[ANN] AMP - The Currency That Powers Your Attention On Synereo

[DaveWave]

we have near 25k price on high, so now only 2300, pure TA say buy while price so cheap and then sell  x3-x4

I bought this last August because I thought the dip is enough and I also see the project as a good investment. Only to see it moved deeper than the ocean. I am just trying to average this down. I wonder why only few people knows AMP Synereo. I take a look at Wildspark and it looks good and there will be more updates and development to come.

[1714063377]

1714063377

[1714063377]

1714063377

[1714063377]

1714063377

[1714063377]

1714063377

[1714063377]

1714063377

[sl-avik]

yep, it look very interesting, and I think many people want return in AMP again
now is one problem too many cheap coins and from that AMP cheap too, but market start steadly incresing until next high in summer

[mv1986]

We don't know anything about the salaries they pay themselves (correct me if I am wrong) and still they decide to sell into an AMP bear market parts of their founders wallet.

MV,

You do know about the salaries:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r1G-ROS4vgHK84qfn1CBIxuXZQCCvIicCTQSxW1T_mo/edit#gid=1550473693

I myself take $5k a month, gross, living in Silicon Valley.


We never sold AMPs directly into the market. The two OTC deals made so far took place during the large increase in price of a few months ago. None of those AMPs have been touched yet; we know not to sell to anyone looking for quick profit, but to strategic partners.

My bad then. $5k is just enough to pay the rent I guess Living costs are insane over there.

[GeorgianCryptoTrader]

Really promissing. Keep my eye on

[Captain Infinity]

I wonder why only few people knows AMP Synereo. I take a look at Wildspark and it looks good and there will be more updates and development to come.

WildSpark is gradually gaining more attention, a trend which is expected to further accelerate as the product's development approach the mainstream viability milestone with the February update.

Your call for greater hype, more PR and advertisement of the project are all in place - it's just that marketing moves should never be random, and timing is key for maximizing impact.

All of these things and more await us in the very near future (if not today), and we see this community as our partners in promoting both WildSpark and the Liberated Attention Economy we aim to create.

[cchub]

We don't know anything about the salaries they pay themselves (correct me if I am wrong) and still they decide to sell into an AMP bear market parts of their founders wallet.

MV,

You do know about the salaries:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r1G-ROS4vgHK84qfn1CBIxuXZQCCvIicCTQSxW1T_mo/edit#gid=1550473693

I myself take $5k a month, gross, living in Silicon Valley.


We never sold AMPs directly into the market. The two OTC deals made so far took place during the large increase in price of a few months ago. None of those AMPs have been touched yet; we know not to sell to anyone looking for quick profit, but to strategic partners.

Is it possible to ensure those AMPs did not eventually reach the market after this OTC deal?
I mean, such investor undoubtedly bought for a cheaper price than he would at exchanges. This investor may have sold part or the entirety of those AMPs on exchanges.

[Elokane]

Off-topic, on the subject of Bitcoin Cash and the manipulation around it:

https://blog.synereo.com/2017/11/12/summary-of-events-bitcoin-vs-bitcoin-cash/

Picking up some steam around the net on various forums and FB group. Keep spreading so that people don't fall for the BCH trap.

[Captain Infinity]

hello

Hi, tejacit, welcome to the thread :-)

[jbreher]

Off-topic, on the subject of Bitcoin Cash and the manipulation around it:

https://blog.synereo.com/2017/11/12/summary-of-events-bitcoin-vs-bitcoin-cash/

It is unbecoming for you to sully your position as CEO of Synereo by spreading false propaganda besmirching Bitcoin Cash. If you have some evidence to back up your FUD, that would be one thing. But your accusations of centralization are content-free. You realize, of course, that any party capable of mining Bitcoin Segwit is free to mine Bitcoin Cash, right? Knowing this, how do you defend your accusations of centralization?

[Diego24]

It is unbecoming for you to sully your position as CEO of Synereo by spreading false propaganda besmirching Bitcoin Cash. If you have some evidence to back up your FUD, that would be one thing. But your accusations of centralization are content-free. You realize, of course, that any party capable of mining Bitcoin Segwit is free to mine Bitcoin Cash, right? Knowing this, how do you defend your accusations of centralization?

Just shut up. He is right.

[mursikam]

this project has launching get 8 month and the information always update in this announcement, so my fell this project ever became good project and not scam

[FinnishSaunasSoHot]

Hello dev, need local community manager? I want to reserve it if you need

[John547s3]

hi all,
i found that bittrex amp wallet is not working, they have disabled it

[Elokane]

Off-topic, on the subject of Bitcoin Cash and the manipulation around it:

https://blog.synereo.com/2017/11/12/summary-of-events-bitcoin-vs-bitcoin-cash/

It is unbecoming for you to sully your position as CEO of Synereo by spreading false propaganda besmirching Bitcoin Cash. If you have some evidence to back up your FUD, that would be one thing. But your accusations of centralization are content-free. You realize, of course, that any party capable of mining Bitcoin Segwit is free to mine Bitcoin Cash, right? Knowing this, how do you defend your accusations of centralization?

I don't think it's unbecoming of me to voice an opinion on an important matter happening in this space and affecting everyone.

I'll find a link exploring the technical differences leading to BCH being more centralized by nature than the existing BTC implementation and post it here.

[jbreher]

It is unbecoming for you to sully your position as CEO of Synereo by spreading false propaganda besmirching Bitcoin Cash. If you have some evidence to back up your FUD, that would be one thing. But your accusations of centralization are content-free. You realize, of course, that any party capable of mining Bitcoin Segwit is free to mine Bitcoin Cash, right? Knowing this, how do you defend your accusations of centralization?

Just shut up. He is right.

Ok, seeing as you are wading in the middle here, you can ostensibly continue the thread. Then certainly you can defend the accusations of centralization. So what is your evidence?

Incidentally, I will not "just shut up".

I'll find a link exploring the technical differences leading to BCH being more centralized by nature than the existing BTC implementation and post it here.

That would be helpful. Better if you provide actual reasons, rather than repeat unfounded accusations and hearsay, fully bereft of any evidence. If merely a link, it would be helpful if you can identify therein what you consider to be the actual evidence of asymmetric centralization.

[mv1986]

It is unbecoming for you to sully your position as CEO of Synereo by spreading false propaganda besmirching Bitcoin Cash. If you have some evidence to back up your FUD, that would be one thing. But your accusations of centralization are content-free. You realize, of course, that any party capable of mining Bitcoin Segwit is free to mine Bitcoin Cash, right? Knowing this, how do you defend your accusations of centralization?

Just shut up. He is right.

Ok, seeing as you are wading in the middle here, you can ostensibly continue the thread. Then certainly you can defend the accusations of centralization. So what is your evidence?

Incidentally, I will not "just shut up".

I'll find a link exploring the technical differences leading to BCH being more centralized by nature than the existing BTC implementation and post it here.

That would be helpful. Better if you provide actual reasons, rather than repeat unfounded accusations and hearsay, fully bereft of any evidence. If merely a link, it would be helpful if you can identify therein what you consider to be the actual evidence of asymmetric centralization.

Isn't it because attempts to increase scalability on the first layer always lead to less entities being able to operate a full node, therefore leading to centralization of mining. Most likely most mining will happen in places where electricity and mining equipment is the cheapest, so maybe China?

[jbreher]

Better if you provide actual reasons, rather than repeat unfounded accusations and hearsay, fully bereft of any evidence. If merely a link, it would be helpful if you can identify therein what you consider to be the actual evidence of asymmetric centralization.

Isn't it because attempts to increase scalability on the first layer always lead to less entities being able to operate a full node, therefore leading to centralization of mining. Most likely most mining will happen in places where electricity and mining equipment is the cheapest, so maybe China?

Does not stand up to the scrutiny of logic.

What the community nearly universally mis-refers to as a 'full node' is not a mining entity. Miners have significant investment in their mining equipment. And a single non-mining node can validate for a any size assemblage of mining equipment. Such single fully-validating, non-mining node (real cost of my fully-validating non-mining node was about $500, and I run several nodes on it concurrently while using the machine for other purposes at the same time) is a drop in the bucket compared to the hashing equipment cost. The hashing equipment cares not what the block size is. The net is that block size has nothing to do with mining costs, thereby nothing to do with mining centralization.

On the topic of geographic centralization. This is just another operational cost borne by miners. Other significant costs include labor, real estate, construction, ... the list goes on. But China is not the world's cheapest source of electricity, so we can tell that is not the final word in miner profitability. And yes, China is currently the source of the bulk of mining ASICs. Yet the leading products (as far as we know of) are freely available to anyone that wants to buy one*. So the China claim fails also.

*Of course, if you want the world's best, you'll need BCH. Because the manufacturer is insisting upon payments in that currency.

More germane, these considerations apply equally to Bitcoin Segwit (max 4MB for 1.7MB effective equivalent transaction capacity) as to Bitcoin Cash. After all, mining Bitcoin Segwit and Bitcoin Cash is available to the exact same set of miners.

So no - you are going to need to look elsewhere to find asymmetric centralization.

[mv1986]

Better if you provide actual reasons, rather than repeat unfounded accusations and hearsay, fully bereft of any evidence. If merely a link, it would be helpful if you can identify therein what you consider to be the actual evidence of asymmetric centralization.

Isn't it because attempts to increase scalability on the first layer always lead to less entities being able to operate a full node, therefore leading to centralization of mining. Most likely most mining will happen in places where electricity and mining equipment is the cheapest, so maybe China?

Does not stand up to the scrutiny of logic.

What the community nearly universally mis-refers to as a 'full node' is not a mining entity. Miners have significant investment in their mining equipment. And a single non-mining node can validate for a any size assemblage of mining equipment. Such single fully-validating, non-mining node (real cost of my fully-validating non-mining node was about $500, and I run several nodes on it concurrently while using the machine for other purposes at the same time) is a drop in the bucket compared to the hashing equipment cost. The hashing equipment cares not what the block size is. The net is that block size has nothing to do with mining costs, thereby nothing to do with mining centralization.

On the topic of geographic centralization. This is just another operational cost borne by miners. Other significant costs include labor, real estate, construction, ... the list goes on. But China is not the world's cheapest source of electricity, so we can tell that is not the final word in miner profitability. And yes, China is currently the source of the bulk of mining ASICs. Yet the leading products (as far as we know of) are freely available to anyone that wants to buy one*. So the China claim fails also.

*Of course, if you want the world's best, you'll need BCH. Because the manufacturer is insisting upon payments in that currency.

More germane, these considerations apply equally to Bitcoin Segwit (max 4MB for 1.7MB effective equivalent transaction capacity) as to Bitcoin Cash. After all, mining Bitcoin Segwit and Bitcoin Cash is available to the exact same set of miners.

So no - you are going to need to look elsewhere to find asymmetric centralization.

Doesn't change the fact that first layer scalability solutions are short-term measures. Does BCH have a capable team of devs to deliver second layer scalability solutions comparable to those currently under development by the superb team from Bitcoin Segwit? No.

[Elokane]

It is unbecoming for you to sully your position as CEO of Synereo by spreading false propaganda besmirching Bitcoin Cash. If you have some evidence to back up your FUD, that would be one thing. But your accusations of centralization are content-free. You realize, of course, that any party capable of mining Bitcoin Segwit is free to mine Bitcoin Cash, right? Knowing this, how do you defend your accusations of centralization?

Just shut up. He is right.

Ok, seeing as you are wading in the middle here, you can ostensibly continue the thread. Then certainly you can defend the accusations of centralization. So what is your evidence?

Incidentally, I will not "just shut up".

I'll find a link exploring the technical differences leading to BCH being more centralized by nature than the existing BTC implementation and post it here.

That would be helpful. Better if you provide actual reasons, rather than repeat unfounded accusations and hearsay, fully bereft of any evidence. If merely a link, it would be helpful if you can identify therein what you consider to be the actual evidence of asymmetric centralization.

I've been looking and have only found shards. I'm considering pulling all the info together into another post. The previous one has views in the hundreds of thousands.

[jbreher]

Does BCH have a capable team of devs to deliver second layer scalability solutions comparable to those currently under development by the superb team from Bitcoin Segwit? No.

Again - does not stand up to the scrutiny of logic.

A team recently started probing at the limits of what the Bitcoin network can actually achieve. In terms of controlled experiments directly scaling transaction count, on a worldwide subset of machines, and recording the results. About time someone did this, eh?

AAR, they found that with today's satoshi client, and commodity consumer hardware, the system starts bogging down at about 100 tx/s. In terms of blocksize, that would be ~33MB blocks. So we obviously have considerable headroom in the system for improvement by means of simple increase of maxblocksize. This would consume about 25% of a single core of a typical 4-core CPU, with 16 GB RAM, and an SSD, while consuming about 3 Mb/s of network BW.

But they did not stop there. Due to the fact that allocating more CPU cores to the problem did not improve performance above this (i.e., that it consumed a smaller percentage of additional cores, with no increase in throughput), they postulated that suboptimal multithreading performance might be the root of the issue. So they refactored the code to employ contemporary concurrency design techniques. After such refactoring, the performance of the system - on the same HW - was able to process 500 tx/s. This would correspond to >150 MB blocksize. I repeat - on the same, consumer-grade, hardware. Of course, this results in an increased network BW consumption of 15 Mb/s.

So we see that, despite the maturity of the satoshi client (i.e., a decade of development by Bitcoin's supposed best), there is significant low-hanging fruit in the deficiency of the software design of the satoshi client. Deficiencies having to do directly with scalability. Deficiencies that -- so far -- have not been addressed by the core developers.

Whether core has nobody that understands concurrency, or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority, is a matter of conjecture. But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

- All this in a time when system transaction capacity is the hottest issue - and has been for about two years.

On the other hand, another team has. Who was it? A collaboration of members of the teams working on Bitcoin Cash.