the Monadology.  I hope that you will take to it, and find it enlightening.

(An aside:  Strictly speaking, even bitcoin's proof of work has nothing to do with numbers.  One way function output (secure hashes) are not formally numbers.  They are not meaningfully ordinal.  You can't arrange them inductively in an order along a line. If they were ordinal then they would not be useful for cryptography, because if they were actually "just" numbers then we could readily sequence them and establish an inverse mapping, breaking the security offered.)


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

No seriously, I've been laughing for awhile at this.  My sides hurt.  You hurt my sides.

When banks give money to business and marketing planners they are doing so speculatively, like any investment they make and understand very well that they have no proof.  Speculation is precisely the opposite action to proving.  Speculating is guessing and proving is ensuring that no guesswork is necessary.  This lack of provability is why risk management infrastructure is so critical.  For someone with a background in finance I'm very surprised that you would even purport that banks have any dealings with proofs.  Their very existence is predicated on the inability to prove certain things, like future ROI, risk free rates, or (luls) success of business planners' analysis and administrators' execution.  If we could prove these things then we would have no need for banks, VC, or even corporations.

Oh, we'd also each be infinitely wealthy, because we could all just prove some arbitrarily high ROI assurance on our own self-investments, profit endlessly, and assert our own maximal utility as unbounded..  (Fun things are provable from logical inconsistencies.  In fact, one very important point that you will learn as you come to a better understanding of what are and are not things that we can call proven, provable, or a proof, is that once you are able to conclude an inconsistent assertion within your logic you can go on to logically conclude anything you wish.  From an absurdity, any conclusion follows.  From your youtube video's proof of 1+1=3 I can go on to formally prove that the universe will end in one week, if we wanted.  Fun fact: this is how reductio ad absurdum works.)


This is awesome.  You have boiled down your own circular reasoning to a very succinct logical form.  I applaud you.  I could not have put it better myself.

Your argument is that the proof is true because people will do some things predicated upon the proof being true.  PROBLEM HERE!  Your proof can not become inherently true by some actions of some people which are predicated upon it being inherently true!  It isn't true unless it is, so it isn't.  In order to be true, it needs to be true, which doesn't necessarily make it true in and of itself.  With nothing else added to make it start being true, it remains false.

People might not (and probably wont, if you can't at least disprove the null hypothesis)  behave in the way that you would expect them to if the proof were true, so the proof cannot necessarily become true by them behaving in such a way.  It is entirely possible that nobody but you ever makes a single transaction on your network again after I click post.  Your usage could presumably drop to 0 after your next block is hashed, so no conclusion predicated upon any further action of any participant could remain valid, because you could simply have no more participation!

You can't predicate a proof upon the very conclusion of that proof.  This is slightly different from how my hypothetically stating "frangomel is an asshole because just trust me" does not prove you to be an asshole, but is more like how my hypothetically stating "frangomel is an asshole because frangomel is going to behave like an asshole because frangomel is an asshole" similarly does not necessarily prove that you are an asshole, on it's own.  There is nothing in the statement that logically asserts that you will not behave UNlike an asshole, so my proof can't hold.  The best I could do is show the relationship between time and your behavior, to disprove a null hypothesis that your behavior might be simply random, and offer up some evidence, but I still cannot prove that you are an asshole, only that you seem to *have been* one in the past.  I could go on structure a probabilistic proof that accounts for a statistical likelihood of behavior via this correlation and prove "frangomel is probably going to behave like an asshole" by showing that you have tended toward such behavior, and in turn derive from that "frangomel is probably an asshole" but this is not nearly the same as proving "frongmel is an asshole."

For all of the same reasons that I cannot prove that you are an asshole, you cannot prove the market. (or "market power" as they seem to more commonly say, regardless of whether or not you enjoy the inclusion of the word power.)

They are, logically, the same sort of claim with the same kinds of logical fallacies behind them.  Neither is necessarily true, though either potentially could be.

Are you getting the picture yet?

(P.S. *ARE* you disproving the null hypothesis?  You don't even seem to be doing this in a reasonably way anywhere yet?  What is your R squared, exactly?  How much determination are you making in your "proof" that is actually an analysis?)


Nope, this is a great example of logically rationalizing one inconsistent statement by assuming another.  Your "many millions claim" doesn't hold if your "proof of market claim" on which it is predicated can't hold.  Nothing was proven as following from proof of market, because proof of market wasn't actually proven first.  In fact, even if you try to argue a probabilistic proof that many millions were "probably" demonstrated, by looking over the null hypothesis for the past decade of market power metrics, you will find that you can't even draw out that correlation because it isn't there.

Markets crashed, or did you miss that?

Maybe too many people in finance, like you, thought that they had proofs of things like either "market" or "market power."  If so, they should have studied general reasoning and the definition of "market" much more before drawing such an absurd conclusion.  (Please don't repeat and perpetuate their mistakes, at best it would just be a waste of everyone's time and at worst it would be downright dangerous.  Another spectrum that it is probably best to take explicit action in order to exclude yourself from even being measured against.)


Usually, they do both in series rounds.  First, they will make a fully speculative investment as you describe.  Nothing at all is proven or provable at this stage, they might lose every penny and never see it again.

If the product does materialize and a market for it comes to exist (meaning people buy it) then they can prove one new thing - existence of some prior market.  In other words, once they have sold one unit of whatever they can offer an existence proof that there *was* some market for the thing because the definition of market follows from the definitions of buyer and seller.  Before you make a sale you have only a seller, so no market is made. (Subtle pun intended!)  Once you have a trade between a distinct buyer and seller, you have a market, so QED!  However, what they can't prove is that there is any additional market now, or if there will be any market in the future.  As soon as they make that one sale they "lose the buyer in the present" and can not prove that any second and third buyers will necessarily come in.  This provability of "any" prior market is usually not enough, alone, to raise more capital from the bank or other investor, but it is usually enough to keep them from demanding some immediate return of their purely speculative investment and seeking damages for fraud.  ;)

Let's assume that the market does "sustain" for a span, with lots of buying and selling happening over time.  Now one other new thing can be proven, and that is correlation of the market over that time.  For some "thing external to the market" we can disprove the null hypothesis (show that our numbers are not just random relative to that "thing external") over the prior market state and demonstrate a correlation.  This still only proves "this correlation probably existed" and notably does not prove that it did exist, that it does exist now, or that it will exist in the future.  Usually this probabilistic proof over the past *is* enough, if it shows positive growth correlations, to secure new rounds of investments.  However, no bank goes into these additional rounds of investments with any more delusion about some proof of expectation than they went into their initially entirely speculative round with.  They understand that they are just "doubling down" on one speculative investment with another speculative investment, nothing more.

Past performance is not indicative of future results.  Surely you are familiar with this concept.  Do you argue that it is to be somehow shown not to hold, by your proofs?  If so, you'd simply be another irrational lunatic who thinks he has some crystal ball, and our conversation would be over.  I hope I am not trying to argue rationality with a madman, I've made that mistake in the past a few times.


You seem to have this weird idea that anything recorded, written down, can be called proof if it just "sounds believably good/reasonable enough."  If this were the sum of how we defined proof then we'd be in some trouble.  It would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to ever come to any agreement about what is reality.  I could write "Frangomel is an asshole" without even a "because..." following and it could stand as a proof that you are, in reality, an asshole.  I don't think either of us want that.


I have, for some time now, been trying to disassociate this notion of programming from what we are talking about.  These principles significantly predate any "programming work."  Their applications to contemporary technologies are irrelevant.


Things like "intent" or "a pitch" can't prove anything to anyone.  Intent logically cannot be proven, and "a pitch" is always a speculative beast.  These are different and distinct activities from proving a thing.  Why you want to conflate them is a bit strange to me.  (Also, tangentially, this phrase "claimed money" has an interesting etymology as well, and is a bit strange to me.  I'm curious about your usage, but that is neither here nor there.)


I have not given "my word" here, only tried to explain some very basic and incontrovertible principles of philosophy to you.  I've offered no promise of anything.  I've tried to show you "our word" or the stuffs that we rational people consider to be definitive of truth.

Your very explicit rejection of these principles says so much more about the value of your word than anything I might have to say as "my word" anyway.

At the end of the day, that is what this all comes down to - the value of your word.

I am trying to simple it, you are complicated, beside you are ironic, satirical and so on...but ok, I will go further and over that.

You are constantly trying to put things into logical matter. Proof of me or you or he or she is an asshole doesnt mean that I am, you are, he is, she is an asshole, even if you proof that!!! Why, because nothing is logical even it is logical or looking logical. That is philosophy.

So you are telling that banks, Europe, America, Asia whole world are giving money just on papers, without proof?! I said there is risk and it should be. But proof for which are they giving money or anything else must be proven.

Before few months my job was to proof to European commitee why should I do some movie :

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/calls/index_en.htm#_status=open

they send me this mail with text: (For the attribution of the automatic points to your application, please provide us with the proof of the co-production by sending us by e-mail a scanned copy of your signed and dated co-production agreement or deal memo by 11/09/2014 at the latest.)

and why would they want to give money to me?! So their word proof is not good because you are telling it is not proof. Just to remind you I sent them proof of market of the movie and they wanted co-production agreement as a proof of doing things with other production company! Is that proof or not, you will say it isnt, they (Creative europe) said it is ok, with proof of market :). So they wanted criterias, I send them. I wrote criterias in our conversation before, so you have them.

So, do I need to send them a letter with your explanation about proof. I think that they will say HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA :) and I will not get any money :) or better...you can send them explanation about philosophy of proof!

EDIT: Realized that I had this sitting in drafts for quite some time now.  Going to go ahead and actually click post now, over a week later.   :-\


Good.  All I'm asking is that you "simple it" down to being so simple that it is entirely axiomatic before you call "it" a proof.


Aren't we all. I'm glad that you can admit this of me, and would hope that you can admit it of yourself. If you can, we might just hope to get along some day after all.


Oh dear me.  Again, do you really want to be seen as rejecting this notion?  If you don't take rationality of logic very dearly to heart, how are we expected to even trust your logical proof-carrying-network (coin) let alone your "just trust me" claims and promises?  Without rationality there can be no basis for trust.  I hope you would see why even this statement puts you back onto that spectrum of "misguided at best and scam at worst" that I think you probably want to avoid entirely if you're to have any hope for real long-term success of your coin.


Correct!  I am glad that we agree on that much.  What is interesting is the "even if you proof that" which is central to my point.  You cannot "proof" those things.  They are "unproofable"!  ;D

I only illustrate them to better point to why such things are unproofable, and generally what the nature of proofable and unproofable things are, particularly in the context of your project.  Again, if you are going to claim some proofing as a marketable feature of your coin, you're going to have to be very ready for some peer criticism of your proofs.  What I'm throwing at you is "nothing" right?  If you want to succeed in this proclaimed endeavor, you're going to inevitably either face some "crazy" levels of strict criticism of you notions of proof... and we haven't even gone "deep" into these notions, yet... or you are going to fail to investor scrutiny.  If you're going to slap "proof of market" on your coin, start a "proof of market" discussion thread, and then go into other threads and attack other devs who are (LOL) doing serious proof related work you better be *really* ready to talk about proofs in general, and yours specifically.  Am I wrong?  Either you are very ready to do this at any particular time, or you inevitably fail.  As crypto-currency, if you inevitably fail at some future point then you are (or, arguably just "might as well be") failing already, because the rational thing for any investor to do is to sell right now.

I'm only your first challenger on this.  Imagine if some real investment source wanted to do some real assessment of your claims, and brought in actual experts on the philosophies and sciences of markets!  If you can't stand up to my scrutiny then you certainly couldn't hope to survive theirs.


No, philosophy is the study of reality, both logical and non-logical.  You cannot study the boundary between that which is/isn't real with only an understanding of one side of it!  I suggest you add "Nothing: A Very Short Introduction" by Frank Close and "Unknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of Algebra" by John Derbyshire to your reading list for (respectively) scientific and and mathematical treatments of the concepts around that which is outside of the real.


Is this not the very definition of speculation?  They do have some proofs some time, like an existence proof of design and engineering work in the form of schematics, or proof over some preceding market returns, for example.  What I am saying is that they do not have proof over things that you seem to be claiming that they do, or even can.  Further, I am claiming that the conclusions (and even marketing strategy) that follow from your claims are equivocation over the very meaning of proof - something that we hold very dear to our hearts in this community.  (Again, this funny nature of proof is what gives us hope of bettering those very banks, and is why we even exist as a distinct community, is it not?)


You've said a few times, in a few ways, that proof must be proven over time, which is not true.  You conflate the act of making something appear true over time (by contradiction of the null hypothesis) with the act of proving.  The act of proving is simply the process of discovering and recording the proof.  A proof does not become true because I think of it and write it down.  It is true because it is necessarily so, independent of time.  It is true because it has always been true, and will always be true, no matter what other true (or false!) things get said external to it, or when they get said relative to it first being said.  The act of saying the proof has no impact on the proof itself beyond making it known to us.  It is true because it must be true, and for no other reason, or it is not a proof at all.  If it is only true in the past and not necessarily true in the future (no matter how well supported) then it is not a proof, it is an analysis.

The only thing we can do "over time" is measurement of the past.  This is the very difference between mathematics/philosophy and science.  Only math and philosophy can ever prove the reality, science can only disprove the non-reality, the null hypothesis, the "nothing" in our universes.  Only science can approach a void claim by disputing it with measurement.  For math and philosophy to actually touch a void claim (a "bottom inhabitant") at all is (with only minor exceptions) a total self destruction of the supposed reasoning.

This is my central theme.

Any measure of a market is a science, and constitutes an analysis and not a proof.

Math and philosophy are timeless, inevitably true in their logic, and immutably sound in their reasoning.

You are offering up some science. (It is even questionable science.  If you're going to call your analysis a "proof" even just in being obtuse you at least have to be ready to show a lot of supporting data with a very low error, right? That is beside my point.)

Further, you are making statements (and conclusions) that treat the science you are offering as if it were math instead.  You are purporting that your science should be taken as internally consistent (within some sane bound of reason) as if it were a philosophy, and claiming that as such some conclusions drawn from it can, and should, be taken as fact.

Further still, you are asking people to put money into your endeavor predicated upon those (entirely not-necessarily-true) "facts."

Further yet you are calling the collective motions "proof of market" almost as if to add insult to injury by debasing the actual math on which our community (your market) is founded.

Even further more you show up on threads accusing others' actual maths of just being redundant of your brand new mathematical invention. (Which is neither mathematical, nor novel.)


Right, so they were asking for some statement which asserted a conclusion called "proof of co-production."  From context, I can see that they define "proof of co-production" as being predicated on a disjunction of either a "co-production agreement" or a "deal memo" which in turns carries a constraint of being of the "signed and dated" kind of these things.  I can see how if you sent them one of these things it would have proven to them that a co-production was implied, and that this could serve as something called "proof of the co-production."

And?


Predicated upon only knowing the singular fact that the movie was, in reality, a co-production by way of an existence proof of a thing in a set we call a "signed and dated co-production agreements or deal memos" they probably wouldn't.


No, I very much agree with them that what they were requesting constitutes a proof certificate over the fact that it was a co-production.  Why you seem to think that this has any relation to forming a proof of market power has me puzzled.

Do you think this proof of co-production somehow should prove something more than the presence of a co-production?  Should it somehow assert some aspect of the free market?


The proof of co-production is a proof of co-production.  This has no bearing on any proof of any market.

Why do you think that the two hypothetical proofs would necessarily have any relationship to one another?  (The fact that you go beyond this to claim and jump to the notion that there might even be a metatheory around such sorts of relationships in general is quite amusing to me, but we'll leave that for another time.)


? What criterias for what?  Anyway what I'm looking for is axioms, not criteria.  Criteria has nothing to do with proof, only with bounding your analysis.  Again, you're confusing science, and criterion, which occur relative to time, with axiomatic conclusions, which are independent of time.


With what purpose?


I think if you do get their money it is not because anything is proven, but because they guess that it is probably a good idea to give you their money.
In any case I doubt that they'd find our conversation so humorous as I find your notion that their investments are in any way predicated upon something having been proven.

(Let us know if you do get the money or not.)


I'm sure they would be welcome to join the thread.  I'm sure that if you ever have anyone else doing a similar due diligence over your works related to this coin initiative instead of your works related to some hypothetical movie they will certainly review our discourse, and these specific notions on your claims.  (If nothing else, they will want to see history of your PR skills in action.)

How do you think their review will look, so far?  Do you understand why, as things stand now, they will still have to include you on that gradient between "confused" and "fraud" yet?  Do you understand how easily you could put the whole question to rest?  Do you understand that how you've handled this situation so far reflects directly on your coin, as well?

You should, given the particulars of your absurd claims.  ;)

(P.S. Funny that it is called "due diligence" and not "due assertion" - due diligence is another function that a bank performs specifically because of things that fall into the category of that which is unable to be proven, and can only be accounted for diligently by way of scientific measure, not accounted for in totality by way of proof.  It is a science, not a philosophy.  Is the difference between the two becoming clearer yet?)

Sorry have lots of work around freshcoin :)

uhhhh there is lots of contradictions in your text like proof is not proof and proof is proof and it means it is proof hmmmm. We are talking about proof for a long time here and our perception of proof is obviously different. You cannot define it as you cannot define lets say behaviour of lets say yourself. You will say you are great, I will say you are not so great and nobody will be right! Does it proof that you are good guy or bad guy :) (you as example).

I am again simplifying things, so I think that in different conditions proof could be differently define. Main guideline is that proof of you as a good man is for you enough or it isnt, for me it isnt or is and vice versa (this is just example). So when we look at POW it is not prooven for me till it is end. What is end...hmmmmm for me it is when I finish work, for you is when you finish your work, but generally it is not proof because coins will not be prooven because there are lots of other factors which influence on it (mostly humans - good intention, bad intention). For example I will not get any coin if there is bad intention from main developer or else. Again, trying to simplify but what is simple or it is for me :)

Main point is perception of things and it is going to philosophy or quantum physics which is not simple. But again, my attitude is to make it simple, not to fraud or have bad intention from start which is mostly given in crypto world!

I understand, I am quite busy myself lately.


Huh?  What statements have I made that are contradictory?


Yes, unfortunately perception is not fact.  While we are talking about proof mechanics, I have a fun one that is related to this notion of differing perceptions.  (Maybe I already brought it up, so I apologize if this is reiterative.)

This is a classic:  All persons are either arrogant or inconsistent.

Proof: Either one believes that everything that they believe to be true is true, in which case they are arrogant, or they believe that some of what they believe to be true is not true, in which case they are inconsistent.  You must be one or the other, and there is no escape.  QED.

So, which are you?

Personally, I try to tend toward arrogance over inconsistency, if you haven't noticed, so I am very curious as to where you find me to be self-contradictory! ;)


This is where your perception is simply incorrect.  Proof is not only defined, it is the root of all other definition.  It is simply "that which must be."  If proof, itself, could not be defined then nothing at all could be defined in turn, and we'd have no ability to rationalize our existence. This obviously isn't the case, thankfully.  Because we can define proof we can define things in general.  (Hooray for set theory!)


Huh?  Again nothing can prove the ephemeral qualification of "good guy" or "bad guy" in precisely the same way that nothing can prove the ephemeral qualification of "market."  Again you've confused logic (math and philosophy) with science (analysis) in your statements.  A person isn't good because they logically must be good, a person is only evidenced as good in the past.  A market doesn't show traction because it logically must show traction, the market only shows evidence of historical traction in the past.  You can never prove a person good, you can only disprove them as historically bad by excluding the null hypothesis over measure of their action in the past to within some margin of error.  Doing so proves nothing of their current state, and says nothing of their "goodness" in the future.  You have the same conundrum in your "proof" of market.  You can never prove the state of the market, you can only measure it in the past.  You can't apply philosophy, only science.  You're offering a (questionable) science to be applied, and purporting it as logical.  (In most cultures, this is considered a form of fraud.  Again, I have to go back to the question of the spectrum between being confused and being a scam.  Do you really want to be seen as either of these, or anything between?)


Nope, there can only be the one definition of "that which must be" or we run into problems.  Any other definition is inevitably an equivocation.

Restated, there can only be one set of "that which must be" because there is only one set of "that which is and was." As such there can be only one set of validity criteria for both proof (math) and for analysis (science) and if we admit anything else we run into nasty problems.  In particular, the inconsistency of having more than one set of things which can be called true when reality asserts only one such set of true things.  If our logic becomes inconsistent with the singular reality, then it no longer functions as a logic.


I don't disagree with most of this, but it is beside the point.  A proof can be asserted in degrees.  We call these bounded models, and they are a part of the "magic" that makes the block-chain proofs reliable.  The mechanics of this became very important in the sha-3 competition, and is why MD6 was withdrawn as a candidate submission.  The proof of the hash function's security was a bounded model and it was discovered that the bounds were only correct for specific round sizes, so the proof didn't hold for the general algorithm.  The submission was pulled because we lacked a proof that it offered the security that it should at all round sizes. Since then, the proof has been extended into a better bounded proof and the proof now holds for the other round lengths.  In other words, we now know that is was "pulled for nothing" and that a correct implementation would actually offer the correct security at all rounds.  Both proofs were valid, they just proved slightly different things. Both things were true the whole time, because they are necessarily true.

We can mechanically verify either type of proof, total or bounded, so we can generally treat them the same with only a few exceptions in some crazy aspects of meta-theory involving things like proofs with sizes that are expanding power-series.  (Infinite hotel problems are fun.)

What you are offering is not a total model OR a bounded model.  It is neither type of proof.  There isn't really a third kind of proof.  If you offer up a proof it will either need to be total, or have stated bounds.


Let's not even bring QFT into the discussion, since you are having enough problems with dealing in logical notions of "past" and "present" realities (science) and general reality (math) in abstraction.  We'll just not discuss "possible future" realities at all yet, so we won't need to go into any non-classical logic for now.  At most we could talk about some deontic logic, if strictly necessary in the future. (Pun fully intended.)  Once you can establish some proofs that necessarily hold in the "present" reality then we could possibly start to talk about proving over eigenvalues in higher dimensional Hilbert spaces.  Until then we should stick to the "basics" like what is and is not possible to be reason about.

Again, all I really want from you is a true simplification.  I want you to simplify down until every single statement made is axiomatic.  (There is no other way to construct a proof, anyway.)  You say you are simplifying, but this is not consistent with your actions which have only served to introduce new context.  I want you to remove context from your statements until there is as little left as is possible.  If you can do this and what you have remaining can be taken as a collection of true statements, only then will you have constructed any proof.

If you really want to simplify, you should go right down to the most basic of basics.  Start by just stating your assumptions and axioms, nothing else.  Define everything "to be used" in your proof ahead of time.  Then we could move on to the theory, itself.

If you want to have any dealing in proof, you must follow Aristotle's order, there is no other acceptable way.

Step ONE: Define assumptions - state the things you assume are true of the context.
Step TWO: Define axioms - state things that are necessarily true of the context under the assumptions.
Step THREE: Apply theorems - show how by way of the given axioms and assumptions combined (and nothing else) some new axioms can be assumed.
Step FOUR: Demonstrate the hypothesis - show how by applying theorems a new axiom that is the very thing that was to be proven can be assumed.

Only by way of those four steps can you construct a valid proof.  Nothing else works.  There really is no other mechanism by which to coax out that which is necessarily true from our reality in a way that can assert to anyone else that it is a necessarily true thing.

Until you're prepared and able to do these four things, there is little more that I can say other than "your claimed proof is no proof" over and over.  I'm even running out of new ways to say it.  I'm sorry if this confuses you, or if you somehow find the statement self-contradictory, but if so then you are certainly not prepared for the task of proving things anyway.

Sorry again for not answering earlier...

Yes you are mostly right but there is always exclusions dependable of area of actions. I will give some lets say big examples which are connected to proof with humans actions. So when you are using POW there is only machine which needs to proove their work with calculating but if you put humans into it there is no proof because looking in prediction of what will be prooven, there will be "Pi" number of possibilites, it is infinite. So there if it is infinite there is no proof of doing something till it gets done.

I still define proof as perception of things and if you proof something that is work, that doesnt mean it is prooven, because your proofs and mine are not same. You cant fine universal apsolute proof. Maybe closest match to it is truth. Proof as a root, for sure not...if you look in nature as a proof of life, you can put out minimum two conclusions and maximum infinite!

One is that there is life, second is that life is not prooven even if we are living beings, that is contradictory so that is why I think your statements are too. I could say "Cogito ergo sum" but todays science says lots of about mind at all...from the other side life is existing but are we live or just projections of something which is not existing, or if there is multiple of us in multiuniverse who is living, all of us or nobody? Sorry for going too wide but trying to give an example.

So if it is contradictory there is no definition of it, neither that could be root of things! Root for me is our belief that proof is prooven even looking from super perception (position) there is no proof because it could be alway more prooven. I am telling again, this statement is only works if there is human actions inside of using proof but as there are humans all around combinations are infinite, so proofs are infinite.

Steps which you give to me are just assumptions for proof so with hypothesis you cant proof anything. I want to say that even if you have good intentions, from my point of view you are not right because POW, POP, POS....POM, POC etc. are just names and those are individual perceptions of user satisfaction. So proof for me is not proof for you and vice-versa, universal proof does not exist till we find golden middle of all things!