https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.htmlHello Zooko, I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project? Haven't you seen the new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources) that will ban end-to-end encryption? To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)? I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments? Sincerely, TPTB_need_war AnonyMint Shelby Moore III Bold my emphasis. The proposed legislation in the United Kingdom does not ban end to end encryption. What it does however is to require those companies that provide proprietary encryption products to retain a back door key and make this back door key available to law enforcement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11970391/Internet-firms-to-be-banned-from-offering-out-of-reach-communications-under-new-laws.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1446482200 There is a critical difference here in that FLOSS end to end encryption tools remain perfectly legal and secure while proprietary end to end encryption tools would have a back door. This is not unlike the FinCEN guidance in the United States https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html where proprietary development funding models for crypto currency (using the emission to fund development) will likely lead to a legal requirement for MSB registration while FLOSS development funding models can retain their decentralized virtual currency designation and avoid the MSB registration requirement. In Canada there was a proposed law that did not pass that required providers of email servers to retain records for law enforcement with an exception for those who ran their own mail server from their own homes.. A more relevant question to ask would have been: Given that you plan to use a portion of the emission over the next 4 years to fund your company, have you registered as an MSB with FinCEN or have you obtained guidance from FinCEN that MSB registration is not required in your case? The pattern here is starting to become apparent. Click I agree on some company's terms for the use of proprietary software and become a slave, click I do not agree and use FLOSS tools instead and remain free. Thanks ArticMine. Yes I am aware that the proposed legislation in the UK (also afaik similar legislation proposed in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia) only applies to service providers who offer encrypted services, not to open source code which users independently obtain, compile, and run on their own initiative. I was vaguely aware of this pending legislation and then I became more focused on it during my private discussions last month with the GadgetCoin team who have a P2P streaming technology named Streemo. The governments are not stupid to try to ban activity they can't possibly enforce (thus making the government look impotent), i.e. the government can't monitor/enforce against what each private citizen does in their home. But I argue effectively the direction is to ban end-to-end encryption in general that does not provide a back door to national security agencies. The government can regulate the ISPs (internet service providers) and ban end-to-end encryption protocols that do not include a decryption key for national security agencies. I have also explained that using home computers as servers over asymmetric upload bandwidth home ISPs is a Communist economic plan (as I warned Bittorrent back in 2008 and offered them an economic solution for their tit-for-tat algorithm but they ignored me). And that protocols which allow illegal activities from unregulated home servers will be banned by ISPs and hosting providers. If you know of any technology to hide a protocol's patterns such that ISPs can't identify it, please enlighten me. There is some discussion of "Censorship resistance" in section 2.4 of Synereo's white paper, but that still seems to be inadequate. Simply put, it is impossible to fight the government when there are choke points in the system which the government can effectively regulate. This is just common sense. I added the following to that question for Zooko: |
|
|
|
|
enet you have a reading comprehension handicap. The thread already addresses your reply. I refuse to repeat myself again.
|
|
|
|
https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.htmlHello Zooko, I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project? Haven't you seen the new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources) that will ban end-to-end encryption? To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)? I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments? Sincerely, TPTB_need_war AnonyMint Shelby Moore III
|
|
|
|
https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.htmlHello Zooko, I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project? Haven't you seen the new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources) that will ban end-to-end encryption? To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)? I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments? Sincerely, TPTB_need_war AnonyMint Shelby Moore III
|
|
|
|
have the project sales zcash? where is I can buy it?
https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.htmlHello Zooko, I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project? Haven't you seen the new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources) that will ban end-to-end encryption? To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)? I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments? Sincerely, TPTB_need_war AnonyMint Shelby Moore III |
|
|
|
Compensating users for their attention is certainly better than expecting their labor for free. This is very powerful, GG is doing more with less friction. Imagine if each Gems is worth one dollar, its userbase would reach millions where you could basically earn serious money per day. In netnox case he would get $183 per day just by airdrop. We are seing that GG model is working pretty well, i mean its reaching 100k users already. Please quote that correctly because I didn't write that. I was quoting Synereo's white paper. I fixed it above. My point is that paying users for interacting on social networks, or paying them to watch ads, is not a viable economic model. I provided a link to my post at the Synereo thread that explains why I think so. GetGems is not reaching 70k users. That is the count of downloads and downloads doesn't equal users. We'd need some statistics on actual usership, e.g. how many minutes per day using the app, etc.. I'd expect roughly 5% of downloads convert to users if the app is very good and has a compelling use case. Additionally, the value of Gems is irrelevant if there is not a compelling reason for the users to trade the tokens with each other. There is no way investors in the token are going to finance you to give away $183 per day to each user just for being in a daily airdrop. That is pure fantasy. You have to actually create an ecosystem. You can't just drop money and expect an ecosystem to magically emerge. There must be network efforts. You are talking about targeting adults, adults is not gg's target audience and i dont think adults are thriving social media worldwide. For some users even $1 in airdrop is great, why would i use WhatsApp if i can have all my contacts in GetGems (which is compatible to Telegram) and get rewarded for my activity? The post I linked to, also referred to the youth. And my point was that ads pay less to target the youth because they have less money to spend (and if they have more to spend they don't need your $1 airdrop). IMHO, you are missing the point that users don't join social networking for chump change income. They join it for other larger motivations. We are discussing those motivations in the Synereo thread. Feel free to disagree with me. If you are the programmer, we can talk in PM, explore this more and see if there are mutual opportunities. I don't have time to carry on this discussion in your thread. Thanks. You are right, an ecosystem needs to emerge and thats whats slowly maturing right now. Last update was 10k downloads in 20 days, as the ecosystem grows things will go even faster. If the top Messengers are reaching marketcaps in billions i don't see why gg can't reach 100 million or a big player tries to buy it. It is afterall the most advanced messenger, im not even talking about its reward value program. Just the fact that it allows you to send money worldwide in the context of conversation makes is worth to look at.
Please publish a transcription or summary logs on all the metrics about usership and ecosystem activities. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin continues because it doesn't allow multiple Partitions and because in the case where chaos would result from a fork, then centralization of the mining is able to coordinate to set policy. But we also see the negative side of centralization when recently the Chinese miners who control roughly 67% of Bitcoin's network hashrate were able to veto any block size increase. And lie about their justification, since an analysis by smooth and I (mostly me) concluded that their excuse about slow connection across China's firewall is not a valid technical justification. Large blocks can be handled with their slow connection by putting a pool outside of China to communicate block hashes to the mining hardware in China.
Hmm, you have a steep background in relativity, but somehow things go wrong somewhere. Bitcoin partitions all the time - that's the default for everything. Nodes only synchronize ex-post, hence the block cycle. Dude I haven't written anything in this entire thread (unless you crop out the context as you did!) to disagree with the fact that Bitcoin's global consensus is probabilistic. My point is the system converges on a Longest Chain Rule (LCR) and doesn't diverge. Duh! The distinction between convergence and divergence has been my entire point when comparing Satoshi's LCR PoW to other divergent Partition tolerance designs such as a DAG. I request you quote me properly next time, so I don't have to go hunting for the post you quoted from. I fixed if for you above by inserting the proper quote and underlining the part you had written without attribution and link. I presume you know how to press the "Quote" button on each post. Please use it. Respect my time. Don't create extra work for me. I'd humbly suggest to start with some through research of some basics:
Passive aggressively implying that I haven't studied fundamentals is not humble. * computers are electronic elements with billions of components. how does such a machine achieve consistent state? see: Shannon and von Neumann and the early days of computing (maybe even Zuse)
* partitions, blocks, DAG's, .... all this stuff generally confuses the most fundamental notions. after investigating this matter for a very long time, I can assure you that almost nobody understands this.
Humble  Blah blah blah. Make your point. I can assure you I've understood the point deeply about the impossibility of absolute global consistency in open systems (and a perfectly closed system is useless, i.e. static). Go read my debates with dmbarbour (David Barbour) from circa 2010. I'll give an example: in any computer language and modern OS, you have the following piece of code: declare variable X
set X to 10
if (X equals 10) do Z
will the code do Z? unfortunately the answer in general is no, and its very hard to know why. the answer: concurrency. a different thread might have changed X and one needs to lock X safely. Perhaps one day you will graduate to higher Computer Science concepts such as pure functional programming and asynchronous programming (e.g. Node.js or Scala Akka) to simulate multithreading safely with one thread using promises and continuations. But you are correct to imply there is never a perfect global model of consistency. This is fundamentally due to the unbounded entropy of the universe, which is also reflected in the unbounded recursion of Turing completeness which thus yields the proof that the Halting problem is undecidable. If you are still using non-reentrant impure programming with threads (and mutexes), or otherwise threads in anything other than Worker threads mode, you are probably doing it wrong (in most every case). in other words data or state in modern computing is based on memory locations. programs always assume that everything is completely static, when in reality it is dynamic (OS and CPU caches on many levels). These are all human abstractions. The actual physical process of a computing machine is not uniform. In fact it is amazing that one can have such things at all exist, since Heisenberg discovered its impossible to tell even the most elementary properties of a particle with certainty. Shannon found that still one can build reliable systems from many unreliable parts (the magic of computing).
Higher level abstractions and quantum decoherence. I am not operating at the quantum scale as a classical human being. With regards to your basic thesis you're right and wrong at same time. Total coordination is impossible even on the microscopic level. Bitcoin implements a new coordination mechanism, based on the Internet, previously unknown to mankind. It's certainly not perfect but that notion leads nowhere anyway. The foundations of computing is how one treats unreliable physical parts to create reliable systems (things that are imperfect add up to something which as reliable as necessary).
Who ever said "perfect". I said probabilistic. The key distinction was convergence versus divergence, but that seems to have escaped you along the way here. |
|
|
|
TPTB, not everybody can think the same, which is actually per MA as well. And that is actually not bad, since then there is always someone to trade against. So, let them be, and one doesn't really need to get emotional in trying to prove that he is right. I don't quite favor when I see a talent getting wasted by responding in an emotional manner to whatever other points of view.
I explained that he is attacking my reputation. I must respond because I have a reputation here. Of course if I was unknown here and focused on my usual engineering, I wouldn't waste my time responding. Please re-read my prior post for my logic on this. I am not emotional. I am angry because he is forcing me to waste my time, by indirectly attacking my reputation, since I am the one who introduced the entire Bitcointalk forum to MA. sloanf read: The same reasoning prevailed in my own case as written by Judge John Walker (Bush’s cousin). He actually wrote: “Thus, we have little difficulty concluding that the district court’s inherent power to order coercive civil confinement is of ancient and traditional origins. Armstrong’s statutory arguments, however, present the question whether the district court still retains this power. …. the exercise of the inherent power of lower federal courts can be limited by statute and rule … Nevertheless, the Supreme Court explained, “we do not lightly assume that Congress has intended to depart from established principles such as the scope of a court’s inherent power.” I got into the Supreme Court because Judge Sotomayor, now Supreme Court Justice, was on that panel and disagreed with Walker. Walker had the audacity to rule that there was no limit to the power of a federal judge to imprison anyone for life without a trial. Such people can only see the world through their own desire for absolute power. The decision in my case was no different from the lettres de cachet which sparked the French Revolution of the Writs of Assistance that inspired the American Revolution proving history repeats perpetually. Walker wrote: We believe that Judge Sotomayor advances a similarly mistaken argument in her concurring opinion by arguing that there is no practical difference between one who is “incapable of complying” and one who “simply chooses not to do so.” According to Judge Sotomayor, in either case, “there is a limit to how long [that person] can be incarcerated.” We disagree. Judge Walker then drove from the court, I believe drunk, and then killed a policeman directing traffic in the middle of the road. Most news stories have been erased from the internet. It seems they missed at least this on Wikipedia: On the evening of October 17, 2006, while driving home, Judge Walker’s Ford Escape automobile struck a police officer, Daniel Picagli, who was directing traffic in a rainstorm at a road construction site for AT&T in New Haven, Connecticut.[21][22] There were no construction signs or traffic cones marking off the site.[23] Picagli died four days later on October 21, 2006. “He had been wearing a black raincoat and a reflective vest”.[24] Police Chief Francisco Ortiz said the “officers did not feel it was necessary to test Walker for drugs or alcohol”.[24] Walker stopped immediately, and New Haven police have said the cause was not related to drugs or alcohol.[25] A police investigation reported that Walker “was traveling at a slow speed through the dark and rainy construction site.”[26] The prosecutor declined to press charges, saying nothing indicated “intentional, negligent or reckless conduct” by Walker. The police conceded they never tested him for being drunk just saying he appeared to be OK. A judge can even kill a policeman since he is higher on the political food chain. If sloanf reads this entire thread and then reads all of AnonyMint's archives, he will find all the documentation to refute his slander. That is, if he is interested in truth. |
|
|
|
Compensating users for their attention is certainly better than expecting their labor for free. This is very powerful, GG is doing more with less friction. Imagine if each Gems is worth one dollar, its userbase would reach millions where you could basically earn serious money per day. In netnox case he would get $183 per day just by airdrop. We are seing that GG model is working pretty well, i mean its reaching 100k users already. Please quote that correctly because I didn't write that. I was quoting Synereo's white paper. I fixed it above. My point is that paying users for interacting on social networks, or paying them to watch ads, is not a viable economic model. I provided a link to my post at the Synereo thread that explains why I think so. GetGems is not reaching 70k users. That is the count of downloads and downloads doesn't equal users. We'd need some statistics on actual usership, e.g. how many minutes per day using the app, etc.. I'd expect roughly 5% of downloads convert to users if the app is very good and has a compelling use case. Additionally, the value of Gems is irrelevant if there is not a compelling reason for the users to trade the tokens with each other. There is no way investors in the token are going to finance you to give away $183 per day to each user just for being in a daily airdrop. That is pure fantasy. You have to actually create an ecosystem. You can't just drop money and expect an ecosystem to magically emerge. There must be network efforts. |
|
|
|
At dinner tonight (we dined out, budget style), I asked my 26 year old filipina gf (we are in Mindanao) if there are any things she doesn't like about Facebook. She is on Facebook in her new Samsung J7 mobile phone app during all waking hours on our WiFi connection which she prefers instead of my old laptop because she sometimes its "hung" (meaning the laptop is so old and under-provisioned that it has to be rebooted frequently). The mobile phone can be enjoyed from the sofa, in bed, and the it is easy to rotate screen for a video and also accepting calls and reply to SMS is all conveniently in one hand held along with Playstore apps (which my WinXP laptop isn't configured to accept). - Photos & videos of horrific vehicles accidents (e.g. motorcycle driver's head crushed under wheel of bus) which she is curious to look at but she wishes it was blocked from her Timeline feed.
- Naked and pornographic videos & photos, again which she might be induced to view when in front of her face, but she would prefer they not be displayed to her.
- That she can't always play a video or music in the Timeline and must click off to a website such as Google to view it.
- That people can add her to Groups without her permission which is annoying (and all her friends agree they hate this).
She mentioned what she likes about Facebook: - Interacting & staying up-to-date on happenings with her friends.
- Sharing music.
- Sharing jokes, funny videos, cute dogs, babies, anything pink, etc.
- Posting photos, especially ones she alters with apps such as replacing her black hair with gold hair, and humorous or girly effects.
- She also of course loves Google Playstore where she finds new apps to do funny or girly effects with her video Camera and/or photos.
Compensating users for their attention is certainly better than expecting their labor for free. This is very powerful, GG is doing more with less friction. Imagine if each Gems is worth one dollar, its userbase would reach millions where you could basically earn serious money per day. In netnox case he would get $183 per day just by airdrop. We are seing that GG model is working pretty well, i mean its reaching 100k users already. Please quote that correctly because I didn't write that. I was quoting Synereo's white paper. I fixed it above. My point is that paying users for interacting on social networks, or paying them to watch ads, is not a viable economic model. I provided a link to my post at the Synereo thread that explains why I think so. GetGems is not reaching 70k users. That is the count of downloads and downloads doesn't equal users. We'd need some statistics on actual usership, e.g. how many minutes per day using the app, etc.. I'd expect roughly 5% of downloads convert to users if the app is very good and has a compelling use case. Additionally, the value of Gems is irrelevant if there is not a compelling reason for the users to trade the tokens with each other. There is no way investors in the token are going to finance you to give away $183 per day to each user just for being in a daily airdrop. That is pure fantasy. You have to actually create an ecosystem. You can't just drop money and expect an ecosystem to magically emerge. There must be network efforts. |
|
|
|
This discussion should indicate precisely how the construction of the
Reo measure defeats Sybil-like attacks. If either Stilgar or Usul create an army of bots,
all ready to attest to the power of their creator's word, this attestation is highly
unlikely to contribute to the standing of either in the eyes of the other because
they will not share the bots in their common community. I quickly read from page 14 to page 24 and this comment about Sybil attacks on Reo seems to be correct. Any user who has not acknowledged the Sybil agents (bots) will thus not receive their influence in terms of relative Reo score. |
|
|
|
See the quoted content for how this post applies to this Decentralization thread. Synereo probable scam alert (note I think their intention is sincere but they unnecessarily attach a speculation model to a very high risk experiment in social modeling that n00b speculators will wet their pants for because they can't understand it but it sounds cool): [...] Besides the rest of the Synereo network operates on a decentralized, no-consensus model, which is the antithesis of a crypto currency which requires global consensus. Conflating Synereo with a crypto currency will thus end up forcing Synereo to be centralized (see my research in the Decentralization thread for why and also my formerly censored thoughts about why afaics the work that Synereo's Greg Meredith is doing for Ethereum's Casper consensus protocol is flawed and won't solve the inherent flaw in Ethereum w.r.t. to decentralization). Similarly, when Synereo launches, an initial supply of
AMP s will be available for purchase and distribution to early
users and contributors. Synereo also o ers a unique social approach to proof-of-
work that will be connected to a kind of "mining" and AMP
creation. However, the discussion of this is currently out of scope for this paper. It is impossible to invent a PoW which derives from a decentralized, no-consensus network which isn't about consuming a resource and also achieve global consensus on the distributed ledger's (block chain's) Consistency due to the CAP theorem. This is nonsense to claim you have such a PoW. |
|
|
|
The AMP Token To complement these two forces, Synereo introduces the
AMP . A user can publish content with a certain amount of AMP s attached. The algorithm for
prioritizing content also takes into account how many AMP s have been invested
in the content and can use this to bump it into a more desired location. In
this way, AMP s provide a way to purchase a shot at a user's attention. Users
receiving ampli ed content will also receive a portion of the attached
AMP s. The more Reo they have relative to the poster, the more their attention is valued by
their shared community, and the more AMPs they will receive proportionally Frankly speaking the AMPs seem to violate the correct logic about attention value not being about paying users. I am unwilling to be paid $1 - $10 per day to view 100 spams ads per day (notice how the ads here at Bitcointalk are very discreet and take only a small space between posts or on user's signature lines). AMPs crypto currency seems to be an appendage to drive another P&D scam to sell an ICO. Afaics there is no reason to involve a monetary unit in the attention model. Advertising could instead become sponsored content that is desired by users (i.e. sponsorship paying the artist for its creation and then placing the sponsorship in the content, e.g. a Dominos pizza is delivered in the video). AMPs appears to be an ill conceived gimmick to drive speculation fever in a very risky, experimental project that might fail as Diaspora did. Besides the rest of the Synereo network operates on a decentralized, no-consensus model, which is the antithesis of a crypto currency which requires global consensus. Conflating Synereo with a crypto currency will thus end up forcing Synereo to be centralized (see my research in the Decentralization thread for why and also my formerly censored thoughts about why afaics the work that Synereo's Greg Meredith is doing for Ethereum's Casper consensus protocol is flawed and won't solve the inherent flaw in Ethereum w.r.t. to decentralization). Similarly, when Synereo launches, an initial supply of
AMP s will be available for purchase and distribution to early
users and contributors. Synereo also o ers a unique social approach to proof-of-
work that will be connected to a kind of "mining" and AMP
creation. However, the discussion of this is currently out of scope for this paper. It is impossible to invent a PoW which derives from a decentralized, no-consensus network which isn't about consuming a resource and also achieve global consensus on the distributed ledger's (block chain's) Consistency due to the CAP theorem. This is nonsense to claim you have such a PoW. Edit#2: so on page 33 (#31) it is explained that it is not AMPs that are socially "mined" but rather Reo is socially mined and then can be perhaps some exchanged for AMPs. But this doesn't solve the problem that this will cause a divergence of consensus about the value of an agent's Reo score: Socially meaningful proof-of-work and "mining"
AMPs If all value associated with cryptocurrency must ultimately trace back to value
originating in at currency the transition to cryptocurrency will be a slow pro-
cess, indeed. If, however, we provide a mechanism whereby a key aspect of the
creative process is re ected in the AMP's relationship to value, that process can
be dramatically accelerated. What everyone implicitly understands, yet very
few explicitly acknowledge is that creativity has a distinctive mark: creative
processes are ex nihilo; they generate something from nothing! Whether it's a
new algorithm, a new song, or a new way of looking at the world, we recog-
nize creativity in the freshness and newness of the o ering { something is there
that wasn't there before. Human life vitally depends on the font of creativity;
without the renewal of creativity value slow receeds from our lives.
However, without a mechanism whereby that creativity results in the cre-
ation of currency, none of the value created by a genuinely creative o ering is
recognized. All of the existing currency traces value back to some other source.
So, without such a mechanism the creative act is not recognized properly by the
system. Note though, that if they nd their audience, the consistently creative
participant in the network will have high Reo. Their standing in the community
will re ect the recognition of their creativity. If they had a means by which
they could turn some of their accumulated Reo into AMPs, literally capitalizing
on their reputation, then the system would actually have a means to recognize
the creation of value in the creative act.
The attention economy
Out of these core concepts we build an economy of attention; a way to manage
this highly limited resource of the human brain. In some sense, this economy
is not unlike an economy in a functioning capital-based democracy. Typically,
such economies come with two dials: on the one hand, citizens can express their
voice through democratic processes, such as elections, referendums, and other
mechanisms where they can cast their
vote
. On the other, citizens engage in the
creation, distribution and consumption of goods and services and use capital as
a means of facilitating the bene cial ow of this wealth.
Both processes ultimately result in the distribution of goods and services.
And as long as the linkage between votes and capital exchange is suciently
weak, citizens have
two
distinct ways of expressing their individual and col-
lective will about the functioning of the economy in society. When working
e ectively, these two channels provide a mechanism for balancing the collective
will (largely identi ed with democratic participation and self-determination at
that level), with individual will (largely identi ed with the ow of currency and
self-determination at that level).
The notion of
Reo
, as can be seen in its technical form in chapter 2, is essen-
tially a kind of attention-based measure of the collective will: it looks remarkably
like a kind of online voting. Meanwhile,
AMP
s are unabashedly an attention-
based form of currency. As such, these two notions are balanced against each
other and provide a means of balancing collective will with individual will. What
distinguishes Synereo from the idealized capital-based democracy, however, is
the reconciling force of
engagement
. In point of fact, a democratic society lives
or dies according to the engagement of its citizenry; but there is no objective,
rei ed measure linking this directly to the distribution and ow of value. In
Synereo, there is - the attention model allows each and every individual to cast
his \vote" and show his engagement without making any special e ort beyond
his normal participating in the network - and this additional sophistication cre-
ates more subtle network dynamics, hopefully leading to a more balanced social
model. The entire point of an attention model is to remove the conflict in the community by making the communities more granular and eliminate the tension. I should be able to participate in multiple sub-communities and my posts to those communities should be relevant to the shared interests and attitudes of each sub-community. I am leaning towards your model is fundamentally conceptually flawed for as long as it is including AMPs and Reo is not more granular than the monolithic agent. Edit @ 30 minutes after post time: Ah now I see it mentioned that more granularity for Reo is contemplated: Further developments of this model include more
fine-grained distinctions between information types, social consensus, and other
signals that shape the network and the flow of information and attention in it. Edit#3: So the only reason to use process calculi to model the network versus kinetic proofreading (think of Facebook's Like) is to incorporate AMPs: Using
the social network interpretation kinetic proofreading provides a quantitative
model of an attention economy. As such, it stands as a competitor to the
Synereo model. That's why we care.
Comparison
As mentioned in section 2.2.6, we hope to publish quantitative
comparison results in a subsequent paper. More qualitatively, the question is,
does Synereo's network model do anything to improve this basic mechanism?
The short answer is that Synereo includes each of the attention ratcheting mech-
anisms and ampli es them. However, it balances that with
AMP
s. This acts as
a kind of catalyst or enzyme working in the opposite direction to the natural
signal improvement. |
|
|
|
the discussion is intended to show the 2 sides of a coin.
Then you need to first comprehend the subject matter, which is clear you haven't invested the effort to do so. Thus that makes you an idiot troll. It would be like a 5 year coming up to a PhD and say the PhD is wrong about Theory of Chaos. At least show some respect that you do not understand what you are writing about. You don't even comprehend what Armstrong has predicted. You are being rude No the offtopic/unresearched trolls are rude. And I am speaking the frank truth. Political correctness is a dumbing down disease. 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. If that attention model issue is solved, then I won't need to be frank, because you all won't be able to troll me and the likeminded sub-community. Within the sub-community that I belong to in this thread, there are some who doubt MA (I even have my doubts and especially about short-term trading) who I have coexisted with (e.g. CoinCube, OROBTC) because they don't slander MA with very poor comprehension of what MA has written. They express doubts, but don't go on an all-out slander campaign because they know they have not read everything and do not have an objective understanding of what MA has predicted and written. They are observing. If you slander MA you are in effect slandering me (and if you read AnonyMint's archives you would see I was arguing with MA in email in the past), because I popularized MA on Bitcointalk.org. And if you haven't read AnonyMint's archives, then you won't understand the reasons I came to my current opinion of MA's value to me. To slander me and imply all of us are religious nutcases requires me to waste my scarce and important time to come here and dig up the research that you trolls were too lazy to comprehend before you started your troll campaign. Please get out of this thread's sub-community (I am not referring to other threads) if you can't maintain a balance of objectivity and fairness to those in this sub-community who have done a lot of research and thinking on the matter and find value here in this MA thread. You can create your own MA slander thread if you want. |
|
|
|
Attention is selection for action
[...] This section is excellent (click the link and read it). But the devil will be in details. Note even Stackexchange, this forum, and Reddit are attention economies (with the former and latter incorporating voting and comment threads so that users can impart their appraisals of relevance and accuracy). For example, I get your attention when I bump posts to the top of thread. I also have a reputation (in some reader's opinion) that my posts are informative and valuable. However, some other readers hate my writing and think it is too verbose, technobabble, and/or rude (please do click that link for a prime example!). So ideally my posts should only be seen by (get the attention of) readers who will value my posts. So an attention tool (hopefully automated) should detect which users don't want to see my posts and hide them. But you can't hide my posts when someone else replies to them and that other person happens to be someone that readers who don't want to read me, do want to read the user replying. So there is an unresolvable conflict in such a model of attention based on personal reputation. This is essentially the MAJOR FLAW I see so far in Synereo's Reo attention model core concept. It conflates the attention economy with personal reputation. It seems an attention model will need to be much more complex than that. Any way, let me continue analyzing Synereo's model to see if I learn something that changes my conclusion. I am thinking about models for an attention economy. Stackexchange and Reddit irritate me because they allow disrespectful (and spiteful, political, turf battles) downvoting instead of a system of community selection. There should instead be subcommunities I think, and you only comment in the communities that value you. That is the only way I see around the conflation of personal reputation and interleaved discussion. But I need to think that out more. Just a very rough idea for now. Existing social networks tally up likes and reshares, but
they do nothing to describe the network you're helping to build or how to make
it stronger. The point of these networks is to make you feel like a celebrity of
your own minor fandom, not to make you feel like an agent in control of your
social life The other thought I have is the yes in centrally controlled social networks the users are not in control of what they can do and how information is prioritized for them. But I am also thinking there doesn't exist only one attention model. Rather the number of attention models is as unbounded as is the diversity of human beings. Every human is unique! (read my linked blog for elaboration on why that is so) Thus I am thinking one of the fundamental flaws in Synereo may be the hard-coding of one attention model network wide.
1.3.1 Core concepts: Reo, engagement, and AMPs, oh my!
Reo
Reo is a measure of your reputation as a publisher of attention-worthy content.
Given two participants, say Troy and Abed, in an online community, we write
Reo(Troy; Abed)
to indicate a quantitative measure of their relative standing
in the community. Roughly speaking,
Reo(Troy; Abed) refects how much the friends Troy and Abed
have in common have paid attention to Troy versus Abed.
As such, the measure is not symmetric; that is, we normally expect
Reo(Troy; Abed) ≠ Reo(Abed; Troy)
engagement
Reois built on top of the notion of engagement (Troy; Abed), which is a quan-
titative measure of how much Abed has engaged the content output of Troy;
respectively, engagement (Abed; Troy) is a measure of how much Troy has en-
gaged the content output of Abed.
These two notions feature in the algorithm for prioritizing content in a user's
stream. Essentially, the more Troy attends Abed's content, the more likely it is
for Abed's content to show up in a place in Troy 's stream where Troy will notice
it. Likewise, the higher Abed's standing in the community relative to Troy, the more likely
Abed's content will show up in Troy's stream in a place where he is likely to notice it. So this assumes (roughly) that the actions of which content they attend to amongst my common friends with another person, determines the ranking of that person in terms of the prioritization of displaying that person's content to me. That does not seem to have high informational value. My friends may not even have the same preferences that I do. Perhaps Synereo is planning on determining who I have the most in common with in terms of preferences and do it either automatically or assisted by me, but I am still not sure if the actions of those people will best reflect my priorities and preferences because as Synereo's white paper admitted in the " Attention is selection for action" section that my circumstances determine my priorities on my attention. It seems the fix is to allow reputation per agent to accrue to different genres on sharing, i.e. granular reputation. In other words, hashtags. Again I am leaning towards that Synereo's attention model is flawed, even though their ideological and conceptual basis is admirable. But let me finish the rest of the white paper... |
|
|
|
YES! I would change my social media network and may even delete may fb account  And if all your friends, customer, collegues, etc do not follow you, then you will be all alone (even if the site has a million users who are not people you relate to). Your Fb contacts may not care about ideology. And they may like or at least not hate Fb as much as you apparently do. Hey I don't like the idea of centralized overlord either, but the fact is when I need to communicate to my connections, they are all on Fb. Seen something like this before but didn't make it big like fb.
Diaspora (now defunct):
A simple look at di erent o erings in the space, aiming
to subvert some of the aforementioned premises, have been met with hope and
with praise before ever delivering anything substantial. Diaspora, in many ways
ushering the concept of a decentralized service, was quickly backed nancially
by hundreds of people.
if this is going to be big and has shared by thousands, this could actually make it and may even kill facebook.
You mean 100s of millions, else your contacts won't likely be there. There will always be better one. how would you sell ads to this social media if you don't get to gather user info?
That is the analysis I am doing now. Stay tuned for future posts...I have also invited the Synereo lead dev to come here to this thread (he said he has been ill past couple of days)... |
|
|
|
Understand from the upthread guessimates, that Tsu's and GetGems' business model is fundamentally flawed (probably also in other ways): Gems
2
allows users to compensate each other directly
for messages and advertising using their own cryptocurrency. Gems developers
have explicitly described the compensation model of their system in terms of
the attention economy
3
Since users are paid for their time and attention, these
networks are described by their developers as contributing to the economy of
attention.
Compensating users for their attention is certainly better than expecting
their labor for free. We welcome the move to recognize user contributions to
the value of these networks, and to reward the love and e ort that goes into
all the content they produce. However, the issue is more complicated than
simply paying people for their attention The case of freemium gaming makes clear how schedules of rewards and
reinforcement can be used to compromise or even undermine a users agency.
Instead of assisting in the process of selecting for action, reinforcement learning
trains the user to expect speci c rewards when adopting the goals and behav-
iors imposed by the scheduling system. E ectively, these compensation networks
redirect user attention and action to serve the purposes of the network
[...]
Estrada and Lawhead [29] distinguish between systems that disrupt user be-
havior by introducing new computing tasks, from those that leverage existing
behavior to perform useful computational work. They call the latter \natural
human computation". We see Tsu, Gems, and other such compensation net-
works as a "disruptive"[i.e. information destroying] approach to social networking, and propose Synereo
as a "natural" alternative. |
|
|
|
Economics and game theory seems to be one of my forte or at least interests/hobbies, so let's take a tangent and start by analyzing economically Ello's business model: "Say you’re a musician or a band, and you want to control multiple accounts from a single login," Budnitz said. "We can charge $2 for that. It’s not for everyone.”
Budnitz says he has seen thousands of emails from users suggesting features for which they would be willing to pay, and Budnitz says plenty are already in the works.
Ello founder Paul Budnitzpaulbudnitz.com
"Let’s say that for a few bucks, you can buy an emoji pack designed by a popular street artist," Budnitz says. "Because of how we've built Ello, it naturally lends itself perfectly to that."
Other hotly suggested features include the ability to browse Ello with inverted colors, turning the screen black and overlaying it with white text. Interestingly enough, the feature saw over 500 requests, mainly from Ello users in Europe and Japan.
And while others have debated how feasible Ello's ad-free business model will work out
[...]
"An advertising-based social network is by its nature, it actually has to do things, because all those things are the things that make it money," Budnitz says. "If we started doing that, everyone would say 'f--- this' and leave — excuse my language."
At the end of the day, Budnitz says keeping Ello sustainable will be a relatively simple feat, given that Ello's business model is inherently different from Facebook's, and that means the costs are different, too.
"There are seven of us running Ello now, with some extra programmers helping us out," said Budnitz. "It is not very hard to run at this scale, and Ello’s getting pretty big. And data is really cheap! I think if you don’t have to have an office building full of people figuring out how to manipulate people into giving you more data, it’s really not that hard to run a network with a ton of people on it."
The problem is that due to centralized control, Ello is putting itself in a position where it has to compete against others who might want certain features which ameloriate other features which Ello has a vested revenue interest. It is simply impossible for a centralized, top-down controller to remain impartial. Some users may want some feature which provides some necessarily benefit to those users but in some other way actually bypasses the need to buy a different feature from Ello. These users presumably won't be free to program a plug-in that destroys Ello's revenue stream, just as no one is allowed to program a App plugin for Facebook which displays advertising. Ello has just shifted the enslavement problem from ads to paid features. And their claim of anonymity and defense against national security gag orders is BULLSHIT. They can't guarantee those attributes being a centralized entity. Furgetaboutit. So right off at the start, we see Ello's principle founder is not thinking clearly or is disingenuous. Not to mention that a site which charges for features can't scale as well as one that gives everything users want away for free. Nevertheless Facebook and SoundCloud are also restricting and harming some (but is it significant enough?) users as well, so maybe there is a better balance. Is it Synereo's decentralized design? I will continue the analysis. I can say with near certainty that unless you offer some compelling feature where all their friends will want to join, users here in the Philippines will not be interested in leaving Facebook where all their friends already are.
Understand from the upthread guessimates, that Tsu's and GetGems' business model is fundamentally flawed (probably also in other ways): Gems
2
allows users to compensate each other directly
for messages and advertising using their own cryptocurrency. Gems developers
have explicitly described the compensation model of their system in terms of
the attention economy
3
Since users are paid for their time and attention, these
networks are described by their developers as contributing to the economy of
attention.
Compensating users for their attention is certainly better than expecting
their labor for free. We welcome the move to recognize user contributions to
the value of these networks, and to reward the love and e ort that goes into
all the content they produce. However, the issue is more complicated than
simply paying people for their attention The case of freemium gaming makes clear how schedules of rewards and
reinforcement can be used to compromise or even undermine a users agency.
Instead of assisting in the process of selecting for action, reinforcement learning
trains the user to expect speci c rewards when adopting the goals and behav-
iors imposed by the scheduling system. E ectively, these compensation networks
redirect user attention and action to serve the purposes of the network
[...]
Estrada and Lawhead [29] distinguish between systems that disrupt user be-
havior by introducing new computing tasks, from those that leverage existing
behavior to perform useful computational work. They call the latter \natural
human computation". We see Tsu, Gems, and other such compensation net-
works as a "disruptive"[i.e. information destroying] approach to social networking, and propose Synereo
as a "natural" alternative. |
|
|
|
the discussion is intended to show the 2 sides of a coin.
Then you need to first comprehend the subject matter, which is clear you haven't invested the effort to do so. Thus that makes you an idiot troll. It would be like a 5 year coming up to a PhD and say the PhD is wrong about Theory of Chaos. At least show some respect that you do not understand what you are writing about. You don't even comprehend what Armstrong has predicted. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
