[AEON] Aeon Speculation

[DrkLvr_]

are you the guy with >300k on Bittrex?

[1715454079]

1715454079

[1715454079]

1715454079

[1715454079]

1715454079

[1715454079]

1715454079

[ancientcoins]

are you the guy with >300k on Bittrex?

i think that is pegasus

and that address is only increasing i wonder how much btc he has at his disposal.

[americanpegasus]

i think that is pegasus

and that address is only increasing i wonder how much btc he has at his disposal.

 
  
Not much.  I cut pretty steep into my paycheck to buy a few additional bitcoins once the price initially hit $370 and then briefly returned there.  I still have some pasta and frozen broccoli though, so I'll be ok.

[ancientcoins]

aeon on first page a nice rise would stand out from all the falling currencies

[funnyman21]

In case you're wondering, here's the recent Aeon movements on Bittrex, which is the only exchange that still deals with them:  
  
 
  
I don't own any right now, but seeing as how smooth has impressed me with his technical competence so far, I think it's worth it to own 10k to 100k.  The things are basically free right now anyway.  With some solid development and love, perhaps they will get back on other exchanges.
  
P.S. It would be nice if you buttholes don't run the price up before I buy some - kthx.

You should upload a new graph. Over the last month Aeon has roughly tripled (from .00001188 btc to current levels) while most alts have fallen dramatically in bitcoin terms.

Those who owned Aeon at the time this thread started must feel pretty good right about now!

[americanpegasus]

You should upload a new graph. Over the last month Aeon has roughly tripled (from .00001188 btc to current levels) while most alts have fallen dramatically in bitcoin terms.

Those who owned Aeon at the time this thread started must feel pretty good right about now!

 
 
Yeah, why wouldn't they?  I bought all their Aeon at 3x the price.    
 
Of course, I'm more worried about the state of Aeon come page 500 of this topic, so I don't mind.

[cryptodromeda]

I urge any bright mind reading these words to reflect on this and try to help me brainstorm.  I am constantly amazed at how bitcoin took pieces that already existed and combined them in a novel and unexpected way to generate a solution to an ancient problem.  The theme of that solution though, in many ways, was to stop resisting the inevitable and embrace it.  
  
I am convinced that there may be other significant problems that puzzle us today (including ideal social governance) that may fall to the same techniques of creative thought.

On the topic of governence, take a look at this Bitcoin Panel Discussion published today:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iQSRGT3nfE

I'm particularly inspired by Greg Maxwell's note that a 51% consensus leaves the remaining 49% disenfranchised.

I was thinking about a voting portal which could reside on a website. www.aeonocracy.org? Rather than a conventional voting system which could potentially lead to a disenfranchised userbase, an alternate system could be conceived whereby each votable component is given a score from 1 to 10. The component with the highest total score wins the vote, and thereby minimises vote disenfranchisement.

That doesn't solve voter distribution problems or nefarious voters, but it's a better system than the conventional polling systems so could at least function as a useful module within a future system.

On the interim, it could function closed-shop with a smaller electorate for smaller affairs, such as the choosing of the symbol.

...And on the subject of the symbol, I have to admit I've changed my mind and I'm kinda moving towards Æ. Seems a lot more futuristic somehow, and æ would most likely just be written as ae, which doesn't look quite as unique for a currency symbol.

[LucyLovesCrypto]

I'm kinda moving towards Æ. Seems a lot more futuristic somehow, and æ would most likely just be written as ae, which doesn't look quite as unique for a currency symbol.

I like Æ the best of the suggestions I have seen so far

[americanpegasus]

I'm particularly inspired by Greg Maxwell's note that a 51% consensus leaves the remaining 49% disenfranchised.

I was thinking about a voting portal which could reside on a website. www.aeonocracy.org? Rather than a conventional voting system which could potentially lead to a disenfranchised userbase, an alternate system could be conceived whereby each votable component is given a score from 1 to 10. The component with the highest total score wins the vote, and thereby minimises vote disenfranchisement.

That doesn't solve voter distribution problems or nefarious voters, but it's a better system than the conventional polling systems so could at least function as a useful module within a future system.

 
  
I listened.  I think even that panel shows the inefficiencies in how we govern ourselves.  Everyone on the stage is considered very smart, and so is presumed to have an "equal say" but some are better leaders than others (like Andreas and so are able to socially swing the consensus their way).  It is unfortunate that some of our brightest are not necessarily our best orators.  I have been thinking about what would be involved in "ideal governance" and though I don't have an answer, I seem to have a few pieces of the puzzle figured out.  Please note that these ideas are pretty generic, and may not necessarily relate to Aeon directly.

• We must accept that not all voices will be equal in ideal governance, nor should they be.  Since we accept that everyone will not have an equal voice, our thoughts can turn towards what mechanisms can be used to distinguish the weight of various voices.
• A reputation/influence system seems best suited for this where all nodes might begin with equal influence but quickly diverge based on a meritocracy.  Eventually Node J carries "74" reputation because his/her ideas are always so favored and it is apparent that they have the communities best interests at heart while Node M makes a constant ass of themselves and has the minimum reputation of "10".  Perhaps users don't just vote on issues; they also vote on which other users should be given increased reputation.  
  
• However, all users/voices must have the opportunity to both propose new ideas and spend what reputation/influence they have to vote on current issues.  All voices will always have some sort of say in matters, even the most casual, disliked, and new.
• A competent dictator is better than a bloated and ineffective democracy, but a mediocre democracy is better than any corrupt and foolish dictator.  This alone shows that all voices should not have equal weight in ideal governance.  Ideal governance should have mechanisms built in to flow naturally from a small circle of power to a wide democracy and then back again to the small circle of power if times call for it.  Having a small group wielding the majority of power isn't a bad thing as long as there are inescapable mechanisms to ensure that if the systems/populations they are governing are dissatisfied they can withdraw that power.
• It seems impossible that there can be a reputation/influence system built with anonymity built in.  It would be trivial in every construct I can imagine to game the system with fake personalities and votes.  Therefore, unless there is something I am missing, any system of influence or governance must have reputation systems attached to verifiable identities.  As autonomous artificial intelligence becomes a reality, this will introduce additional problems since there is very little creation cost in an AI creating another instance of itself whereas humans need decades to create another productive member of the species.
• All members of the 'voting class' absolutely should start at the bottom of the ladder and be forced to prove themselves, regardless of lineage or inheritance.
• The reputation would form a sort of currency of its own in time.  Ideal governance would have checks so that reputation and votes cannot be bought on the protocol level.  This is a very difficult problem, but perhaps can be solved by removing one of the important qualities of money from the voting/reputation mechanisms (such as scarcity).

 
  
As far as the more immediate issue of a currency symbol, perhaps a weighted vote could work.  At this stage we are so small that perhaps consensus can still be achieved by seeing who can talk the loudest.  I have always preferred æ, even if it gets casual-ized to a simple "ae".  I prefer aeon to be the serious Cryptonote that might have a quiet voice but carries a slick brand and powerful tech.  By making the symbol Æ it seems that we are simply trying too hard to go for a "techno-future" slant.  Remember, many successful post-2000 brands (and make no mistake, we have not just a technological war ahead of us to unseat litecoin but also a branding war) became successful not because they looked futuristic and intimidating but because they hid powerful technology underneath a soft and approachable exterior.  
  
iPod is the best music player on the market - but looks like a fun and personal device that's all about you.  
Google is a funny and cute word - driven by the most powerful search engine in the world and best e-mail of the time.  
Facebook is an inviting place all your friends are on, and of course you would use them - they carry themselves with a cute & friendly arrogance that demonstrates they are the best.  
  
Æ seems to me to be a bit "try hard".  We don't need to try hard.  We have the best technology, and the truth of that will make itself evident in time.  What we need is to be approachable and friendly.  In this respect, it might even be a good thing that æ gets shortened down to "ae".  Let people feel like they are somehow masters of this technology, even when they aren't.  Feed *their* ego, not the other way around.  
  
Remember it's not about Aeon proving that it's the best with flashy futuristic bragging - it's about being low key the best while having the most capacity to spread from person to person (like a meme).  In this respect, the symbol æ is far more fluid as a concept likely to spread vs. something more formal.  "Srs bsns" will come in time, or be forced to.  Even the military has started issuing iPads in recent years to aircrew members, despite it being a fun and friendly consumer toy just a few years ago.  
  
It comes down to the laws of power: Æ is the equivalent of Kanye West; it is screaming at the world how it is the best.  Meanwhile æ is Channing Tatum; it knows it's great and it's purpose is now to make you feel great.  
  
Ultimately I far prefer the æ but I'll survive with the other symbol; I just won't be as happy about it but I'm sure I'll get used to it in time.  I don't even think "Monero" is so weird of a name anymore.  

[cryptodromeda]

The way I see it, there are two principal faculties when it comes to governance:-

1. The Ideas Factory.
2. Execution Control.

Execution control relates to who has ultimate authority over the passwords for all the 'big red buttons' pertaining to a project's practical operational infrastructure. Things like github, ANN OP thread, Twitter & Facebook accounts, Reddit top-tier moderation etc. In each of these examples, power can be usurped by forking or by bypassing, but always at a cost. For example, right now, no-one really knows who controls the AEON Facebook account - most likely the original developer. The FB page might (or might not) be considered an important piece of infrastructure, and if the owner wanted he/she could be a powerful force within the AEON sphere of influence, perhaps with nefarious intentions. We have seen similar problems with the top-tier moderator of /r/Litecoin, and indeed now with /r/Bitcoin's theymos. Any of these infrastructures could have an important bearing on a projects ability to succeed, or at least the success of a sub-component. For example, broad consensus on logo design is possibly irrelevent if the Facebook account is displaying one logo, the Twitter account is displaying another, the ANN OP thread is displaying another, and the subreddit is displaying yet another. There may be solutions to all of these problems, but it at least needs underscoring and understanding as a seperate form of governance from idea generation.  

On the subject of ideas generation, I don't see why there should be any presumption of inequality, nor the need to exacerbate it with a meritocracy. A node could spit out 99 bad ideas but then finally deliver 1 critically genius idea, but given the node's ruined reputation it (most likely) would never see the light of day. If you think about it, a reputation based system is kinda like making a gamble that the next idea that a node delivers is either going to be good or bad, depending on their reputation. Why make that gamble? What if there was a way whereby all ideas could be appraised equally and judged based on the quality of the idea itself, not the node delivering it. In such a system, anonymity of the node wouldn't be an issue because it would only the be idea that counts. If the idea is logical, then it could be built upon by another node, and so forth.

Ideas pertaining to governance can largely be considered in two categories:-

1. 'Logical Ideas' whose credibility is dictated 'simply' by logic and reason.
2. 'Mystery Areas' - the outcome of which cannot practically be determined or logically predicted or exists in an area which is dependent on some degree of aesthetic subjectivity. (e.g currency symbol choice.)

For 'Logical Ideas', there is absolutely no need for a community consensus as the solution is defined by it's own logic and reason. The solution is evident.

For 'Mystery Areas', we are essentially making a gamble; stepping into the practical unknown. Therefore this is the area where community voting should become an issue, because we are all saying "There is no logical or practically visible solution to this: So how are we going to gamble?"

The way I see it in my mind is a website that contains many many ideas pertaining to AEON written in a brief text format submitted by anyone and that can be expanded upon when clicking. (i.e a title and a brief). Anyone can come along and provide a 'counterpoint'. This counterpoint can itself be counterpointed, and so on. In the end, certain ideas become these great pictorial maps being demonstrably thesis/hypothesis judge/jury style logical reductions. The ideas that survive this process either become 'logical ideas' defined by their logical purity, or they culminate as a 'mystery area' defined by a question mark, and hence require a community gamble, and some kind of vote.

If we concentrate on the ideas, rather than focussing on the community members themselves, then I believe we can set the foundations for an excellent 21st century governance model that would have people questioning why no-one had ever devised such a perfect system ever before.

[f2000]

Ultimately I far prefer the æ but I'll survive with the other symbol; I just won't be as happy about it but I'm sure I'll get used to it in time.

I'm not invested in Aeon but read most of the Altcoin threads since its all very addictive. Personally, its' no contest, æ just looks nicer...plus the current logo is lowercase (so you would be loosing the link between the two).

[cryptodromeda]

Ultimately I far prefer the æ but I'll survive with the other symbol; I just won't be as happy about it but I'm sure I'll get used to it in time.

I'm not invested in Aeon but read most of the Altcoin threads since its all very addictive. Personally, its' no contest, æ just looks nicer...plus the current logo is lowercase (so you would be loosing the link between the two).

Yeah I wouldn't get too attached to the current logo. Is was created in five minutes by the original developers and almost certainly will have to change.

It's just a blue square with a basic windows font. It's completety illegible at 16x16, doesn't represent any currency symbol at all, and if expressed in monochrome would just be a standard windows font.

So that won't be sticking around for very long.

[Lizzie]

Ultimately I far prefer the æ but I'll survive with the other symbol; I just won't be as happy about it but I'm sure I'll get used to it in time.

I'm not invested in Aeon but read most of the Altcoin threads since its all very addictive. Personally, its' no contest, æ just looks nicer...plus the current logo is lowercase (so you would be loosing the link between the two).

Yeah I wouldn't get too attached to the current logo. Is was created in five minutes by the original developers and almost certainly will have to change.

It's just a blue square with a basic windows font. It's completety illegible at 16x16, doesn't represent any currency symbol at all, and if expressed in monochrome would just be a standard windows font.

So that won't be sticking around for very long.

I agree with you, The logo needs to have a more professional design.

[f2000]

Ultimately I far prefer the æ but I'll survive with the other symbol; I just won't be as happy about it but I'm sure I'll get used to it in time.

I'm not invested in Aeon but read most of the Altcoin threads since its all very addictive. Personally, its' no contest, æ just looks nicer...plus the current logo is lowercase (so you would be loosing the link between the two).

Yeah I wouldn't get too attached to the current logo. Is was created in five minutes by the original developers and almost certainly will have to change.

It's just a blue square with a basic windows font. It's completety illegible at 16x16, doesn't represent any currency symbol at all, and if expressed in monochrome would just be a standard windows font.

So that won't be sticking around for very long.

Oh OK, I didn't look into it too much but that makes sense (thanks for pointing that out). I still prefer the less aggressive approach, the lowercase æ appears softer less "xtreme" than all caps (imo of course).

[generalizethis]

Ultimately I far prefer the æ but I'll survive with the other symbol; I just won't be as happy about it but I'm sure I'll get used to it in time.

I'm not invested in Aeon but read most of the Altcoin threads since its all very addictive. Personally, its' no contest, æ just looks nicer...plus the current logo is lowercase (so you would be loosing the link between the two).

Yeah I wouldn't get too attached to the current logo. Is was created in five minutes by the original developers and almost certainly will have to change.

It's just a blue square with a basic windows font. It's completety illegible at 16x16, doesn't represent any currency symbol at all, and if expressed in monochrome would just be a standard windows font.

So that won't be sticking around for very long.

Oh OK, I didn't look into it too much but that makes sense (thanks for pointing that out). I still prefer the less aggressive approach, the lowercase æ appears softer less "xtreme" than all caps (imo of course).

I agree with this sentiment as far as the brand is concerned (the currency symbol is a different matter), plus it fits in with eternity/eight if that is the emission.

[americanpegasus]

Yeah I wouldn't get too attached to the current logo. Is was created in five minutes by the original developers and almost certainly will have to change.

It's just a blue square with a basic windows font. It's completety illegible at 16x16, doesn't represent any currency symbol at all, and if expressed in monochrome would just be a standard windows font.

So that won't be sticking around for very long.

 
  
Even those intent on changing it should be cautious.  It may not be the most illustrious logo in your mind, but it's pretty good.  We should be cautious about changing something pretty good for something that might be worse.  I've learned a bit about logo design in the past year.  First of all it costs money for a pro to do it properly, at least a few hundred dollars.  Also, it's certainly not as easy as a layman might think, and even us "creative" types usually have no idea what we are doing.  I fought hand and fist with the guy who designed the "AmericanPegasus" logo because I had a certain vision, but in the end he was right.  Speaking of, I'll contact him and get his opinion.  
  
Look at a lot of these famous logos: many of them are pretty simple too, and perhaps even mockingly so.  It's just a blue word in many cases:  
  
 
  
Also, here's an article I like about 10 bad logo redesigns, and 10 good ones.  We certainly wouldn't want to be one of the companies who took something recognizable and pleasing and turned it into a soulless disaster (like the first ten examples)  
  
http://www.companyfolders.com/blog/best-worst-logo-redesigns-ever  


  

[critical60]

Made this in my free time. Maybe I could help with a new logo (if that's what people would like).

https://i.imgur.com/qJRhFZ0.jpg

[generalizethis]

Made this in my free time. Maybe I could help with a new logo (if that's what people would like).

Nice design! Sleek and modern.

[critical60]

Nice design! Sleek and modern.

Thanks! I'll post a few more on the Aeon reddit page within a day or two. I'd really like to help out if possible.

[rangedriver]

Made this in my free time. Maybe I could help with a new logo (if that's what people would like).

Yeah that's pretty much the same kind of idea I was playing around with. (There's some others on the subreddit that are of the same style.)

However I would probably ditch the gradient and keep it strictly two-tone, much like the Bitcoin symbol:-







Also, as seen above, any good logo will need to scale right down to icon size, and gradients can get pretty nasty at low resolutions.