So are you telling me the model leads to more spam (low quality/big quantity sharing)?

This is where Synereo reputation model comes into play so that users who spam low quality will have lower reputation in the eyes of the target viewers. So thus this another evidence that Synereo's model of paying users to share isn't economic for users (because Tsu's users only find it most economic to share low quality/big quantity).


You would need to digest the Ethereum Paradox thread and perhaps a couple of other threads r0ach started wherein I and smooth commented. I am stating a technological conclusion that I believe we arrived at, which basically is that there is no decentralized block chain consensus that is secure (doesn't violate Nash equilibrium) with external data (external to the block chain). And without decentralization, we lose the permissionless, trustless quality that makes block chains worthwhile. Note it would help a lot if someone put that into a white paper. Perhaps on my TODO list, but I have a lot of work to do now.

Greg Meredith @ Synereo has a different model for decentralized consensus that isn't based on a block chain. It is based on (in my poor understanding) propagation within a process calculus that models the nodes. Note the AMPs use a block chain, but the other aspects of Synereo's model do not. Greg's model may have some useful applications notwidthstanding I think they have the marketing model wrong for Synereo.

Note I am not saying there might not be some way to redesign some of the aspects of Synereo's focus in order to improve the marketing plan. It is usually possible to redesign something, but that doesn't mean it is probable. The multiple reasons (biggest one being preselling AMP tokens!) I didn't choose to enter Synereo Hangouts and try to work with them instead of making my own project includes that I studied them enough to come to the conclusion that their culture of development, their various skillsets, and their existing inertia in the current focus would not be an ideal fit for what I want to do. For starters, there is no way I will be working with a guy who has himself spread all over the place (Casper, etc) and not laserbeam focused on my project. It doesn't mean I disrespect their abilities though.

As Guy Kawaski says, I have a very low tolerance for bullshit and too much blahblah (although one would wonder about that claim given the number of posts I have made in these forums).

Done. Sincere thank you. I am absolutely ignorant about the European social networks.

They are not in the market for Monero. They want to get rich quick which makes them ripe for manipulation and falling for the good story and pump. They have to learn by fire and only some will readjust their perspective. I don't see any solution to that even if you eliminated the scams they would go find them some where else, but I am trying to think of ways to present data more objectively to help some open their eyes.

Edit: If serious money moves into crypto, they will surely see Monero is the investor's choice.

I think many people are looking for the next huge adoption coin. So they are ripe for bullshit about smart contracts, etc.. Monero afaics is targeting at this point (near-term) more to investors than to users (apology if Monero's long range plans chart is not imprinted on my mind). Although more of the former could form the economy-of-scale to drive more of the latter as it did for Bitcoin (e.g. XMR.to and did that precede and form the idea for ShapeShift.io?), although Monero's main use case (for now) is anonymity and investment afaics.

Edit#2: let us not forget how much work developing crypto is. Monero has a solid open source methodical forward movement. I see other coins as quick flames, e.g. Come-from-Beyond's 12 Java files source code for Iota. I am a programmer so I understand how the man-hours pile up on this shit. To sustain that coding effort for one or two devs, is very intense. I did that in the late 1980s and again in late 1990s; and both times it was a huge sacrifice (eating and sleeping at your desk 14 x 7 for years). I tried to gear it up again in the late 2000s but mid-life maelstrom made it implausible. Trying to gear up for the late 2010s one more time. Much older now. This isn't easy but if it is fun then that is the key. Nobody will do this well and sustained if they aren't enjoying it. Appears to me Shen-noether and fluffy are enjoying this.

Monitoring the short-term exchange(s) noise continuously can be very stressful.

Monero won't have Bitcoin's scaling problem until the transaction rate and market cap are much higher. Interim it should have an upgrade to RingCT, so I think it is given that 2016 - 2017 Monero will have a very significant rise as priced in BTC. Clearly XMR has broken out above of the downwedge as priced in BTC. I do think we still have a correction in BTC coming though, so I'd be keeping some dry US dollar powder on the table for a few months before going all in.

Beyond that it gets murkier. Because for example, I presume I will launch in 2017 with a real solution to the economies-of-scale economics of the scaling problem but even I recognize there is a long way to go between that plan and the actual accomplishment, so even I can't predict with 100% surety that event, much less all the other variables in play.

I don't see any other altcoin in 2016 ready to displace Monero as the free market, reliable alternative for parking money escaping the accelerating collapse of the peripheral markets (outside the USA) with Europe ready to march over the cliff after the BREXIT vote. I might have a Seedr IPO within 2016 at best, but that will be for the corporation not the token (which will be separately fair proof-of-work launched).

I am not referring to other pumps that are approaching as I can't predict the timing irrationality of gamblers, scammers, and the n00b prey who are learning by fire. I am referring to those well informed, serious investors who need to hedge against Bitcoin's scalepocalyspe and increasing centralization of mining especially 65% pool control in China. Look around and there is no other option with a CPU friendly hash function that is ready for prime time. Note I have not analyzed for example Lisk and Waves. I presume Lisk is more smart contract nonsense. Waves appears to be about colored coins, but I haven't studied thoroughly. We don't know yet when Zerocash (Z.cash) will launch and whether it will really be ready for prime time. One would presume it will have issues given the inexperience in crypto-currency of the developers.

Fluffypony et al, IMO now is the time to double-down on your coding effort and get the upgrade out as well as the GUI (if that is still an issue).

To others and their altcoins, I am not saying you have no chance to see a free market driven (not pump scam) rise in price also. On a case-by-case basis.

Disclaimer: I haven't really been paying close attention (because my head also needs to be in the sand on my own work) and others may have more well researched opinion.

RFC:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1426481.0

It is alleged that many (if not most) altcoins are P&D schemes where the float is significantly controlled by a small group of insiders and vested interests, who can buy from themselves to pump up the volume, price, and market cap.

Ranking altcoins by market caps seems to influence newbies to make irrational investments. "Hey ShitCoin#5 is worth $billion, thus I could be worth $million is I own 1/1000th of it!" But failing to account for the fact that the liquidity is fake and thus attempting to sell for $million would collapse the price.

I thus suggest an idea for a new metric for ranking altcoins.

Sqrt(M x H)

M = Mean transactions fees paid per unit time to decentralized proof-of-work miners
H = hash rate (normalized in electricity cost per hash to SHA256).

Note transaction fees paid to staked miners (e.g. proof-of-stake or Dash's masternodes) can't qualify as transaction fees, because the miner is certain to win a block and can pay himself as much transaction fees as he wants to without any true cost. While this is also true of proof-of-work, this is offset by multiplying by the hashrate, because as the hashrate increases, then the likelihood any particular miner can win a block decreases over any chosen period of time and the overall costs of controlling the mining increases (which is not true for staked miners).

Also increased hashrate implies increased security against a 50% attack, assuming the hashrate is well distributed.

The metric doesn't capture the advantage of having a very high transaction load relative to the hashrate, which is an advantageous electrical efficiency. If anyone can think of how to incorporate this into a metric, please share.

Wish the CC news sites would put some effort into doing a study on this. To put some realistic sober data out there instead of the incessant prostituting of half-assed research in articles pumping shitcoins to newcomers.

Replace "questions" with "questions or asserted facts" and "coin B" with "reputation of the person asking the questions or asserting facts" as another case of this.

Diversionary obfuscation instead of debating the facts.

You apparently don't understand marketing. Let me try to teach.

The key motivation you are tapping into is the ideological desire to prevent that revenue from going to the centralized behemoth which then abuses the best interests of the users— not the irrelevant individual income. People are not going to be swayed as to whether to share or not share based on the offer of that miniscule income, and in fact it will be insulting to many.

So the users have the ideological motivation, but when it comes down to it, they prioritize what is convenient, efficient, and serves real needs they have, such as contacting mom and cousins on Facebook. That is the hurdle the the irrelevant income offer doesn't solve.


I think it is ideologically perking, but it is not a feature that users will give up their existing contacts and vested inertia in Facebook for.

Users have a finite cognitive and time resource which they allocate to the highest priorities in their lives.

I think it is because it is a topic victims find embarrassing and would rather forget? We are males (mostly here) and I presume we don't like to be perceived as weak or having failures of judgement.

What I don't understand is where are all the people who lost money on P&Ds? Why do we never hear from them?

The problem right now is I only read in this Altcoin Discussion forum about how excited people are about having bought some altcoins low and selling them for multi-baggers. I don't ever hear from the people who lost money. Where are they? Where did they go?

Without the sordid stories from the losers, everyone thinks it is silly to not try to get rich quick.

Why would being semi-pro diminish your ability to be anonymous? Because you need access to cheap electricity at-scale? Micro-hydropower could probably provide that if you are willing to amortize the fixed cost investment over a period of years and could lease the access from a rural landowner. Not saying though that anyone has that level of motivation to be mine anonymously at-scale.

I think you are correct it is the permissionless quick entry for small timers that is most compelling.

It is a loss when you obtain your coins anonymously without needing to exchange through fiat? That is probably worth something extra to some people, especially for an anonymous coin's target market.

Let's say you want crypto-currency in Venezuela or Russia where it is currently afaik illegal and the Gestapo may be monitoring you. And then the coming capital controls in the West probably 2018.

I presume XMR's mining is more decentralized since there is yet no ASIC and afaik it is as CPU friendly as GPU in terms hashes per Watt. Given that 65% of Bitcoin's mining is run through Chinese mining pools and within that perhaps a large portion of the hashrate is centralized amongst ASIC mining farms, I assume Bitcoin's market float is more manipulated than Monero's.

Does that make sense? Is Monero the most free market crypto currency right now?

I am not "miscorrelating" any thing here. Earning miniscule revenue for sharing isn't a compelling feature.

I haven't seen any compelling feature or niche articulated for Synereo. I've read a 50+ page Synereo white paper of technobabble about process calculi.

This is How We Do.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1424386.msg14427015#msg14427015



rangedriver, my health is improving significantly. Thank you! Hope it sustains.

Is experience more valuable than brilliance?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1424386.msg14427015#msg14427015

Because of Greg Meredith's process calculus math  

Because they presold AMPs for vaporware and zero adoption  

Because they are doing an ostensibly illegal, unregistered investment securities ICO  

Math isn't marketing. Soon all my haters and doubters will learn a lesson about disrespecting experience.


Agreed. P&Ds work well here when we are in a positive market. If the market for Bitcoin shifts into selloff, then so will the altcoins.

You don't buy steel toe work boots to play basketball.

The community here wants to earn profit on easy P&Ds, not the arduous slough of using a new social network which they don't have any use case for. Why should a speculator waste his time trying to be a user of a social network when he can make 100X more money buying low and selling high by simply lying to fools in this forum. You would have to make decentralized social network use more profitable than lying.

Good luck on that. 

Putting my words into action finally:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg14427012#msg14427012