Gold is a very old thing, even alchemist in the middle age often use gold as analogy to something of value, as in metaphor for spiritual value, as with the philosopher stone etc even plato associate gold with quality and value, philosopher = golden soul

But the idea to have absolute metric is a problem is relativistic physic, it has to ressort on planck unit, speed of light and quantum things to work around the many paradoxe it rise, and how to find absolute metric.

I have read some more of the thread, and you mention this ideal money would be ideal as in conceptual, which i assume being in the platonic sense of the term ( ideal can have meaning also in experimental physics), so it would be in a sense an utopia, and if you think computer algorithm are able to have this sens of ideal and utopia, it's total science fiction

I think i remember there is this connexion between Nash & kant on idea of common good, and how currency or economic ethics should be based on this perception of common good, but from there to make such kind of algorithm to determine the currency dynamic  based on economic theory or utopic concept, it needs more than blockchain technology

Some theory would say hedonism and pleasure seeking is what drive the market economy more than research for common good. Plato theorized a lot on this too. Ideal never mix up with material interest, which money is all about.


Even if there is more banana and the price decrease, it still mean the currency has un stable value, if the metric is the number of banana you can get out of it. Or then it get back to what it is measured against to measure it's stability, how it's is détermined. .


Larouche wrote lot of theory of this stuff of economic metrics, he gets very deep into it I will try to find some links latter.

The very basics of bitcoin is based on the idea that certain computation take time, and have a price, and is very rooted also in idea of thermodynamics as the more energy is put on the network , the more secure and stable it is, with certain idea of the entropy of hash computation give faire distribution, there is still a good intellectual thinking on how to give it more stable absolute value, the metrics of emission is block solving time'& non deterministic but still keep in certain distribution which still try to keep it stable.

I wonder what kind of implication there can be between the concept of mass/mateer being absolute metrics vs kinetic energy/speed being relative metrics as they cant have absolute measure, only measure relative to another object, and only have a value in this referential, like different markets can be different referential to measure the value of currency against something else.

But the thing I find weird with the idea of currency being a metric, is let say to simplify you use your money mostly to exchange it against a certain product like banana, and that for some reason, climatic or social or anything, the production of banana become more difficult, how can you keep a fixed ratio of value exchange if the product become harder or more expansive to make for any reason, and if you would buy only this product, how could you say the value of the currency can remain stable if in the end you can buy less things with it.

If you want to say in this case the currency is to be a constant metrics, even if you can buy less things with it, what is it a metrics of ?

It's where maybe there is this concept of weight as in intrinsic value of the currency tokens themselves , that can be measured in absolute manner without going through market estimation against another valuable, but that seem hard to imagine how something could represent absolute same intrinsic value for everyone, and then it's the question of how this value should be estimated if it's not based on universally recognized intrinsic value.

Im addressing the idea of ideal currency based on constant stable absolute value.

Typing in cap dont make you look more rational and reasoned ijs.

The idea of currency is still that the value on market is not based on the intrinsic value of the physical asset.

But for me currency cant be an absolute metrics, and it's always estimated in relation to something else, either it's another currency, price of oil, gold, or banana, the goal of currency is not necessarily to have intrinsic absolute value to be used as a metrics for anything. And you can only say what it worth in relation to another thing, much like speed/energy metrics with relativity.

Im exactly on this kind of line with my project, on language, typing, and studying this sort of problematic

I dont have online wrote about the theory and study thought, other than some old post on devos forum, but ill write more explanation on the global idea and implementation in some time.

https://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/0143116177

I really like some idea of larouche around this kind of idea that there should be some kind of universal metrics with economy, either based on energy or some physics behind industry , like all valuable is the result of deterministic process, or work, and the metrics can be based on the difficulty/energetic cost of this process, and energy become the universal metrics of economy, and it also need to integrate  the level of human psychology, needs and aspiration as the real metrics for the value of something. There are some good video on this on youtube, maybe I can find the link latter.

The whole idea of gold as absolute stability for currency value is also moot imo.

Just to send my two cents, i saw people putting in relation the notion of metrics with currency, but maybe that need to be put also in a more relativistic perspective with the use of metrics, as in there is no absolute immobility or motion with currency, and you can never really tell easily if it's the price of things that are increasing or the money inflating, or the opposite, currencies are not supposed to be absolute value in themselves, at least since the 70's, but even before, the whole purpose of using currency is that it has no value in itself, and as it come to the use of money in term of market buying power, it can never be seen as the absolute metric of the value of something. Even more as the economy shift to more and more chaotic looking system where value are constantly taken in complex schemes that become completely non deterministic.

Hello

I have been reading many of your posts, even if i have to admit i have hard time to follow everything, i think you still stand out to me as one of the rare person who doesn't speak out of emotion or trying to surf on the next trend, and try to keep a global view and see every aspect of blockchain ecosystem, which i think is good, and it's very missing on the forum imo

On the topic of the app token, i think they can have some use, i'm developping distributed application framework so i believe in application token, as long as they remain this, app token, to exchange information via blockchain in distributed application it make sense, like let say you use a token to represent score or stats in a video game, it doesn't mean the token need to have any value on the market, or that it's made to be sold on the market. Can imagine even temporary chain to be made for an instance of game to store the in game state and deleted at the end of the game. In that sense app token make sense.

But i'm completely on this same line that this idea that because something is stored on the blockchain, then necessarily it's something that need to have value on a market in a way or another, and need to see still the biggest success of bitcoin so far is more for traders than software developers, or e-economy at large, so there is this whole habit to think that because there is a token on the blockchain, then the only purpose is to make this token rise in value on the market to make some trading profit out of it, and in a way anything can be speculated into as long as it has minimum of rarity or is bit hard to make, in a way anything that seems to goes against the global entropy and become special or rare can have value, and i think satoshis was very well aware of this kind of dynamic with the concept of monetized proof of work, but that doesn't necessarily apply to all kind of token that can be stored in a blockchain. After all these ico, the rarity of a token even via proof of work start to fade a little bit away.

But that said, what would you really need to start on the project ? I see you wrote you need encouragement and all, but imo it's not really a good dynamic to wait for motivation to come only from forum popularity, and anyway engaging on any kind of project with blockchain, it's going to take a lot of determination and regarding the current athmosphere, also having to deal with lot of troll, propaganda shill, fuders, haters, paranoiacs, and it's not very likely to have a lot of support on theorical project before a while.

But beside this there is issue of confidence, i sense somehow you don't have lot of trust in your capacity to lead a project to something useful, i can have a bit this kind of tendency too, but i always had good engineers to remind me certain principle like if you really want to get somewhere, really see what your software is going to improve, what is the real purpose of it, and stick what are really implementation key point with good time estimation, and limit the theorical research to this, time is money, if you want to think like ingeneer all the time spent on a project must have some kind of rentability planning, and limting the time to what are really profitable key point in the use case of the software rather than building whole theory a bit in the wind to see every aspect of everything that doesn't have necessarily huge interest in the life time of the software.

But that said i think it's also good idea to theorize on blockchain, and i think we really lack some kind of true "blockchain science" also to study all the impact and possibility, in technical term, sociological/economic term, see what is good practice, bad practice, or even beyond 'good' & 'bad' which lead to manichean view & regulation, at least some true ontological work need to be done, to avoid all the semantic confusion on ultra hyped buzz word, for that at least people can know what to expect from those fancy jargon words they see disseminated around in some ico marketing campaign, and what can work or not, and not focusing on some kind hyped problem keyword to produce a myiopic solution seeing only one aspect of the thing and ignoring the rest, without thinking the blockchain ecosystem as a whole.

I saw also in other thread something i'm also interested into, when you speak around the term of what blockchain really revolve about which is trustless system, and how the different scheme like POW or POS also showed that they fail at truly decentralizing authority, which doesn't in itself prevent the network to work, the whole software industry has been running with centralized vertical system for decades, so in itself it doesn't prevent the network to operate, and it's still balanced enough in the interest and incencitive not to collapse on itself too soon, but i'm also in the search of system that really focus on the trustlessness and system without central authority or trusted party without involving the concept of proof like it's though today. Which imo doesn't really prove much in the current state of things with the bitcoin network compared to what it was supposed to provide in term of true decentralization, ASIC and mining farms already ruined this for the most part. And the bottle neck with transaction processing rate is also due to this conception.

Did you ever look at erights.org ?

http://erights.org/elib/capability/index.html ,

http://erights.org/history/original-e/satan/index.html ,

http://wiki.erights.org/wiki/Walnut/Secure_Distributed_Computing/Satan_at_the_Races



They make some very good points on decentralized authority ,and they have tons of theory about trustless network, object interaction, distributed application, crypto, digital right transfer, and things like smart contract with full crypto theory behind on how to secure things, and they have many good articles on this kind of problems. Even if it's not based on blockchain at all, i think lot of the solution to smart contract / complex distributed app with trustless network are solved in their system.

Hope it's not too long to read I think i covered all i wanted to Maybe i'll edit to add more things

Good luck with your things

Thanks



The framework was not designed specially for blockchain originally, so it's focus is very wide, from hardware drivers ( usb, hid,audio, vesa), asynchronous events, management of different types of network protocol, object references, but it has very pragmatic application, and all the code already works, but it's made to be a modular framework, rather than monolithic application, so necessarily it's a bit abstract The goal of the framework is to build a solid, interoperable, light weight abstraction layer to build application on, and I have different practical cases in mind.

In a way i kept this project out of the commercial pipeline to have the time to advance on the code at baby step looking the best way to implement each thing with network protocol json/rpc , threading and asynchronous io in mind, and to avoid to have to rush the development of certain thing to release specific application with a well defined dead line, but lots of it is already ready and tested now

For the blockchain specific things, there is already large part of what is needed to make a client for any blockchain based on bitcore , using any hash algo that is compiled in or in a module, with staking with pos 1/2/3 and is interoperable with bitcore based wallet, with compatible rpc interface.

There is not much documentation online, only short explanation on the rough idea, but I will write more detailed documentation latter.


I say only on different system, the binaries are position independant dynamically  linked modules, which contain machine code, they can be run only on same cpu architecture, but they dont depend on the compiler runtime or the host system, all the module are in simple C , it should not be hard to compile for different cpu architectures, including arm, I have plan for the raspberry pi , but it will need a version of the binaries for each cpu architectures, for the moment it's 32bits x86, with sse for the raytracing, it can run on any system running on x86 /x64 with x86 emulation, other binaries need to be made for arm, or for native 64 bits intel.

However I would like to have some test with udp implementation of certain parts of the protocol enough to make useable client, before to get into arm.

The same binaries can already be compiled on windows with visual studio and used on linux, or compiled on linux with gcc and used on windows, it already works and is testable from the git. I already tested this with micro kernel architecture so can safety say the dependencies are "in check".

Most of the binaries running on the ubuntu 64 server currently have been compiled with visual studio 2013 on windows, including the raytracing with the sse code with sse C intrinsic.

It is home made ABI, there is zero documentation on the inner format, but the code source to create them out of 32 bit dll & so file is on the git  ( https://github.com/iadix/purenode/tree/master/mod_maker ) , and the loader too ( https://github.com/iadix/purenode/blob/master/libcon/tpo_mod.c ).



I should release a new version on the git in the next days, and the new block explorer, after i will improve the 3d demo page, and then ill see after in 2 weeks how everything goes with the ico préparation if there are more needs for the site and web things, then I will write more documentation on the memory model, references tree, json rpc, modules, and the blockchain specific modules & applications with more html5 examples, either for the website or for the node built in application like block explorer & secure wallet, and/or with the raytracing.

I guess it because it increase the resources needed to operate à node, bigger blocks = more bandwith, more disk space, more processing, which will tend to raise the cost of having full nodes,  and many things can increase very fast with the growing number of bigger tx,and lead toward centralisation to miners who are paid for it.

Im crypto enthusiast nerd coder 

Electrum can keep only the transaction related to an address on the local computer, not sure it can get directly the balance or compact summaries from the node, but anyway if you want to check an address, you still want to have a minimum of the history for the all transactions. After it's more in having more advanced filtering to minimize the data that has to be transmitted for the operation, if it's just to send a new tx to the network, you can already do this via web service who have up to date node.

There are some system already of off line signing, but the risk is double spending, if the output of the off line signed tx are spent before the reconciliation, it will be an invalid transaction.

It's a bit also the downside of decentralized network, they need to rely on gossip and can lead to more bandwidth and ressource use to sort and validate and synchronize everything from everyone, the solution with git - like thing seems to go back to a form of centralization to minimize individual processing and synchronization in case of scarce resources, but it become somehow another system, more based on centralized trusted server to process validate and optimize things for everyone.

Just to post my two cents in the trolling  

Already as it as already been said, moore law has little to do with bitcoin transaction ceiling in itself.

Even if cpu power goes x100, there will still be the same blocks every same ten minutes with same number of transactions.

Increasing block size come with certain number of problems, like the amount of processing in a block, if you have 8Mo blocks contain a single transaction with only seg ops, and then another block of 8Mo containing a single transaction with only inputs to such transactions, it will clearly mean a huge a mount of time to validate the block, and the amount of computation it involve is bound to grow at much higher rate than the amount of transaction to be processed.

Basically the amount of transaction a block can process grow linearly with the block size, the potential amount of computation grow quadratically, much faster. So it's not a good permanent solution to rely on eternal block size' increase to increase tx rate. Even with the
Moore's Law.

Moore law doesn't apply to blockchain because the main limit is not computing power. Maybe bandwith a bit more, but that i think can still be solved with the increase of bandwidth as optical fiber become more available, there is still lot of progress to be expected in this area.

If it was really about more law, it would be on the scale of initial block download, where 8 year of blockchain can be processed and checked in 3 days. The problem is not the processing power to validate blocks. A good client can validate 10-20 blocks / sec in average .. And this could be easily improved with exploiting more the computing power, using good multi core & opencl, you could probably multiply this speed without changing a thing to the protocol.


To me what it look like is LN/Segwit is definately the way forward, or something like it, who can allow a certain number of operation to happen outside of the main block chain conscensus. But realistically, i don't think LN will be reach mass adoption before 2-5 years.

And users driven development is always a mess. You never get anything done by asking users what they want .. Already to explain the inside and out both on the theory, the protocol, the usage and the implementation to average user is just impossible.

It's just starting to get there with the basic bitcoin protocol after years and years. And yet you could easily say large number of users just don't really know how bitcoin work, or really care more than simple curiosity, don't want to take responsability for the development, and if you start to implement anything that user might think is good, even if it make them happy, in the end, it rarely lead to well made software.

And now coming with something completely new like LN/segwit, extremely technical, who change completely the way bitcoin work, to people who already have bit hard with trusting the basics 100%, and the conflict of interest with miners, it's clear it's not going to be fully accepted in mass before some time. At least blockstream seem have good funding so they can hold some time and keep developing and explaining it for some time, but it doesn't look like it's going to be adopted in mass really just now.

And just to say, the way developers represent themselves, after it's not my buisness, but i see only in this thread, when the person who represent it speaks, they always give a sense of elitism and not really listening, which i don't think help a lot to make it accepted and gain trust that the developers are thinking for everyone and not just to push their own thing in their own interest.

But that said there is still the need to increase TX rate, and ln is not going to be accepted soon i think, it's the problem that everyone see, and maybe it would not be worst to think of a way to keep bitcoin going one or two more year the time a true permanent solution like segwit can be found and accepted by everyone, even if that involve just tweaking the block size up a bit, and taking all the step necessary regarding boundaries with computation power, bandwidth, potential issue that come up on all the level with this increase, even if it just raise to 2Mo in a first step.

But something that is not that radical that segwit for the moment, who doesn't change the way bitcoin work and doesn't disturb the eco system that much like LN, and can give a bit of oxygen to the bitcoin network processing rate.

Well again just my 2 satoshis

Originally my intention with starting the framework was more educational than anything

I started to get on this some years ago because i found it was frustrating that it's not possible to really program the hardware with assembler at all in modern operating system, and after certain experience with video streaming where it need to synchronize different hardware between audio card, network card, video card, and application ui, operating system how they are made introduce whole complex layers and framework to deal with asynchronous hardware pci and smp.

It's why i started to get into developing micro kernel architecture, with in mind to give full potential of modern application framework, but without the whole thing of memory protection and still being able to program the hardware and deal with dma/interupt and synchronous things more directly from the application layer, but still keeping as directly connected as possible with html5, DOM, dynamic object, json, xml, templating, js, AS3 and this kind of things.

All the framework is already well tested with preemptive multi tasking on bare metal os, with interupt, and already start of graphic system based on the same json data tree, which can work in multi thread (eg application/rendering on two different thread, manipulating json data tree).

Purenode currently it can run for weeks with 20Mo of memory with block explorer, wallet, etc

And also integrating all the crypto and PGP and secure protocol in a way that is easy to use and thinking into P2P decentralized system, even for device without local hard drive. Or something that look like html5 application without access to local file system.

It's how i came to develop the framework originally, and it's completely based on components exchanging json data tree, and it's how i came to blockchain because it's exactly the same principle with distributed application who exchange data using json and rpc/http with crypto and security/privacy.

I still don't know since the beginning how it can take commercial form or not, in any case i'll probably keep working on it as a pet project and make it public in a way or another at the pace it goes

We have some doors to knock on also in the traditional investment thing, but then it's mostly likely to be though as more commercial products, i'm not sure how it can take form but certain application can be found for certain thing, maybe to replace node.js kind of things, with a good framework made in C who can have good performance and good multi threading and vector float using simd or glsl/opencl, and connectivity to blockchains, and able to exploit all the feature of blockchain with data ownership and global synchronization on different assets on different blockchains.

But the projects doesn't have a very well defined direction and cost estimation yet, we are working on different ideas to market for a year, but it's hard to have good visibility in the close future, or to know what will really be the thing to develop within a year or two, well there are things to still finish on the core itself, for it to be 100% able to handle most blockchain & have all the maturity and testing, and probably good documentation, application examples to show some common use case, like maybe shop, or social net, 3D, audio/video in decentralized/distributed way, integration with existing web framework like joomla, symphony, bootstrap, to have secure application framework connected with the web and distributed application.

But it's hard to really know what will be really be the most profitable to develop in short term, and what is the demand and what it will be in the next year or two years.

The problem is not raw transactions processing, but keeping everyone synched on the same blocks all the time

Coming a bit from 3D engine, it's ridiculous the amount of time spent to check and validate such ridiculous amount of simple integerer arithmetic in the bottom .. But it's because in video game there is always a tolerance for inacurate computation and a certain margin of error, with bitcoin there is no margin of error, and everyone has to agree exactly on each value, that's the whole point of it It's this that slow everything down, not the transaction processing speed

Im saying adding pow on the stack modifier computation not on the block themselves to avoid the staking on multiple chains.

The way i understand it, the problem with POS chain is that for example in blackcoin there is granulosity of 16 sec on the time nonce used to compute the proof of stake, meaning for each output you are staking on, you have 16 sec to compute the hash for it, so it leave lot of free time, and it would be very possible for an attacker to keep in permanence different valid version of the chain, and push one or the other on the network at any time. It's what make pos coin more vulnerable to transaction maleability. Even if it's not that useable in practice i think, it can still be potentially a pb. Adding some pow on the stake modifier could avoid this to be exploited too much.

The new website is online on http://iadix.com !

I will still update it in the next days, at least the block explorer, and probably the interface for the raytracing demo.

Not everything is still completely definitive, but it's already much better than the previous one

We will post more explanation latter we already made a page to answer certain question : http://iadix.com/ico/faq

If you have question or feedback don't hesitate !