Topic: [ANN] AMP - The Currency That Powers Your Attention On Synereo - page 409. (Read 879222 times)
September 28, 2015, 06:08:17 PM
Isn't this like the 50th altcoin by members of omni? U fkers gotta be loaded with btc.
September 28, 2015, 05:56:49 PM
Back to the communist name calling i see.
When the shoe fits.
None of this is true, infact bts 2.0 is about to be released and they are interested in reaching out to communities which may be interested in collaborating. It makes a ton of improvements and should really take off upon release. Do your homework but id send them a message and get your devs to see if its a good step synereo.
It's all true and who wouldn't want to be in company like THIS.
The only thing thats true in that link is this quote:
"If you put half this effort into creating something yourself you might actually get somewhere in life! Or you could just sit behind your pseudonym and be a keyboard warrior..."
and yes thats meant for YOU!
What does this have to do with AMPs?
Im trying to be helpful to the dev team by saying to look into bts as the backbone for the network, and this thing keeps interrupting with long quotes trying to fill up the thread with false nonsensical information and calling people communists, so I'm not sure ask the thing.
September 28, 2015, 05:30:51 PM
Back to the communist name calling i see.
When the shoe fits.
None of this is true, infact bts 2.0 is about to be released and they are interested in reaching out to communities which may be interested in collaborating. It makes a ton of improvements and should really take off upon release. Do your homework but id send them a message and get your devs to see if its a good step synereo.
It's all true and who wouldn't want to be in company like THIS.
The only thing thats true in that link is this quote:
"If you put half this effort into creating something yourself you might actually get somewhere in life! Or you could just sit behind your pseudonym and be a keyboard warrior..."
and yes thats meant for YOU!
What does this have to do with AMPs?
September 28, 2015, 03:36:40 PM
Back to the communist name calling i see.
When the shoe fits.
None of this is true, infact bts 2.0 is about to be released and they are interested in reaching out to communities which may be interested in collaborating. It makes a ton of improvements and should really take off upon release. Do your homework but id send them a message and get your devs to see if its a good step synereo.
It's all true and who wouldn't want to be in company like THIS.
The only thing thats true in that link is this quote:
"If you put half this effort into creating something yourself you might actually get somewhere in life! Or you could just sit behind your pseudonym and be a keyboard warrior..."
and yes thats meant for YOU!
September 28, 2015, 07:37:00 AM
I'm also wondering how you sign up with your email and password on the demo? That doesn't seem decentralized unless that info gets converted into a private key locally.
To be absolutely clear, this is just temporary. In the release version, email auth won't be required and your account will depend on a private key that only you have access to, similar to Bitcoin and most other offerings in this space.
September 28, 2015, 01:45:33 AM
Back to the communist name calling i see.
When the shoe fits.
None of this is true, infact bts 2.0 is about to be released and they are interested in reaching out to communities which may be interested in collaborating. It makes a ton of improvements and should really take off upon release. Do your homework but id send them a message and get your devs to see if its a good step synereo.
It's all true and who wouldn't want to be in company like THIS.
September 27, 2015, 11:26:52 PM
September 27, 2015, 11:10:32 PM
You're going to be the NEM of the Synereo movement. How'd that work out for those NEMwits?
Synereo is versatile. A clone could be used for so many different apps. Of couse I wouldn't just clone Synereo and release it.
September 27, 2015, 11:09:06 PM
Regarding your other comment about building a better Synereo, i would love to see your better Synereo! i think many people on the planet would. Can you send a link to your repo for the code? What's the programming model for building distributed protocols? What's your tech stack based on? What's your transaction model? How do you handle content distribution versus currency? These are just a few of the many hard questions that have to be addressed and do get addressed in a due diligence interchange with serious investors. If you have good answers, we would love to hear them! This is a very big space, with room for everyone to engage and contribute. All ideas are welcome!
That's the part I'm going to let you take care of. I have no desire to get involved at such levels.
I have 3 mobile apps built that got too popular and had to be shut down because of server costs. I'm just waiting for Synereo to be released and working. Its such a versatile platform that people will be able clone it and use it for many different apps.
September 27, 2015, 09:28:09 PM
Not true it still wont get you visa speeds.. Bitshares is the only platform offering nasdaq speeds of 100k tps, maybe you guys should take a look, many coins are joining in. Its based on DPOS. Its very well written and tested, will open the doors to pegged assets like usd eur on chain which may interest your social networking paradaigm.
Listen you communist / corporate fascist, nobody who has more than two independent and functioning brain cells is going to use your overtly centralized DPoS platform. I'm going to quote my conversation with Chairman Stanlin Larimer so everybody can see how DPoS is effectively rigged.
DPoS is not decentralized. Here is why:
For all those interested in how a few of the wealthiest Bitshares' stakeholders can effectively rig the mass majority of the elections, here is how.
Any block chain has the problem that a few big players can collude, whether they are large stakeholders or large hashpoolers. We dilute that down to under one percent influence per delegate, max.
Then there's the question of what they can collude about. We can all observe whether they are performing their very limited block signing job to spec or not. We can look at their published price feeds. They have no other power.
That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude, but they can only collude in a one-to-one proportion to their stake/hash. Since approval voting is used in delegate elections, I maintain that large stakeholders can effectively collude to a multiple proportion of their stake. Whereby, for example, 20% of colluding stake can disproportionately influence the elections of more than 20% of the delegates. This leads to a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders being able to determine the outcomes of the mass majority of the delegate elections. This is especially true considering that voter turnout of smaller stakeholders will be lower than the voter turnout of larger stakeholders. As I said previously, it would be the intention of the colluding wealthy stakeholders to not harm Bitshares, but to elect delegates from which they would derive monetary gain in excess to their proportion of stake in the system at the expense of all other stakeholders.
Let's give an example. Remember, in "approval voting", voters do not just vote for one delegate. They can select as many or as few delegates as they wish and the entire weight of their stake counts towards each delegate they choose. Say for instance that the top delegate has 50% of the vote and the 101st delegate has 30% of the vote. The voting spread percentage is 20% (50%-30%). If the votes per delegate is a linear increase according to delegate rank, an additional 10% of the stake vote will move the 101st delegate to the 50th position. Likewise, a removal of 10% of the stake vote from the lower 50 delegates will result in them losing their delegate position. By strategically voting, a few wealthy stakeholders can influence a disproportionate number of delegate positions in relation to their actual stake. In this example, a coalition of 10% stake was able to control 50% of the delegates.
Does this sound fair to you?!
It doesn't matter if you collect delegates' SSNs, driver's licenses, birth certificates and thumbprints, Bitshares' DPoS mechanism will always be susceptible to manipulation. You have introduced a "social construct" (aka voting) which turns Bitshares' delegates into a "government of the wealthy". No one will ever know what type of "behind-the-scenes" politics is going on which results in which delegates are selected.
Because you have instituted this ridiculous charade into chain security, all your figures on "decentralization" and "speed of decentralization" are speculative and assume that all 101 delegates are unique, non-colluding individuals. The fact is all these delegates are not going to compete against each other for a position. Who will become a delegate and control the delegate selection process are the wealthiest stakeholders. This will be accomplished in a quid pro quo manner. This means that really Bitshares is less decentralized than NXT because they will be able to form political/business coalitions which imo will result in them dominating the delegate selection process. The wealthiest stakeholders in Bitshares can do this very easily because it is an "Approval Voting" process. This allows stakeholders to put the entire weight of their stake behind each and every delegate they approve. The Bitshares' devs will deny this to the very end because they are part of this "ruling elite".
Because you have instituted this ridiculous charade into chain security, all your figures on "decentralization" and "speed of decentralization" are speculative and assume that all 101 delegates are unique, non-colluding individuals. The fact is all these delegates are not going to compete against each other for a position. Who will become a delegate and control the delegate selection process are the wealthiest stakeholders. This will be accomplished in a quid pro quo manner. This means that really Bitshares is less decentralized than NXT because they will be able to form political/business coalitions which imo will result in them dominating the delegate selection process. The wealthiest stakeholders in Bitshares can do this very easily because it is an "Approval Voting" process. This allows stakeholders to put the entire weight of their stake behind each and every delegate they approve. The Bitshares' devs will deny this to the very end because they are part of this "ruling elite".
I think I could make a pretty good argument that delegates' "real world" identities being known by the community doesn't really matter or prevent a "Sybil attack". Imo, what would constitute a "Sybil attack" is the collusion of delegates' motives. I'm also pretty positive that the colluding delegates wouldn't "harm" the Bitshares' ecosystem, but instead use their power to manipulate delegate elections to capitalize on the delegate positions. Everybody can know everyones' name, but it's impossible to know their true intentions.
Any block chain has the problem that a few big players can collude, whether they are large stakeholders or large hashpoolers. We dilute that down to under one percent influence per delegate, max.
Then there's the question of what they can collude about. We can all observe whether they are performing their very limited block signing job to spec or not. We can look at their published price feeds. They have no other power.
That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude, but they can only collude in a one-to-one proportion to their stake/hash. Since approval voting is used in delegate elections, I maintain that large stakeholders can effectively collude to a multiple proportion of their stake. Whereby, for example, 20% of colluding stake can disproportionately influence the elections of more than 20% of the delegates. This leads to a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders being able to determine the outcomes of the mass majority of the delegate elections. This is especially true considering that voter turnout of smaller stakeholders will be lower than the voter turnout of larger stakeholders. As I said previously, it would be the intention of the colluding wealthy stakeholders to not harm Bitshares, but to elect delegates from which they would derive monetary gain in excess to their proportion of stake in the system at the expense of all other stakeholders.
Let's give an example. Remember, in "approval voting", voters do not just vote for one delegate. They can select as many or as few delegates as they wish and the entire weight of their stake counts towards each delegate they choose. Say for instance that the top delegate has 50% of the vote and the 101st delegate has 30% of the vote. The voting spread percentage is 20% (50%-30%). If the votes per delegate is a linear increase according to delegate rank, an additional 10% of the stake vote will move the 101st delegate to the 50th position. Likewise, a removal of 10% of the stake vote from the lower 50 delegates will result in them losing their delegate position. By strategically voting, a few wealthy stakeholders can influence a disproportionate number of delegate positions in relation to their actual stake. In this example, a coalition of 10% stake was able to control 50% of the delegates.
Does this sound fair to you?!
September 27, 2015, 08:39:19 PM
We've run into some difficulties WRT the Docker container which has thrown a wrench into the plans. The work with Ethereum (see latest hangout for details) has also diverted some of our attention.
I'll post about a timeline as soon as we're back on track.
I'll post about a timeline as soon as we're back on track.
From what I can tell, it looks like Ethereum is going to be outdated once Synereo is out. Scala looks impressive. Why are you working with Ethereum so closely. Ethereum isn't very impressive.
Thanks for your vote of confidence! Synereo was originally assuming there was a viable blockchain technology it could ultimately rely on for distribution and maintenance of AMPs. Proof-of-work is not going to be that technology. To understand that claim, here are a couple of numbers to keep in mind. The bitcoin blockchain is currently processing somewhat less than 2 TXNs / sec. For this transaction rate the network spends the electricity of the nation state of Ireland. By contrast Visa processes in excess of 4K TXNs / src, and by some reports an order of magnitude more in peak times. Scaling linearly (which the bitcoin blockchain will not achieve) to meet a transaction demand near Visa levels would require enough energy to melt the planet. It's just not a good solution. There are people working on addressing these shortcomings. However, i don't believe they are well positioned to role out proposed solutions given the community governance challenges. Ethereum is considering alternative blockchain technology (notably Casper) that has a better shot at scaling. Additionally, Ethereum is at a different point in their adoption curve (much earlier) which means that they don't have the same governance challenges. It's just basic arithmetic. There's too much work for any one group to do: reinvent the blockchain, reinvent social networking, ... . It's much better to cooperate and share the load. We can see the shape of the place we're going. We're much likely to get there if we help each other. (Greg Meredith, Synereo CSO)
All bitcoin has to do to overcome the transaction limitation is increase the blocksize. I have no doubt that a blocksize increase will occur which will make this argument a moot point. I agree though that from a decentralization standpoint PoS is better than PoW. Can you explain how the Casper implementation of PoS is different from NXT's implementation of PoS?
September 27, 2015, 08:27:00 PM
i would be interested to see your data that blocksize will solve the scaling problems. Have you run some simulations? Do you have other supporting calculations? All the simulations reported at the Scaling Bitcoin conference in Montreal suggest a very different picture, with increased blockchain size having, in many instances deleterious effects on some scaling phenomena. Certainly, back of the envelope calculations do not support the position your espousing, but i'm always open to entertaining good discussion about this problem.
No, it was simply an off-the-cuff comment based on my understanding. I probably should have clarified my comment that I believe a blocksize increase will undoubtedly lead to a loss of decentralization. Less full nodes will be run by home users because of increasing hardware requirements and it will further centralize mining around high speed internet infrastructure due to the requirements of downloading the blockchain. Are there any other deleterious effects that I'm missing?
way too huge premine for me. The new scam is "make a social network" and paint a multimillion dolla picture. No ICO, proof of work is the best way
It's a good time to be a developer. I have VCs contacting me every week. They beg me and my friends to start a 100% premined PoS coin and sell them a bit of it for cheap. VCs are the biggest scammers around.
There will definitely be some high quality no premine Synereo clones coming out after Synereo launches. Me and my friends will be working on one once Synereo is more developed. Feel free to join our social network instead. We will be giving away all of the coins for free. It will be PoS so that there is no need to get PoW miners and pay them.
One of the problem is you need money to get Synereo developed. People don't want to invest when I'm just going to make a better Synereo and give coins away for free.
You're going to be the NEM of the Synereo movement. How'd that work out for those NEMwits?
September 27, 2015, 03:35:11 PM
How does the Synereo demo work if there is no blockchain technology?
I'm also wondering how you sign up with your email and password on the demo? That doesn't seem decentralized unless that info gets converted into a private key locally.
Thanks for these questions! For the demo we rely on blockchain tech for AMPs, while we rely on SpecialK for content distribution. Blockchain certainly won't scale for content distribution. On the master branch in the repo all the blockchain calls have been backed out to be replaced by the appropriate blockchain tech. If the Casper work goes as planned we may end up with our own blockchain tech, or with a branch of Ethereum. That remains to be seen. Regarding your other question, authorization depends on a private key that is under your control. Let's think about the larger issue you raise, though. If you use an AMZN node that we're hosting, the system is decentralized only in name, regardless of where the key goes. We are free to shut down the node at any time. After all, we're paying the AMZN bill. For the decentralization to begin to be meaningful we'll have to have many people standing up nodes.
Regarding your other comment about building a better Synereo, i would love to see your better Synereo! i think many people on the planet would. Can you send a link to your repo for the code? What's the programming model for building distributed protocols? What's your tech stack based on? What's your transaction model? How do you handle content distribution versus currency? These are just a few of the many hard questions that have to be addressed and do get addressed in a due diligence interchange with serious investors. If you have good answers, we would love to hear them! This is a very big space, with room for everyone to engage and contribute. All ideas are welcome!
September 27, 2015, 03:22:40 PM
How does the Synereo demo work if there is no blockchain technology?
I'm also wondering how you sign up with your email and password on the demo? That doesn't seem decentralized unless that info gets converted into a private key locally.
September 27, 2015, 03:14:17 PM
way too huge premine for me. The new scam is "make a social network" and paint a multimillion dolla picture. No ICO, proof of work is the best way
It's a good time to be a developer. I have VCs contacting me every week. They beg me and my friends to start a 100% premined PoS coin and sell them a bit of it for cheap. VCs are the biggest scammers around.
There will definitely be some high quality no premine Synereo clones coming out after Synereo launches. Me and my friends will be working on one once Synereo is more developed. Feel free to join our social network instead. We will be giving away all of the coins for free. It will be PoS so that there is no need to get PoW miners and pay them.
One of the problem is you need money to get Synereo developed. People don't want to invest when I'm just going to make a better Synereo and give coins away for free.
September 27, 2015, 03:11:22 PM
We've run into some difficulties WRT the Docker container which has thrown a wrench into the plans. The work with Ethereum (see latest hangout for details) has also diverted some of our attention.
I'll post about a timeline as soon as we're back on track.
I'll post about a timeline as soon as we're back on track.
From what I can tell, it looks like Ethereum is going to be outdated once Synereo is out. Scala looks impressive. Why are you working with Ethereum so closely. Ethereum isn't very impressive.
Thanks for your vote of confidence! Synereo was originally assuming there was a viable blockchain technology it could ultimately rely on for distribution and maintenance of AMPs. Proof-of-work is not going to be that technology. To understand that claim, here are a couple of numbers to keep in mind. The bitcoin blockchain is currently processing somewhat less than 2 TXNs / sec. For this transaction rate the network spends the electricity of the nation state of Ireland. By contrast Visa processes in excess of 4K TXNs / src, and by some reports an order of magnitude more in peak times. Scaling linearly (which the bitcoin blockchain will not achieve) to meet a transaction demand near Visa levels would require enough energy to melt the planet. It's just not a good solution. There are people working on addressing these shortcomings. However, i don't believe they are well positioned to role out proposed solutions given the community governance challenges. Ethereum is considering alternative blockchain technology (notably Casper) that has a better shot at scaling. Additionally, Ethereum is at a different point in their adoption curve (much earlier) which means that they don't have the same governance challenges. It's just basic arithmetic. There's too much work for any one group to do: reinvent the blockchain, reinvent social networking, ... . It's much better to cooperate and share the load. We can see the shape of the place we're going. We're much likely to get there if we help each other. (Greg Meredith, Synereo CSO)
All bitcoin has to do to overcome the transaction limitation is increase the blocksize. I have no doubt that a blocksize increase will occur which will make this argument a moot point. I agree though that from a decentralization standpoint PoS is better than PoW. Can you explain how the Casper implementation of PoS is different from NXT's implementation of PoS?
Thanks for your response and the link to NXT. i'm not intimately familiar with NXT and didn't find a detailed spec, yet. Part of our work with the Casper folks is to get up to speed on variants of PoS. i don't know if these are real differences but Casper maintains an order for validators in each round. Casper creates a betting market on blocks. The bets are highly unusual in that the bets are on what the other validators will predict is the winning block. Finality arises when the bets converge. Casper weights payouts by bond size and deducts for deviation from order, and failure to converge in a reasonable way.
i would be interested to see your data that blocksize will solve the scaling problems. Have you run some simulations? Do you have other supporting calculations? All the simulations reported at the Scaling Bitcoin conference in Montreal suggest a very different picture, with increased blockchain size having, in many instances deleterious effects on some scaling phenomena. Certainly, back of the envelope calculations do not support the position your espousing, but i'm always open to entertaining good discussion about this problem.
Thanks again for your engagement!
September 27, 2015, 02:54:16 PM
We've run into some difficulties WRT the Docker container which has thrown a wrench into the plans. The work with Ethereum (see latest hangout for details) has also diverted some of our attention.
I'll post about a timeline as soon as we're back on track.
I'll post about a timeline as soon as we're back on track.
From what I can tell, it looks like Ethereum is going to be outdated once Synereo is out. Scala looks impressive. Why are you working with Ethereum so closely. Ethereum isn't very impressive.
Thanks for your vote of confidence! Synereo was originally assuming there was a viable blockchain technology it could ultimately rely on for distribution and maintenance of AMPs. Proof-of-work is not going to be that technology. To understand that claim, here are a couple of numbers to keep in mind. The bitcoin blockchain is currently processing somewhat less than 2 TXNs / sec. For this transaction rate the network spends the electricity of the nation state of Ireland. By contrast Visa processes in excess of 4K TXNs / src, and by some reports an order of magnitude more in peak times. Scaling linearly (which the bitcoin blockchain will not achieve) to meet a transaction demand near Visa levels would require enough energy to melt the planet. It's just not a good solution. There are people working on addressing these shortcomings. However, i don't believe they are well positioned to role out proposed solutions given the community governance challenges. Ethereum is considering alternative blockchain technology (notably Casper) that has a better shot at scaling. Additionally, Ethereum is at a different point in their adoption curve (much earlier) which means that they don't have the same governance challenges. It's just basic arithmetic. There's too much work for any one group to do: reinvent the blockchain, reinvent social networking, ... . It's much better to cooperate and share the load. We can see the shape of the place we're going. We're much likely to get there if we help each other. (Greg Meredith, Synereo CSO)
So Synereo is missing the blockchain from it's decentralized technology stack? I thought there was a decentralized ledger called "DENDRONET".
September 27, 2015, 09:17:11 AM
way too huge premine for me. The new scam is "make a social network" and paint a multimillion dolla picture. No ICO, proof of work is the best way
New make a social network scam?!?
We've been doing this for a year now!
September 26, 2015, 11:34:39 PM
way too huge premine for me. The new scam is "make a social network" and paint a multimillion dolla picture. No ICO, proof of work is the best way
September 26, 2015, 11:09:39 PM
We've run into some difficulties WRT the Docker container which has thrown a wrench into the plans. The work with Ethereum (see latest hangout for details) has also diverted some of our attention.
I'll post about a timeline as soon as we're back on track.
I'll post about a timeline as soon as we're back on track.
From what I can tell, it looks like Ethereum is going to be outdated once Synereo is out. Scala looks impressive. Why are you working with Ethereum so closely. Ethereum isn't very impressive.
Thanks for your vote of confidence! Synereo was originally assuming there was a viable blockchain technology it could ultimately rely on for distribution and maintenance of AMPs. Proof-of-work is not going to be that technology. To understand that claim, here are a couple of numbers to keep in mind. The bitcoin blockchain is currently processing somewhat less than 2 TXNs / sec. For this transaction rate the network spends the electricity of the nation state of Ireland. By contrast Visa processes in excess of 4K TXNs / src, and by some reports an order of magnitude more in peak times. Scaling linearly (which the bitcoin blockchain will not achieve) to meet a transaction demand near Visa levels would require enough energy to melt the planet. It's just not a good solution. There are people working on addressing these shortcomings. However, i don't believe they are well positioned to role out proposed solutions given the community governance challenges. Ethereum is considering alternative blockchain technology (notably Casper) that has a better shot at scaling. Additionally, Ethereum is at a different point in their adoption curve (much earlier) which means that they don't have the same governance challenges. It's just basic arithmetic. There's too much work for any one group to do: reinvent the blockchain, reinvent social networking, ... . It's much better to cooperate and share the load. We can see the shape of the place we're going. We're much likely to get there if we help each other. (Greg Meredith, Synereo CSO)
All bitcoin has to do to overcome the transaction limitation is increase the blocksize. I have no doubt that a blocksize increase will occur which will make this argument a moot point. I agree though that from a decentralization standpoint PoS is better than PoW. Can you explain how the Casper implementation of PoS is different from NXT's implementation of PoS?
Jump to: