I mean as a shrinking (relatively speaking) market towards irrelevance. Expansion of virtual currency markets will radically accelerate with network effects due to an eco-system and more degrees-of-freedom with fungibility. In other words, Lindens are beyond their half-life peak. Voxels will probably have a half-life of about 6 to 18 months.

Voxelus should be trying to make their technologies into APIs and create an ecosystem. And stay away from making a virtual currency since that isn't their area of focused expertise. Some of us have been working on crypto-currency for 3 years. They could partner with a virtual currency or better yet interopt with all virtual currencies and build an exchange into an APIs for developers.

I haven't studied this. Is Ethereum going the Dash masternode or Bitshares DPoS route of the rich get richer and usership disappears?

Not for much longer. Voxelus won't be the only VR app. Fungibility is important. And there is an economy-of-scale with one ecosystem in terms of building all the performance, scaling, anonymity and other features needed in a real-time, virtual currency.

I think all of us working on block chain scaling are very busy. Good luck to all, and let's see what we all come up with and how it settles.

I personally will put more energy into analyzing Iota once you've guys have settled all the issues and are nearer or at release. Ditto eMunie.

Peace and chillax to all.

I am contented that Aeon's community likes the name. And I am contented with Netcodes because it is precisely the best name for marketing directly to users. I am quite ecstatic that no one seems to grasp the "killer app" which is right under their nose and I have even explained it yesterday, but still I assume readers don't have a clue. Which is perfect. I am smirking from ear-to-ear that there are so many marketing dunces on this forum who think netcodes is a poor name. When they get their ass handed to them in the marketplace, it is going to be so sweet the taste of seeing them realize they've been PWN3D.

Netcash (or Netgold) is perfect for those who want decentralized store-of-value.


Yeah I like that also, except it is sometimes associated with drugs. Netcodes seems more direct-to-the-point though (need access to some web resource, thus you need to get some netcodes). Cyberjuice has more pizzazz.

Btw, I also don't like credits because I associate it with debt.


Hahaha. Okay fool I challenge you to not buy what I am creating. Will you make that promise? Put your words where your foot is. (this is going to be fun)

RAJ my man, as you know I was horridly sick for the past 3 years. Also I think perhaps you dismiss that I was first to invent Zero Knowledge Transactions in June/July. Since you have a similar condition to mine (yet apparently not as debilitating), then you should have some clue that my production was not retarded by my choice of actions, but rather by chronic fucking fatigue and autoimmune hell. Hope you reviewed my latest treatment regimen, because for 3+ weeks I've for the most part not had significant CFS, headaches, etc.. Note for the past week or so, I stopped taking the antibiotics. Also increased the Magnesium, Niacin, and added vitamin C.

More crazy currency name brainstorming:

cooljacks
cyberjuice
etastico
mobicash
mobit
mobie
mobyo
cybol
cybill

I think I like mobies. Mobi means mobile. Etasticos are neato.


Exactly that is the point.


Good point. Yeah we don't want 'cash' in the name of the juice that can drive the web. It should be something users generate for free from mining and web activity and don't even know it.

It is more akin to web inertia or ethos we are trying to capture in a name. As my grandma used to say, "use it or lose it" (she was speaking about time and her body, but same point applies).

I see that ion, ching, etc came from the ideas I had February 2014.

Thus another name for social money unit is:

moola

Note a copycat used that idea after I presented it, but it is already defunct.

The following sounds like "moo love it" (also from my 2014 ideas):

moolabit

Perhaps emoola or imoola is better than moolabit or bitmoola if trying to convert moola into a internet money, except it sounds like ebola.

Note ioney.net and ioney.io is still available should someone want to try to brand ions as money.

blocoin or bloqoin  

Sounds like blowcoin so cocaine.

P.S. In tagalog, the word for love and expensive are the same: mahal.

Alternative ideas to netcodes (: codes) that retain net prefix are:

neato
netangos: synergies
netarots: fortunes
netips: tips
netikis: collectibles, ornaments
nethrills: thrills
netokens: tokens
netroves: treasures

Haha, no information has been deleted. Chillax.

Already registered:
netcash.click
netcash.me

Note I still think netcodes is the good risk to take on the social currency unit for reasons stated upthread, unless a better idea comes up. Any way if the market sells off netcodes and buys up netcash, then so be it (we won't lose either way). For the consensus block chain 2.0 network name I am still leaning to Netcode, but I haven't totally abandoned Sync, SyncNet, or Syncnode.


Ion is donated to Aeon (but they haven't availed of the domain transfer yet).

Ion doesn't mean money. And it doesn't mean anything as a social money to normal people. Ion/Aeon is a geek forum type pump name. Good for a coinmarketcap listing, but not enough for big time user adoption. Cool for altcoin speculators, but very limited user adoption scope. It is perfect for the Aeon folks. Let them have it. I want to attempt something with much wider adoption ambitions.

I don't know why people would want to use Voxels and not a more fungible currency. Seems they've conflated a VR app with a currency in order to take some money from investors.

That is why I will just wait for the dust to settle, before and if I attempt a more quantitative argument. Or perhaps the guys who found the selfish mining flaw in Bitcoin will endeavor to analyze these new consensus designs once they have been more finalized.

It is an inefficient use of time to chase a moving target where I have the disadvantage of not having first access to the information that is in your head(s). I'll wait for your publishing.

This appears to not be used. If the community prefers this over netgold, then I will strongly consider using it as the non-social targeted currency unit.

Please feedback immediately on this name, because I am weary of registering domains we won't end up using.

I sort of like that because we can keep Netcode for the project and social currency unit, and then for those who are concerned about the explicitness of money in the name have this non-debased ("hard money") currency unit to satiate their Bitcoin-envy.

Some posts about competing block chain scaling designs Bitshares, Iota, eMunie, and "block list":

---

Both of these methods are horridly inefficient. Cripes disk space is not at a premium. Duh!

---

I expect that when you do finally issue a white paper, the weakness is going to be the economic model will be gameable such that there is either a loss of Consistency, Availability, or Partition tolerance (CAP theorem). Because without a proof-of-work (or proof-of-share[1]) block chain, there is no objective SPOT (single-point-of-truth), which really becomes onerous once partitioning is added to the design because afaics there is then no way to unify the partitioned perspectives. I believe this to be the analogous underlying flaw of Iota and "block list". Challenge with proving this flaw for Iota et al, is to show a game theory that defeats the assumptions of the developers (white paper), e.g. selfish mining game theory against Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, I have argued in Iota's thread that this onus is on them to prove their design doesn't have such a game theory. Otherwise you all can put these designs into the wild and then we can wait to see if they blow up at scale. Note I haven't had enough time to follow up on Iota lately, and I am waiting for them to get all their final analysis into a final white paper, before I sit down and really try to break it beyond just expressing theoretical concerns/doubts.

[1] In PoS the entropy is bounded and thus in theory it should be possible to game the ordering. In theory, there should be a game theory such that the rich always get richer, paralleling the 25 - 33% share selfish mining attack on Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, it is not yet shown how this is always/often a practical issue. Proof-of-share can't distribute shares of the money supply to those who do not already have some of the money supply. Proof-of-share is thus not a debasement power-law flattening (recycling) distribution compatible scheme, although neither is proof-of-work once it is dominated by ASICs. Without recycling of the power-law distribution, velocity-of-money suffers unless debt-driven booms are employed and then government becomes a political expediency to "redistribute from the rich to the poor" (which is then gamed by the rich and periodic class/world warfare). Proof-of-share suffers from conflating coin ownership with mining, thus if not all coin owners are equally incentivized to participate in mining, then the rich control the mining. A coin owner with a holding that is only worth less than his toenail, isn't going to bother with using his share to mine. Thus proof-of-share is very incompatible with the direction towards micro-transactions and micro-shares. Any attempt to correct this by weighting smaller shares more, can then be gamed by the rich who can split their shares into micro-shares. Ideally debasement should be distributed to an asset that users control but the rich can't profitably obtain.

---

Because (as indicated/implied by my prior post) it is more sane to design your system holistically such that ordering of transactions is an exceptional event, and not a routine one.

Conflation of "order book" with TX/s is a category error. It is not even clear if a decentralized "order book" can or should have a deterministic ordering, because determinism may allow the market to be gamed. In any case, it is not relevant to the issue of rate of processing TX/s for signed transactions. Separation-of-concerns is a fundamental principle of engineering.

---

I have already argued to you in your Iota thread that your definition of Availability has no relevant meaning (propagation to across the peer network is not a semantic outcome). Rather a meaningful Availability is the ability to put your transaction into the concensus. In Bitcoin, that availability is limited in several ways:

• Confirmation is only every 10 minutes.
• Inclusion is in a block is dependent on the whims of the node which won the block, and on the maximum block size.
• One who has sufficient hashrate power, has higher availability.
• 51% of the network hashrate power can blacklist your Availability.

It is my stance, that the holistic game theory analysis of Availability in Iota, eMunie, and "block list" is much more muddled thus far. The multifurcated tree of Iota appears to be multiple (potentially inConsistent) Partitions, so Availability to create a new tree branch doesn't appear to be meaningful Availability since there is no confirmation of consensus.

I have already argued to you in your Iota thread that your definition of Availability has no relevant meaning (propagation to across the peer network is not a semantic outcome). Rather a meaningful Availability is the ability to put your transaction into the concensus. In Bitcoin, that availability is limited in several ways:

• Confirmation is only every 10 minutes.
• Inclusion is in a block is dependent on the whims of the node which won the block, and on the maximum block size.
• One who has sufficient hashrate power, has higher availability.
• 51% of the network hashrate power can blacklist your Availability.

It is my stance, that the holistic game theory analysis of Availability in Iota, eMunie, and "block list" is much more muddled thus far. The multifurcated tree of Iota appears to be multiple (potentially inConsistent) Partitions, so Availability to create a new tree branch doesn't appear to be meaningful Availability since there is no confirmation of consensus.

Because (as indicated/implied by my prior post) it is more sane to design your system holistically such that ordering of transactions is an exceptional event, and not a routine one.

Conflation of "order book" with TX/s is a category error. It is not even clear if a decentralized "order book" can or should have a deterministic ordering, because determinism may allow the market to be gamed. In any case, it is not relevant to the issue of rate of processing TX/s for signed transactions. Separation-of-concerns is a fundamental principle of engineering.

I expect that when you do finally issue a white paper, the weakness is going to be the economic model will be gameable such that there is either a loss of Consistency, Availability, or Partition tolerance (CAP theorem). Because without a proof-of-work (or proof-of-share[1]) block chain, there is no objective SPOT (single-point-of-truth), which really becomes onerous once partitioning is added to the design because afaics there is then no way to unify the partitioned perspectives. I believe this to be the analogous underlying flaw of Iota and "block list". Challenge with proving this flaw for Iota et al, is to show a game theory that defeats the assumptions of the developers (white paper), e.g. selfish mining game theory against Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, I have argued in Iota's thread that this onus is on them to prove their design doesn't have such a game theory. Otherwise you all can put these designs into the wild and then we can wait to see if they blow up at scale. Note I haven't had enough time to follow up on Iota lately, and I am waiting for them to get all their final analysis into a final white paper, before I sit down and really try to break it beyond just expressing theoretical concerns/doubts.

[1] In PoS the entropy is bounded and thus in theory it should be possible to game the ordering. In theory, there should be a game theory such that the rich always get richer, paralleling the 25 - 33% share selfish mining attack on Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, it is not yet shown how this is always/often a practical issue. Proof-of-share can't distribute shares of the money supply to those who do not already have some of the money supply. Proof-of-share is thus not a debasement power-law flattening (recycling) distribution compatible scheme, although neither is proof-of-work once it is dominated by ASICs. Without recycling of the power-law distribution, velocity-of-money suffers unless debt-driven booms are employed and then government becomes a political expediency to "redistribute from the rich to the poor" (which is then gamed by the rich and periodic class/world warfare). Proof-of-share suffers from conflating coin ownership with mining, thus if not all coin owners are equally incentivized to participate in mining, then the rich control the mining. A coin owner with a holding that is only worth less than his toenail, isn't going to bother with using his share to mine. Thus proof-of-share is very incompatible with the direction towards micro-transactions and micro-shares. Any attempt to correct this by weighting smaller shares more, can then be gamed by the rich who can split their shares into micro-shares. Ideally debasement should be distributed to an asset that users control but the rich can't profitably obtain.

Both of these methods are horridly inefficient. Cripes disk space is not at a premium. Duh!

Let's talk software engineering a bit...


Daniel Larimar incorrectly claims in that video that it is not reliable to validate transactions in parallel multithreaded. Nonsense. Only if the inputs to a transaction fail to validate would one need to potentially check if some other transactions need to be ordered in front of it, or check if it is a double-spend. And he incorrectly implies that the only way to get high TX/s is to eliminate storing UXTO on disk, because presumably he hasn't conceived of using SSD and/or RAID and/or node partitioning. It is impossible to keep the entire world's UXTO in RAM given 36 bytes of storage for each 256-bit output address+value, given even 1 billion users and several addresses per user. He mentions using indices instead of hashes, but enforcing such determinism over a network makes it extremely brittle (numerous ways such can fail and having addresses assigned by the block chain violates user autonomy and the end-to-end principle) as well even 64-bit hashes are subject to collisions at billion-scale. Essentially he is making the error of optimizing at the low-level while breaking higher-level semantics, because he apparently hasn't gone about the way to really scale and solve the problem at the high-level semantically.

Edit: Fuseleer applies the term "vertical scaling" to describe Bitshare's optimization strategy.

eMunie is still an enigma, thus no determinations can be made yet.