[neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?

[TPTB_need_war]

https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.html

Hello Zooko,

I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project?

Haven't you seen the new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources) that will ban end-to-end encryption?

To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)?

I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments?

Sincerely,
TPTB_need_war
AnonyMint
Shelby Moore III

[1714823783]

1714823783

[1714823783]

1714823783

[1714823783]

1714823783

[tromp]

How extensively is this specific NP problem studied?

The closest seems to be the study of tradeoffs in undirected graph traversal such as

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bor/Papers/time-space-tradeoffs-undirected-graph-traversal-graph-automata.pdf

which states:

Although it would be desirable to show a tradeoff for a general model of computation
such as a random access machine, obtaining such a tradeoff is beyond the
reach of current techniques. Thus it is natural to consider a ``structured'' model
(Borodin [16]), that is, one whose basic move is based on the adjacencies of the
graph, as opposed to one whose basic move is based on the bits in the graph's
encoding.

My model is rather odd in that you cannot easily figure out the neighbours of a node,
since edges are generated from nonces, and in the worst case you have to map over
all nonces to find the edges adjacent to a given node.

The paper establishes a quadratic lower bound on the
product of time and space for graph traversal, which I interpret
as good evidence for the edge trimming in my Cuckoo Cycle being optimal,
as it uses just 1 bit per edge.

[ArticMine]

https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.html

Hello Zooko,

I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project?

Haven't you seen the new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources) that will ban end-to-end encryption?

To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)?

I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments?

Sincerely,
TPTB_need_war
AnonyMint
Shelby Moore III

Bold my emphasis. The proposed legislation in the United Kingdom does not ban end to end encryption. What it does however is to require those companies that provide proprietary encryption products to retain a back door key and make this back door key available to law enforcement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11970391/Internet-firms-to-be-banned-from-offering-out-of-reach-communications-under-new-laws.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1446482200 There is a critical difference here in that FLOSS end to end encryption tools remain perfectly legal and secure while proprietary end to end encryption tools would have a back door. This is not unlike the FinCEN guidance in the United States https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html where proprietary development funding models for crypto currency (using the emission to fund development) will likely lead to a legal requirement for MSB registration while FLOSS development funding models can retain their decentralized virtual currency designation and avoid the MSB registration requirement. In Canada there was a proposed law that did not pass that required providers of email servers to retain records for law enforcement with an exception for those who ran their own mail server from their own homes.. A more relevant question to ask would have been: Given that you plan to use a portion of the emission over the next 4 years to fund your company, have you registered as an MSB with FinCEN or have you obtained guidance from FinCEN that MSB registration is not required in your case?

The pattern here is starting to become apparent. Click I agree on some company's terms for the use of proprietary software and become a slave, click I do not agree and use FLOSS tools instead and remain free.

[TPTB_need_war]

https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.html

Hello Zooko,

I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project?

Haven't you seen the new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources) that will ban end-to-end encryption?

To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)?

I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments?

Sincerely,
TPTB_need_war
AnonyMint
Shelby Moore III

Bold my emphasis. The proposed legislation in the United Kingdom does not ban end to end encryption. What it does however is to require those companies that provide proprietary encryption products to retain a back door key and make this back door key available to law enforcement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11970391/Internet-firms-to-be-banned-from-offering-out-of-reach-communications-under-new-laws.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1446482200 There is a critical difference here in that FLOSS end to end encryption tools remain perfectly legal and secure while proprietary end to end encryption tools would have a back door. This is not unlike the FinCEN guidance in the United States https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html where proprietary development funding models for crypto currency (using the emission to fund development) will likely lead to a legal requirement for MSB registration while FLOSS development funding models can retain their decentralized virtual currency designation and avoid the MSB registration requirement. In Canada there was a proposed law that did not pass that required providers of email servers to retain records for law enforcement with an exception for those who ran their own mail server from their own homes.. A more relevant question to ask would have been: Given that you plan to use a portion of the emission over the next 4 years to fund your company, have you registered as an MSB with FinCEN or have you obtained guidance from FinCEN that MSB registration is not required in your case?

The pattern here is starting to become apparent. Click I agree on some company's terms for the use of proprietary software and become a slave, click I do not agree and use FLOSS tools instead and remain free.

Thanks ArticMine.

Yes I am aware that the proposed legislation in the UK (also afaik similar legislation proposed in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia) only applies to service providers who offer encrypted services, not to open source code which users independently obtain, compile, and run on their own initiative. I was vaguely aware of this pending legislation and then I became more focused on it during my private discussions last month with the GadgetCoin team who have a P2P streaming technology named Streemo. The governments are not stupid to try to ban activity they can't possibly enforce (thus making the government look impotent), i.e. the government can't monitor/enforce against what each private citizen does in their home.

But I argue effectively the direction is to ban end-to-end encryption in general that does not provide a back door to national security agencies. The government can regulate the ISPs (internet service providers) and ban end-to-end encryption protocols that do not include a decryption key for national security agencies. I have also explained that using home computers as servers over asymmetric upload bandwidth home ISPs is a Communist economic plan (as I warned Bittorrent back in 2008 and offered them an economic solution for their tit-for-tat algorithm but they ignored me). And that protocols which allow illegal activities from unregulated home servers will be banned by ISPs and hosting providers. If you know of any technology to hide a protocol's patterns such that ISPs can't identify it, please enlighten me. There is some discussion of "Censorship resistance" in section 2.4 of Synereo's white paper, but that still seems to be inadequate.

Simply put, it is impossible to fight the government when there are choke points in the system which the government can effectively regulate. This is just common sense.

I added the following to that question for Zooko:

Edit: please be aware of a rebuttal by ArticMine (afaik is a Monero/Cryptonote developer) to my question about a possible ban on end-to-end encryption, also note the desire for an answer concerning registration with FinCEN for your plans to fund your corporation or foundation with an 11% royalty on currency emission (creation). Note I also mentioned that FinCEN issue in the "Fundamental challenges?" thread at the zcash forum. I have suggested you consider doing an ICO instead, and I think it would be wildly successful. IANAL so please do consult your own counsel, yet I will will make you aware of a thread of discussion I launched about whether crypto currencies are illegal unregistered investment securities under the Supreme Court "Howey test" in the USA. It seems likely that ICOs are illegal if openly offered to unsophisticated USA investors unless the ICO is registered with the SEC. The "Howey test" seems to be misconstrued by most interpretations and the Supreme Court explicitly stated that no obfuscation of the economic facts would diminish the efficacy of the intent of the securities law protection. Also there is some discussion about the interpretation of the FinCEN guidance which is an orthogonal issue to SEC regulations. The EU may have other regulations as well.

[altcoinUK]

https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.html

Hello Zooko,

I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project?

Haven't you seen the new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources) that will ban end-to-end encryption?

To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)?

I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments?

Sincerely,
TPTB_need_war
AnonyMint
Shelby Moore III

Bold my emphasis. The proposed legislation in the United Kingdom does not ban end to end encryption. What it does however is to require those companies that provide proprietary encryption products to retain a back door key and make this back door key available to law enforcement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11970391/Internet-firms-to-be-banned-from-offering-out-of-reach-communications-under-new-laws.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1446482200 There is a critical difference here in that FLOSS end to end encryption tools remain perfectly legal and secure while proprietary end to end encryption tools would have a back door. This is not unlike the FinCEN guidance in the United States https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html where proprietary development funding models for crypto currency (using the emission to fund development) will likely lead to a legal requirement for MSB registration while FLOSS development funding models can retain their decentralized virtual currency designation and avoid the MSB registration requirement. In Canada there was a proposed law that did not pass that required providers of email servers to retain records for law enforcement with an exception for those who ran their own mail server from their own homes.. A more relevant question to ask would have been: Given that you plan to use a portion of the emission over the next 4 years to fund your company, have you registered as an MSB with FinCEN or have you obtained guidance from FinCEN that MSB registration is not required in your case?

The pattern here is starting to become apparent. Click I agree on some company's terms for the use of proprietary software and become a slave, click I do not agree and use FLOSS tools instead and remain free.

Thanks ArticMine.

Yes I am aware that the proposed legislation in the UK (also afaik similar legislation proposed in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia) only applies to service providers who offer encrypted services, not to open source code which users independently obtain, compile, and run on their own initiative. I was vaguely aware of this pending legislation and then I became more focused on it during my private discussions last month with the GadgetCoin team who have a P2P streaming technology named Streemo. The governments are not stupid to try to ban activity they can't possibly enforce (thus making the government look impotent), i.e. the government can't monitor/enforce against what each private citizen does in their home.

But I argue effectively the direction is to ban end-to-end encryption in general that does not provide a back door to national security agencies. The government can regulate the ISPs (internet service providers) and ban end-to-end encryption protocols that do not include a decryption key for national security agencies. I have also explained that using home computers as servers over asymmetric upload bandwidth home ISPs is a Communist economic plan (as I warned Bittorrent back in 2008 and offered them an economic solution for their tit-for-tat algorithm but they ignored me). And that protocols which allow illegal activities from unregulated home servers will be banned by ISPs and hosting providers. If you know of any technology to hide a protocol's patterns such that ISPs can't identify it, please enlighten me. There is some discussion of "Censorship resistance" in section 2.4 of Synereo's white paper, but that still seems to be inadequate.

Simply put, it is impossible to fight the government when there are choke points in the system which the government can effectively regulate. This is just common sense.

I added the following to that question for Zooko:

Edit: please be aware of a rebuttal by ArticMine (afaik is a Monero/Cryptonote developer) to my question about a possible ban on end-to-end encryption, also note the desire for an answer concerning registration with FinCEN for your plans to fund your corporation or foundation with an 11% royalty on currency emission (creation). Note I also mentioned that FinCEN issue in the "Fundamental challenges?" thread at the zcash forum. I have suggested you consider doing an ICO instead, and I think it would be wildly successful. IANAL so please do consult your own counsel, yet I will will make you aware of a thread of discussion I launched about whether crypto currencies are illegal unregistered investment securities under the Supreme Court "Howey test" in the USA. It seems likely that ICOs are illegal if openly offered to unsophisticated USA investors unless the ICO is registered with the SEC. The "Howey test" seems to be misconstrued by most interpretations and the Supreme Court explicitly stated that no obfuscation of the economic facts would diminish the efficacy of the intent of the securities law protection. Also there is some discussion about the interpretation of the FinCEN guidance which is an orthogonal issue to SEC regulations. The EU may have other regulations as well.

This summarize the relevant laws and government measures at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#Australia

What I hear from the Gadgetcoin developers and UK based legal experts is that the UK government will create a law so companies such as Apple, Google or any service providers will no longer be able to incorporate encryption that even they cannot decipher. (The above Telegraph article summarizes that). It means all software service providers, cloud business, SasS providers will have to introduce a master key within their online services. This new proposed law has a huge implications on all online services and even on Bitcoin: if a business run a centralised server then the master key will be mandatory. IMHO even Bitcoin miners will be subject of the new law. I predict the Bitcoin foundation and core developers modify the protocol to comply with the new laws. They will have no choice but to comply.
Witnessing the hysteria about terrorism in Europe and US (50% of the US presidential debates is all about terrorism and security) this law will be adopted by all developed and third world counties.

Any business plans which aim monetize secure, encrypted communication or anonymity is a fantasy. Due to the incoming laws such secure, encrypted communication that hides the content from law enforcement won't be tolerated by the government.

[TPTB_need_war]

Any business plans which aim monetize secure, encrypted communication or anonymity is a fantasy. Due to the incoming laws such secure, encrypted communication that hides the content from law enforcement won't be tolerated by the government.

This has been in the plans for a while now as the following handshake between Blockchain.info/com's CEO and David Cameron exempifies:

This is one of the reasons I am suggesting to Zcash that they focus their plans on corporations who will need privacy on public block chains and who must comply with a viewkey or global back door for national security agencies (the other main reason is because corporations have the incentive and means to actually understand the difference between for example Dash or Cryptonote/Monero and Zcash's zk-snarks, and they have an incentive to adopt privacy on public block chains, whereas outside of our small libertarian echo chamber, the mainstream demographics of individuals do not care). That way Zcash will have legal uses and a significant target market that has money to spend on funding its further development (the Linux open source model where corporations fund a mutual need).

This will also enable the technology to be available for individual uses. And we can then see how the politics plays out over time. Probably society will go through a rough phase 2017 - 2020 at least but eventually individual rights will win and so the long-term focus has to be differentiated between a shorter-term realistic model for profit (and I argue that is targeting corporate uses of privacy on the public block chain). As well individuals may find uses for zk-snarks for smart contracts in the future for their own privacy inspite of some need to give government a decryption key.

I am also investigating opportunities in (decentralized?) social networking as way to foster the DIY culture and self-publishing, as it seems the long fight will be political-economic. And this is the most likely direction for me and my block chain technology. I am also possibly interested in working on Zcash and throwing my endorsement to it, if they go the ICO route (and thus I can be paid consumerately to my opportunity cost) and if I agree with their marketing strategy and focus. I am trying now to steer them or suggest to them, and see where the synergies might be. I haven't spoken privately yet with anyone at Zcash and they may not at all be interested in my help given the discord I have with Maxwell and others they may value. Which ever way the ball bounces is fine by me. My skills will carry me forward.

P.S. Starting several days ago, I have been taking high dose Curcumim extract (> 10 grams per day) mixed with black pepper+coconut milk/oil for maximum absorption/efficacy and I think it is working! My chronic health issue (probably bile duct obstruction related, probably involving the gall bladder and/or pancreas, maybe even the colon) seems to be diminishing, but I don't want to claim this for sure until a month has transpired. I may still relapse. As you all may know, my chronic health ailment has been limiting my effective coding capability for the past 3 years (and even somewhat before that starting from around 2006 or for sure 2010 when one of my symptoms peripheral neuropathy started).

Edit: I was explaining this post to my gf because she asked who are the guys in the above photo. I explained all of that above in terms she could understand, but I also made the point that the masses are blithely unfocused on the implications of ubiquitous government surveillance because they are not impacted by it now and they are focused on what they want and need. Thus I think a focus on DIY culture and decentralized social networking might be the most effective means for the long-term political-economic fight ahead because the end game is determined by the awareness of the people about what they are prevented from doing by top-down centralized structures. Once people taste freedom, they don't give up those freedoms that they use and need on a daily basis. Then they can demand encryption and anonymity, because they will see features they need and want that require it. We have to think wisely in terms of not putting the cart before the horse in our marketing strategies.

...

Armstrong talking at an independent Tedx event:

http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Vigilante-of-Democracy-Martin-A;search%3Ax%20martin%20ar

The main thrust of this talk is invasive & corrupt government mixed in with some economic and political history.

Very difficult to understand what Martin Armstrong is saying for the first minute or so, then the audio improves somewhat.

I liked his point about the reason the 99% have no networth because their savings was invested in Social Security (via the FICA tax) and not invested in the DJIA when it was 1000 (now ~16,000).

He explains the plan that elite have been implementing
[...]

[TPTB_need_war]

Now that I have basically digested the Synereo white paper (not all the math formalisms are understood in minute detail which will require some more time for study, but I get the overall concept), I want to write down some of my thoughts about Synereo's design and in the context of how I am thinking about priorities for any major paradigmatic shift in social networks.

1. Per the post upthread where I elaborated, I do not think the attention model of a social network can be tied to Synereo's crypto currency AMPs, nor should it, nor will that be compatible with allowing each user to choose their own attention model. There may be a use for crypto currency in social networking but it is not to hard code an attention model for what is supposed to be an individual user choice paradigm for a social network. I suppose instead Synereo could offer their attention model as one of the variants users can choose, but I think it will be a failure for the reasons I stated upthread. I think we will need free market competition between attention models in order to find out what works well and what doesn't. Also I think this means we can't assume nodes obey some global process calculus.

2. Users will not run a social network hosted from their own decentralized home computers ephemerally connected by asymmetric bandwidth ISPs as is the initial planned focus on Synereo. Fugetaboutit. They will signup quickly (and/or download the mobile app) just like Facebook or any other mainstream social network. Thus they will have their data and nodes hosted and thus just fugetaboutit this nonsense about censorship resistance in the white paper, except perhaps in terms of encrypted sharing (but later the government will demand a global decryption key as they have for streaming encrypted voice and video communications in the USA, Uk and rest of the 5 Eyes countries). See my prior post upthread for where I think this political-economic battle over private rights is headed.

3. The advantages that matter most to users which can only be gained from a decentralized structure (i.e. not the way existing social networks are structured) are the ability to control their own data and to choose their GUIs, apps, configuations, and even attention models. In other words, each user should be able to independently choose their own social network design, store the user's data independently of other users' data, and these user nodes should interact to exchange data, which each user node filters and stores locally the relevant bits to that user. Ideally, the entire platform should be programmable on top of some maximally generalized decentralized protocol layer.

4. The details about how to implement a maximally generalized decentralized protocol layer and define the potential motivation (economics) for all participants (users, service providers, cloud storage providers, developers) such that there isn't chaos and lack of focus so as to insure the end product converges to easy-to-use and compelling for all participants, seems to be at least on first contemplation mindbogglingly complex to distill, because there are competing/conflicting priorities in such a design. For example, a streaming music download provider must invest development resources to develop all the stop/start/pause/forward/rewind interactive functionality between the server and the client player, but then needs to somehow monetize both the bandwidth costs and the development investment, as well as attain an ROI that compensates for opportunity cost (not just a return of investment). Typically the streaming provider (e.g. SoundCloud, Spotify, etc.) would want to create a walled garden around the musicians who are uploading, the app developers who are calling their API, and the fans who are listening (e.g. through the provider's player and even embedded into provider's mobile app), so that it can extract some revenues on this ecosystem such as through a combination of advertising and/or music sales. One might propose microtransaction payments to the service provider for each song played, but this requires standardized APIs for all integration with the rest of the social network so that service providers become fungible (i.e. substitutable with each other) and in which case the service providers are reduced to competing on costs and thus can't attain a ROI to compensate opportunity costs for investing in innovation. Even if we say that users can use different service providers with their proprietary players (all fungibility embeddable in the social network Timeline), this doesn't resolve the issue of needing a standardized API for these providers to communicate fungible attributes (between all service providers) that users need in order to make an attention model more fine grained, e.g. for the music the genre and sub-genre of each track played/shared.

Thus it seems that any decentralized protocol will need to be too general and that interoption standards will emerge initially adhoc and then probably go through standardization via organizations such as the W3C.org. Similar to the browser wars of yore, we would repeat another wild west of adhoc experimentation and competing corporate offerings with the community settling eventually on the defacto standards that work best for all.

In other words, we would be creating a new decentralized protocol for the internet which would foster competition and participation instead of the walled gardens of Facebook, Twitter, Apple, etc...

Sounds exciting! Where do I sign up to create this?

Note I was listed as a contributor on the W3C standard for CSS2.1. I contributed to the either the multi-column or table specification (I contributed on both but I was only recognized on one afaik), given my past history at the dawn of deskstop publishing in the 1980s.

[altcoinUK]

the other main reason is because corporations have the incentive and means to actually understand the difference between for example Dash or Cryptonote/Monero and Zcash's zk-snarks, and they have an incentive to adopt privacy on public block chains, whereas outside of our small libertarian echo chamber, the mainstream demographics of individuals do not care

I explained all of that above in terms she could understand, but I also made the point that the masses are blithely unfocused on the implications of ubiquitous government surveillance because they are not impacted by it now and they are focused on what they want and need. Thus I think a focus on DIY culture and decentralized social networking might be the most effective means for the long-term political-economic fight ahead

I can understand both points made in the first quoted paragraph, I agree businesses have the incentive to use decentralized systems which could yield savings and solves many issues of enterprise computing (these are scalability and high availability as I have heard it from the Gadgetnet developers). I also agree the mainstream demographics of individuals couldn't care less about such technology. I can understand from your explanation that average Facebook and other social network users - your target audience - will be the very last group of users who will be interested in decentralised technology. They are perfectly happy with any centralized client software.

Thought I am not sure if the mass will be ever focused on the implications government surveillance later if such users don't care now (which is related with the second quoted paragraph). It seems to me the majority of users aren't interested in libertarian concepts and have been happily giving up freedom to authorities. This especially true in the case of your main target audience, the Asian societies. Maybe I misunderstand your business plan, but it seems to me your business plan is based on the assumption, that the technologically dumb 90% of users (who couldn't care less about the back in system) later will need a decentralized system. If we take out the end-to-end encryption as due to incoming government regulations it is not feasible, then from end user viewpoint decentralized systems do not provide more to end users than centralized systems do, in fact it is more difficult to use a decentralized system. But you could be right, I know you think through these issues and see many more aspects of the problem then I unable to see and understand.

[TPTB_need_war]

AltcoinUK please don't try to interpret my recent post in the context of any of innumerable marketing ideas I've floated for my vapor coin in the past. My prior reply to you was directed to a marketing strategy for Zcash and had nothing to do with my vapor coin other than I mentioned I am researching decentralized social networks (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with prior marketing ideas I have floated publicly or privately).

Btw, if you follow the link in my prior reply to you, you will find a post where I summarized the things my 26 year old Asian gf (we live in Mindanao) doesn't like about Facebook, and sure sounds like she would prefer a decentralized social network with freedom to customize if she wouldn't lose the things she likes about Facebook (mainly all her contacts and slick UI/content). She is often installing new apps from Google Playstore to customize her photos and compose them into silly videos and others of her interests. So being able to customize her social network will fit right in with what her generation wants.

[TPTB_need_war]

I will go silent and back to full steam ahead coding. I have made a decision on a direction and am no longer confused nor doubting my plan.

Ethereum won't get any where near the adoption and network effects of Bitcoin any time soon. Will take years, e.g. no localbitcoins.com for Ethereum.

Meanwhile yours truly will usurp all of this shit and deliver a coin with > 1 million users before the end of 2016 (or at least the coin will be launched in 2016 and million(s) users will be attained soon thereafter). But I won't be telling you about it here on Bitcointalk.org. You'll have to find it or hear about it (which of course you eventually will if I succeed in my plans, but you will need to digg if you want to get in earlier).


See below for why I think perhaps Blockstream's Segregated Witness appears to be Trojan Horse designed to fork Bitcoin to support Sidechains and allow Blockstream to take control:

Segregated Witness is overviewed here:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/segregated-witness-part-how-a-clever-hack-could-significantly-increase-bitcoin-s-potential-1450553618

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/segregated-witness-part-why-you-should-care-about-a-nitty-gritty-technical-trick-1450827675

Old nodes have no way to know if they are including a fraudulent transaction in their blocks, thus everyone will upgrade to new node else they can be attacked with fraudulent transactions which cause their block rewards to be ignored by the new nodes. Thus Segregated Witness is effectively a hard fork.

Thus this does nothing to solve the Tragedy of the Commons which is driving PoW mining towards (an oligarchy) centralization in order to scale transaction volume. It is a gimick used to increase the block chain by some factor, while sneaking in the ability for Blockstream to add new scripting versions so they can later soft fork (version) the block chain to support Sidechains. Clever but not clever enough to hide from Sherlock Holmes (me)!

Upthread I have rough sketched a design for a solution that conceptually scales and maintains decentralized, permissionless control over mining.

Apparently you don't understand that you are talking to someone who is much more astute than you and more so than most of the guys on this forum.

blah blah blah

You have a reading comprehension handicap. Try again:

while sneaking in the ability for Blockstream to add new scripting versions so they can later soft fork (version) the block chain to support Sidechains

A third advantage of Wuille's Segregated Witness proposal has Bitcoin programmers just as excited as the first two – if not more-so: script versions.

As explained in the previous article, Segregated Witnesses carry scriptSigs that unlock bitcoin. But they carry something else, too: version bytes. These version bytes preface scriptSigs in Segregated Witnesses, indicating what kind of scriptSig it is. If a node reading the version byte recognizes the type, it can tell what requirements must be met to unlock bitcoin in the scriptSig. If a node reading the version byte does not recognize the type, it interprets the scriptSig as an “Anyone can spend.”

This opens up all sorts of new ways to lock bitcoin up in transactions. In fact, it can be used to lock bitcoin up in any way developers come up with. As such, it's impossible to explain how this will be used in the future, since much of this still needs to be invented. But initial ideas include Schnorr signatures, which are much faster to verify than signatures currently in use, and more complicated types of multisig transactions; perhaps even Ethereum-like scripts.

And importantly: Like Segregated Witness itself, these types of upgrades will not break Bitcoin's existing consensus rules. Rather than every single Bitcoin node, only a majority of miners needs to adapt, making them much easier to deploy.

However good Evan is I tend to think all the suspect looking stuff will come back to haunt Dash if it ever tries to go mainstream

I wouldn't worry about it ever trying. The game is mine the speculators with images of soda machines decorated with Photoshopped Dash logos and other polymath achievements.

Edit: note Evan has other programmers working with him, so I don't know if we can attribute all of Dash's development to Evan.

This ad has been brought to you by TPTB and his vapor project.

The ad has been brought to you by a Vanillacoin (the plagiarist, anonymous developer "JohnConner" coin) shill.

What am I advertising? There is nothing for speculators to buy from me.

Terminology is all over the place (thanks to eduffield), afaict the most general term is ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlay_network

There's nothing wrong with the terminology, it's perfectly fine.

Except that it is neato technobabble that doesn't speak to the fundamental design flaws and Sybil attacked (given the insiders own most of the coins) masternode economics in Dash-o-scam.

Except that it is neato technobabble that doesn't speak to the fundamental design flaws and Sybil attacked (given the insiders own most of the coins) masternode economics in Dash-o-scam.

You seem to think you know a lot about technical design concepts but be advised that you come across as a kind of immature 12 year old that developed an obsession for university math but didn't know what to do with it.

It you want to be taken seriously as a designer than I suggest you start behaving like one instead of an overgrown kid collector of bubblegum cards.

If you want to compare design and meager career accomplishments of myself to Evan, my LinkedIn is public. (photo was taken January 2015 at age 49.5)

As for your opinion of my skills, I blithely don't care and I recommend to myself a proactive stance of not giving a rat's ass of caring about your opinion of me. Because your opinion is irrelevant to the tasks and goals in front of me. I only have to care about my health and my production.

Should I bother to state that you come across as a person who has an attachment to a scam that has piss poor design fundamentals, and thus you lack discernment. So why should I care what you discern about me. Clearly your appraisals are consistently incorrect.

Note I am not even saying that all the programmers of Dash are incapable. I am saying it is all allegedly based around a scam, so if the allegations are true (and some convincing evidence has been presented) then it is impossible for them to make the design such that it would destroy the scam aspects such as we can presume the insiders continue to collect ROI from running most of the masternodes since they stole most of the coins in the instamine they tried to hide from the public or blame on a programming error and subsequent elimination of the future emission that was originally promised (so the insiders wouldn't be diluted and control the float buying from themselves on the exchanges to artificially inflate the price and market cap fooling speculators into putting their money into Dash which the insiders take out of Dash).

If that was even a model that could scale and help the world, I might even look the other way regarding the alleged insider manipulations. The issue for me is Dash-o-scam hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of ever attaining any real usership, so that for me is a failure for our goals for crypto currency. I am particularly perturbed by the audacity of Evan to prepromote Evolution as some phenomenal technological breakthrough when he can't change the underlying masternode scam. And he doesn't share any of his research in public for peer review (as I do!) so he can't possibly get his design correct without our peer review. I pointed out a high school error in his math in the InstantX white paper.

You Dash shills (insiders) will continue to make nonsense rebuttals and I don't have time for it. Go ahead, but your days are numbered.

He built something and you didn't. So forgive me if I consider him more of an authority on what works than you.

Yep he built an instamine scam with presumably ongoing scam via controlling most of the coin supply, masternodes, and float.

Yep he is more of an authority than me on scams that work.

I was writing about design and marketing skills for scaling adoption, which clearly my resume is INFINITELY (any number divided by 0) superior to Evan's (the dude has absolutely 0 experience in scaling internet s/w to the masses). My CoolPage s/w (one man company!) scaled to 335,000 websites created as verified by altavista. And over 1+ million downloads (probably much higher in the realm of 5 million but I never tried to estimate it) when the internet population was 1/10 of its current size.

[altcoinUK]

AltcoinUK please don't try to interpret my recent post in the context of any of innumerable marketing ideas I've floated for my vapor coin in the past. My prior reply to you was directed to a marketing strategy for Zcash and had nothing to do with my vapor coin other than I mentioned I am researching decentralized social networks (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with prior marketing ideas I have floated publicly or privately).

Btw, if you follow the link in my prior reply to you, you will find a post where I summarized the things my 26 year old Asian gf (we live in Mindanao) doesn't like about Facebook, and sure sounds like she would prefer a decentralized social network with freedom to customize if she wouldn't lose the things she likes about Facebook (mainly all her contacts and slick UI/content). She is often installing new apps from Google Playstore to customize her photos and compose them into silly videos and others of her interests. So being able to customize her social network will fit right in with what her generation wants.

OK. I need to read again the links and your posts. No offence was intended, but you are posting very advanced ideas and opinions so it is very possible I completely misunderstand or can't even comprehend your posts.
Let me know please if you find out anything interesting!

[TPTB_need_war]

No offence was intended

I wasn't at all offended. It is impossible to keep up with what I am doing, unless you are me.

Let me know please if you find out anything interesting!

I certainly have. And I am very serious.

Slogan:  "your world",  "the world that reflects myself", "shaping my world", or "change your world".

Crypto currency is too small of a field all by itself. We have to bypass mountains and reshape this world.

[TPTB_need_war]

Apple’s ITMS (iTunes Music Store) is perhaps the most interesting example. People are not paying for music on ITMS because we have decided that fee-per-track is the model we prefer, but because there is no market in which commercial alternatives can be explored. Everything from Napster to online radio has been crippled or killed by fiat; small payments survive in the absence of a market for other legal options. What’s interesting about ITMS, though, it that it contains other content that illustrates the dilemma of the journalists most sharply: podcasts. Apple has the machinery in place to charge for podcasts. Why don’t they?

Because they can’t afford to. Were they to start charging, their users would start looking around for other sources, as podcasts are offered free elsewhere. Losing user attention would be anathema to a company that wants as tight a relationship between ITMS and the iPod as it can get; the potential revenues are not worth the erosion of audience.

Without the RIAA et al, Apple is unable to corner the market on podcasts, and thus unable to charge. Unless Apple could get the world’s unruly podcasters to behave as a cartel, and convince all new entrants to forgo the resulting vacuum of attention, podcasts will continue to circulate without individual payments. With every single tool in place to have a functioning small payment sytem, even Apple can’t defy the users if there is any way for us to express our preferences.

Which brings us to us.

Because small payment systems are always discussed in conversations by and for publishers, readers are assigned no independent role. In every micropayments fantasy, there is a sentence or section asserting that what the publishers want will be just fine with us, and, critically, that we will be possessed of no desires of our own that would interfere with that fantasy.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the media business is being turned upside down by our new freedoms and our new roles. We’re not just readers anymore, or listeners or viewers. We’re not customers and we’re certainly not consumers. We’re users. We don’t consume content, we use it, and mostly what we use it for is to support our conversations with one another, because we’re media outlets now too. When I am talking about some event that just happened, whether it’s an earthquake or a basketball game, whether the conversation is in email or Facebook or Twitter, I want to link to what I’m talking about, and I want my friends to be able to read it easily, and to share it with their friends.

This is superdistribution — content moving from friend to friend through the social network, far from the original source of the story. Superdistribution, despite its unweildy name, matters to users. It matters a lot. It matters so much, in fact, that we will routinely prefer a shareable amateur source to a professional source that requires us to keep the content a secret on pain of lawsuit. (Wikipedia’s historical advantage over Britannica in one sentence.)

Nickel-and-dimeing us for access to content made less useful by those very restrictions simply isn’t appealing. Newspapers can’t entice us into small payment systems, because we care too much about our conversation with one another, and they can’t force us into such systems, because Off the Bus and Pro Publica and Gawker and Global Voices and Ohmynews and Spot.us and Smoking Gun all understand that not only is a news cartel unworkable, but that if one existed, their competitive advantage would be in attacking it rather than defending it.

The threat from micropayments isn’t that they will come to pass. The threat is that talking about them will waste our time, and now is not the time to be wasting time. The internet really is a revolution for the media ecology, and the changes it is forcing on existing models are large.

The above argument against micropayments is not true in every scenario (which is a generalized point I believe smooth also made upthread or in a PM).

For example, there is a crisis in music streaming because 95% of users don't want to spend money on streaming music and (see the following quotes) the payouts to musicians from advertising are at best $0.01 per play and at worst less than 1/1000 of a penny:

Paying users to view ads is not an economic model (ditto paying users to solve CAPTCHAs such as for crypto coin faucets). If it was, many sites would be doing it successfully and teenagers and third world would be employed doing it.

While Chinese consumers are increasingly listening to music on licensed services, the most popular services are free and supported by advertising, generating very little revenue for record companies.

As shown by Information is Beautiful’s updated-for-2015 visualization of the subject, signed artists make .0019 cents per stream on Pandora and .0011 cents per Spotify stream. The worst payout of all for musicians, however, comes from Youtube, which pays out about .0003 per play. An artist signed to a record label would thus have to have their Youtube video played 4,200,000 times in order to earn the monthly U.S. minimum wage of $1,260.

Pharrell’s ‘Happy’ Streams 43 Million Times, Makes Less Than $3,000

I believe users will happily pay a few pennies (cents) for unlimited streaming plays for each song they like. I believe they will pay even more to download the song as a file which they can do what they want with.

I note even my impoverished filipina gf was willing to spend 2 pesos (about 5 cents) per song for songs she really liked when the local internet cafe refused to let her insert her microSD memory card in the netcafe's computer to download music directly from youtube-mp3.org.

A subscription model wouldn't work, unless the split of all subscription revenues were subdivided according to aggregate plays, but then that requires songs to be aggregated by a provider who is likely to create unfair policies (i.e. transferring more subscription revenue to signed artists for labels that provide exclusivity so as to further concentrate its captured market) as the provider's market share grows (because they have a captured market a.k.a. walled garden).

In short, only microtransactions would have the crucial End-to-End principle for streaming and downloading music.

They key insight I am making is a very profound one. It concerns the proper design of decentralized social networking. There can't be orthogonality of services without microtransactions, because otherwise services (e.g. streaming storage) have to bound together with other capabilities (e.g. streaming players) which then creates captured markets and the resultant effects (which was my criticism of the future of Ello):

Economics and game theory seems to be one of my forte or at least interests/hobbies, so let's take a tangent and start by analyzing economically Ello's business model:

"Say you’re a musician or a band, and you want to control multiple accounts from a single login," Budnitz said. "We can charge $2 for that. It’s not for everyone.”

Budnitz says he has seen thousands of emails from users suggesting features for which they would be willing to pay, and Budnitz says plenty are already in the works.

Ello founder Paul Budnitzpaulbudnitz.com

"Let’s say that for a few bucks, you can buy an emoji pack designed by a popular street artist," Budnitz says. "Because of how we've built Ello, it naturally lends itself perfectly to that."

Other hotly suggested features include the ability to browse Ello with inverted colors, turning the screen black and overlaying it with white text. Interestingly enough, the feature saw over 500 requests, mainly from Ello users in Europe and Japan.

And while others have debated how feasible Ello's ad-free business model will work out

[...]

"An advertising-based social network is by its nature, it actually has to do things, because all those things are the things that make it money," Budnitz says. "If we started doing that, everyone would say 'f--- this' and leave — excuse my language."

At the end of the day, Budnitz says keeping Ello sustainable will be a relatively simple feat, given that Ello's business model is inherently different from Facebook's, and that means the costs are different, too.

"There are seven of us running Ello now, with some extra programmers helping us out," said Budnitz. "It is not very hard to run at this scale, and Ello’s getting pretty big. And data is really cheap! I think if you don’t have to have an office building full of people figuring out how to manipulate people into giving you more data, it’s really not that hard to run a network with a ton of people on it."

The problem is that due to centralized control, Ello is putting itself in a position where it has to compete against others who might want certain features which ameloriate other features which Ello has a vested revenue interest. It is simply impossible for a centralized, top-down controller to remain impartial. Some users may want some feature which provides some necessarily benefit to those users but in some other way actually bypasses the need to buy a different feature from Ello. These users presumably won't be free to program a plug-in that destroys Ello's revenue stream, just as no one is allowed to program a App plugin for Facebook which displays advertising.

Ello has just shifted the enslavement problem from ads to paid features.

And their claim of anonymity and defense against national security gag orders is BULLSHIT. They can't guarantee those attributes being a centralized entity. Furgetaboutit.

So right off at the start, we see Ello's principle founder is not thinking clearly or is disingenuous.

Not to mention that a site which charges for features can't scale as well as one that gives everything users want away for free. Nevertheless Facebook and SoundCloud are also restricting and harming some (but is it significant enough?) users as well, so maybe there is a better balance. Is it Synereo's decentralized design? I will continue the analysis.

I can say with near certainty that unless you offer some compelling feature where all their friends will want to join, users here in the Philippines will not be interested in leaving Facebook where all their friends already are.


Understand from the upthread guessimates, that Tsu's and GetGems' business model is fundamentally flawed (probably also in other ways):

[...]

Just a small glimpse into marketing strategies I am formulating.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am enjoying life again. No words can express what it feels like to not be sick everday for the past several years.

Hope this sustains. High dose curcumin extract was the ticket out of hell (so far). I am about a week into this improvement.

Well Life and Intelligence and Human societies run contrary to thermodynamics...

...But begetting information is not easy. Our universe struggles to do so. Our ability to beget information, and to produce the items, infrastructures, and institutions we associate with prosperity, requires us to battle the steady march toward disorder that characterizes our universe and which troubled Boltzmann. To battle disorder and allow information to grow, our universe has a few tricks up its sleeve. These tricks involve out-of-equilibrium systems, the accumulation of information in solids, and the ability of matter to compute. Together these three mechanisms contribute to the growth of information in small islands or pockets where information can grow and hide, like the pocket we call our planet.

So it is the accumulation of information and of our ability to process information that define an arrow of growth encompassing the physical, the biological, the social, and the economic, and which extends from the origin of the universe to our modern economy. It is the growth of information that unifies the emergence of life with the growth of economies, and the emergence of complexity with the origins of wealth...

This is the essence of the debate I was having with professor JorgeStolfi (which I had to put on temporary hold bcz I am so busy on my software project, I had PM'ed him saying I was sleepless, incoherent, ill, and regretted opening the debate when I wasn't capable).

The key is to understand that when a human creates order, he destroys some Coasian barrier to knowledge and via the social network increases the degrees-of-freedom in society thus leading to higher entropy.

I alluded to these processes in the ~2010/11 essay I wrote which is linked in the OP of this thread, and also the Information is Alive! essay I wrote in 2012.

This is why I am now hyper focused on social networking and crypto currency, no longer anonymity. Anonymity fosters barriers thus potentially decreasing entropy.

[mathgal23]

I am enjoying life again. No words can express what it feels like to not be sick everday for the past several years.

Hope this sustains. High dose curcumin extract was the ticket out of hell (so far). I am about a week into this improvement.

That is great! It is much easier to be productive when you are feeling well. How is the coding for neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes going? Any estimation on when it will be ready for alpha testing?

[arielbit]

I am enjoying life again. No words can express what it feels like to not be sick everday for the past several years.

Hope this sustains. High dose curcumin extract was the ticket out of hell (so far). I am about a week into this improvement.

i posted this here early January (ginger ale recipe) ... the sugar is not for you, it is for fermenting yeast there

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13443490#msg13443490

you can use turmeric for your ale or juice (if diluted, you can squeeze some kalamansi there too)... you can try galangal ale too

i've experimented and tasted turmeric ales and ginger ales mixed them around etc..this is my softdrinks, and i just bought yesterday 15 kilos of muscovado sugar for 1050 pesos or 22.34 dollars ... approx 50% cheaper than grocery price  

there are 3 types of turmeric that i see being sold in our province, might be available there too. the yellow color and orange color are not very far from taste but the bluish color (i think it is called black turmeric) is the most bitter but when you turn it into an ale, specially mixed, the taste becomes a lot more bearable..i think black turmeric has the highest curcumin content among the three.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am enjoying life again. No words can express what it feels like to not be sick everday for the past several years.

Hope this sustains. High dose curcumin extract was the ticket out of hell (so far). I am about a week into this improvement.

That is great! It is much easier to be productive when you are feeling well. How is the coding for neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes going? Any estimation on when it will be ready for alpha testing?

It is very difficult to be productive when you can't enjoy anything. I am not the type of person to give up, so I fought through it but I know I was only a shell of my former self. I wouldn't wish my illness on anyone, but in hindsight maybe if I had attained a diagnosis in the West I would have been cured long ago (or maybe they would have chopped me open, medicated me, and I would be worse than I am now with self-treatment with herbs for what appears to be some sort bile obstruction).

Yeah I still feel great today. Having a great day and all my facilities are normal. Thank you.

I am radically changing the direction I am going and this is adding a lot more work. So I am going to refuse to give any estimates and just focus on working.

[TPTB_need_war]

Since the topic of this thread was originally the name of the coin I was working on, I will toot my own horn one more time, because I am grinning from ear-to-ear about the new domain name I just registered.  

It is just like when I purchased CoolPage.com for $500 in 2000, I knew it was perfect. Ditto the name I registered today.

As well the coin's name was finalized months ago and was not any of the names mentioned in this thread.

Umm, yes two names, one coin. You'll understand later.

See ya forum. I'll be back...

[illodin]

Following this thread and the name speculation, I never quite understood why the hurry to lock in the name, the development can go on without knowing the final name. If it takes 6 months of coding, you could come up with the best name after 5 months and 3 weeks and it still wouldn't be too late.

[TPTB_need_war]

Following this thread and the name speculation, I never quite understood why the hurry to lock in the name, the development can go on without knowing the final name. If it takes 6 months of coding, you could come up with the best name after 5 months and 3 weeks and it still wouldn't be too late.

Well I perform better when I can visualize the name as I develop I find features that match the marketing strategy of the name.

For example, I was watching my gf play with the DubSmash app on her Android mobile phone and I thought well now imagine that app in the social sharing context. The app allows one to sync their mouth to a singer's voice to make a video. Now imagine remote individuals can all be in the same video produced, etc.. I am an idea machine, they pour out of me at several per day.