Topic: delete - page 79. (Read 165547 times)

Aeh is supernet monero dead yet? Can anyone summarize for me please? I missed the last 2 days

Even assuming the iron cauldron is an example of an Inverse Commons, I don't see how it logically supports the position that large cathedrals are mutual supportive of bazaars in sense that the larger and fewer they are the more supportative?

I do see how inverse commons can be shared by those cathedrals which are competing, e.g. IBM funding some open source project, but the more decentralized and finer grained those cathedrals, the faster will be the innovation.

I am so excited about the collapse of the medical industry, and within decades of that we will have innovations that have been stunted for decades such as hopefully a repair for my 90% blind right eye.

Get ready for designer offspring too, e.g. we can already select the gender and eye color. Once the regulation falls away, the options will proliferate.

The philosophy is not unusual.  Despite the loud "this is better than that", the truth is often that both tend to better than either individually.
People are like that too.

Gathering a bunch of xNTJs and watching the judgement fly is still sometimes fun, but at the end of the day we have a lot more in common than our differences.

Cathedrals and bazaars are mutually supportive, not antagonistic.  Each is well suited for its respective purposes in a positive-sum economy.

One interesting thing about the myth of Ceridwen's magic cauldron is its synchronicity with the peddler's iron cauldron in the stone soup fable.

http://www.nahee.com/spanky/www/fractint/stone_soup.html

(Fractint had an enormous influence on little iCEBREAKER, years before Raymond's allegedly seminal essays.   )

That certainly wasn't my intention but I had considered that when I just submitted that last post.

I just wanted to highlight the connection between your original post and James' philosophy in the post where I bought it up. Didn't mean to derail.

So we can nip this in the bud now and move on.

i doubt bcx cares 

Somehow I feel we are doing to XMR what we accuse them of doing to others, which is hijacking a thread about XMR (or CN coins) exploit and promoting SuperNet. Couldn't we move that discussion to an appropriate thread and provide a link?

Just saying.

Things that exist today are the MGW(https://github.com/jl777/multigateway) and libjl777(https://github.com/jl777/libjl777). They're just elements of the whole though, there's still a lot of work to be done linking everything together and then creating a good UI. The project is just beginning and there's still a lot of work ahead, but a lot of work as been done already.

I guess you could also say that BTCD, BBR, coinomat(fiat gateway), NXT AE, and BTER also exist today since they're all going to be essential elements of the network. But libjl777, MGW, instantDEX and other tech that's still in development is going to be what actually connects all these elements together. So there's been a lot of work completed already, but there's still a lot more to be done for such a large project.

I agree there are concepts and words which are not formally specified. I will be learning more about this as I volunteering some review with jl777 of some of the design concepts. I've just started this, so I don't know yet how deep I will go into it. Please do not spread a rumor, "AnonyMint put his seal of approval or helped to audit the Teleport network". Unless I or jl777 will say something else on the matter, then the extent of my review will remain unspecified publicly.

It appears to be a way to provide some common features to all participating coins, with the most paramount initially being an anonymous transaction send (you can contrast it I guess to XMR's planned I2P integration if that is still proceeding?). I can not yet comment on the quality of the proposed anonymity. I may not comment on it, might rather encourage them to document it formally.

Afaics, the nodes of the SuperNet are not doing merged mining of all the participating coins. I am not saying they should, rather just pointing out this means the features (that can be) offered must be orthogonal to mining. This is the sort of generative essence insights I do. But I need details before I can do such genre of analysis.

Where I stand right now on the SuperNet, is the specification I've read thus far is lacking sufficient details for me to make a fully informed analysis. I've learned enough to see that it is interesting enough to learn more about. But I don't have time to go wading through discussion groups or source code to learn. And I already found one fundamental limiting factor of the design choice mentioned above. I will communicate with jl777.

Note I didn't write anything about the monetization or economics of the SuperNet.

I read it.
There are a lot of new words in that document that I don't understand.
Many of them are words to describe things that are planned.

With that understanding, the "100% coding, 0% marketing" phrase seemed, at least that phrase, to be 100% marketing.
Marketing deals with forward looking projections, plans, and public communications.

As much as the plan seems a great one...
Is there another communications document that only describes what exists already today?

^ this.  With money incentives around here - it completely makes objective opinions almost impossible to weed out.

For the record aminorex's comment had nothing to do with the comment/joke I made in private about P=NP, since I had not disclosed that to anyone.

Afaics, the SuperNet needs to be better explained. Thus I can't comment constructively until I really understand all it, including the monetization and economics.

The is constructive criticism. I am not at-once trying to destroy it with my subjective opinions, yet I am also throwing caution at the point that I can't yet understand it all (at least the documents I read thus far).

For example, if Risto said he doesn't recommend investing in the SuperNet at this time, because he has not been able to ascertain all of the metrics of its design and intent. I would view that as open to the future of it, but constructively explaining what is lacking for even reaching a first decision, and without making any binding promises.

If latter Risto decided after understanding the design fully that James controls too much of the Unity tokens or what ever (hey I don't understand it so don't ask me to explain), he would present some economics analysis and inviting discussion. This open form of constructive criticism can not be viewed as turf battles if participants are very careful to state and differentiate opinion from facts.

If latter Risto didn't find any flaw in the design and economics, but doubted the ability of the developer(s) to deliver SuperNet, he could state that he will refrain from investing until he has ascertained that the developers have implemented the design as specified and gained market acceptance.

If you are going to lead pooled capital, politics unavoidably follows you.

Edit: the comments I saw from Risto about SuperNet seemed to imply maybe that he was judging the man, jl777, and not the design and economics. That is not going to be good politics. Even if there is a reason to believe a particular coder has weaknesses, we must win our logic on the merits if we want the political protection that open source organization offers, not on the subjective no matter how much more efficient the former might be.

Edit#2: jl777 has himself written he forms designs in some part from trial and error as he works through the implementation. So that could be viewed as a weakness or strength for example, but that is a subjective opinion. Thus not worth arguing about. The proof is in the pudding. I don't think there is any doubt about his rate of coding being quite high.

couldn't have said any better. How many remember the vitriol and smear started by aminorex against the IPO and jl777 leading upto the days of SuperNET ICO? Polonoiex had just finished conducting another ICO and they had to retract their business all because of the "facts" thrown (yes they were true facts) by certain individuals who just didn't feel right about jl777 helping Boolberry. They don't treat fiat as the enemy. They couldn't care less about advancing technology otherwise even blind men can see how to best progress CryptoNote and other competent projects.

I apologize if I didn't find better words to express my point. What I am trying to say is factual not my opinion. Thus you can't get offended by facts.

The fact I am trying to convey is that open source is the only known positive scaling law of software engineering.

Open source is appreciating everyone's contribution no matter how small, and not criticizing other open source projects.

It is thus inherently anti-political action. It is bottom-up organic action.

It is a culture of "talk is cheap, show me the code".

Edit: I already did a mea culpa upthread on my past criticisms of projects.  Constructive criticism (i.e. offering some improvement or some research on characterizing the problem better) is best and I am trying to reform myself.

Edit#2: If a project is not producing code, it is not an open source project regardless if the cloned source is open. If it is just a clone to do pump and dump, this can be legitimately destructively criticized.

Still no proof, smile FUD to me.

This.

Eric Raymond is an amazing man.  Worked on a trial with him a while back.  Good times.

Maybe its just me, but I see all these "turf battles" as less of a gang war, and more of good natured prodding?  I suspect that there are places where this culture clash boils over, I may just be missing it.  

Seems like a couple of New York friends saying "Fawk yoo, no, Fawk YOO" over who has the best code, and then going out to grab a drink together and having the same argument over who gets to pick up the tab.  We are all in this together, like it or love it.

The BBR vs XMR rivalry to me doesn't bug me a lot.  It seems an artificial competition, and mostly out on the fringes where the trolls live.  In the central groups, just about all I hear is mutual respect, though I'm mostly just privy to the XMR sentiment, I'd guess its the same with BBR.  I'd bet that when you took this message to Risto, he probably just smiled and nodded.  The rivalry has its uses, to keep folks on their best game.  

Back to this thread... The same is true with the BCX game.  BCX played the 'villain' card, and did it with some panache.  The pressure worked.  Not everyone saw the threat, but everyone came together to get out a fix.  We were red teamed.  Folks placed bets on how it would come out.  We were energized.  Good times.