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

[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.

The DAO attacker is a Bitcoin $billionaire and he (and @r0ach) claim that Ethereum is backed by an R3 consortium of banksters who also have connections with the USA govt DEEP STATE and the DEEP STATE's academic institutions such as MIT, Cornell, etc..

My stance on this is that it appears to be true that Ethereum's backers are able to pull strings at the United Nations, and mass media. I am not invested in Ethereum long-term. I don't believe in it as a long-term viable project. I invested as a diversification, in case that corrupt group that backs Ethereum is able to succeed.

I believe TPTB in our world planted Bitcoin as Nash Ideal Money virus to help bring about their NWO with a world central bank. I think they also helped created Ethereum through one of the factions of their network of control, for several reasons:

1. To provide a playground for the fools so they can separate them from their money.
2. To stress test challenges to Bitcoin.
3. To stress test other sub-blockchains or networks that could be master controlled by settlement to the Bitcoin chain in the future.

My view is that both Bitcoin and Ethereum are corrupt shit. And I intend to challenge those. But until I do, I am diversified currently with some holdings of both BTC and ETH (in addition to some minor holdings of a couple other very speculative altcoins).

That doesn't necessarily mean that Vitalik or Gmaxwell are corrupt. I really don't know those guys well. Those devs aren't the whales who are controlling those blockchains.

Conjecture on what lies ahead:

I don't know what happens now. Perhaps fireworks. MPeX promised to wreck havoc if ever miners attempt to create 20 MB blocks. I don't know if he still thinks he can keep that threat.

If you have any evidence that MP is anything but a bloviating paper tiger, I'd be interested to see it.

MP tends to pop up from time to time, promising to annihilate anyone who does X. Then X occurs, and no ill effects are unleashed upon the perpetrator of X.

So which is the lie? Is the claim if heartlessness and irregard for 'lesser humans' a lie? Or is the claim of power a lie?

He was the $150 million DAO hacker. He is the central public spokesman of the The Most Serene Republic (TMSR). He had or has a million+ bitcoins ($1+ billion) and he sold 250,000 of them after Aug 2016. He claims he ended Hillary Clinton's election on July 16, 2016 when a hack reveal she intended to attack the TMSR. These and more James Bond intrigue are documented upthread.

Is MP the foul-mouthed, sperm whale, Socrates version of 007?  

I don't believe that. Usually the simplest explanation is also corect. Now, i believe that these institutions / corporations may try to influence EF to steer the project to fit their own needs, but that's all.

That's also a possibility, but ICOs are very easy to manipulate, you just buy your token from yourself with borrowed BTC (then pay back the BTC to the lender) so you own most the tokens at $0 cost.

The same about bitcoin, yes a power war is the likely scenario. But you're probably overestimating them. It is not likely for any of these sides to risk their wealth to win this war, aka to go into a fork war and dump & buy the other chain. Too risky. The common thing that links everyone in this space is arguably greed. Nobody will risk wealth out of principles.

That is @dinofelis' stance and I have been leaning towards it lately as I have stated publicly.

[1714619576]

1714619576

[1714619576]

1714619576

[iamnotback]

Doesnt seem really trivial to abstract the blockchain away from application layer, rather id build application as blockchain node modules, with complete access to blockchain protocol

Even if you run a full node on the same server as the music server, you SHOULD NOT be interfacing it through spaghetti code. There should be a formal protocol/RPC-API barrier between the two.

That is just correct software design.

Let's dig into the API specifics on our new forum.

Data formats should have specifications.

As we dig into specifications, then we will understand each other.

[iamnotback]

...risks you losing competitive edge to a project which does have a team and funding. I hope to see you succeed will keep an eye out. Thanks for your time.

It is a risk which is why I will not open source the code until the user adoption has reached minimum critical mass.

Ahh.. thats tough.. bitbay did that but its worthless because noone can audit the work.. it doesnt catch on because you have to trust the developer that its bug free.. for me id look at unit tests thats the first thing i look at to see quality of work..

That is a very good point. Unit tests (that anyone can run) can convince the market that the blockchain is solid.

[IadixDev]

Doesnt seem really trivial to abstract the blockchain away from application layer, rather id build application as blockchain node modules, with complete access to blockchain protocol

Even if you run a full node on the same server as the music server, you SHOULD NOT be interfacing it through spaghetti code. There should be a formal protocol/RPC-API barrier between the two.

That is just correct software design.

Let's dig into the API specifics on our new forum.

Data formats should have specifications.

As we dig into specifications, then we will understand each other.

The node module hierarchy is not visible from ui/app side, so it mean in theory the UI can plug at any level of the node api, down to the binary data level to high level functions in other modules. Internally there is a dependency hierachy ( visual studio seem to struggle a bit with multithread compilation ), a way to force the app api to a particular level is to only expose the module at highest level (that no other modules depend on ), but the application can have to go down to protocol level, to make block explorer for example, not sure it's good to force the abstraction layer too high, specially if different blockchain need to be handled by the application. And the ui/application doesnt necessarily have to know all the node modules hierarchy and the different level of the api, it can just pick the api from any module interface, depending on how it helps the application to do what it has to do.

[iamnotback]

Doesnt seem really trivial to abstract the blockchain away from application layer, rather id build application as blockchain node modules, with complete access to blockchain protocol

Even if you run a full node on the same server as the music server, you SHOULD NOT be interfacing it through spaghetti code. There should be a formal protocol/RPC-API barrier between the two.

That is just correct software design.

Let's dig into the API specifics on our new forum.

Data formats should have specifications.

As we dig into specifications, then we will understand each other.

The node module hierarchy is not visible from ui/app side, so it mean in theory the UI can plug at any level of the node api, down to the binary data level to high level functions in other modules. The only simple way to force the app api to a particular level is to only expose the module at highest level (that no other modules depend on ), but the application can have to go down to protocol level, to make block explorer for example, not sure it's good to force the abstraction layer too high, specially if different blockchain need to be handled by the application.

It is not going to help you to marry your design to a blockchain design when you are trying to interface with a "blockchain" which doesn't have blocks.

And you want scaling don't you.

You appear to be doing premature optimization, which as you know is an incorrect software design methodology.

[IadixDev]

And you want scaling don't you.

Yes, both symetric and asymetric ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_multiprocessing )

[IadixDev]

You appear to be doing premature optimization, which as you know is an incorrect methodology in software design.

No no, i  dont try to specially optimize for the moment, just keep performance enough for use. But for multimédia and interactive application, it need to be kept minimum optimized. The threshold of minimum useability require good code for interactive multi media app, I want to integrate vectorial computing and 3d too. And I already have gone through cycle of developpement for different part of the framework, even still not really in optimization phase.

[iamnotback]

@ladixDev, let's stop talking and instead produce some specifications.

[IadixDev]

@ladixDev, let's stop talking and instead produce some specifications.

The specification needs the part on script language, the part on blockchain protocol, and application api, both for blockchain and non blockchain functions.

[IadixDev]

Doesnt seem really trivial to abstract the blockchain away from application layer, rather id build application as blockchain node modules, with complete access to blockchain protocol

Even if you run a full node on the same server as the music server, you SHOULD NOT be interfacing it through spaghetti code. There should be a formal protocol/RPC-API barrier between the two.

Anyway with js the best you can have is illusion of non spaghetti code, because it's not like js really support object polymorphism, or anything.

The node.js packaging can give the impression of design pattern, but it's mostly intentional.

Can always have definition of module/interface hierarchy for js ui app, but to me it just look like decoration.

It's has to understand the node-> module->method pattern but that's all. Node are the http layer, module can be abstracted with a js class with rpc calls, but anything more evolved is not possible in js.

As far as i know for js, all classes and functions are the same type, so it's hard to have good design pattern.

The application can just rely on naming convention and assume the type from there, it's the best you can do with js.

Which is how you end up using variable name as if it was the type name of a static class, but it's just variable naming convention there is no real "type class". The name correspond to an instance of unique class defined with the inline synthax, but it's not the the type name of a static class, it has no intrinsic meaning for the js engine. ( big difference for design pattern ^^).

With enough semantic confusion it can look like design pattern, but the js engine cant do any real type checking of anything.

JS programmers are used to this, even if I find this disturbing can give it the merit that it works and the synthax is intuitive for OO programmers, but in reality it's still very weak .

It's very hard to have true multi layered pattern with js.

You can only have one true layer of abstraction.

If a js class method is used as call back and has to use different class depending on returned data type, hard to make in sort the second class is fully aware of the calling context, you can only be sure of the type at one level, because of lack of true explicit typing, even giving the instance of the caller class cant give it's type to the callee, the method can only assume the "this" type from the naming convention of the caller code. The synthax is cute & all but it's very easy to mess up with multi layered code. In the end it can only be close to spaghetti :p

The design pattern has to be pretty flat or it will always end up messy with js.

To me all class/modules need to be on the same level using the static class like variable naming convention of js. Each module interface  is implemented as inline class instance with a specific global name, and modules call are made throught call to this object methods, callback being mostly hard coded into the object definition for a specific UI. Most of the time it's simpler to let application initiliaze the object-module instance with the parameters it can customize for it needs, and let the js object handle the call back internally.

The js application need to have these module / class definition, and a node to connect to who host these modules, and then it can distribute the request on these node for the different interactions with the UI, using call to the named objects methods .

But it's not hard to see how a better language can be thought of

[thejaytiesto]

Token tags.

BITS: already taken:

https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_bits

BTS: already taken:

https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_bts

BCN: already taken:

https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_bcn

BTN: can't find any coin with that (probably exists but its irrelevant).

BITS sounds cool but Bitstar took it first. BTN is like BTC with an N on it, it's pretty decent.

[iamnotback]

BITS sounds cool but Bitstar took it first. BTN is like BTC with an N on it, it's pretty decent.

The exchanges will have no choice but to follow the popularity of a token. And I had the idea for bits (when I was brainstorming with my private BitMessage group in early 2014 and also thought of "iota") before or right around the same time as the Bitstar ANN back in early 2014. Any way, the exchanges can make the ticker what ever they want, but eventually Bitstar will fade into oblivion.

The ticker name is really irrelevant. My project is not about the exchanges, but rather about real adoption. The users can write to each other, "please pay me ___ bits".

No project has an exclusive on the currency unit name. And the ticker symbol is a less important factor for a currency designed for real world adoption.

Members of that disbanded private Bitmessage group included @jabo38, @klee, and a couple dozen others.

[iamnotback]

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

You read that?

...

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.

I did warn him back then of this:

Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

I believe what Nash meant is that if there exists a deflationary currency, then the private fractional reserve issuers of long-term loans would have a problem. This is because those who demand exchange to a currency at par to the deflationary currency, demand more over time of any currency which is inflationary or less deflationary.

A deflationary decentralized currency makes private banking non-viable. My blockchain consensus design checkmates Bitcoin's, because PoW can't be deflationary, because the miners either have to be paid with minting and/or transaction fees.

Any way, private banking is going away naturally because private banking is only really viable for fixed capital loans wherein the bank can calculate NAV and cash flow reliably. The knowledge age is incompatible with such financial computations.

Checkmate on Bitcoin, MP and his $billions. I had warned him last year. His control and wealth is going away. Ditto all the banksters. They will own the death of the fixed capital investment age (i.e. industrial age and capex projects), but the knowledge age will bifurcate away from their influence. I predicted all this many years ago.

As explained above, the mathematical topological space of information is exponential vast, such that having the right answer is exponentially more valuable than having an unbounded quantity of random noise:

The end of democracy

...

Interesting that the above essay is essentially the same as my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay (which predates his by a few years) in that it is pointing out how knowledge or leadership is non-fungible and how it becomes the post-industrial age economy.

not sure i was aware you were in this thread at that time. Also the dialogue gets easier when there is a collective understanding of a stable [fungible] unit of value.

Money is an information system which attempts to optimize the allocation of our perception of value, so that production is maximized.

But as I have explained and posited upthread, the demise of fungible endeavors in the knowledge age, is reducing the efficacy of fungible finance. Finance won't die overnight, but I posit an inexorable trend is underway.

[iamnotback]

Bitcoin is deflationary, but it's money supply is increasing atm. It has inflation atm.

That is because people here use the wrong terms. Bitcoin has debasement (which eventually or asymptotically ceases) but its effect on the economy is deflationary.

Litecoin has an advantage because its debasement ends sooner than Bitcoin, so it becomes ideal money sooner. The silver of the crypto world is about to rise to the 1/5 ratio or so.

I wrote the following in private communication to try to explain the upthread discussion more succinctly:

Nash's ideal money said that something like Bitcoin's design could end fiat systems and make private fractional reserve banking work correctly because governments wouldn't be able to muck up the metrics in the economy. But Nash admitted that if a deflationary currency is plausible, then it would mess up private fractional reserve banking and his ideal money concept would not be viable. Therefore, my design for a deflationary decentralized crypto currency should in theory destroy Bitcoin and all the other PoW crypto currencies (eventually, not instantly).

[alkan]

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.

IMO power-law distribution of tokens in existing cryptocurrencies is due to the fact that more resources result in more rewards as per protocol. You still have to prove that it is per se not possible to design a currency that effectively incentivizes rational users to own less tokens than their resource share. Even though you had some valid points regarding my proposed scheme, I'm not convinced yet that breaking the proportionality-link between the power-law distribution of resoures and its impact on consensus is strictly impossible. In fact, I'm currently looking into new incentive mechanisms which seem promising in that regard.

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.

That somehow reminds me of an idea I had about a coin where users who contribute to the success of the currency (by promoting it or doing any work that can be at least subjectively verified by humans) would be rewarded (and have most impact on consensus). To determine the rewards, other users could vote/bet on contributions and receive curation rewards similar to Steem. Early birds would get higher curation rewards than late comers. So, it would leverage the intelligence of the crowd. Unfortunately, I only posted my idea in the German section of this forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1598127.msg16049813#msg16049813

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).

That's an interesting approach. I think the crucial thing here is to objectively detect malevolence. As it seems quite possible to build a cryptocurrency that guarantees safety and liveness (for existing) users even in presence of attackers controlling +50% by sacrificing partition-tolerance. However, if such a system relies on subjective scoring rules (like the time order of received blocks), a misbehaving attacker might fork away from the honest nodes, while newly joining nodes would have no clue which fork to join. In other words, such a design must be based on the assumption of weak subjectivity. Are you implying that your design can handle +50% attackers, while offering objectivity and partition tolerance to every users, new and old?

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.

At which point in time are you planning to seek peer reviews?

[iamnotback]

I try not to make shit designs like this:

Re: How good is Decred?

Decred is based on PoA which is a research paper written by 4 respected computer scientists including Meni Rosenfeld. However, the security has a major flaw which they admit in their equation.

Notice in their example if a whale had 20% of the stake, then assuming 50% of the stake is online and participating then that whale would need more than 8 times the honest hashrate in order to double-spend, i.e. 88.8% of the hashrate (because 8 x 11.2 > 88.8%), where N = 3 is the number of stakeholders that sign each block.

((1/0.2 - 1) × 0.5)³ = 2³ = 8

But notice as a whales' (or colluding whales) percent of the stake climbs towards 50%, the design goes pear shaped and the security collapses:

((1/0.5 - 1) × 0.5)³ = 0.125

Which means you'd only need 12.5% of the hashrate to double-spend. The reason this is so, is because with the control over stake, the attacker can deny to respond to blocks found by the honest miners.

The problem is that to increase the leverage on the side of higher security at low levels of dishonest stake, by increasing N to 3 or greater, this causes the leverage to bite you back at higher levels of dishonest stake as shown above. And it is also damn bad at even lower levels of dishonest stake:

((1/0.33 - 1) × 0.5)³ = 1

Okay that is standard 51% attack but that assumes 50% of the stakeholders are participating in mining! Which isn't going to be likely for any mass adopted coin. Certain all the tokens on the exchanges aren't mining. At  33% participation it goes pear shaped again:

((1/0.33 - 1) × 0.33)³ = 0.29

Actually I am very disappointed that Meni would sign onto work like this. Because when you combine this with selfish-mining strategies on withholding PoW blocks and releasing them late, the security is just horrendous.

This shitcoin is currently seeing a huge rise in price because n00bs don't know how to read a white paper. And thus they don't realize they are buying insecure shit that has no chance whatsoever of being the next big thing.

Its sad actually. Because this shit might continuing going up in price even though it stinks real bad.



Are these the bozos developers?

Also hypes up Decred: https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/5srvqg/charlie_lee_ama_on_reddit/ddiubvv/

Note Charlie Lee admitted at the above Redditard that "PoA is an experiment and may not work".

They have hyped promo: The new Decred Promo Video... Never seen anything like it.

But he shills a lot:

And not just me who thinks that. Take a look at what Charlie Lee, director of Coinbase and creator of litecoin, said on twitter and on DECRED's slack:

[IadixDev]

@ladixDev, let's stop talking and instead produce some specifications.

I already have my specification, and the working code that goes with it. I can already program application with it. There is already the test net with html5 wallet, block explorer, and raytracer. With the whitepapper, spec etc, I already have all this

There is design pattern, modules, and js code.

The thing is to develop commercial app, also need funding to get good graphician, press release, and doing buzz, and expert or skilled person in several domain.

The thing for music distribution we have been on this even before blockchain existed. We got some good funding before  ( ~150k $) for music distribution thing, where I developed js scriptable web streamer in ATL/XPCOM. This stuff of interface , components, hierachy of objects scripted in js, I know this quite in depth

This whole problematic of js DOM and web streaming, and the economics involved with music distribution I know it very well and we have been on this board for very long time, with very competent person as well with the buisness, legal and technical aspect

Blockchain based app can solve this i think. But im not so concerned about the coin value side of the equation, anyway for me currency never have value in themselves, they have value through what you can get with it. For the moment with btc you can get dollars and other cryptos, mostly, so as currency for me it has close to zero value.

To bootstrap a currency with true value, need to find 2 party who are producing something and need what the other is producing. Like if you have gas producer and car producer , car producer want gas, gas producer want car, the currency help setting the reccord of who own what to who. If one of the two party end up with more money, it mean it can get more of what the other is producing. In the case the market cap of the coin is total gas + total car, because thats all you can get from it.

Outside of this logic, currency can only get value because of some trading trick, ponzi, or speculation craze.

Im not so concerned about value market in itself, or blockchain protocol themselves, for the moment the current protocols seem to do their job as currency infrastructure, even if decision power is becoming centralized with whales & mining farms, as long as the one in power are still wanting to keep it working as currency and way to settle exchange between 2 persons im ok with it, for the moment I dont ask more for it.

And with the application logic, application data is not subjected to the validation by miners or stake holder, any app data is a priori valid for the network, node not involved with the app dont even have to see the data at all, only the block headers. The application layer data anyway escape the power of whales and miners, as it doesnt concern the coin data ( which is the thing that has real economic value), and only nodes running the modules (are part of application affiliate with a degree of verticalisation like private network) Have power on those blocks. Neither whales or miners have power of those block unless they are part of the affiliation. And most of the value is traded via transactions on other blockchain than the application blockchain anyway. The application blocks are mostly data relative to the application either it's content or internal states, app tokens, or whatever else.

The logic for app block validation can be made by the app itself.

My projects doesnt require the blockchain to even hold value at all, application can trade using any coin from any blockchain of which protocol can be handled by the node.

Im not mainly focus on new blockchain protocol for coin or currency, and more in creating easily private networks controlled by application users, and distributed application who can use existing blockchain for payment, or who can use blockchain to have secure distributed data based on application protocol.

The coin we are doing for ico for the moment it's mostly for funding, but that can be pet toy also to play trading, the more value it can get the better it is too, but outside of adding new functionalities and application for it, the whole market value I have to admit it's not my strong point, but anyway most of the value system in crypto world seems quite askew lol

For me i see adding value to currency by making more things available throught it via application, and content distribution is one of the aspect, there can be other things like gaming or scientific computation who can be interesting , at the base of the idea is how you can trade computer ressources in relation with distributed data and crypto currencies, and application are still good way to add value to computer resources uses

If you can help with scripting engine, or language definition, that is nice, and ill get into doing something like this soon, and I already have all the spec/design pattern for it works.

Starting blockchain protocol from scratch, you need to have clear idea where you want to get at, and few months full time dedicated to code the node/wallet/explorer, even before the application api can even be though of. Im not too much into blockchain protocol design itself too much for the moment, just enough to have working client for most blockchain, and having modular distributed application on top of it.

[miscreanity]

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).

Armstrong points out that people are intuitively making decisions and acting on them. I find their interest in Bitcoin to be along those lines; they can feel the environment shifting and have begun to respond accordingly.

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.

Being deflationary, there shouldn't be any need to provide an interest return. Burned transaction fees should reduce available supply such that unit value increases, no?

Continuing on that notion and Nash's Ideal Money, it may be possible to manage the inflation/deflation tension for stability by monitoring velocity versus supply. For instance, assume a total momentary supply of 1 million units, 30% of that supply having been transferred during a given period of time, and 20% as the target desired.

Lower velocity should result in less new issuance, higher velocity with increased issuance. In the example, issuance would be increased until velocity is back in line. By targeting velocity, all information would be available from within the system rather than relying on unit value or other external factors.

I'm sure there are details I've missed. Thoughts?

One question regarding Bitnet: this may have been stated earlier but I must have missed it in that case - what language is intended to be used primarily for app creation? Javascript, or maybe the language you're working on?

[iamnotback]

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).

Armstrong points out that people are intuitively making decisions and acting on them. I find their interest in Bitcoin to be along those lines; they can feel the environment shifting and have begun to respond accordingly.

I agree. URGENCY! And that is why I decided yesterday I will not make a forum. We need less talk and more coding. Developers and I can talk in Github issue threads for actual specifications and bugs.

I might make a Wiki. Any one can add to that with myself as the master moderator for now (until someone else capable volunteers). So that answers to questions can be found in the Wiki.

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.

Being deflationary, there shouldn't be any need to provide an interest return. Burned transaction fees should reduce available supply such that unit value increases, no?

BitNet is initially minting coins for onboarding so until we reach our onboarding (goal) limit, then it will be inflationary. So we need the periodic interest payment in the ramping up phase to reward long-term HODLING.

Continuing on that notion and Nash's Ideal Money, it may be possible to manage the inflation/deflation tension for stability by monitoring velocity versus supply. For instance, assume a total momentary supply of 1 million units, 30% of that supply having been transferred during a given period of time, and 20% as the target desired.

Targeting is self-referential and can probably be gamed. I don't want to add more potential vulnerabilities on top of a completely new consensus design. The game theory complexity is far too much to ever finish/solidify in 5 years if we complicate it. K.I.S.S.

One question regarding Bitnet: this may have been stated earlier but I must have missed it in that case - what language is intended to be used primarily for app creation? Javascript, or maybe the language you're working on?

Afaics now, I can design so that language agnostic. But we'll know better once we get down into the nitty gritty of specification.

My preference is to offer devs a new and better platform and language, but that may or may not be realistic. (Probably not, until we have more resources)

[iamnotback]

@ladixDev, let's stop talking and instead produce some specifications.

I already have my specification

Did you provide a repository link?