wpalczynski
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
 |
January 23, 2016, 01:15:06 AM |
|
Your point being?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a higher transaction fee.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 01:16:06 AM |
|
Your point being?
... I see that one flew right over your head.
Chess my polish. Chess. |
|
|
|
wpalczynski
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 23, 2016, 01:20:08 AM |
|
Now you really got my curiosity peaked, what in the world are you talking about Shelby the third??
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 01:39:03 AM |
|
The 20-30 years is hyperbole.
No it is opinion, though a bit on the conservative end of the spectrum compared with some others. I will claim that is an egregiously bullshit claim unless you mean by 'conservative' that others claim it can be ready sooner? And also claim you are thus intentionally manipulating the readers unless I have assumed the wrong interpretation of 'conservative' intended. Zerocash as it is now constructed will very likely be superseded within a few years with some superior method.
The concept of proving the entire block chain in zero knowledge can't be improved. The methods for doing so, maybe. So this point is irrelevant to the conceptual decision about which direction to go for the long-term strategy. And also taking into account my claim that CN/RingCT is unacceptable to corporations. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 01:43:29 AM |
|
I am surprised that no one has pointed out that hiding values, e.g. Blockstreams Confidential Transactions, is immune to IP address meta-data correlation, because hiding value doesn't require hiding identity. Thus RingCT is retrogressive (and even bloats the block chain). Now if we talk about the most optimized implementation of homomorphic data hiding, then I fixed and improved Compact Confidential Transactions as part of my work on my Zero Knowledge Transactions. So if that will be the new area of provable privacy, then I can still kick ass on Monero/Aeon. Hmmm. I didn't realize I was still holding a superior asset. This gives another thing to add to my coin to kick ass on you fuckers. Right on! |
|
|
|
wpalczynski
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 23, 2016, 01:57:47 AM |
|
I am surprised that no one has pointed out that hiding values, e.g. Blockstreams Confidential Transactions, is immune to IP address meta-data correlation, because hiding value doesn't require hiding identity. Thus RingCT is retrogressive (and even bloats the block chain). Now if we talk about the most optimized implementation of homomorphic data hiding, then I fixed and improved Compact Confidential Transactions as part of my work on my Zero Knowledge Transactions. So if that will be the new area of provable privacy, then I can still kick ass on Monero/Aeon. Hmmm. I didn't realize I was still holding a superior asset. This gives another thing to add to my coin to kick ass on you fuckers. Right on! |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 01:58:39 AM |
|
unless you start asking for ID which is not going to work
Why won't that work? My other idea is to make the recipient consume a resource which is more expensive than the current market value of the tokens distributed, e.g. verified mobile numbers. But apparently in some locales, mobile numbers can be obtained for free in unlimited quantities (or am I mistaken about that?). |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 04:00:35 AM
Last edit: January 23, 2016, 04:21:48 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
I am surprised that no one has pointed out that hiding values, e.g. Blockstreams Confidential Transactions, is immune to IP address meta-data correlation, because hiding value doesn't require hiding identity. Thus RingCT is retrogressive (and even bloats the block chain). Now if we talk about the most optimized implementation of homomorphic data hiding, then I fixed and improved Compact Confidential Transactions as part of my work on my Zero Knowledge Transactions. So if that will be the new area of provable privacy, then I can still kick ass on Monero/Aeon. Hmmm. I didn't realize I was still holding a superior asset. This gives another thing to add to my coin to kick ass on you fuckers. Right on! Lkely false because the sum proofs leak information and the amounts can be correlated. If some 2-output transaction comes out of an exchange and some portion of the output goes to Goldman Sachs and the other portion goes to me it can be safely assumed the amount going to them is >> than the amount going to me. In fact the sum can be assumed approximately equal to the amount going to them. That inference can only be made with metadata telling you that one output went to GS. Hey I am telling you Zerocash is superior and now you are (unwittingly) arguing it is. Lol. Yeah I argued that in my first discussions with the author of CCT. It was the reason I argued for combining CN with CCT. I can send an output to each of GS, JPM, Wells Fargo, etc.. So tell me how much I sent to each  Edit: also it isn't clear even if 1 of 2 outputs is to GS, that you are sending your entire balance to GS. And it isn't clear that anyone would know your balance in either case. Combinatorial cascade might reveal everything, but one might assume those major corporations aren't going to publish how much value you paid to them. And after all, Monero's argument was they aren't aiming for NSA-proof reliability. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 04:36:21 AM |
|
It is plausible to contemplate that sometimes lower tech is enough, because sometimes higher tech features have no market or actual adoption utility.
I definitely considered that in my analysis of what tech was worth working on. To invest so much effort in some very complex tech and then come to find out after all there really isn't a market for it. How frustrating to lose all that effort. So yeah, I haven't felt entirely wrong for going slower and taking time to analyze the markets before jumping into implementing. Any way, that is my perspective from a potential (but current vapor) altcoin dev.
Then again if you mean lower tech as in comparing Dash's off chain mixing anonymity (relying on masternodes to keep the secrets) to on chain mixing anonymity (and I would argue Zerocoin being the only tech that in theory makes the entire block chain zero knowledge), then I would argue that the lower tech in this case is inferior to the point of being useless for anything other than convincing speculators to enjoin a P&D.
Yet I may agree if you mean lower tech in the sense of straightforward Bitcoin clone with some marketing innovation, as compared to some complex Zerocoin project, given the privacy markets are unproven and undeveloped, so who knows when and if such complex tech will attain adoption (outside of the speculators who are investing in it). Anonymity tech causes tradeoffs (block chain bloat, etc) so can in some ways argued to be retrogressive (especially if there is no proven market for anonymity with those maybe severe tradeoffs). The devil is in the details. Some coin might someday do anonymity well enough and have very astute marketing strategy. I am not saying it can't happen. I am saying it is very complex to analyze.
|
|
|
|
|
VultureFund
|
|
January 23, 2016, 12:16:10 PM |
|
Meta-data:  Wojtek Palczynski CISSP, CRISC, CISA, CGEIT, CISM Cyber Security Consultant - Governance, Risk Management, Compliance Toronto, Canada Area Computer & Network Security Current Safe IT Inc., Independent Previous Sentry Metrics, ERE Information Security Education ISACA Recommendations 5 people have recommended Wojtek Palczynski Websites isc2 ISACA Summary I have over 12 years of experience and proven success in Enterprise Threat and Risk Management, Audit, Gap Analysis, Project Management, IT Security Governance and Compliance Reporting. I currently hold the CISSP, CRISC, CGEIT and CISA designations. With over 12 years of experience in diverse environments such as mining and metals, telecom, capital markets, banking, government and high technology development I have worked in roles ranging from Risk Adviser, managing global SIEM deployments, operations and business management to systems and network architecture design as well as auditing, IT governance and compliance reporting. I focus on delivering IT security solutions in the realms of SIEM (Security Information and Event Management), Governance, Compliance and Auditing for a diverse range of clients and industries. I have a track record of success in delivering projects on time and budget working on both domestic and international enterprise-class projects. Specialties: Governance, Risk Management and Compliance Reporting, eDiscovery, Gap Analysis, Penetration Testing and Vulnerability Assessments. Forensic and IT Control Audits measuring control effectiveness and compliance against the ISO 27001, 27002 and NERC CIP standards, COBIT framework and industry best practices. Mergers and Acquisitions. Experience Cyber Security Consultant - Governance, Risk Management, Compliance Reporting Safe IT Inc. January 2003 – Present (13 years 1 month) Recent Achievements • Developed a Information Security Merger and Acquisition (M&A) Handbook for one of Canada`s leading Banks. Deliverables included a framework for the initial Due Diligence assessment of potential targets as well as Deep Dive examination of the targets Information Security governance program. • Performed all Threat Risk Assessments in support of a $300 million acquisition of a large American wealth management institution by one of Canada's leading Banks. • Global deployment of Log Logic Log Management System (LMS) and integration with Security Information and Event Management System (SIEM) for one of Canada's leading Banks. • Conducted Maturity Assessments of Key Technology Controls at a major Canadian Banking Institution. • Managed a global SIEM deployment project which helped implement Governance on a $1.2 Billion contract for a world’s leading Mining Corporation. • Performed Enterprise Information Security compliance assessments against industry standards such as ISO 27001, ISO 27002, NERC CIP and COBIT, provided recommendations to mitigate the identified control gaps. • Conducted vulnerability assessments of IT systems using a broad range of tools and technologies, created comprehensive reports based on the results for clients which included recommendations to remediate the vulnerabilities, resulting in proactive improvement of clients network security posture. Blockchain / Cryptocurrency Technology Consultant Independent October 2013 – Present (2 years 4 months) • Blockchain technology strategy consulting. • Architectural advice for Blockchain projects. • Merchant cryptocurrency payment system integration. • Secure Offline cryptocurrency storage solutions including multi-signature ‘deep freeze’ storage. • Custom, scalable cryptocurrency mining solutions (SHA-256, Scrypt, Scrypt-N). • Security / Risk assessments and audits. • Blockchain investigations. • Non-technical "Bitcoin 101" style talks to various industries including legal, accounting, financial. Sentry Metrics Senior Security Auditor Sentry Metrics 2005 – 2007 (2 years) Senior Security Auditor ERE Information Security 2005 – 2007 (2 years) Organizations ISACA - Information Systems Audit and Control Association Certifications CISSP Certification (Certified Information System Security Professional) ISC2 CRISC Certification (Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control) Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) CISA Certification (Certified Information Systems Auditor) Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) CGEIT Certification (Certified in the Governance of Enterprise IT) Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) CISM Certification (Certified Information Security Manager) Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) October 2014 – Present Education ISACA CGEIT 2011 – 2012 ISACA CRISC 2011 – 2011 ISACA CISA 2011 – 2011 ISC2 CISSP 2005 – 2005 Mohawk College Mohawk College Advanced Network Security and Connectivity, Information Technology 2001 – 2003 Languages English Native or bilingual proficiency Polish Native or bilingual proficiency |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 12:33:44 PM
Last edit: January 23, 2016, 07:52:23 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
I am working on it. There are fundamental limitations (and I can't put x86 assembly code in the browser without a browser plugin that n00b users won't install thus I can't get adequate PoW hash performance for a n00b target strategy), and very difficult to think of how to overcome them.
Lol of course TPTB thinks that the greatest marketing strategy (in more recent times... most successful was Litecoin) in the history of altcoins was flawed
Lying to myself will lead me to failure. Therefor I am honest about the research documents I quoted which explain why micro-tipping will ALWAYS fail. , and of course he thinks he can do better... so typical.  You missed the part where that also meant my planned distribution scheme is flawed. And so now I am forced to think of a way around the dilemma: Note however that microtransactions may not be a viable model, so that throws a monkey wrench into my design plans (because need for users to be mining often in order for them to drive difficulty very high), but I have another idea to investigate now as a possible work around. I am working on it. There are fundamental limitations (and I can't put x86 assembly code in the browser without a browser plugin that n00b users won't install thus I can't get adequate PoW hash performance for a n00b target strategy), and very difficult to think of how to overcome them. When will you learn to stop that B-lister crap that makes you look so pathetic? I advised you to lift your game up the A-lister level. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 08:15:21 PM
Last edit: January 23, 2016, 10:21:19 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Analyzing DOGECOIN's marketing strategy: No I wrote that they got the initial boost for being the first to trying micro-tipping, but that micro-tipping is fundamentally flawed as a paradigm, thus as the initial hype fades and everyone who has tried micro-tipping now realizes it is just a one-time delusion that can't be repeated.
Thank you for sharing your assessment. To be brutally frank, it dodges the main question and it's too uninformed an explanation to be useful (I don't consider pundits’ opinions to be authoritative) but thank you for making the effort. It has to be obvious that an “initial boost” cannot be currently sustaining the strong performance two years down the road so we're right back where we started. But that's just my peccadillo, staying focused on the awkward questions and trying to understand what the answers might mean. Please read the last linked document in my original quote: The mass delusion was fueled by that Ponzi scammer Alex Green and his huge tips. But he was using that marketing gimick to take more money from investors in an unsustainable scheme that declared bankruptcy. Yeah if you give users the impression they can change the world with tipping, then they will adopt it with a passion because people really do want to believe. But the reality was it is economically impossible to change the world with micro-tipping (read the research scientists explanation such as Nick Szabo from 1996) and Alex Green took their money and made huge tips thus furthering the mass mania bubble "we can change the world". But Green was just manipulating the users and investors in an unsustainable, uneconomic delusion. As for why it continues to have some trade on exchanges, some people still don't understand the above and still have hope that they can change their world. Thus it is reasonably possible someone can do the same scheme again and the deluded users will once again come back for sloppy seconds and hand their money over again to the scammers. It is conceptually in terms of HOPE, no different than the delusions speculators have with handing their money over to the insiders in all the altcoin projects. So to be clear the marketing strategy of DOGECOIN was HOPE (and even the so called marketing guru Palmer can't articule it that succinctly). And this a very powerful human emotion and can drive delusion and mass manias. And now you will understand I am an astute marketer, as well as an out-of-the-box economist, and an expert multi-decades of experience programmer who has coded (all by myself!) and marketed software to adoption by 1% of the internet population. Not very many people have all three of those talents combined. I may not be the absolute best at any one of those, but I am in roughly on the order of the top 10% in each (maybe top 1% in some narrower facets). What I am really good at intellectually is drilling down to the generative essence of an issue. I can find and state the succinct generative essence.
So to be clear the marketing strategy of DOGECOIN was HOPE
Wrong, try again. If you read the research on why micro-tipping is uneconomic for humans, you will understand that masking HOPE in the delusion of GENEROSITY (and other memes about better society) has the underlying generative essence of HOPE. Edit: and you are certainly a prime B-lister (all elbows and acrimony) example of being deluded by HOPE and not using sober, detailed analysis.  Edit#2: so the best marketing strategy would be the one that fostered HOPE, yet was not a delusion and could actually effect world change!
So to be clear the marketing strategy of DOGECOIN was HOPE
Wrong, try again. If you read the research on why micro-tipping is uneconomic for humans, you will understand that masking HOPE in the delusion of GENEROSITY (and other memes about better society) has the underlying generative essence of HOPE. Edit: and you are certainly a prime B-lister (all elbows and acrimony) example of being deluded by HOPE and not using sober, detailed analysis. Edit#2: so the best marketing strategy would be the one that fostered HOPE, yet was not a delusion and could actually effect world change! Come on, a self-proclaimed genius ought to be able to figure this out. You are still wrong about why Dogecoin was successful. Hint: It has nothing to do with micro-tipping. Instead of playing hide & seek, you could just tell us your opinion. After all, it is only your opinion until you prove or convince. That is why we share here. One might argue that users of DOGE felt a sense of participation, empowerment, and cooperation, e.g. that some programmers could chip in and create bots for micro-tipping to various social networking. In other words, that it wasn't all controlled by some core developers. Thus a sense of community purpose. Again I think this all derives from the HOPE fundamental. The cute dog was a symbol of love and the ease of doing good, juxtaposed to the overly serious, corporatism (which is even present in Bitcoin). Again all derives from the core emotion of HOPE. I think perhaps what you are thinking at is that DOGE was perceived as an undervalued asset relative to Bitcoin. And so you may be viewing from the "mine the speculators" marketing strategy. Again that has proven to be a P&D unsustainable strategy, except perhaps in the case of Litecoin which for various reasons has served as a hedge or alternative to Bitcoin economically (e.g. GPU miners transitioned to Litecoin when Bitcoin got ASICs). And enough about this nonsense about me being a B lister. I know that I am a B lister (actually I am probably a C or D lister at best.) It is you that is delusional in thinking that you are an A lister. You tried running with the big dogs as "AnonyMint" in the Bitcoin development subforum, but the true A listers picked your half-baked ideas apart. So, you tucked your tail, changed your name, and retreated into the alternative cryptocurrency subforum far away from the true A listers so that no one would be able to point out how dumb your ideas are.
You still apparently haven't understood that the B-lister aspect is stalking me around in every thread so you can try to attack me. It has nothing to do with whether I or you are correct on some issue. We are all free to share and argue our positions here, and in an adult manner devoid of ad hominem noise and focused on eliding the facts from our sharing. Again I urge you to raise your contribution to the A-lister level and focus on sharing instead of throwing your toys in a temper tantrum because you don't like that I post a lot and defend my logic (until someone convinces me I am incorrect). Instead of getting to the point, you again have succeeded in filling up another thread with drivel and flaming noise. Make your point. If your point is about me, then there is another thread specifically for that. Don't spam every thread with your off-topic jealousy about me. If you think you can be a better spokesman in the community, then go for it. Prove it. Rather B-listers just complain.
My job is not to educate you TPTB, you can figure out why Dogecoin was a success on your own. You have still yet to come to the correct conclusion. It is not my fault you post in every thread and claim to be a know it all on every subject. I was posting in the altcoin subforum on every thread long before you came along. I was simply pointing out that you are incorrect about why Dogecoin was successful. I have no interest in educating you as to the right answer.
Also, you can stop playing the victim and crying about "ad hominem" bs. I was very civil with you until you started quipping your ad hominems toward me... everyone knows what I'm talking about here because it is the way you speak to everyone as if everyone is inferior. You are the definition of a grumpy old man (I could elaborate but I will try to be nice and stop there.) Furthermore, I am annoyed with you passing off your opinions as factual statements, or basing factual statements on opinions, which amounts to FUD. You attack every cryptocurrency without being able to deliver a solution. Those that can't do spam internet forums. I know that to be true, that is why I am here spamming myself.
This subforum is not called "altcoin technical discussion", it is called "altcoin discussion". Sorry, I do not want to spend 1 week month reading all of your posts, the rantings of a lunatic rather, just so I can figure out what you're talking about. You are angry I'm not explaining my point in this thread to you, but you fail to realize it is the same thing you do when you say "read my thread" as if it isn't a trillion words long.
Of course not, you are making it obvious to every reader that your job is to spend your time making a fool of yourself by wasting everyone else's time reading about how you hate me. As if that helps anyone here. It is extremely selfish to subject all the readers here to your private vendetta against me. So after all, we see you were just bullshitting. As usual. Afraid to put your idea to the test of peer review and scruntiny or don't have an idea just bluffing. State your idea about DOGE, or it didn't happen. Period.
So after all, we see you were just bullshitting. As usual.
No, I am sincere in the fact that micro-transactions is not the reason for Dogecoin's success. In fact, I question your intellect if you truly think that is the reason for Dogecoin's success. Duh. That is also what I am pointing out.
So after all, we see you were just bullshitting. As usual.
No, I am sincere in the fact that micro-transactions is not the reason for Dogecoin's success. In fact, I question your intellect if you truly think that is the reason for Dogecoin's success. Duh. That is also what I am pointing out. That is the definition of backpedaling, which you are certainly a master at because you are never wrong. There is no backpedaling. It is an inability of yours to comprehend that I wrote that micro-tipping was just a(n uneconomic) gimmick and that the underlying marketing strategy was HOPE (and its various derivative memes of generosity, sense of community purpose, etc). |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 08:36:49 PM |
|
"and I can't put x86 assembly code in the browser without a browser plugin that n00b users won't install "
you could write a compute-shader in GLSL and deploy using WebGL to HTML5 browsers, GPU accelerated and no browser plugin necessary.
Thanks. Yeah I had done that research last night too: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/how-useful-is-a-javascript-minerBut I think that only uses part of the CPU and I want to use all the CPU (relative electricity cost is inapplicable in my use case of unprofitable mining). I think that can maybe used in addition to a memory hard algorithm. Does WebGL always use the GPU or is there a way to detect? Any way, I will dig down into those details. I am first revisiting my 2013 work on memory hard PoW algorithms (since I can't get access to AES-NI from within the browser which is what my latter PoW hash was primarily based on and which for example Cryptonote's hash requires which is why it can't run fast in the browser). |
|
|
|
tromp
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 978
Merit: 1087
|
|
January 23, 2016, 09:20:16 PM |
|
I am working on it. There are fundamental limitations (and I can't put x86 assembly code in the browser without a browser plugin that n00b users won't install thus I can't get adequate PoW hash performance for a n00b target strategy), and very difficult to think of how to overcome them. I want to port my Cuckoo Cycle miner to the web, but javascript's lack of 64-bit ints firmly stands in the way. So I'm waiting for WebAssembly to materialize: https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/81 |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 09:31:04 PM |
|
That (and the linked #135) are an example of the sort of fact focused consensus technical discussions that I love. So satisfying to see lukewagner get the point in issue #135 and throw his enthusiastic support after initially questioning the move. A distant cry from the vested interest flame wars we have in this forum. Yeah I of course was also thinking about the 64-bit emulation barrier in Emscripten. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 23, 2016, 10:05:49 PM
Last edit: January 23, 2016, 10:46:52 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
I agree micropayments for content are a dumb idea. However, there are viable markets for micropayments, you just have to look carefully for them. To find markets that are both viable micropayment markets and benefit from decentralization may be harder or they may not exist.
I concur. I had the same thought actually. Micro-transactions apply when there is no better way to monetize. One example is paying someone to video chat with you and do it decentralized. If it is centralized, then no problem the site can have you load a balance and pay out of that. But then the site has to comply with FinCEN and other regs. Decentralized means you need to pay the other party on the spot. That may not necessary be "micro" value though. And it may not even require instant transaction, but probably will. And "micro" would be better in terms of being able to bill per minute. So in general, microtransactions apply where the granularity can't be accumulated and decentralization is required. So microtransactions are a generally useful paradigm especially for our crypto aims. But for me the microtransactions as a marketing strategy to launch and do initial distribution with doesn't work due to a chicken & egg dilemma of not enough ecosystems ways to use them. And I realized from my re-familiarization with the theory of why microtransactions are often not economic, that the scenario I was thinking of for a killer ecosystem feature to drive over that chicken & egg hump wasn't going to be compelling for the users. The key challenge facing microtransactions is that no one is going to go out-of-their-way to obtain some 2 cents worth of tokens to go do some ecosystem action (no matter how compelling that ecosystem action is). The point is there isn't enough value in play for each user action. The cognitive and effort load on the user is too high. This is what I mean by the attrition barrier.
I don't expect a 50+ year old man to understand why Dogecoin was successful, and I'll simply leave it at that.
That is possible. It could be a younger generation thing that isn't on my radar. But so far, afaik no one has articulated it. So I still say that unless you state something, then you are just bullshitting and bluffing. Edit: I do remember now someone articulating that Doge was driven by "dark" attitudes, where people just want to write nonsense comments about anything. It is sort of Twitter generation concept, where it doesn't matter what you say as much as being clever. Impressing your friends. I notice my 16 year old daughter does that excessively. It is a form of social upmanship or same as we used to do by hanging out and joking in the yard, the youth now do it virtually. Someone wrote the Doge tapped into that demographic on social commenting sites such as Reddit. But it doesn't appear that has anything to do with the currency. Why do you need micro-tipping to do those comments? Is it part of the joke to insult someone by tipping them 1500 microcents. The store-of-value ramp appears to have everything to do with speculators either buying into the HOPE delusion and/or just following (the money) on the coattails of a phenomenon.
But it doesn't appear that has anything to do with the currency. Why do you need micro-tipping to do those comments? Is it part of the joke to insult someone by tipping them 1500 microcents.
Another angle is the tips aren't economic values but rather votes. I actually had mentioned in the past this as the possible way to use micro-tipping to better sites such as stackoverflow. So the users are competing to see who can have the most votes, regardless that the votes have no significant economic value. So Doge is a decentralized fungible voting unit. Actually that is one of my marketing ideas. The key is how to distribute the units. |
|
|
|
|
slavo
|
|
January 24, 2016, 02:49:20 PM |
|
do you have pics of the actual vapor? i'm good at giving names to stuff I can see.
cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 24, 2016, 09:31:05 PM |
|
I think social media can possibly be taken over by cryptocurrency/decentralized/blockchain technology. Think about it... Facebook has a market capitalization of 266.3 billion. What if a portion of their net profit was distributed to its users instead? Which service would you use... one that makes money off of you providing you nothing in return, or one that pays you to use its service? There are likely a few projects attempting to capitalize on this space. The only one off the top of my head I can name is Synereo and I am on the fence as to whether it is is a legit project or a P&D... I am waiting on the sidelines for now. http://www.synereo.com/One of the foundational technical challenges is decentralized, permissionless file storage (and databases); otherwise if a corporation is providing centralized file storage then they control the content and can monopolize. Afaik, the current attempts such as Storj and Maidsafe have a fundamental economic flaw. That is they are selling for free that which is not free— the bandwidth (and most saliently the asymmetrically more expensive upload bandwidth) of the ISPs. I had warned Bittorrent about this flaw in their economic algorithm and had suggested a fix in 2008:
Did Bittorrent become popular without MSM coverage? I'm not really sure. Yes, it did. The Bittorrent whitepaper was a breakthrough in p2p not matched until Satoshi came along. All the cruft of Gnutella (anti-leech arms race kludges, supernodes, etc) was swept away by Bram's brilliantly elegant tit-for-tat algorithm. Well someone did come along before Satoshi in 2008 and that was me (Shelby), but I was apparently ignored. I basically predicted the Net Neutrality shit we have now and was trying to improve Bram's concept: https://web.archive.org/web/20130401040049/http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?pid=178#p178Did Bittorrent implement my proposal? I never followed up (my life went on a tangent). You can detect some more coherence in my writing back then because that was before I became so ill. I am amazed in hindsight that I understood the concepts of Bittorrent so well having absolutely no experience whatsoever as a developer in P2P.
Now what is really fucking amazing is that the link quoted above worked correctly a few days ago when I issued it. Apparently someone in the Monero thread communicated to Bittorrent folks and had the entire archive of the Bittorrent forum removed from the archive.org. I am not joking and I am not hallucinating. What I had written there in 2008 (which luckily I reread a few days ago so my memory is refreshed) was I explained to the Bittorrent developers that their tit-for-tat algorithm was orthogonal to their optimistic unchoking algorithm, and that they could improve the tit-for-tat algorithm by have the two peers that exchange a shard of data to encrypt those shards. Then after the shards had been received by both peers, the decryption keys could be exchanged. The economic benefit is that the bandwidth has already been exchanged before each peer can use the data. Thus neither peer has any bandwidth cost reason to cheat. The reason this was important is because typically download bandwidth is much greater than upload bandwidth, so by forcing all peers to trade equally, it would mean that peers could only download as much as they could upload. Bittorrent didn't like this suggestion because they preferred to leech the upload bandwidth of those who have higher allocations with their ISPs thus forcing those ISPs to pay for the upload bandwidth that the other peers at the ISPs with lower upload bandwidth allocations do not incur. I warned Bittorrent that without my suggested fix, then the ISPs would end up blocking and rate limiting Bittorrent, which is exactly what has happened as I predicted: http://www.pcworld.com/article/145786/isp.htmlhttp://guides.wmlcloud.com/windows/how-to-bypass-torrent-connection-blocking-by-your-isp.aspxhttps://www.quora.com/My-ISP-has-blocked-all-the-P2P-downloads-Is-there-any-way-I-can-bypass-themNote that any solutions to the problem of ISPs blocking P2P apps that involve a TURN (when STUN tunneling fails or is blocked), VPN, or other server in the middle, defeat the entire point of extracting the value of the bandwidth allocation of users provided by their ISPs, because then one is paying for the bandwidth of the server to relay the shards. If Storj and MaidSafe max out the consumption of each user's upload bandwidth (thus leeching off users with higher allocations charging the costs to those users' ISPs), they will also be blocked by ISPs. Additionally STUN tunnelling often fails and thus a TURN relay server has to be employed (or using the other peers as relays thus leeching the upload bandwidth of those ISPs who don't block tunneling). In short, P2P for bandwidth consumption between ISP hosted user accounts is not going to be reliable. Many users will have frustrations when trying to be a storage provider. It will not be the case that every user in the system can also be a storage provider. And it will probably end up being the case that the most efficient storage providers will be hosted on dedicated servers. In other words, it is a fantasy to think we can get decentralized file storage without paying for it. We can try to design decentralized, permissionless file systems that correctly incentivize the storage and bandwidth providers, and the users of the system need to pay for it somehow. Whether or not these can remain permissionless given the need to host these on servers is open to further contemplation and study. Most all hosting providers include in their Terms of Sevice a restriction on hosting illegal copyrighted content, so unless one can provide a mechanism for which illegal content is removed from the system, it seems to me that hosts will be forced to ban the protocol (system). So where I am headed with this line of thinking is that we ought to just give up on illegal content and illegal uses of anonymity. It isn't going to work. It is a fantasy. |
|
|
|
wpalczynski
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 24, 2016, 09:55:48 PM |
|
Now what is really fucking amazing is that the link quoted above worked correctly a few days ago when I issued it. Apparently someone in the Monero thread communicated to Bittorrent folks and had the entire archive of the Bittorrent forum removed from the archive.org. I am not joking and I am not hallucinating.
This gets better every day. You think the Bittorrent folks would remove a whole archive on account of one of your posts because someone from the "monero" community asked them to? |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war (OP)
|
|
January 24, 2016, 10:32:45 PM
Last edit: January 24, 2016, 11:08:40 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Now what is really fucking amazing is that the link quoted above worked correctly a few days ago when I issued it. Apparently someone in the Monero thread communicated to Bittorrent folks and had the entire archive of the Bittorrent forum removed from the archive.org. I am not joking and I am not hallucinating.
What possible basis could do you have for such an accusation and how does the allegation relate to the topic of technology vs marketing? Because I viewed the linked archived content (and saw the existence of the Bittorrent forum archive going back many years even before 2008) when I made the post in the Monero Speculation thread, and now as you can see the entire archive is gone. And that was only a few days ago. So the probability that the sudden removal of that archive did not result from me pointing out that Bittorrent is in bed together with the corruption of the Net Neutrality movement is approximately Nil. I am not saying necessarily that any particular Monero community member was responsible for the removal of the archive. I am saying that someone who reads the Monero thread and/or who reads all my posts was responsible. And it is very likely that TPTB are watching very closely all my posts, because they understand (as do many astute readers) that I am one of the brighter minds on the forum who is very truly anarcho-Libertarian oriented and that I have the marketing skills to actually make something happen on a large scale. However, TPTB shouldn't fear me, because I am not going to do anything illegal. The most important point to take from the post I made is that Bittorrent is a political gimick used to fool the masses into submitting to taxation of the internet bandwidth via Net Neutrality. Bittorrent was never economic. It is a fraud and those who are stealing content deserve their fate by buying into an uneconomic lie. And this pertains to the Technology vs. Marketing thread in the context of we are discussing whether potential markets and technology are viable. It makes no sense to state marketing or technology are important, if we don't understand how delusions about each can be foisted upon us. Also I was responding to an upthread post claiming that we can replace centralized social media with decentralized variants. And to address that possibility, I must talk about the foundational issue of decentralized file storage. That should have been obvious from the post (and its context) that you are reacting to. Also for those who don't fully grasp my economics point, the point is that if we try to force ISPs to give away bandwidth for free, then we in effect socialize ISPs. And then the government can step in with Net Neutrality taxation to make it "fair" by compensating some ISPs for others or what (but in essence what we have done is attempted to steal and thus the government is called upon to take over and steal from all of us). We are fucking idiots! For those can't deduce the implications, without stealing bandwidth by doing file transfers P2P (taking the expensive upload bandwidth that ISPs have statistically allocated for client-server model paradigms) then we can't have file storage that is resistant to regulation and thus we can't steal copyrighted content (as I explained in my prior post that hosting content on servers will be regulated by the hosting provider's Terms of Service). Afaik, the reason upload bandwidth is expensive for ISPs, is because telcom "last mile" technology is focused on maximizing download bandwidth for the client-server model of HTTP. It is a natural law of physics that you would not run a main line water/gas pipe from the substation to each home, instead use multifurcation from the main to progressively smaller diameter pipes. P2P can not be a bandwidth driven paradigm! Fuhgeddaboudit. The problem for humanity is that ISPs are playing along with this Net Neutrality takeover (even while pretending not to), because of course it is a plan by which the internet can be monopolized and controlled by an oligarchy. So our problem is that paradigms such as Bittorrent which foster this theft, are less expensive to host content with. And thus this is why the new Bittorrent browser is receiving funding because TPTB have decided this a good direction to go and further their control of the internet. How can we can compete with the download costs of stealing it from the collective. We probably can't. So fucking clever how TPTB fooled us into thinking we had won (after they closed Napster and we thought we fought back), and yet we dug our own grave. Because stealing is evil. But the problem is that this lower bandwidth cost (by stealing it) paradigm can also be used for distributing legal content. However Bittorrent does have the weaknesses that files are slower to start loading (i.e. higher latency), it isn't interactive, and it only applies to files that many users are simultaneously downloading. So thus we still have a means to fight back if we are clever. When will fools learn that anything pumped up in the MSM is always a fraud to fool us. Kim Dotcom is being made into a martyr to fool us into believing that we must fight for Bittorrent every where and to give a boost to the launch of a Bittorrent web paradigm. We will be totally fucked with Net Neutrality. |
|
|
|
|
Poll
