Rumor has it that the exchange will receive ETF.
CBOE - one of the largest organizations. It's a neighbor of the New York stock exchange.
If that happens, we are waiting for bitcoin at a price of 50k dollars.

Today was unpleasantly surprised. MyCrypto did not allow to carry out operations from the site. There was a message that you need to download and install the application( for me it is not very convenient..

Money is often used to motivate others to do things but they dont know why, and in exchange they can motivate others the same way and those others dont know why, and so on. This created a problem in people motiving eachother to do bad things, so governments stepped in and regulated that ability to motivate eachother. I thank them for the original attempt to prevent those bad things people cause eachother to do, but today governments have fallen victim to the same influence of money they originally started regulating others to prevent, the difference being only governments are allowed to be corrupt and use money for bad things.

Please do not regulate while under the influence of money.

Money is a great tool to organize scarce resources. Its such a great tool for that, people started using it for things theres already enough of, like owning ideas (patents), food (like seedless watermelon DNA), and the right to trade freely in new kinds of competing money. It went too far when peoples motivation, their own goals, were squashed by money commonly known by the phrase "get back to work". People try to make others value money more than its actual value, in part because that gives them more value of the money they hold, and the more dangerous part is because money has a mind of its own, our minds, and it has commanded us (through laws, for example) to help it reproduce. Its alive. And I dont want any out of control life form motivating me to do things which I dont know why I should want to do.

I see work as any vauable thing you do. If the product of that work is not scarce, then I provide more value to the world by not connecting it with money. We should want more people to do this when they have enough of other things. They usually dont have enough of other things because the ways central currencies are used are to contain peoples motivation, not to be a tool where people can motivate eachother, but to contain the motivating of eachother inside where that currency is normally used like only between certain countries and only if you think certain ways, that you allow that currency to motivate you more than other currencies, because if you offer other currencies in trade to a local store they usually make you wait a few days while it transfers between countries or various systems. They are in an incompatibility war, and we are the casualties. Lets prove to the world that money is an addiction on non-scarce things.

So I decided to give bitcoin another try, this time not primarily as an investment which I think will soon gain value to trade for other currencies, but instead as a better way to motivate eachother, especially inside tor where that is I believe the place it is normally used.

Proposed start of small and unexpected things we all wanted but were afraid to ask Please consider supporting - an Earth Constitution paragraph

Everyone insists their preferred problem be considered first. Lets do 1 at a time and if theres 90% agreement it happens

The worlds been deadlocked many years on most important problems. We want a way to know when we start something it will be finished or dropped, either way its done. We dont want a never-ending list of half-assed attempts to solve what we need millions of asses to solve, but we need to know others are serious before we do. When 90% of us have carefully thought, explained to those not yet understanding, and chose to make it reality and law (or drop and move on to next problem) then if any 10% block our chosen reality, everyone who uses least-force-needed has immunity and right to occupy relevant place while actively solving, like if agreed on Geneva convention the right to a sandwich and if not happening in Guantanamo Bay or Africa 7 billion people may enter and make sure they got a sandwich

For USAmericans official petition https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/everyone-insists-their-preferred-global-problem-be-considered-first-lets-do-1-time-and-if-theres-90-agreement Others may start their own petition if that one isnt right for you, but please share all such negotiations and do you think people really want this or believe it could happen?

Everything anyone would need to implement http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt is defined here, and it is entirely just 3SAT and the unavoidable truth of math that the symmetric kind of neuralnets aka boltzmann statistics is true of the AND of, not just 2 things as in a normal pair but any size of AND which you need to talk about 3 things at once.

This should be very useful for any group of people who want to avoid gametheory failures between eachother such as "trajedy of the commons" or "prisoners dilemma" or voting against instead of for because others arent known to cooperate in that gametheory. Web of antitrust, not trust.

A decentralized and gametheory backed 3SAT solver (or searcher for larger agreement) should be a huge market for computing services. Google may want to sell 3SAT solving skill, for example, to whoever may certify a variable representing such a contract. b-money is possible but not a dependency. This is not a money system. Its better than money. Its gametheory. Defect and you're bankrupt.

The only calculation is the AND of any 3 certifiers including yourself. Only sets of 3 certifiers (nodes in the neural net) who have all certified that set of 3 with the same neural weight are included in the neural net. Every certifier has their own neural net which has the weights between those pairs of any 2 others which is also the weight between any 2 of those 3 because those 3 things are defined as the AND of those 3 certifiers so none can be counted if they have certified that someone else and you cant be on at the same time and you are on (so they must have lied since you are always on when you are using such a system.

Digital signatures are not regulated. Encryption is not implied by the use of a general computer (made of such 3SAT or neural calculations). NPComplete is not encryption, but it can be used to prove things about combinations of variables / certifiers without making any direct statements about them. Logic and proof languages are not normally used as a network protocol, but a thing does not become encryption just because its done online. It is out of my control what people may compute between eachother, except that I may be required to certify that weight as a certain scalar and I could score it low but others may then score me low because of that. Ironicly it may one day become that the network contains a homomorphic crypto algorithm and was never written by anyone instead only proven to exist, but that will not be my action, nor is anyone responsible for preventing others from operating a general computer before any wrong doing is claimed, as courts of USA say software counts as free speech.

The internet is a big computer, and we call it certifier networks.

I dont want to use Tor, but it appears thats how its normally done, and anyone who wants to join such an effort toward public opensource would have to hide their address when they didnt want to.

It is not illegal to a million people work on opensource and give it to everyone along with these data forest ending at 0, so there is no need to hide it, but the networks have hidden us from eachother, so when I meet someone on the street, we are unable to find a way to create a pair referring to anything we may be carrying like a qr code or bytes of a picture, each take a copy, and later continue from that object. instead, each person want to help must find us through a slow process of sending far away when what I really wanted was so close that our binary forest would run at gaming speed. So the game objects and neuralnets etc do not each get indexed far away.

Trying to have a bunch of people compute together for...

Since it is for expanding opensource, we cant store data where any part refers to an encrypted or address that is not of 2 other blocks (such as starting with some business name). Their privately owned data which they always send with everything like the manager you are working for, when we are actually building software available to everyone in source and free, but this network is not a business etc and anyone may see the data in realtime without permission and offer new such pair data referring to 2 other pair, as long as it all ends at node 0, and nodes may be dropped that arent in use. So I'm not trying to secretly run a computing grid, nor am I trying to run it through the internet routing system since the data is only executed by creating new nodes if someone observes them and sends maybe signed by a public certificate so it can reach us.

To prevent duplication in the nodes, they are named by hashcode.

The plan...

Basically, anyone can talk to anyone else and later to AIs and any system hooked in and can negotiate with eachother how many times incoming messages are allowed. There may also be an expire time on the calls or they may only work during some time range.

Using such a system, we shouldnt need the paradigm of businesses to organize our efforts toward big things. It could be used with just the game money or if it gets more serious each server could trade future function calls for real money of a variety of types such as dollars or you could link bitcoin addresses in the text.

It will be at some url / then a hash of your password if anonymous or maybe a name / then a short random text that money can be stored in.

This is no ordinary money. Its an agreement with whoever calls it that you will see what they write and respond. They may get that url containing the right to n calls of you from you directly or from anyone you give it to and anyone they give it to and so on. Or someone may post it anywhere on the Internet and people use it from there.

Dont worry about spam. It can only come as many times as function calls of yourself you give out or sell or trade for function calls of other people or some functions will be the normal kind found in software or math or pieces of neuralnets laying around.

You can also put yourself as a function up for sale to anyone who sees some list of functions with prices per call. This is not necessarily real money, but it could be. Maybe a few cents every time someone asks you a question and you answer it, and if you answer in a useful way you could raise your price and others in the system would find you useful sometimes for helping them get money from others who called them and they're calling you recursively about some detail or even just to hand the whole item to you. Anyone can make as many function calls as they have urls for (and multiple calls stored in each usually) and can buy more with the "game money" that everyone has a single number on their screen which increases when others buy future calls of you and decreases when you buy from any list, but it does not change when you use existing calls you already have. Those are your investments in how their current price may be higher or lower than when you bought it or it was given to you.

Watch global unemployment nearly end. They'll hire eachother anonymously and legally tax free while not connected to outside money types since you cant pay tax in units of the right to talk to someone. Thats freedom of speech. Each moneyfunc is local to 1 server and can be transferred by moving some of it into a new random url suffix and giving someone that url. Whoever knows the url can spend it to talk to you some max number of times. So actually we dont even own these moneyfuncs since they can be many places at once, like a group of people can share a url that has 25 calls left. Or you could play Cicada3301 style games giving part of the url in different places or to be derived somehow maybe using the output of some puzzle you're asked to solve. Normally its just a stack of chat windows and programmable objects, and you would tell each chat window some combination of the others or what they answer when you ask them things, especially recursively handing them other people (of some max calls, not all the calls you own of them). This is what it feels like to be a lambda function, except people arent always stateless.

When did working together become a crime that you get fined for? Its not technically a crime to work at a business, but it does cost you money as tax. When chains of people work together the tax adds up to be impractical. You cant have 200 levels deep of one business hiring another hiring another. If there must be tax, then it should at least be a decay rate of all the money instead of decaying it more at every event of getting things done.

Mtgox was a money transmitter because bitcoin is money. Bitcoin is a number people exchange for valuable things. This is not a money transmitter even if selling moneyfuncs for dollars because a moneyfunc is a consumable service of talking to someone or something and getting a response whatever it may be. It is, however, the sale of a service for money which is taxed in some places, but only the first trade dollars for moneyfunc. Once you're in the network people are just trading talking to eachother for other talking and urls etc.

This will be a great way to organize any existing business of many people or anyone across the internet to build things together.

A scary thought... Remember when through twitter and facebook people formed a mob and overthrew their dictator in egypt only to later get a worse one? Those social networks werent amplified by trade/moneyfunc. We can see in the world that people will do terrible things for money, like mass produce WMDs and make us all pay for it. But that doesnt count as a mob because its the official mob.

Practically thats how dollars work. I'm not sure about the others, but they appear similar.

Those who have more dollars have more "votes" (or call it influence) in what the corporation does. USA is a corporation and dollar is its stock symbol.

I object to being taxed in units of stock instead of in units of money.

Since the federal reserve which mints the dollars is a private organization, technically USA government is free to choose other contractors or multiple of them at once. But in another way it cant be done because practically dollar is USA's stock symbol.

There are different amounts of tax and regulations for stocks vs money, and we should be using the stock rules because dollars are stock of USA corporation.

Monopoly.

If the value of a dollar is positive, and the total number of dollars is negative, then the total value of all dollars is negative.

Is there a total negative number of dollars in the world?

If so, then maybe everyone should put them in the garbage since the total value in the world would be higher, if their total value is actually negative.

Bitcoin has evolved strong gametheory strategy encoded in its rules in the blockchain and some hardcoded in the software when people took advantage of earlier rules that didnt work so well and the blockchain and its many branches were often argued over which branches should be accepted and under what new algorithms. It is in general supposed to become a decentralized cloud computing free market by encoding instructions for what to calculate and what data to use (like variations on algorithms for neuralnets or matrix multiply or maybe ordinary languages?)... But I've not heard of this being used, at least only experimentally.

Maidsafe and Ethereum may be good systems to also hook in later, but I propose a simpler definition of computing at a lower level to build up from.

Kind of got off subject here to whats possible but mostly I'm asking about possible uses between these 2 systems, this one being mostly theoretical so far.
To what extent are the treelike data in some of the blocks easily compatible with this in being able to name these Branch and Read ops and, in the style of the bmoney paper, hook cryptocurrency into the ability to define any arbitrary recognizer function (like in npcomplete or even turingcomplete, or more commonly referring to publickeys of people who might be chosen to arbitrate in case of a dispute if such datastructs were agreed on within the system to normally include an arbiter and list of addresses to try next if failing for each piece of the computing or other agreements negotiated... In other words, what bitcoin was inspired by when first built, that paper, could we do some of that by turning the internet into one big computer and being able to reliably write functions that return 0 or 1 depending on if bitcoin money has moved to a certain address, with some given certainty, but only if agreed on conditions are also true, and the social structures that may go along with that as can also be encoded in the tree of possible branches and bits somewhere? Is it time for that level of integration of this big mess we call society? Its more practically a question of speed, like how fast the things can reach eachother, because bitcoin is generally not for realtime computing, and I had hoped microtransactions could guide AI evolutions to pay eachother for computing resources and end when none is left.


---

A theoretical 1 bit computer (instead of 32 or 64 bits at a time in hardware) thats simpler than Rule110, is a convenient way to represent huffman compression trees across a global network seamlessly, is naturally understood by AIs since its 1 bit in 1 bit out and repeat (bits or at least vectors or math are AIs native language), and it merges social networking with variables and computing and urls etc.

Here's the definition, in theory...

Theres only 2 things it does, alternating between these:

interface Branch{
Read branch(boolean bit);
}

interface Read{
boolean bit();
Branch next();
}

void exploreWholePossiblyInfiniteComputingWorld(Branch variablePersonWebsiteEtc){
Read if0 = variablePersonWebsiteEtc.branch(false);
if(if0.bit()) exploreWholePossiblyInfiniteComputingWorld(if0.next());
Read if1 = variablePersonWebsiteEtc.branch(true);
if(if1.bit()) exploreWholePossiblyInfiniteComputingWorld(if1.next());
}

//variablePersonWebsiteEtc came from downloaded the next few parts of it from somewhere or one you might put on your website after every change you make, reusing shared object names like publickeys or urls or hashed files in bittorrent or other hash or a twitter name etc.

//you'll want to pay more attention to which paths end where, instead of exploring for no reason. For example, a path that has ends directly after each branch, and you back up and take the other path, and it has only 1 path and so on, until there are no paths, that represents a bitstring, which could be a sentence or any data or named thing in the world, whatever you use it for. Things are named by list of bits that way. Everything in computers is made of bits.

For hooking this into urls and downloading from them, a kind of Branch would have to be created that remembers the parts of url already added 1 bit at a time and when you branch it gives you an object representing 1 more bit that you said, so after you come to the end of the url or anywhere in the middle to view its tree, the next bits would be the content returned, like html bytes or whatever is there, except if it appears to be a definition of a Branch object then that url is its name and it just continues as if the content of that url didnt happen and you continue branching as if the next website or part of the system extends onto that url. For example, you could mount any website into a path in your website anonymously, and it would look like they just typed a url in your website but somehow got a Branch object that, if used, downloads from someone elses that your website actually gave as page content part way through the url. This would be able to unify and simplify many things.

Great discovery, that Rule 110, but not a practical system at least nobody has found a way yet. This branch/read 1 bit computer definition, unlike rule110, can handle constant data and addresses with people whose website or piece of computing it is publish an update and if you happen to find that update, because publish is great but like twitter's use of publish/subscribe it doesnt scale if everyone could be affected recursively by most others.

Computing is a bigger than infinite space, meaning the halting problem is demonstrated in this tree of Branch/Read containing loops and potentially expanding into complexity forever depending on which path you take, but it will always continue to give you 1 bit when you give it 1 bit and continue from there. The bits just might be useless after some point or you missed where you should have turned back and combined them in a different way earlier.

The internet would waste much less bandwidth if we had multiple shared huffman abbreviation trees which we can all be a part of, as Branch on bits is what Huffman does, read some bitstring until it ends then tell us what the zip file actually had there before compressed. We could do that while computing, all the time automatically, so instead of resending an entire program to different people, its internal workings could be partially cached and have their own addresses, each a publickey or defined branching from one which had that data in their website content when we looked for their address.

A useful thing many vars/people/websites might do is everyone include something called "mylist" which can be anyone or anything in the system, and you reorder it by your preference of whats most important at the time and you can put stuff inside other stuff like folders (allowing things to be in multiple places at once for almost no extra cost), so your social network and computing and exploring the web could all be organized by drag and drop of these unified objects, if everyone was a circle with their picture and a list on screen and you could grab anyone and open their circle and so on, including the items in your own list becoming their own circles and people could draganddrop those into their lists, or for the more technically minded, use it at the bit level where mylist would come after a certain prefix in the huffman tree. Unlike today's cloud computing, this could have pointers between different programs across different websites. Makes no difference. Computing is computing if you dont first assume an outdated address and website format and just stick with the basics of computing it can be built up from and hooked in.

Computing shouldnt be so complex you cant see the simplest part.

In this network, routing uses the simplex method and every bit var has 2 address

Starting with 32 bit addressses, as IPv4 is mostly full and any part is likely to be able to respond at least to someone, there are at most 32 hops from any bit variable (many nands based logic gate) to any bit variable anywhere in the world who chooses to join this network.

Their choice to join the network exists only in the effects they have on the network. Theres no list of members at this logic level, but those who want to be in lists or make lists about others can of course compute and talk about such lists using the bit variables.

Everything on the Internet and computers is made of bit variables, and it will continue to work that way as people and automated systems may choose to join networks based on this simple design.

To ensure maximum flexibility, bit variables have 2 addresses each, one for bit0 and one for bit1, but since the network is similar to quantum uncertain, no bit variable knows if it is a bit0 or bit1. It only knows that when it crosses a hop in the network, exactly 1 bit has changed.

The shape of the network is deterministic and high dimensional, starting with 32 dimensions, 1 dimension for each bit in IPv4. You cross 1 dimension at a time until reaching some destination and then observe, statistically or by proof of the known nands (between any 2 different vars) and xors (between you and your opposite, but neither knows which bit value the self or other is at first but may figure it out by looking at the nands between them).

The shape of the network is an abstract idea and does not depend on physical location or IPv4 address or which routers you actually go through. The shape of the network is a social network keeping Dunbars Number in mind, which is about 150 people or things in the world each person can understand the connections between). Because of Dunbar's number and Simplex method which describe the same thing here, each bit variable touches only those 32 other vars or optionally its variable length addresses and is expected to expand as memory mapping of GPUs and VMWares and Hypervisors and supercollider computers etc choose some place in the network to say the parts of their system are at, and if the rest of the network finds their communications consistent with the nands and xors they already know and have confidence in, then they become just another fact in the network, a relation of nands between their bit vars and ours and any combinations that are found to be true most often. Its statistical and expected to be used like a boltzmann machine or hopfield network to make it run faster, but it can represent any exact logic including the logic of the bits in word documents and games, if we knew what that logic is and those things got hooked in.

The gametheory of the network will be held together by each (observed by 32 or more others from different dimension each) bit var publishing and keeping updated a 32 bit integer whose bits tell which of their peers have a nand relation with this self var. I'm undecided if it needs to be 64 bits because the nands can be between self and the other bit0 or bit1. Xor between self and opposite of self simply means only 1 version of you can be bit0 and the other must be bit1. Your 2 branches together form all possible values of a bit variable and recursively into the network everything that implies.

It is an error for 2 bit vars who are eachother's peers (route directly touching eachother) to disagree on the nand of that pair of vars (us 2 vars). If we both say nand is false, then we must both be true/bit1. If we both say nand of us is true, then theres 3 ways we could exist together: both bit0, self is bit1 and other is bit0, or self is bit0 and other is bit1.

I'm not entirely sure if the statistical view of what vars are true/false aligns right with which of bit0/bit1 (as an internet address) you happen to be, but that's the paradox of quantum uncertainty and simplex method. Its something to be explored, figuring out as we go what are useful strategies for getting our peer bit vars to communicate, in whatever language of sequence of their bit values we somehow together decide to use, in a way that results in us finding the information we wanted in the network, like predicted values of bit vars at certain addresses which may be IPv4, may have port, may be IPv6 up to 128 bits, may be SHA256 hashcode of any bitstring, or may be any kind of computing or talking or thinking hooked into the network.

This will be an experiment in "punish the nonpunishers" kind of gametheory. Those who observe errors in the network and continue routing on those paths, communicating along those peer bit vars as if there was no error, inherit the error, at least in my strategy of how I'll choose who to stay connected to or disconnect from my list of peers. Others may connect and disconnect to anyone in the full Internet, as usual, but somehow a gametheory should form where anything that leads to an error is itself an error, recursively. Thats punish the nonpunishers. Not punish as in the physical world or to hack or attack but instead to disconnect from any errors so the network tends toward less errors as defined by the nand and xor logic. There is no interpretation about if 2 bit vars/addresses are in an error state (directly between eachother) or not because its directly observable in their nand bits each about the other var not equalling.

This network has the consistency of a database and the speed of being lower level than assembly code.

This network, which I'm calling xorlisp (in progress), is a virtualization layer for all possible digital and statistical computing, and may extend to wave based computing using the bits of the numbers representing those waves or hopefully the way the hops are done leaving you uncertain which bit value you are as a relative bit value, will vibrate as those waves and we can fine tune it later.

The kind of hardware which would best calculate this network is a rows and columns breadboard with bitvar gate on each diagonal cell and in 32 (or more when variable size address) places, 1 from each of 32 wires coming out of it (or maybe same wire in some more statistical or wave base ways of using it) 2 wires are connected, maybe in gradual amounts like a piece of metal sliding more up or down, maybe like a keyboard having 2 sheets of such rows and columns separated by a middle nonconducting sheet with holes where the keys push. Or maybe some components would go at those 32 places each. Could be parallella chips on the diagonal, abstracting to multiple bit vars per such group, or could be any component. Breadboards would be more like phonebloks if they could snap onto eachother as an L shape expanding the square and the wires connect on all the sides.

The first such motherboard may have 65536 (16 dimensions plus the number of bits per cell chip) parallella chips or something like it, depending on if they can connect in this powerset shape. They normally are a flat 2d grid. This is a flat many dimensional grid.

Parallella chips (which are 1 of many possible ways to use this kind of network) cost "less than 5 dollars", I read somewhere, and the existing boards are also cheap but have too few chips only 16 or 64. Think volume discount when its easier to mass produce than prototype. Might they get down to a few cents each? Or maybe we dont need all that logic and can build it from simpler parts or existing languages.

There are various GPU grids, some of which support running at least some parts of compiled java.

I'm looking for, or maybe to build if it doesnt exist (anyone interested in that kind of project?) a network of GPUs which each have internet addresses or you could call them memory addresses within the same program which just happens to be running on a computer thats spread across the Earth.

I'm looking for 2 or 3 such grids which can each consume 0 money and computing resources until told to do something and within 1/10 second rev up to a speed of a small animal brain, then a few seconds later turn it off, and repeat as needed in such short fast bursts.

I dont think the world is that well organized yet. Or is it?

The main ops such gpus would be used for are read bit at address elsewhere in the gpu network, read scalar number depending on that bit, sum those scalars, update those scalars or other numbers, powers of e, and to take commands from slower running code on when to do these things and put such neuralnets in memory and update them etc. I cant accept any existing neuralnet software as it must be computed at the code level so I can explore variations of the algorithms, and so such neuralnets can design new variations of such algorithms.

I know how to build a new JVM or part of it if I have to, but it appears that work has already started in opensource of some kind.

--------

It would be good if they accepted some kind of cryptocurrency but its not required since there would be a few of them to keep them competing with eachother and peoples individual computers.

Or maybe they could branch a new blockchain as a localcurrency (local in the sense of those they do business with) and trade it to anyone who would use this opensource science, game, and AI network in exchange for services provided to them like statistical prediction of high dimensional vectors, is the main thing I'm going for at the low level, and specific uses of it and recursions applying variations of it to itself would be built on top. For example, in exchange for compute cycles and storing of datastructs temporarily and network bandwidth, I could eventually extend these multiple GPU networks from different providers to address into eachother, delayed of course but adjusted by prediction of that timing, so they could more easily sell computing services to others who dont want to build their own addressing or prediction systems but could if they want to.

I may also be interested in any experimental neuromorphic, quantum, brain layers on a chip (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physarum_polycephalum but a kind of life that thinks closer to our speed instead of thousands of times slower as the slime does), insect or monkey cyborg experiments (with respect to their positive experience and choice of joining and leaving the network to motivate the operation of the network to provide value to all involved), possibly FPGAs if they're behind a protective layer not able to damage themself by experimental programming, or just in case anyone may have anything like it... a tiny "black hole computer" somehow hooked in through statistics. I'm interested in any advanced kind of computing and hooking many of them together as a single statistical computing space.

Each blockchain can start with any chosen data, which later blocks are built on top of. The deeper that blockchain gets, the harder it is to change that data. Whoever chooses to use such a blockchain (among many others) is acting in the context of that data, if people choose to display such data on screen that way. Such data could be any text or file, even if its a secureHash of a larger data like naming something on (if it werent so unsecure using weak hash functions) bittorrent.

For example, someone could start a blockchain whose chosen data is "the legal drinking age (in years) in USA should be". If its a yes/no vote, a specific age would have to be included in that text. If its a median vote, each publicKey would, through some agreed on function, represent a specific number which depends only on the bits of the publicKey and not anything signed by it which could become a source of conflict in which signed content is valid or not. In the simplest case, each publicKey represents yes if it has an odd number of 1 bits, or no if it has an even number of 1 bits. Interpreting a publicKey as an integer (or scalar number) could be done by using its bits as the binary digits of that number, or using some secureHash of the publicKey that way. Theres an unlimited number of possible functions which the network could agree are useful for certain purposes.

These interpretations of how much bitcoins (in various independent blockchains) are at which addresses, grouped by functions which answer yes/no or a scalar number about each possible address, would have no legal or economic force or influence of any kind except as people find them useful for organizing information those ways.

A yes/no vote in a new blockchain, weighted by how much bitcoins are at the yes kind of addresses minus bitcoins at the no kind of addresses, can change over time if each user has at least 1 yes address and 1 no address so they could send to themself to change their vote, and it would work the same in generating publicKeys that are found to represent various numbers which get voted on (to your own address which happens to represent a number close to what you want to median vote on).

It could also be done using any functions which answer yes/no on existing bitcoin addresses and, if the network is motivated to, form datastructs to sum the bitcoins at addresses which map to yes vs addresses that map to no, and many of these addresses would overlap between many views of the same blockchain. Each view is any function which takes a possible address bitstring and returns some other bitstring, normally representing a single bit for yes/no or more bits for a scalar number, or it could even expand to general computing in a statistical way if people defined variables that way, where a variable is defined as any chosen way of viewing a subset of all possible bitcoin addresses weighted by how much bitcoins are there.

Voting using blockchains does not need new datastructs if people just agree on any chosen Recognizer Functions which recognize true or false based on the bits of addresses. Many possible things could be built in this paradigm.

The following applies to many things including military actions, economic actions, the building of new tech, and gametheory in general.

All military actions should be done equally to 2 targets:
* The chosen target, for a well thought out reason.
* A random target, for purely gametheory reason, which is proven to everyone to be random.

Math theory and its tech implementation can prove to large groups that numbers they generate together could not have been chosen or predicted by any subset of those groups, so it is practical that the world could trust a certain way of together generating a number results in randomness we can trust with our lives. And that is what we should trust it with more than we trust MAD with our lives.

I trust MAD to do what is logical at each moment, but since everyone knows so much about what is logical, it allows them to only act to prevent bad things happening to themself and certain others, which contradicts the theory of MAD that it is Mutual between everyone that we would all be destroyed, depending on the size of the military action which may be just a bullet all the way up to extinction.

I do not see the madness. It is not insane. Its logical. The problem is Humans are not entirely logical. We do things for insane reasons sometimes. MAD should be a gametheory which they understand. MAD should have true madness, and nothing is more mad than acting for no reason at all. A madman may kill anyone without warning, so we are all motivated to keep madmen in the madhouses or other forms of control.

If every military action was equally on 2 targets of the same type, 1 chosen and 1 random target as proven random to the world through near lightspeed internet, then there is no such thing as a neutral country or "not my problem" because under the rules of the provably higher MADNESS, an attack on 1 of us is literally statistically an attack on all of us, the very definition of MAD.

MAD is what protects us, that we are mutually assured of all being destroyed if we allow anyone to start such a process that escalates. So the question we should ask is, is MAD still the major influence in military actions around the world? If not, then isnt it likely that Locally Assured Destruction (LAD) could escalate after some time without the world noticing, especially with new abilities being invented so often these days?

The true madness of violence is what protects us from it. I dont feel safe in a world where violence makes logical sense as the permanent model of how things work. Please, learn to be truly mad in reactions to other madness. The insane side of people cant be countered with a well thought out plan that isnt itself at least in part truly insane.

It would also be good if guns and other tools of violence could be replaced for the most part with things which have the same effect of temporary neutralizing of a target's actions or movements, without actually harming them. For example, why do we allow police to carry guns and shoot people for running away? They work for us. Have them shoot a net or some kind of foam that hardens around a person. But thats a different subject. You're either MAD or you're less than MAD.

Also on the subject of madness, I have a question for those who are considering killing others for not believing a certain religion. The purpose of this question is to help them maximize the longterm number of those nonbelievers killed and minimize the need to kill people right now. The question is: Does your god want those of the believing descendants of nonbelievers to also be killed or prevented from ever being born? For example, if you had a time machine would you go back and kill your grandfather for being a nonbeliever, then in effect do you believe that nothing you have done or will do in the world should happen and that you should have never been born? At each moment, you have the same choice to kill nonbelievers before any of their believer descendants exist. If your religion is as great as you believe, then isnt it likely that many such descendants of nonbelievers would see it the same way, as it is common around the world to rebel against your parents or think on your own? Have you killed as many nonbelievers as you could? If someone had killed your nonbeliever grandfather, then wouldnt you not be here at all to kill todays nonbelievers? So isnt killing nonbelievers that are still young enough to have kids reducing the number of nonbelievers who could be killed later by their believer descendants?

Every dollar I have was created by some account by the rules which define that kind of money, and eventually it may be destroyed by certain possible actions within those same rules. This same behavior can be represented by holding a googol amount of that money in a publicly visible account called the "constructor", from which all "new money" is not created but moved from that account to the "account which creates the money". Similarly, "destroying money" can be represented by sending it to a "destructor" account, which the rules of that money type prevent from ever leaving. A constructor can not receive money, only send it, and a destructor can only receive money but never send it. Since everyone would at all times see the unique number of each piece of money in both the constructor and destructor accounts, for each money type, it would be impossible for anyone who normally mints money to mint more than they tell people they have minted, which would be counterfeiting.

It would also allow many people across the world to sum the amount of that money in randomly chosen areas which divide the world more or less in half, and to verify that sum equals 1 googol of that money type. If it is found not to equal that, the people rightfully reduce their belief in the value of that money type, and they have a right to that information so they can accurately believe which things are more or less valuable.

I consider it money laundering by such mints to hide the account which the money was sent from, to them, in the process they call minting.

Bitcoin does something similar, as its been proven there will never be more than 21 million bitcoins. That should be represented as all 21 million already exists (including in fractional pieces) and are moved from the constructor account to whoever mints them by creating the next blockchain root.

Some parts of that are a more trustable model than existing money types, and since they all in their existing behaviors can be reprsented in a common definition of money, using constructor and destructor acccounts and rules from where it may move from and to based on defined conditions or actions in the world, I think people should tell eachother and those who can make it happen to define each money type in such formal math detail so anyone sending or receiving it knows what they are part of.

Similarly, things like the transfer of driver license from a government department to a person, or the taking back of it on certain actions observed on the road, could be represented as a kind of money whose rules include the conditions which it can be transferred to a person, that a person can have only 1 unit of it, who may send it and after what occurs, etc. Voting is a similar license which is spent by each person anonymously toward an account for each possible person where it is counted and announced to the public who got how many votes. This process is so complex and slow in their use of paper computing of MapReduce, that it can only be done every few years or months for very few things.

We can accept that everone's clock may run different speeds, especially if your clock is broken or your computer is overclocked which means its motherboard clock wave vibrates more times per second so you compute more than others around you.

The time used to predict movements of planets is very close in sync to the kind of time we use because they are subject to the same force of trying to sync with eachother else pay a higher energy cost of vibrating out of sync. Through the Internet, we also pay a higher cost of complexity, repeating the same calculations in many contexts, if we are out of sync with computers near us, and we save even more computing resources the greater the sync reaches the the rest of the world.

Bitcoin syncs on 10 minute intervals, when a new root node of each blockchain is agreed on. To change it after that is a political process among those who hold value in that network, and it has been done before when Bitcoin's algorithms were agreed by many to not be the best algorithms when multiple blockchains branched and they had to decide which to follow, or they could have split their held value in half more or less each only spendable on different sides of that divide.

There have also been examples in the push toward closer connections to stock trading systems, but that is a goal of putting your systems out of sync ahead of others while others would probably still choose to sync with those stock systems when they can.

Lack of sync in our calculations has huge effect on the world. Sync is more than just counting time.

Which kind of time do you mean? Relativity counts time by each Sender and Receiver in the network, how fast that path is received. Relativity does not count how fast all parts of the network can each send the smallest piece of unique information to everyone in the network and receive all those from everyone. When that is done, we count 1 clock tick of network sync.

Of course our most extreme members' speeds and distances affect how fast we can global sync, and they will slow down all our calculations if we wait on them. Do we want to wait until Australia and USA can each send a bit to eachother and the other receive it, before our sound card calculates the next wave amplitude? It wouldnt be fast enough to hear, even at lightspeed, because light crosses Earth 23 times per second, so at most we could (by the nyquist frequency saying you can do it on the hills and valleys of each wave) play 11.5 hz, and you cant hear much below 20 hz, not to mention that the computers internals do billions of cycles (hills/valleys in the motherboard wave) per second. So we dont wait for light to reach us to continue computing. It would be impractical even for the speed of a pocket calculator. You might even calculate too fast using an ancient mechanical computer, if its parts can move more than 23 times per second.

So instead of global sync, I think we should formalize a definition of time, in the context of syncs of information flow, which defines global sync as lagging behind each smaller and faster piece of the network which agrees to local sync, all the way down to computers as they exist today.

Why does Kinect and many phone cameras have 1/5 second lag between you moving and the game reacting? Because people dont care about sync. They should, because playing games that way sucks. Among gamers, lag is a cussword. Go lag yourself. You are lagging our game. No laggers allowed, you see before people form into groups to play such games. Its also important for scientific networks. If we are to get the full benefit of the Internet, we must define what relation between speed and sync we want in each part, what depends on what groups of other things all finishing, or how many of them is enough to proceed? Then what depends on us and is waiting? Sound familiar? The world of business is plagued by sync problems too.

Instead of asking how many milliseconds have passed since 1970, wouldnt it be better for each syncgroup to keep its own integer for how many cycles have passed? For example, each Bitcoin network as a syncgroup counts time as the length of its blockchain, 1 more every 10 minutes more or less. Milliseconds since 1970 is a syncgroup of certain physical clocks across sealevel which are adjusted toward eachother when they slightly differ.

What do you all think of this definition of time by global sync of smallest amount of information being able to (if that path is desired) move from everywhere to everywhere?

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

I want to start the process of peacably assembling with all 300 million usamericans in various combinations using the tool of money as we share through the internet to organize who will assemble with who else and for what purpose. Money is a tool known to be needed for getting big things done, and my challenge is to assemble in any size large enough to have an effect requires the practical speed of money flowing from anyone to anyone at the speed of speech instead of the speed of paperwork. We have been denied this dependency of the right to peacably assemble, and therefore request that we "petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances".

One way to handle this would be a class action lawsuit, the people of usamerica vs all "money transmitters" (legal phrase) which transmit money significantly faster between person and business than between person and other person. This difference is obviously larger. Payments to businesses happen while you slide your card or type its numbers in a computer. Payments between 2 people normally take days when crossing between different banks, so our right to peacably assemble based on that motivation toward some purpose of the assemblage is in effect only existing a fraction of the time, while most of the time we are unable to assemble and organize because we are unable to send money to eachother fast enough that attention toward that purpose remains while the rest of such group receives their money, only to find a far smaller assembly than we have the right to. This has led to nearly everyone putting their best efforts into an assembly called by only a few who sign their paychecks and the rule nearly always enforced by those few who call the assemblys that attendance and attention in their assembly must not occur around the same times as attendance in other such small assemblies, also known as "if you work here you cant work anywhere else, and your schedule is these 40 hours 5 days per week". Failure to assemble when called by these few results in inability to assemble with anyone, as they are all unable to reach eachother except through a tool held near exclusively by these few who call the smaller assemblies. To make matters worse, in recent years these people who were unable to assemble while denied assemblage with any of the smaller assemblages, created an internet tool which allowed them to motivate assemblage using the full power of money at the speed of speech through the shared network, and this was done in secret to avoid retaliation by the other paradigm of assembling in small groups who wish to reclaim their potential members into assemblies they are less interested in but are unable to find any better without the tool they had built. As the legal reaction to hiding this tool, it was fined 5 million dollars which caused such people to be afraid to use it again since they may lose what little ability to cause others to assemble they have. Then things returned to normal, in the many small assemblies called by the few, and wait for progress on further tools toward our assembly as we see fit without interference from those who fear the use of such tools weakens their ability to cause people to assemble in the smaller groups.

Money has been recognized as a form of free speech, which allows religious message to be printed on its paper form. Netneutrality law recently changed to require equal speed of all speech through the Internet. Since money is a form of speech, netneutrality by law requires that money move at equal speed regardless of its source or destination. We therefore request an official audit of these illegal systems of transmitting money with bias to who its from and to, to determine the cause of this illegal act, whether it be accident or by design, and if by design then the people of usamerica seek payment for damages to our estimated profits, in units of that moneyspeech, which we were denied by the (if intentional is the case) intentional slowing down of its passage between us, echoing loss of opportunities between eachother to build a better foundation of society or specific parts of the world. While thats very subjective, we estimate such loss as the standard interest rate accumulated over the sum of the excess delays multiplied by the total amount of such money which would have been tried to send between eachother had it not been for the knowledge that its a bad investment (if intentional is the case) as intentionally market manipulated in the form of not netneutral slower passage of money between these people. Assuming an interest rate of 10% per year, from when netneutrality including moneyspeech became the law, the people of usamerica are owed 10% of such transfers (or potential transfers avoided because its expected to be delayed) per year, from that recent date netneutral became law until whenever these moneytransmitters systems are repaired to again be legal, and we request the immediate freeze of all money transmitters found to be operating illegal equipment, hopefully leaving some of them for us to use until they are again legal. If this goes ignored for more than 30 days past when many people notify courts and these accused nonnetneutral moneytransmitters that they are operating equipment illegally, and if they continue to break those laws, then after such reasonable time we also seek criminal charges against the intentional act of using illegal equipment which has these large effects on the world. Following the repair of these systems, we want regular inspections of the netneutrality of the moneyspeech transmitted by these moneytransmitters to verify its neutrality of unbiased speed is within legal limits. In conclusion, netneutrality includes money as a kind of speech and therefore the flow of money between people vs between person and business has been found to be extremely not netneutral and is illegal, to the extent of damages we the people have suffered due to either the accidental negligence or intentional market manipulation of moneyspeech of any of the moneytransmitters. The subject of netneutrality is still up for debate since it is a recent experiment to be fine tuned, and we can accept some mistakes in this early experimenting with it, but continued illegal routing of moneyspeech is a crime against us all and could, if necessary, be explored into who knew about this crime and was an accomplice, specificly any employee of these moneytransmitters who sees this delay between 2 people more than between person and business, and they may all be called to court to answer for being a knowing accomplice to the crime, backed by the precedent that Enron employees were guilty even though they just followed orders to ignore these crimes in their organization and were paid with money gained through those crimes of falsifying records in Enrons case.

It was forgotten.

Its clear the time has come to implement what was a planned global standard.

As I'm looking for a job, I'm considering starting a corporation whose founding document requires it to act only toward:

This corporation may be a nonprofit charity except for operating expenses collected never from users but only from money transmitters who agree on whatever fee or no fee if they negotiate well. This is to ensure there is no significant reason to create other providers of the HTTP pay action.

The HTTP Pay action will be implemented fully across the internet. We are 1 optional provider of that service, and anyone may start their own service and compete with us at no cost and no patents owned by us or transferred to others by us, so competition is unlikely to beat that, but its important for it to be effortless to keep this organization toward its purpose.

The HTTP pay action may be done a few different ways:
* Unconditional pay instantly with no possibility of money back even if you get cheated or other bad or unexpected things happen. The regulation of avoiding that causes delays and is often not a good trade, and other times it is.
* Middleman holds money until product or service is received and certified ok, or negotiated for a different more fair price. This requires a list of arbiters to be agreed on by both in the deal and maximum time they may take and default action if pass that time. Default action may be return the money or let them keep the money or some other process to be specificly named.

Maximize speed and reliability of all money transfers between anyone and anything on the Internet, as long as such transfer is legal, and the responsibility for certifying it legal is by competition of whichever money transmitter (banks, cryptocurrency, etc) first certifies it and finishes the transfer. Expected transfer times should compete with bitcoin. Banks only make you wait because you go directly through them instead of competition of whoever will send the money.

Make all websites and products across the world easier than Amazon's 1 click payments... actually 0 clicks up to some limit you define and for certain kinds of websites which you may write a javascript function to say true or false given the webpage and url and other info about it. You may also defer to an artificial intelligence for chosen websites and up to a certain amount, and this AI is your tool and its actions are your actions even if you dont understand its actions, therefore it is important to hire experts to explain how it works and what it could do and is likely to do or if you understand its (hopefully simple) code read it yourself or build it yourself. For example, if netflix or pandora wants 20 cents for viewing something, the AI just pays it so not to bother you with little things.

All transactions name a money transmitter by their short text name (like bitcoin, dwolla, paypal, wellsfargo, bankofamerica, etc or whoever may choose to join the service). Transactions also name a money receiver or multiple receivers whoever may take it first (assumed to know eachother or for some reason want to race to click HTTP pay). Transactions also name an amount and minimum and maximum time (approximate global time at sealevel accurate to at most 50 milliseconds such request occured, plus the competition time to actually move the money). Each type of currency is a different money transmitter. Transactions report those 2 names to all governments involved and optionally to a public record like bitcoin block chain. People may negotiate with eachother on a large scale to motivate the publishing of such senders/receivers, but that would be outside the scope of this corporation.

Any money transmitter which sends your money from a different bank without that banks permission is gambling that the money will come later and pays it instantly, hopefully getting it back when transferred. We have no responsibility for what deals those banks make with eachother. We are not a money transmitter, just a service of connecting people with money transmitters and eachother. We are only responsible for identifying who is sender and receiver, and any further investigations, by government for example, are directed to those money transmitters and people we identified.

All money transmitters who opt into this service agree to perform all government related obligations which would normally be the person's obligation, including paying taxes on it and other paperwork. For this service a fee may be negotiated and competed on. Many people dont find value in such paperwork and would prefer a competition for who will agree to be responsible for it, up to a maximum cost of such government interaction set by the person.

Obsolete all debit and credit cards, not the accounts just that form of sending the request to pay someone.

Prove military strength integrity of data sent, received, and people identified doing those things, especially by one of the many available crypto cards, except must have an addition that if a certain button is pushed it deactivates and person must identify again, and can be deactivated remotely. If possible, face scanning and other methods of preventing people from stealing your money would be available in such cards. Publish a list of all failures and proof it will not happen again or that it was the person's mistake or a desirable property of the system by a majority of users.

Prove that user privacy is no worse off than in the old paradigm of dealing directly with a money transmitter, by only storing the least needed data about anyone, specificly everything needed to identify them, but since we are not a money transmitter we have no responsibility to hold their social security number or anything related to goverment. Such responsibility would be contracted out by each person to any of the money transmitters they agree to include in such competition for getting money sent so fast it competes with bitcoin.

Publish a list of causes of slowness in sending of money, including things like governments requiring long delays in some cases, and any threatening of such money transmitters to keep the real reasons for things secret, or whatever may be the cause. This corporation is obligated to look for such problems and improve them if possible or find who caused them and publish this information.

Through organizing fair and honest competition, cause money transmitter fees to reduce and delays to shorten and excuses to result in some other money transmitter doing it faster usually. The expected use of this is that everyone, every website, every device, can send and receive money, through existing paradigms whichever works best at the moment, as fast as internet packets, and it just works.

The HTTP pay action needs to be built. Is anyone interested in helping to start such a corporation?

If we dont build HTTP pay action, cryptocurrencies may lead to wars with the central bank system. I and many others have problems with how central banks do things, and I think this paradigm would solve most of them. Keep the paperwork on the money transmitters side (up to maximum cost risked by user) and upgrade the internet to send and receive money from anywhere to anywhere really fast and automatically and with the option of any system doing it for you for certain kinds of transactions. Money is a number we send to eachother and agree on who has how much, a tradable perception of value. It shouldnt be a bottleneck to progress.

This corporation will try to get the world talking about what should be the rules on who can create their own money type, how that money can be created, destroyed, frozen, sent and received, anonymous vs identified, and what the people of Earth should do if the central bank system acts against whatever people overall think should happen. For example, USA's congress claims, in the constitution, the authority to regulate the value of money. I define money as "any tradable perception of value", so to regulate the value of money is to regulate perception, to regulate our thoughts on what is more or less valuable in the world. I would hope that people find competition works better than monopoly.

This corporation will attempt to split monopolies in any isolated location which has only 1 main currency, because monopolies create unfair trading prices and rules. For example, in USA maybe it would be better if each state created its own currency and all those states accept most of the others. Its good for people to think in terms of multiple measures of value, maybe they would understand corporations better and use them through prediction markets, or create their own new kinds of markets. It is damaging to peoples minds for their goals to be so strongly tied to a single measure of value despite their protests for more competition. This corporation will attempt to cause every location to use at least 3 main currencies whose majority influence are very different. Some country may own lots of value predicted for the future of dollars, but they dont own those who choose to use dollars. Only if dollars are the best value should we use them in each case.

This corporation does not support law breaking through use of other currencies not known or understood by any agreements each person has made, but competition must be restored, and the HTTP pay action is just the convenience and market for money transmitter competition to motivate the world to get it done. This wasnt my idea. Its something the world wanted but couldnt figure out how to do it.

This corporation will seek help of experts across the world to evaluate the security of each money transmitter and negotiate for inspection of their systems and practices and for them to publish the results of it, and to motivate others to compete by publishing their better security and practices.

This corporation will not send or receive money between any government organization who will not identify to the standards everyone else is held to the source, destination, and amount of each transaction. Everyone should transact by the same agreed on rules, or be obsoleted. While this corporation is not obligated to investigate any money laundering since it is not a money transmitter, only connecting them to people through HTTP pay action etc, this corporation will publish and keep updated a list of all government departments suspected of laundering more than 1 billion dollars, and by laundering I mean devaluing the dollars in our pockets without us knowing about it, secret accounts for secret plans, which many people may prefer not to be connected to through those specific currencies or money transmitters.

This corporation recognizes central bank system and its members as a sovereign country, not by land but effectively in our interactions with them, and since they are international organizations. Similarly this corporation recognizes cryptocurrencies as not a member of any land specificly except between those who may choose to use them. This corporation is obligated to investigate possible compromises between cryptocurrencies and the central bank system toward the purpose of avoiding a possible war or other bad events. Take this seriously, that control of the world through "tradable perception of value" aka money, has motivated many people in dangerous ways, and this needs to be talked about by many people and figure out some solutions. This corporation will start with implementing the HTTP pay action as widely across the internet as possible, and to maximize possibility of the world accepting HTTP pay action, this corporation claims no special privilege or being the default provider of HTTP pay action, except in browsers which may choose such default provider, but this corporation must not accept any accounts from money transmitters who also offer a service of being an HTTP pay action provider, since that defeats the purpose of a competition of money transmitters if one of them also owns where your money is stored, a conflict of interest that this corporation will with the strongest legal resistance prevent and not have any deals with. HTTP pay action providers can not be money transmitters or own any money transmitters as recursive child corporations etc. They can only send a request from somewhere to somewhere, for them to do or not do as they choose, and to contact arbiters if named in such transmission of money. Like Wikipedia, unbiased is best.

HTTP pay action...

(this could use some rewriting, but I think the core concept is solid and could boost the global economy with many smaller transactions from many websites and people. The world is demanding some kind of change. Here's what I think we should do about it, and I know how to build it).

Also, wasnt the Ripple money system similar to this? Maybe they would be interested in helping to debate and create the HTTP pay action, what the people asked for but it never happened.

First, here's the prototype of the immutable datastruct its based on:

Immutable Sparse Wave Trees (WaveTree)
Realtime bigdata tool for bit strings up to 2^63 based on AVL forest

https://sourceforge.net/projects/wavetree version 0.2.0 is a 84 kB jar file containing its own source code.

Opensource GNU LGPL 2+

Realtime bigdata tool at the bit level based on immutable AVL forest which can be run in memory or, in future versions, as a merkle forest like a blockchain. Main object is a sparse bit string (Bits) that efficiently scales up to 2^63 bits normally compressed as forest has duplicated substrings. Bits objects support reading bit, byte, short, int, or long (Java primitives) at any bit index in 64 bit range. Example: instead of building a class to hold a header and then data, represent all of that as Bits, subranges of them, and ints for sizes of its parts. Expansion ability for other kinds of compression, since Bits is a Java interface. Main functions on bits are substring, concat, number of 0 or 1 bits, and number of bits (size). All those operations can be done millions of times per second regardless of size because the AVL forest reuses existing branches recursively. Theres a scalar (originally for copy/pasting subranges of sounds) and a bit Java package. Sparse n dimensional matrix.

AVL tree balancing avoids deep and slow forest

Bits substring, concat, and count 1 bits in any subrange or combination costs only log time and memory (millions of times per second on average computer)

Versioning on N dimensional matrix object (Multidim) since its only a view of Bits object. I've tested this on 10000 images from MNIST OCR data.

Scalar and Bit versions - Originally was scalar for copy/paste subranges of sound. Same operations work for bit strings

Can store sounds that are years long since its sparse. Same works for bit strings up to 2^63.

-----

I too often get lost in excessive abstraction, but I'm getting back to keeping it real. This is 1 of my tools that I only came to understand the need for after years of research. It will be at the core of my game, AI, and science network, along with my new kind of mindmap and statistical tools like boltzmann machines and bayesian networks. All those things will be represented using this foundation of bits.

-------------

The possible computing grid:

These computers would not be like Von Neuman motherboards. They would not support mutable memory locations. They're more like lisp machines, except just a data layer, similar to bittorrent except more direct and for streaming near lightspeed (theres already many optical wires, or wireless mesh networks could also be a transport layer).

A memory address is, what I've thought of so far:
256 bits of SHA256, concat 64 bits of length (in bits), concat 64 bits of number of 1s, concat 8 bits of AVL forest height, concat 2 time headers.

The time headers are on any arbitrary scale, probably are 64 bit (or maybe 60 if want it to total 512?).
* minimum delete time
* maximum delete time
So every piece of data in the network is, by agreement of those in the network, required to be deleted by a certain time (in microseconds or nanoseconds, maybe) and is required to be near instantly available from whoever claims it exists (by it being referenced in a higher AVL forest node from them) until minimum delete time. Failure to put in a reasonable effort to do what you agreed (by rebroadcasting or first broadcasting a leaf), I recommend to those who think its a good strategy to make the network work overall, should be disconnected from anyone who discovers this about them, but dont tell anyone else in the network about it because then you'd have to consider incoming claims from many others that various nodes in the network did similar bad thing, and its much simpler in the gametheory of it to accept connections until you have personally seen the evidence of them not giving you what they agreed to (any part of any avlBitstring they sent you a merkle branch of). A balance should evolve of which data nodes will accept based on it having unreasonable min or max delete times, because if you accept it and rebroadcast you are responsible for routing until the min delete time and not routing after the max delete time. You can always hash it again with a different time, so competition should form.

All addresses are the hash of 2 child addresses, including length, 1s, forest height, and min and max time headers for this new branch.

You cant hack a memory space that doesnt support modification ever for any reason, unless SHA256 is cracked and in that case shouldnt have chosen that secureHash function. It makes no sense to create or delete a number, but if you ask for the mapped value (2 childs and times of parent) which you have never received (or not within time range claimed) data claiming it exists, it is no error to not get its value. You can always ask since others need not track what forest nodes you have, and in that case should be ignored with no penalty at first and gradually increasing penalty (of chance of being disconnected) with each repeated request for what was not offered (like noninvited port sniffing or nonimplied URL guessing). If somehow it is implied a data exists and is within time, then go ahead and ask for it without wasting the formality of someone hashing it into something you dont want, but this is not the main function of the network.

Such computers could be any ordinary computer running SHA256 by Java API which may in some implementations call to a GPU or do it in CPU, for example, or what I'm considering is a new kind of computer entirely which has many SHA256 chips, maybe redesigned as layers of NAND gates (as its constant number of steps), so each clock cycle can start a new SHA256 instead of waiting few hundred cycles for it to finish hashing 2 addresses which happens in most clock cycles.

Hash whenever 2 avlBitstring are concat or substring.

Read recursively into hash when you want to count the number of 1 bits in any range (in logBase2 time, not 2^64 cycles if it was a mutable memory, so huge optimization) or concat logBase2 times during substring.

These computers would need extreme cooling. How is the nuclear cooling tech progressing? Not to rotate any massenergy (in the data layer, but thats one of the things computers are for organizing) but to stop it from melting. For example, I have a theory that the thermodynamic saddlepoint of water, a few degrees above freezing where it gets bigger if either cools or heats might be able to find some parts which are heavier (the heavywater, with 1 proton and 1 neutron per hydrogen, and attached to oxygen). But I hope I dont have to go to such extremes. Some computing grids are embedded in metal walls in buildings on icebergs.

This computer would, other than its large address size, support the standard 64 bit integer and floating point math, but pointers work different. You dont write to a pointer. You substring and concat immutable avlBitstrings to include a pointer into itself. This is why the bitstrings can be up to 2^63 bits and all ops on them take logBase2 time and memory. I'm not sure if some ops do that logBase2 times, depending on large difference in tree height, but that can at least be optimized if it becomes an issue.

Think of it like anonymous Subversion for every piece of data and state change anywhere in the global network, and when you want to write a petabit avlBitstring, its potentially everywhere on Earth 1/23 of a second later, available but not cached until it starts being requested.

Prediction of what should be routed where is a layer on top of this, but in general routing should be by physical distance first since light doesnt make exceptions for trips to the internet backbone and back. Would you go to town and back to reach your refridgerator? You would if IPv4 doesnt give you a direct path there.

Target audiences: Internet2.edu superfast scientific grid consumers, video streaming which is currently done on patches on top of patches through bittorrent, high bandwidth massively multiplayer VR, static caching layer optimization, competition for Cassandra, Hadoop, Bigtable etc, supercollider data streams and you wouldnt believe how much data per nanosecond they generate since physics waits for noone, global voxel streams like is planned for live sports events to see from any angle even while pausing such waslive stream, memory mapping of neuromorphic, statistical, and wave based systems. Realtime high precision brain scans for networking minds together of those who choose it (which I cant wait for, and no I'm not the borg, opensource is by choice and therefore keeps the competition fair)... but if someone like the borg collective wants to join the network, I think they'll find it just barely compatible enough and annoying at having to hash when they would prefer more direct access to waves and statistics. Boltzmann machines are an important use case.

Its rediculous that a database would only let you make 1000 or so queries per second. Too much sync when everyone has to agree on the contents of that variable which we call that database. If you want to agree with many others on the value of some bitstring as a name, thats what we have blockchains, namecoin, and domain names for. If you want to download a pointer to a petabit and reliably count how many 1 bits are in a randomly chosen substring of it (which may even be over half its size) in a small fraction of a second, then you would use such an avlBitstring computing grid instead of a name system. Its so much simpler to push all the data by value, than to deal with the gametheory of who agrees on name value pairs.

What do you all think about the difficulty and volume prices for such chips and new kinds of computing grid, if I was to pursue this at a hardware level later? Some of you are specialists in SHA256 chips, but I'd want chips that has the whole concat of 2 childs and time headers (so even bigger than a single hash and padding). And then theres many way addressing to get the 2 childs of any address or find its not in the cache, and by cache I mean main memory. The difference between fast cache slower caches and Internet is just number of hops. Makes no difference if its in the same motherboard or across Internet. Its all 1 big computer to me, but some people like to say they're different things so they can regulate general computing without calling it a computer. I'm not trying to break laws, but keep that slow mess away from me.

It can be done for good reasons and fair trades of possible futures, but it can also be used in a very dangerous and powerful way, which we can all more often avoid by being aware of the paradigm and how it can be used positively or negatively.

In the Saw movies, people find themself in a world they want to escape. They are given a list of things or places to look. Some of those things/places contain keys or other things helping them to escape. Others of those things/places lead to injury, pain, death, and ways to get the players in the sick game to turn against eachother. The question they should ask is, is it better to ignore Jigsaw's threats and instructions or to play along? Its a risk either way. Valuable and Dangerous are relative to the world around us. Escape may sound negative to those on the outside, but it has positive value to those inside compared to where they are.

An example not meant to be negative to the people who opt in, is Google's Ingress game, which tells the players a list of places, and some of those places are where discounts or free stuff is sometimes given away (valuable to many people), but others of those places are bought by businesses who sometimes do not have enough valuable things to attract people for that alone so they pay to get added to the list of places. Its called advertising, and its near everywhere. Advertising can be valuable to all involved, but it can also be a way to pay people to go places and more often do things that they otherwise would not have been motivated enough to look into or not wanted it as much. For example, large political parties often get into power by combining their ads with other things people find valuable, the tv shows between commercials for example.

Advertising is not the dangerous thing this is mostly about. Here's how a huge bloody war could be started...

Someone publishes a list of things/places spread across the world and honestly says that each of them is 1 of: a place they are considering bombing or spreading poison or other dangerous things, and the other thing each could be is where they have hidden valuable items like gold diamonds papers with bitcoin addresses written on them containing lots of that currency, and there could also be maps of which of the places/things are the dangerous kind and which are the valuable kind. People go crazy, like the revolutions fueled by Twitter and Facebook in and around Egypt. They tell eachother through a variety of communication methods that the terrorist is being honest about whats at the things/places he listed, for example, that some of the places many people were killed and far more of the places valuable things were found and evidence is spread between the people, so the sick game spreads as a meme, and more people continue to knowingly go to places that terrorists have set traps or attack at random times, because people love to play "the lottery" if the jackpots are valuable enough. Conflicts escalate, more games like that pop up, and all hell breaks loose. When governments try to overpower the spread of memes and people looking for such valuable things and places, more such games are invented where the list of things/places include near government buildings and other potential vulnerabilities. There may be no stopping it if it goes too far, not just this theoretical example but a variety of possible things in the same paradigm.