[ANN] New blockchain protocol inspired in biological processes

[GeneticBlockchain]

Hi everyone

My first post here to share a presentation on a new blockchain protocol that I've been developing and working on recently, code-named Genetic Blockchain. Most of you who have either a good knowledge or skin in the blockchain or crypto game would perhaps benefit from skipping the first few slides; I'm there saying nothing you haven't heard before (or so I expect). The idea behind this deck is to provide a gentle introduction to what comes next, which, once more, is presented in a rather descriptive and non-technical way so that it might be widely understood.

The presentation, available through ISSUU, is easily accessible from the link below.

https://issuu.com/macroanalytica/docs/genetic_blockchain_introduction_160

[presos in ISSUU benefit from full-screen viewing]

I've even came-up with a name for the Token that's an integral component of the platform: GenS. In other words, to operate in this platform you transact in GenS.

To provide a biological analogy, GenS "bind to" the blockchain in a way that resembles how proteins "bind to" DNA nucleotides (and I want to stress this: the process is inspired by the way gene regulatory proteins recognize and bind to DNA, but it does not replicate the mechanism 1-to-1).

Anyway, as ever I will be grateful for comments and feedback, questions and the lot. I think this initiative will benefit from the interaction with people from the community.

A post is also available through my LinkedIn profile.

Thanks everyone.

Ed

[coinHunter233]

I guess the concept is too difficult for others to make a serious reply.
need a simple version.

[GeneticBlockchain]

Thanks for your comment coinHunter233, much appreciated.

My expectation was that the people around here would have a deeper understanding of the inner, more intricate workings of a crypto (applicable to this case and to any crypto, for that matter) but what I'm mostly witnessing is people on a pure "let's see if we can get rich" approach. In any case, by now I feel I'm not communicating it in a way that's easily understood, despite making an attempt at reaching to a wide audience. My mistake, got the "pulse" wrong clearly.

Reminds of something I've posted today on my LinkedIn page.

https://i.imgur.com/BHkghy7.png

It's basically the BTC price phase diagram. The index depicted in the bigger graph is an expectations-calibrated evolution in BTC prices (meaning: it's a weighted composite, where weights conform to a view of expectations formation) and on the insert, the same thing and over the same time period but looking at the NASDAQ composite. The scales are the same and I've also included a marker so that you can see how they differ (and yep, it's quite a lot by any metric).

I've used the NASDAQ as it's [1] a reflection of the movement in technology stocks; and [2] the composite has delivered a 2.76-fold return over the same time frame depicted for the BTC market (we're talking about 8 years, so a yearly yield of 13.5% which is not a killing if you're a pro investor, but still).

In addition, I've highlighted the last 60 days and 2 week excursions in BTC prices, so that you can see whether they're moving around a particular basin of attraction. The overall picture shows how wild the market behavior has been, even short-term.

It warrants 3 obvious questions.

[1] Is BTC a medium of exchange? To be considered as such, a commodity (and here I mean any good: rice, salt, gold or whatever) has to be quickly verifiable, at a low enough cost by anyone entering into a transaction using said good (otherwise, it makes no sense) so that each party can be assured the same value is given up as is received. If its value becomes recognized and agreed upon, then it can be used as a unit of account. That way, contracts either for immediate or future delivery (inter-temporal trade) can be easily expressed, because a unit of account is available to the intervening parties. Is this combination of factors what leads to the general acceptance of a commodity as a medium of exchange (in other words, it becomes the good, amongst those goods available to society, having the highest subjective probability of trade) and, upon reaching that stage, it provides a service to its adopters of more value than its intrinsic one.

But it's seemingly not. As Bloomberg recently reported, BTC acceptance is still quite low amongst online retailers and edging lower; see https://bloom.bg/2us4nfp.

[2] Is otherwise BTC a store of value? Anyone accepting a commodity as a medium of exchange does so upon the expectation of being able to exchange that good again, at a future date, for other goods and services they might require. By the same token, if one equates savings to deferred consumption a medium of exchange becomes a simple means to store value, today, towards consumption tomorrow. Trust by the holders of this medium of exchange hinges upon the predictability and stability of its value. If trust is undermined, as it happens during hyper-inflationary episodes or during periods of untamed volatility, that good then quickly loses its general appeal.

hence

[3] Does BTC pass the litmus tests [1] and [2] above? On paper, it does not. Many would argue it's an asset class (hence a store of value) but why would anyone convert fiat (regardless of your opinion about it) or other asset classes for BTC, in a market where, quite clearly, no-one can seemingly agree upon its fair value?

It might well be we're witnessing something unprecedented, that falls outside the books and known rules. For one, I have serious doubts: it smells, looks and walks like a big casino (so unlikely it's a duck).

The idea of creating the Genetic Blockchain was to provide for a Token that fulfills condition [2] (store of value) and "might" become [1] (medium of exchange).

Anyway, with apologies for the long excusion I'll try make the preso more amenable.

Thanks..!
 

[gaazje]

When can we expect a first testnet and client to be available?

[GeneticBlockchain]

Hi gaazje

Thanks for your reply. I'm working on fine-tuning the algorithms ATM (prototyped in Matlab) and from end of next week I envisage start porting it into C++, at which stage things will get clearer (see the last page in the presentation deck I've linked on my original post). Perhaps by EOY there will be something up for community-wide testing.

That said, I'm running on my own gas. Been thinking of a pre-ICO to ICO but there is so much BS going on there that I'm wary not to be sucked into (or tainted by) that blackhole. I want to do it right. So we'll see.

Best

Ed 

[gaazje]

Maybe find a limited group of investors, ie the senior/hero/legendary bitcointalk members
and allow them to invest in 1 stake only. This prevents the whales from coming in and
you still have a nice spread over a lot of members. And you have a starting capital.

[Nggedebus]

After reading the post over and over, I think that I still found confusing.
What is the real purpose of the project and how ill it look (the project i mean).

[ranggenga]

This is one of a kind that keeping such of heritage building or even food or food.
I hope the project going smoothly.

[GeneticBlockchain]

Hi guys

I'll try to provide later a more friendly walk through; thanks for your comments and for making me realize the presentation needs to be softened a bit.

As for the purpose, let's see:

1. Aims to provide a scalable solution.

2. Aims at providing an alternative consensus mechanism. Why? Well, I'm perceiving (stand to be proven wrong, though) that much of the crypto scene is being hijacked, and that many of the principles leading to the creation (as it were) of bitcoin and other cryptos (and the implementation of the blockchain, in more general terms) have been not forgotten perhaps, but thrown away in practice. I'm thinking, e.g. about the undercurrents and shit-storms precipitating forking and splits, past and to come. Bitcoin has now moved far beyond being a curiosity; there's big money a stake, big interests (and perhaps many egos) at play and lots of people that are making bets here assuming it's a fast track to riches, and I fear, but again might be wrong, many ordinary folk are in line for lots of pain in the not too distant future.

There is another train of thought that suggests this is not a bad thing, as eventually the weed will be fully exposed, precipitating a flight to quality. My question is, at what cost? Moreover, is that cost acceptable?

3. If heading towards being (yet another) cryptocurrency, in a scene where we roughly have 1000 already (and counting) it aims at becoming one that can be trusted as storage of value.

4. It aims to do that by adopting bleeding edge protocols to ensure security and consistency.

IMHO the original bitcoin project, when it started to walk past the door of the lab and away from folks embracing it from a more philosophical standpoint, became entangled in the net of capitalism and at that stage, as said, much of its goodwill (the idea of a "liquid society," for example) just got bombed, quietly but consistently.

To do that, I'm trying to offer an alternative (and perhaps will not succeed, who knows). Whether that alternative will have legs and run (be adopted) remains to be seen.

On the funding aspect that gaazje mentioned, it's not that I can't support it (been doing it so far) but only to a point. To be credible and move from a prototype it needs to be scaled. That will require a team that gels in terms of the objectives and the funding to keep the food on the table; there is, as with everything in life, an opportunity cost that is paid (either implicitly or explicitly). That's how our capitalist society works, I'm afraid.

I've been looking at the ICO scene and there is so much shit going on. Again, now that there's (big) money on the table everyone is jumping into the boat, which, as it may, could sink under its own weight.

As I said elsewhere, much of what's happening is the consequence of venturing into uncertain territory, and perhaps we're witnessing a phenomena that's not on the playbooks we've read. I have doubts about that, though.

Thanks, best and stay tuned..!

Ed        

[Piggy]

Hello,

I read your presentation, is a very interesting concept having multiple blockchains binded by transactions, but i didnt get the all picture of it.

Do you have some example or use case that could help explain the usefulness of it?

[GeneticBlockchain]

Hello,

I read your presentation, is a very interesting concept having multiple blockchains binded by transactions, but i didnt get the all picture of it.

Do you have some example or use case that could help explain the usefulness of it?

Hi there

Thanks for your feedback. I'm working on it ATM, as I'm becoming aware the whole idea needs a bit more softening (from a presentation POV) to make it stick.

Keep tuned. As for the usefulness, well, I've depicted my basic train of thought in the post above.

I think a key tenet for any good (no matter what it is) to have LT value to the community (don't think to speculators, but this is not built with the aim of feeding the sharks) is stability and credibility, which is only attained when users agree on its fair value. The only way to attain that is by a protocol that self-regulates, like the real DNA molecules in our bodies (that's partly one of the reasons I'm using this metaphor) so that demand and supply clear (if not instantly, with a short enough lag to prevent either spikes or falls in price). It's achieved by what I would define (perhaps imperfectly) as an algorithmic authority.

Stay tuned and again, thanks for your feedback.

Ed      

[GeneticBlockchain]

As I put together a more gentler explanation to my project... on my LinkedIn page today I posted something I wanted to repeat here, because it would be great to have your views.

People are getting all too pumped-up by cryptos (and everything having blockchain as header) yet seems no-one is making perhaps the most obvious question: who actually "owns" most of the Bitcoin network hashing power?

You surely know this, but let's have a look.

https://i.imgur.com/bCNyYWO.png

Data as of today AM GMT showing the share over the past 96 hr. It's easy to add-up and note that 66.9% (or 2/3, almost squarely) is in hands of 6 players. Let me repeat, 6. The "magic threshold" is controlled by the top 4 players, that account for 51.6% of the mining power. Just 4 players.

For BCH, a single mining pool (if I'm not wrong) controls 96% of the hash power.

Plus, of course, all the undercurrents leading to forks, splits, "gentlemen" agreements (e.g. Roger Ver openly admitting he's at a market manipulation strategy for BCC: let's not forget this lot got $75 million from Bilderberg to turn it into something quite different from Nakamoto's vision) and the lot. A complete shit-show, regardless of ST valuations and the obvious HF arbitrage taking place ATM.

It raises, for the ordinary folk, an obvious question. How do you feel putting your arse in a few hands? Because don't think for a second that collusion, given this template, is impossible (whether that's "optimal" is a different issue altogether, requiring a separate analysis). Plus a surrogate question, also obvious. When the State "fails" you curse politicians, corporations, whatever, but you (mostly) know which doors to knock or to throw stones at. History provides a bounty of examples.

But what about the crypto world? You're going to go, find and kick the shit out of Ver and Wu? Or whoever? AntPool? Has anyone seriously thought about it? No, they're all queuing to hear McAfee speak BS (but he's McAfee, that guy behind the AV, must be a clever chap that knows his shit, surely).

You can also argue that not jumping on a market that has delivered the yields BTC has delivered is an idiot. Always cool to make statements with Monday's paper handy. If you had bought BTC at $10 a pop, would you still be holding-on here, or have closed your positions at, say, $200.

A personal story: in mid or late 2009 I considered investing $1000 that I had idle on BTC, just for the sake of it. Would have made for a tidy sum if hold until now. Instead, I had a bud who had just lost his IT job, the crisis was still biting hard, he had a 2 yo toddler and a family to feed, and I decided to gift it to him. It could have a crypto-wallet in the millions by now. It placed food on a bud's table then. It was the right choice. Then I forgot about the whole damn thing, I'm not an investor.

Anyway, from here on, make your own conclusions.

The more I look at this the more I want to press on the GeneticBlockchain initiative. Because, at the core, there is an issue frequently overlooked here (and by all the social experiments out there). We live, whether we fucking like it or not, in a capitalist society. The place where many philosophical "dreams" get ultimately stuck. Don't try any other explanation because it's that simple, as is blunt and perhaps uncomfortable.

So where next? I'm working on this initiative, yet I don't quite know for sure whether the recipe will work as intended. Just take a look at Nakamoto's baby. I'm in the lab, still.

Anyway, time for lunch.

Best

Ed

[l10no]

This thread is enough to make me confused, even though I caught some information that I wanted, but I'm not quite familiar with this project, can you please describe it quite simply and easily understood?

[GeneticBlockchain]

This thread is enough to make me confused, even though I caught some information that I wanted, but I'm not quite familiar with this project, can you please describe it quite simply and easily understood?

I'll do that (hopefully later today, family allowing). But what's confusing about it other than, say, the protocol I'm proposing? (which I need to slice a bit more for it to be digestible) Unless there is something in my train of thought (e.g. my post above) that is not understood? Duh?

[Piggy]

hi, could you present yourself and the team behind this project? even linkedin is fine

[GeneticBlockchain]

OK guys...

Let's see if this iteration makes things a bit more understandable.

https://issuu.com/macroanalytica/docs/genetic_blockchain_introduction_200

If not, well, there is always the possibility to dumb it further, but then I'd wonder what would be the advantage of that. Granted many things would have been left out, but you have to close the deck at some stage or it becomes a never-ending work.

Best

[Piggy]

OK guys...

Let's see if this iteration makes things a bit more understandable.

https://issuu.com/macroanalytica/docs/genetic_blockchain_introduction_200

If not, well, there is always the possibility to dumb it further, but then I'd wonder what would be the advantage of that. Granted many things would have been left out, but you have to close the deck at some stage or it becomes a never-ending work.

Best

Is much better. The system to keep the price stable need to be further explained, but the all picture is there now.

[GeneticBlockchain]

OK guys...

Let's see if this iteration makes things a bit more understandable.

https://issuu.com/macroanalytica/docs/genetic_blockchain_introduction_200

If not, well, there is always the possibility to dumb it further, but then I'd wonder what would be the advantage of that. Granted many things would have been left out, but you have to close the deck at some stage or it becomes a never-ending work.

Best

Is much better. The system to keep the price stable need to be further explained, but the all picture is there now.

Cool. The system to explain how to keep prices stable, well, think of a Taylor rule of sorts.

Bump for views. Perhaps ppl here is too active pursuing other things? Have I posted in the right subforum? 

[GeneticBlockchain]

Adrian Chen, writing for the New York Times back in November, 2013.

To wit:  "Bitcoin is built on a weird mix of the most old-fashioned kind of speculative greed, bolstered by a contemporary utopian cyberlibertarian ideology. Boosters say that bitcoin is the currency of the future. I’d argue that the phenomenon is a digital gold rush perfectly emblematic of the present."

It's 2017, nearly four years down the road, and we're still in "that" present. In fact, even more so. He adds "Bitcoin is mainly innovative in the way of credit default swaps: new ways to gamble with money." Chen then goes on saying "Bitcoin is most interesting on an emotional level. Its sheen of technomagic has let uber-rational geeks treat the casino-floor frenzy as a serious technological story." I think there are shades of gray to this assertion, but he's correct in highlighting the "emotional level" connection.

The difference, I believe, is the emotional bond people  at large, not just the geekos, are having with technology. So much so that it has managed to lure huge sways of non-techies into the BTC fold, trusting that technology (pitted against politicians, elites, bureaucrats, the lot) offers that patina of asceticism, of neutrality, that signals "this is now, for once, different."

Unfortunately, it is not.

[GeneticBlockchain]

A new, updated deck available (adds some slides and merges the previous 2 presos).

https://issuu.com/macroanalytica/docs/genetic_blockchain_introduction_200

Anyway, just for the record. I was expecting some feedback and an intelligent discussion, but seems people are worried by other facets of the blockchain/crypto scene.