Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?

[iamnotback]

Likewise, the technology for proof-of-storage will end up being used with the blockchain that solves the major problems of blockchains (e.g. centralization of consensus, etc).

The more I think about it, I realize their technology (to the extent it can create a more efficient cloud storage) will end up running on which ever blockchain and token solves the major outstanding problems of blockchains (e.g. pehaps my project's blockchain and token).

If BTC has a good run until March 11, then I will pay $500. Take care.

I think we shouldn't waste time.

[1714699921]

1714699921

[1714699921]

1714699921

[1714699921]

1714699921

[iamnotback]

Some interesting potential revelations have come to light:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1796575.msg17968724#msg17968724

Self-appraisal (self-deprecating not narcissist):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211093.msg17968898#msg17968898

Revelation from Q4 2016:

I hope you know that I recently explained that Side-chains are fundamentally insecure and flawed. See my posts in Cosmos's Github Issues tracker.

[iamnotback]

The OpenSha.re domain has been registered. That is the open blockchain project name (unless we think of a better name). We have also a very brandable 5 letter domain for one of the user face "apps" (also a website) for the masses, but I will not announce it yet. We don't know what the token is named yet, but we are thinking SHARES.

On marketing to the masses:

I saw absolutely 0 paid advertising for Monero or even Bitcoin.

...

I know you are planning on creating your own, it might be something to keep in mind

I as I explained near the bottom of my prior post, I don't think advertising is what wins but rather a superior fit of the product to the market.

Dash is doing a very good job of explaining the reason crypto-currency hasn't been adopted and thus their marketing to speculators is excellent.

But afaik where Dash is failing is in actually solving the problem they correctly identified and enumerated. At the 7min point in the Dash video, Dash is incorrectly applying a model of the credit card and Paypal advantages over prior payment systems.

But there is no way that crypto is going to be significantly more secure in the eyes of the masses than Paypal. And the switching incentives they propose are not powerful and sufficient motivators for the masses.

I have a plan that addresses precisely this chicken-and-egg dilemma. As I have said many times before, the way to bring the masses onto crypto is to provide something they want which requires or works significantly better than legacy systems in some important way with crypto.

So while we can say Dash is doing a good marketing job of pulling the wool over the speculators eyes, afaik they have absolutely failed in terms of achieving any adoption amongst those outside of our speculation ecosystems.

So your solution to your fear of centralization is to invest in a coin that has one of the worst centralization schemes? Good luck with that.

And don't forget the high school level math error for the probability of attack for the security in the InstantX white paper that I discovered and Evan couldn't refute.

Afaik Dash's core technology is barely functional trash (or has that recently changed?). Their UIs may be good (?), I've never looked. They are reasonably better though at marketing to the speculators.

Hopefully Dash will get some serious competition from some serious technology in its claimed areas of superiority within this year, coupled with some serious marketing. And we can put this Dash "scam"embarrassment to death finally. Since I am responsible for helping Evan see his CoinJoin error at the start and giving him the inspiration for masternodes, then I guess I am responsible for this debacle. So perhaps I feel a duty to end it as well.

Good luck with your Dash investment. I think you actually may profit quite well in the near-term.

[alkan]

The OpenSha.re domain has been registered. That is the open blockchain project name (unless we think of a better name). We have also a very brandable 5 letter domain for one of the user face "apps" (also a website) for the masses, but I will not announce it yet. We don't know what the token is named yet, but we are thinking SHARES.

I can't wait to read your whitepaper!

By the way, it would be great if you could give us an exact definition of centralization (as you try to avoid it in your design).
We seem to have differing views in that regard...

[iamnotback]

There is no point in building a project that needs 100 of millions of users adopting it, when the underlying blockchain can't scale!

Re: Are you a bagholder? Which altcoins do you hold?

As for some of the shitcoins mentioned in this thread, clearly the speculators will buy any idealistic bullshit. The more idealistic nonsense it is, the more likely they will buy it. For example WeTrust is more idealistic bullshit without any realistic adoption case.

As for both WeTrust and especially HumanIQ, there are all these new ICOs coming out for smart contracts running on Ethereum which want to target milllions and billions of users adoption. But Ethereum can't scale!

Besides Ethereum can't scale. So anything built on Ethereum can't scale. Casper is fundamentally flawed and will never work.

Also putting large financial value into smart contracts has proven to be very insecure with the DAO attack. The more we proliferate these smart contracts, the more attack surface grows. In HumanIQ's case, the founder and leader Alex Forte apparently isn't even a programmer.

[hv_]

There is no point in building a project that needs 100 of millions of users adopting it, when the underlying blockchain can't scale!

Re: Are you a bagholder? Which altcoins do you hold?

As for some of the shitcoins mentioned in this thread, clearly the speculators will buy any idealistic bullshit. The more idealistic nonsense it is, the more likely they will buy it. For example WeTrust is more idealistic bullshit without any realistic adoption case.

As for both WeTrust and especially HumanIQ, there are all these new ICOs coming out for smart contracts running on Ethereum which want to target milllions and billions of users adoption. But Ethereum can't scale!

Besides Ethereum can't scale. So anything built on Ethereum can't scale. Casper is fundamentally flawed and will never work.

Also putting large financial value into smart contracts has proven to be very insecure with the DAO attack. The more we proliferate these smart contracts, the more attack surface grows. In HumanIQ's case, the founder and leader Alex Forte apparently isn't even a programmer.

IQ is rare and you cant fix stupid or fight against the massive ETH marketing all day. You get the honor to keep trying but humanity only will learn if its too late like we see in bitcoin these days. But bitcoin's store of value function seems not to need much scaling...

ETH's only chance to scale is in forking infinity times or tending to be mostly central - LN style wise - hehe.

 

[iamnotback]

I am thinking not to do an ICO.

Alternative plan is to sell tokens little by little on exchanges (i.e. no prospectus, no promises, no centralization) as price rises and development continues. Buyer buys a software token. He gets what he buys on that day same as any other owner of tokens selling his copy of the software, not future promises. A free market.

1 - Allow the development team to (heaven forbid) pre-mine some coins for themselves, they get paid when they make them worth something

I am also coming to the conclusion that is the only way to do it because all other ways appear to be illegal. And that was my original plan in 2014, but was told by everyone that premine was horrible. Yet I've come to realize that every project was premined, even Bitcoin and Monero. There was always some limited number of people who were mining with huge resources at the very start when the difficulty was miniscule.

Note there would also be tokens distributed by "mining" (as onboarding) similar conceptually to PoW but not PoW.

- When the coins are still worthless at the start, and you really need money to pay developers, you have none.

I am a developer. I eat rice. I live in the Philippines and $300 monthly rent, $256 child support, etc. I have angel investors for my basic needs.

Open source. Anybody can code on it.

I still think, despite the issues, the first idea I posted is the best long-term (Dash style mining percentage, voting system)

Illegal.

And its competing for a coming ICO graveyard of bankrupted fools.

[iamnotback]

Monetary theory and my ideas for launch.

[altcoinUK]

Buyer buys a software token. He gets what he buys on that day same as any other owner of tokens selling his copy of the software, not future promises. A free market.

Is it the same model that David and CfB did with IOTA, labelling the token as a software? In the past you were very critical of the IOTA software sell approach by saying such packaging is still violation of certain financial regulations mainly in the US. Right now I have no view what is wrong or right terms of legality, just try to understand your approach.

Personally, I welcome you don't take the ICO route and I am sure many will do and support you, but what is the difference if you premine and sell the coins as a "software".

[iamnotback]

Buyer buys a software token. He gets what he buys on that day same as any other owner of tokens selling his copy of the software, not future promises. A free market.

Is it the same model that David and CfB did with IOTA, labelling the token as a software?

Ostensibly IOTA sold future promises, a timeline, etc. Afaik, the IOTA blockchain software wasn't even running live when they sold tokens. Afaik, it wasn't even possible transfer tokens to another party for some time until after tokens were sold.

Also afaik, there is no distribution of IOTA other than tokens sold.

Most of the tokens will be distributed, not sold, because there will be an ongoing (perpetual) distribution (but also eventually perpetual monetary deflation...are you confused yet, lol). But there is going to be something very special about the way the distribution works, which I think will be very enticing for everyone (to those who purchased some tokens on an exchange and to those who are receiving the distribution).

You will not be able to get a lot of distributed coins without doing significant work (or paying someone to for you). In essence my distribution scheme is a "proof of work" but not a computational Proof-of-work.

[mining1]

@iamnotback, the sooner you realise you cannot accomplish this, the better for yourself. Sorry but you simply can't. For more reasons: to move away from ideeas to a proof of concept, leading a developing team and actually make it work (like what ethereum did and still doing ) it's really hard, from thousands of blockchain projects out there only ethereum stands a chance of accomplishing things.
And i really mean no offense, but there's a long way, atm all you have is ideeas and blockchain knowledge. There are thousands people like that with thousands projects, almost all ( with exception of ethereum ) on the brink of collapse or simply being kept afloat by hype and pumps.
And you're still going strong with "BUT BUT BYZANTINE AGREEMENT" and stuff like that. ETH devs went over that and are searching / found ways to fix most of these things. If you really got the knowledge you claim you do, then your only chance is to join a team before you're getting too old. Your "project" even if it works ( which is like 0.01%) you'd probably need 10 years, it's more likely you'll become senile before that happen.

[iamnotback]

@mining1:

Thanks for your cordial post. My counter argument is the following essay by Nicholas Taleb:

<rant>
Before you read this, please read Surgeons Should Not Look Like Surgeons by Nicholas Taleb, the progenitor of antifragility.

The high IQ¹ genius Nicholas Taleb will publish his blogs to the blogging platform with the most readers, the best tools, and also the one that is the most antifragile (and a blockchain controlled by whales doesn't qualify as antifragile).

Thus I will welcome him to OpenShare (http://opensha.re). He and I have traded a single, terse email in the past.

Note that in open source, the resources needed come naturally to the project which is the most needed by the ecosystem.

¹ Also I want to clear up something. I don't claim to have a genius level IQ as measured by a standardized IQ test. My IQ is above 130. When I have admonished about IQ, this was about those who do not seem to understand Taleb's point above. And I often equated such people to those who seem to not even have the threshold level of IQ to comprehend, i.e. let's grab out of our ass a 115 IQ cutoff point roughly. Many IQ tests don't seem to measure divergent thinking, which was the point of my essay Essence of a Genius. High IQ is indicative of some cognitive powers which are very helpful for cognitive production, but what IQ measures is insufficient by itself to guarantee great accomplishments. For example, a person who scores higher than me on a Raven matrices IQ test, would solve Rubik's cubes faster than me and beat me in most well established games where the strategy can be enumerated, but that doesn't mean they will necessarily beat me in a game of creative divergent opportunities where the established patterns are unknowable because they don't exist until they are created, i.e. the future in chaos theory can't be computed. My Myers-Briggs profile type is ENFP and I am 88% on iNtuition. My Myers-Briggs type are those who are the visionaries or inspirers.

[dinofelis]

@mining1:

Thanks for your cordial post. My counter argument is the following essay by Nicholas Taleb:

<rant>
Before you read this, please read Surgeons Should Not Look Like Surgeons by Nicholas Taleb, the progenitor of antifragility.

Hahaha   The problem with that statement is that you get an unsolvable game-theoretic recursion.

If, to be *recognized* as a successful surgeon, you have to look like a lumberjack, then the smoothest of actors will of course adapt to this perception, and most scammer-fake-surgeon charlatans will look like lumberjacks, to adhere to the image that the best surgeons "don't look like a surgeon".  It is then the good surgeon that doesn't need publicity as "good surgeon looking like a lumberjack" that will dress nicely because he has the money and doesn't need to play his "lumberjack" role to get to a job, because he's good enough to do without image building (like argued in the blog article).
However, once that's the case again, most actors-charlatans will again look like fancy dressed people, because they don't want to look like the charlatan-lumberjack fake surgeons.  And so on.

There's a world where this "lumber jack attitude" is in fact often the case: computer science and physics.  The smooth guy in a fancy suit is never going to get hired, because the image of the brilliant computer scientist or physicist is the dirty porky fat guy in front of his terminal, slurping coca cola and eating pizzas while looking at his code / data / calculations.  But this is now so much part of the image of a good physicist or computer scientist, that if you go for a job interview, you better DON'T dress fancy.

So a physicist that can "afford" to dress nicely, must be one hell of a physicist,  because he doesn't need his "porky fat man image building".

etc...

 

[dinofelis]

¹ Also I want to clear up something. I don't claim to have a genius level IQ as measured by a standardized IQ test. My IQ is above 130. When I have admonished about IQ, this was about those who do not seem to understand Taleb's point above. And I often equated such people to those who seem to not even have the level of IQ to comprehend, i.e. let's grab out of our ass a 115 IQ cutoff point roughly. Many IQ tests don't seem to measure divergent thinking, which was the point of my essay Essence of a Genius. High IQ is indicative of some cognitive powers which are very helpful for cognitive production, but what IQ measures is insufficient by itself to guarantee great accomplishments. For example, a person who scores higher than me on a Raven matrices IQ test, would solve Rubik's cubes faster than me and beat me in most well established games where the strategy can be enumerated, but that doesn't mean they will necessarily beat me in a game of creative divergent opportunities where the established patterns are unknowable because they don't exist until they are created, i.e. the future in chaos theory can't be computed. My Myers-Brigg profile type is ENTP and I am 88% on iNtuition. My Myers-Brigg type are those who are the visionaries.

It is essentially impossible to "measure genius".  IQ tests were developed as a medical tool to diagnose mental deficiency in children.  It is entirely abused "on the other side of the scale".

[iamnotback]

@mining1:

Thanks for your cordial post. My counter argument is the following essay by Nicholas Taleb:

<rant>
Before you read this, please read Surgeons Should Not Look Like Surgeons by Nicholas Taleb, the progenitor of antifragility.

Hahaha  The problem with that statement is that you get an unsolvable game-theoretic recursion.

If, to be *recognized* as a successful surgeon, you have to look like a lumberjack, then the smoothest of actors will of course adapt to this perception, and most scammer-fake-surgeon charlatans will look like lumberjacks, to adhere to the image that the best surgeons "don't look like a surgeon"...

Yeah I thought of that too, but by that implication he was intending that you will use no criteria at all to predict that which can't be predicted and the great failures cost of groupthink instead of decentralized annealing. But you may be missing Taleb's point as you are apparently reading it too literally and not focusing on the generative essence he is trying to convey. His point (as evident in the opening where he writes "Business plans are for suckers — Donaldo Hiring practitioners –the glory of bureaucracy") is that we can't know creativity and fitness a priori. He is making the point that IQ tests are abused "on the other side" of the mean as you (correctly) stated.

Past performance and well scoped plans of mice and men are not the predictors of success in the game of unknowable creative discovery and achievement. For more than a decade after my successes of WordUp and CoolPage, I produced only flops (aka lemons).

This is why speculators should not buy an ICO and instead buy that which is already launched and clearly a successful divergent paradigm-shift.

It also means that after 3 years of waiting for Ethereum to gain millions of adoption, its established inertia is not necessarily indicative of future success. Inertia tends to metastasize and rot. Saplings grow to oak trees, but aging oak trees don't grow to the moon. The early adopter exponential phase of Ethereum's growth is over. Just like Bitcoin, the dynamic headroom of what it can be is already baked into its inertia. ETH and BTC have one more 10 bagger (up to and less than 100X) run in them (per the technology adoption curve since they passed the first hump already), but that is all. Ditto Monero and Dash.

Speculators are attempting to know what is impossible to know too early. And thus they are being taken in by 100s of ICOs and going to end up in an ICO graveyard.

It used to be that speculators could perhaps gauge which ICOs had a superior level of hype and marketing, so they could speculate not on actuated creative technological achievement, but on the ICO being the actual launch of the manipulation of the minds of speculators (aka "mining the speculators"). But now we are entering a new phase where there will be an an oversupply (market saturation) of ICOs which have copied that "the ICO is the launch of the reality distortion field" paradigm. Ethereum is spawning offspring (i.e. smart contract) copycats of its own reality distortion field business model, which may cannabalize ETH itself.

[phytosaw22]

This guy thinks Vitalik will go to jail. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

[iamnotback]

This guy thinks Vitalik will go to jail.

Liar:

However, given Vitalik's rich father's political connections, I would doubt he will go to jail. We live a corrupt world.

...

Who knows. My popcorn is ready.

[altcoinUK]

Buyer buys a software token. He gets what he buys on that day same as any other owner of tokens selling his copy of the software, not future promises. A free market.

Is it the same model that David and CfB did with IOTA, labelling the token as a software?

Ostensibly IOTA sold future promises, a timeline, etc. Afaik, the IOTA blockchain software wasn't even running live when they sold tokens. Afaik, it wasn't even possible transfer tokens to another party for some time until after tokens were sold.

True. I didn't consider this point. To provide with you income I assume your tokens would come from a premine. Premine should be OK in this corrupt swamp what cryptocurrency movement became.

You will not be able to get a lot of distributed coins without doing significant work (or paying someone to for you). In essence my distribution scheme is a "proof of work" but not a computational Proof-of-work.

Several developers have been working on this. Some try to attach charitable activity to the coin. Others require large amount of verifiable artistic work. Satoshi's proof of work leads to centralization of influence and it is clearly a problematic method. With your skills you should be able to create a competitive and attractive method.

[iamnotback]

Buyer buys a software token. He gets what he buys on that day same as any other owner of tokens selling his copy of the software, not future promises. A free market.

Is it the same model that David and CfB did with IOTA, labelling the token as a software?

Ostensibly IOTA sold future promises, a timeline, etc. Afaik, the IOTA blockchain software wasn't even running live when they sold tokens. Afaik, it wasn't even possible transfer tokens to another party for some time until after tokens were sold.

True. I didn't consider this point. To provide with you income I assume your tokens would come from a premine. Premine should be OK in this corrupt swamp what cryptocurrency movement became.

More details on the differences in the Coinbase Securities Law Framework scoring system.

[iamnotback]

Our OpenShare project now has one facet of its mission statement and raison d'être.

are you saying that dev shouldnt make any money ? dont you remember that even smooth makes money from steem ?
honestly i dont care how much Evan earn. as long as the product work as advertised, i buy it.

No. Yes. But doing in a way that violates SEC regulations isn't going to end well. (btw, I think you may be correct and I may have mischaracterized Steem on the Coinbase Securities Law test and I will go check that now)

My issue with it is that if it is true that it is not an aggregate market, then it can in theory be manipulated such that n00bs are fooled into buying not based on rational free markets.

And that would mean a project is extracting disproportionate capital from the ecosystem relative to its real contribution to benefits for the ecosystem.

I don't want to make money cheating people. I want to make money helping people. I want to compete in a meritocracy. It is a fundamental difference. A society of fraud collapses into MadMax destruction.