22: b4 Qa3

Work it forward from there. White queen will have to pull back to Qc1 protect the Rook, then black Nd4.

Massive opportunity lost with Re5. Just as white lost a massive opportunity by waiting too long to move Bd3.

I only had about 5-10 minutes to study this game, so I might have a mistake. I am not using any computer, just in my head. I am not really exceptional at chess. Never studied any books on it. I think my talent lies more in the area of creativity than in calculating all the potential moves with a probabilistic logic.

Thanks for posting. How so in vain? Perhaps I misunderstood what you intended by that word. Perhaps you mean you can't offer "expert" feedback.


Any way just in case you thought I was accusing you of being a "tin foil hat", I wrote that "I believe" (meaning not an assertion of fact but "afaik") that OROBTC adheres to one "or" more of the following demographic categories: "'tin foil hat', hard money, 'sound' money, or anti-central banks". Meaning that I think there a market of men who believe in concepts such as those and they are prevalent in the Bitcoin ecosystem. I did not necessarily assume you are a "tin foil hat", but yet I do see you appear to at times write affirmatively to those theories from GATA et al about how the gold market is manipulated. Btw, I used to trade emails daily with Bill Murphy from GATA. They are no where near Armstrong's league. Any way, it is not my role here as a marketer to determine the facts of the gold market. I am merely identifying and targeting preferences of different market segments.


You may not realize I am proposing to have two currencies, netcodes and netgold. The latter would be conservative and a debasement rate similar to gold and thus be a "store-of-value" marketing concept (similar to the 21 million coins hard limit concept for Bitcoin).

I think you will find it is not a small demographic (w.r.t. to Bitcoin's current demographics, yet maybe small relative to the 6 billion) and many, many people demand that Bitcoin's 21 million coin limit not be violated.

The netcodes currency would be separate and is intended to be more of a transactional currency.

Bitcoin of course doesn't mean just digital money, because nearly all fiat is digital money these days.

What you mean is that Bitcoin is some form of autonomous code (some binary bits) that you can control autonomously, i.e. the private key codes are held in your control.

I am thinking netgold could capture that same concept while also indicating that it is intended to mimick gold for the network. Bitcoin can't decide if it wants to be a transactional currency or a store-of-value, e.g. if you scale up the block chain to support high TX/s, then the mining becomes more centralized so it loses it's autonomous, permission-less security (especially given Bitcoin's design is subject to selfish mining and 51% attacks). There is a fight on going about keeping Bitcoin for hobbiest miners and letting all the scaling to happen in side-networks such as Lightning Networks, but this belies technical understanding because LN still requires block chain scaling. Thus netgold would be a more certain demarcation from netcodes and the (so far) hapless Bitcoin technical quagmire.

In Bitcoin-NG, the winner of a block solution does not propagate a block of transactions. Instead that node wins the right to propagate smaller micro-blocks of transactions at shorter intervals than 10 minutes. The next winner of a block solution signs the last micro-block seen, thus tying that (and preceding) micro-blocks into the block chain. The economic incentives to propagate these micro-blocks seems not well designed, and it certainly doesn't solve the selfish-mining nor the 51% attack.

The advantage is of Bitcoin-NG's design is that micro-blocks can propagate more frequently; and thus one huge block doesn't have to propagate instantaneously every roughly 10 minutes. This is essentially eliminates the transient spike of the Satoshi design; and thus improving aliasing error which takes the form of propagation delay and orphan rate in Satoshi's design. However these micro-blocks are not confirmed until the next 10 minute block is won; and thus afaics Bitcoin-NG does not speed up transaction confirmation speed. Blockchain-NG enables the block chain to scale to the rate at which the prior block winning node can process transactions and propagate them to the network; and scales without requiring all nodes to have the same capabilities nor delegate to more powerful nodes such as Gavin's proposed IBLT design.

However, the same criticism I leveled again BitShare's 2.0 design applies, in that the performance will vary every 10 minutes depending on which node has won each successive block.

Simplification of my retort.

"Price: 10 ______" (insert what you prefer such as 'doodats', 'jades', 'chans', 'yoobits', 'vibes', 'swaps', 'ions', 'blowjobs', 'scoobydoos', 'thingamajigs', 'whatchamacallits', etc)

"Price: 10 netcodes"

Which makes more sense? For many netizens, codes are an access code or coupon code. So the user will naturally ask themselves "where can I get these netcodes access codes or coupons".

Whereas, for the "10 doodats" or "10 yoobits", the user will "WTF  ". The user won't know if that is a price or a joke or a game or puzzle or wtf. The 'doodats' can only make sense in context of some marketing concept or campaign which brands them for some purpose. There is no pre-existing implicit association of "do that" with accessing a desired resource. "Clicks" was somewhat better, because at least people loosely associate clicking with accessing a resource, but:

• Clicking is normally not an action that is the value conveyed for access. Rather it is some code entered, before clicking that contains the value.
• Clicks are not fungible, e.g. if the price is "10 clicks" but you only click once to access the resource. Also clicks are not fungible to resources that are not accessed with clicking.

Instead of netcodes, we could choose some more explicit name for net money:

netcoin
netcash
netmonie
netoken

But those do not convey that the money is autonomous because for one reason it is bewildering (for n00bs and those who are not Bitcoin aficionados) how a physical coin or cash can be exchanged over the virtual information highway.

Whereas, a 'code' is obviously intangible and it is already associated with virtual access. Thus afaic 'code' is a more natural association that already implies personal control (autonomy) and intangible asset.

---

Edit: Since others will be able to create other tokens and assets on this new block chain 2.0, I think leave the doodats, mojos, etc for others to create for specific marketing concepts such as a game or social network tokens. This will leave room for the eco-system of specializations. For the network and platform wide currencies, I think netcode and netgold are apropos and sufficient.

20. Nxe2 would have been check. So you say white follows with 21. Nxe2, then black follows with 22. Bd3, then what   White can't 23: Re2 because black can capture 24. Qxe2. If 24. queen on to light-square then Black can torment with Rook and Knight until the battle at xe2 is won.

Okay my 25 year old gf just explained to me what a 'code' meant to her. When she (and most other filipinos) used the internet for the first time, it was because they had heard about Facebook. When they joined Facebook or put it on their phone, they needed some access code that was sent to their email address or mobile number to verify they were creating a unique account (not just spamming Facebook with multiple accounts).

So that code that is sent in email to verify a new account signup on the internet, is what she thinks a code is. In short in her own words, "an access code".

So code is a form of password or access to desired resources.

I asked my gf if there was someone advertising on Facebook some item she wanted and asking for 10 netcodes with a link to "get netcodes for free", where she could point her browser and get the required netcodes for free, then would she do it. She said "of course and so will every other filipino".

The key to winning this crypto battle is the mining.

Wide user distribution of the crypto-tokens defines the victor. Because network effects are maximized by getting the tokens out of the investors HODLer death march and into the user's hands so they can trade them and drive demand and velocity-of-money upwards in a virtuous spiral.

Now it is time to get busy coding...

In Bitcoin the 'bit' can only be either an adjective or verb applying to subject of 'coin', thus the portmanteau redefines the meaning of bit to be an adjective applied to anything which is represented by binary data (since a bitten coin is obviously not the desired meaning). Thus a Bitcoin is a coin (money) represented by binary data.

In Netcode the 'net' can only be a verb 'networked' applying to subject of 'code'. Networked codes are the fundamental components of the internet, other than the tangible infrastructure. Thus a Netcode is a fundamental unit of exchangables (i.e. information) on the internet, which thus have value. Perhaps non-geeks don't realize that even the text they type is transcoded as it travels from end-to-end.

So Bitcoin speaks more directly to money (Duh coin is explicit), except one problem is that 'bit' in that context is an enigma to non-geeks. Thus it is an enigmatic money to most people (and they are afraid of it as some kind of crazy speculation that is easily stolen or gets lost and too complex).

Whereas Netcode speaks directly to use value. It is something people want to exchange (e.g. coupon) or use (e.g. a program or recipe) and thus the value is not enigmatic to non-geeks. So far it appears geeks have more trouble relating to netcode as valuable, perhaps because geeks think coupons and coding are not money. Appears that geeks haven't yet comprehended that in the Knowledge Age, the code is the money.

Geeks are still in this mode where they think usury and stored money is in control and that they need to go work for a corporation (Theory of the Firm Coasian barriers) in order to earn money and that open source is only for reputation and not for earning money (unless your corporation is paying you to work on it). They don't seem to grasp this is a Coasian barrier due to the lack of fine-grained granularity of modularity of source code modules. This is why I have been working on making a better programming language that can improve granularity of modularity.

Bitcoin is a step away from fiat but stays stuck to the concept of money is distinct from code (thus the name Bitcoin emphasizes binary data representation of money; whereas, Netcode emphasizes networked exchange value with knowledge creation/interaction as the real capital). Thus Bitcoin was only a half-step. I want to go all the way to the Knowledge Age redefinition of money and capital and unification of concepts.

Edit: now one retort could be that many non-geeks think codes should be FREE, e.g. the code for creating a smiling face icon is readily shared, :-). And coupons are often available for free via Google search. But realize netcodes are also going to be available for FREE. Users will only need to run the browser-based miner in the background while their computer is on. Eliminating professional miners and ASICs was a critical aspect of my design, which is accomplished by making all mining highly unprofitable (yet free for users). I have explained many times in my archives how to technically accomplish that. Let readers go searching my archives. No reason to repeat myself again.

Here I just invented another term to describe the human interaction value created on the internet:

eco-effect (or just ecoffect)

Sorry that doesn't work as well as codes. Too abstract. Difficult to spell and pronounce. More direct is:

vibe

But people just won't likely associate an abstract fact that money is a group effect with the actual exchange value they desire.

Otherwise if we don't want codes, then just bury ourselves in the sea of copycat names for money portmanteaus:

mycash
netcoin
netcash
digicoin
digicash
hashcash
etc..

Note I appended to my prior post.


This is contrived and doesn't make any sense as an example of what really happens.

The prices is 10 netcodes, then the customer understands he or she needs to pay 10 netcodes.

That the customer came to appreciate that netcodes represent some form of value because of the general concept that codes are "promo codes", "groupon codes", "game feature codes", does not imply that the customer thinks a netcode is a name.com promo code or a groupon code. Clearly a "netcode" is a "netcode". It has a branded name.

Following your contrived strawman, we could have argued as follows:

Business - that'll be 10 Bitcoins.

Customer - Ok. Can I use my game coins to reduce the cost?

That is akin to arguing that people will be confused as to why they can't pay for something priced in dollars using Yen or Euros.

Afaics, the best argument you can make against Netcodes is that different people have different interpretations of what Netcode might mean:

• Groupon
• Network programming
• Encoded recipes for virtual features, e.g. programming snippets

I don't see a problem with that. Those who think of network programming will then appreciate Netcode as a block chain 2.0 platform.

Those who think of Groupon will think these netcodes can be redeemed along with purchases. Those who think of encoded keys will think netcodes are like access codes and provide some desired features. So now those who approach a site that has a price of access denominated in netcodes, will see they need that many netcodes to gain access. Where is the confusion?

You claim that people are so dumb that they will expect that a netcode is only a discount and not redeemable for 100% of the payment required. But there are even such things as coupons that make items entirely free. And it is quite a leap to assume that when people see a price denominated in netcodes, they won't get the idea that these netcode coupons add up and must provide the required quantity of netcodes to redeem one of these items. And deduce that no other currency is accepted for the balance of the netcodes required and the netcodes someone may have available to redeem with.

The concept of redeem and pay becomes melded into one. Perhaps a user with an 80 IQ might struggle.

Edit: to compare levels of confusion, what the heck is a Yoobit to the average person? Or any other name that doesn't have a word that means money. At least the possible associations of netcode to "coupon" or "enabling recipe" starts the user's mind in the direction of these netcodes have some exchange value.

Redeem and pay are examples of exchange.

The other words I proposed up thread were "swaps", "tradables", "clicks", "zing", "loves" and "vibes" (where the latter three represent the human interaction value created on the internet). The first two are obviously exchangable assets, but they don't associate to internet (cyberspace) technologically specific exchangables. The "clicks" was the best attempt to capture a cyberspace action that associates with access to goods and services. But the problem is that it is a specific type of good and thus isn't as fungible as some thing that can be used to exchange for anything else, e.g. a coupon or in general a code.

Yeah and that is good. Why do you think that is a negative association  

Not only that. Gaming codes are sometimes akin to secret recipes.

On the one hand, net & codes could be associated with some marketing schemes such as Groupon, and on the other hand it can be associated with network programming and every gradation in between such as gaming recipes and Unicode emoticon recipes (a limited form of actual programming).

The entirety of the internet is comprised of tangible network infrastructure, virtual codes, and human interaction thereof.

Its all about the codes man, no trouble.  (If bass/beat/bodacious and not treble/skinny is the essence of dance/sex music, what is the essence of the internet?).

Edit: Thanks for the feedback. I want to understand. So I guess the issue for you and f2000 is that you have some kneejerk reaction to Netcodes that in your case is Groupon and in his case is Network programming, and thus doesn't mean money to you.

However are you and he the target market? If yes then I should name it what ever floats your speculation urges, so I can get you too excited so that you buy an IPO hoping other speculators will get similarly excited.

However what will multitudes of people out there on the internet associate with value similar to money? Either you need to use a word that says "money" or you need to associate to a concept of value on the internet. There is no other choice, except perhaps to hope that some silly fad like Doodats will become viral. But for Doodats to become viral, you need a marketing concept to make that happen. It doesn't just magically/implicitly associate with money. I will continue to contemplate Doodats. Netcodes is a solid choice that associates with some form or essence of what is or creates value on the internet (other than network infrastructure and human interaction with the network).

Suggest perhaps make it a poll. I will delete my post, if you wish to delete the thread and start over.

My vote doesn't count because I am not officially on the Black team. I was just commenting.

Very strong move because if white captures with Nxe2, then Black moves Bd3 so white can't move Nx3 to lock the Knights together, protect the pawn at a2 and open up the center for the Re2, because otherwise Bxf1 can't be countered (without a checkmate on next move of Qe1 or Re1) and white looses the Rook at f1. If white captures instead with Rxe2, then will lose the pawn at a2 after black Rxe2 and white counters Nxe2).

I didn't see any other possibility for white to counter, but maybe there is if I study longer.

Before black moved the Knight I was thinking white should move the Bd3 to break up that problem. I thought white was winning with that move otherwise would lose (but I didn't post my comments because I didn't have enough time to study all the possible counter strategies for black). Seems to have played out.

The general insight was that white's bishop was nearly useless because black has positioned most of his pieces to block light-square diagonals yet Black's bishop is in a strong position, and White's bishop was in a weak position there with the Rook next to the King on the light-square diagonal. So it was better to put the white Bishop is a position to trade with the Black bishop and force the pawn to move that is protecting Black's king from White's queen. They key to the entire game seemed to be freeing up White's queen by breaking that position held by black on the right side.

Ostensibly white squandered the past two moves and returned the upper hand to black after black made what I believed to be the mistake (premature move, if white had capitalized on it) of Kxg7.

No the codes is what works to virally spread the currency unit socially, for the reasons I already explained. This unit can also be used in business. The netgold is focused more on those who are paranoid about the debasement, which isn't the entirety of the business demographic.

And netgold is conceptually what I believe the store-of-value ("tin foil hat", hard money, "sound" money, or anti-central banks) folks such as OROBTC et al and perhaps rpietila want. I think as the global economic collapse accelerates, more investors will be looking for a safe haven in something like gold but with the advantages of crypto. Why would they prefer "Moaneuros" to "networkgold"?

I am also thinking to offer a 3rd currency Doodats that would be really silly and have very high rate of debasement. But I am concerned this could be confusing and dilutive. I need to think more about how it would work from a marketing perspective and I don't have any more time to think about this right now. Need to be coding.

Even your wife thought of Doodads also, so that one definitely has wide appeal, but what does it mean w.r.t. to internet money? I need to apply more marketing analysis on it.

Let's try to wrap this up folks. Please.

Please post rationale as to why Netcodes is problemmatic. Else I must assume there is no rationality.

Perhaps "problematic" votes represent a dissonance (dissatisfaction) between the types of names that cause speculators to wet their pants and pump up a copycoin and the type of name that would have a long-term user adoption focus? Hopefully those voters can enlighten me on their perspective.

We've had 3 - 4 additional votes for "problematic" since I changed to Netcodes. I have no idea what these voters are thinking  

Without any coherent logic expressed in posts, then I must assume these are irrational men who have speculative Bitcoin-envy (gold rush) fever and can only see the tip of their nose and not over the forest to the huge market out there.

If there is any logic as to why Netcodes is problematic, please do speak up.

P.S. Or it could simply be haters from other altcoins trying to influence public opinion instead of voting honestly for one of the "dislike" choices. These forum polls are difficult to decipher unless voters post commentary to demonstrate they have a brain stem. I follow the other threads in Altcoin Discussion enough to know that there are pervasive irrational attitudes and thought processes.

You (and I) liked this so much because we are Bitcoin aficionados and it adds pizzazz (and personal property) to bits (what ever in the hell bits are  ). Go back to 2008 and try on "yobutts" and it will mean about the same as "yobits" did. And "yo" was more likely interpretation than "yoo" given the popularity of rap culture.

Yoobits is lost in the sea of ___bits portmanteaus. And it means absolutely nothing to someone who didn't already like Bitcoin. Thus it is useless for us in terms gaining wider adoption and mindshare than Bitcoin.

Frankly I don't think "you bits" works well if you think about the literal meaning.

We wet our pants only because we have Bitcoin fever.

Lose the speculative fever and be objective, then you see yoo bits sucks.

Most people in these forums are naming to appease their speculative fever. The marketing objectivity was thrown out the window when Bitcoin went from a penny to 100,000 pennies in price. This is a gold rush and men are frantic.

I am trying to select a name that can be seriously adopted by the internet-at-large. Do you really think Yoobits would be?   Yoobits is something you get all excited about and then later loses its luster, e.g. Ethereum.

I want a name with long-term staying power, similar to Bitcoin. It needs to be fundamental. Netcode is fundamental as Bitcoin is, but in a different way. Bit+coin is enigma+money to normal people (and binary data+tokens to geeks). Net+code is internet+feature codes to normal people (and network+programming to geeks) which is perfect fit to both of my target demographics (i.e. the block chain 2.0 ecosystem is targeting to the geeks). Whereas, enigma+money did not target the normal people and thus Bitcoin's mindshare propagates slowly and NOT VIRALLY, i.e. some young ladies have heard of Bitcoin on Facebook but it remains yet an enigma to them, and they still didn't just embrace it immediately in the way virally adopted memes spread. Bitcoin has to be forced into mindshare by the mass media and large corporations and the geeks pushing the ecosystem out. Eventually the network effects of Bitcoin will overtake the enigma of "bit", but there is a small window of opportunity now (and time is of the critical essence).

Do readers think the Chinese and Asians don't know what gaming access codes are   Even the females play the games over there. The Asian boys are hardcore games. Codes is very well targeted to the youth!!

Voxelus (gaming and virtual reality) raised $350,000 this week.

I believe I am an astute marketer. I've proven it in the past.

In all due respect, I believe the end for Monero et al is nigh.

Face it you guys are marketing dunces. I am occasionally reading the Aeon thread, just scratching my head and smirking (and preferring to remain silent than argue).

Absolutely not, the technology isn't just bolt on to an existing block chain. It is a radical redesign of what a block chain is.

The open source assistance will come. I have no doubt about that.

The best luck the competitors had was when I was too sick to do what I do. I am less sick now (still not totally cured, but at least able to work every day for the past 3 weeks or so).

The risk of failure is due to the enormity of the project and the deadlines in terms of other projects advancing.

And if you use those codes on the net, then they are netcodes. I also said the term used for the money could be just 'codes' with no 'net' prefix. They market will decide whether it prefers 'netcodes' or 'codes' as the currency name. Note that 'codes' is not 'coding'. No programmer refers to his completed work as 'codes', rather always "the code", "lines of code", or "source code" (always singular). And there is nothing wrong if users of the currency believe they are obtain "programming codes" because the distinction is really irrelevant, for as long as they think these abstract 'codes' have value.

Bottom line: 'code' has value on the net and (besides the tangible communication infrastructure and intangible network effects such as 'synergies' and 'vibes') is the only intangible thing that the net adds that we didn't have already in the tangible real world. Thus 'code' is what makes the 'virtual' world virtual. It is the fundamental unit of value and information on the internet. Thus 'code' is specific and not abstract like 'quantum' ('quanta' or 'quants' as the plural units, not 'qbits' nor 'qubits').


Intangiles, virtuals perhaps but don't really associate with known value in the user's mind. Whereas 'codes' are valuable.


The best chance for a new conceptual twist to be adopted is if it associates to a pre-existing apt concept. For example, the etymology of 'bling' is that it was readily adopted because the shiny stuff glimmers and the light that reflects then blinks as the items move.

Another example is 'blog' is a portmanteau of and associates to "web log", since 'log' files were a common concept to people who know server-side programming.

The term 'code' already means something of value that is a proxy for access to another desired good and/or service on the 'net'. Thus 'netcode' is a very natural portmanteau of an existing concept.

Listen I was not liking 'netcode' that much even though I've had the idea for days. But when I presented the various names to the 20-something filipinas (asians) here in my household (who are avid facebook users and smartphone addicts like the typical youth today), they (even through they know English reasonably well, e.g. my gf out of the blue used to word 'monarchy') had no clue what most of those names we suggested mean, including 'bits', 'yobits', 'mojo', 'doodads', etc..

The only names these ladies liked were and in their own words Doodat (meaning "do that"), Pacmon (meaning "game"), and Netcode (meaning "code for internet").

My gf sneered when I mentioned the name Jade. The terms Sync, Symmetry mean nothing to them.

I even tried other names on her such as Netmonie and to all of these others she said "too long, not quick to speak" and "netcode na lang" (which means you better just choose netcodes).

The more I thought about it, she was correct. It is my name idea, but it is the feedback from young female asians that helped me focus on the fact that the other names do not work (including bits). The ladies mentioned they are starting to see "Bitcoin" mentioned on Facebook, so Bitcoin's mindshare is rapidly spreading. But the "Bit" part remains an enigma for these ladies even after I tried to explain to them what a bit is, they still don't get it. Whereas, 'code' is natural to them as something you use on the internet to get access or gain more features.


So remove 'net' and think of 'codes' that you use on the net. You immediately jumped to 'netcode' as "net programming" ostensibly because as a male geek, you've been focused on the value of net programming and codes seem so minor value in your life. But for these people who are never exposed to the value that originates from programming, they see 'codes' as more valuable than programming. For most people, programming is something they never think about, and it is a complete enigma to them.

Code has two meanings. It means the programming code and the passwords and access codes. It also means anything encoded or transcoded. To the people that want to think of the name as programming code, then Netcode works as the programmable block chain 2.0. To the n00bs that want to think of the name as passwords and access codes, then netcodes (or just codes) works as the social currency unit.

If we were naming Bitcoin in 2008, the nerds would get it, but the normal people would have absolutely no clue what a Bitcoin would be. At least the normal people today (as we are formulating naming and haven't even released a product) have some clue that 'codes' unlock goods and services the same as money does.

Case law has already shown the existing securities law and case law is flexible (via the Howey test) to be applicable to violations ongoing in crypto. The Howey test doesn't require a corporation.

I tried to warn you guys, but you are determined to suffer your fate.

P.S. my understanding is Aeon was a nearly dead coin that some investors bought up and then awarded many coins to smooth to entice him to be the lead developer. Smacks of insider concentration.

Their design lacks several of the key features of my design wherein I can (in theory) attain confirmations in seconds or less with real world network performance far in excess of Visa scale with current hardware and internet connections. I did see one key element of my design in their design, but Dash Evolution sort of has this same element too, so this one element is not the key epiphany to get to my design.

The following criticisms of Factom appear to apply to this Bitcoin-NG proposal as well: