Proof of market (POM)

[Frangomel]

Ok,

this is not one of them proofs. It exists for many years in real forexes, markets and stock markets. We implemented it here on Freshcoin as economic value with criteria of usability. It says: you can use your coin and get big price only if your coin is usable on real market. Real market has its rules and it means that you need to first import your coin into it. So, we did that with freshcoin importing it into games.

There is unfortunately trying to copy this idea and called it POP or other, but we have marketing plan which explain everything of it

It is feasibility study also so it has measurements, criterias, analysis, exlploration and lots of stuff which is not just hot air, because we are announcing first games on 15th of October.

POM is new in crypto but old stuff in stock, so we just connected it. SO when some usability getting more, it push price. So we want stable uptrend price with usability!

cheers!

[HunterMinerCrafter]

There is unfortunately trying to copy this idea and called it POP or other, but we have marketing plan which explain everything of it

I have read your materials and they explain very little about this "proof" of market.  Can you tell me what your network proves, and how it structures the proof?  I would like to be able to verify your proofs in a model checker.  Certainly if your proofs are well formed then you should be able to guide me in doing so.

[Frangomel]

There is unfortunately trying to copy this idea and called it POP or other, but we have marketing plan which explain everything of it

I have read your materials and they explain very little about this "proof" of market.  Can you tell me what your network proves, and how it structures the proof?  I would like to be able to verify your proofs in a model checker.  Certainly if your proofs are well formed then you should be able to guide me in doing so.

Proof of market is category of economic usability coin. It uses POW or POS or any other technical model for transactions validations which you are using. But in terms of trends as there are many coins on market and lots of them are dead we decided to make concept which has business implementation. In our model there are benefits for investors, game developers and gamers too. We call it proof of market as it use model of real stock exchanges.

It is proportionally using coin on real market and its influence on price on markets. Today we need business in crypto not just engineering of it. When you connect those two activities you got POM. It will use some changes in terms of blockchain appropriate to our marketing plan very soon. There is lots of coins with no usability on real market (most of them). Proof of market is connecting price, promotion, POW (or other validation process), real market usability in once. It is not just programming feature, it is much more spreaded category.

POM is marketing plan connected with POW/POS or any other crypto validation system!

[HunterMinerCrafter]

POM is marketing plan connected with POW/POS or any other crypto validation system!

A plan cannot be a proof.  A plan is a speculative outline with a proposal of intent.  A plan cannot be asserted as axiomatically true.  You cannot know from the structure of the plan that you will obtain the desired outcome, so nothing is proven.

To call something a proof implies that the artifact in question is axiomatic, acceptably complete, and logically consistent.  If you have something called a proof you should be able to easily and independently trace through it from any assumptions made to some "undeniable" conclusion.  (This is what I called "model check" in my prior post.)

If you cannot encode it in a logical proposition and verify it, mechanically, against an acceptable background theory then it is not a proof.  This is unavoidable.

If you cannot tell me the assumed axioms of your proof, the logical encoding of the structure of you proof, and the proposed claim arising from your proof then it is not a proof at all.

Please either clarify what gets proven by your "proof" of market, or else stop calling it a proof.  Otherwise someone might get confused and accidentally take you seriously.

[Frangomel]

POM is marketing plan connected with POW/POS or any other crypto validation system!

A plan cannot be a proof.  A plan is a speculative outline with a proposal of intent.  A plan cannot be asserted as axiomatically true.  You cannot know from the structure of the plan that you will obtain the desired outcome, so nothing is proven.

To call something a proof implies that the artifact in question is axiomatic, acceptably complete, and logically consistent.  If you have something called a proof you should be able to easily and independently trace through it from any assumptions made to some "undeniable" conclusion.  (This is what I called "model check" in my prior post.)

If you cannot encode it in a logical proposition and verify it, mechanically, against an acceptable background theory then it is not a proof.  This is unavoidable.

If you cannot tell me the assumed axioms of your proof, the logical encoding of the structure of you proof, and the proposed claim arising from your proof then it is not a proof at all.

Please either clarify what gets proven by your "proof" of market, or else stop calling it a proof.  Otherwise someone might get confused and accidentally take you seriously.

It is just programming thoughts, we are talking more spread. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true, I called that proof and a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something it is plan also our white paper is feasibility study which definition is "an analysis and evaluation of a proposed project to determine if it (1) is technically feasible, (2) is feasible within the estimated cost, and (3) will be profitable. Feasibility studies are almost always conducted where large sums are at stake. Also called feasibility analysis."

So we can call proof what we did or maybe I am wrong? I will be glad to prove that our plan is our proof because if you look in near past it is cool for understanding that proof of what we did is in the plan! Please do not look so narrow

I am really good in understanding what is POW and POS or other stuff, just to clear that but I would be also glad for you to understand that not only word proof stays in programming crypto language

But this is not the theme, to prove what is proof...we need to go further to understand that crypto needs economy and vice versa

[Frangomel]

We are talking on two fronts, so I partly answer you on most questions, but answer me this in terms of word proof:

How can we name POW proof of work coin which is not proved (because it is not mined) it is plan to be proved but real proof is when it is mined? It will be prooved but many of them are not mined and proved so POW as a concept is just name and relationships you give are mostly philosophical. Proof is something promised a statement that is passed. That mean it takes time. POW, POS, POP is just statements which has to be done in coins. POM is also.

We did lots of work we promised, so lots of things were proved Smiley and please do not judge, it just show your behaviour Smiley and face Smiley

Dont want to defend myself but I did say that maybe I am wrong Smiley that shows my face Smiley

[HunterMinerCrafter]

It is just programming thoughts, we are talking more spread. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true, I called that proof

Sure, but that evidence must see some formal treatment of presentation in order to constitute a proof.  It must be shown to have a structured relationship with the assumptions made and the conclusion drawn.  The evidence must be inexorably "linked up end to end" so that the conclusion follows, by way of the evidence relation, from the assumptions.

  Someone needs to be able to, independently, hold all of the evidence together and be able to justify the "compelling to accept" that the resulting assertion as true.  You can't have a proof which is entirely ephemeral, where the evidence is unstructured and ambient, and claim that it compels the mind toward acceptance.

and a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something it is plan

Sure.  I don't argue this.  What you have presented is unquestionably a plan-of-market.  A plan is not a proof.  A plan can be a way to construct a proof, or it can be a way to evaluate a proof, but it cannot be the proof itself.

also our white paper is feasibility study which definition is "an analysis and evaluation of a proposed project to determine if it (1) is technically feasible, (2) is feasible within the estimated cost, and (3) will be profitable. Feasibility studies are almost always conducted where large sums are at stake. Also called feasibility analysis."

That is great, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So we can call proof what we did or maybe I am wrong?

You are wrong.  If it is not feasible to encode all of the assumptions, background, and evidence into a logical proposition, and then feed that proposition into a mechanized model checker that can tell us if it holds (modulo the background theory provided) or not, then it is simply not a proof by any means.  So far, we have no way to structure either your "evidence of market" or "plan of market" into a formalize-able background theory.  We have no way structure the evidence as an unbroken chain from some assumptions to some conclusions.  When we have a way that we could do that, you will have a proof.  In the mean time, don't call something a proof when it isn't.  You literally can not be more wrong about something than this.

I will be glad to prove that our plan is our proof because if you look in near past it is cool for understanding that proof of what we did is in the plan! Please do not look so narrow

There is no question of breadth, here.  A plan cannot be a proof because it is inherently a speculative entity.  The conclusion it draws is a hope, a dream, a desired outcome.  The conclusion it draws cannot be necessarily called true or fact.  If it were a proof, we could assert the outcome as undeniable.  We can't do that with your conclusions, we can only hope for the best.

I am really good in understanding what is POW and POS or other stuff, just to clear that but I would be also glad for you to understand that not only word proof stays in programming crypto language

Again, I am not speaking at all about "programming" or "crypto" but simply about philosophy and the nature of reality.  We are not talking about algorithms or enciphering but about what artifacts in our shared existence can be said to assert what is true, and what artifacts can only suggest what might be.  You have no artifact that can assert that which is true, so you have no proofs.  This has nothing to do with coding, just facts.

But this is not the theme, to prove what is proof...we need to go further to understand that crypto needs economy and vice versa

Again, I do not disagree with you as to the relationship between economy and success of a crypto-currency.  My only issue is with your claim of having proven something about either or about the relationship itself.  I simply wish to know what it is you are claiming as evidently factual, and how you are proposing that you present this evidence in the structural form of something that we could call a proof.

If you can't do this, you don't call it a proof.

[Frangomel]

It is just programming thoughts, we are talking more spread. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true, I called that proof

Sure, but that evidence must see some formal treatment of presentation in order to constitute a proof.  It must be shown to have a structured relationship with the assumptions made and the conclusion drawn.  The evidence must be inexorably "linked up end to end" so that the conclusion follows, by way of the evidence relation, from the assumptions.

  Someone needs to be able to, independently, hold all of the evidence together and be able to justify the "compelling to accept" that the resulting assertion as true.  You can't have a proof which is entirely ephemeral, where the evidence is unstructured and ambient, and claim that it compels the mind toward acceptance.

and a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something it is plan

Sure.  I don't argue this.  What you have presented is unquestionably a plan-of-market.  A plan is not a proof.  A plan can be a way to construct a proof, or it can be a way to evaluate a proof, but it cannot be the proof itself.

also our white paper is feasibility study which definition is "an analysis and evaluation of a proposed project to determine if it (1) is technically feasible, (2) is feasible within the estimated cost, and (3) will be profitable. Feasibility studies are almost always conducted where large sums are at stake. Also called feasibility analysis."

That is great, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So we can call proof what we did or maybe I am wrong?

You are wrong.  If it is not feasible to encode all of the assumptions, background, and evidence into a logical proposition, and then feed that proposition into a mechanized model checker that can tell us if it holds (modulo the background theory provided) or not, then it is simply not a proof by any means.  So far, we have no way to structure either your "evidence of market" or "plan of market" into a formalize-able background theory.  We have no way structure the evidence as an unbroken chain from some assumptions to some conclusions.  When we have a way that we could do that, you will have a proof.  In the mean time, don't call something a proof when it isn't.  You literally can not be more wrong about something than this.

I will be glad to prove that our plan is our proof because if you look in near past it is cool for understanding that proof of what we did is in the plan! Please do not look so narrow

There is no question of breadth, here.  A plan cannot be a proof because it is inherently a speculative entity.  The conclusion it draws is a hope, a dream, a desired outcome.  The conclusion it draws cannot be necessarily called true or fact.  If it were a proof, we could assert the outcome as undeniable.  We can't do that with your conclusions, we can only hope for the best.

I am really good in understanding what is POW and POS or other stuff, just to clear that but I would be also glad for you to understand that not only word proof stays in programming crypto language

Again, I am not speaking at all about "programming" or "crypto" but simply about philosophy and the nature of reality.  We are not talking about algorithms or enciphering but about what artifacts in our shared existence can be said to assert what is true, and what artifacts can only suggest what might be.  You have no artifact that can assert that which is true, so you have no proofs.  This has nothing to do with coding, just facts.

But this is not the theme, to prove what is proof...we need to go further to understand that crypto needs economy and vice versa

Again, I do not disagree with you as to the relationship between economy and success of a crypto-currency.  My only issue is with your claim of having proven something about either or about the relationship itself.  I simply wish to know what it is you are claiming as evidently factual, and how you are proposing that you present this evidence in the structural form of something that we could call a proof.

If you can't do this, you don't call it a proof.

proof in this concept is price which is follower of our doings. That is called real stock proof. So in first post I said, price will follow our influence on game market. Plan is not proof but understand that POW is not POW also becuase it will be when it mine all coins so it is also Plan of work, it is phylosophy

[ShroomsKit_Disgrace]

The one and only POM coin I know is MICoin, and it is one of the best:

https://nxtforum.org/assets-board/(ann)(micoin)the-most-interesting-coin-in-the-world-pure-90-pom

90% POM as you can see.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

We are talking on two fronts, so I partly answer you on most questions, but answer me this in terms of word proof:

How can we name POW proof of work coin which is not proved (because it is not mined) it is plan to be proved but real proof is when it is mined?

Correct, a block which does not meet the difficulty target on its hash does not constitute a valid proof that the "necessary" work was performed.  It is still a proof of work, however, as it does stand as a proof that some hashing work was done.  It is just not a proof of sufficient work having been done, where "sufficient" is defined in the extant form of difficulty target.

It will be prooved but many of them are not mined and proved so POW as a concept is just name and relationships you give are mostly philosophical

All proof is philosophical.  We only consider a valid hash as a meaningful assertion because of our shared context of a reality in which sha prefix collision is a difficult task.  This is a strictly philosophical notion, predicated upon that shared reality

. Proof is something promised a statement that is passed. That mean it takes time. POW, POS, POP is just statements which has to be done in coins.

It is more than this, the proof is tangible, in the form of a certificate, and this is key.

In proof-of-work the "sufficiently low hash" does actually certify the work.  It is a tangible form of the proof.  We can hold it, study it, share it, replicate it, asses it, and independently know it to be true.  We can look at it and point to it.  It is an actual thing.

In proof-of-stake the stake record (blockchain itself) and modular "signer selection" form a certificate.  We can look at the chain and know that the correct stakeholder was chosen to select transactions by redoing the same modular selection math.  It is a tangible form of the proof, we can hold it, share it, replicate it, asses it, and independently know it to be true.  We can look at it and point to it.  It is an actual thing.

In proof-of-play the recorded game log showing a winning play does actually certify the play.  We can look at the record of play and know that the coin was rightly won per the rules of the game.  It is a tangible log of the game-play forming a proof that the game-play happened correctly. We can hold it, share it, replicate it, asses it, and independently know it to be true.  We can look at it and point to it.  It is an actual thing.

POM is also.

How?  How is the evidence about the market made tangible, in any way?  How can we hold it, share it, replicate it, assess it, and independently know it to be true?  Where is it to be looked at?  How can I point to it and refer a peer to it?

Is it an actual thing?  How is it actualized, in what form?

WHERE IS IT?

I can post a bitcoin block proof here.  Look:

Code:

0000000000000000022c53dc979383a4bbb285dd94922953dd3e6983187d1354

Tangible proof of sufficient work having been done on that block.  You can go to the chain, pull this block, compare against difficulty target, and independently know for certain that the proof holds

I can post a proof-of-play block proof here, too.  Look:

Code:

"hash" : "189df93bbec7fbee5dfe9f10a0c6171fec1b9406000d573aa9a0bb53d536598c",
"nonce" : 515065680,
"frames" : 2284,
"inputs" : [4501, 1313, 5921, 4389, 4917]

You can go to the chain, pull this block, seed a map with the nonce, re-execute all 2,284 frames of game-play, input all 5 button presses at the appropriate time, watch the moto player reach the finish and win his coin before the timer runs out, and independently know for certain that the proof holds.

I can post a stake record and modular selection math for a proof of stake coin here, too.  I won't, because the necessary information to confirm the proof as valid would be quite a bit of data to stick into the middle of some prose post, but I could do it.  You could then take that certificate, recalculate the same modular math, and arrive at the same conclusion about the outcome of who was selected to sign the block.  You can independently know for certain that the proof holds.

Please show me what one of your proof certificates looks like.  Please show me how I can take such a certificate and independently know for certain that the proof holds.  If you cannot do this you do not have a thing that can rightly be called a proof.

If your proof can not be delivered in some tangible form for some review by others, it is not much of a proof.  If your proof can't be held, shared, replicated, assesed, and independently known to be true, what exactly can it prove and to whom?

We did lots of work we promised, so lots of things were proved Smiley and please do not judge, it just show your behaviour Smiley and face Smiley

Huh?  I don't even know what you're trying to communicate on this one.

Dont want to defend myself but I did say that maybe I am wrong Smiley that shows my face Smiley

I hope you will go from an understanding that you may be wrong to an understanding of just how critically wrong you actually are, at which point I hope you would do the honorable thing and remove any claim of proof from your materials unless you can actually present some proofs for review.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

The one and only POM coin I know is MICoin, and it is one of the best:

https://nxtforum.org/assets-board/(ann)(micoin)the-most-interesting-coin-in-the-world-pure-90-pom

90% POM as you can see.

Wrong POM, but at least their form of proofs are tangible and somewhat traceable.     (Though perhaps not the best thing to base distribution/subsidy on, IMO!)  I think those memes come (much) closer to constituting proofs than anything Frangomel is able to demonstrate so far.

[Frangomel]

The one and only POM coin I know is MICoin, and it is one of the best:

https://nxtforum.org/assets-board/(ann)(micoin)the-most-interesting-coin-in-the-world-pure-90-pom

90% POM as you can see.

In programming world yes...we are talking here about word proof. Nothing is not proof when it is proved, so in terms of time or when time pass and job finishes it is prooved. So nothing is prooved till it is not done. Proof of marketing in terms of price which is follower of our work, smething is done but it needs to be done in future

[Frangomel]

@Hunter

you are speaking about programming now, I said it is spreaded

POM is market proof, price proof, we are proofing something what are we doing it is more social-economic question than just hashing. I want to spread things up to do it more open for more activities than just hash. Tangible is something touchable, POW is not toungible it is measurable and POM is also measurable so from phylosophy it is time dedicated. Proof is nothing till it is proved till end.

[Willisius]

...
There is unfortunately trying to copy this idea and called it POP or other, but we have marketing plan which explain everything of it
...

A whitepaper > a marketing plan. If it can't be explained in a whitepaper, it's not a "proof" - it's just a gimmick. Consider that "proof of work" is actually mathematically verifiable. "Proof" means that nobody has to trust you, is that the case here?

[HunterMinerCrafter]

you are speaking about programming now, I said it is spreaded

Again, I am not talking about programing at all.  I am talking about reality, philosophy, and our notions of truth.

Proof is a much bigger subject than computers.

POM is market proof, price proof, we are proofing something what are we doing it is more social-economic question than just hashing. I want to spread things up to do it more open for more activities than just hash.

We share this goal.    Motocoin does not use proofs over hashing in any traditional way, as your coin does for example.  Our proofs are not about hashing but about game-play, and this is the trans-formative differentiation of proof of play.  What are your proofs about?  What are you actually proving?  What is your schema?  What axioms do you hold to begin?  What process of reasoning do you employ in your rationalization?  What conclusion do you draw, and how is it justified?  If you do not have answers to these specific questions, defining proof, then you do not hold a proof.

Tangible is something touchable,

Amen to that.  Certainly being from a financial background you will know of the notion that if you can't kiss it then you don't own it.

Proofs are certainly tangible.  I can own it, print one out, cut it in half, paste it onto a second proof to possibly construct a third proof.  (More likely I'll end up with something that is no longer a proof, and this is what is most magical about them.)  I can hold it, kiss it, mail it to a friend for a second opinion, send it to someone on a p2p network called bitcoin, bury it in a time capsule, hide it from the world or share it with everyone, take a crap on it, burn it with fire, etc.

POW is not toungible it is measurable

Any proof should certainly be both, and the two notions are deeply and inexorably intertwined.  You cannot measure what you cannot, in some way, touch.  If you can't stick a ruler to it, weigh it, bounce a photon off of it, bend some electromagnetic force around it, or otherwise make some "touch" thing happen to it, you cannot measure it.  Much of modern philosophy and logic is about this notion of measurement of proof, in particular metrics over their poly-topos "surfaces" or "shapes." (This is actually something I've been in some deep discussions about lately with the zencoin developer, randomly.)  The shapes we call ontological lattice structures and convolution based belief networks are both of particular interest lately, but mostly for reasons related to AI and that "programming" thing that you want to avoid talking about, so I won't go into it further.

Let's take programming out of the question entirely for a moment, and just talk about the most basic elements of a proof.

I know for damned sure that 1+1 is 2 not because someone said so but because

Code:

Theorem 1lt2pi 6774
Description: One is less than two (one plus one).
Assertion
Ref	Expression
1lt2pi	|- 1o <N (1o +N 1o)
Proof of Theorem 1lt2pi
Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1	 	1onn 5506	. . . . 5 |- 1o e. om
2	 	nna0 5476	. . . . 5 |- (1o e. om -> (1o +o (/)) = 1o)
3	1, 2	ax-mp 8	. . . 4 |- (1o +o (/)) = 1o
4	 	0lt1o 5393	. . . . 5 |- (/) e. 1o
5	 	peano1 3973	. . . . . 6 |- (/) e. om
6	 	nnaord 5488	. . . . . 6 |- (((/) e. om /\ 1o e. om /\ 1o e. om) -> ((/) e. 1o <-> (1o +o (/)) e. (1o +o 1o)))
7	5, 1, 1, 6	mp3an 1251	. . . . 5 |- ((/) e. 1o <-> (1o +o (/)) e. (1o +o 1o))
8	4, 7	mpbi 198	. . . 4 |- (1o +o (/)) e. (1o +o 1o)
9	3, 8	eqeltrri 2002	. . 3 |- 1o e. (1o +o 1o)
10	 	1pi 6752	. . . 4 |- 1o e. N.
11	 	addpiord 6753	. . . 4 |- ((1o e. N. /\ 1o e. N.) -> (1o +N 1o) = (1o +o 1o))
12	10, 10, 11	mp2an 650	. . 3 |- (1o +N 1o) = (1o +o 1o)
13	9, 12	eleqtrri 2004	. 2 |- 1o e. (1o +N 1o)
14	 	addclpi 6761	. . . 4 |- ((1o e. N. /\ 1o e. N.) -> (1o +N 1o) e. N.)
15	10, 10, 14	mp2an 650	. . 3 |- (1o +N 1o) e. N.
16	 	ltpiord 6756	. . 3 |- ((1o e. N. /\ (1o +N 1o) e. N.) -> (1o <N (1o +N 1o) <-> 1o e. (1o +N 1o)))
17	10, 15, 16	mp2an 650	. 2 |- (1o <N (1o +N 1o) <-> 1o e. (1o +N 1o))
18	13, 17	mpbir 199	1 |- 1o <N (1o +N 1o)

(source Metamath OFC)

This thing *is* the tangible form artifact of the "frozen into material being" knowledge that one and one are, undeniably, two.

I know for damned sure that you have no single argument against the claim that 1+1=2 because of QED at the 18th assertion, there.  I can, independent of anyone or anything else in the universe, hold this epic knowledge, this proof, with my hands, see it with my eyes, kiss it with my lips, and most importantly know it to be not only a thing but that special sort of thing that we can call a proof (I'm even blessed to be able to see that it is one specifically shaped like "closed, total, peano arithmetic form induction over ordinal naturals") and I can know this not only with my brain but with all of my heart and soul.

How can I print out one of your proofs of one of your claims, hold it with my hands, see it with my eyes, know it to be a special thing that is called QED, and then kiss it with my lips?

This claim could be any one of your claims about the market or the spot price or anything at all other than your classic PoW hash function blockchain which we'll certainly agree is the one proof your system can/does offer up. (*YAWN*)

If I can't print your claim, evidence, and reasoning out on paper and kiss it with my lips I can't own any meaningful token of open interest in it.  If I can't own it, why exactly should I buy into it, particularly when you are (perhaps intentionally, for hoodwinking, this is alt-coin land after all) mislabeling it as a proof?

I've said this before to others.  At best, you are misunderstanding the meaning of a proof.  At worst, you are attempting to defraud people.  Do you really even want to be seen as being on this spectrum at all?  Best to just retract the claim of some novel proof mechanism from your materials until you can either offer an exposition of that proof mechanism or some proofs themselves.  Certainly best not to go around calling other peoples *actual* proof models "copy paste" from your brilliant notions, in any case. 

and POM is also measurable

How?  Please elaborate on the structural composition of your proofs, that is all I'm asking.  Show me how to measure one in an independently repeatable (i.e. verifiable) way.  Show me one of your proofs, and how to read it, ideally. Tell me how your proofs stand as proofs.

Prove.

Prove, or don't go around running your mouth about proofs.  If you don't know what one is, if you don't understand deeply in your core being what is so fundamentally critical about the nature of the funny little turnstile |- symbol, then you're not qualified to critique them.

so from phylosophy it is time dedicated. Proof is nothing till it is proved till end.

You're right.  You don't know how right you are.  You don't even have axioms, you are so far from the "end" that you haven't even begun.

It was almost like I posted https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=785372.0 this just especially for you.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

A whitepaper > a marketing plan. If it can't be explained in a whitepaper, it's not a "proof" - it's just a gimmick.

I'm not sure that their materials successfully fall into any of these three sorts, which is just downright hilarious to me.  They've failed to even "actually" be gimmicky.

Consider that "proof of work" is actually mathematically verifiable. "Proof" means that nobody has to trust you, is that the case here?

I'm sure they will say they have some magical way to be able to assert with certainty that their coin will be super valuable and the greatest thing since sliced bread because (paradoxically?) it is the first proof-of-market coin.  They'll push how magically "special" their game related integration models are and somehow assert that this factors to spot price, even though this is inconsistent and circular reasoning.  In the end you'll be better off with WoW gold and Riot points when it comes down to it because at least they'll have some minimal security, while these guys will still be wondering why they have no miners on their broken algorithms, and still going around trying to pick fights about things they know nothing of.

Just another day in altcoinland.

[Frangomel]

...
There is unfortunately trying to copy this idea and called it POP or other, but we have marketing plan which explain everything of it
...

A whitepaper > a marketing plan. If it can't be explained in a whitepaper, it's not a "proof" - it's just a gimmick. Consider that "proof of work" is actually mathematically verifiable. "Proof" means that nobody has to trust you, is that the case here?

Proof is written in marketing plan When time pass it will be proof like in POW and POS, it is not proof till time pass

You can trust me or not and you can watch on our work which was passed and see what we did and what we will proof on market related to marketing plan!

@hunter

Phylosophy is not reality, lets make it easy to understand 1+1 = 2 or not what is proof you are speaking about your things without permission to accept another things! That is unfortunately your problem, not mine

look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW2DFz9VaoE (it says proof in the video), but I know that 1+1=2 I will give my hand for that proof so hmmmm what is tangible or what isnt....ask yourself

Another thing, bitcoin will never get here if there is not economy and market proof!!! Phylosophy doesnt help it much, programming did, mathematics did but economy and business mostly. If you have greatest product in the world (perpetum mobile, zero energy electric generator) it will work but should it be proved to the world if there isn't economy or business. Maybe you are great mathetamatician or phylosopher but narrow as I said, I am sorry for that

I really would like from you to understand this, it is up to you not me

[bababooey]

You might get sued. POM is a brand of pomegranate juice  

[Frangomel]

You might get sued. POM is a brand of pomegranate juice 

ahahahah right I forgot that

[spud21]

You might get sued. POM is a brand of pomegranate juice 

ahahahah right I forgot that

POM would probably confuse Australians because that's their name for a British person.