Thoughts on Zcash?

[generalizethis]

Learn physics? What do physics (I mean in the abstract point you were making as it's obvious you need physics to build systems) have to do with machines being creative? Also, what the hell is so organic about our thought, most of our capacity is built on abstract language systems. Also, if a few human jobs remain, that doesn't undermine the net effect I'm talking about, so it's a bit of a strawman. Even if you are right about creativity (I doubt it) that doesn't change the fact that I am talking about artificial intelligence, in the sense of augmented humans too. The whole concept of the singularity is that it is a world that organic humans can't fathom (at least not its technical workings) without the aid of artificial brain augmentation (I don't think you get Kurzweil on this).

As for privacy, let me repeat for the third time: the corporate systems will most likely embrace anonymity while they are disrupting the current system--saying it is the same system to those who run it (state controlled governments) probably won't help them get over their loss. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme*"--but that doesn't invalidate my point of the corporate system wanting privacy to undermine the current infrastructure (let's not get into semantical nitpicking).

*Mark Twain at his best

(edit: I mentioned this in our pm and just saw it here--you were in fact the one who brought Kurzweil's name up.)

[1715048645]

1715048645

[iamnotback]

Apologies for losing my couth in the prior post. I am a bit frustrated with people who follow Kurzweil. I ask them to please consider the point I have made about physics.

For A.I. to beat creativity, then perfection must be possible. Else A.I. has to become imperfect just like humans and nature, then it is no longer beating us every time.

It is really simple to understand that Kurzweil is dead wrong.

What else can I say?

Also, what the hell is so organic about our thought, most of our capacity is built on abstract language systems. Also, if a few human jobs remain, that doesn't undermine the net effect I'm talking about, so it's a bit of a strawman. Even if you are right about creativity (I doubt it) that doesn't change the fact that I am talking about artificial intelligence, in the sense of augmented humans too. The whole concept of the singularity is that it is a world that organic humans can't fathom (at least not its technical workings) without the aid of artificial brain augmentation (I don't think you get Kurzweil on this).

Without creativity, then there is no value. What ever can be replicated becomes nearly free. The creativity is where all the value will remain. Our existence is a game of chance. Without the chance, there isn't a game. Poof its gone.

As for privacy, let me repeat for the third time: the corporate systems will most likely embrace anonymity while they are disrupting the current system--saying it is the same system to those who run it (state controlled governments) probably won't help them get over their loss. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme*"--but that doesn't invalidate my point of the corporate system wanting privacy to undermine the current infrastructure (let's not get into semantical nitpicking).

The destruction of the nation-state system is coming via a debt implosion. The destruction of the hierarchical structures of the industrial age, is coming due to technological disruption such as open source and a decentralized DAO concept. Anonymity seems to have nearly nothing to do with it as far as I can see.

[generalizethis]

Apologies for losing my couth in the prior post. I am a bit frustrated with people who follow Kurzweil. I ask them to please consider the point I have made about physics.

For A.I. to beat creativity, then perfection must be possible. Else A.I. has to become imperfect just like humans and nature, then it is no longer beating us every time.

It is really simple to understand that Kurzweil is dead wrong.

What else can I say?

Also, what the hell is so organic about our thought, most of our capacity is built on abstract language systems. Also, if a few human jobs remain, that doesn't undermine the net effect I'm talking about, so it's a bit of a strawman. Even if you are right about creativity (I doubt it) that doesn't change the fact that I am talking about artificial intelligence, in the sense of augmented humans too. The whole concept of the singularity is that it is a world that organic humans can't fathom (at least not its technical workings) without the aid of artificial brain augmentation (I don't think you get Kurzweil on this).

Without creativity, then there is no value. What ever can be replicated becomes nearly free. The creativity is where all the value will remain. Our existence is a game of chance. Without the chance, there isn't a game. Poof its gone.

As for privacy, let me repeat for the third time: the corporate systems will most likely embrace anonymity while they are disrupting the current system--saying it is the same system to those who run it (state controlled governments) probably won't help them get over their loss. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme*"--but that doesn't invalidate my point of the corporate system wanting privacy to undermine the current infrastructure (let's not get into semantical nitpicking).

The destruction of the nation-state system is coming via a debt implosion. The destruction of the hierarchical structures of the industrial age, is coming due to technological disruption such as open source and a decentralized DAO concept. Anonymity seems to have nearly nothing to do with it as far as I can see.

What is creativity but the shifting of matter that already exist into new patterns? The whole universe does this, so why can't a computer? Algorithms have been creating music and drawings, so who gets to say that isn't creative?  Also, you keep overlooking that humans augmented with artificial devices like nanobots are the AI Kurzweil thinks will most likely happen.

As for anonymity's place in the future, we can agree to disagree--time will probably prove us both wrong.

[iamnotback]

What is creativity but the shifting of matter that already exist into new patterns? The whole universe does this, so why can't a computer? Algorithms have been creating music and drawings, so who gets to say that isn't creative?  Also, you keep overlooking that humans augmented with artificial devices like nanobots are the AI Kurzweil thinks will most likely happen.

You are not comprehending what I wrote in my prior two posts.

It is not the creation of patterns that is relevant, but rather the serendipity of the relevance of the timing of creating patterns. The entire point is that the universe is not deterministic. Thus no form of computation can be any more perfect than any other. What makes us human is what we evolve with the game of chance and that we don't need to have the right answer. We just are, for a little while any ways. The concept of a superior intelligence that is "correct" more often than any other, is futile because it isn't even wrong. There is no "correct". Our universe is game of dice. No intelligence can predict that which is random.

Kurzweil seems to not comprehend basic computer science either. He should know that as the programmability increases, the opportunity for non-determinism does as well. This is what the entire failure of The DAO is about.

The non-determinism of computation even comes into play for example as the distance between computing components increases (again because the speed-of-light must be finite, else nothing can exist). You can recall smooth and I discussing that in the context of Byzantine fault tolerance.

Computation is not a panacea. And computation is also subject to the non-determinism of our universe.

Kurzweil seems to just really be full of shit and trying to sell books. He doesn't understand basic fundamental issues of physics and computer science.

[generalizethis]

What is creativity but the shifting of matter that already exist into new patterns? The whole universe does this, so why can't a computer? Algorithms have been creating music and drawings, so who gets to say that isn't creative?  Also, you keep overlooking that humans augmented with artificial devices like nanobots are the AI Kurzweil thinks will most likely happen.

You are not comprehending what I wrote in my prior two posts.

It is not the creation of patterns that is relevant, but rather the serendipity of the relevance of the timing of creating patterns. The entire point is that the universe is not deterministic. Thus no form of computation can be any more perfect than any other. What makes us human is what we evolve with the game of chance and that we don't need to have the right answer. We just are, for a little while any ways. The concept of a superior intelligence that is "correct" more often than any other, is futile because it isn't even wrong. There is no "correct". Our universe is game of dice. No intelligence can predict that which is random.

Kurzweil seems to not comprehend basic computer science either. He should know that as the programmability increases, the opportunity for non-determinism does as well. This is what the entire failure of The DAO is about.

The non-determinism of computation even comes into play for example as the distance between computing components increases (again because the speed-of-light must be finite, else nothing can exist). You can recall smooth and I discussing that in the context of Byzantine fault tolerance.

Kurzweil seems to just really be full of shit and trying to sell books. He doesn't understand basic fundamental issues of physics and computer science.

I've never heard Kurweil state that AI will be perfect, more that it will augment human intelligence with artificial means--if nanobots stimulate neural activity and help us make a direct link to a computer system to enhance our memory and available information, that is AI--and that will likely exist. You keep arguing with things that I never wrote, please stop. You are simply taking systems that help humans now and incorporating them into humans more directly, so it is symbiotic process that leads to greater human potential.

If Kurzweil ever stated that AI is a perfection or anything else, you can go argue with him about it--I never made any such claim.

[iamnotback]

If A.I. will just be another tool that humans use (as I have argued is the case), then I don't know why you brought up A.I. in the first place. All the value will still come from the creativity (serendipity) of humans.

[generalizethis]

If A.I. will just be another tool that humans use (as I have argued is the case), then I don't know why you brought up A.I. in the first place. All the value will still come from the creativity (serendipity) of humans.

You introduced ai's creativity and Kurzweil--I mentioned that computers can create (they are already producing music, paintings and drawings). I may not agree on your interpretation of creativity or intelligence, but if you are going to play the physics card, I can't argue along those lines anymore than you can argue about postmodern thought in literature to any great degree--we all have our own specialties. Now, Bloom argues that modern human thought was invented by Shakespeare, all the characters we portray in our lives are just poor to great portrayals of the Shakespeare character, which somewhat falls in line with poetry critics and poets thought that a poem is a new pattern of human thought aligning our neurons with patterns of sound (rhythm, rhyme, ect.) image and absractions that create an emotion in the hearer and that a great poem or play acts as a meme dispensary and changes the culture by breaking out of old thought patterns and into new ones. Your thoughts?

To be honest, I think human thought and the evolution of thoughts can be replicated and created in such a way that it can evolve into new patterns. I have no way to state this with physics, but to my mind, most modern thought is run through the filter of primitive and modern language systems--but maybe it is that primitive brain signal(s) that got us where we are today, but that doesn't mean we can't and won't find artificial means to further help our brain development.

[iamnotback]

generalizethis I don't mean you are butthurt, but these past posts of mine reinforces my point that resilience requires imperfection:

...But there are some ideas in each development that are perhaps worthy. I have borrowed for example some concepts from Iota, even though I have explained that (afaics) the DAG can't be a decentralized consensus algorithm. So you can't say that it has all been worthless, neither from a marketing development nor technological concepts development perspective.

Nature meanders on the path of annealing optimum fittness. The noise is necessary in order to not get stuck in a local minima. Study simulated annealing algorithms over N dimensional spaces.

I am not going to criticize the projects of others. I think the speculators have to wise up or lose their lunch money. That is life. After all, even you are playing the speculation musical chairs game. The market is what it is. If I deny reality, I am diminishing my opportunities to succeed...

Thanks for proving to everyone what a low class loser you really are...

I agree.

Hilarious to observe these two clowns circle-jerking each other while the rest of the forum ignores them.

Any one following these two hollow-threat-making-diarrhea, excuse-proliferating, do-nothing, rocking-chair-finger-up-their-anal-ysts clowns is going to miss out on 10, 100, 1000 baggers (but no specific endorsement of Iota intended).

I've always believed in quality over quantity.

That is because you still don't understand Physics, i.e. you don't understand that 'quality' can't be distinguished a priori, because the Butterfly Effect is unpredictable, i.e. there is no top-down omniscience (you two clowns still haven't grasped the underlying entropic theory and that the reversibility of time/entropy[1] would only be possible if the speed-of-light was not finite, which is why you continue babbling nonsense about some impossible nirvana where you want to be the regulating top dick sergeants):

...

Max Keiser wander in and pump Factcom to the moon as just a long shot gamble even though he has no idea if it's a viable system or not, which then attracts random noobs into thinking it might have value.

AnonyMint critiqued the ludicrous tech of Factom.

But that is irrelevant. Max brings awareness to crypto, brings more lunch money to the table.

From this cesspool can rise a BitcoinTrojanHorse killer. Processes aren't noise free because there can't exist omniscience on which is the noise and which is the signal a priori (it can only be known in retrospect and even then perspectives will differ on the account of history).

It isn't usually possible to throw the bath water out independently of the baby when the baby is a decentralized market. You say you want decentralized markets, yet you are unwilling to accept their imperfection. Imperfection is required to have any dynamic system. Otherwise you have top-down control, which is the antithesis of existence, because the speed-of-light is necessarily finite (otherwise past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal nothingness) and thus a top-down observer can't anneal distributed processes in real-time.

Nature is simultaneously ugly and fabulously diverse and interesting. I wouldn't prefer the disinfected nirvana of absolutely no possibilities.

Yeah HODL some Bitcoin. It is the most stable CC so far. HODL your nose and realize the altcoin cesspool is necessary.

...

Please enlighten us why "free will" is immoral (i.e. the free will to choose to participate in a randomized redistribution of bets).

Seems immoral to want top-down control to remove "free will", for it is the antithesis of the physics of existence:

It isn't usually possible to throw the bath water out independently of the baby when the baby is a decentralized market. You say you want decentralized markets, yet you are unwilling to accept their imperfection. Imperfection is required to have any dynamic system. Otherwise you have top-down control, which is the antithesis of existence, because the speed-of-light is necessarily finite (otherwise past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal nothingness) and thus a top-down observer can't anneal distributed processes in real-time.

Nature is simultaneously ugly and fabulously diverse and interesting. I wouldn't prefer the disinfected nirvana of absolutely no possibilities.

If Satoshi's idealism was decentralization, you don't want it.

Now readers will understand why I referred you to your own request to look up the definition of 'idiot'. You aren't one of sharpest Qtips in the medicinal cabinet.

[1]

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Entropic_derivation (AnonyMint's blog) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg14270820#msg14270820 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg14286635#msg14286635 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg11218201#msg11218201 (from 2015 when AnonyMint got CoinCube interested in the entropic force) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg9885459#msg9885459 (from 2014 when AnonyMint aka contagion got CoinCube interested in the entropic force)

[G-Cash]

G-CASH

The first fairly released Zcash fork.

0% Premine. 0% Founder's Reward. 100% Fair Release.

Not affiliated with any governmental organisation or military intelligence.

Join us.

[anothermint]

G-CASH

The first fairly released Zcash fork.

0% Premine. 0% Founder's Reward. 100% Fair Release.

Not affiliated with any governmental organisation or military intelligence.

Join us.

ZCash: Zooko offers 'assistance' to Gcash team. Concerned much?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Zcash/comments/4u7v2f/if_anyones_interested_in_joining_us_well_be/

[mangox]

when and on what the stock market will trade Zcash?

[IMZ]

when and on what the stock market will trade Zcash?

Speaking of which, if you've got a little time, come and say hello here: https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/zcash-geeks-here-with-the-indiamikezulu-guys/359/9

Mark

[Divinespark]

No idea which exchanges will pick Z-cash up, but given that anonymity is the core USP, would expect most buyers to want shapeshift or bitsquare to pick it up early. That said, slow mine start means there won't be much available for quite some time post-launch.

[HCLivess]

Zcash will be BIG

[raphma]

What do we do with all the people who don't have a job?

As you said:

I don't agree with those who think A.I. will replace human creativity. I wrote a blog post on that:
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy

"A.I will not replace human creativity", which i totally agree, but people will need to adapt... it's like the old journalist who still didnt learn to use internet and refuses to abadon the paper.

technology will end some jobs but it will also create others.

[TechorMarketing]

ZCash comparisons to Monero are on topic on the new Monero Stack Exchange

Monero, Zcash privacy and security comparison

Sidechain idea

[Febo]

Ring CT just got PRed to master!

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/pull/961

Bear in mind that, even though the code is finished, it will need thorough review and testing before it will get merged into master.

Great work by MoneroMooo, Shen Noether and everyone else involved!

FWIW, the Zcash launch has been postponed to October 27, 2016. See:

https://github.com/zcash/zcash/milestone/30

https://github.com/zcash/zcash/milestones

It seems Monero started running in the Race of anonymity and the opposition is still crawling.

[qwizzie]

Ring CT just got PRed to master!

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/pull/961

Bear in mind that, even though the code is finished, it will need thorough review and testing before it will get merged into master.

Great work by MoneroMooo, Shen Noether and everyone else involved!

FWIW, the Zcash launch has been postponed to October 27, 2016. See:

https://github.com/zcash/zcash/milestone/30

https://github.com/zcash/zcash/milestones

It seems Monero started running in the Race of anonymity and the opposition is still crawling.

It seems Monero feels so threatened by Zcash that it started its campaign to discredit Zcash early.... i predict a flame-war from Monero towards Zcash
on this forum, that will make the Monero-Dash flame war small in comparison.

Anyways i think Zcash will have an impact on those cryptocurrencies that have anonymity and anonymity only as core-element
  

[Febo]

@qwizzie
I have no ideas where from my post you saw that Monero is threatened. I am sure here you did not ment the coin itself. Who you meant? Those that own Monero or those opensource developers that just finished Ring CT?
Also i dont see any discrediting in my post and the 2 posts i quoted.  

What I did was just said that Monero developers just finished Ring CT that will be tested and Zcash postponed start once again.   That is nor being threatened, nor wanting discrediting anyone. But it is a fact that fits in thread with Title "Thoughts on Zcash?"

[Mike8]

Does zcash have anything new?
There are quite a number of CN coins providing anonymity and they are live, unlike this coin which people say from time how good it is, but it's always beta.