@TPTB_need_war
I see you on a lot of threads here.
Whats your favorite altcoin and what altcoin(s) you are hodling? Or do you hate them all?
Indeed I hate when people are promoting technology and they don't even enumerate the tradeoffs or bad aspects. Any one who can't state their weaknesses and still find a way to make their coin compelling based in fact rather than hyperbole is on my shit list. Especially given none of the altcoins (except perhaps DOGE but I am not sure about that) have any adoption (other than speculators) at all. DOGE is I guess an example of a coin that is humble/honest about its technological significance and overachieves and understates. But I am also a bit ignorant of all the details of DOGE's history and current state. So for now, the only coin I support is Bitcoin mainly because it has adoption and creates the market for crypto as well as having Satoshi's invention for decentralized consensus (but also acknowledge the scaling is broken and it is being centralized). Also Bitcoin doesn't have on chain privacy. I also support the research on Zcash and it has the potential to be a coin I support because the technology is a potential game changer but not sure yet, depending on how the details play out. And especially if they remain very honest and open about the pitfalls in their technology (and it also depends too what they do with the funding and distribution strategy but I can support the open source research regardless). I give an honorable mention to Cryptonote coins for attempting to solve the privacy issue. Also a fair mining launch (to some extent). I have no qualms about them getting some ROI in the markets. But I no longer support the technology (see link above for my reasons). I understand many of those guys put a lot of money and effort into that. I never did like the way their community behaved (snobbish, overbearing, etc).. They've seemed to have stopped that now, so hopefully there is peace. Perhaps they could say the same about me being overbearing or in too many threads. C'est la vie. Bottom line is I think I've lost any reason to support the research and development in Cryptonote or RingCT (unless something changes my understanding of the issues, which is highly doubtful at this point). I support the creative attempt of Iota to solve the scaling and centralization issues. I argue in my Decentralized thread that they failed technologically, but I have no qualms about them getting some ROI in the markets. I mean we need to fund research otherwise without experiments then no progress will be made. For example, Iota's design influenced my thinking/design on how to potentially improve Satoshi's PoW design. That seems to be how progress is made by taking inspiration from each other and of course starting with Satoshi. I was actually more positive on Bitshares until via private communications some others convinced me the likelihood that there is no adoption and many gimicks to mine the speculators. I took another look to see what had changed or been accomplished since 2013 when I stopped following it closely. And Bitshares is still off in bizarro hyperbole fantasy land in my opinion. I don't understand those guys at all. They certainly think they are up to something important, but none of it makes sense to me. Nobody is going to want to move all their trades onto one system. I don't see any compelling use cases of BitUSD (removing volatility doesn't make crypto attractive to the masses, and the speculators want volatility). Etc.. I just think Dan conceptualizes everything backwards from how I would. And I think I have a more correct understanding of economics, marketing, and what can work and what can't. I am particularly disappointed with Ethereum. $millions down the hole and they didn't solve the fundamental issue for a scripting block chain. I support research but not wasting $millions with no major research achievements. At least with Zcash, they come hat in hand with blockbuster accomplishments in research already completed. For example, imagine I actually wanted to program (invest my effort) apps built on top of Ethereum, but I would not have the confidence to do so, because they haven't solved the fundamental technical issue. How can I get excited about what I can't use. I get excited about Android programming, because I can use it. I get excited about Node.js because I can use it in real projects. About Nxt, I can't comment, because I have a conflict of interest. For the 100s of other coins, that is far too much for me to study. I provided some thoughts about Ripple and Stellar the prior day (just go to page 34 or so of my Decentralization thread). |
|
|
|
Zcash is interesting.. But not entirely sure if it's game changing.
FWIW, I share that opinion but about privacy technologies in general, because after deep study of the technologies I am not sure if they work. Zcash has issues as well, and we have to see how they work out the details. I've lost all hope in Cryptonote/RingCT because of the meta-data issue. I originally thought I would be able to come up with some magic for obscuring the meta-data, but eventually came to realize that the End-to-End Principle (and unrelated but analogously the CAP theorem) always wins and is paramount. I just hope that everyone who has invested their sweat and blood into CN coins, realizes that I don't relish coming to that conclusion. And of course they may have another perspective and think the technology still has value. I think I have already explained my thinking on the matter and so need to repeat myself. I am just agreeing that I have not concluded that Zcash is the solution either. Devil is in the details (and I don't know about you, but I have other work to do and can't put all of my time into anonymity technology any more, not unless someone is offering me a good opportunity for that line of work and remember cryptography is not my formal area of expertise). I have much better opportunities within my career expertise of producing user facing products for mass adoption. Enough said that I agree with you. And I am not sure there are any game changing technologies yet. I am not even sure if my attempt to refine Satoshi's design is bullet proof. I won't know until I dig into every detail, dot every 'i', and cross every 't'. I wish CoinHoarder appreciated the work that developers do and how pedantic it is. Broadstroking conclusions without deep understanding of details often leads to incorrect conclusions. For example, everyone has been so enthusiastic about decentralized file systems (MaidSafe, Storj, Sia, IPFS, etc), but none of us had apparently realized they are not fighting tyranny but rather aiding tyranny as I explained to CoinHoarder upthread. Devil is in the details. DAC sounds so sexy, until one realizes that corporations are inherently not decentralized because otherwise the individuals don't need to share their labor with the parasite corporation if there is no top-down moat around the corporation per Coase's Theory of the Firm. The number of incorrect conceptualizations that Dan Larimer has spawned goes back to the discussions I used to have with him in 2013 on the forum. Actually his intentions are often spot on, e.g. he was focused on electricity consumption back in 2013 and I was not. But as a result he ended up with DPOS and arguing that top-down hierarchies are appropriate for crypto currency. Then he recently admitted they don't work well and has been proposing some basterdized concept of PoS that attempts to mimic PoW (which isn't an entirely accurate summary), which again will be another dead end. So then CoinHoarder gets angry at me for having formed an opinion over the past 3 years of the way those guys think and make choices. And obviously CoinHoarder has formed his opinion of me as well which he has every right to do. I think the best is to say nothing in forums and share nothing. And then of course make numerous mistakes because no one person is omniscient.  |
|
|
|
A 'decryption' key is not a 'viewkey'. Hmmm, then why have a viewkey in Cryptonote if the recipient also has a decryption key? Because in Cryptonote the private decryption key would also enable one to spend the coins. The decryption key in Zcash has other properties, but it is not necessarily consistent with what everyone else here is referring to when they say 'viewkey'.
CoinHoarder I don't know why you bother to try to write that long diatribe to further show everyone how you are all about ego and character assassination, instead of teamwork and production. Wasting time. And you should be studying since you claimed you have a full load this semester (and I should be coding), so you are wasting your time and my time with nonsense (as usual).
One could argue you are also wasting your own time by replying to "nonsense"...just putting that out there  Agreed, except that I think I hadn't made my thinking on the issues he raised clear enough, which I suppose is my fault. Frankly a lot of the thoughts weren't totally perfectly organized my mind because been battling a relapse the past 2 days which means my energy to think was limited (imagine head on the keyboard fighting sleep sort of lack of concentration). I had to grab the participation in Zooko's AMA and the early stage of the forum.z.cash while the opportunity was there, so my relapse condition could not be an excuse for the need to do work that had to be done this week. In short life isn't perfect. Even I read yesterday that Zooko's production dropped recently because he was separating from his wife. We humans do have other things going on sometimes. CoinHoarder has a full time load at the university and I respect that. I wish he would respect that I've studied some areas (given my 3 years full time in this area) that he hasn't. And try to work for aiding each other than fighting. I understand he is upset at me because I don't have a high opinion of Bitshares (and on that point I will be vindicated once again ... so he can fight all he wants but it won't help him because I can already see the traits of Dan & Stan Larimer ... and he resents that I could have any following on the forum because I do make such a judgement on the Bitshare's Brothers ahem I mean Father & Son ... smart guys, apparently prolific coders ... but incorrect conceptualization of technological uses and markets). |
|
|
|
|
So now the off-topic history of Nxt will be dragged into the MA thread.
Ignore the trolls. Do not respond.
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if Polonoxious is a good service or not (hey we never know with exchanges until they fail). Rather it is sufficient to say that ETH is not the exchange and the exchange may prefer to have the server in a location where no colocation employee could steal the keys.
The reputation assassination attempt on polonoxious to try to discredit ETH is pitiful.
Even if polonoxious is in cohoots on some P&D scheme, that evidence has not been provided. And besides we all know these P&D schemes are ongoing so it is no surprise. Par for the course in altcoin land (except perhaps for XMR and any other coins fairly mined which probably can't be P&D'ed).
|
|
|
|
|
A 'decryption' key is not a 'viewkey'. Hmmm, then why have a viewkey in Cryptonote if the recipient also has a decryption key? Because in Cryptonote the private decryption key would also enable one to spend the coins. The decryption key in Zcash has other properties, but it is not necessarily consistent with what everyone else here is referring to when they say 'viewkey'.
CoinHoarder I don't know why you bother to try to write that long diatribe to further show everyone how you are all about ego and character assassination, instead of teamwork and production. Wasting time. And you should be studying since you claimed you have a full load this semester (and I should be coding), so you are wasting your time and my time with nonsense (as usual).
|
|
|
|
As I have mentioned several times before, NO ONE can well predict the future, but Armstrong is walking the plank. Sticking his neck out (reputation anyway) by making fairly flat predictions.
If his calls wind up being statistically superior to others (or vs. random), then that would show that he onto something, perhaps something BIG.
We still have some time to see if Armstrong is gifted, or else just another guy like the rest of us.
Sorry but the record already speaks for itself. All of his long-range themes have come true. 100%. Crisis in Ukraine (well before there was any crisis), oil, gold, US stocks, 2007 real estate collapse, etc.. Maybe not exactly to the day and maybe one of 2 or 3 scenarios was elected, but it has never been the case that he has stated A will happen and instead the opposite happened. sloanf habitually takes MA's CONDITIONAL scenarios statements out-of-context and then claims this is failure of prediction. It doesn't matter how many times this is explained to sloanf, he will continue to commit that same mental handicap.  Armstrong then explained the other scenario for gold which is that is to make a CYCLE INVERSION so as to align with its true hedge against government; and here is implying that gold's rise and potentially correction before doing so will be contingent on the progression of the sovereign debt crisis and here is where he explained that the $5000 by 2015/6 would be the unlikely outcome and rather the pause and correction are more likely: ...gold is going through a CYCLE INVERSION and this is a good think because it is starting to realign with the major purpose of gold - not a hedge against inflation but the hedge against government...
The key to gold is its CYCLE INVERSION... [that is required to produce a] ...PHASE TRANSITION that is required to produce a big rally...
The market is the only thing that is simply never wrong. For the bull market ahead in gold, a simple pause in NECESSARY. This is how bull markets are sustained.. If we see gold blasting to new highs passing $1500, we are in trouble. This would be a serious development warning that we are now completing a PHASE TRANSITION that could lead to a low 2015.75 and the rally thereafter.
Which is exactly what gold did in 2011 and the resulting decline to $1050 before 2015.75. Any one who fails to see MA exactly predicted the above chart (with the break above $1500 coming roughly July as he predicted for a PHASE TRANSITION as he predicted and then decline to a low in 2015.75) is blind. That long-term chart of gold makes is very clear that the current deadcat bounce is just that. That chart above has no bottoming pattern yet. On that chart, you can clearly see that the support lies below $1000 and as low as $800 back from the 2008/9 period. At that price, everyone who bought silver below $9 (as I did when I bought 18,000 oz of Comex bars and minted them into rounds which I sold many of to rpietila for his silver coin business in Finland), will be at a loss and capitulate making the final bottom. |
|
|
|
One last time, before you go on permanent ignore... Ignore me instead of admitting you are wrong about the viewkey. Or, maybe you are too stupid to realize you are wrong. Either way, you will find out eventually and feel like an idiot. The CEO of electric coin company stated there would be a view key in his AMA... an AMA in which you participated. Maybe you should practice reading comprehension.
You don't understand that Zook (the CEO) explained to me at his AMA that there is no viewkey: In Zcash, the creator of each individual transaction gets complete control over who can view the contents of the transaction. This is accomplished by each transaction being individually encrypted by an encryption key known only to the creator and the recipient.
There is no other mechanism by which any party can gain the ability to view the contents of transactions other than getting the decryption key from the creator or the recipient of the transaction, or from someone else who has previously received the decryption key. This is a simple, implementable, secure, and understandable mechanism for controlling who can see what. We call it "selective transparency".
Does that answer your question?
|
|
|
|
What I've been saying since 2013, that Tor/I2P are useless against national security agencies, and now after so many people thought I was loony, I am vindicated: Secondly, there is clear evidence that timing information is both recognized as being key to correlating events and streams; and it is being recorded and stored at an increasing granularity. There is no smoking gun as of 2011 to say they casually de-anonymize Tor circuits, but the writing is on the wall for the onion routing system. GCHQ at 2011 had all ingredients needed to trace Tor circuits. It would take extra-ordinary incompetence to not have refined their traffic analysis techniques in the past 5 years. The Tor project should do well to not underestimate GCHQ’s capabilities to this point.
|
|
|
|
CoinHoarder has been added to my Ignore list. Instead of responding with technical justification of his claim, he only throws mud. I tried my best to be cordial and have a productive discussion with CoinHoarder. I've given him numerous chances to keep his discussion on the facts and not on his persistent focus on slaying the reputation of those who disagree with his love of Bitshares. Facts versus personal vendettas. But he doesn't seem to be capable of recognizing the distinction. Again I believe a viewkey is possible with Zcash and that is why I have asked Zcash in their public forum (and reiterated its importance during Zooko's AMA) whether they are implementing it. Until we have their clarification, then we can't assume that which is not explicitly stated in the white paper. Readers will also note that CoinHoarder has not done the mea culpa acknowledging that he was ignorant of the applicability of Coase's Theory of the Firm to the Bitshares DAC nonsense that he is shrilling. And he will not also admit the following is why he incorrect about stealing content. Governments are organizing now around controlling the internet. The illegal activity through Bittorrent (which also steals from ISPs which have higher upload bandwidth allowances) is helping the governments feel they are justified in regulating the internet via Net Neutrality and other measures. 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. You are not going to create the new Knowledge Economy with your theft model. And by advocating theft, you are helping the NWO totalitarianism to take form by providing an economic incentive and political support from millions of artists who are violated by piracy. Dumb. But I expect that from you. |
|
|
|
MA never made such a prediction. I have explained this to you upthread yet you continue trolling the thread with lies.
1. Here on March 2011 http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2011/03/armstrongeconomics-how-when-030111.pdf MA clearly says gold to go to 5K-12K by 2015\2016. Of course, his prediction fails and he then simply flip-flopped on gold. Do finally read this report or since you proved that you are not able to, get someone to read it to you and explain it to you. I suggest you go back to elementary school and learn how to read, because you seem to not be able to comprehend the difference between a conditional statement and a prediction: As we move into the next major target such as 2011.45 (June 13th/14th, 2011)...
THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS FOR A BULL MARKET shall be for gold to make a low on that day... [note there is no prediction here, only a statement such an event would be best for gold will be maximally bullish]
The second type of pattern is the real breakout. Gold could be in a PHASE TRANSITION period...[thus what is written below this is contingent of if Gold exhibits a PHASE TRANSITION and then MA explains what those conditions are]
...or we blast out of the top of this main channel, fall back to find it [the top of the channel] providing support, and then we will be on our way to at least $5000 and maybe $12,000 by 2015/6...
Armstrong then explained the other scenario for gold which is that is to make a CYCLE INVERSION so as to align with its true hedge against government; and here is implying that gold's rise and potentially correction before doing so will be contingent on the progression of the sovereign debt crisis and here is where he explained that the $5000 by 2015/6 would be the unlikely outcome and rather the pause and correction are more likely: ...gold is going through a CYCLE INVERSION and this is a good think because it is starting to realign with the major purpose of gold - not a hedge against inflation but the hedge against government...
The key to gold is its CYCLE INVERSION... [that is required to produce a] ...PHASE TRANSITION that is required to produce a big rally...
The market is the only thing that is simply never wrong. For the bull market ahead in gold, a simple pause in NECESSARY. This is how bull markets are sustained.. If we see gold blasting to new highs passing $1500, we are in trouble. This would be a serious development warning that we are now completing a PHASE TRANSITION that could lead to a low 2015.75 and the rally thereafter.
Which is exactly what gold did in 2011 and the resulting decline to $1050 before 2015.75. And in the 2014/5 gold report, MA further clarified that the final low would be in Q1 2016 < $1000 (perhaps < $850). I think you've wasted enough of our time. I am now asking everyone to add you to their Ignore list. If they do not acknowledging do so with a public post, I will not help anyone in this thread any more. You are now added to my Ignore list. Bye. Readers please note I am not going to waste my time explaining to sloanf why he is wrong on each of his enumerated allegations. It is enormously disrespectful to my scarce time. It should be clear enough from the above example and others I have already made in this thread, that he has a severe mental handicap and unable to comprehend what he reads. |
|
|
|
Here's a cool example of a useful smart contract app http://www.blocktech.comusing ipfs/bitcoin/ether/florincoin/etc. I'd use it anyway. Sorry but afaics that sucks. I can't find any mention of how it uses Ethereum? Appears it is using Florincoin. If it is using Ethereum, that doesn't mean Ethereum can scale decentralized (which I have already explained it can't!). Nevertheless, there are other flaws in this Alexandria project. 1. It is relying on IPFS, which is a decentralied file storage system. IPFS is interesting for orthogonal reasons (which I will discuss below), but there is an insoluble flaw of decentralized file storage in that copyrighted content illegally distributed without compensating the copyright owner, can't be forceably removed from all nodes, and thus the protocol ends up banned by hosts[1]. Not only is it economically and technologically unrealistic to fight the enforcement of copyrights by having users stand up their own nodes connected over asymmetric upload bandwidth of home ISPs[1], but it also deprives all of us of the Knowledge Age decentralized economic ecosystem and social networking we will need to implement the Knowledge Age devolution of the corporation (see the last link in [1]). Note it might be possible to design a decentralized file storage system that enforce removal orders and enforced per-per-download royalties to the copyright holder, it is impossible for these decisions to be made without centralizing the control over these decisions. I suppose one could dream up a design where all the nodes voted and reached a consensus about each copyright claim, and the participants would be motivated to do the right thing so as to avoid the protocol being banned/regulated by government, such a design is going to suffer from unbounded preemption and thus will need to use centralized trust, so it is right back to being centralized after all. 2. In the video for Alexandria, note how he pins the files to his local computer in order to attain free access. But as soon as he has done downloading, he can unpin and thus he has given nothing to the network if no one has downloaded the pinned files while he was downloading them. For this and other economic/marketing/technical reasons, the aims of this project are unrealistic and insoluble. Regarding IPFS, I read some of the white paper and viewed some of the video presentation (which I highly recommend) and about 17 or 18 minute point it gets into the key points I want to share my analysis on. So I entirely agree with the creator of IPFS (Juan Benet) that resources should be referenced by hash rather than by URLs. As even he points out in his presentation, that is orthogonal to whether there is a decentralized protocol for storing these resources (and add my point that storing on home user's P2P servers such that copyright and royalties can't be enforced). And I entirely agree with him that we need a way to declare resources as immutable so they can be cached nearest to the use, which is needed both by offline use cases and to minimize redundant transfer of content (and Juan makes the astute point that bandwidth is not scaling as fast as storage nor CPU computation ... and I would draw the analogy to that the Scrypt paper also points out the same for RAM latency not scaling as fast as RAM storage and speed). So how to we reconcile these needs and the issue of needing to enforce copyrights? We need a decentralized protocol because we don't want to rely on any one host or federated collusion of them (and also to wrap high availability and optimization in an algorithm/protocol versus inferior/non-interoperable adhoc solutions), and we need to record the copyright parameters in a block chain. But how can the block chain verifiers determine whose claim to a copyright is valid? I don't think there is an algorithmic way yet to determine for example if two songs are close enough (including for example in the case of musical content, DJ mix songs that resample other songs) in content to be a copyright violation? If there was, we could have a rule that the first person to sign a hash of content (and submit it to the block chain) is the copyright holder. But change even one bit of the content and the hash of the content changes. I believe there can be an algorithmic solution probably drawing from existing technologies that have not yet been applied to this problem. So then we'd need a way for the copyright holders of existing works which are already public (so any one could submit the hash to the block chain) to prepopulate their hashes on this block chain. 1. It is relying on IPFS, which is a decentralied file storage system. IPFS is interesting for orthogonal reasons (which I will discuss below), but there is an insoluble flaw of decentralized file storage in that copyrighted content illegally distributed without compensating the copyright owner, can't be forceably removed from all nodes, and thus the protocol ends up banned by hosts[1]. [...] I received a reply from Juan Bennet (author of IPFS) and he referred me to the following: - IPFS has as a design requirement that nodes be able to only store and/or distribute content they explicitly want to store and/or distribute. This means that computers that run IPFS nodes do not have to host "other people's stuff", which is a very important thing when you consider that lots of content in the internet is -- in some for or other -- illegal under certain jurisdictions.
- IPFS nodes will be able to express policies, and subscribe to network allow/denylists and policies that express content storage and distribution requirements. This way, users and groups can express what content should or should not be stored and/or distributed. This is required by users to (a) comply with legal constraints in their respective countries, (b) required by users with stricter codes of conduct (i.e. content that is legal but undesired by a group -- e.g. a childrens website).
Question and Answers: Q: When I add content, what happens? A: It is stored in your local node, and made available to other nodes in your network, via advertising it on the routing system (i.e. the IPFS-DHT). The content is not sent to other nodes until they explicitly request it, though of course some content may already exist in the system (content-addressing). I don't see how that solves the problem that IPFS is a protocol that enables people to advertising the availability of illegal content on the DHT, and then illegal content can move to new ephemeral nodes, i.e. Whack-A-Mole. Thus authorities are eventually very likely to regulate Hosts and tell them that by running IPFS they are providing hosting for a DHT which routes illegal content. IPFS can infringe the millions of indie artists who struggle to earn an income. Also as pointed out in that thread, then there is very low guarantee that any data is backed up by the system or that the other desired properties of content being cached closer those who need it will be achieved. Decentralized file storage requires fungibility of data, but this can't be attained without BOTH a block chain for recording the policies of content owners and algorithms that automatically detect which content infringes other content. [...]
Decentralized file storage requires fungibility of data, but this can't be attained without BOTH a block chain for recording the policies of content owners and algorithms that automatically detect which content infringes other content.
IPFS looks great - and yes, I see the legal aspect - but once the idea is there & great, I just imagine the hunting - but then there will be an IPFS_1, _2,.... and you need to close the internet. Huh  And he will not also admit the following is why he incorrect about stealing content.
Governments are organizing now around controlling the internet. The illegal activity through Bittorrent (which also steals from ISPs which have higher upload bandwidth allowances) is helping the governments feel they are justified in regulating the internet via Net Neutrality and other measures. 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. You are not going to create the new Knowledge Economy with your theft model. And by advocating theft, you are helping the NWO totalitarianism to take form by providing an economic incentive and political support from millions of artists who are violated by piracy. Dumb. But I expect that from you.
Kim.fat.com.idiot was a brilliant marketer He tapped into the desire of millions of hackers/people to steal from themselves. > Fat.com.idiot is a roly-poly savvy marketer and we should partner with him Anyone can be a good marketer if they create a site to help steal via Bittorrent and then charge a small commission on that activity. Fat.com had his 10 minutes of criminal fame. Now will receive justice for his crimes. > As to 'theft' and 'copyright' we are obviusly in disagreement - and let us leave it at that, no need for us to spend energy on that. Huh https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1350711.msg13796388#msg13796388Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 05, 2016, 03:45:47 PM And he will not also admit the following is why he incorrect about stealing content. Governments are organizing now around controlling the internet. The illegal activity through Bittorrent (which also steals from ISPs which have higher upload bandwidth allowances) is helping the governments feel they are justified in regulating the internet via Net Neutrality and other measures. 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. You are not going to create the new Knowledge Economy with your theft model. And by advocating theft, you are helping the NWO totalitarianism to take form by providing an economic incentive and political support from millions of artists who are violated by piracy. Dumb. But I expect that from you. 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? The issue that is being ignored here is that when one pays for "legal" music the actual amount to goes to the artist is in most cases zero and in those cases where there is an actual net royalty to the artist *the very famous" artists it is a minuscule percentage. The bulk of the revenue goes the "music industry" which has been made obsolete by changing technology. Digital distribution of music is fundamentally different than pressing vinyl or even pressing CDs, in that there is minimal up front up capital required so there is no need for a capitalist to provide this capital. A simple pay what you want approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_what_you_want will yield the artist way more by eliminating parasites such as "the music industry" or Apple with its 30% big brother tax. Of course the gross is far less, but would you rather as an artist receive 95% of say 2 USD or 0.0001% of 20 USD? The same is also the case with book / ebook publishers and authors, and the parasitic scientific publishing industry, vs scientists in University Industry or Government. These dying parasitic corporate players are causing a lot of damage with "technologies" such as DRM that attempt to protect "intellectual property". DRM and the attempt to protect "intellectual property" is among the greatest threats to civil liberties and individual freedom in most western counties. It is also the ultimate cause of a very significant and rising portion of China's greenhouse gas emissions. Edit: One only has to compare the relative Developer ranking in https://www.coingecko.com/en of Monero 81 (Pay what you want) vs Ethereum 74 (Traditional capitalist IPO model). Z.cash is following the Ethereum model with its 11% pre-mine to fund the venture capitalists. Those pictures of spinning diamonds did not come cheap. ArticMine, one of my points is we need to enable fans to pay musicians directly for music without a middleman taking most of it (ditto other digital creations perhaps such as video, but video is quite different from music in usage patterns). This what for example Bandcamp is doing (taking a 15% fee, although the credit card companies take another 5+%) and btw the CTO/co-founder Shawn Grunberger used to work in Tech support at Fractal Design when I was a Programmer and I interfaced with him on my own initiative as a liason. I even was the one who encouraged him to become a programmer and I remember he was telling me his idea for Bandcamp back then in 1995. So he finally did it. Congrats to him. Unfortunately he did not reply to my attempt to contact him, so they may find soon they have me as a competitor rather than as an ally. C'est la vie. Bandcamp has a weakness in their model in that one can only sample a few of the songs for free. (Also I found their app navigation and music finding UI is poorly designed, as well no social features!) Sorry but that is why Bandcamp doesn't have the wide distribution and 150 million musicians that SoundCloud has. You don't put a paywall in front of your users and expect to achieve popularity. That is a fundamental tenet of marketing and attrition minimization. Perhaps they understand the market better than me, which is why I am very interested in this discussion. I forgot to make the point in reply to r0ach that FM radio quality audio could indeed be distributed for free by musicians and this wouldn't necessarily destroy the musicians' ability to sell higher quality versions of the same songs. So I don't agree with r0ach that FM radio set a precedent for theft, because I remember I used to buy $9 - $18 CDs even though I could record from the radio station (and that even before I become rich as programmer when I was just earning a typical income as young man working odd jobs). The FM radio will have the radio DJ/host or advertising talking/fading in at the start or end of a song, it will have equalization added, it is of lower quality, and the paid CD may have additionally remix versions. I had in my 20s some hundreds of CDs and 1000s of songs that I paid for. That is why I was really pissed off when I had to buy the same songs again when I lost my CD collection due to my turbulent/adventurous life of travails and travels, so then I reverted to using means of obtaining the music for free. But still I did pay $0.99 per song over recent years at Amazon for songs I couldn't locate easily for free. And I would not prefer converting songs from Youtubes versus spending 5 - 10 cents to pay a musician directly, know I'm getting the high quality original, and have it all organized for me and so I never have to pay again for the same song and I can never lose my collection again (I am so incredibly overloaded and have not even enough time to replace the blown cigarette lighter fuse on my car, meaning I am apt to lose my song collection again because I can't keep track of everything in my life)! ArticMine, I never understood the model of having researchers pay to obtain white papers (other than as a legacy from when journals were printing on paper and physically distributed). Researchers are not funded by their cohorts buying their white papers. I don't understand your point about DRM? Please make your point more cogent? Btw (and entirely tangential/orthogonal to the discussion I added above), I like greenhouse emissions. If I obtain more funds, I will upsize my SUV and perhaps get a few dozen Hummers so I can make more greenhouse gases. I'll eat more beans (for farts) and cows (for their farts) too if I get healthy. The anthropogenic global warming (climate change redux/goal post moving) fraud is junk science and deception. Anyone who mentions that I immediately classify them as a kook, delusional, and incapable of researching scientific fact vs. fiction. Sorry to bust your bubble, but we are headed into a Mini Ice Age. Bobby Jimmy & The Critters - Somebody Farted |
|
|
|
Here's a cool example of a useful smart contract app http://www.blocktech.comusing ipfs/bitcoin/ether/florincoin/etc. I'd use it anyway. Sorry but afaics that sucks. I can't find any mention of how it uses Ethereum? Appears it is using Florincoin. If it is using Ethereum, that doesn't mean Ethereum can scale decentralized (which I have already explained it can't!). Nevertheless, there are other flaws in this Alexandria project. 1. It is relying on IPFS, which is a decentralied file storage system. IPFS is interesting for orthogonal reasons (which I will discuss below), but there is an insoluble flaw of decentralized file storage in that copyrighted content illegally distributed without compensating the copyright owner, can't be forceably removed from all nodes, and thus the protocol ends up banned by hosts[1]. Not only is it economically and technologically unrealistic to fight the enforcement of copyrights by having users stand up their own nodes connected over asymmetric upload bandwidth of home ISPs[1], but it also deprives all of us of the Knowledge Age decentralized economic ecosystem and social networking we will need to implement the Knowledge Age devolution of the corporation (see the last link in [1]). Note it might be possible to design a decentralized file storage system that enforce removal orders and enforced per-per-download royalties to the copyright holder, it is impossible for these decisions to be made without centralizing the control over these decisions. I suppose one could dream up a design where all the nodes voted and reached a consensus about each copyright claim, and the participants would be motivated to do the right thing so as to avoid the protocol being banned/regulated by government, such a design is going to suffer from unbounded preemption and thus will need to use centralized trust, so it is right back to being centralized after all. 2. In the video for Alexandria, note how he pins the files to his local computer in order to attain free access. But as soon as he has done downloading, he can unpin and thus he has given nothing to the network if no one has downloaded the pinned files while he was downloading them. For this and other economic/marketing/technical reasons, the aims of this project are unrealistic and insoluble. Regarding IPFS, I read some of the white paper and viewed some of the video presentation (which I highly recommend) and about 17 or 18 minute point it gets into the key points I want to share my analysis on. So I entirely agree with the creator of IPFS (Juan Benet) that resources should be referenced by hash rather than by URLs. As even he points out in his presentation, that is orthogonal to whether there is a decentralized protocol for storing these resources (and add my point that storing on home user's P2P servers such that copyright and royalties can't be enforced). And I entirely agree with him that we need a way to declare resources as immutable so they can be cached nearest to the use, which is needed both by offline use cases and to minimize redundant transfer of content (and Juan makes the astute point that bandwidth is not scaling as fast as storage nor CPU computation ... and I would draw the analogy to that the Scrypt paper also points out the same for RAM latency not scaling as fast as RAM storage and speed). So how to we reconcile these needs and the issue of needing to enforce copyrights? We need a decentralized protocol because we don't want to rely on any one host or federated collusion of them (and also to wrap high availability and optimization in an algorithm/protocol versus inferior/non-interoperable adhoc solutions), and we need to record the copyright parameters in a block chain. But how can the block chain verifiers determine whose claim to a copyright is valid? I don't think there is an algorithmic way yet to determine for example if two songs are close enough (including for example in the case of musical content, DJ mix songs that resample other songs) in content to be a copyright violation? If there was, we could have a rule that the first person to sign a hash of content (and submit it to the block chain) is the copyright holder. But change even one bit of the content and the hash of the content changes. I believe there can be an algorithmic solution probably drawing from existing technologies that have not yet been applied to this problem. So then we'd need a way for the copyright holders of existing works which are already public (so any one could submit the hash to the block chain) to prepopulate their hashes on this block chain. |
|
|
|
MA was predicting some technical innovation to enable us to grow food in less space and in any mini Ice Age coming... One of the more vital technological advancements has been developed locally in Philadelphia. They can grow all the necessary food without farmland from inside a warehouse that is completely free from genetic tinkering or chemical whatever. The owners of Metropolis Farms actually grow fresh produce all year long. Those interested in survival of the fittest, well here it is. President Jack Griffin developed this technology and has been doing a bang-up job. It would probably be a bad idea to set one up in a basement for the years ahead. As he explained, “The innovation here is density, as well as energy and water conservation.” Griffin continued, “We can grow more food in less space using less energy and water. The result is that I can replace 44,000 square feet with 36 square feet. When you hear those numbers, it kind of makes sense.” This is the way of the future — fresh food coming from your basement. I believe the key technological breakthrough may be long-life, high-efficiency, solid-state LED grow lights: https://www.google.com/search?q=high+efficiency+grow+light |
|
|
|
In a few months, we will look back on the stripper-fronted soda machine as the high-water mark of the Evan's Gate cult movement.
It didn't happen until I see Evan's face mounted under her muff.  Photoshopped please. |
|
|
|
Following this thread and the name speculation, I never quite understood why the hurry to lock in the name, the development can go on without knowing the final name. If it takes 6 months of coding, you could come up with the best name after 5 months and 3 weeks and it still wouldn't be too late.
Well I perform better when I can visualize the name as I develop I find features that match the marketing strategy of the name. For example, I was watching my gf play with the DubSmash app on her Android mobile phone and I thought well now imagine that app in the social sharing context. The app allows one to sync their mouth to a singer's voice to make a video. Now imagine remote individuals can all be in the same video produced, etc.. I am an idea machine, they pour out of me at several per day. |
|
|
|
[...] Furthermore, it is disgusting how willing you are to lick the tyrannical boots of governments everywhere.
If you had 3/4 of my IQ, you might comprehend that certain things are impossible because they violate the finite speed-of-light and besides anonymity is not the solution to tyrannical government. If you had even a clue as to what AnonyMint (myself) wrote since 2006, you would know I am fighting tyranny until my last breath. Dude you've pushed (your uncontrollable irrationality and emotional outbursts) it too far and now are wasting my scarce time. WARNING: Do this one time, and you will go on in my Ignore list, which means you will not be able to communicate with me (which will end up being a very big mistake on your part). Stop this nonsense. I am not everyone's punching bag. I have important work to do. You[government] cannot enforce patents or trademarks against a decentralized network.
Woefully incorrect and ignorant statement. Make you sure you follow the link to the page/thread which explains in detail. Don't give me again your oft-repeated, immature and irresponsible excuse that you don't have time to read. That is your problem. (If you don't have time to read, then the responsible action is STFU until you do) Not only governments, but Corporations will also eventually be greatly effected by decentralized and anonymity technologies.
Corporations will be replaced by direct business between individuals. In this way yes social network and block chain technologies can promote decentralization. But Bitshares/Daniel Larimer's invention of the DAC is idiotic. Robert Coase developed the Theory of the Firm that explains that corporations exist because they have a top-down moat around transaction costs. A corporation by definition and economic raison d'être is hierarchical. [...] CoinHoarder has been added to my Ignore list. Instead of responding with technical justification of his claim, he only throws mud. I tried my best to be cordial and have a productive discussion with CoinHoarder. I've given him numerous chances to keep his discussion on the facts and not on his persistent focus on slaying the reputation of those who disagree with his love of Bitshares. Facts versus personal vendettas. But he doesn't seem to be capable of recognizing the distinction. Again I believe a viewkey is possible with Zcash and that is why I have asked Zcash in their public forum (and reiterated its importance during Zooko's AMA) whether they are implementing it. Until we have their clarification, then we can't assume that which is not explicitly stated in the white paper. Readers will also note that CoinHoarder has not done the mea culpa acknowledging that he was ignorant of the applicability of Coase's Theory of the Firm to the Bitshares DAC nonsense that he is shrilling. And he will not also admit the following is why he incorrect about stealing content. Governments are organizing now around controlling the internet. The illegal activity through Bittorrent (which also steals from ISPs which have higher upload bandwidth allowances) is helping the governments feel they are justified in regulating the internet via Net Neutrality and other measures. 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. You are not going to create the new Knowledge Economy with your theft model. And by advocating theft, you are helping the NWO totalitarianism to take form by providing an economic incentive and political support from millions of artists who are violated by piracy. Dumb. But I expect that from you. |
|
|
|
I don't intend this to be condescending, but you just can't formulate logic based on incorrect assumptions of the technology. For instance, your incorrect assumption there is no viewkey in Zcash invalidates an entire paragraph of your retort, if you wold have separated your diatribe into paragraphs that is. Perhaps you should spend more time researching (or understanding) something you claim to be an expert on.
Uh so young, so bruised ego, so elbows, so acrimony, so disrespectful, so petty, so unproductive, so anti-teamwork, so failure. I do not recall reading anything about a viewkey in the 56 page long version of the white paper. I just wasted my time scanning it again and didn't find any mention. Please enlighten us as to what page of the white paper you are referring to. Furthermore, it is disgusting how willing you are to lick the tyrannical boots of governments everywhere.
If you had 3/4 of my IQ, you might comprehend that certain things are impossible because they violate the finite speed-of-light and besides anonymity is not the solution to tyrannical government. If you had even a clue as to what AnonyMint (myself) wrote since 2006, you would know I am fighting tyranny until my last breath. Dude you've pushed (your uncontrollable irrationality and emotional outbursts) it too far and now are wasting my scarce time. WARNING: Do this one time, and you will go on in my Ignore list, which means you will not be able to communicate with me (which will end up being a very big mistake on your part). Stop this nonsense. I am not everyone's punching bag. I have important work to do. You[government] cannot enforce patents or trademarks against a decentralized network.
Woefully incorrect and ignorant statement. Make you sure you follow the link to the page/thread which explains in detail. Don't give me again your oft-repeated, immature and irresponsible excuse that you don't have time to read. That is your problem. (If you don't have time to read, then the responsible action is STFU until you do) Not only governments, but Corporations will also eventually be greatly effected by decentralized and anonymity technologies.
Corporations will be replaced by direct business between individuals. In this way yes social network and block chain technologies can promote decentralization. But Bitshares/Daniel Larimer's invention of the DAC is idiotic. Robert Coase developed the Theory of the Firm that explains that corporations exist because they have a top-down moat around transaction costs. A corporation by definition and economic raison d'être is hierarchical. Dude complete your college education and learn before attacking those who know more than you do. Along the way, you will realize how proudly stupid you were and become humbled (like those of us alphamales at the top) by all that you and we do not know. Once you've realize that you don't know everything and that if you think you've discovered the greatest thing since sliced bread, then you will have developed the maturity to be skeptical because experience of life will have taught you how risky it is to think you understand something and later discover you didn't understand some key detail. Ego is for little people
[...]
Ego is for little people. I wish I could finish by saying something anodyne about how we’re all little when you come down to it, but I’d be fibbing. Yeah, we’re all little compared to a supernova, but that’s beside the point. And yeah, the most capable people in the world are routinely humbled by what they don’t know and can’t do, but that is beside the point too. If you look at how humans relate to other humans – and in particular, how they manage self-image and “ego” and evaluate their status with respect to others…it really is different near the top end of the human capability range. Better. Calmer. Sorry, but it’ s true.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
