? So what is the currency going to be Zcash or zerocoin?

How would you view the potential of OpenBazaar? I think its potential is very large but so will be the competition.

I can't imagine that Europe is face such a situation. Also these days most people from European countries started adopting bitcoin.
Coincube has done a good work of creating such a topic even before the crisis has started. He has predicted and observed much
about the market scenarios. Anyhow my prediction is bitcoin also grows only along with the growth of the world countries which
are facing a great distraction in economy.

I will be the first to admit I needed a week to fully absorb the following works of AnonyMint.

The Rise of Knowledge
Understand Everything Fundamentally

Europe will not disintegrate
Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

(source: independent.co.uk)

Coase’s theorem says that an inefficient internal order will continue for as long as there remains an unavoidable frictional barrier insulating it from the more efficient external possibilities. The fundamental reason the EU crisis will not result in a disintegration of the union, at least not until its people significantly abandon collectivism, is that organisms which are unable to comprehend the mechanism by which they are consuming resources faster than their ecosystem can replenish, thus are unable to stop the mechanism before they perish. So the implosion of the friction and thus the order only occurs when they perish, because they will continue to repeat the mechanism which they do not understand to be a cause of their suffering. This can be verified in a petri dish, as an organism will reproduce until it consumes all of its food or oxygen. Due to the lack of a pre-frontal cortex, it is unable to comprehend the connection of reproduction to unsustainability. Unfortunately, even though humans have a pre-frontal cortex, they do not comprehend that debt, insurance, bonds, fractional reserve money, and centralized governance, cause the demand (and thus production) of resources to be overconcentrated in sectors of the ecosystem that create a less productive future. In the next section, I will explain that these financialization mechanisms cause collective failure and thus demand ever increasing centralization (i.e. “too big to fail”), because from their inception they all pool capital. Thus they are always collectivism.

    “It amazes that otherwise bright people can’t understand the simple concept that economic collapse doesn’t convert collectivists into anarchists.”

Thus the people are blind to the mechanism which is enslaving them and reducing their prosperity. Thus, since they will not change the mechanism, centralization of governance will grow stronger from the current financial crisis, and will diminish only when the involved organisms perish. Entropy is continuously culling the center of the bell curve so that knowledge can advance. I make no political judgment when I state factually that these mega-death cullings take many forms, e.g. abortions kill 42 million annually, it is reasonable to assume birth control probably more than that, some statistics claim that governments and wars have killed a couple 100 million in the past century, totalitarianism (the political end of pooling resources) kills millions, drugs and medications probably kill millions, cancer rates are double in the ‘developed’ world (the countries with financialization), and arguably GMO food may add to that. I am not making a political judgment on reproduction, rather to state the fact that actuarial economics are constrained and politically intractable without a sufficient population of youth. And as will be explained with the entropic force, it is the antithesis of knowledge formation, to a have uniform (replicated) social action.

    “Currency wars are like [...] slap wars, trade wars is where the knives come out.”

        “Currency wars > trade wars > hot wars.”

Europe is predominantly retirees (low or negative birth rates exacerbate this), that own various european country bonds via their retirement plans. If interest rates go up, the bond values decline, and their retirement is toast. The politics is to appease subconscious denial, which is why you see Merkel talking tough and simultaneously making gradual steps towards centralized printing and fiscal controls. The savers want to penalize the non-savers, under some illusion that they can convert the non-savers, but they don’t accept culpability for causing the problem with a collectivist form of saving. If the collectivist non-savers were converted to collectivist savers, then who would borrow? Illogical.

Thus, the savers are blind to the fact they too are collectivists. Productive europeans (e.g. Germans) want to have a fixed interest rate return by loaning money to less productive sectors who can buy their exports. Now they want to deny they are subconsciously in support of money printing, because they also don’t want their fixed income to disintegrate (even though it will be debased either way). Due to the psychological phenomenon of ‘false attribution error’ (i.e. blaming the stone that one tripped on, a form of cognitive dissonance), they want to be the victim who will spank and control the bad PIIGS, via increased centralized control. Neither the savers nor the borrowers are the victim, they all are collectivists and being culled by the entropic force. Note, Germany’s debt ratio is as bad as the USA and Canada.

Fiscal centralization to come next (link explains how), with copious money printing and centralized rationing (i.e. austerity and/or price controls). The recent health care legislation in the USA, is price controls and rationing. The only prosperous fix for health care, was to eliminate insurance a priori so that individuals could maximize and individualize their preparations for aging. I will explain that pooled savings, i.e. insurance, is collectivism and thus automatically wasted.

My outlook is optimistic, in that those who understand how to avoid collectivism, facilitate maximum knowledge formation and efficiency of market fitness, will prosper and (they and their offspring will) survive entropic culling.

That is great! It is much easier to be productive when you are feeling well. How is the coding for neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes going? Any estimation on when it will be ready for alpha testing?

Imagine if life was perfect and without chance. Life would be deterministic and could be modeled with an algorithm, then failure couldn't exist, everything would be known in advance, and thus there could be no change that wasn't predictable, i.e. real change wouldn't exist and the universe would be static. Life requires imperfection and unbounded diversity, else life doesn't exist and isn't alive. Equality and perfection are the ambition of the insane who probably don't realize they must destroy life to reach their goal.

Thus the theory that it would be impossible to predict what computers would contemplate is nonsense because the input entropy of the models of the brain will always be finite and deterministic from the time the input entropy is varied.

Pseudo-random number generators are deterministic from the time the seed is changed. Even dynamically capturing entropy from the changing content of the internet would be deterministic from each moment of capture to the next, and the model of capture would be lacking diversity and static (only modified by a human).

The 160 IQ genius Microsoft founder Paul Allen refers to this as “specialized knowledge” in The Complexity Brake, yet he thinks the brain is finite because he apparently didn't consider that every finite human brain is unique; thus systemic creative thought possesses dynamic unbounded entropy.

Ray Kurzweil responded that the human genome (DNA) has a finite information content, and claimed that humans possess a canonical brain which is differentiated by what is learned from the environment during each human lifetime.

Since the portion of the human genome pertaining to the brain has an entropy in the millions or billions, each human brain is potentially at least one-in-a-million or one-in-a-billion unique. Notwithstanding that uniqueness, if human evolution was entirely encoded in a finite genome, then it would be mathematically possible for a plurality of humans to have identical brains at some point in time as the brain forms before differentiation from non-identical learning environments. However, the brain is learning and exposed to the environment as it is forming in the womb, thus there is never a point in time where the brain was entirely structured from only the information in the DNA.

Thus evolution is not just an encoding from the environment to the genome, rather a continuous interaction between the ongoing environment and the genome. Thus for computers to obtain the same entropy of the collective human brainpower, they would need to be human reproducing, contributing to genome and interacting with the environment in the ways humans do. Even if computers could do this, the technological singularity would not occur, because the computers would be equivalent to adding more humans to the population.

The implication is that the creativity of humankind is enhanced as the human population grows. And culling the population to increase average IQ would reduce human creativity. Resilient systems don't have low entropy.

Claude Shannon showed us that the capacity for information content is equivalent to the entropy of a system. As elucidated above, the entropy of our universe is inseparable from life, thus information is alive.

I highlighted the important part for you... is it still effort if some people paid for it?

It could be a Pseudo-decentralized like what we're having in Bitcoin. It is decentralized but due to the majority of it are being held by the Chinese, it seems they are controlling it at their own will.

Well Life and Intelligence and Human societies run contrary to thermodynamics...

This is the essence of the debate I was having with professor JorgeStolfi (which I had to put on temporary hold bcz I am so busy on my software project, I had PM'ed him saying I was sleepless, incoherent, ill, and regretted opening the debate when I wasn't capable).

The key is to understand that when a human creates order, he destroys some Coasian barrier to knowledge and via the social network increases the degrees-of-freedom in society thus leading to higher entropy.

I alluded to these processes in the ~2010/11 essay I wrote which is linked in the OP of this thread, and also the Information is Alive! essay I wrote in 2012.

This is why I am now hyper focused on social networking and crypto currency, no longer anonymity. Anonymity fosters barriers thus potentially decreasing entropy.

It requires a base coin in order to work. In this case the base coin is essentially a Bitcoin clone, so it is not a substitute for the Bitcoin protocol.

I will try to read what you posted over. I only have so much time.. 40 hour work weeks plus school is tough. I wish you could make TL;DR versions of your posts.  

Seems ma is curve fitting his own model chasing the trend until he gets it right then says hey look at me. Except he doesnt have a stoploss until ppl stop reading

[...]

In short, only microtransactions would have the crucial End-to-End principle for streaming and downloading music.

They key insight I am making is a very profound one. It concerns the proper design of decentralized social networking. There can't be orthogonality of services without microtransactions, because otherwise services (e.g. streaming storage) have to bound together with other capabilities (e.g. streaming players) which then creates captured markets and the resultant effects (which was my criticism of the future of Ello):

[...]

Wikipedia has a gigantic list of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_protocols_for_distributed_social_networking

What's odd is that for so many, there's very few that are actually developed enough to use, and a good number of them have ceased to exist, or at least have frozen development (like crabgrass, it would seem).

Here's another one. It relies on subscription, which some believe make it a more likely solution to succeed in development: app.net (here's a review that talks about it: http://web.appstorm.net/tag/app-net/)

The bad news is that the renewal rate was not high enough for us to have sufficient budget for full-time employees. After carefully considering a few different options, we are making the difficult decision to no longer employ any salaried employees, including founders. Dalton and Bryan will continue to be responsible for the operation of App.net, but no longer as employees. Additionally, as part of our efforts to ensure App.net is generating positive cash flow, we are winding down the Developer Incentive Program. We will be reaching out to developers currently enrolled in the program with more information.

App.net will continue to employ contractors for help with support and operations. In addition to operational and support help, we will also be utilizing contract help for specific new development projects.

You're wrong and probably stupid

Create more altcoins

If you build a decentralized application, you actually need to ship software. You need to package, test, create installers, test on a variety of platforms, write defensive code to work around misconfigurations your customers are likely to create, etc. For a centralized website, you can often edit files in place on the production server.
Result: decentralized is 10x harder at least.

Somebody somewhere will run every single version of your app that you ever shipped. It will be badly out of date, full of security holes (you fixed years ago), outmoded graphics etc. It will cost you additional support, and your brand will suffer. Almost nobody upgrades to the latest and greatest within a life time it seems.
Result: decentralized is less functional, less pretty, and less secure.

https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/Federation_message_semantics#Sharing_Notifications

Also it is written in Ruby on Rails and doesn't appear to be built on a clear separation-of-concerns design philosophy, i.e. the protocol should be formalized orthogonal to any particular implementation and language/platform of any implementation.

Decentralized software is much harder to monetize. You can’t run ads on somebody else’s installation. You can’t data mine your users (because most of them aren’t in a place that you have access to, it’s somebody else’s installation). You can’t do cross-promotions and referrals etc. You can charge those people who install your software, but there’s a reason most websites are free: much better business.
Result: decentralized produces less money for you, so you have less investment dollars at your disposal.

Database migrations and the like for decentralized apps have to be fully productized, because they will be run by somebody else who does not know what to do when something fails 15 minutes into an ALTER TABLE command.
Result: decentralized is 10x harder at least.

And if you build a social networking app, like Diaspora*, you have to build some kind of federation protocol that works across the internet. These protocols are hard, they are expensive, they are hard to secure, none of which you need to do in a centralized settings where you can simply update your (single) database.

They are harder to use by the end user than a Facebook Like button. And the kicker: because you cannot guarantee that all installations of your app all over the internet run the same version of your app (you are lucky if it’s the majority), interoperability is hit-or-miss. I learned this the hard way when attempting to support users using OpenID. Often, as a developer, you don’t even have a way of finding out that 100% of your users in some place fail! Never mind fixing it (remember, most installations will be out of date)
Result: decentralized is so much harder once you need to seriously federate.

https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/Federation_message_semantics#Sharing_Notifications

Also it is written in Ruby on Rails and doesn't appear to be built on a clear separation-of-concerns design philosophy, i.e. the protocol should be formalized orthogonal to any particular implementation and language/platform of any implementation.

[Of course, I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't have some ideas on how to address many of the above challenges. Currently in beta. Stay tuned.]

Talking about ego, guess who wrote the following statement?

"Note I am working on the conceptual issue of why that sock puppet user with no reputation and who is noise for us can even reach this sub-community of ours in this thread."

Hint: A coder