Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2018, 06:53:00 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Viᖚes (social currency unit)?
like - 27 (27.6%)
might work - 10 (10.2%)
dislike - 17 (17.3%)
prefer tech name, e.g. factom, ion, ethereum, iota, epsilon - 15 (15.3%)
prefer explicit currency name, e.g. net⚷eys, neㄘcash, ᨇcash, mycash, bitoken, netoken, cyberbit, bitcash - 2 (2%)
problematic - 2 (2%)
offending / repulsive - 4 (4.1%)
project objectives unrealistic or incorrect - 10 (10.2%)
biased against lead dev or project ethos - 11 (11.2%)
Total Voters: 98

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 62 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?  (Read 94673 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 24, 2015, 11:57:48 AM
 #1

* cybit has trademark issues.

Here is a record of the prior three votes:





The poll has been reset because we added many name choices after the start of poll. So that everyone can revote, because I think the polls don't enable voters change their vote. The prior poll results are captured in the image below.



Since those who are not interested or don't like any of the name choices had already expressed their opinion in the above image capture of the prior poll results, then the new pool does not offer these choices so we can focus on choosing a name from the available ideas.


The chosen name is intended to be for both the name of the coin network and the coin units, e.g. "pay me 5 ____s".

The general feature set targeted is instant transactions, even microtransactions, solving the block chain scaling issue entirely, and a fundamental breakthrough for the general solution to the programmable block chain, so working towards digital assets, smart contracts, etc, as well as the ability to plugin the strongest and most efficient on-chain anonymity which I have also been working on. The feature set will be firmed up as development proceeds. I just mention these goals in order to drive a name choice which is general enough for both the token of the network and also the general block chain 2.0 type functionality. I am not sure if I will get all the way to block chain 2.0 in version 1 of the release of this effort. Choosing a name which can also apply to a version 2 is forward looking.

Note my anonymity work may appear in another coin(s) before it appears in my effort, but this has not yet been finalized. I am trying to work with others so as to hedge my bets in terms of where success will be maximized. I am trying to follow the path of least resistance and lowest hanging fruit, while also attempting to push the envelope of the technologies with my own style of creativity. So a mix of my individualism with collective effort.

There is an ongoing discussion about how I might go about releasing a coin and working with the open source concept and the legal ramifications.

When choosing a name, also ask yourself how would this roll off the tongue when someone is saying it (in their mind or actual vocalization) over the internet to get some coin units from a friend to go play some social networking game or the ilk. What is going to be catchy over time for that purpose? "Zap me over some ____s, I want to join you on game XYZ". Of course the name has to have applicability in more serious contracts and trades as well.

Prior discussion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174653.msg12769598#msg12769598

Some definitions:

  • bit
    /bit/
    noun
    :  a unit of computer information equivalent to the result of a choice between two alternatives (as yes or no, on or off)
  • cy·ber
    ˈsībər/
    adjective
    : of, relating to, or characteristic of the culture of computers, information technology, and virtual reality.
  • hyper-
    prefix
    : over; beyond; above, exceeding.
    : relating to hypertext, hyperlink.
  • to·ken
    ˈtōkən/
    noun
    : a thing serving as a visible or tangible representation of a fact, quality, feeling, etc.
    : a voucher that can be exchanged for goods or services, typically one given as a gift or offered as part of a promotional offer.
    : an individual occurrence of a symbol or string, in particular.
    • an individual occurrence of a linguistic unit in speech or writing, as contrasted with the type or class of linguistic unit of which it is an instance.
    • the smallest meaningful unit of information in a sequence of data for a compiler.
    : a sequence of bits passed continuously between nodes in a fixed order and enabling a node to transmit information.
  • i·on
    ˈīən,ˈīˌän/
    : an atom or molecule with a net electric charge due to the loss or gain of one or more electrons.
  • -tron
    suffix
    : denoting a subatomic particle.
    : denoting a particle accelerator.

For netron, I think of neutron, but applicable to a network.


P.S. I dropped my intention from 2014 to not release an effort under my own reputation. I did this because of a) financial realities of my life demanding I move forward PDQ, b) the realization it is probably not illegal for a US citizen to release a product with unregistered tokens if the law is followed carefully (per the linked ongoing discussion above), c) the decision to make the anonymity implementation modular and orthogonal to the block chain protocol,  and d) because I think I've learned how to navigate the political landmines by now (much revolves around demonstrating a sincere intent to strive over time for a leaderless, decentralized, open source result so that people don't feel I am trying to put my ego/control all over crypto-land, i.e. ideology is very important in our technophile market at least until we scale out to millions of n00b users with microtransactions on social networking). Haters and competitors yield when the market has beat them into submission. I don't worry about their negativity. It is more motivation for me. Bring on the negative votes please!

1527317580
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527317580

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1527317580
Reply with quote  #2

1527317580
Report to moderator
1527317580
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527317580

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1527317580
Reply with quote  #2

1527317580
Report to moderator
1527317580
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527317580

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1527317580
Reply with quote  #2

1527317580
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 24, 2015, 10:02:41 PM
 #2

I have added a new choice to the poll:

cliklet

I was thinking about a wavelet and then thinking more in the frame of mind of a typical social network user and what they would associate with a micropayment, is "clicking", "likes", and "swiping". For once we can associate crypto-currency with some metaphor that means something to your average person.

let
verb
: not prevent or forbid; allow.

I see clickoin already exists, but coin doesn't seem to be the correct metaphor for a micropayment. To the user, they are not exchanging coins when using micropayments, but rather enabling features! Think deeply about the way micropayments will really be used, i.e. click here with your micropayments already enabled in the browser cookie and get automatic access.

I am preferring something that means something to people who are not technophiles, because I want microtransactions to used by average people on social networks. What is an ion?

Netoken even makes more sense to more people I think. What is a bit coin? I bite the coin?

We geeks like ion because we want something technically cool but don't we want to market this to the billions of people in the world? Come on guys think marketing.

I still sort of like 'ion' because maybe normal people will just get used to saying it. And it is short and one syllable. And it is associated with electric charge.

The other issue is to try to select a name that is unique enough it won't just sound like many other copycats. For example, netoken may have that quality. What other way is there to say something similar to a "token on a network"? Tokenet is not the token rather the network itself, so doesn't work.

Ditto clicklet or cliklet. Perhaps clickgrant or clickpass but the latter was used already for some implementation around OpenID (but now defunct) and it doesn't sound great pluralized, clickpasses. Clickgrants is too long and it seems to imply a revocable grant and let implies not impeded, which in my mind is a subtle but significant psychological nuance.

The problem with all the names that end in 'bit' is there are so many possible copycats, such as "cloudbit". Hyperbit stands out for me though because Hyper means fast to me, and it is also associated with the internet in HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol) and hyperlinks. So it is like saying a linked bit of information (hyper means over and beyond just a bit) that can move at hyper speed. So it seems to really fit well with the planned feature set of this project. Yet I don't know if all people will get that meaning out of it?

OTOH, token is not as general as 'bit' of information, since I am targeting more than just a ledger of value transfer eventually.

Netbit I like because it is clear and short.

So we will have ions, iotas, and aeons. Can you imagine how confused users on the internet will be? Send me some "ions". Umm, did you mean "aeons"? No, I meant "iotas" sorry for misstating. Oh what are "iotas", not familiar with that one. Wholly mother of clusterfuck, this is so supposed to improve matters  Huh I guess you can make the argument to hope that one of those will either become more widely adopted than the others.

I think my preferences at the moment with the most preferred first are:

cliklet / clicklet
netoken
ion
hyperbit
netbit

I am still trying to think of the greatest name since sliced bread, but apparently so far not succeeding. Those above don't appear to be horrible to me, but I am respecting community feedback.

Some ideas that have run through my mind while brainstorming:

weblet / netlet
datium
ionugget
netgold

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 24, 2015, 10:28:52 PM
 #3

Someone voted "see my suggestion in the thread". Which suggested name?

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 25, 2015, 12:51:34 AM
 #4

I have of course been thinking a lot about how the competing technologies for block chain scaling compare to mine (linked bulleted items below are to the prior research I did):


Lightning Networks

I have a unique insight on the apparent fact that LN is unique in that it is the only one wherein not all participating "full"[1] nodes have to see all the microtransactions processed by all the nodes, thus it scales exponentially and qualitatively better in the sense that not every "full" node on the network has to have the same (least common denominator) baseline of network connectivity and CPU processing power (although BTS claims 100,000 TX/s single-threaded throughput for block chain updates on commodity CPUs so perhaps CPU isn't a practically limiting factor in any case).

LN is not compatible with existing block chains (including my opinion it will wreck havoc on Bitcoin) because it will requires extreme levels of block chain scaling because it will drive a proliferation of payment channel opening and closing transactions and even competing payment channel networks, each requiring a distinct TX on the block chain. Thus while LN scales the microtransaction volume well, it paradoxically requires a block chain that can scale well also. Thus I have come to the conclusion that LN is only really compatible with my PoW block chain redesign. Although my block chain design can scale transactions very high, it will also have this aforementioned (least common denominator) baseline which will probably limit the network to about 100,100 TX/s on commodity servers for "full" nodes.

LN also has the downsides that it isn't end-to-end principled and can't be always available to between every payer and payee, which is where when combined with my block chain design, then mine fills the gaps to provide the end-to-end capability and the complete availability. It can't provide anonymity (well at least not the ring sigs and value hiding that we can get on the block chain). And realistically LN will require trusted commercial servers to make it function well (not trusted with any funds, but trusted to not DoS and to optimize payment flows with complex algorithms and global knowledge, reduce latency, etc). Thus LN will be a spy network for government and corporations. But sometimes users don't care and they may need this extra scaling (and probably even lower TX fees) for the tiniest and highest volume of microtransactions.

Each of my design and LN separately (and especially together as I am proposing above) can continue to function reasonably well in the event of a partitioned internet and network downtime without allowing double-spends to wreck chaos on the partitioned forks, whereas the existing (PoW and PoS) block chains end up in chaos with double-spends on each partitioned fork.

Iota (DAG) tangles

My analysis thus far (subject to change if I learn something new about this) is that the only significant  advantage offered by this interesting new technology is that the issues with large block sizes for block chain scaling are avoided, which my block chain scaling design fixes without incurring some of Iota (DAG tangles) faults. The "full" nodes still need to see all the transactions on the network. I don't really see how it can handle network partitioning since there is nothing to prevent double-spends on multiple partitions. And the confirmation times are not yet characterized in a way we can quantify in comparison, so I can't say how fast it can confirm transactions. I expect my design to be less than 1 second.

Bitshares 2.0

Digging through the hype, the actual performance is only less than 100 TX/s on today's commodity hardware and networks.

Dash Evolution

Main issue is it doesn't address the large block chain blocks aspect of the block chain scaling issue facing for example Bitcoin. And the claimed immunity to 51% attacks is really just the factual obfuscation that masternodes are making too much money (officially endorsed form of cheating) to cheat the design flaws. The lead developer of Dash replied.


[1] "Full" node means different things in these different designs, but I have equated them in the sense of the node that must have global knowledge about either all the transactions or in LN's case all the payment channels.

coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 25, 2015, 01:41:57 AM
 #5

......[1] "Full" node means different things in these different designs, but I have equated them in the sense of the node that must have global knowledge about either all the transactions or in LN's case all the payment channels.

I'd be interested to see if you can solve an issue that people underestimate as needing resolution: how to prove full node is actually a full node.

Along the lines of :

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/proof-of-unique-blockchain-storage-revised/

Name:

ION works great as a name.

Perhaps with a clarification to the average consumer:  ION: Self-banking made easy

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 25, 2015, 02:04:51 AM
 #6

......[1] "Full" node means different things in these different designs, but I have equated them in the sense of the node that must have global knowledge about either all the transactions or in LN's case all the payment channels.

I'd be interested to see if you can solve an issue that people underestimate as needing resolution: how to prove full node is actually a full node.

Along the lines of :

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/proof-of-unique-blockchain-storage-revised/

Sergio is refining my proof-of-storage concept from 2013. But I don't think proving you are full node is important in my design. Everyone seems to view this as important for eliminating the centralization of pools, but there are no pools in my design because in my design proof-of-work is not profitable (but it is economic). I am going to reveal the unperceived dualism in some of the concepts of crypto-currency.

Perhaps with a clarification to the average consumer:  ION: Self-banking made easy

Ah yes I had forgotten that was one of the reason I had stated I liked it, "i-on" or "i-own", meaning for "i' control the switch. I think that point was in my other thread (or maybe it was a private Bitmessage). My memory of the past weeks and months is a fog.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 25, 2015, 02:11:00 AM
 #7

I have added a new name choice, which I think is perhaps competitive to 'ion'.

val

Shorthand for value. How much more direct to the point could it possibly be. Please pay me 5 vals.

The attraction to this name is that it is more clearly quantity of something and it is unique from other coins. But it doesn't connote definitively that is a monetary value, and Val might sound like a person's name (Hal Finney) and rhymes with gal.

coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 25, 2015, 02:25:54 AM
 #8

http://ionpay.net/

trademark issues

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 25, 2015, 02:35:40 AM
 #9

http://ionpay.net/

trademark issues

ionpay != ion

centralized payment != decentralized token system

That product is in Indonesia only. They do not likely assert a global trademark.

Open source names really can't be stopped with trademark enforcement.

Jimmy Russell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 25, 2015, 06:10:54 AM
 #10

ClickCash!
cryptodromeda
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 212
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 25, 2015, 07:11:05 AM
 #11

I voted for "none of these".

To be honest I think you're making a strategic mistake by trying to launch your own coin rather than sell your concept, or join an upcoming or established team.

By the time you're good to go, the market will already be saturated with similar tech, and you'll be mostly forgotten. Sad but true.

It's tough work going solo.

Who's going to front the campaign? Who will host and pay for the website? Who will design the subreddit and moderate it? What are you planning for the forum? What about the logo, who will pay for that?

If the answer to these questions is "the community" then why would the community get involved, particularly as you are an "ego-project" which is demonstrably a risky investment?


It's a kind of blindness that reason alone cannot cure.
cryptonic21
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 163
Merit: 100


Physical Monero coins


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2015, 11:25:37 AM
 #12

I voted for "none of these".

To be honest I think you're making a strategic mistake by trying to launch your own coin rather than sell your concept, or join an upcoming or established team.

By the time you're good to go, the market will already be saturated with similar tech, and you'll be mostly forgotten. Sad but true.

It's tough work going solo.

Who's going to front the campaign? Who will host and pay for the website? Who will design the subreddit and moderate it? What are you planning for the forum? What about the logo, who will pay for that?

If the answer to these questions is "the community" then why would the community get involved, particularly as you are an "ego-project" which is demonstrably a risky investment?



I agree with with that. I believe that you are quite capable to create a superb tech. But it's the huge long term project as a whole and to get wide success you will need to attract the community. It's not so easy, time and effort consuming. Better technology itself these days is not the guarantee of the mass adoption. The future is unpredictable and everything can change when your tech is ready.

But if you are ready to go anyway I sincerely wish you good luck.

coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 25, 2015, 11:49:28 AM
 #13

I voted for "none of these".

To be honest I think you're making a strategic mistake by trying to launch your own coin rather than sell your concept, or join an upcoming or established team.

By the time you're good to go, the market will already be saturated with similar tech, and you'll be mostly forgotten. Sad but true.

It's tough work going solo.

Who's going to front the campaign? Who will host and pay for the website? Who will design the subreddit and moderate it? What are you planning for the forum? What about the logo, who will pay for that?

If the answer to these questions is "the community" then why would the community get involved, particularly as you are an "ego-project" which is demonstrably a risky investment?



Interesting post.

The community infrastructure will happen under the right conditions.


coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 25, 2015, 11:53:20 AM
 #14

....

Sergio is refining my proof-of-storage concept from 2013. But I don't think proving you are full node is important in my design. Everyone seems to view this as important for eliminating the centralization of pools, but there are no pools in my design because in my design proof-of-work is not profitable (but it is economic). I am going to reveal the unperceived dualism in some of the concepts of crypto-currency.
..

You're underestimating the importance of proving a full nodes' existence.

The utility of money is built around confidence. Almost everything else that drives adoption revolves around features and ease of use.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 25, 2015, 11:57:50 AM
 #15

I voted for "none of these".

Seriously and sincerely, what is currently the best name in crypto in your opinion?

<sarcastic>Moaneuro again?</sarcastic>

Seriously I don't hate Monero. Just a different culture than mine which I will explain below.. (and the source of angst by those who want their freedom to innovate in this altcoin space is Monero folk infecting every discussion with veiled FUD designed to essentially say that "open source will defeat you, we are more honest, more open, more fairly launched, more rational, and have more resources").

To be honest I think you're making a strategic mistake by trying to launch your own coin rather than sell your concept, or join an upcoming or established team.

Sell it to whom? Who would even pay more than a few $1000s at most for any idea. I am already offering to share my anonymity whitepaper and receive some funds and work together on that (and in general on my block chain scaling tech in terms of potentially integrating with other group if that proves to be the most viable direction when I get close to release or after release, but I am not counting on that as the only option, I need to also be capable of moving my own destiny forward with my own actions).

There are a lack of developers who have proven they can do anything significant in this market in terms of user adoption. Dogecoin is perhaps the exception, except it appears to have lost momentum. By far in terms of raising money from investors, it appears the SuperNet and Ethereum are the most successful.

Do you know of any team that has succeeded in market adoption? Afaics, they have all failed thus far.

So I am just wondering who are these established teams who I should stand in awe of considering I have proven in the past that I could develop a product (CoolPage) all by myself in a Nipa Hut in the Philippines (Oct 1998) and go from not having enough money to buy meat to 3 months later earning $10,000 a month (inflation-adjusted) and within 2 - 3 years I had (verified by altavista) 335,000 user created websites with my drag+drop web page editor software back when the internet (2001) was 1/10 the population that it is now. Considering I was 90% blinded in my right eye in front of a disco in the Philippines on Dec. 1, 1999 and was in eye surgeries and had to lay face down in the bed for months (gas in my eye to keep 50% remaining portion of the fully detached retina in place after being laser riveted to back of my eye). So considering all the momentum I lost at age 34, my project didn't meet its potential trajectory due to being disrupted. There were investors offering to buy me out for $1.2 million in stock options around that time (so roughly $5 million inflation-adjusted), but I took a $205,000 cash ($600,000 inflation-adjusted) non-exclusive deal instead because of my knowledge of inflated CPM ad rates (due to doing the marketing for CoolPage) indicated me a dot.com crash was imminent.

So I have demonstrated I can create and market (I did all the marketing for CoolPage, including managing all the art production interactively with a filipino graphic artist and the CoolPage surfer dude is a rendition of my younger self!) products with wide user adoption. Do you know if any of the other developers in crypto have done this? I heard Gmaxwell talk about he created an open source codec, thus he is a very smart engineer but perhaps not a polymath in marketing, engineering, economics, law, etc. (which I feel I have demonstrated, have you read my essays linked from the opening post of the Economic Devastation thread). I read Adam Back had a not so successful venture before the current one he is in. Vitalik is a very young man and Ethereum is his first gig. Fluffypony? I don't know his background, do you?

Maybe your point is that only an established team has the resources to bring such as project to fruition with optimum insights and work through all the bugs and issues. First of all, there are other developers that have expressed some interest to work with me, such as some developer that worked with Ciyam. Back in the day when I used to debate with bytemaster (Daniel Latimer of Bitshares) on these forums, Ciyam and I used to exchange some thoughts about for example programming languages. So it is not outside the realm of possibility for one or more of these developers to come work with me once they see something at testnet that is worthwhile. Also I do talk with smooth a lot in private, so it is not outside the realm of possibility of throwing my product towards Aeon or vice versa, if ever it makes sense for both of us. But for now, he is positioned I think to be more of an experimentation bed for things that can improve or be adopted by Monero. And smooth and I although we respect each other, we have also sort of difference in attitude about open source.

Here is what I believe. If I had to go innovate within Monero, then everything would take 10 times longer to do. Because I would have to convince everyone of each of the details of my design before I do them. And design is an iterative process. The design changes as one implements and discovers issues. So for me to go into Monero and rip out their entire core code and replace it, is silly. It is much more efficient to create my own codebase, and then after proving something, then decide how to maximize its forward trajectory. And I can tell you most likely that will mean the community decides to send resources to the one who demonstrated that he has the talent to innovate and drive the direction of crypto. Capital migrates to those who lead effectively. This is a fact of life. But I am also open to any opportunities that arise which make the most sense. But innovating inside of Monero makes absolutely no sense. For one thing, they can't pay me anything. Second the market cap is already $4 million and they have nothing yet in the adoption market (other than users who think a large team is indicative of success but rather I assert it is innovation that drives the paradigm shifts that drives success and this is why leaderless open source is not the correct paradigm for innovation, rather open source is the optimum refinement paradigm after the main epiphanies on innovation have been sorted out by innovators). And third I may not fit culturally with Monero because as what I understand from smooth (and this may not reflect all the views of all Monero devs) is that basically they think open source wins in the end and they are interested in $100M to $billions market cap when crypto is widely adopted, thus they don't care about near-term models for income or remuneration. They are volunteering their time for the fun of it and the remote chance of it going big time. They are doing it for the technical excitement and the love of the process of open source and the business model to build product and services off of the main Inverse Commons. While I do believe open source is essential once your crypto project has passed the first innovation stage and needs to gain reliability and trust, I think that attitude by Monero is why they won't be able to innovate fast enough. I beat their cryptographer by two months on completing the Cryptonote + Compact Transactions integration design (my white paper was entirely finished in mid-July), my design is in theory perhaps 850% more compact,  and I am not even a part-time mathematician. Now what about other things such as separation-of-concerns, which is my area of expertise. You think they will beat me to innovation on that?

I am glad so many people doubt me. That means a smaller market cap at launch for those investors who don't doubt me. Which means higher potential gains for them.

The ONLY issue is my health. If my health hadn't been so fucked up over the past 3 years, I would have long ago released a coin (anonymously in 2014). But in hindsight I am very glad I didn't release a coin in 19942014. My understanding of the tech has radically improved since then. And so far since I been doing this new therapy of antibiotics, alpha lipoic acid, and n-acetyl cysteine, my relapses are very mild (a few hours of slight headache but I can continue working through it, not bed ridden) and I've been sleeping much more (whereas I was insomniac before this change in therapy). I haven't had time yet to address the other suggestions on my health, nor to get any additional lab work done. I been balls out on my work these past 18 days or so.

The likelihood that one man could go from nothing to testbed with a codecbase written from scratch in only months is insane. Not to mention a sick man, who is blind in one eye, and not as young as he was when he did his insane coding performances (you know sleeping under the desk).

But I am not asking for your money or trust before I prove something. And I LOVE A CHALLENGE.

Last night I was at the disco for the first time in several months. I am 50, but I guarantee you amongst all those very young filipinos, none of them had any idea I might be older than 30s. My gf got tired before I did on the dance floor. I did get a slight headache relapse later in the night, but I have been able to work through these lately which is positive sign for me. I am not as coherent during those episodes but I did write this while under that headache last night.

I can't yet quantify how much my mental facilities are degraded or suffer from my health saga (which I cringe every time I mention it publicly because it so fucking narcissistic, I'd much rather be strong and just make action than make excuses because of fucking health!). I know for example while I was at the disco I felt no ill health and so I was able to design in my head while partying. I made the epiphany while at the disco that Lightning Networks would better integrate with my design than Bitcoin itself. But I do know that the brain fog has destroyed innumerable man-hours and probably also caused me to incur lapses in mental acuity. I am just hoping my condition will continue to improve on the current therapy. We will just see how it goes.

By the time you're good to go, the market will already be saturated with similar tech, and you'll be mostly forgotten. Sad but true.

Maybe, but we can determine that once I get to testnet (if I do). First of all, I don't see anyone else working on my design. I have analyzed all the other efforts I am aware of. Secondly, joining with others won't make the implementation of my design go faster (The Mythical Man Month). Every time I am writing on these forums, I am not programming, so that is always a negative unless I am writing something very important to my research or to the market of all of you.

It's tough work going solo.

Indeed. But I have done it in the past, albeit not on distributed networking which is a much more difficult nut to crack.

Quote
        Anybody who
         thinks they can flesh out a protocol in secret and then
         deploy it, full-blown and working, is in for a world of
         hurt."
         [Nick Szabo, 1993-8-23]  

But I am not proposing to go solo. I am proposing to get something demonstrated in code and testnet, and then partner up in an open source model forward while launching and refining.

Who's going to front the campaign? Who will host and pay for the website? Who will design the subreddit and moderate it? What are you planning for the forum? What about the logo, who will pay for that?

If the answer to these questions is "the community" then why would the community get involved, particularly as you are an "ego-project" which is demonstrably a risky investment?

Before I answer your concern from the positive viewpoint of how to accomplish it, I first want to address this quoted bolded cultural meme which I think is the source of must angst or disillusionment manifested against me as what I posit to be a Freudian attempt to slay one of the demons who is in conflict with the open source religion. Reality check. I am not an egotistical demon going against the grain of open source. Rather some of you guys (and maybe not you, but I am directing this comment to a meme even if you don't hold it) have been deluded by religion and lost your bearing (which is what often happens in the delusion of religions).

Innovation occurs with the individual. Open source is the way of sharing an Inverse Commons in order to maximize the resources that can be applied to solve a common need.

So how to mesh these two?

If you try to innovate by committee, you get Mythical Man Months.

So the optimum way to innovate (and I am referring to major paradigm shifts that entail entire overhauls, not to refinement innovation which of course open source excels because "every bug is shallow because there are so many eyeballs") is to go off on your own and create some code. After your code is demonstrated a bit, then you open the source and others start helping you and joining in the common need to refine it.

Normally one would keep their code entirely open from the start, as there is no need to worry about competition if the only goal is to attain the common result with no direct profit from the common result. Profit would come from indirect business models such as selling services built around the Inverse Commons open source.

But in this crypto market, you have to gain momentum in order to rise out above the crowd and gain the inertia to where the open source model can take over and the product won't just be mired in the soup of copycoins which is for example Monero's predicament.

And the person who innovated may want to be sure he has been paid something for his Herculean effort, because no one is motivated to go do this Herculean innovations otherwise. And they don't normally occur by committee either, because of the need to have absolute focus on the iterative process of flexible design. And because the open source process can't guarantee that innovator any income so why should he do much more than any other contributor. Open source demotivates extreme effort except where it is subsidized by the innovator's employer, so it is not always the correct model when you need extreme divergence of innovation. The risk taker must be rewarded for his risk of not playing it safe in open source soup, otherwise risk takers will go else where where they can get paid for the risk they took of not staying in the open source soup.

Also if you have an innovator who able to demonstrate his exceptional leadership, then even with open source you want to have him vested in that project, whether it be only his reputation boost (e.g. Linus Torvalds or Guido from Python) and/or actual small % of the coin supply (which a wise benevolent dictator for life will be donating to others and otherwise diluting to bring in strong contributors to the project).

So what you guys perceive to be ego, is actually my demand for capitalism and not socialism. I wish to have the free market to demonstrate my ability to take on risk and be rewarded for it, by driving the start of a new open source project. Open source religious fanatics misapply the "do not stick your head above the poppy tops" (Chinese culture) desire for open source to ameliorate the importance of individual greatness,  because all B-listers and betamales want the concept of the alphamale to be destroyed. But I am sorry to tell you that without alphamales, you do not win. Period. That is a fact of life.

(To relieve some of ego fit reactions this causes in readers sometimes, I want you to know I am not claiming to be an alphamale. Nor am I claiming that alphamales are inherently better than any other person, because it takes a lot of hard work, desire, and determination to be an expert leader in a field. It comes from sweat, blood, and tears. If you personally aren't willing to make that sacrifice, then please don't be jealous or feel inferior to the person who decided to make that sacrifice. It is a choice and everyone can choose their role in life. Life has room for everyone. We can all appreciate each other.)

So it is not about ego for me. It is about ego for you. Please read this following essay by the man who created "open source" Eric S. Raymond:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404

Quote
Ego is for little people
Posted on 2009-11-09 by Eric Raymond

When I got really famous and started to hang out with people at the top of the game in computer science and other fields, one of the first things I noticed is that the real A-list types almost never have a major territorial/ego thing going on in their behavior. The B-list people, the bright second-raters, may be all sharp elbows and ego assertion, but there’s a calm space at the top that the absolutely most capable ones get to and tend to stay in.

...

No. It’s more that ego games have a diminishing return. The farther you are up the ability and achievement bell curve, the less psychological gain you get from asserting or demonstrating your superiority over the merely average, and the more prone you are to welcome discovering new peers because there are so damn few of them that it gets lonely. There comes a point past which winning more ego contests becomes so pointless that even the most ambitious, suspicious, external-validation-fixated strivers tend to notice that it’s no fun any more and stop.

I’m not speaking abstractly here. I’ve always been more interested in doing the right thing than doing what would make me popular, to the point where I generally figure that if I’m not routinely pissing off a sizable minority of people I should be pushing harder. In the language of psychology, my need for external validation is low; the standards I try hardest to live up to are those I’ve set for myself. But one of the differences I can see between myself at 25 and myself at 52 is that my limited need for external validation has decreased. And it’s not age or maturity or virtue that shrunk it; it’s having nothing left to prove.

[P.S. loving a challenge and proving I can do something is not the same as needing your validation of my abilities, rather it is my desire to prove to myself I can still compete]

...

And generally they don’t want to be. If you’re the kind of person who can make it to the top even in a single field (law or CS or whatever) you may not have started out with better things to do than compete for attention and glory, but by the time you make the A-list you’ve almost certainly discovered subtler games to play that are much more fun. You’ll maintain a reputation because a reputation is a useful tool, but it’s not the point any more. If it ever was. In my experience this is even more true of polymaths, possibly because their self-images as competent people.have broader and more stable bases.

I think there are a couple of different reasons people tend to falsely attribute pathological, oversensitive egos to A-listers. Each reason is in its own way worth taking a look at.

The first and most obvious reason is projection. “Wow, if I were as talented as Terry Pratchett, I know I’d have a huge ego about it, so I guess he must.” Heh. Trust me on this; he doesn’t. This kind of thinking reveals a a lot about somebody’s ego and insecurity, alright, but not Terry’s.

There’s a flip side to projection that I think of as the “Asimov game”. I met Isaac Asimov just a few months before he died. Isaac had long been notorious for broadly egotistical behavior and a kind of cheerful bombast that got up a lot of peoples’ noses. But if you ever met him, and you were at all perceptive, you might see that it was all a sort of joke. Isaac was laughing inside at everyone who took his “egotism” seriously – and, at the same time, watching hungrily for people who could see through the self-parody, because they might – might – actually be among the vanishingly tiny minority that constituted his actual peers. The Asimov game is a constant temptation to extroverted A-listers; I’ve been known to fall into it myself. It’s not really anybody’s fault that a lot of people are fooled by it.

Another confusing fact is that though A-listers may not be about ego or status competition, they will often play such games ruthlessly and effectively when that gets them something they actually want. The something might be more money from a gig, or a night in the hay with an attractive wench, or whatever; the point is, if you catch an A-lister in that mode, you might well mistake for egotism some kinds of display behavior that actually serve much more immediate and instrumental purposes. Your typical A-lister in that situation (and this includes me, now) is blithely unconcerned that a bystander might think he’s egotistical; the money or the wench or the whatever is the goal, not the approval or disapproval of bystanders.

Finally, a lot of people confuse arrogance with ego. A-listers (and I am including myself, again, this time) are, as a rule, colossally arrogant. That is, they have utter confidence in their ability to meet challenges that would humble or break most people. Do not be fooled by the self-deprecating manner that many A-listers cultivate; it is a mask adopted for social purposes, mostly to avoid freaking out the normal monkeys. But this arrogance is not the same as egotism; in fact, in many ways it is the opposite. It is possible to be arrogant about one’s abilities compared to the statistically average human being and the range of challenges one is likely to encounter, but deeply and genuinely humble when dealing with peers or contemplating the vastness of one’s own ignorance and incapability relative to what one could imagine being. In fact, this combination of attitudes is completely typical of the A-listers I have known.

The behaviors most people think of as “egotism” tend to be driven out by arrogance rather than motivated by it. If you really believe bone-deep that you are superior, you don’t act insecure and twitchy and approval-seeking, because you just aren’t! Arrogance doesn’t even have to be justified to drive out egotism – it just has to be there. It’s all the more powerful an egotism-banisher when the arrogance is actually well-justified by the A-lister’s track record. Thus, egotists are usually people who have not yet established their capability to themselves, or who had that confidence in the past but are beginning to doubt it.

Finally, I think a lot of people need to believe that A-listers invariably have flaws in proportion to their capabilities in order not to feel dwarfed by them. Thus the widely cherished belief that geniuses are commonly mentally unstable; it’s not true (admissions to mental hospitals per thousand drop with increasing IQ and in professions that select for intelligence, with the lowest numbers among mathematicians and theoretical physicists) but if you don’t happen to be a genius yourself it’s very comforting. Similarly, a dullard who believes A-listers are all flaky temperamental egotists can console himself that, though he may not be smarter than them, he is better. And so it goes.

Ego is for little people. I wish I could finish by saying something anodyne about how we’re all little when you come down to it, but I’d be fibbing. Yeah, we’re all little compared to a supernova, but that’s beside the point. And yeah, the most capable people in the world are routinely humbled by what they don’t know and can’t do, but that is beside the point too. If you look at how humans relate to other humans – and in particular, how they manage self-image and “ego” and evaluate their status with respect to others…it really is different near the top end of the human capability range. Better. Calmer. Sorry, but it’ s true.

That does not mean I don't appreciate and honor every contributor (the humble leader is best, and do realize AnonyMint wasn't trying to lead, he was researching, probing, and instigating which was a different role). It doesn't mean I look down on any one. It simply means that don't subject my freedom to express my talents due the ego needs of others.

Now with that out the way and hopefully the last time I will ever explain it. I will simply link to this post in the future. Let's address the practical challenge of your point.

Who's going to front the campaign? Who will host and pay for the website? Who will design the subreddit and moderate it? What are you planning for the forum? What about the logo, who will pay for that?

If the answer to these questions is "the community" then why would the community get involved, particularly as you are an "ego-project" which is demonstrably a risky investment?

The community will because I (and the community) will strive to create such momentum that it will be clear that any other community attempting to copy will always be several steps behind.

The community includes me and my leaderless voice. Linux is leaderless in the sense that the Git repositories are decentralized and any one can create their own patched version of Linux. But Linus still drives many of the key design decisions because he is respected for his technical correctness and organizational astuteness/efficiency. That doesn't mean he is in control, but if you had lost him early in Linux's development process, Linux would not be where it is today. Period.

The community infrastructure will happen under the right conditions.

Precisely. One of those is the community valuing "leaderless" (no managerial control) leadership.

That means no authority is in control, as by definition leaders lead by being correct and free will, not by top-down force.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 25, 2015, 12:52:13 PM
 #16

....

Sergio is refining my proof-of-storage concept from 2013. But I don't think proving you are full node is important in my design. Everyone seems to view this as important for eliminating the centralization of pools, but there are no pools in my design because in my design proof-of-work is not profitable (but it is economic). I am going to reveal the unperceived dualism in some of the concepts of crypto-currency.
..

You're underestimating the importance of proving a full nodes' existence.

The utility of money is built around confidence. Almost everything else that drives adoption revolves around features and ease of use.

I assume that you are thinking that the proven number of full nodes being a metric of the decentralization strength of the network and the confidence in the network.

This is entirely proven in my design but nothing like what Sergio was proposing because his basis has no basis in my design as I exchange some concepts to their dual.



Better technology itself these days is not the guarantee of the mass adoption.

No coin has any prayer of being massively adopted so far because none of them can even do the basic thing the crypto coin could do for the masses that credit cards can't do from the perspective of any mass adoption audience. (I am not including non-payment markets such as smart assets and programmable block chain which is another wide open space I have not entirely characterized in my mind yet)

Monero folk suggest to me to work with Monero (at very low to no pay and invest for the future in XMR) but their stated future profit model is waiting for the mass adoption which I believe is never going to come (IMO not within their leadership structure and only my opinion matters when making a decision for myself), so why I would adopt what I think will fail. Doesn't make any sense.

Bitcoin can get there with Lightning Networks and massive block size increases (because without massive headroom for massive spikes in block sizes, Lightning Networks does not work), thus mining centralization obfuscated as being decentralized using IBLT. Or instead we can adopt my design and have true decentralization along with the necessary scaling and transaction speed (as well as low TX fees).

The writing is on the wall. Bitcoin is scaling toward a spying, centralized platform controlled by large corporations and easily regulated top-down. You've got a small window of time to try to out compete that trajectory with an altcoin. You damn well better get organized, or mankind loses. This is too fucking important to trust to ideological molasses. Who ever can get it done and build the community, then do it. Enough talk.

P.S. thanks for the kind/amicable sentiments. I am not angry Smiley

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 25, 2015, 02:04:06 PM
 #17

If the answer to these questions is "the community" then why would the community get involved, particularly as you are an "ego-project" which is demonstrably a risky investment?

My gf asked me why 37% (10 voters) dislike me. While trying to explain my take on this, I realized I didn't directly articulate my implied response to your challenge above. You are essentially stating that my ego would alienate the community that would be needed.

The implied summary of my long retort from the prior post is that those who wish to eliminate the concept of a leader, because of their own egos, end up the losers in the market. The winners do not let their ego get in their way of evaluating the objective reality.

Thus the community of losers will fall away and the community of winners will proceed (and again I don't claim to know for a fact I will win, rather just defending my logic about my freedom to compete in a free market and why I feel this is the wisest action at this juncture). Again this might cause some readers to think "there he goes again with that huge ego", but yet they still don't see that it is their ego. I am not talking about myself, but a conceptual point about leadership (and again do not conflate leadership with authority, control, and power to manipulate/scam). But those who are blinded by their ego, will be blinded. Sorry there is nothing I can nor should do about that. I hope this is the last time I will choose to respond to allegations that my ego is the hindrance.

The other aspect of your challenge is that you are noting that so many altcoins have failed because they relied on a leader who is either failed technically, lack of sustained effort, was unwilling to give up control to the open source community, or in many cases was duping the community. Thus depending too much on any one person is very risky. Again I was not proposing to have investors put up funds with only me to be ongoing at the helm of a project. I am in a solo development phase right now because that seems to be the most efficient path from point A to point B. Once we get to point B, then we can start to try to spontaneously see a "leaderless" (a leader without control) open source team take form. I tried to build a team in July, but I quickly realized I was losing more effort to sorting out all the myriad of issues with that (very complex to organize a team when there is no project yet and the differing expectations and also to know how this culture clash with work out in advance). It is much easier to form a team after release when there doesn't need to be commitments made. People can join and leave at free will, so then there isn't all this time lost to trying to predict the future and organize against such risks when making commitments to what can't be known well in advance.

Please consider if you have any hands-on (actual) experience at all in what you are writing about. You may. I am responding with my logic.

Edit: I didn't find your post to be combative.  Smiley You may be genuinely concerned that I may fail if going alone and alienating people with my egoindividualism. If my response came across this way, it is because my response is attempting to address all those who have various reasons for finding me distasteful, not just to your statements. So I was reading between your lines, the various thoughts some of (not all of) the others may be thinking, not necessarily what you were thinking.

Oh and I got so focused in on making my points, that I forgot to thank you for your feedback. Sincerely thank you for giving me the instigation to respond and also stoking my thought process on these matters.

coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 25, 2015, 02:16:21 PM
 #18

....

Sergio is refining my proof-of-storage concept from 2013. But I don't think proving you are full node is important in my design. Everyone seems to view this as important for eliminating the centralization of pools, but there are no pools in my design because in my design proof-of-work is not profitable (but it is economic). I am going to reveal the unperceived dualism in some of the concepts of crypto-currency.
..

You're underestimating the importance of proving a full nodes' existence.

The utility of money is built around confidence. Almost everything else that drives adoption revolves around features and ease of use.

I assume that you are thinking that the proven number of full nodes being a metric of the decentralization strength of the network and the confidence in the network.

This is entirely proven in my design but nothing like what Sergio was proposing because his basis has no basis in my design as I exchange some concepts to their dual.
..

Yes...and, more; e.g:

Quote
Sybil attack to change ledger entries - No risk, completely destructive

Description: A Sybil attack is a person creating a lot of nodes on the network, possibly thousands on a single machine, in order to get a disproportionate vote on networks where each node gets an equal vote.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219264.msg12775946#msg12775946

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
October 25, 2015, 02:32:56 PM
 #19

Yes...and, more; e.g:

Quote
Sybil attack to change ledger entries - No risk, completely destructive

Description: A Sybil attack is a person creating a lot of nodes on the network, possibly thousands on a single machine, in order to get a disproportionate vote on networks where each node gets an equal vote.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219264.msg12775946#msg12775946

The Sybil attack is not conflated with the definition of a "full" node in all designs. In my design there is no global voting, thus Sybil attacking by making many fake "full" nodes wouldn't be effective (but it would be in terms of the network partitioning feature). But also in my design a fake "full" node would be useless as well for other reasons. Any way, we should not continue this sort of discussion, because designs can't be analyzed piecemeal like this. Please wait for me to reach the point where I want to release a white paper or more complete description of my design, then we can discuss the details.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047



View Profile
October 25, 2015, 02:52:17 PM
 #20

From the results of this poll so far you are losing/alienating your audience. Stop posting polls and other shit every day and go build something.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 62 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!