In the current situation, I understand it as a data gathering tool and a method to test the success of proposed changes.
The data is essentially an expression of users' perceptions, perhaps even users' perceptions of others' perceptions. The threat of perceptual distortions introduced by pluralistic ignorance is an important issue to consider, especially given the inexpressiveness of the value transfer protocol. There is no mechanism to transfer value other than that which can be described with cryptography, specifically it is incapable of transmitting the societal values that are normally mediated by all the stuff that comes with embeddedness. The lack of identity is a double-edged sword. It protects the individual from group coercion but it also robs the individual of the essential benefits of interpersonal relations with other group members, which is where the threat from pluralistic ignorance starts to come in. No it isn't voting, but it is opinion polling and that's not exactly an under-developed field. An expression of support for a 'petition' is essentially a statement that, given the update is released, that user will update their software.
That's one way of viewing it. I think opinion polling is a more accurate and more useful model of what's actually going on. It is a means to independently prove that a threshold triggered-fork would be successful.
This is a social thing in essence and so all you're ever going to have to work with are warm fuzzies (aka “statistics”). Cheers and Season's Greetings Graham |
|
|
|
This system is very similar to the the early American restriction of voters to male property owners.
No it is not similar. One system requires voter registration whereas the other has no inherent notion of identities or individual accounts. They're as different as chalk and cheese. The term “petition” is semantically misleading in this context as it implies the existence of an authority able to grant the petitioner's request; no such authority can exist in a peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency BY DEFINITION. This leads me to conclude that the approach itself rests on profoundly flawed assumptions and is unlikely to serve the advertised purpose. There are other approaches that are suitable but I have rather a different model of the task, so it's moot whether they have any relevance to the specific context of what's intended to be achieved by the CLAMS petition approach. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
ANN text is incoherent, needs cleanup: TickCoin [TC] are distributed by the ratio of IPO BTC
InterestCoin[IC] earnings: Distribution 10000 TickCoin [IC] every day,and Dividend trading system.
Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
For the best chance of success for a cryptocurrency, we want to have the greatest emotional investment in its userbase. The amount of wealth each user has invested in that cryptocurrency could be used as a rough measure of emotional investment, so the sum of wealth invested (market cap) is the measure I use to determine what ledger has the best chance for users of cryptocurrency in general of accepting.
Just too vague to be useful empirically. Using tokens as a proxy for emotional investment may make sense to an economist but from a psychologist's perspective it is a profoundly flawed approach. At the least, any notion of “amount of wealth” is unavoidably relative to local conditions which makes the whole thing opaque and ineffective either as a source of potential insight or as a measuring rod. There just isn't enough intellectual/theoretical support to allow an empirically testable hypothesis to be proposed. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I'm going to run an experiment in the value of cryptocurrency, by creating an altcoin based off litecoin that starts with a snapshot of the bitcoin ledger.
I assume that you are aware of CLAMS (BTC/LTC/DOGE snapshot) but others may not be. I want to see how much the current market cap value of litecoin is determined by its technology, vs how much from its user base.
vs how much from its (completely different) distribution model. Modelling weaknesses stemming from necessary assumptions will prohibit any reliable quantitative analysis. I believe that ultimately all altcoins should start from a snapshot of the ledger of the cryptocurrency with the largest market cap at the time.
Any support for that? - like addressing the fact that coins “coins issued/available” != stocks/shares and that in the context of cryptocurrency the concept of “market capitalisation” is actually just a seductively simple metaphor that brings no reliable predictive power? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Are you asking for evidential support of our personal beliefs?
Yes, thanks for expounding, I appreciate the effort. I don't share your perspective and I was wondering whether I'd missed a trick or something but you have allayed my concerns, thank you. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
We believe that the altcoin market is stuck in a fatal loop;
I don't recall ever seeing any evidential support for this claim, did I miss something? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
We don't have the source.
And the ANN, purely coincidentally, avoids any mention of a premine, even to disavow one. <Bong!> Game over. Thank you for taking part in “Dumb or Deceitful?” Next contestant, please. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Professional coin dev TillKoeln held a contest, randomly picking a winner for whom he would create a coin.
Yeah, yeah --- and 2nd prize is two coins created, we know. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
What are y'all gonna do if a personal crisis obliges Deb to suddenly and completely disengage?
I guess you mean Creative or Xploited. Deb doesn't have anything to do with CLAM other than being a chat mod at Just-Dice. Ahh, thanks for disabusing me of that misunderstanding. You sure know some good words.  Thanks for posting some of them. I'm afraid that's one of the occupational hazards of being cross-disciplinary, I'll try and keep a lid on it. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
... will go along with whatever "the official release" does ...
I'm questioning the advisability of the notion of “official” in this context. What are y'all gonna do if a personal crisis obliges Deb to suddenly and completely disengage? In essence, any claim of “official” simply weakens decentralisation and renders the operation of the coin more vulnerable to interference and/or disruption. An ecosystem, if it can be achieved, would be more usefully robust and as is common with group activity, the more raucous, the more useful so the vigorous expression of (well-supported) dissenting opinion is a good sign. Instead of voting, we could simply have people make a series of forks, and have everyone run whichever fork they like best.
Bitcoin's running two forks currently (or was until recently) and multiple forks don't pose any theoretical issues AFAIK, so what remains is “just” a matter of discovering what passes for practicality. The point of having a provably fair on-chain vote is to avoid that mess.
That would be an economist's definition of “fair”. My perspective is that this is a sociological issue with a very different definition of fair. One insight that I've had confirmed by this discussion: the functioning of any altcoin community is seriously hampered by the absence of a reliable mirror.
What do you mean by 'mirror' here? I'm sorry, but you lost me. It's a notion pertinent to the social psychology of the context, I made a mistake in mentioning it. Basically, I was just hand-wavily referring to a means of promulgating the social mores of the group. Identity cannot develop sanely in isolation; this is true for the individual and for a social group. For any significant degree of social cohesion to be achieved, group members need to know how “a group member” is typically supposed to think/behave in order that they may compare themselves against this norm, this is the same factor that lies at the root of pluralistic ignorance and to a degree is in play in this discussion. Just observing the lacuna, thassall. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Mr. Higgins is much more qualified to follow up, but IMO the thrust of his post is not "plebiscite", but rather "central authority".
Indeed, that was my intention. And, after giving the issue more thought ... from my perspective there are two core real-world issues with profound implications for the selection and development of operational tactics and strategy: i) the absence of a hierarchy of control is real, as are the consequences - dooglus' description of one possible future is valid. ii) there is no inherent notion of identities or individual accounts which makes it impossible to distinguish reliably between human and machine agents. My take on it is: technology has produced an as-yet-largely-unexplored solution to a huge problem that's been plaguing us as a species since forever, i.e. co-ordinating our behaviour and for which we are currently using a wildly inefficient and trivially corruptible solution (a hierarchy of power projection developed in response to limitations of communication). Advances in technology have removed any geographical barrier to exchanging pleasantries with anyone, anywhere; we are now broadly free to co-ordinate ourselves. This is completely unprecedented and clearly many people in central governments around the world hold strongly negative perceptions of the potential consequences (the weakening of control) of allowing people to communicate freely amongst themselves. In this broad topic area, my cross-disciplinary background gives me some comparative advantage in terms of having a wide variety of sources to draw from. For example, I've gained some benefit (in terms of clarity) from comparing the attributes of a Teal organisation with the attributes of an altcoin (details: Reinventing organisations). The insight I gained is: a community of cryptocurrency users naturally forms a Teal organisation because it is constrained to do so by the inherent characteristics of the implementationIt's nowhere near a perfect fit; Laloux follows Ken Wilber's original formulation of integral theory (done back in the 1960s) in which a hierarchy is viewed as “natural” and, ideally, “healthy”. That rather questionable assumption of the inevitability of a hierarchy of control persists even at the (developmentally) higher organisational levels of Turquoise and Indigo, so there's only so much that can be reasonably adapted from the Teal organisational model. This week, I 'ave been mostly been ... revisiting Herbert Marcuse and looking deeper into the notion of “ collective intelligence”. I guess my point is that we've been precipitated into a brave new world; there are a number of entirely new problems to recognise, characterise, analyse and resolve. Perhaps it's all a bit too new and too demanding for people to handle successfully on a collective basis --- and 2500+ mostly-failed altcoins suggests that might well be the case. We'll just have to see. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
the rules of this network lends it to being consensus driven
Point of information. The implementation of this peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency dictates that it be consensus-driven; the only practicable leadership in this context is “thought leadership”. So would you prefer not to have the current holders be allowed to vote for what they want?
Point of information. The notion of a plebiscite is irrelevant to a peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency; there is no central authority to enforce the result. One insight that I've had confirmed by this discussion: the functioning of any altcoin community is seriously hampered by the absence of a reliable mirror.Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I think you all should come clean and be honest about how many accounts you have here.
One. And if you guys want public altcoin adoption then we need to clean up the mess.
That may be the wrong direction to face. Pseudonymity is inherent to the functioning of a peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency and so it's trivially predictable that this attribute will also be a notable feature in the ancillary support areas such as bct. If it's okay for identity to be irrelevant to altcoin peers then why not the same for bctalk subscribers? But I doubt it's as significant a factor as you perceive, Bitcointalk basically has miniscule public reach and therefore miniscule influence on public adoption. Privacy is an issue of course and I have my concerns but I'm in more danger from my own government; I received a letter the other day from HMRC (UK tax authority), it was somewhat worryingly mis-addressed to “Graham Wiggins” and I’m almost certain that I heard faint strains of Aquarela do Brasil *. Cheers Graham * The theme music from Terry Gilliam's scarily prophetic 1985 film Brazil, a must-see if you haven't already, time for a re-visit if you have. |
|
|
|
A lack of active mining pools would be an indication that a coin is not being seriously mined in anyway. It's fairly easy to check pool stats. That combined with a missing developer and little to no trade volume would also indicate it's not being mined seriously.
I think I can discern the main criteria: Minimally, a candidate altcoin must be PoW-only and listed on some arbitrary exchange. fallingknife keeps a reasonably up-to-date list of exchanges but obviously, only those of which (s)he is aware. I recommend that you address the woolliness of the other criteria: “not being seriously mined”, “little to no trade volume”. In practice you will need actual numerical values, a likely contentious subject. Edit: the volume is at least partly satisfied, defined as: “under 0.2 BTC weekly Average”The meaning of “a missing developer” is very unclear, there are a lot of unwarranted assumptions in those three words. Apart from the difficulty introduced by the fact that the notion of “a developer” is somewhat anomalous in the context of a peer-to-peer network (there is no practical means of enforcing the notion of an “official” anything), the use of the definite article incorrectly presupposes: that an altcoin must have at least one developer to function, that a developer must be identifiable as such in order for the coin to function, that the identified individual conforms to some as-yet-undefined specification of “acceptable”, etc, etc. The task becomes even more challenging when considering the assumptions behind the term “missing” and how difficult it will be to operationalise them as criteria when they are so vague and unreliable (“missing” from where exactly? How long is “too long”?) I recommend you undertake a paper-and-pencil public pilot project which at least touches on as many of these issues as possible so everyone can get a sense of the likely scope and range of application of the principle. Something from the tail end of coinmarketcap's listing that fits the criteria would probably do, or something with low trading (where the term “low” is defined in numerical coin/time terms) from Poloniex’ listing (as they have a reputation for not delisting --- but by the same token, ignore anything on Bittrex as they regularly cleanse their listing, something which C-CEX has also started to do). If handled sensitively, the very task of publicly selecting a candidate alt for this exercise will probably reveal any substantial disagreements and provide a context for resolving them (assuming they can be resolved). Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
everyone has stopped mining it.
I'm curious, how are you intending to ascertain this fact? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
