|
Fine. But that is for you guys. If coders read all that noise, we will get nothing done.
Shrilling doesn't make Monero adopted by millions of users of the currency. 10,000 speculators buying Monero isn't a coin make, although it will raise the price and make you excited. Fine.
|
|
|
|
The problem is that partitions destroy the Nash Equilibrium because validators can't be sure they can trust other validators and yet it is also impossible prevent state transitions from one partition from leaking into another.
Partitions weaken the network overall, so there must be an incentive to merge partitions (whether that be by including unrelated partitions into a single block, or by actually merging branches). If you incentivise this merger, the miner's cost of creating a partition must be greater than the reward for merging otherwise the rational behaviour for a miner is to create and then merge partitions over and over. Moreover, this can only work when the path of largest cumulative difficulty is rewarded more than the other branches, otherwise the incentive is still to diverge instead of converge. Correct, but ostensibly you are missing my point. My point is that if validators must trust validators of other partitions[1], then they can't achieve a Nash equilibrium because they must compute the game theory incentives that the other validators have to lie. For example, shorting the coin. Thus the rational action is to no longer assume that other validators are honest. Thus the Nash equilibrium collapses. And thus consensus-by-betting is no longer a rational Nash equilibrium convergence, e.g. the loss of the deposit is not a loss so then validators can't trust others validators (and need to validate everything themself which thus means there are no partitions). This is really a high IQ point. You've got to visualize the issue at a meta abstraction level. And if all validators (from all partitions) compute the validation for all partitions themselves, then there are no more partitions. Thus no scaling (at least not decentralized and scaling). | [1] | because partitions impact each other due to externalities of data that can be transported between partitions as I explained upthread, e.g. the output of a state transformation on one partition becomes the input of a state transformation on another partition, not directly on the block chain but due to an externality. |
|
|
|
|
You young fellow feel free to pursue theft of music and other content which deprives the millions of artists of income to pay their rent.
I view this in completely different terms. Before file sharing existed, people would record songs off the radio onto their tape cassettes. The music was already technically (but not legally) out in the public domain for anyone to hear, you were just bypassing the business model of ad supported revenue. The music was even being beamed at you via radio waves against your own will, yet there's probably plenty of obscure laws trying to govern whether you can or can't record it and what you can do with it. We have a similar situation with ad blockers on websites. Their business model is starting to fail. To me, the whole situation with music is just the state trying to prop up an invalid business model. In the old days, entertainers were considered to have the lowest of social status possible. This is one of the initial reasons Nero was ridiculed as an emperor, because he wanted to be an actor and emperor at the same time. Even if entertainer's social status was garbage, they could still get paid doing it, they just had to do it through live performance. There was no "record thyself and make millions". Modern civilization elevates these entertainers from the social status of garbage men, to basically higher than the president of the country in both fame and wealth. This is not to say they shouldn't get paid, but past history and current technology both point to the idea that they will likely be required to do so only through live performance. If you're saying it's the government's job to make sure their invalid business model is still able to make them mega-millionaires without even having to do live performance at all, then that would be an extreme left wing view. I really read your rebuttal with an open mind, because if I am incorrect I will suffer immensely. So I am not writing the following based in what I want to believe, but rather based on my sober analysis of the facts. I am eager to read any rebuttal which can teach me why I am wrong. First of all, distinguish SUPER STARS from the average indie musician earning couple of $100 a month, or the more successful indie or small label outfit earning just above the poverty line. The former number several dozens to maybe a few hundred (active) whereas the latter number in the 100,000s to millions (and maybe much more if they could earn a bit more). Depriving indie musicians of a decent income (not even wealth!) to pay their rent and food is not the way to build a new age Knowledge Age economy wherein we creative people create things and sell them direct to each other instead of being slaves to corporations. If you are going to advocate stealing music, and since we are moving into a digital age where all work will be digitized, then let's advocate stealing everything then including 3D printer designs, commercial software, etc.. so that we will be reduced an economy valued only by physical raw materials and energy production so the bankers will own and control all value in economy. Yeah nice.  Afaik, the reason artists were devalued throughout history was due to two facts: - Lack of abundance in the ancient economy which is required to produce a gift culture. The artists in a gift culture are on the receiving end of the gifts because they don't directly produce necessities of life that are thus in abundance in a gift culture.
- Economies of yore have been capital intensive, economies-of-scale (e.g. Rome road building, post Dark Age agriculture, Industrial Age factories) thus artists contributed no useful labor to the capitalists. The point being that the capitalists were in control. But I have explained this all changes in Knowledge Age[1]
Why you not want to pay an insignificant tip to indie musicians so they can flourish and you don't have to view ads? We are now in an abundance economy. There is no excuse to not tip the indie artists. Would you prefer to have massive unemployment and social welfare system that will sink us into a Dark Age? Do you want all those unemployed artists on welfare to vote to steal your money with capital controls because the economy failed them? Not everyone wants to be a programmer or what ever. If you enjoy or listen to a song regularly, then is absolutely no financial reason you can justify for not tipping the creator a penny. You will only destroy society, the Knowledge Age, and yourself by being so selfish and myopic. Perhaps you could justify it for other reasons such as micropayments being a hassle and subscription being a lockin (to one provider) paradigm. What might be more convincing to me, is to argue that those people who are going to steal (or who won't bother to find the music in official venues) will do it any way (or at least will have been exposed to the music thus potentially being another fan for the musician to sell a T-shirt to), thus arguing there is no economic incentive to prevent bootleg copies from appearing on decentralized file storage systems. And thus to argue that the business model that works is give away free the downloads, and sell the fans trinkets and live performances. Perhaps that is your point? Afaics, SoundCloud was supposed to be offering that model and the musicians pay SoundCloud to offer the downloads for free. In return musicians could afaics promote their music and gain fans for example on their Facebook page and then sell the fans stuff such as T-shirts. But lately SoundCloud has started to limit apps to 15,000 plays per day, apps that play SoundCloud content aren't allowed to develop social networking type features, and SoundCloud disabled their Facebook embedded player (changed it to a link to SoundCloud's website) so that SoundCloud could drive ad revenues and/or synergies on their own site. Appears SoundCloud was being hammered by the RIAA with DCMA requests and SoundCloud caved in to the major record labels. Now Universal has accesse to delete any song from SoundCloud. So one could argue that a decentralized file storage could provide the function SoundCloud was supposed to be offering. Musicians like to get statistics on how many plays their song has. They like to get feedback on their songs. Etc. If society decides to adopt the decentralized file storage and end copyrights, then I will adjust to it. But for the time being, it is not clear whether that is the best model for the indie artists and for our Knowledge Age future. For example, it is not clear to me that I need 150 T-shirts, one each from each indie band I like. And then how do I tip them for new music they create if I already bought a T-shirt? I don't have time to go to live concerts and what if the band is not in my area. We are moving to global economy (check out songdew.com for music from India). Wouldn't it make more sense for my music organizer to tip them automatically based on my plays? So I don't have to hassle with it making sure I take care of the artists who provide my music that I love. So you could argue okay, but no reason to not let others steal it if they really want to. Well maybe true, but in that case the decentralized file storage can coexist with the micropayment model. Which outcome do you think is realistically the most likely and why? From a private discussion: In the old days people valued hard work, not being a clown/actor/troubadour. Life was hard before Industrialization. Young women married old men age 50+ to insure their well being. Wasting productive time with art was reserved for those who were selected to paint churches and entertain the princes and kings. In many countries, when radio broadcasts a song, a performance rights organization collects royalties on behalf of the artists and distributes them yearly according to some criteria
That is a good point about even radio plays paying some royalities from the advertising to the record labels which pays some to the musicians. And at least in my country, when you buy an empty tape cassette, a part of the payment will go to that organization and thus to the artists. The payment is justified by the fact that people will use the cassettes to make copies of the art. Same thing for empty CD-roms and DVDs. I'm not sure what's the situation of hard drives but it has been talked about that those should have the extra fee as well. That reinforces my point of either we find a way to pay artists directly else the government will end up taking most of the money via socialism as you are describing above. That was essentially my point when I wrote, "Do you want all those unemployed artists on welfare to vote to steal your money with capital controls because the economy failed them?". Artists are a constituency that will also fight for their livelihood! Artists that do not have record deals or connections in the industry are struggling to get heard and paid. They won't get radio or TV play. They are not being advertised in the magazines. A network where you can freely present your music and get paid even a little without complex legal technicalities and bureaucracy is leveling the playing field. Obviously if the art is shit, it's not going to help them, but if it's good, the viral effect of a social network can push it to millions in an instant. Precisely. If the argument is made today that because of technology, copying music records is easy so it should be free and artists should make their living from live performances, then in the future the same logic applies, hologram projectors or virtual reality make watching live recordings so realistic and authentic and copying the data is easy so it should be free, then what is left for the artist to do? They can play live one time and it is recorded and then no on has to go to see them ever again (or atleast not until they have new material).
And finally, if paying for the music is made cheap and easy enough, people won't bother stealing because it's more effort than just simply paying.
Precisely again. You and I are thinking the same on this issue. |
|
|
|
What makes you thinking that Satoshi is interested and invested into Ethereum? I still believe Satoshi will be the first crypto super billionaire because of his combined holdings of BTC and ETH.
He doesn't think. He just wants the ETH price to go up, so he says what ever he thinks will entice naive speculators to follow his implied 11th BongHit Bible commandment, "Thou shall buy more of what ever I am pumping". |
|
|
|
I've maintained for weeks now in my comments that the verification/validation will always become centralized for crypto currency (including smart contracts) and the cost of verification is more acute for long-running scripts. I've also written that I think the problem can be solved by controlling centralized verification with decentralized UNprofitable proof-of-work. Thus I believe smart contracts are still plausible on public decentralized block chains. Ethereum is pursing the wrong design though. And they are running out of funding. |
|
|
|
I could counter that a continual release of bots could create a self-replicating virus used to secure a coin's decentralization--think of it as Delueze's idea of capitalism as parasite taken to its logical conclusion. Remember, when little shit countries defeat juggernaut empires, it's because they play by their rules  ❤ If there is profit in PoW mining, then the one who is best at bots will make the most profit. It is still centralization. Sorry you can't win this argument. I thought it about it deeply. It is an inviolable and unarguable point. The bots will be free-ranging and adaptable, or are you forgetting what you taught me about the information age? I never taught you that humans will be less creative than bots nor that those with less resources will win that competitive race. |
|
|
|
I could counter that a continual release of bots could create a self-replicating virus used to secure a coin's decentralization--think of it as Delueze's idea of capitalism as parasite taken to its logical conclusion. Remember, when little shit countries defeat juggernaut empires, it's because they play by their rules ❤ If there is profit in PoW mining, then the one who is best at bots will make the most profit. It is still centralization. Sorry you can't win this argument. I thought it about it deeply. It is an inviolable and unarguable point. |
|
|
|
The problem is that partitions destroy the Nash Equilibrium because validators can't be sure they can trust other validators and yet it is also impossible prevent state transitions from one partition from leaking into another. Even exploiting the fact (explained our prior posts) that the scripts in a block can be computed in parallel if they only reference block chain state in prior block, or even extending this restriction further into the past history, will not fix the prior sentence in that the parallel computations can't be split up among different validators because once they can cheat each other on validation (another game theory with externalities) then the Nash equilibrium implodes (and PoS adds more Nash equilibrium failure modes). Also ETH appears to me to be illegal: |
|
|
|
I want to add that I realize the legal issues make any PUBLIC pre-sale/pre-mine choice dubious. If you do public ICO then the tokens must be registered as securities. If you do PRIVATE pre-sale and then PUBLIC royalties from mining as Zcash proposes, then the miners apparently have to register as Money Service Businesses under FinCEN regulations and the coming G20 plan to harmonize these regulations starting in 2017.
Appears the only options for legal distribution are PRIVATE ICOs (that can include any qualified investors as so defined by the SEC but you can't advertise this to the public-at-large and has to be viral within the qualified investor social network).
Or via PUBIC proof-of-work mining.
IANAL yet I think Ethereum violated the securities law.
Some have also claimed that PUBLIC airdrops might be legal, when these are not marketed as investments but rather for-use tokens.
|
|
|
|
I want to add that I realize the legal issues make any PUBLIC pre-sale/pre-mine choice dubious. If you do public ICO then the tokens must be registered as securities. If you do PRIVATE pre-sale and then PUBLIC royalties from mining as Zcash proposes, then the miners apparently have to register as Money Service Businesses under FinCEN regulations and the coming G20 plan to harmonize these regulations starting in 2017.
Appears the only options for legal distribution are PRIVATE ICOs (that can include any qualified investors as so defined by the SEC but you can't advertise this to the public-at-large and has to be viral within the qualified investor social network).
Or via PUBIC proof-of-work mining.
IANAL yet I think Ethereum violated the securities law.
Some have also claimed that PUBLIC airdrops might be legal, when these are not marketed as investments but rather for-use tokens.
|
|
|
|
4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.
Can you elaborate on the bolded part of your statement? Go back to the prior Synereo thread I linked to and find the link that shows how much download music pays per play funded by advertising. You can see that "Don't Worry, Be Happy" with 30 million plays earned a $1000 in payouts. Certainly the value people get out of the music is worth much more than the advertising and this is apparently why free music distribution sites such as SoundCloud is transitioning away from advertising model towards a subscription and track sales model a la Spotify and BandCamp. What people want to find on social networks is what other people want to share. They don't want to find what people were motivated to pay to spam them with. The Knowledge Age economy will be about quality of production, not salesmanship. The entire paradigm of commerce and production is changing to one of merit and social benefit. The music distribution model on Synereo isn't limited to "music downloads funded by advertising". Go listen to this Synereo Hangout Music Publishing, and let me know if you have the same opinion after you are done. I had already watched that hangout. The point I made above was a generative essence point. Think about it deeply. |
|
|
|
pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.
And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias? Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that. Could this bias be what prevents the very scenario you are talking about? I'm fairly certain there is a psychological term for it, but don't feel like looking it up when the example is right here. I don't think so because speculators are followers not leaders. Adoption can lead speculation, not vice versa. This assumes that everyone who is speculating is only thinking as (or for) speculators in their equation, some, if not most, might be using their own metrics for use to determine what to invest in--not a "what would someone else use" mindset, but a "what would I use" mindset. It is possible for people to be both user and speculator and simultaneously spur adoption and speculation. But I don't think speculators make wise decisions as to how to invest for adoption, because they are not close enough to the technology and marketing. The creators are the leaders. That is why I have often said that I don't think open source can create/tap a new market. I intend to prove that and say, "I told you so" to smooth, rpietila, and all the Monero crowd. Open source is a refinement and shared investment in quality assurance mechanism, not a creative one. |
|
|
|
|
There appears to be a conceptual solution for smart contracts which could enable partitions.
That is to lock down input to the block chain. In other words do not allow any data to be input into partition state from external source, i.e. not even allow a new script (which can contain new constants) to be added to run in the locked down partition. So this means no new user accounts in the locked down partition, no new contract instances, etc..
Not sure how useful that is though. Seems basically useless.
|
|
|
|
4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.
Can you elaborate on the bolded part of your statement? Go back to the prior Synereo thread I linked to and find the link that shows how much download music pays per play funded by advertising. You can see that "Don't Worry, Be Happy" with 30 million plays earned a $1000 in payouts. Certainly the value people get out of the music is worth much more than the advertising and this is apparently why free music distribution sites such as SoundCloud is transitioning away from advertising model towards a subscription and track sales model a la Spotify and BandCamp. What people want to find on social networks is what other people want to share. They don't want to find what people were motivated to pay to spam them with. The Knowledge Age economy will be about quality of production, not salesmanship. The entire paradigm of commerce and production is changing to one of merit and social benefit. |
|
|
|
pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.
And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias? Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that. Could this bias be what prevents the very scenario you are talking about? I'm fairly certain there is a psychological term for it, but don't feel like looking it up when the example is right here. I don't think so because speculators are followers not leaders. Adoption can lead speculation, not vice versa. |
|
|
|
4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.
Can you elaborate on the bolded part of your statement? Go back to the prior Synereo thread I linked to and find the link that shows how much download music pays per play funded by advertising. You can see that "Don't Worry, Be Happy" with 30 million plays earned a $1000 in payouts. Certainly the value people get out of the music is worth much more than the advertising and this is apparently why free music distribution sites such as SoundCloud is transitioning away from advertising model towards a subscription and track sales model a la Spotify and BandCamp. What people want to find on social networks is what other people want to share. They don't want to find what people were motivated to pay to spam them with. The Knowledge Age economy will be about quality of production, not salesmanship. The entire paradigm of commerce and production is changing to one of merit and social benefit. |
|
|
|
Duh, look at his sig. He's not even trying to hide the fact that he wants to manipulate Monero up or down depending on his position. Annoying to read, but at least he isn't trying to hide his motives.
Okay. I wish the forum would create an Altcoin Technical Discussion subforum. I'd prefer to reside there and ignore the speculation hype forums. I am sending a request to the mods. I know others have mentioned they would like such a subforum. |
|
|
|
If the price of Monero in bitcoin terms can be somewhere around 0.005, it is already very good. I hope that ratio can be kept long term.
The question is, how it can be pumped there. The answear: by bidding it up there. The next question is, how it is bidded there. The trivial answear: by pouring money into Monero and bailing out the dumpers who eventually sell too early. And why write that if you are confident  Obviously the only reason to write that is to try to manipulate the psychology of others and cause them to want to buy so you can dump some. True confidence comes with silence and massive adoption and feature sets. Donation funding model or not, BS walks and action talks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
