Synereo Community Hangout - 11 Feb 2016 - Protip: Get In Here!

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Synereo Community Hangout - 11 Feb 2016

Synereo has a community hangout session every week on Wednesday in which they go over recent developments and project updates.  In this week's session, Greg goes over some concepts regarding Casper and Jed talks about the community outreach Ambassador position (aka Get paid to spread the word about Synereo to other communities).

From listening to these hangout sessions, I am convinced that Synereo will revolutionize social media the way Bitcoin has revolutionized money.

Imo, social media is the next big thing blockchain tech will revolutionize.

[TPTB_need_war]

The point about standing up decentralized nodes with Docker is a worth while technical point to be aware of.

However it still doesn't change my opinion that Synereo is building the wrong model for decentralized social networking.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The point about standing up decentralized nodes with Docker is a worth while technical point to be aware of.

However it still doesn't change my opinion that Synereo is building the wrong model for decentralized social networking.

What is your main objection to the model that Synereo is using?  Is it based on the thought that asymmetric connections will lead to ISPs blocking connections for Synereo data nodes or your thought that all PoS systems will centralize?  While I agree that all PoS blockchains will centralize to an extent around the holders of the PoS tokens, I don't think that is necessarily a detriment to the system.  I've stated before that as long as the currency holders have direct proportional input to the security of the chain based on their holdings that I think centralization around these parties is acceptable.  Your opinion is that this is unacceptable centralization and my opinion is that it is the currency holder's right as long as participants aren't forced to join the system.

[TPTB_need_war]

The point about standing up decentralized nodes with Docker is a worth while technical point to be aware of.

However it still doesn't change my opinion that Synereo is building the wrong model for decentralized social networking.

What is your main objection to the model that Synereo is using?  Is it based on the thought that asymmetric connections will lead to ISPs blocking connections for Synereo data nodes or your thought that all PoS systems will centralize?  While I agree that all PoS blockchains will centralize to an extent around the holders of the PoS tokens, I don't think that is necessarily a detriment to the system.  I've stated before that as long as the currency holders have direct proportional input to the security of the chain based on their holdings that I think centralization around these parties is acceptable.  Your opinion is that this is unacceptable centralization and my opinion is that it is the currency holder's right as long as participants aren't forced to join the system.

1. Synereo is based on Ethereum and Ethereum can't ever work technologically. I detailed my reasoning and specifically what I think is Greg's myopia on Ethereum's future version named Casper (which Greg Meredith is involved with on the math for consensus-by-betting). (Will be adding more on that technological point soon in the linked thread)

2. Synereo is based on decentralized file storage for sharing content (such as music, videos, etc) and this can't ever work technologically (review all my posts in the linked thread) at least as currently envisioned by all the decentralized file projects I am aware of. I also proposed a solution in that linked thread, so perhaps you might want to pass it along to Greg.

3. PoS has failure modes which don't sustain Nash equilibrium. I have some links and posts in the Ethereum Paradox thread which expand on that point.

4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.

[smooth]

I've stated before that as long as the currency holders have direct proportional input to the security of the chain based on their holdings that I think centralization around these parties is acceptable

That will never happen because any voting or consensus type system gives disproportionate, not proportional, weight to the larger holdings.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The point about standing up decentralized nodes with Docker is a worth while technical point to be aware of.

However it still doesn't change my opinion that Synereo is building the wrong model for decentralized social networking.

What is your main objection to the model that Synereo is using?  Is it based on the thought that asymmetric connections will lead to ISPs blocking connections for Synereo data nodes or your thought that all PoS systems will centralize?  While I agree that all PoS blockchains will centralize to an extent around the holders of the PoS tokens, I don't think that is necessarily a detriment to the system.  I've stated before that as long as the currency holders have direct proportional input to the security of the chain based on their holdings that I think centralization around these parties is acceptable.  Your opinion is that this is unacceptable centralization and my opinion is that it is the currency holder's right as long as participants aren't forced to join the system.

1. Synereo is based on Ethereum and Ethereum can't ever work technologically. I detailed my reasoning and specifically what I think is Greg's myopia on Ethereum's future version named Casper (which Greg Meredith is involved with on the math for consensus-by-betting). (Will be adding more on that technological point soon in the linked thread)

2. Synereo is based on decentralized file storage for sharing content (such as music, videos, etc) and this can't ever work technologically (review all my posts in the linked thread) at least as currently envisioned by all the decentralized file projects I am aware of. I also proposed a solution in that linked thread, so perhaps you might want to pass it along to Greg.

3. PoS has failure modes which don't sustain Nash equilibrium. I have some links and posts in the Ethereum Paradox thread which expand on that point.

4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes which run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.

Thanks.  I'll have to consider these points.

I've stated before that as long as the currency holders have direct proportional input to the security of the chain based on their holdings that I think centralization around these parties is acceptable

That will never happen because any voting or consensus type system gives disproportionate, not proportional, weight to the larger holdings.

The reason I so strongly opposed DPoS was for this exact reason.  It allows disproportionate control over the chain via approval voting which is easily rigged via strategic voting.  To my knowledge, NXT's PoS algo is slightly skewed in favor of larger stakeholders, but so slightly so that it is imo negligible.  I'm unsure as to how Casper's PoS algo works, but Greg seems like the type of person who would oppose any type of disproportionate allocation.

[TPTB_need_war]

...Greg seems like the type of person who would oppose any type of disproportionate allocation.

Give me more time to analyze Casper. Perhaps Greg doesn't see all the angles or perhaps I don't. Follow the Ethereum Paradox thread. I have more discussion to do there in order to make sure I haven't missed some key point in my analysis.

Greg appears to be conscientious and sincere. But I have big red scam warning flags on them releasing AMPs into the market before the product was available.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

1. Synereo is based on Ethereum and Ethereum can't ever work technologically. I detailed my reasoning and specifically what I think is Greg's myopia on Ethereum's future version named Casper (which Greg Meredith is involved with on the math for consensus-by-betting). (Will be adding more on that technological point soon in the linked thread)

Ethereum 2.0 will be based on Casper which Greg is the head designer.  Both Synereo and Ethereum 2.0 will utilize Casper PoS.  Other than that to my knowledge, Synereo holds no other resemblance to Ethereum.  There is no scripting or turing completeness in Synereo.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

2. Synereo is based on decentralized file storage for sharing content (such as music, videos, etc) and this can't ever work technologically (review all my posts in the linked thread) at least as currently envisioned by all the decentralized file projects I am aware of. I also proposed a solution in that linked thread, so perhaps you might want to pass it along to Greg.

The solution is to force all data nodes to share equal amounts of data through encryption to ensure that there are no leechers, correct?

[TPTB_need_war]

2. Synereo is based on decentralized file storage for sharing content (such as music, videos, etc) and this can't ever work technologically (review all my posts in the linked thread) at least as currently envisioned by all the decentralized file projects I am aware of. I also proposed a solution in that linked thread, so perhaps you might want to pass it along to Greg.

The solution is to force all data nodes to share equal amounts of data through encryption to ensure that there are no leechers, correct?

It is not just the upload bandwidth asymmetry issue. It is the issue of society’s choice about creative property rights. That is why I proposed two DHTs. Please reread my proposal. I don't want to repeat myself.

[TPTB_need_war]

1. Synereo is based on Ethereum and Ethereum can't ever work technologically. I detailed my reasoning and specifically what I think is Greg's myopia on Ethereum's future version named Casper (which Greg Meredith is involved with on the math for consensus-by-betting). (Will be adding more on that technological point soon in the linked thread)

Ethereum 2.0 will be based on Casper which Greg is the head designer.  Both Synereo and Ethereum 2.0 will utilize Casper PoS.  Other than that to my knowledge, Synereo holds no other resemblance to Ethereum.  There is no scripting or turing completeness in Synereo.

I did hear (in this video Hangout) Greg mention that Synereo might use a more integrated form of Casper's consensus algorithm. My point is that if Casper's consensus algorithm is flawed, then so will be Synereo on the AMPs part. But again, please follow the Ethereum Paradox thread so we can discuss more the issue of Casper.

[TPTB_need_war]

1. Synereo is based on Ethereum and Ethereum can't ever work technologically. I detailed my reasoning and specifically what I think is Greg's myopia on Ethereum's future version named Casper (which Greg Meredith is involved with on the math for consensus-by-betting). (Will be adding more on that technological point soon in the linked thread)

Ethereum 2.0 will be based on Casper which Greg is the head designer.  Both Synereo and Ethereum 2.0 will utilize Casper PoS.  Other than that to my knowledge, Synereo holds no other resemblance to Ethereum.  There is no scripting or turing completeness in Synereo.

I did hear (in this video Hangout) Greg mention that Synereo might use a more integrated form of Casper's consensus algorithm. My point is that if Casper's consensus algorithm is flawed, then so will be Synereo on the AMPs part. But again, please follow the Ethereum Paradox thread so we can discuss more the issue of Casper.

Okay it appears on further analysis that Synereo only needs the AMPs to be on a block chain and thus these are a directed acyclic graph, thus as long as not built on Ethereum then should be okay.

But note that PoS has Nash equilibrium failure modes.

And again this isn't my only doubt about Synereo as enumerated upthread.

Greg is apparently a very talented mathematician. I hope he is not offended by my review. I could see him as potentially an ally, but I think he needs to stop dreaming so wide-eyed and needs someone more well grounded to bring him back down to reality sometimes (myself being a very pragmatic person). Some of his mannerism actually remind me of myself which was weird for me the first time I watched him on video.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.

Can you elaborate on the bolded part of your statement?

[TPTB_need_war]

4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.

Can you elaborate on the bolded part of your statement?

Go back to the prior Synereo thread I linked to and find the link that shows how much download music pays per play funded by advertising. You can see that "Don't Worry, Be Happy" with 30 million plays earned a $1000 in payouts. Certainly the value people get out of the music is worth much more than the advertising and this is apparently why free music distribution sites such as SoundCloud is transitioning away from advertising model towards a subscription and track sales model a la Spotify and BandCamp.

What people want to find on social networks is what other people want to share. They don't want to find what people were motivated to pay to spam them with. The Knowledge Age economy will be about quality of production, not salesmanship.

The entire paradigm of commerce and production is changing to one of merit and social benefit.

[DecentralizeEconomics]

4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.

Can you elaborate on the bolded part of your statement?

Go back to the prior Synereo thread I linked to and find the link that shows how much download music pays per play funded by advertising. You can see that "Don't Worry, Be Happy" with 30 million plays earned a $1000 in payouts. Certainly the value people get out of the music is worth much more than the advertising and this is apparently why free music distribution sites such as SoundCloud is transitioning away from advertising model towards a subscription and track sales model a la Spotify and BandCamp.

What people want to find on social networks is what other people want to share. They don't want to find what people were motivated to pay to spam them with. The Knowledge Age economy will be about quality of production, not salesmanship.

The entire paradigm of commerce and production is changing to one of merit and social benefit.

The music distribution model on Synereo isn't limited to "music downloads funded by advertising".  Go listen to this Synereo Hangout Music Publishing, and let me know if you have the same opinion after you are done.

[TPTB_need_war]

4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.

Can you elaborate on the bolded part of your statement?

Go back to the prior Synereo thread I linked to and find the link that shows how much download music pays per play funded by advertising. You can see that "Don't Worry, Be Happy" with 30 million plays earned a $1000 in payouts. Certainly the value people get out of the music is worth much more than the advertising and this is apparently why free music distribution sites such as SoundCloud is transitioning away from advertising model towards a subscription and track sales model a la Spotify and BandCamp.

What people want to find on social networks is what other people want to share. They don't want to find what people were motivated to pay to spam them with. The Knowledge Age economy will be about quality of production, not salesmanship.

The entire paradigm of commerce and production is changing to one of merit and social benefit.

The music distribution model on Synereo isn't limited to "music downloads funded by advertising".  Go listen to this Synereo Hangout Music Publishing, and let me know if you have the same opinion after you are done.

I had already watched that hangout. The point I made above was a generative essence point. Think about it deeply.

[TPTB_need_war]

You young fellow feel free to pursue theft of music and other content which deprives the millions of artists of income to pay their rent.

I view this in completely different terms.  Before file sharing existed, people would record songs off the radio onto their tape cassettes.  The music was already technically (but not legally) out in the public domain for anyone to hear, you were just bypassing the business model of ad supported revenue.  The music was even being beamed at you via radio waves against your own will, yet there's probably plenty of obscure laws trying to govern whether you can or can't record it and what you can do with it.

We have a similar situation with ad blockers on websites.  Their business model is starting to fail.  To me, the whole situation with music is just the state trying to prop up an invalid business model.  In the old days, entertainers were considered to have the lowest of social status possible.  This is one of the initial reasons Nero was ridiculed as an emperor, because he wanted to be an actor and emperor at the same time.  Even if entertainer's social status was garbage, they could still get paid doing it, they just had to do it through live performance.  There was no "record thyself and make millions".
 
Modern civilization elevates these entertainers from the social status of garbage men, to basically higher than the president of the country in both fame and wealth.  This is not to say they shouldn't get paid, but past history and current technology both point to the idea that they will likely be required to do so only through live performance.  If you're saying it's the government's job to make sure their invalid business model is still able to make them mega-millionaires without even having to do live performance at all, then that would be an extreme left wing view.

I really read your rebuttal with an open mind, because if I am incorrect I will suffer immensely. So I am not writing the following based in what I want to believe, but rather based on my sober analysis of the facts. I am eager to read any rebuttal which can teach me why I am wrong.

First of all, distinguish SUPER STARS from the average indie musician earning couple of $100 a month, or the more successful indie or small label outfit earning just above the poverty line. The former number several dozens to maybe a few hundred (active) whereas the latter number in the 100,000s to millions (and maybe much more if they could earn a bit more).

Depriving indie musicians of a decent income (not even wealth!) to pay their rent and food is not the way to build a new age Knowledge Age economy wherein we creative people create things and sell them direct to each other instead of being slaves to corporations. If you are going to advocate stealing music, and since we are moving into a digital age where all work will be digitized, then let's advocate stealing everything then including 3D printer designs, commercial software, etc.. so that we will be reduced an economy valued only by physical raw materials and energy production so the bankers will own and control all value in economy. Yeah nice. 

Afaik, the reason artists were devalued throughout history was due to two facts:

• Lack of abundance in the ancient economy which is required to produce a gift culture. The artists in a gift culture are on the receiving end of the gifts because they don't directly produce necessities of life that are thus in abundance in a gift culture.
• Economies of yore have been capital intensive, economies-of-scale (e.g. Rome road building, post Dark Age agriculture, Industrial Age factories) thus artists contributed no useful labor to the capitalists. The point being that the capitalists were in control. But I have explained this all changes in Knowledge Age[1]

Why you not want to pay an insignificant tip to indie musicians so they can flourish and you don't have to view ads? We are now in an abundance economy. There is no excuse to not tip the indie artists.

Would you prefer to have massive unemployment and social welfare system that will sink us into a Dark Age?

Do you want all those unemployed artists on welfare to vote to steal your money with capital controls because the economy failed them?

Not everyone wants to be a programmer or what ever.

If you enjoy or listen to a song regularly, then is absolutely no financial reason you can justify for not tipping the creator a penny. You will only destroy society, the Knowledge Age, and yourself by being so selfish and myopic. Perhaps you could justify it for other reasons such as micropayments being a hassle and subscription being a lockin (to one provider) paradigm.

What might be more convincing to me, is to argue that those people who are going to steal (or who won't bother to find the music in official venues) will do it any way (or at least will have been exposed to the music thus potentially being another fan for the musician to sell a T-shirt to), thus arguing there is no economic incentive to prevent bootleg copies from appearing on decentralized file storage systems. And thus to argue that the business model that works is give away free the downloads, and sell the fans trinkets and live performances. Perhaps that is your point?

Afaics, SoundCloud was supposed to be offering that model and the musicians pay SoundCloud to offer the downloads for free. In return musicians could afaics promote their music and gain fans for example on their Facebook page and then sell the fans stuff such as T-shirts. But lately SoundCloud has started to limit apps to 15,000 plays per day, apps that play SoundCloud content aren't allowed to develop social networking type features, and SoundCloud disabled their Facebook embedded player (changed it to a link to SoundCloud's website) so that SoundCloud could drive ad revenues and/or synergies on their own site. Appears SoundCloud was being hammered by the RIAA with DCMA requests and SoundCloud caved in to the major record labels. Now Universal has accesse to delete any song from SoundCloud.

So one could argue that a decentralized file storage could provide the function SoundCloud was supposed to be offering.

Musicians like to get statistics on how many plays their song has. They like to get feedback on their songs. Etc.

If society decides to adopt the decentralized file storage and end copyrights, then I will adjust to it. But for the time being, it is not clear whether that is the best model for the indie artists and for our Knowledge Age future.

For example, it is not clear to me that I need 150 T-shirts, one each from each indie band I like. And then how do I tip them for new music they create if I already bought a T-shirt? I don't have time to go to live concerts and what if the band is not in my area. We are moving to global economy (check out songdew.com for music from India). Wouldn't it make more sense for my music organizer to tip them automatically based on my plays? So I don't have to hassle with it making sure I take care of the artists who provide my music that I love.

So you could argue okay, but no reason to not let others steal it if they really want to. Well maybe true, but in that case the decentralized file storage can coexist with the micropayment model.

Which outcome do you think is realistically the most likely and why?

[1]	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg13761518#msg13761518 (see the "Edit:")

From a private discussion:

In the old days people valued hard work, not being a clown/actor/troubadour.

Life was hard before Industrialization. Young women married old men age 50+ to insure their well being. Wasting productive time with art was reserved for those who were selected to paint churches and entertain the princes and kings.

In many countries, when radio broadcasts a song, a performance rights organization collects royalties on behalf of the artists and distributes them yearly according to some criteria

That is a good point about even radio plays paying some royalities from the advertising to the record labels which pays some to the musicians.

And at least in my country, when you buy an empty tape cassette, a part of the payment will go to that organization and thus to the artists. The payment is justified by the fact that people will use the cassettes to make copies of the art. Same thing for empty CD-roms and DVDs. I'm not sure what's the situation of hard drives but it has been talked about that those should have the extra fee as well.

That reinforces my point of either we find a way to pay artists directly else the government will end up taking most of the money via socialism as you are describing above. That was essentially my point when I wrote, "Do you want all those unemployed artists on welfare to vote to steal your money with capital controls because the economy failed them?". Artists are a constituency that will also fight for their livelihood!

Artists that do not have record deals or connections in the industry are struggling to get heard and paid. They won't get radio or TV play. They are not being advertised in the magazines. A network where you can freely present your music and get paid even a little without complex legal technicalities and bureaucracy is leveling the playing field. Obviously if the art is shit, it's not going to help them, but if it's good, the viral effect of a social network can push it to millions in an instant.

Precisely.

If the argument is made today that because of technology, copying music records is easy so it should be free and artists should make their living from live performances, then in the future the same logic applies, hologram projectors or virtual reality make watching live recordings so realistic and authentic and copying the data is easy so it should be free, then what is left for the artist to do? They can play live one time and it is recorded and then no on has to go to see them ever again (or atleast not until they have new material).

And finally, if paying for the music is made cheap and easy enough, people won't bother stealing because it's more effort than just simply paying.

Precisely again.

You and I are thinking the same on this issue.

[TPTB_need_war]

My filipina gf likes this app Smule wherein she can do karaoke with songs, but smule requires her to pay a monthly subscription to use the app in solo mode and she doesn't have a credit card. Thus she deleted the app. She also deleted the BandCamp app for the same reason.

[TPTB_need_war]

I was thinking synereo was possibly meant

Same answer though. I don't even really know what that is, beyond some vague thing about social media. No idea how it was launched, what it does, etc. Never looked at it.

A competing social network for maskcoin or jambox or w/e hes calling it now. Hes trying to imply that you and Shelby intentionally gang on together on things maybe?

I dont know, but it seems like you broke the fella so i guess we probably wont know

I've read most of the 50+ page Synereo white paper, expended several hours viewing some of their YouTube Hangouts, done some limited discussion with their founding developer (username here Elokane), and posted in every recent Synereo thread in Altcoin Discussion.

Synereo was launched as a vaporware ICO and the math whiz on the project is Greg Meredith who is into process calculus research and was one of key persons apparently on Microsoft's BizTalk design. Greg is into using Scala and also is collaborating on the math modeling of Ethereum's upcoming, promised Casper design (which btw several of us, excluding smooth, have criticized in the Ethereum Paradox thread for its fundamental insoluble flaws).

I have pointed out that there are numerous P2P (aka distributed) social networking projects, so the idea of Synereo being the first and able to sweep the world, is very slim, especially they have no compelling features afaics. Thus I have criticized them for preselling tokens ("AMPS") with no adoption and on hype. Their major claim as an innovative feature is an "Attention Model" which is composed of reputation ("Reo") and a counter-vailing force of being able to pay to override reputation with the AMPS tokens. In other words, they aim to make the content that the users share more relevant. I had pointed out that the Reo needs to be fine-grained on for example #hashtags, and Elokane indicated that although that is not in the white paper they are implementing something like that, yet there is no holistic public specification afaik. They are claiming to be very close to beta, but I've pointed out that doesn't mean they are any where near adoption. I have also pointed out that Facebook users don't seem to have major complaints about the relevance of shared content on feeds, thus I doubt anyone will adopt Synereo (because their friends won't be there and much less content sharing and other chicken and egg dilemmas).

Also I have pointed out that the economics of advertising is the most someone could expect to earn by being paid to share (the AMPs model) is perhaps about $1 (in developing world) to $10 (first-world) per day and probably not that much. It simply isn't worth anyone's time. People don't join social networks to be paid some palty income. They join for other more important reasons. Thus I've argued the economic model for the AMPS is fundamentally flawed.

Thus I have argued they are preselling shit which no market.

Also I don't really understand the process calculus well enough to know if it is technobabble bullshit or not, but it sure looks like it to me. It looks like ivory tower shit that has no real implications in the real world. What did BizTalk do that was relevant? I did a Google search and it seems basically no one used it? Excuse me for being skeptical but the selling of ICOs is becoming too lucrative and attractive for every Joe who has some technobabble to make n00bs drool.

Smooth is not involved in my JAMBOX project at all. I occasionally trade ideas with him about technology. My JAMBOX project will when it is crowdsourced (not for tokens just for Tshirts!) will explain that it targets compelling features and economics. I have not yet announced that, because for one thing is that at the moment I am working on potentially creating a new programming language based on top of Rust, or perhaps contributing to Rust. Because JAMBOX is based on the concept of empowering mobile apps, and so I need to be sure the language we are using is the best in severals ways one of which is JIT compilation.

I don't hate Synereo's people. I just wish they hadn't done a vaporware ICO, both for the legal reasons of selling unregistered investment securities to non-accredited USA investors apparently in violation of securities law as provided for by the Supreme Court's Howey test and simply because it is the antithesis of the objective ethics (i.e. no zero-sum games) of meritocratic software development to sell vaporware.