We economists like to link things and make more value to products. So that is proof in my terms.
We mathematicians, philosophers, and logicians like to link things and make more known that what is true. We find no higher value.
That which is true, concatenated, is proof in
real terms. Interestingly, the definition of proof is not open to debate. In fact, if we wish to be able to make any useful conclusion about reality, at all, we must hold the definition of proof as the *only* definition that is not open to debate.
You cannot simply decide your own meaning for "proof." To do so is irrational, and will certainly be a fast way to discredit yourself.
Proof-of-play is a specific type of proof, and you certainly don't get to decide your own meaning for it, either!
If you understand proof just in programming ok so, I am with you but connecting with other related parts of activities you need to make valuable things.
Proof, in this context, has nothing to do with programming. These are more fundamental philosophical questions.
I don't disagree with your notions that value of a token arises from a concern for its practical use. I even argue that you *could* coordinate a structured proof around these activities, and that such a thing would be a great contribution. What I do take issue with is your claim that you have done anything of the sort. I particularly take issue with your claim that you are doing anything at all like proof-of-play, in particular. You cannot just slap the word "proof" on a thing and try to pitch it as some meaningful contribution. At best, this will just devalue the meaning of your contribution by being perceived as a mislabel.
We think that crypto is going in that way. SOrry again if I injured you with words, but I see lately lots of game related coins afetr we ann marketing plan. It is just my defense mechanism becuase we imported lots of work into it.
Glass houses and stones thrown.
It is not your place to try to instinctively shoot down other "game related" coins without some meaningful claim against them. It is very much your place to defend your own claims, if possible. You've made some pretty bold claims now, I hope you realize... Proofs are not a thing to be taken lightly, particularly "`round these here parts." The very special nature of proofs is the whole reason our community came to exist in the first place. You are stepping onto something of sacred ground, here, I hope you are really ready to either defend your position on that ground, or step off of it.
From 15h of october I will be glad to show you games of proof of market games
But can you show me any proofs? A proof is a tangible thing. It can be held, studied, shared, and referenced. If you cannot show me some proofs that I can look at and assess as valid or not, you can not be making any claim of having proven something. If you don't have a proof in hand then you don't have any "proof of market" or "proof of play" or proof of anything.
Anyway this is half off-topic for this thread. This thread is about proof-of-play, of which you have none. I'll leave further discussion about whether you have any sort of proof at all to your other thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=807578Our white paper is copyright so it is not copy pasted
That is no justification for injecting it into our (unrelated) thread, on a whim, simply for the sake of trying to promote your own project, and at the expense of others. This is inexcusable behavior, and quite unbecoming of someone with a Sr.Member title.
We economists like to link things and make more value to products. So that is proof in my terms.
We mathematicians, philosophers, and logicians like to link things and make more known that what is true. We find no higher value.
That which is true, concatenated, is proof in
real terms. Interestingly, the definition of proof is not open to debate. In fact, if we wish to be able to make any useful conclusion about reality, at all, we must hold the definition of proof as the *only* definition that is not open to debate.
You cannot simply decide your own meaning for "proof." To do so is irrational, and will certainly be a fast way to discredit yourself.
Proof-of-play is a specific type of proof, and you certainly don't get to decide your own meaning for it, either!
If you understand proof just in programming ok so, I am with you but connecting with other related parts of activities you need to make valuable things.
Proof, in this context, has nothing to do with programming. These are more fundamental philosophical questions.
I don't disagree with your notions that value of a token arises from a concern for its practical use. I even argue that you *could* coordinate a structured proof around these activities, and that such a thing would be a great contribution. What I do take issue with is your claim that you have done anything of the sort. I particularly take issue with your claim that you are doing anything at all like proof-of-play, in particular. You cannot just slap the word "proof" on a thing and try to pitch it as some meaningful contribution. At best, this will just devalue the meaning of your contribution by being perceived as a mislabel.
We think that crypto is going in that way. SOrry again if I injured you with words, but I see lately lots of game related coins afetr we ann marketing plan. It is just my defense mechanism becuase we imported lots of work into it.
Glass houses and stones thrown.
It is not your place to try to instinctively shoot down other "game related" coins without some meaningful claim against them. It is very much your place to defend your own claims, if possible. You've made some pretty bold claims now, I hope you realize... Proofs are not a thing to be taken lightly, particularly "`round these here parts." The very special nature of proofs is the whole reason our community came to exist in the first place. You are stepping onto something of sacred ground, here, I hope you are really ready to either defend your position on that ground, or step off of it.
From 15h of october I will be glad to show you games of proof of market games
But can you show me any proofs? A proof is a tangible thing. It can be held, studied, shared, and referenced. If you cannot show me some proofs that I can look at and assess as valid or not, you can not be making any claim of having proven something. If you don't have a proof in hand then you don't have any "proof of market" or "proof of play" or proof of anything.
Anyway this is half off-topic for this thread. This thread is about proof-of-play, of which you have none. I'll leave further discussion about whether you have any sort of proof at all to your other thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=807578Our white paper is copyright so it is not copy pasted
That is no justification for injecting it into our (unrelated) thread, on a whim, simply for the sake of trying to promote your own project, and at the expense of others. This is inexcusable behavior, and quite unbecoming of someone with a Sr.Member title.
sorry ppl do not want to make injuries we have our own thread about word proof
