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

[freigeist]

The name bitnet.cash
from the marketing point of view
sounds better is more catchy although it looks like is only related to digital currency and digital payment system.

As you said you would build the whole ecosystem i mean not only payment system the name opensha.re  suits better
for the purpose

(Open shared reward economy)

so is really difficult choice to make.

[thejaytiesto]

I was reading the thread of mining cartel vs banking cartel etc where you and other very smart guys argue and I have a headache since that is too much academic stuff for me, and also my monitor is broken and im in some old ass 17 inch CRT going blind since i cant afford a new one for now.

Those discussions are very technically detailed with deep game theory, economics theory, and blockchain expertise, thus it would be difficult to follow (even for myself if I had tried to read that in 2013). We could explain all that to you in simpler language if we had time to summarize it, but it isn't my priority right now to make sure everyone understands all those technical details. That discussion you referred to also made me exhausted. I have stopped that discussion now, as I convinced myself that OpenShare is absolutely needed for decentralized scaling on unlimited transactions, not just payment transactions but many of the decentralized database transactions on the Internet, such as replacing many of the websites you use now with a decentralized database including Facebook, StackExchange, Google Playstore, GitHub, etc..

You said you have 25 BTC and a 19" flatscreen sells for 0.15 BTC. I think given crypto investing is your current vocation, perhaps consider it a wise expense.

I can't guarantee it, but my read of the chart is that ETH will outperform BTC. Remember I told you and everyone I bought it at $45 a few days ago, and now it is $52.

XMR also looks like a solid speculation after recent pullback, especially on any pullback to $15 (I won't pull the trigger until that dip bcz I am satisfied with holding ETH).

Anyway something I noticed is how you basically claim bitcoin is doomed because whales control it.

My question is: how do you then pretend to stop the formation of whales in your coin?

From what I can gather you solved the entire PoW mining cartel thing cause there is no mining per se in your coin, not sure how that works but anyway, assuming that is the case and your coin is solid without the usual PoW (or other existing methods) problems, what about the whales then?

In every free market there are going to be whales since people expect big rewards by taking the big risk of being a really early investor of something (if it takes off and is a success). So what treats can whales pose?

For near-term protection of intellectual property reasons, I am not ready to reveal the specific design of the OpenShare blockchain and consensus algorithm, although it will all be revealed and open sourced eventually (we really need to accelerate the coding). Again, no ICO is planned, so I am not obscuring to try to trick any speculators.

But I can give you a general description for now, which might satiate your curiosity for the time being.

The OpenShare design doesn't attempt to prevent a power-law distribution of the tokens (i.e. whales) because that would not be possible to prevent. Power-law (or exponential) distribution of resources is the norm in nature. The tokens will be distributed to the app devs, users, and content producers, so we aren't necessarily distributing them to whales initially. The distribution will be meritocracy where those who receive tokens do so because of some objectively verifiable "work" they provided to the ecosystem. Speculators will have to buy them from those groups.

Instead the design (in theory) makes it impossible for the whales to force onto to the rest of the users what the protocol will be, and it makes it impossible for any node in the system to misbehave because the system objectively detects malevolence and routes around it without employing PoW. Think of my design as a hive of bees, that routes around obstacles or attacks and attacker. That hive acts as one brain, but no one can control it, because it isn't voting (and thus doesn't have the problem of voting). Contrast this with for example how the whales in Bitcoin can dominate the economic rewards of the blocks and then make sure only their approved miners get those rewards.

I don't want to try to characterize the difference in security comparing OpenShare vs. PoW, because I think my design is comparable in security, but this needs to be heavily peer reviewed because the game theory for new consensus designs is very complex. Really you should trust nothing until it has been heavily peer reviewed. But any way, when we launch there won't be a lot of value at stake and the peer review will come before there is a lot of value invested into the system.

Another question I have is, how does your project defend against someone with enough resources to convince enough people to support a fork of your coin and try to make this fork the "official OpenShare"? (similar situation we are seeing now with bitcoin where the other camp tries to take over and steal the brand)

That is why I won't make it open source immediately. Once we have say 10,000 users then we'll have enough of a lead. Once we reach critical mass of 10,000 users, we'll probably quickly reach 100,000 then a million. That assumes we have plenty of apps ready. So I am hoping we can interest some app developers to be in early on this. They will get so many tokens if they do and become likely very wealthy. If I have to write the initial apps myself, this won't get launched in 2017.

I want to get the forum operating asap so I can start working with app devs.

Also yes you should create a forum and so on. opensharetalk.com is registered. openshareforum.com is not that is a good one.

I was thinking just to put the forum on the main domain in a subdirectory or forum.opensha.re.


Did I answer your questions? Feedback is appreciated from readers.

(Note my forehead on keyboard sleepy while writing this so please excuse any errors in the prose)

Yes this was helpful. About the monitor, yes I can afford one if I sell some BTC, but id rather wait till I can get enough fiat. I dont have 25 BTC i wish, I got 2 figures but less than that... I cant afford spending any BTCs. Im on super frugal mode. I think next month I will be able to get a new monitor anyway.

My dream is to somehow get rich from crypto and cash out in another country where I don't get raped heavily by taxes and live a stress free life. Of course im far from that and that just remains a dream.

Also I was about to ask what Fatoshi asked: "how do we us, the 99% of people that don't know how to code, get rich from spotting a good idea that is a success?" Aka how an investor gets rich when investors don't know how to code and just move capital.

What was so cool about bitcoin is, even some NEET that is a HS drop out and doesn't know how to code a helloworld but was able to intuitively see the importance of bitcoin, was free to get in and mine it or buy it when it was worth pennies, then get rich as fuck for this act of spotting a great idea before the rest does.

In your model, from what I can understand, PoW is replaced by "proof of meritocracy", which means if you are not a coder, you are fucked since you can't be a miner.

You described tho that users can do some other things to still get money, but are we taking rich tier money rewards? because that's what you expect if you get involved in a project pretty much since the first day, but it's sounding to me like only the people creating the apps are going to get the big bread.

What does the user do? Fatoshi pointed to "likes", driving traffic to an app, promoting it and whatnot... this all seems too diffuse compared to the simple act of firing up your CPU to mine bitcoins (as you could if you spotted the good idea of bitcoin back in the day, and I know I could have been one of those kids that just finished HS and heard about bitcoin in 2009 and got rich as a mf but I didn't until 2013 so I hate my life since then).

By the time the coin gets listed in an exchange, app creators will be the whales and marketmakers. Investors that don't know how to code may be able to buy a good chunk for cheap there, but the big money is already hodled by app developers just like it was by early bitcoin miners.

Im probably missing something but I just don't see how the early user or the early investor gets to become rich by getting involved early, the app creators looks like are the ones that will get the big payday.


Also: what if someone starts releasing apps that are shit or are basically clones, then spreads it by use of marketing to get a ton of likes, downloads and whatnot (not sure how the "merit" will be measured, but it has to be something measurable like likes, downloads etc, can't think of anything else), and the thing becomes a store of crap just like Google apps where some people get rich from apps that are ridiculous but become viral memes? im not sure where the meritocracy is there, it seems like a race to see who is the best marketer all over again. This could be a way to game the model that I can think off.

Also: Bitnet sounds great to me. I remember Andreas A claiming how the "Bitcoin" name makes no sense since there are no coins because its keys and he suggested something similar. I think Bitcoin is a great name nonetheless and very brandable. I don't think the end user gives a fuck about the fact that there are no actual coins and is juts the ledger and the private-public keys and so on, the end users sees "coins" and that's all that matters, so I think bitcoin is a great name and Andreas since he is too much of a nerd doesn't seem to realize that. But nonetheless Bitnet sounds good. OpenShare also sounds good but reminds me a bit of a download site like "megaupload", "dropbox" and those sites.

Bitnet sounds like "Bitcoin" and everyone is dreaming to get in early on the actual "bitcoin 2.0". So if you can really pull this off, the name is cool. I would get bitnet.org and put the wallet and software and everything there just like bitcoin.org

Also the BITS token is used by coin "Bitstar" so not sure about using that same token.

[HCLivess]

I have a bitcoin killer with timelock resolution pow mining algo

[freigeist]

I have a bitcoin killer with timelock resolution pow mining algo

You mean this?!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1525078.msg15342915#msg15342915

[iamnotback]

The name bitnet.cash
from the marketing point of view
sounds better is more catchy although it looks like is only related to digital currency and digital payment system.

As you said you would build the whole ecosystem i mean not only payment system the name opensha.re  suits better
for the purpose

(Open shared reward economy)

so is really difficult choice to make.

bitnet. short, simple and to the point. instantly recognizable.

openshare has nothing to suggest blockchain tech. sounds like an openoffice module.

Agreed. Both of these comments are helpful. Thank you.

[iamnotback]

Anyone have any thoughts to share on this?

Re: The Bitcoin “Digital Gold Rush” Public Awareness Campaign has launched.

Where is the "Gold Rush" message?

All I see is some nebulous "bitcoin is coming".

Okay everybody's heard of Bitcoin and it is some weird thing. But afaics you aren't conveying a message to people of why they should even care.

First impressions are important. Branding isn't just about recall. It is also about what people associate when they recall.

What are you selling to the viewer? Gold (i.e. speculation because "the masses" don't care about sound money at all)?

Okay I guess with that QR code it is indicating that something digital is coming. But QR codes will become archaic. Shouldn't your imagery be more forward looking or something that will remain consistent.

I don't have any good ideas for suggestions, but maybe someone else will.

And really this is the problem Bitcoin has in general. You can't really advertise sound money. I'd try to emphasize the digital future somehow.

Over the past few weeks, I have been bombarded with questions about Bitcoin. Some have a rudimentary understanding, others know nothing other than the urge to find out what it is. A handful are even aware of Ethereum, but no other alts.

Yes, there is a notion of it existing and doing something. The majority of assumptions are that it is a savings account or stock, and the unspoken question is always: what problem does it solve?

That is why we can kick ass versus Bitcoin in terms of onboarding, because we can offer dozens of apps which interest users in different ways and then the buzz will spread that all these apps are based on the BitNet: a new form of Internet that even powers mobile apps. We're building a new high-level, decentralized protocol for the Internet.

For the finance crowd which you are in contact with, they are starting to be aware that Bitcoin is transforming the financial system as Nash's Ideal Money predicts. So yes the bubble of Bitcoin is underway. I say bubble because I believe Bitcoin has some fundamental flaws (and even the concept of one perfected Ideal Money is flawed, although asymptotically as a decentralized concept of many competing attempts to create a more honest monetary system, Nash's theory is correct because decentralization of control anneals if there is a greater collective/net opportunity cost to not converging, i.e. if decentralized money is an Inverse Commons not a Tragedy-of-the-Commons).

Bitcoin makes banking more efficient and easier in some ways but does not really solve anything there.

The entire point of Bitcoin seems to be this Nash Ideal Money that we've been discussing over at the Bitcoin Discussion forum, but this is of no interest to most people. That is a very abstract finance concept, so Bitcoin has a huge disadvantage in marketing compared to our plan. And the mass media are doing our marketing for us, by popularizing the meme "Bit".

I have been explaining Bitcoin's value as being akin to a language - we can all use it; directly changing it is effectively impossible; the value is difficult to quantify but undoubtedly sky-high.

Bitcoin is only a speculation and bastion of criminal activity to the masses, and that rightfully scares them. The greater fools (i.e. the majority of the population) only buy at the top of a speculation. So they won't be buying Bitcoin soon (unless Bitcoin's price has peaked in a massive bubble already, which it hasn't yet).

[darlidada]

@AM: http://trilema.com/2014/the-woes-of-altcoin-or-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-cryptocurrencies/

You read that? MP doesnt also believe there can be a bitcoin killer. According to him our only goal should be to accumulate as much bitcoins as possible. And thats what everyone is doing today, including banks and states. All the fud around the fork and the hype around alts are just schemes to grab precious bitcoins from us.


This is also relevant today:

Suppose tomorrow Bitcoin splits into two independent chains, BTC-A and BTC-B. This necessarily means that any current holder of Bitcoin has his holdings doubled : if he owned 1k Bitcoin before, he now owns 1k BTC-A and separately 1k BTC-B. These will also each have a market price, different from one another. It is not possible that both those market prices exactly match the holder's estimation of value, which means that one coin will be in his eyes overpriced while the other underpriced. This means he will sell one and buy the other. These effects quickly aggregate, and within days, probably within hours one of the coins is discounted to the point mining it is no longer an affordable proposition, which makes mining cease and that's it, problem solved. [↩]

I love his blog.

Edit: ah yeah you read it, you even commented on it; btw, i'd really like you to take on his advice and write on a blog. it's very hard to follow you up on bitcointalk with all these nicknames change and all the different people intervening.

[iamnotback]

My dream is to somehow get rich from crypto and cash out in another country where I don't get raped heavily by taxes and live a stress free life. Of course im far from that and that just remains a dream.

Also I was about to ask what Fatoshi asked: "how do we us, the 99% of people that don't know how to code, get rich from spotting a good idea that is a success?" Aka how an investor gets rich when investors don't know how to code and just move capital.

What was so cool about bitcoin is, even some NEET that is a HS drop out and doesn't know how to code a helloworld but was able to intuitively see the importance of bitcoin, was free to get in and mine it or buy it when it was worth pennies, then get rich as fuck for this act of spotting a great idea before the rest does.

Agreed, a generic strategic methodology for becoming insanely wealthy like Roger Ver is identifying the Next Big Thing™ in its infancy and riding that wave.

In Bitcoin early adopters were rewarded for contributing to the security by PoW mining.

In BitNet early adopters will be rewarded for contributing to the marketing, economy, and liquidity. Security in BitNet is provided by the single-minded (Nash equilibrium) hive of the users, as there are no miners, no PoW! But it isn't PoS, i.e. afaics it doesn't suffer from nothing-at-stake nor whales dominance.

In your model, from what I can understand, PoW is replaced by "proof of meritocracy",

You are referring to distribution, not security. Remember Satoshi's design for Bitcoin provided distribution and security with PoW. BitNet's security is orthogonal to its method of distribution of tokens. BitNet is initially inflationary while onboarding (hopefully billions of people). When onboarding becomes mature and transactions overtake onboarding, then BitNet becomes deflationary due to burning transaction fees with a perpetually divisible unit (i.e. the satoshi in BitNet gets smaller and smaller as time goes by but never reaching 0, i.e. Zeno's paradox of the hare and the tortoise, but not to be conflated with the Zeno's tarpit). Note that doesn't mean the value of your hodlings get smaller. Your hodlings don't change until you transfer them and then you burn a tiny transaction fee (very tiny!). Actually hodlings will increase due to the interest rate you will be paid for hodling.

...which means if you are not a coder, you are fucked since you can't be a miner.

You described tho that users can do some other things to still get money, but are we taking rich tier money rewards? because that's what you expect if you get involved in a project pretty much since the first day, but it's sounding to me like only the people creating the apps are going to get the big bread.

You can invest in app devs who offer to pay a dividend in BitNet tokens from their revenues in tokens.

You can be a content provider. Many of the apps are useless without content, e.g. if I launch with a blogging app a la Steem (but mine will be better!). If you write blogs for my planned blogging app, you don't get paid by upvoting. You get paid by the amount of onboarding attributable to your blog post as measured objectively on the blockchain.

Also you can do direct onboarding marketing if you are better at that, such as promoting BitNet on your social media accounts.

I am not going to tell you all the details now. These are supposed to be secrets, but I've pretty much spilled the beans now. You can deduce the rest without asking me please. All the details will of course be publicly stated when we are ready to launch.

What does the user do? Fatoshi pointed to "likes", driving traffic to an app, promoting it and whatnot... this all seems too diffuse compared to the simple act of firing up your CPU to mine bitcoins (as you could if you spotted the good idea of bitcoin back in the day, and I know I could have been one of those kids that just finished HS and heard about bitcoin in 2009 and got rich as a mf but I didn't until 2013 so I hate my life since then).

Well yes it requires more actual work. And this is an advantage for you, because then aren't competing against those who have huge capital and resources to mine with and not competing with botnets. Mining is a very corrupt way to launch a coin because most people don't know how to mine and even most miners don't know how to source and use the theft of botnets.

But it should end up being very highly paid work.

Another work you can do is providing liquidity, so that means finding users who will sell you their tokens in exchange for BTC (or XMR or ETH). We probably need a "in game" decentralized exchange chat bot similar to Byteball.

You could make some social media Facebook group for buying tokens or what have you, especially while BitNet is not yet on any (major) exchange. Your imagination and clever resourcefulness is the limitation.

You could market an investment fund to the users. So many creative ideas are possible.

By the time the coin gets listed in an exchange, app creators will be the whales and marketmakers. Investors that don't know how to code may be able to buy a good chunk for cheap there, but the big money is already hodled by app developers just like it was by early bitcoin miners.

We want the whales to be those who are most invested in the system. If you find a clever way to accumulate more tokens, then we want you as a whale, because you would have provided marketing and liquidity (possibly even education to the newbies also).

This is a meritocracy.

Also: what if someone starts releasing apps that are shit or are basically clones, then spreads it by use of marketing to get a ton of likes, downloads and whatnot (not sure how the "merit" will be measured, but it has to be something measurable like likes, downloads etc, can't think of anything else), and the thing becomes a store of crap just like Google apps where some people get rich from apps that are ridiculous but become viral memes? im not sure where the meritocracy is there, it seems like a race to see who is the best marketer all over again. This could be a way to game the model that I can think off.

The quality of the apps will be driven by the quality of the objective metric employed to measure onboarding. You are astute to recognize that.

We have to make sure that what we the investors are paying for (since we pay with debasement during onboarding until later when the token becomes deflationary) is the value we need in order to grow the economy and ecosystem.

Thus manipulable metrics such as Likes and downloads are not acceptable.

The metric must measure more accurately the real value of the activity in the system. We can't use payments as a metric, because that can be gamed by paying yourself pretending to be someone else or another entity.

How do you measure cognitive engagement as opposed to mindless or automatable activities?

Also: Bitnet sounds great to me. I remember Andreas A claiming how the "Bitcoin" name makes no sense since there are no coins because its keys and he suggested something similar. I think Bitcoin is a great name nonetheless and very brandable. I don't think the end user gives a fuck about the fact that there are no actual coins and is juts the ledger and the private-public keys and so on, the end users sees "coins" and that's all that matters, so I think bitcoin is a great name and Andreas since he is too much of a nerd doesn't seem to realize that. But nonetheless Bitnet sounds good. OpenShare also sounds good but reminds me a bit of a download site like "megaupload", "dropbox" and those sites.

Bitnet sounds like "Bitcoin" and everyone is dreaming to get in early on the actual "bitcoin 2.0". So if you can really pull this off, the name is cool. I would get bitnet.org and put the wallet and software and everything there just like bitcoin.org

Also the BITS token is used by coin "Bitstar" so not sure about using that same token.

I'm leaning to BitNet instead of OpenShare. Although the sharing economy is cliche now, it is not as crisp when spoken and "sharing" is communistic when not qualified with the notion of an Inverse Commons form of mutually beneficial self-interest. We are driving against socialist memes.

Bitcoin is good for its shock value (a bit and a coin, hmmm), but its weakness is per my reply to @miscreanity, it causes people to pigeonhole Bitcoin into a niche of speculation. BitNet is more diluted by the "net" permutations of names existant, but it has three advantages:

1. Free rides (actually somewhat complementary) on Bitcoin's brand (but not in an obnoxious copycoin manner, e.g. not Bitoken nor Bitscoin nor Bitcoin+ nor BitcoinDark)
2. A portmanteau which describes a new Internet (which fits perfectly with the generality of the utility of this decentralized protocol a la WWW or TCP/IP).
3. A crisp two syllables, easy to spell and say, 6 letter domain name.

Bitnet.org is for sale $20k. We'll be able to afford that once we are launched. So we'll go with Bitnet.cash for the interim time. We can try to ask if Uphold will donate Bitnet.io to us since they no longer need it, but we don't really need it. Maybe give them some free promotion in return.

Re: WTF is a bitcoin plus

"Bitcoin" + "Plus".

Aka "bitCoin++" - "Plus".

[IadixDev]

Nevertheless I am thinking the sharing economy might not be the best possible connotation and association to the generality of what we want to do with blockchains. And the sharing economy could end up being associated with communistic leanings as the global socialism heads into the cataclysmic abyss I estimate is ahead of us over the next decade or so. We're not just enabling sharing, but we are also enabling open coordination. We are providing the open database on a blockchain with the scalability to handle the Internet volume.

The buzz word for this is collaborative economy

[IadixDev]

You are referring to distribution, not security. Remember Satoshi's design for Bitcoin provided distribution and security with PoW. BitNet's security is orthogonal to its method of distribution of tokens.

Did you see the system they did with nubits/nushare ? Seemed to get in that direction to separate monetary unit from décision power with 2 tokens.

https://www.nubits.com/nushares/introduction

NuShares are units held by individuals who wish to help support and maintain the Nu network. Owning NuShares is not required to use NuBits. Instead, NuShares are intended to be a source of network equity for developers, entrepreneurs, and speculators. NuShareholders can receive network revenues in the form of Peercoin dividends paid out by a custodian.



What can NuShareholders vote on?

There are several actions NuShareholders can vote on. The actions to vote on are Custodian votes, Park Rate votes, Motion votes and Transaction Fees. NuShareholders will be able to vote on these different network actions when a block is minted. By setting their vote in the client it will be recorded into the blockchain each time they mint a block. The purposes of these categories of votes are to select custodians to maintain the network, choose interest rates for parking, make decisions on the development of the network, and determine how much using NuBits should cost a user.

[iamnotback]

The buzz word for this is collaborative economy

Thanks for jogging my memory. I've used that term before also. Note my Copute name idea (for the PL) originates from Coopute and also I did contemplate (and discard!) the name OpenCoop.

What can NuShareholders vote on?

@ladixDev, you should let me handle the design around economics of consensus, as it is an area where I am reasonably expert (and bluntly stated, you are not). That doesn't mean you shouldn't share ideas, but please recognize the years of research and thought I have here on BCT focused on economics and game theory study.

Your expertise is in programming and content production interfacing (and probably out-of-the-box thinking creativity). You should focus where your expertise is. Those who maximize the division-of-labor are the most successful. Inviolable fundamental economic laws should not be ignored (except by the fools who like failure).

I will go as far as to predict that if I get my project launched as planned, your ICO will be much more valuable if you are building your apps for BitNet than for your own blockchain, because your investors realize that BitNet is going to generate much more revenue (BitNet tokens) for your apps than your own lonesome blockchain.

NuttyShares and voting is as stupid as democracy.

[vlight]

So Bitcoin killer will be BitNet  That would be hilarious 

You can only imagine bitcoin maximalists laughing and thinking it's just another shitcoin trying to ride btc wave. Then they would realize BitNet is not a joke and would fight it, and eventually BitNet would win. 

Net > Coin 

[iamnotback]

So Bitcoin killer will be BitNet

Net > Coin  

Lol. Because of network effuckects. <--- Note I am the username @anonymous commenting there (and I have another more important mathematical insight comment coming)

[IadixDev]

@ladixDev, you should let me handle the design around economics of consensus, as it is an area where I am expert (and bluntly stated, you are not). That doesn't mean you shouldn't share ideas, but please recognize the years of research and thought I have here on BCT focused on economics and game theory study.

I will go as far as to predict that if I get my project launched as planned, your ICO will be much more valuable if you are building your apps for BitNet than for your own blockchain, because your investors realize that BitNet is going to generate much more revenue (BitNet tokens) for your apps than your own lonesome blockchain.

NuShares and voting is as stupid as democracy.

Yes I wanted to have your opinion on this nushare system , it's a solution I looked over to solve this issue to avoid all the power to be driven by the whales, but maybe it's not a good solution

Seemed to go in this direction to have token for decision power separated from the main blockchain mining / emission

Like this can accumulate decision power independantly of economic interest and wealth.

[IadixDev]

And how do you plan to go for the blockchain developpement ?

You want to start from an existing code base, or code a whole new blockchain node/wallet/block explorer from scratch ? That is monthes of steady daily work, at best

Especially if you want to have high level scripting engine, on top of Blockchain protocol, how many time to get all this from scratch ?

Because I have already large part of this already done, not sure after how you see the priority between the blockchain itself, the script language, and the application layer , and if you plan to start from scratch how many time before an application can be programmed with it ?

If you are ok with the model of script I explained before ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739268.msg18375980#msg18375980 ), I can start working on it and have something working soon, but it would probably not be directly suitable for javascript transpiling as such.

What you have in mind is starting on node.js code directly, or develop the transpiler first, and then develop the blockchain and application with the language directly and transpile it to node.js ?

Or starting from a code base in c++ or other ?

Normally my framework in C can do the node.js job for many things and I still have the prétention to say it's much better on all aspect, less memory use, more stability, direct access to kernel api for i/o & threads, compiled to binary code, can put in line sse or avx in the code direct, integrate ffmpeg with ogg, deal with binary data easily, and have efficient crypto, and it has the reference counter and dynamic typing, so I dont see how you can have better in shorter time

If you see big problem with it or how it can be improved nothing is really fixed

My criteria is i want cpu power and parallelisation, opencl/opengl, modularity and dynamic typing.

With node.js I dont have cpu power and efficient parallelisation, and not sure about opencl/opengl support. Dynamic typing and modularity  ok, but not at the price of giving up on all the rest

For quick prototyping ok, but then need something else at some point too than node.js modules.

The things I like with node.js is the module system to manage large software stack in js, but the node.js runtime in itself not too much,  it doesnt look all that stable etc. To export node.js app to browser bundles with html5 app ok, but not to run full nodes with the node.js runtime.

My main objective with blockchain is to develop distributed applications, because I think it open new paradigm with public sharing of information etc, the fact that there are well valued coins only add to the attractivity of the ecosystem, cause real value can be traded "in app" which is completely cool

After im not here to invent the perfect blockchain or ideal currency, im only in to program distributed application, for the economic aspect I trust the high valued coins, and i make a module to use them in the applications

I believe more in user controlled private network based on modular application layer to optimize security for the application / user group purpose, rather than having to rely on complex whole chain conscensus for everything, hoping that everything will always sort itself out the best for everyone by itself

The way i would see it is application producer have key pair to authentify affiliated nodes who run their modules, to have a degree of verticalisation in private network, and nodes not involved with this application just skip the block data, and just keep the proof of existence hash in the block headers, if they just keep track of coin transactions. And the node running the modules can validate the blocks based on higher level protocol rule implemented in the modules. People who are affiliated and run the application modules can get some form of reward from application supplier if their module is run, or if transactions happen through it ( nodes never have to know private key , all signature happen in the browser with in browser crypto). Need to be careful it doesnt turn into some pyramidal scheme too much, but with only one level of affiliation normally it's ok. But I bet there are always some people who can turn it into a pyramidal scheme

Only the nodes involved with the application affiliation can validate the application blocks, and the higher level of the protocol is handled in the affiliated group. It could have its own pow difficulty targeting , or pos based on app tokens.

I also plan to develop tradional web market, to integrate app in cms or prestashop, symphony etc for integration of web app in traditional web platform.

Either it's blog content, audio, app data for social media ( caregories / threads / post / users ), or shop with article item, it can be handled in application layer modules.




It's more the way i view it globally

[iamnotback]

Lol. Because of network effuckects. <--- Note I am the username @anonymous commenting there (and I have another more important mathematical insight comment coming)

Done.

O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.

Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.

I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.

[iamnotback]

Advantage of BitNet over OpenShare is that users get token name Bits instead of Shares.

I think Bits is much better for money name. Concise and generic to technology of trading bits of information (and money is information).

You're pay me what??? "Shares". I don't want to share my payment with anyone!

[iamnotback]

That is why we can kick ass versus Bitcoin in terms of onboarding, because we can offer dozens of apps which interest users in different ways and then the buzz will spread that all these apps are based on the BitNet: a new form of Internet that even powers mobile apps. We're building a new high-level, decentralized protocol for the Internet.

Hollywool-over-their-eyes (aka Hollywhores) is making a movie about us, but note the projector slide in the background is an Ethereum roadmap; which exemplifies that the whales behind ETH are very well connected with the mafia media aka USG.MIT.

[iamnotback]

@ladixDev, we seem to have a misunderstanding about separation-of-concerns.

Unless you need smart contracting, the blockchain's only function is to order (cryptographic hashes of) events unambiguously, i.e. with a consensus as to the ordering.

Bitcoin has a rudimentary scripting system for multisig and other things that can be done with the opcodes.

Are you claiming you need to run smart contracts on the blockchain? What specific need for smart contracts do you have in a music app?

As for servers for the music content, aren't they orthogonal to the blockchain?

Which scripting features do you need on the blockchain for your music app?

[IadixDev]

@ladixDev, we seem to have a misunderstanding about separation-of-concerns.

Unless you need smart contracting, the blockchain's only function is to order (cryptographic hashes of) events unambiguously, i.e. with a consensus as to the ordering.

Bitcoin has a rudimentary scripting system for multisig and other things that can be done with the opcodes.

Are you claiming you need to run smart contracts on the blockchain? What specific need for smart contracts do you have in a music app?

As for servers for the music content, aren't they orthogonal to the blockchain?

Which scripting features do you need on the blockchain for your music app?

It's not necessarily for smart contract, but script language to program the blockchain node itself, the block validation logic, Event handling of network message, blockchain request, tx signatures, and the distributed applications itself, mostly the UI with html5 / js template, with a js modules for in browser crypto, and some module call via http/rpc/json to do the heavy work related to blockchain request or heavy computation.

Server for music content are not completely independent from blockchain, they need to check permission access to the media , and also involved with reward for content storing/distribution.