Topic: [ANN] AMP - The Currency That Powers Your Attention On Synereo - page 425. (Read 879222 times)

I'm a newbie to this forum so forgive my stupid question: What exactly do you mean when you say "you are spamming multiple Original Posters on Bitcointalk?"

How much faith can anyone put in this when you are spamming multiple OPs on Bitcointalk?

Content issues are double-edged sword. On one hand, since the technology is truly P2P, illegal/offensive content will always be around and cannot be censored by any central entity. On the other hand, as a technology that people use we cannot afford to leave our users to fend for themselves. There is a delicate line to walk here and we do not claim to have all the answers a priori. What we do have are some ideas for different mechanisms where communities and individuals can better control the content in the network around them. For example, users can block offenders within their community and recommend such actions to their peers. Another interesting model is that of community arbitration, akin to a tribunal system, where communities can employ a semi-hierarchical process to weed out spam, harassment and hate speech.

Eventually, many of the content problems are social problems at their core. As even the centralized networks today have shown, managing illegal and offensive content is not always a problem of having the right technical tools. Decentralizing social networks underscores these issues, but also introduces a whole new set of tools for users which enable much higher levels of control over their content, and that of their peers. Expect us to be sharing more these ideas in the near future as our work on the network progresses.

If there is no censorship in the system how can you deal with illegal content? Copyright issues or even worse. I am not obsessed with legality. But the governments are.

I've managed software products and projects for a long time.  One of my early ones was the standardization of the Unified Modeling Language.  Way back in 1996 the notion of generating working code from specification models seem far-fetched to me, except for CRUD methods and state machines.  But we've made a tremendous amount of progress since then!

Now, very interesting working software component contracts can indeed be generated from formal specifications. A fascinating thing is that with Synereo, these are not just software contracts and protocols, they are also social contracts that will be enforced and influenced with the movement of AMPs.

The formalisms which leithaus (Greg) references are all solid.  But they are not trivial to realize in a robust software architecture, which is why the dedication to 5 years of development invested in SpecialK/KVDB and its pattern language for the web is impressive (http://blog.synereo.com/2015/03/17/specialk-kvdb/). It’s real.

For the last several months, I've been noodling on an idea that resulted in the whitepaper for LivelyGig -- The Decentralized and Distributed Employment Market /YdRrPQMrT6]http:/[Suspicious link removed]/YdRrPQMrT6.  From a platform perspective, it has a lot of similar requirements as Synereo. When I look at the possible technology stacks on which to implement such a decentralized and distributed system, I so far only have a very short list of potentially viable choices -- Ethereum, MaidSAFE, Eris Industries, and SpecialK/KVDB.  Which one is complete enough and most likely to work in decentralized deployment? So far, SpecialK/KVDB is looking most promising for LivelyGig, because it is complete and based on a researched and formalized software contract paradigm.

I'm also very impressed by the caliber of the Synereo team, having talked with several of them. I’ve watching their Hangouts and carefully studied the Whitepaper.  I’m a fan.

As far as the AMP Crowsdale, yes it is risky and exciting from an investor’s perspective. Potential downside and potential upside. All of the crowdsales are difficult to assess financially and are missing the investor protections that would be available in a prospectus of a securities offering. After doing some homework, I have growing confidence in the team, their vision, and the technology. So, I will purchase some AMPs in the crowdsale.
/Ed

where can i find the project timeline?

Well put.

To say it another way, Definitely be sceptical, but be a smart and thoughtful sceptic; not just knee-jerk. All the VCs now pouring funds into blockchain technology were probably very sceptical at first, but they persisted in looking at the data and looking at all sides of the opportunities.

Decentralized web apps of all kinds may become the *real* Web 3.0.

Dear MickGhee, Thank you for your passionate engagement! We really value people who have a strong voice and want to see things done fairly and for the benefit of all.

For the last 5 years we've been writing code, working out architecture, and economic model, as well as identity and security models, along with UI and UX models. It took the concerted effort of some very smart and dedicated people. We are committed to being completely transparent. We will show you all of the work we have done to date. We will do our best to answer questions posed with goodwill to the questioner's satisfaction. This work has cost the people involved not just 5 years of engagement, but 3.2M USD, out of pocket. The raise for this crowdsale is capped at 1.2M USD. We're not even close to recouping what we've put in, let alone heading off to the Bahamas.

Instead, part of this effort is to see if the community has the will to engage, to begin to address the issues facing us. All of us. (See, we're passionate, too!) Here's the situation as we see it:

Over the past decade, social media platforms have risen to become a major force on the Internet. As two-thirds of all Internet users are using these platforms, with 1 out of every 5 pageviews occurring on Facebook alone, and with many directly equating “social media” with “Internet”, the importance of these venues cannot be understated.

The amount of money social networks generate is staggering. Leading the pack is Facebook, earning 3.85 billion dollars in the last quarter of 2014, followed by Twitter with $479m. When thinking about these numbers, it’s important to remember that the value created on these networks - what allows Facebook et al to generate these profits - comes directly and unequivocally from their users. In fact, users and their worth is the primary parameter these connetworks are measured by. Facebook recently acquired WhatsApp for $19b, paying 42$ per user. Similarly, the value of Facebook and Twitter users is often calculated through their market cap - currently at 141$ and and 81.5$, respectively.

Faced with these numbers, many people are asking themselves, “Does it make sense that the value we create simply by sharing our lives online is retained by the people who happened to be the first to provide the infrastructure allowing us to do so? That these social platforms’ stated aim is to increase the revenue they can extricate from us? From our basic need to communicate and share ourselves with others?”

Indeed, this is how current social networking service providers see their users: as unpaid laborers. As free content creators whose behaviors can be recorded and measured, the data generated auctioned off to other corporations. And for many, this may still be fine. These services are now seen as basic necessities in our digital age, and so perhaps the balance struck between user and service provider is a fair one. However, there are other issues tipping the scale against the incumbents: there’s been a breach of trust. The information going into user feeds is being manipulated, and the information going out - including details of user activity outside of Facebook - is being handed over to governmental authorities; privacy settings be damned.

The entire foundation of our established online identity is based in these axioms, of us being surveilled, labeled and “sold” to the highest bidder. And with our social network profiles serving more and more as the default identities on the web, everywhere - most services do not bother creating their own identity and authentication components - perhaps it’s time to stop and think if this how we want our digital identity to exist and evolve.

The more we wait, the more irreversible this becomes.

But, it's worse. Why? Because this global panopticon is being built alongside and to support a growing economic imbalance. Here's an excellent description of just how bad the economic imbalance is in the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM. These two trends taken together are a recipe for disaster. From the riots in Greece to Ferguson, the unrest is no accident. It's only going to get worse. Unless we do something. We. Us. There's no one else to do it for us.

Now, we've taken up the challenge to do something about it. Synereo is a first step towards a different way of engaging each other. Synereo is a first step towards reorganizing social media technologies and capital for the purpose of taking care of each other and the planet. If after giving our work a thorough review, you still feel we are conniving assholes out to steal peoples money, then we deserve your condemnation. But, first, come look at what we've done, and see for yourself. i will personally answer any and all questions you have about the code, the architecture, the security model, the identity model, our social contract model, the maths underlying it. i know the rest of the team is wiling to engage with the same level of diligence.

We really want people to give it a thorough review. If there's a hole in it, we want to know. If there's a better way to do something, we want to know. We are in this together. If we don't take up the challenge now, the next time we look up we will not see the same sky. Like i said, we're passionate! That's why we really appreciate your passion and are glad you're sharing it. We're going to have to be passionate about this to succeed.

Peace be with you,

--greg

CSO, Synereo.