|
calkob
|
 |
January 24, 2016, 04:57:51 PM |
|
technology is important long term, good marketing can make you a quick buck..... if you have both then its to the moon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to NIST and ECRYPT II, the cryptographic algorithms used in
Bitcoin are expected to be strong until at least 2030. (After that, it
will not be too difficult to transition to different algorithms.)
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XMRpromotions
|
|
January 24, 2016, 06:43:57 PM |
|
I think VPNcoin already has that feature (I have not used it) and is much better known in a very important market (China). I agree that technology is most important. That is why I support the project with the best CryptoNote implementation and ongoing development to improve it further. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 24, 2016, 09:30:02 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. |
|
|
|
|
Halmater
|
|
January 24, 2016, 09:38:17 PM |
|
technology is important long term, good marketing can make you a quick buck..... if you have both then its to the moon
Both technology and marketing are important. But continuous development of the coin is most important. |
|
|
|
|
|
newb4now
|
|
January 24, 2016, 10:06:34 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.
What possible basis could do you have for such an accusation and how does the allegation relate to the topic of technology vs marketing? |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 24, 2016, 10:32:05 PM
Last edit: January 24, 2016, 11:25:57 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.
He is talking about the specific link he quoted, that isn't working anymore. It is amazing what they have done in the past few days since I made my post. They have gone back and restructured the content in the archives before the one I linked to, so as to remove the section where I had posted my thread about the economic issue. This has occurred since I made my post. This is no accident. Also on the later dates they have removed the content and are instead pretending they were receiving an HTTP 302 error at that time. I should probably kiss my life goodbye. Nope. He is saying the entire bittorrent archive was removed due to some kind of collusion between people reading his posts because he is a world changing, brilliant cryptographer.  Now I know who is likely paying you to troll me. You are likely the mole in this forum. Your resume is a paid security consultant with some weak education credentials. You are here to make sure the readers are fooled. I see you took it up a notch yet again Shelby the third. Someone really needs to crowdfund some serious psychiatric help for you and I dont mean the outpatient kind.
Typical methods of a disinformation agent. The record of your obnoxious trolling is upthread for everyone to read. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 25, 2016, 12:07:55 AM |
|
However, TPTB shouldn't fear me, because I am not going to do anything illegal.
The government doesn't see this way. They will take you out in the Philippines within a heartbeat if you are a really danger to TPTB. I mean that by not promulgating any illegal activity, then I can't be at odds with TPTB's control. For example, I realize now that creating any decentralized file storage technology which can't allow for protecting against illegal content is non-viable so I won't be developing that direction. They should also realize their their Bittorrent gambit is out of my influence any way, and besides I explained it has technical weaknesses which will limit Bitttorrent's applicability. 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!
Why the taxation is necessary and why are you talking about this? Don't ISPs charge for the service and therefore we pay for the bandwidth already? My understanding is that the taxation is considered because certain service providers like Netflix generate extra profit on the backbone of the internet infrastructure which is operated by ISPs, and those ISPs don't get a share from Netflix's profit. Sorry, I am sure you are correct, and I just try to get my head around of what you are talking about. My point to the Bittorrent developers was if we maximize the upload bandwidth we can take from any particular user, we steal from ISPs who don't throttle it in order to provide downloads to other users whose ISPs have provided less upload bandwidth. Upload bandwidth for an ISP is nearly always much less than download bandwidth. Thus no (or most) users will ever be in balance, and they will have more download capacity available than they have upload bandwidth. So the upload bandwidth is taken systemically from those who have more of it. But ISPs are not charging us based on a model of upload bandwidth. They are maximizing our download bandwidth and that is what they compute when they factor their costs. They don't expect us to use so much upload bandwidth because of the client-server architecture of HTTP (which is the most popular use of the internet). There is physics involved as to why client-server is more efficient in terms of (infrastructure) costs. Go compare the cost of a fully symmetric DSL line to an asymmetric one. Netflix is adding another wrinkle (not the client level P2P one afaik) but it is stealing bandwidth at the trunk lines infrastructure layer. But the analogous arguments can be (and are being) made that ISPs shouldn't be allowed to throttle or block client level protocols as well. This will be politically popular, yet we dig our own grave. Taxation is necessary to charge the total cost of bandwidth to the collective so no ISP or trunk level provider is at a disadvantage relative to each other. So the government can conpensate those who are a natural disadvantage. Of course once the government taxes, then of course the internet will be monopolized by an oligarchy. These issues are conceptually related to the centralization of a block chain due to the CAP theorem which I have been exploring my thread on that topic in the Altcoin Discussion forum. I will need to research more the Netflix issue and think about what might be a solution. We get back to you on that aspect. P2P can not be a bandwidth driven paradigm! Fuhgeddaboudit.
Are you saying P2P will only work if it requires a little bandwidth, because larger bandwidth usage will trigger taxation and other measures? Again, I am not disagreeing, I just want to understand what you are saying. Thanks! Yes but not in all cases. Your group's Streemo is a direct connection between two peers. Thus their upload and download bandwidth has to match (up the threshold they coordinate to use). So presumably it is economic (and I assume Streemo won't try to slam the upload bandwidth threshold and will leave some dynamic headroom as it must to avoid intermittent lags in the streaming feed). Rather what I meant is that P2P can't be a paradigm that extracts upload bandwidth from some peers and gifts it to other peers in a systemic way such as Bittorrent's optimistic unchoking algorithm without my suggested fix (which they apparently ignored). So I still wouldn't think file serving from user clients will work because it is assumed we will max out the upload bandwidth and provide it as a service to the network. In short, we can't use user clients as servers and expect not to mess up the economics. The "last mile" connections would need to violate physics in order to be economic as a servers. We can do P2P exchange between a mutual set (all uploading to each other) of users consuming some reasonable level of upload bandwidth, but any form of broadcast is going to strain the economics of P2P. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 25, 2016, 12:54:15 AM
Last edit: January 25, 2016, 01:05:16 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Note 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.
Continuing my analysis, the other advantage of decentralized storage is durability and availability. This is a facet of permissionless in the sense that no one entity has a monopoly on the storage. It is not permissionless in the sense of allowing illegal activity as explained upthread (because the storage will hosted on servers, even those are owned/managed by different entities, they all are regulated by the law reflected in the hosts' Terms of Service). So I am envisioning the possibility to design a system for decentralized file storage where the users pay the storage providers, but the storage providers are decentralized entities (even though they are all high performance hosted providers and not ISP user clients). In this case, I think microtransactions is the only way it can be done decentralized. If we instead attempt to aggregate a monthly use plan (or similarly analogous aggregations), then some centralized party will be in charge of paying the decentralized entities, so then it is not decentralized. So therefor I have just identified a potential market for microtransactions that can't be offered by centrally owned cloud services. Alternatively, Storj and Maidsafe are paying storage providers coins for proving they are storing data, then data is exchanged in a tit-for-tat[1]. If used with ISP user clients as storage providers, this will have performance weaknesses as well as being economically a theft paradigm in support of Net Neutrality oligarchy and taxation (for the reasons I explained upthread). But a user can't do a tit-for-tax exchange if user is not also a storage provider, thus afaics Storj and Maidsafe are forcing every user to be a storage provider. Otherwise they need to use some form of upload bandwidth theft model such akin to Bittorrent's optimistic unchoking. The only way to fix Storj and Maidsafe is for them to adopt a microtransaction payment model so users can pay for the upload and storage costs to decentralized providers. So therefor I have explained why Storj and Maidsafe are fundamentally flawed. And I have explained why decentralized file storage can ONLY be done with microtransactions. Next we need to reason about the viability of the markets for decentralized file storage and also the technical viability/tradeoffs. We need to not only think about ability to prove the data has been retained by some provider, but also about how to enforce against the storage of illegal content (otherwise I have argued upthread that the entire plan is flawed since hosts' Terms of Service will likely block protocols/systems which can allow copyrighted material to be stored without recourse by injured parties). [1] Note Storj also alludes to microtransactions, so perhaps the tit-for-tat exchange only applies to Maidsafe. I will study this more. |
|
|
|
|
TechorMarketing (OP)
|
|
January 25, 2016, 01:36:37 AM |
|
I asked a question in the DASH thread relating to future development and below was the best answer I received: I really like the marketing efforts of DASH both at conferences and on social media. Translations also have been very helpful in reaching new markets.
Is there some way that more funds can be directed to development this year (in addition to not instead of marketing). DASH is doing great on the marketing from but seems to be falling further and further behind in terms of privacy tech. Darksend cannot be compared (from a privacy standpoint) to CrytoNote/Confidential Transactions much less Zerocash which is now in alpha. Is there any chance DASH could try to implement one of these more privacy focused technologies?
With better tech in ADDITION to the nice DASH GUI, large community and marketing materials DASH would have a very bright future.
I don't think Evan wants to change Dash in any of those ways. We like that you can clearly audit the blockchain, but with mixing, you can't follow where the coins came from. What will happen is coins will go through mixing in the 3rd tier network, the Evolution version, and instantly be mixed through a quorum. I believe it'll be equal to 10 rounds, and the ip address of the user will not be distinguishable to the first MN in the quorum, because the user is sent to the quorum from an entry point, which obfuscates that information. And that entry point has no way of knowing what is being sent back to whom. So in the end, mixing will simply be instant, and better than ever, but look exactly the same as it does now. It sounds like DASH really is trying to improve its technology (based on the response above). How close they can come to closing the technology gap remains to be seen. When will the Dash Evolution whitepapers be released? It is disappointing that besides TanteStefana2 other community members essentially deflected my question or provided non answers. DASH seems to be great in attracting newcomers and selling them on the idea of financial privacy. I wish they were better at answering technical questions. Evolution is going to have a new privacy/fungibility model. It has not yet been announced but it seems rather unlikely that it will be worse than darksend.
With all due respect Mr. Marketer, you are wrong. Using the power of 3,500 (and counting) masternodes in Evolution, DASH privacy tech will be just fine without the need for those other technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 25, 2016, 01:44:58 AM |
|
Why did you change the name of the thread to make it another Monero vs. Dash thread? It was started as a thread on the general topic. It seems quite unfair of you to change the entire target of discussion to that narrow focus after several of us have invested significant effort in generalized Marketing vs. Technology discussion.
Does this entire Altcoin Discussion forum have to be about fucking Monero? (Monero needs to STFU and get busy on fixing their fundamentally broken paradigm for anonymity, if your point is about technology).
I have no issue with the post you made comparing the two, but I do have an issue with you changing the name of the thread as stated.
|
|
|
|
|
TechorMarketing (OP)
|
|
January 25, 2016, 01:46:56 AM |
|
Why did you change the name of the thread to make it another Monero vs. Dash thread? It was started as a thread on the general topic. It seems quite unfair of you to change the entire target of discussion to that narrow focus after several of us have invested significant effort in generalized Marketing vs. Technology discussion.
Does this entire Altcoin Discussion forum have to be about fucking Monero?
My first few posts in this thread clearly addressed this exact question: I think both Technology and Marketing are essential.
Right now I am evaluating two projects. One has great tech but a small community and very little marketing. The other project has a larger community and fancy marketing materials but its underlying technology is not as strong.
Which project should I support? Is it easier to fix broken tech or implement an effective marketing plan?
I would say the small community with little marketing because that means you are getting in early and it has room to grow by starting there marketing and growing there community. Especially if you feel there tech is very strong. The one with the larger community and has already marketed may already be at the peak of its growth especiallt if its tech is not very good. The pump may already be over. These thaughts are based on the limited description you give only. Can you say exactly what "projects" you are talking about? I am trying to decide between AEON and DASH. AEON does not even have a website yet and DASH has well funded marketing efforts in multiple languages. At first glance DASH seemed like the obvious choice. However multiple BTC core developers (and highly respected cryptographers) have said positive things about CryptoNote. To my knowledge exactly 0 BTC core developers have said anything positive about DarkSend. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 25, 2016, 01:50:12 AM |
|
But it wasn't made clear that was your only focus and that you would limit discussion to another Monero vs. Dash thread.
You should not invest in either of them (nor any anonymity coin!). They are both fundamentally flawed.
Can we please open the thread to discussion about other possibilities, or do I need to go create another thread for us to have that sort of open discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
TechorMarketing (OP)
|
|
January 25, 2016, 01:55:39 AM |
|
But it wasn't made clear that was your only focus and that you would limit discussion to another Monero vs. Dash thread.
You should not invest in either of them (nor any anonymity coin!). They are both fundamentally flawed.
Can we please open the thread to discussion about other possibilities, or do I need to go create another thread for us to have that sort of open discussion?
I propose a compromise. I changed the topic title back to its original form. I ask you that you kindly stick to the topic instead of going on tangents about bittorent forum archive conspiracy theories: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1337615.msg13665862#msg13665862Is that fair? |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 25, 2016, 04:18:47 AM
Last edit: January 25, 2016, 04:33:15 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
I am just expressing my opinion that the forum doesn't need more Dash vs. Monero threads, but its your prerogative. And I wish I had known from the start that you wanted a Dash vs. Monero focus and you didn't want to allow the thread to mature into an open discussion. If I had known that, I would not have entered this thread in the first place.
As for the Dash vs, Monero soap opera, I have already explained factually in other threads why neither of them are reliable anonymity. If you get enough speculator fools to buy into nonsense, then they will all go around shrilling for their nonsense, and so the entire forum turns into nonsense. Neither Dash nor Monero have any user level adoption nor business adoption and they likely never will (certainly not given the attitudes I've seen displayed by their communities). Face it, you all are here just to gamble and P&D. I am here to find out if we have any serious opportunities for large markets. If there are no valid opportunities, I will soon be gone and finding a valid opportunity so I can earn an income working on something worthwhile.
Any one trusting their activity to be anonymous based on using Dash or Monero, is clueless enough to get themselves in big trouble, which I guess is what they deserve. I've tried to educate readers, and I get a lot of flak for it. I don't see any markets for unreliable anonymity. Sorry.
Sorry I can't agree to not explain how a factual topic I am discussing, can't be linked to because the archived content (which was there since 2008) was suddenly removed. You call that a conspiracy theory, I call that a blatant in our face smoking gun.
I am interested in discussing facts openly, thus I will start another thread. Thank you. No hard feelings. You haven't been disrespectful to me and I haven't been disrespectful to you.
Apologies if I any way impinged on your desired focus for the thread you started. It's better I start a new thread so I can focus on working through the factual analysis I deem to be very important (especially for my decision process on whether I remain in crypto or leave).
|
|
|
|
|
TechorMarketing (OP)
|
|
January 25, 2016, 04:41:29 AM
Last edit: January 25, 2016, 04:56:56 AM by TechorMarketing |
|
I am just expressing my opinion that the forum doesn't need more Dash vs. Monero threads, but its your prerogative. And I wish I had known from the start that you wanted a Dash vs. Monero focus and you didn't want to allow the thread to mature into an open discussion. If I had known that, I would not have entered this thread in the first place.
As for the Dash vs, Monero soap opera, I have already explained factually in other threads why neither of them are reliable anonymity. If you get enough speculator fools to buy into nonsense, then they will all go around shrilling for their nonsense, and so the entire forum turns into nonsense. Neither Dash nor Monero have any user level adoption nor business adoption and they likely never will (certainly not given the attitudes I've seen displayed by their communities). Face it, you all are here just to gamble and P&D. I am here to find out if we have any serious opportunities for large markets. If there are no valid opportunities, I will soon be gone and finding a valid opportunity so I can earn an income working on something worthwhile.
Any one trusting their activity to be anonymous based on using Dash or Monero, is clueless enough to get themselves in big trouble, which I guess is what they deserve. I've tried to educate readers, and I get a lot of flak for it. I don't see any markets for unreliable anonymity. Sorry.
Sorry I can't agree to not explain how a factual topic I am discussing, can't be linked to because the archived content (which was there since 2008) was suddenly removed. You call that a conspiracy theory, I call that a blatant in our face smoking gun.
I am interested in discussing facts openly, thus I will start another thread. Thank you. No hard feelings. You haven't been disrespectful to me and I haven't been disrespectful to you.
Apologies if I any way impinged on your desired focus for the thread you started. It's better I start a new thread so I can focus on working through the factual analysis I deem to be very important (especially for my decision process on whether I remain in crypto or leave).
You certainly have some great ideas so I sincerely hope you do not leave crypto. This is an uncensored thread I never wanted to silence you or anyone else. My comment was not so much about the relevance of the content you were trying link to but the allegation that the Monero community somehow had the influence to get that content removed. I did not see how such an allegation had any relevance to this topic. In regards to marketing when do you think your new coin will be ready for launch? Are you working on a whitepaper now? I would like to hear more about your distribution model. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 25, 2016, 04:50:32 AM
Last edit: January 25, 2016, 05:34:38 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
This is an uncensored thread I never wanted to silence you or anyone else. My comment was not so much about the relevance of the content you were trying link to but the allegation that the Monero community somehow had the influence to get that content removed. I did not see how such an allegation had any relevance to this topic.
In the reply I made upthread, I stated clearly that I could not know that it was any member of Monero's community that was responsible for the archived data disappearing. I stated it could be anyone that was reading the Monero thread and/or reading all my posts. That doesn't implicate Monero. Nevertheless my opinion is the way some Monero community members try to control the discourse on the forums, I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted that information gone, which documented that I was making such insights back in 2008 before Satoshi came on the scene. Of course even that wouldn't implicate every Monero community member. A few bad apples does not a community make (yet a few serious flak holes can sink the ship). There are many anonymous users here in these forums. We don't know who is doing what. We don't know who is funding certain things for certain reasons, which may have more to do with misdirecting the focus on the community than actually ever accomplishing anything for our crypto goals. Cryptonote was created by anonymous people. Even Monero's cryptographer is anonymous. Who created this anonymity that is easily broken by meta-data. I don't know if that is circumspect or just the way the world turns. And frankly I don't care. I only care that the archived data is gone and that crypto is moving too slowly towards realistically large markets. I am not anonymous (just click the AnonyMint link on my signature line). Thank you for your comments. Same respect back to you. Edit: I think this thread wants to be about Technology vs. Marketing and I want to discuss more in depth Technology AND Marketing, so I think a new thread is more appropriate. Also I can't tolerate the personal attacks any more (because I am losing too much time explaining about myself...which is irrelevant to my research), so I need to operate from a moderated thread. Hope you understand my reason. |
|
|
|
|
Elokane
|
|
January 25, 2016, 12:56:02 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/I will respond to the rest of your informative post later (as I need to go outside on this Sunday). I think Synereo may be conceptually on the right track, in that ads should preferrably be content that users want to see. I can envision content providers being creative in how they advertise products within enjoyable content. The bottom line is the economics per my prior post in reply to TechorMarketing. There were one or two ads on Google that were so interesting to me, I wanted to save a copy of the video ad. Meaning the way to beat Google is by making the advertising more efficient, thus superior ROI for all participants (advertiser, content creator, and viewer). If the superior algorithms require decentralization and cutting out the middle man, then Google with all its technical prowess can do nothing to compete. Spot on! I only scanned a portion of their white paper. I believe they may have Sybil attack problems in their attention model (thus being gamed and not having the result intended), but I can't yet judge that with any certainty as I need to study it more carefully.
You've given me something very intellectually deep to chomp on, so thank you. I love conceptual paradigm shifts and I like to analyze models. I will need more time on this.
Looks to me as though they are serious. The devil is in the details on their technical model. They have a brainy looking CSO mathematician, so perhaps some of the model theory is originating from him.
The attention model is mine. We've designed it carefully against Sybil attacks. If you think you've identified an attack vector, do let us know -- I'll give you with an AMP bounty for it. Feel free to join our Slack channel at slack.synereo.com and chat with us there directly. |
|
|
|
Pursuer
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1163
Where is my ring of blades...
|
|
January 25, 2016, 01:29:51 PM |
|
I think if you want to become an interesting project among tech savvy users, then technology is more important than anything else. but at the same time if you want to make the project popular among anybody you need a good marketing.
but after all that considered, the project needs to be actually useful and not just with complex technological features.
|
Only Bitcoin
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 25, 2016, 09:09:39 PM |
|
As I asserted upthread, DOGE's marketing strategy is HOPE and nothing more (the fun aspect was only the confluence hallucinative mania icing drug on the P&D cake): Am I the only one who is dreaming of a substantial raise of price of DOGECOIN (pretty easy to mine in LEGIT CLOUD MINING). I mean someone can be rich if he keeps mining this currency which is seeing some raise these 2 last days, or is it just a temporarily raise ? I would love to hear experienced users opinions, as I am mining about 3000 DOGECOIN per day via LEGIT CLOUD MINING. Imagine if the price goes from 0.00000053 BTC to 0.00000533 BTC for only 3000 DOGE there is a difference of more than 0.01 BTC, imagine if the prices goes up more than this and we have a whole lot more DOGE than this. Wow, I keep dreaming, hope I am not the only one.  |
|
|
|
|
