Please put a pause on all your well-intended but rather useless (never ending) noise (drivel) about derivatives, what the government should do, evil of central banks, evil of debt, etc and all these superfluous issues that you can neither change nor which will determine the direction global society is headed. Let me have your undivided attention please. (RealBitcoin et al just please STFU for a while please since you won't grasp the relevance of the following)

Getting back to my writings (written in 2010 - 2012) which were the main theme of the OP of this thread back in 2013, and based on a recent paradigm-shift revelation on the markets for the crypto currency I am working on, I have now seen the light of how specifically the Knowledge Age I've been predicting will take form.

And glorious it is our future.

The key insight is that I now see how Knowledge Age producers (workers) will be paid digitally directly by Knowledge Age consumers, and the middle man can't exist (because the competition will be to remove him). I am not yet going to tell you exactly why this is so and all the mechanics because I need to retain this a secret for the time being while I am implementing this.

So what this means is that anonymity was never the way we were going to restructure government and fix society. Instead it is the coming social media metaphorsis of commerce such that there can't be a middle man which the government can expropriate. This is a critical distinction from the game theory in which the world operates now, because when the government can take on debt, promise everything to the masses, and then charge the costs of the taxes and/or end game regulatory capture to the large corporations (rich and upper middle class), then the majority (masses) are in no way incentivized to resist. This game theory is summarized in Some Iron Laws of Political Economics. CoinCube has also discussed this game theory upthread and I have some where in AnonyMint's archives better summarized and justified the Iron Law of Political Economics (I think the Dark Enlightenment thread and/or possibly upthread in this Economic Devastation thread).

So what happens when the majority earn their income and are paid directly by the consumers of the produced Knowledge Age work, is that the government can't charge the cost of the end game collapse of debt to any one! It is when the government can steal from the minority and buy off the majority with debt financed socialism, that the government power grows without bound until the minority is depleted and a Dark Age is entered. Luckily throughout history technology usually (but not always which is why there have been 600 year Dark Ages where only food was money) rescues society and the majority is able to recover its ability to earn income more directly. Examples of such past technological innovations would be soil management technology for agriculture, the spread of knowledge via the printing press, etc..

When the majority is directly earning the lion's share of the income in society, then the government will find it politically implausible to steal from the majority to redistribute, because the majority will refuse. It is only by appeasing the majority making them dependent on socialism and then stealing from those middle men who aggregate the capital, that the elite at the top are able to fool the majority into stealing from the minority and handing all the power to a super-minority elite. Without a minority to expropriate, the governments' debt collapses (this also includes the expectation that crypto currency can be redesigned to remain decentralized and thus the government won't be able to simply turn it into fiat again and print money out of thin air which steals from everyone and this also includes that even if they could, they will no longer be able to use that funny money to aggregate middle man controls... the entire paradigm of the Iron Law of Political Economics hinges on the existence of middle men extracting rents...this was a key epiphany)

Anonymity is entirely unrealistic and doesn't address the political-economic structural issue (that is why I have recently admonished Monero to look at anonymity as a way to make public block chains RELIABLY private, End-to End principled, and efficient but not for the purpose of avoiding taxation and encouraged them to look at making simple scripting private not just currency and thus I assert they need Zerocash/zk-snarks and not Cryptonote nor RingCT). Whereas a new way of thinking about social media and microtransactions does. Stay tuned for the second coming of Satoshi has arrived. And this will be the real deal.

Because without fundamental value, then the winners of the P&D are not the greater fools (which includes the vast majority of readers). Someone has to lose for others to gain in P&D that doesn't actually create adoption, network efforts and fundamental value.

You can't understand his public claims, because the thought process of his model (which is very complex and has overlapping cycles) is spread out over numerous blog posts and public writings. When you take some statement out-of-context of the understanding of the entire holistic set of writings, then you are making false accusations because you don't understand what he has actually said holistically. Thus if you don't buy his services where you can get precise assistance from the model on your specific trading objectives, then you are just blowing farts in the wind with your erroneous "criticism" (more like making yourself look like the fool that you are).

Continue to enjoy wasting your fucking time. I don't know who wastes their time other than someone who is paid to do it, an idiot, an addict, or because it is a form of fun/entertainment (cure for boredom and inability to find something more interesting to do). So you decide which applies to yourself.


Why not head over to the Altcoin forum and try to convince fools to stop gambling. You could not do it in a million years. Since when it is YOUR job to worry about how other people evaluate the performance they get from speculating.

Matthew 7  applies. Look first at the plank in your own eye, before worrying about the speck of dust in someone else's eye.


If all Armstrong is selling is that some people think they have gained knowledge, then it is no other person's duty to tell everyone else that what they perceive to have gained in return for reading Armstrong (for free!) is useless.

Note I have made successful financial trades based only on reading his blog. I've been selling out of silver, Bitcoin, and Philippines pesos into dollars every since 2011 for silver (and in fact I publicly predicted the top precisely many months before it happened so Armstrong just confirmed for me!), 2013 top for Bitcoin, and since 2014/5 for the peso. This has been an extremely correct trade! But as an example of why you fools are clueless, that correct trade doesn't count the speculation trades that could have been made on the shorter-term moves of BTC in its rollercoaster gyrations along the way down from $1000 (although I did correctly predict most of those too based on mania sentiment). So this is why you can't take his blog posts out-of-context, because the longer-term cycles are not the same as the shorter-term cycles, plus cycles from different asset classes and phenomenon interact.

Armstrong was the first one to shock everyone by predicting the dollar would rise in the coming global economic contagion (post 2015.75). All the delusional goldbug anal-lists were predicting hyperinflation and a dollar decline as China took over, etc...

Also before when I was reading only his public writings, I didn't know the predicted < $1000 low for gold wasn't until March 2016 (which someone shared with me from his paid gold report) and thus I made some wrong decisions about the potential low for BTC being at the 2015.75 turn date this past September. So having access to the paid reports is essential. That coming low does not change the long-term forecast for a secular bull market peak of $2500 - $6000 ($12,000 being the maximum possible chart projection but won't happen except in some very rare circumstances).

Ethereum is broken and can't be fixed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1339648.msg13668336#msg13668336

Ethereum is broken and can't be fixed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1339648.msg13668336#msg13668336

Ethereum is broken and can't be fixed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1339648.msg13668336#msg13668336

As I asserted upthread, DOGE's marketing strategy is HOPE and nothing more (the fun aspect was only the confluence hallucinative mania icing drug on the P&D cake):

Ethereum is broken and can't be fixed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1339648.msg13668336#msg13668336

Estimated nonsense with no factual justifications.

I think I have perhaps found an economic opportunity for microtransactions that demands the control be decentralized:

https://developers.soundcloud.com/blog/limits#comment-2086111174
http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/24/why-soundcloud-will-be-worth-more-than-spotify/
https://on.soundcloud.com/premier

This is an example of research that can possibly drive a marketing strategy.

This looks to be the precise sort opportunity I was looking for, but now I need to do a lot of deep research and analysis.

The user submitting the files to a decentralized file system could create multiple copies of the same file, each encrypted with a different private key and then only one storage provider would be paid for storing each copy. Even if Sybil attacked. the attacker would need to store each variant, because attacker doesn't know the private keys. But this still doesn't resolve the issues entirely because at least two reasons. First, asymmetric decryption (e.g. public key) is very computationally intensive and normally public key cryptography is only used to interactively exchange a symmetric encryption/decryption key, but in this case the submitting user can't interact with every user that wants to decrypt the file. Second and more importantly, there is no way for a block chain to verify the Proof-of-Storage challenge wasn't replied to. The miner winning the block could simply ignore the reply to the challenge. Only the full nodes which are online at that time can verify the miner ignored the reply (if they've also received the reply), but they can't prove that miner winning the block didn't receive the reply so they can't penalize the miner by ignoring his winning block (for if they could then any one could revert the winning block by producing a late reply and then revealing it). This is analogous to the discussions that monsterer, smooth, and I had about why propagation can't be proved.

Storj, Maidsafe, Sia, and Permacoin (and any other decentralized file system that pays to store a file instead of only paying to serve the file) are all provably scams.

Include Ethereum in the list of scams (although they are still trying to fix the technology) and probably most every other shitcoin on this forum.

Stop spamming the thread. Armstrong doesn't have to prove anything to you. You are not paying for his services. Thus you have no official data from him to accuse him with. His public writings and blogs are not official trading data from his company. End of story.

Your speculation about his trading data is ambiguous because he never promised any trading accuracy to anyone who doesn't buy his trading data. The public writings are not his official data. There is no way he can communicate the complexity of his dynamic models in static written form. His trading models are meant to be used in real-time by savvy traders, not by idiots who think they can extract his model by reading hastily written blog posts. You are completely misinterpreting the intent of the information he puts out for free. It is not for trading. It is only broad stroked informational.

Continue ranting and it is clear you are a paid disinformation agent.

It is necessary to quote this longish post from another thread to bring the context into this thread.


Page 14 of the Storj white paper makes it clear they are relying on a propagation full node security model, which we have entirely discredited in public forum discussions I have had with monsterer and smooth over the past month or so. Storj, Maidsafe, and Sia are incompletely specified systems, and frankly Storj, Maidsafe, Sia, and Permacoin look like fantasies trying to sell speculators a bridge to no where.

Before exploring the potential markets for decentralized file storage, I would first like to analyze more deeply the technological viability.

Availability

First if we are not employing ISP user clients as storage providers, thus not stealing upload bandwidth from ISP user accounts (as I had explained in the prior thread where the quote above originates), and thus not able to use the unused storage space of user computers (i.e. we are using then decentralized/duplicated hosted server storage providers), then any redundancy of data storage will incur the increased cost of duplicated storage. However, note that duplicated storage would be required for a centralized storage provider as well (since it would require redundancy for durability of data) and with decentralized copies of data, each provider need not build in internal redundancy as it can require the data (after loss, e.g. due to storage drive failure) from the other providers in the decentralized system. Also with bandwidth costing roughly $1 - $2 per TB (e.g. hivelocity.net) and data center HDDs roughly $0.03 per GB ($30 per TB), a file accessed more than say 100 times is going to be dominated by bandwidth (and CPU) costs. Btw, this is why Google has created a pseudo-offline storage class for infrequently accessed files which reduces costs to $0.01 per GB probably by using recently invented higher latency drive technologies.

Durability

The goal is to insure a copy of the data is always stored and thus the data is never lost. A centralized storage provider maintains redundancy of storage to provide very low probability of loss, and might even back up files in cold (tape or optical disk) storage.

Storj, Maidsafe, Sia, and Permacoin are proposing to use Proof-of-storage to insure there are multiple copies of data stored, but I explained already that this is fundamentally flawed and can't be sound:


For example, the storage nodes (providers) can be Sybil attacked such that all the attackers nodes share the same data store. Certainly this will be the outcome since the attacker can earn more coins for each Sybil node added to the system. IP addresses aren't that expensive. This is yet another reason I think Storj, Maidsafe, Sia, and Permacoin are bullshit and probably scams.

So now that I've explained why paying each node (for the copy of the data it holds) is not immune to Sybil attacks and thus not economically viable, I assert that the only ways to insure durability in the decentralized provider context are either of:

• keep a backup copy in a trusted centralized provider (this can be encrypted if not providing public access so that the centralized provider can't censor based on data content)
• trust a statistical incentive that at least one decentralized provider will be incentivized to store your data

In the first case, the decentralized copies serve the high availability function and the backup copy the durability guarantee.

The second case would be perhaps the incentive providers have to retain the file if it is frequently accessed (assuming they are being paid each time they serve a file) and then setting up a cron job to frequently request and pay for a serving of your files when they have not been otherwise served to the public interim. In this case the decentralized copies serve both the high availability function and the backup copy the durability guarantee.

Depending on the market use case, one of the other might be more economic.

Legality

With hosted content, the host provider holds the person on the account responsible for violating the Terms of Service which includes hosting illegal content. Hosts will likely ban a person for habitually violating the Terms of Service and for not having a streamlined policy for illegal content complaints and legal actions.

In the decentralized providers context there is suppose to be no centralized party to blame or send a legal action to. Storage providers can't know who to believe about whether a file must be removed. The legal authorities can't go serve action on all the decentralized providers, because the storage providers come and go (and are too numerous and distributed). So the only action that can be taken is to require the hosting providers do not allow the system to be run from their servers. Thus the decentralized system becomes essentially banned every where.

The only solution I can think of is to require each file submitted to the system to be signed by public key authorized by a trusted authority that verifies the identity of each signature authority it authorizes. Then the authorities can serve the legal action directly to the trusted authority to revoke the public keys (and all decentralized storage providers comply by removing those files).

So in conclusion, decentralized file systems could potentially provide some higher availability and scaling, but durability is more problemmatic (but probably can be acceptable) and authority over which files can be stored will remain centralized.

The higher availability and scaling is interesting. Not sure if it is compelling though. Users will still have to pay file storage, there is no way to reduce the costs.

And since they don't offer any centralized mechanism for legal actions, Storj, MaidSafe, Sia, and Permacoin will end up entirely illegal or run only from ISP user clients in which case they will be slow (low availability and/or high latency), blocked by many ISPs thus not reliable for users, in addition to the other fatal flaw I mentioned above about Sybil attacks.

---

---

Here is the information about the flaw I had found in Bittorrent in 2008:

I am interested in analyzing the marketing and technology required to have significant quantity of actual users. Most of the Top 20 crypto currencies other than Bitcoin don't have any usership (zilch!), other than the speculators who are trading the coin.

Let's try to stay on topic. If you want to refer to a P&D marketed to speculators as a marketing strategy, then yes that is true but it is doesn't require any discussion. It is obvious that is what most altcoins are. I am interested in discussing real market strategies and respective technology for significant user adoption.

I still however think your point is valid even if we are not referring to the Top 20 altcoins, in that marketing strategy is absolutely essential (otherwise there is no market) and the technology is an implementation detail. Nevetheless technological flaws can render marketing a failure (but often not when the only marketing strategy was a short-term P&D because the technology never gets stress tested as there isn't any usership).

Marketing to speculators is easy. Perhaps I could have pocketed a $million doing it had I been so inclined in 2014. Simply make up a bunch of convincing bullshit and sell an ICO (and sneak in a premine after the fact as well). It would violate my ethics, but others are not so inhibited. Having a well respected forum member as one of the developers can also help the success. But this is getting somewhat more difficult now, because some speculators are becoming more astute and some of the mania from 2013 has worn off.

That is not an entirely invalid point, but I think we can also discuss marketing strategies that not just in terms of gender or ethnic demographics. We can also consider genres of applications.

Photoshopped big toe prints.

The scanner is at a distance. You can't prove it was used.

The chin that looks like a vagina is a I think instructive. I'd photoshop my shaved testicle with a big toe print to see if I could fool the system.

I agree technology and marketing are both required; and moreover the marketing research needs to be done at the same time as the technological design, because they impact each other (unless one is simply doing academic research with no requirement to necessarily tap a market). Note I am referring to more than just promotion. I am referring to the strategy about who will use the technology, why, and relative advantages and disadvantages compared to centralized options for the same markets. So I want to continue the analysis of various potential markets for decentralized crypto and the technologies required. And to analyze if those technologies have flaws. I will continue the direction I was on in my next post. And if anyone else raises any other prospective markets to discuss or investigate, then I may research those as well. Others should feel free to also discuss their research/analysis on these matters on any markets (and respective technologies) applicable to decentralized crypto.

If you are asking me, I am not going there because for one I don't know of any such coin at this moment (even Bitcoin is in a block chain Tragedy of the Commons scaling crisis and is being at least partially controlled by a mining cartel in China) but there are many I haven't studied closely for example CounterParty. And secondly I still hold out hope that some coin(s) I can't currently recommend (e.g. Monero/Aeon or others) might actually do something that I agree with (e.g. if Zerocash turns out to be viable and they adopt this and make it viable for corporations to have RELIABLY private block chains). And third, because if I say anything, I am going to be attacked.

All I will say is don't be so eager to hand your money over, unless you are just gambling on the P&D. To find a coin that can really make good on a big time market breakthrough is a probably at least as bad as the odds of winning the exacta at the horse betting. I will estimate is not as miniscule odds as the Lotto though, given you have done your homework on technology, marketing, and the key people making it happen.

Ethereum could also potentially still transition in many different ways but I haven't tried to enumerate their realistic options (and although I wrote in my thread that it appears they are layering on more complexity for the moment trying to make the impossible possible, which from my design senses smells big time failure on the horizon). It is difficult to predict exactly how this "well it all needs to end up centralized any way" (refer to my thread for elaboration) is going to work out. One person could be correct that it can't remain decentralized, but that might end up being irrelevant (although I don't think so, because it is decentralization that makes all what we are doing any different than everything else we already had available or at least afaics). For example, I think Peter Thiel backed Vitalik with $100,000 originally.

Also I am still in the midst of researching these issues and so I haven't formed my final opinion yet on all matters, since I like to formulate my conclusions based in objectivity and fact to the best of my imperfect human failings ability. It will help the more smart people do more open discussion on these matters, since no one person is omniscient.

Apologies that I didn't give you the direct answer you asked for. I usually prefer to be direct, but in this case I am handicapped by the sheer complexity and volume of undigested information of it all.

There is a chance my final conclusion will end up being decentralized crypto failed entirely, but I am hopeful that is not the final conclusion.