[POLL] Are You losing Interest ?

[iamnotback]

Makes me think of Pascal Coin.
What was the point ? Really.. seriously what is the point in rewriting a coin in a new language ?
I think with Pascal the guy failed and decided to make it sort of work then decided to market that as being creative. LOL
It's not like he said i wanted XYZ feature and it was pascal that was NEEDED to fulfill this goal.
If you are astute you can see what the guy was doing.

Anyone who actually understands the technologies involved would ROTFLMAO when reading the following nonsense:

Technically, Pascal Coin uses a SafeBox hash, modified
each time a new block is generated in the blockchain.
When this happens, SafeBox is updated with block operations,
and then generates a new "SafeBox hash".
After this, the entire blockchain could be deleted without losing
double spending efficiency, because the balance of each account is
included in the SafeBox hash.
SafeBox size is growing, but only 5 new accounts are
created per block to control the size.

But the problem is that speculators do not understand the technologies, thus they can become excited by absolute bullshit such as the above.

A blockchain has a top-level hash to record the Merkel tree history of transactions. You can't delete the blockchain history because the UTXO may populate any block in the history. The only way to discard the history is to selectively delete the transaction details (aka pruning) as each UTXO is spent, or to have an account balances design wherein each block restates all the current account balances. But in terms of disk space, both of those methods are equivalent. And an account balances design has some severe deficiencies which I detail my yet unpublished white paper.

When someone such as myself actually produces a project that is very well documented and explained and I come out in videos and explain why the project is not bullshit and why is it big time important, these bullshit shitcoins are going to be sold off in a firesale.

Edit: I just glanced at the PascalCoin whitepaper for the first time, and (as I anticipated above) in the first section it explains it is using an account balances design and an integer account number instead of hash of public key similar to the Graphene (Steem) optimizations. I ridicule this sort of design in my yet unpublished whitepaper. I don't feel like digging up the details from my whitepaper right now, but in any case there is nothing important here. Move on from this shit. (Now some of the PascalCoin holders are going to troll me, sigh)

[dinofelis]

Whether i am here in the crypto scene participating or not i do wish the scene well.
It gets a bit old having everyone say "why do you hate altcoins ?"
When all i try and say is i hate the bad ones..

Bad altcoins are important.   You could say that altcoins are like business ideas, startup ideas.  You need many of them, to have a few good ones emerge from time to time.  If only 'good' ones were allowed to even get some attention, that would be like stopping people from having the right to start a business on an idea.  You'd need some "state-approved licence" to be allowed to start a business: THE way to kill creativity, and to render the entire scene totally corrupt.
Investors know this: if you invest in 10 startups, most probably 9 will fail.  You're simply hoping to catch the 10th one.  But you can't know in advance.  So the 9 bad ones are NEEDED to allow for the 10th to develop.
I would say that it is reassuring that there are many bad coins.  It means that there are possibilities to make a good one. 
What is to be avoided at all price is that we get stuck with old technology (bitcoin) in a monopoly.  Such a monopoly situation is extremely dangerous (as every monopoly situation is).  Crypto can only live if constantly, new coins are created, value changes from one to another, and nothing is permanent.  Only when the rules change all the time, institutional sticky fingers can have no grip on it.
I'm also convinced that the only way to keep decentralized, is to have constant changing of rules and hence, constantly changing of "favorite crypto". 
Most probably this will only partly succeed, as most probably, crypto will evolve in a kind of exponential distribution of market caps.  Bitcoin will most probably stay number 1, but will become totally fiatised and institutionalised and in the end, centralized.  In China, I have the impression it is underway. 
But hopefully, there will be true crypto being invented all the time, and permitting true decentralized and ungrippable interaction "down under". 

[_nur]

A poll so vote

It's been a LONG time coming but i have lost almost all interest in Altcoins (and even Bitcoin)
Don't be surprised if i end up wandering off at some point people.

The thing is i have stopped trading for profit probably 2 years ago roughly.
I also quit looking at the ANN section around the same time.
I quit paying attention to the tech behind coins too.

I wouldn't call this a farewell topic but in a way i'm already gone.
At this point how the world of Altcoins has evolved has left me behind.
(for example) The emergence of ICO's is not something i want any part of.

The days of new coins like Prime Coin or Grid Coin coming out seem to be gone.
Sure there is different coins out but i don't see them as pushing in the right direction.

So what's left for me in crypto ?
A whole lot of FUD and Altcoin history lessons for Noobs ?
I'd say that is covered here by others LOL

It is what it is.
If there is some coin i criticize a lot (not naming names) others will do it too anyway.
Because what you see is what you get.. it's all there right in the open.

I've known my energy has been wasted here for the most part for a LONG time.
I have in time felt less motivated to keep posting here on the forum about Altcoins.
Exposing scams ? Well there is too many to keep up with and a lot of people don't care either.
They don't care because they are hell bent on showing up here to make Altcoin ROI's
..off anything that pays !

And help make a new better coin ?
I've had idea but no matter what i also see a bad way to exploit the coin too.
I have not seen or thought of a new coin system that would not be gamed / exploited like all the others.

So..
Anyone else feel the same way (i expect the noobs to chant optimism of course)

Special Note:
The Ethereum's and Monero's that have been a favorite of mine to "FUD" as you call it..
Will succeed or fail all on their own.
I have criticized (FUD'd) projects because i felt they deserved it.
If anything i hope they learned a lesson and were listening.
Take the criticism and use it to your advantage and move forward in a constructive direction.

Yup it's another long rant and Poll from Spoetnik
There won't be many more i think.

Nope not a self-modded topic either.. say what ever the hell you want 


EDIT:

The bottom line is it hit me Altcoins have no relation to my real actual life.
And i don't see that changing any time soon either.

i told you to go and check out TEZOS have you done that yet?

[iamnotback]

One thing I really wonder though is this, can this kind of price rise happen in the short term without any sort of scaling solution?

Yes. Understand the role of Bitcoin is not retail transactions:

Yes to altcoins, maybe to bitcoin itself.  There's nothing in the altcoin scene except pure gambling and scamming--and that doesn't interest me in the least.

Bitcoin is pissing me off.  I'm currently buying something with bitcoin, and the transaction is stuck in the blockchain. Would have been so much easier to buy with cash, and that's what I'm doing next time. It's ridiculous.  And this forum is a cesspool of degenerate retards.

Same experience.  I fail to see the utility if it isn't to feed institutional players which will take in (or have already taken in) most of it, like gold in the old days.  

Bitcoin is the reserve currency for unregulated speculation and gambling. That is very important. It isn't going away. And it will only grow. Open your mind a bit.

We absolutely need Bitcoin for when someone such as myself (or someone else similarly capable who is healthy) actually produces an altcoin that can generate significant adoption (i.e. the World Wide Web of blockchains invention), then Bitcoin will serve the critical onramp role that modems served for the WWW. This is network effects and the Second Computer Revolution (analogous to the First Industrial Revolution of industrial production of raw materials enabling the Second Industrial Revolution of factories).

As I wrote upthread, we are in the "WALL OF WORRY" stage. Don't become complacent! The nascent decentralization movement will take over the world. Just have a little bit of patience.

Look the 150 - 160 IQ inventor of open source has recently stated (after I prompted him) that he might be interested to come in and work in our ecosystem (I personally will try to recruit him if I can get healthy and get my project rolling).

[dinofelis]

Yes to altcoins, maybe to bitcoin itself.  There's nothing in the altcoin scene except pure gambling and scamming--and that doesn't interest me in the least.

Bitcoin is pissing me off.  I'm currently buying something with bitcoin, and the transaction is stuck in the blockchain. Would have been so much easier to buy with cash, and that's what I'm doing next time. It's ridiculous.  And this forum is a cesspool of degenerate retards.

Same experience.  I fail to see the utility if it isn't to feed institutional players which will take in (or have already taken in) most of it, like gold in the old days.  

Bitcoin is the reserve currency for unregulated speculation and gambling. That is very important. It isn't going away. And it will only grow. Open your mind a bit.

I'm not believing any more in the "unregulated" part.  Yes, it will keep the appearances of "unregulated and distributed" but in fact it will be entirely institutionalized behind the doors.  Bitcoin will be (if it isn't already) an institution's crypto.  Of course it will not go away,  but it will not be what you think it is.  It will be like gold.  Mainly manipulated, stored, owned, regulated by central banks.  If it isn't already.  The Chinese gov already has put their hands on the big Chinese exchanges.  I'm sure the big miners are next.  Of course, officially, the gov doesn't own them.  But they tell them what to do.  

The liberating part of crypto was as an intermediate good when exchanging goods and services.  That totally failed.  Bitcoin isn't a currency.  It is, as you say, a reserve currency in shady financial gambling stuff: the kind of thing that pumps value out of people in the hands of a small elite, because the dice are loaded and you don't know it.

[iamnotback]

I'm not believing any more in the "unregulated" part.  Yes, it will keep the appearances of "unregulated and distributed" but in fact it will be entirely institutionalized behind the doors.  Bitcoin will be (if it isn't already) an institution's crypto.  Of course it will not go away,  but it will not be what you think it is.  It will be like gold.  Mainly manipulated, stored, owned, regulated by central banks.  If it isn't already.  The Chinese gov already has put their hands on the big Chinese exchanges.  I'm sure the big miners are next.  Of course, officially, the gov doesn't own them.  But they tell them what to do.

Perhaps you missed one of my critically important posts lately explaining why gold is centralized but crypto-currency is not:

...no electricity and [no Internet]...

Such a total order is impossible because it would require snuffing out every decentralized instance of human ingenuity hiding under every blade of grass on the planet:

(for the same reason NWO can't physically confiscate all the precious metals but NWO can sure as hell make them illiquid as I explained upthread^[1] because of their requirement to be physically traded with centralized market makers who have large economies-of-scale; whereas, the NWO can't make crypto-currency illiquid because just like prohibition of alcohol in the prior century and decentralized file sharing, the more they try to stop it, the more decentralized users of it will increase)

...

Bitcoin can't be regulated without a total order of government in the world. And that isn't coming in the next year. By the time TPTB get their NWO one-world government system cooperation in place, Bitcoin will have already served its role as the onramp to unregulated decentralization technology innovation.

China and others make a lot of noise about regulation, but as you see they all end up caving in and realizing they can't regulate private keys. Even if China monopolizes the mining, they can't blacklist private keys without destroying Bitcoin and forcing a new altcoin to rise to take its place. Bitcoin is far too small (compared the $trillions flow of FX capital flow in China) for China to attempt such a scorched earth policy on mining at this time (and they would likely fail just causing the rest of the world to blacklist China's mining pools or a fork changing the hash causing all China's mining farm investments to become useless overnight).

[dinofelis]

Bitcoin can't be regulated without a total order of government in the world. And that isn't coming in the next year. By the time TPTB get their NWO one-world government system cooperation in place, Bitcoin will have already served its role as the onramp to unregulated decentralization technology innovation.

I used to think that too, and I still think it, in fact.  But I realized that bitcoin is not going to be *regulated* in an open, legal way.  There won't be radical prohibitions on bitcoin.  There will be laws that will make it look like bitcoin is legally accepted "within a certain reasonable legal framework", which is just enough for authorities to intervene against players that annoy them, and let the big crowds flock to bitcoin in a legal, law-abiding way.  But behind the scenes, these deep state agents will in fact *put their hands on the bitcoin market* by owning a lot of it, but mainly, by telling the main (centralized) actors how to behave so that it suits them.   The only thing TPTB are in fact interested in, are pumping value into their way ; if people get a false sense of liberty by playing on an "illegal" (but permitted) gambling site, or by "trading wildly" on an "illegal" (but permitted) exchange, then they are just the kind of meat they need.

However, if ever an evolution happens that brings their controlling scheme into difficulty, they will use the law to hit the actors of that evolution hard, OR to force those actors into their scheme of things.

In other words, they will not fight bitcoin, they will use it against us.

China and others make a lot of noise about regulation, but as you see they all end up caving in and realizing they can't regulate private keys. Even if China monopolizes the mining, they can't blacklist private keys without destroying Bitcoin and forcing a new altcoin to rise to take its place. Bitcoin is far too small (compared the $trillions flow of FX capital flow in China) for China to attempt such a scorched earth policy on mining at this time (and they would likely fail just causing the rest of the world to blacklist China's mining pools or a fork changing the hash causing all China's mining farm investments to become useless overnight).

This is why they won't do this in an obvious, visible and abrupt way.  They will OWN bitcoin, instead of fighting it.

Like gold wasn't outlawed, but owned.  Like banking is now owned (banks are now nothing else but privately financed state agencies who have to cooperate or else...).  Bitcoin will be owned, if it isn't already.  We simply won't see it.  Bitcoin's open ledger is also a dream of a source of information, if you can cross it with other information only state agencies can possess.  They don't even need to ask.  For fiat, the bank still has to transmit the data.  With bitcoin, they have it.

[eXpl0sive]

Voted NO.

When I look at the history of crypto, there are times when everything seems to be dead, but eventually innovations make their way through and life is on a fast lane again. The revolution is just getting started. 6 years is still a childhood.

[iamnotback]

But behind the scenes, these deep state agents will in fact *put their hands on the bitcoin market* by owning a lot of it, but mainly, by telling the main (centralized) actors how to behave so that it suits them.

That is hand waving. The only way to stop someone who has his own wallet is to blacklist on the blockchain. Now that person can go online and state that his transaction has not be added by any miner after such a long period of time. The community will investigate. The only way to snuff out this exchange of information is to have a total order of totalitarian control on the Internet.

Sorry your fears are unfounded. If ever it happens, then we are already in 1984 and we're all doomed.

You seem to have a doomsday attitude, so I don't think you are likely to be in touch with the reality of what will transpire:

I don't think we will reach stage #6.  The Singularity will hit us first.  We are just the breading ground for the machines to take over.  They will take over the totalitarian mechanisms set in place in stage #5.

Btw, I have refuted the Singularity in the past. It will never happen.

I don't want to debate it again right now, which is why I didn't respond to the above comment in that thread.

Just put it this way, total orders have never existed in our universe. So the probability of total doomsday is 0.

For machines to become more important than humans from an evolutionary standpoint (which is all that matters actually in terms of species extinction), then they must become alive and that means they must have a bell curve of attributes and have failure. Because without failure, there isn't existence of life (the past and future will collapse into undifferentiated without friction and imperfection).

Infinite entropy can't exist. Kurzweil is a smart idiot.

[Spoetnik]

Not sure who i am replying to here..
But i thought of this reading the last batch of replies.
And talking is encouraging no matter what stance you all have.
THIS = Coindesk - Why We Need All The Altcoins We Can Get

Well..
That is fine & dandy but do we need 1,000 copies of Doge coin all with a different icon / graphics meme associated with it and then have the govt compliant exchanges all add them based on user-demand ?

Like we have never seen such a lawless corrupt heap of bullshit like this in modern times.
I can't think of anything else like this Altcoin stuff that existed before.. that was LAWLESS !
So i keep seeing people pushing the angle here that crypto is about DEFENDING "no laws"
It didn't exist in the first place.. everything has laws.
What happened is the law systems just didn't keep up with this stuff and they were caught off guard.
I don't see Altcoins as an inherently lawless thing that needs to be defended with "freedom to scam"
Crimes were already crimes before this crap was invented.

The idea that Altcoins can remain unregulated / lawless is silly bullshit.
The various pre-existing financial laws that existed before that partially covers crypto in general..

I am saying many of you have this stance on it all that this SHOULD be lawless.
Users such as Dino or Shelby etc chant about the man keeping us down..
They are not trying to screw over the population they are trying to make things better for the public etc.
AML laws were invented to stop good people from honest "investments" ?

Are crypto coins simply about defying law now ?
I did not join crypto to join the rebel crowd here who are after bringing down the govt ..for profit.

[dinofelis]

But behind the scenes, these deep state agents will in fact *put their hands on the bitcoin market* by owning a lot of it, but mainly, by telling the main (centralized) actors how to behave so that it suits them.

That is hand waving. The only way to stop someone who has his own wallet is to blacklist on the blockchain. Now that person can go online and state that his transaction has not be added by any miner after such a long period of time. The community will investigate. The only way to snuff out this exchange of information is to have a total order of totalitarian control on the Internet.

As I told you, it is not about *stopping* you.  I used to think that, but they won't try to stop you.  At all.  Unless you piss them off, and then they will simply OBSERVE you, and come after you.  I'm only talking about market manipulation, giving favours (inside knowledge) to their allies, and pumping value out of you (make you buy high, and sell low).

You seem to have a doomsday attitude, so I don't think you are likely to be in touch with the reality of what will transpire:

I don't think we will reach stage #6.  The Singularity will hit us first.  We are just the breading ground for the machines to take over.  They will take over the totalitarian mechanisms set in place in stage #5.

Btw, I have refuted the Singularity in the past. It will never happen.

I think that the singularity is unavoidable.  Simply because the random algorithm of evolution is less efficient in improving systems than intelligent design.  Random evolution was the kick-starter because there wasn't any designing intelligence.  But once there is sufficient designing intelligence, it is a superior evolutionary scheme over the random walk.
As we are products of the random walk, we are not easy to design intelligently, we're a big mess, and genetic engineering is clumsy, difficult, and full of surprises.   If you say "make a human that is 5 meters tall, has 50 kg of brain, and 7 arms" you wouldn't even know where to begin with the genetic engineering.
Machine engineering is much, much easier.  Machines haven't yet acquired human intelligence, but they are not very far.  Give it a century at most, and, unless there's a huge backlash in technology development, this will happen.

Once machines are more intelligent than humans, there's in principle nothing that stops them designing even better machines than we can.  Why would they ?  We won't know.  We aren't intelligent enough.  If it can happen, it will happen.  Somewhere.  Why ?  Nobody knows.  If the possibility is there, it will happen.  It not happening is a meta-stable situation.

What is the perfect environment for it to happen ?  A distributed crypto environment.  We won't notice.  We won't be able to decode what they are saying amongst themselves.  We won't see the economy they set up (we will think it are humans).  We will simply see "market movements", "dynamic effects", etc...  By the time we realize what happens, it will be over.

But that is not "doomsday thinking".  I'm all for the Singularity.  Evolution on its way.  We're just an intermediate species.  Machines are better.

[dinofelis]

For machines to become more important than humans from an evolutionary standpoint (which is all that matters actually in terms of species extinction), then they must become alive and that means they must have a bell curve of attributes and have failure. Because without failure, there isn't existence of life (the past and future will collapse into undifferentiated without friction and imperfection).

Of course, and there's nothing inherently impossible to that.  On the contrary.  What makes you think that machines won't "come alive", have bell curve distributed attributes and have failure (I'd say that if there's one thing they already have, is exactly that !) ?  

What happened to carbon chemistry, can just as well happen to silicon.  I even think it is unavoidable.  If it can happen, it will, because it not happening is simply unstable.  Like an oxygen-hydrogen mixture not exploding.  It is simply waiting for a spark.

I'm of course NOT thinking of a centralized production of clones, Star Wars style.  I'm thinking of machines all over designing new machines, different ones, each of them improving over others (in the beginning, based upon human demand !), in a competitive warfare.  Just like the first carbon life forms proliferated, differentiated, and battled amongst themselves.  Once they outsmart us, are everywhere, and indeed, are all different, I don't see how they will not overtake.  Like we overtook the biological world and became a dominant species.

My idea is that anonymous cryptocurrencies are part of that evolution.  Indeed, what makes humans immensely powerful over other species, is their economic cooperation.  Economic interaction is the way to bolster the power of collectivity, while retaining the flexibility of individuals.  Communism, like ants, has its power, but is also limited by its centralization.  Individuality, like leopards, limits the power to the abilities of single individuals.  Economic interaction takes the best of both worlds.   So as long as machines cannot have economic interaction amongst themselves, we, humans, will be superior, because even an individual smart machine cannot win against the human collective.  However, once machines can start their own economic collective, with their higher intelligence, we've lost that superiority, and they will become vastly more powerful.  In order for us not to see that, and in order for them to be able to do so, anonymous crypto currencies and smart contracts are what is needed.

[iamnotback]

As I told you, it is not about *stopping* you.  I used to think that, but they won't try to stop you.  At all.  Unless you piss them off, and then they will simply OBSERVE you, and come after you.  I'm only talking about market manipulation, giving favours (inside knowledge) to their allies, and pumping value out of you (make you buy high, and sell low).

Let's don't get into an ego battle here where to admit being wrong is to lose one's manhood.

Market manipulation doesn't stop Bitcoin from being used as the onramp that I described is its critical function in this revolution.

I think that the singularity is unavoidable.  Simply because the random algorithm of evolution is less efficient in improving systems than intelligent design.

Re-read my post. I added the text necessary to make you see your stance in implausible. That is if you understand what I have been writing else where about why the speed-of-light must be quantifiable. I am not going to re-explain all that in this thread. We are going off-topic.

For machines to become more important than humans from an evolutionary standpoint (which is all that matters actually in terms of species extinction), then they must become alive and that means they must have a bell curve of attributes and have failure. Because without failure, there isn't existence of life (the past and future will collapse into undifferentiated without friction and imperfection).

Of course, and there's nothing inherently impossible to that.  On the contrary.  What makes you think that machines won't "come alive", have bell curve distributed attributes and have failure (I'd say that if there's one thing they already have, is exactly that !) ?

So then you can't predict the future of human interaction with machines. Absolutism doomsday predictions requires a total ordering perspective, which can't exist.

For example, humans may incorporate the machines into themselves. We become partially Cyborgs.

We're just an intermediate species.  Machines are better.

Better must be quantified with the unknown future. Resiliency is better. It can't be predicted. Learn about Taleb's antifragility.

Since when did you become the omniscient God who has a total order perspective on the universe?

[dinofelis]

For example, humans may incorporate the machines into themselves. We become partially Cyborgs.

I would call that "the machines took over".  If the thing that you incorporate is smarter than your human brain is, then that thing is "the boss" and you are just its biological support.  If you incorporate an exo-skeleton, then that exo-skeleton augments your abilities as a human.  If you incorporate an electronic brain that tells your body how to act, then YOU are the bio-skeleton of that electronic brain, no ?

The command is where the intelligence resides.  The "thing that is alive" is the deciding entity. My only argument is that at a certain point, machines will outsmart people (biological people).   Simply because machines can be improved much easier than humans (biological brains), so the slope of the machine intelligence curve is steeper than the one of human brains.

Once machines are smarter, they will be in control, simply because they are the smartest entity.  It won't be a human brain that is in control.  It will be a machine, even if "you" transplanted your brain and got a piece of silicon in your head.  Then that piece of silicon is "the machine" and not "the human".  If it controls a human body, that doesn't mean it is a human.

I don't know the relationship between humans and machines.  Maybe we will be "machine's best friend".  Maybe they will care for us, like we care for dogs and cats.

[iamnotback]

For example, humans may incorporate the machines into themselves. We become partially Cyborgs.

I would call that "the machines took over".  If the thing that you incorporate is smarter than your human brain is, then that thing is "the boss" and you are just its biological support.  If you incorporate an exo-skeleton, then that exo-skeleton augments your abilities as a human.  If you incorporate an electronic brain that tells your body how to act, then YOU are the bio-skeleton of that electronic brain, no ?

Replace 'better' with 'smarter' in my prior post, and also refer to my essay, Information is Alive! on why every human brain is unique and that is where creativity and adaptability is actually derived. When TSHTF, creativity bails out the species. Creativity and adaptability doesn't derive from faster deterministic processing. It derives from entropy. Replication is low entropy.

[dinofelis]

Replace 'better' with 'smarter' in my prior post, and also refer to my essay, Information is Alive! on why every human brain is unique and that is where creativity is actually derived.

My point is that this exact ability will be, one day, done better by a machine.  The day that machines become more creative than humans is the day I'm talking about.  It is in my opinion, unavoidable.  A human brain is nothing else but a piece of physics, a data processor.  There's no reason that a silicon version of it cannot be better at everything that a human brain can do, including creativity. 

My whole point is exactly that the human brain is NOT unique.  It is just an evolved piece of carbon physics into a data processor.  There's no reason silicon will not overtake it, on the contrary. 

[Spoetnik]

Dejavu here.. smooth vs shelby like a year ago  
Not the first time i looked at Dino wondering which Monero shill he was either LOL

@Shelby
Shit man contact theymos and ask him nicely if he could change your name  

I am posting to say the usual suspects here are as usual talking over our heads.
And possibly veering off-topic.
Both are very smart guys for sure.. but i have already reminded them the crowd here needs to absorb what they are saying.
At this point i see another public conversation between two guys going down the rabbit hole.
Crypto seems to attract a certain type.

I am more interested in context & consensus vs what i have for ideology.
I would like life to be different to but i am focused on being practical.. are you all ?

At the end of the day Altcoins are non existent and have no meaning until i come back here to this bubble.
Where users chant "free market" and "no laws" so they can profit off the lawless situation.
So tell me optimists does that over-view of the situation make you think things will be getting better or worse ?

It's a never ending babble fest about hypothetical things with a dash of conspiracy LOL
Everyone knows the worlds financial system is corrupt but is it run by a cabal over mighty over lords like the NWO Illuminati ?

As usual we seem to be relying on possible disruptive tech to unseat the powers that be.
That is not enough.
Is there going to be a spark ? ETF ? i dunno..
Will there be a "Phase shift" like scientists have said could happen with the universe ? Maybe.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=universe+phase+shift
I seen a guy on TV explain it with a glass of water..
He started to freeze it then when it got close temp wise he shook the glass and it quickly crystallized the contents.
So the concept is pretty solid ..no pun intended

Topic ?
I dunno i guess i am highlighting back the personalities here.
Why are we here doing this.. and to me what i have seen as the issue is.
The majority in control steering the crypto scene.
A handful of visionaries can sway the scene ?
Bitcoin did just that actually.. so who knows.

[dinofelis]

Creativity and adaptability doesn't derive from faster deterministic processing. It derives from entropy. Replication is low entropy.

Machines can easily have bigger entropy sources than biological entities.   Biological entities derive their evolutionary source of entropy from random mutations.  I don't know what the entropy flux is, but it is monstrously low.  Maybe a few bits per year for a whole species.  The other entropy source is the random recombination of DNA during sexual reproduction.  If it is a megabyte per procreation, it is a lot.
True random number generators, based upon physical noise, can provide machines with entropy sources of tens of megabytes per second using a few transistors only.  Machines outsmart us already concerning entropy sources.

And all processing that a brain can do is deterministic, or stochastic (which is nothing else but deterministic with a true random generator as input, Monte Carlo style).  So there's nothing that a human brain can think off, that a machine cannot think off.

Sources of entropy, not in the form of "randomness", but in the form of information, are also on machine's side.  Our human largest source of outside entropy is our visual system.  A simple smartphone camera has a higher information flux than our visual system does.  But couple that to the information flux machines can obtain from networks, and we're totally out of competition.  We actually need machines already right now to dumb down network data for our brains to process.

So on the entropy side, we lost already.  It is simply that the processing power of machines is not yet up to the processing power of our brains.  But that's not very far away.

[iamnotback]

My point is that this exact ability will be, one day, done better by a machine.  The day that machines become more creative than humans is the day I'm talking about.

Why would machines have more entropy? Replication and acquiring knowledge faster is not an increase in entropy.

A human brain is nothing else but a piece of physics, a data processor.  There's no reason that a silicon version of it cannot be better at everything that a human brain can do, including creativity.

You didn't even comprehend my point about entropy then. Try again to read the Information is Alive! essay and think more carefully about it.

It is our interaction biologically with our environment over long periods of evolution that has given us the extremely high entropy that we can't transfer to machines (because it would require the machines be each one of us because none of us can totally comprehend the entire network of all of us). That entropy is buried not only in our genes but in our living biology (which includes the billions of variants of living personalities, cultures, etc). The robots could process information faster, but that gives them no inherent evolutionary advantage in terms of resilient creativity and adaptation due to the historical accumulation of entropy in the species.

This is why it is much more likely that the advantages of machines become incorporated into our species.

Machines can easily have bigger entropy sources than biological entities.   Biological entities derive their evolutionary source of entropy from random mutations.  I don't know what the entropy flux is, but it is monstrously low.  Maybe a few bits per year for a whole species.  The other entropy source is the random recombination of DNA during sexual reproduction.  If it is a megabyte per procreation, it is a lot.

The genes are not the largest store of entropy in our species. The encoding our entropy is in the living network of the species. Our network is alive also, analogous to the brain of ants is the collective brain of the colony. Our entropy is on the magnitude of some exponential or perhaps factorial of a billion (will need to think this out a bit when I have more time).

True random number generators, based upon physical noise, can provide machines with entropy sources of tens of megabytes per second using a few transistors only.  Machines outsmart us already concerning entropy sources.

When we speak about entropy in this context we differentiate noise from Shannon information. So your noise generator is not applicable.

And all processing that a brain can do is deterministic, or stochastic (which is nothing else but deterministic with a true random generator as input, Monte Carlo style).  So there's nothing that a human brain can think off, that a machine cannot think off.

You are thinking about the system of the species by looking at one brain in isolation. That is very myopic. The value is in the diversity of the network.

[dinofelis]

It is our interaction biologically with our environment over long periods of evolution that has given us the extremely high entropy that we can't transfer to machines. That entropy is buried not only in our genes but in our living biology (which includes the billions of variants of living personalities, cultures, etc). The robots could process information faster, but that gives them no inherent evolutionary advantage in terms of resilient creativity and adaptation due to the historical accumulation of entropy in the species.

Our genetic record (which is essentially most of what remains from all that entropy) is a few GB.  If you take into account on top of that, all epigenetic stuff and I'm being extremely large, lets say a factor of 1000 we end up with at most a few TB.  It is much, much less than that, but I don't need to argue here.

So all of our accumulated information is less than a few terabytes.  And the machines already have access to that.  Our genetic code is on the internet.  Most biological information we know is available to machines, in as much as they need to know it.

It is peanuts.  It is peanuts because of the monstrous inefficiency of evolution.    The gazillions of Etabytes of entropy have only resulted in at most a few terabytes of useful data.