I have the name:
Shelbux (BUX)
You're welcome
Shelbux (BUX)
You're welcome
Shelbollocks.
Touché
Topic: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? - page 16. (Read 79977 times)
Shelbollocks.
Touché
I have the name:
Shelbux (BUX)
You're welcome
Shelbux (BUX)
You're welcome
Shelbollocks.
You need callback events from state changes on the blockchain to the music server? Thus you need smart contracts?
The music server need to be able to check chain state, either it's by monitoring Event or polling the state from a node when it needs it
I guess you can call this a smart contract, but the way it's done it's more like ready only function in the music server, it doesnt have to sign anything or emit new blocks. Just check the access and earn a reward. The reward is signed by content owner from another node when the stream is verfied by the player app.
For the moment as i said the design is still partially centralized.
Well it doesn't need the full power of a scripting language if we have a standardized protocol for setting a callback event on blockchain state transitions. We'd rather not conflate the payment transaction with the event callback.
In fact, the nodes which provide callback services are orthogonal to the main blockchain protocol and can be offered by the free market. It isn't even my primary job.
I have the name:
Shelbux (BUX)
You're welcome
Shelbux (BUX)
You're welcome
Afaics, the UI has nothing to do with the blockchain layer.
It does because the UI has to manipulate addresses, and sign transaction, and check balances etc
But that is done through a protocol/API. The UI is a separation-of-concerns. Specifically we don't need to conflate UI logic and data formats with the blockchain layer. The blockchain is agnostic. You just interface with the blockchain through a standard protocol.
So it needs some form of accounting and higher level définition of transaction based on the accounting layer or something like this to completely abstract it away from the blockchain layer.
Afaics, the UI has nothing to do with the blockchain layer.
It does because the UI has to manipulate addresses, and sign transaction, and check balances etc
But that is done through a protocol/API. The UI is a separation-of-concerns. Specifically we don't need to conflate UI logic and data formats with the blockchain layer. The blockchain is agnostic. You just interface with the blockchain through a standard protocol.
You need callback events from state changes on the blockchain to the music server? Thus you need smart contracts?
The music server need to be able to check chain state, either it's by monitoring Event or polling the state from a node when it needs it
I guess you can call this a smart contract, but the way it's done it's more like ready only function in the music server, it doesnt have to sign anything or emit new blocks. Just check the access and earn a reward. The reward is signed by content owner from another node when the stream is verfied by the player app.
For the moment as i said the design is still partially centralized.
Afaics, the UI has nothing to do with the blockchain layer.
It does because the UI has to manipulate addresses, and sign transaction, and check balances etc
@ladixDev, we seem to have a misunderstanding about separation-of-concerns.
Unless you need smart contracting, the blockchain's only function is to order (cryptographic hashes of) events unambiguously, i.e. with a consensus as to the ordering.
Bitcoin has a rudimentary scripting system for multisig and other things that can be done with the opcodes.
Are you claiming you need to run smart contracts on the blockchain? What specific need for smart contracts do you have in a music app?
As for servers for the music content, aren't they orthogonal to the blockchain?
Which scripting features do you need on the blockchain for your music app?
Unless you need smart contracting, the blockchain's only function is to order (cryptographic hashes of) events unambiguously, i.e. with a consensus as to the ordering.
Bitcoin has a rudimentary scripting system for multisig and other things that can be done with the opcodes.
Are you claiming you need to run smart contracts on the blockchain? What specific need for smart contracts do you have in a music app?
As for servers for the music content, aren't they orthogonal to the blockchain?
Which scripting features do you need on the blockchain for your music app?
It's not necessarily for smart contract, but script language to program the blockchain node itself, the block validation logic, Event handling of network message, blockchain request, tx signatures, and the distributed applications itself, mostly the UI with html5 / js template, with a js modules for in browser crypto, and some module call via http/rpc/json to do the heavy work related to blockchain request or heavy computation.
Afaics, the UI has nothing to do with the blockchain layer.
You need callback events from state changes on the blockchain to the music server? Thus you need smart contracts?
Server for music content are not completely independent from blockchain, they need to check permission access to the media , and also involved with reward for content storing/distribution.
That program running on the music servers is orthogonal to the blockchain running on blockchain nodes. You access the blockchain via standardized blockchain protocol/API to access the state on the blockchain. From the blockchain's perspective, the permission state is just an agnostic blob of data. Your application parses that blob of data as it wishes to.
You can publish your data formats if you want other apps to interopt with your blockchain state. (Or some apps might reverse engineer them)
The only time we need scripting (or smart contracts) is when your use case requires the blockchain to check some invariants on state transitions. Do you have any such requirements?
Re: What cryptocurrency is solving the scaling problem?
Sidechains are insolubly insecure and can never work. @ArticMine and I debated it a month ago.
your beloved "domains, and dapps" will come to Bitcoin in summer 2017 via Rootstock.
Sidechains are insolubly insecure and can never work. @ArticMine and I debated it a month ago.
Quote from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZi86_ovB3Y
How likely is it that Bitcoin will be overtaken in the event of a contentious hard fork? I think this is an example of things to come. Bitcoin will be attacked through its mining, the network, legally, and every other possible way. If you don't think Bitcoin is going to be attacked, you've misunderstood what this is about. You don't go and poke a $20 trillion industry and go, "Hey, we're going to disrupt you!" You can't just wait for it to roll over. This is offensive to a lot of governments, rich institutions, and a lot of people who don't want to see Bitcoin succeed. If a fork happens, we get to learn what happens when a fork attack occurs. Anyone who thinks a fork will be unopposed is quickly going to discover that this will be a battle on all fronts. Inevitably the two sides are going to attack each other on the network, with denial-of-service attacks, with hash rate; they're going to attack each other publicly, privately, anonymously and not. Every bug in the software will get poked and poked again, so they better fix them well. The battle becomes "who has the best software development team? How quickly can they maintain that code and keep uptime?" That race is only 7 blocks wide. I don't think the people who are threatening to do a hard fork have thought clearly about the implications. This will allow Bitcoin to test all the attack vectors (nodes, relays, hashing, replay transactions, etc). And the result will be a Bitcoin that's battle-hardened, because it will have survived a fork attack and we will better understand what happens under such highly contentious conditions. It's very important to not mistake smooth sailing for good sailors. If any altcoin somehow overtakes bitcoin and gets to this scale, they will have to deal with the same scaling and governance controversies. Many of them will end up centralised or with failures in architecture. These are the rites of passage; you first have to grow up to face them. How many of the other blockchains are preparing for this? Not many, because they aren't paying attention. This is a fantastic experiment but it's not easy. This is a game with $20 billion at stake.
Bitcoin is already centralized by exchanges, they're the ones steering the market
That is an important point.
Re: What cryptocurrency is solving the scaling problem?
Most of those coins never leave the exchanges.
In other words, they have no adoption use case at all. They can be destroyed overnight by an attack on exchanges (by an inside attack, hacker, or regulatory crackdown such as from the SEC for those which sold ICOs).
I've always wondered this about certain coins. For example, I pretty much never see congestion on DOGE, LTC, and ETH/ETC. Is it a function of being underused, or have they actually solved the traffic issue?
Most of those coins never leave the exchanges.
In other words, they have no adoption use case at all. They can be destroyed overnight by an attack on exchanges (by an inside attack, hacker, or regulatory crackdown such as from the SEC for those which sold ICOs).
@ladixDev, we seem to have a misunderstanding about separation-of-concerns.
Unless you need smart contracting, the blockchain's only function is to order (cryptographic hashes of) events unambiguously, i.e. with a consensus as to the ordering.
Bitcoin has a rudimentary scripting system for multisig and other things that can be done with the opcodes.
Are you claiming you need to run smart contracts on the blockchain? What specific need for smart contracts do you have in a music app?
As for servers for the music content, aren't they orthogonal to the blockchain?
Which scripting features do you need on the blockchain for your music app?
Unless you need smart contracting, the blockchain's only function is to order (cryptographic hashes of) events unambiguously, i.e. with a consensus as to the ordering.
Bitcoin has a rudimentary scripting system for multisig and other things that can be done with the opcodes.
Are you claiming you need to run smart contracts on the blockchain? What specific need for smart contracts do you have in a music app?
As for servers for the music content, aren't they orthogonal to the blockchain?
Which scripting features do you need on the blockchain for your music app?
It's not necessarily for smart contract, but script language to program the blockchain node itself, the block validation logic, Event handling of network message, blockchain request, tx signatures, and the distributed applications itself, mostly the UI with html5 / js template, with a js modules for in browser crypto, and some module call via http/rpc/json to do the heavy work related to blockchain request or heavy computation.
Server for music content are not completely independent from blockchain, they need to check permission access to the media , and also involved with reward for content storing/distribution.
@ladixDev, we seem to have a misunderstanding about separation-of-concerns.
Unless you need smart contracting, the blockchain's only function is to order (cryptographic hashes of) events unambiguously, i.e. with a consensus as to the ordering.
Bitcoin has a rudimentary scripting system for multisig and other things that can be done with the opcodes.
Are you claiming you need to run smart contracts on the blockchain? What specific need for smart contracts do you have in a music app?
As for servers for the music content, aren't they orthogonal to the blockchain?
Which scripting features do you need on the blockchain for your music app?
Unless you need smart contracting, the blockchain's only function is to order (cryptographic hashes of) events unambiguously, i.e. with a consensus as to the ordering.
Bitcoin has a rudimentary scripting system for multisig and other things that can be done with the opcodes.
Are you claiming you need to run smart contracts on the blockchain? What specific need for smart contracts do you have in a music app?
As for servers for the music content, aren't they orthogonal to the blockchain?
Which scripting features do you need on the blockchain for your music app?
That is why we can kick ass versus Bitcoin in terms of onboarding, because we can offer dozens of apps which interest users in different ways and then the buzz will spread that all these apps are based on the BitNet: a new form of Internet that even powers mobile apps. We're building a new high-level, decentralized protocol for the Internet.
Hollywool-over-their-eyes (aka Hollywhores) is making a movie about us, but note the projector slide in the background is an Ethereum roadmap; which exemplifies that the whales behind ETH are very well connected with the mafia media aka USG.MIT.
Advantage of BitNet over OpenShare is that users get token name Bits instead of Shares.
I think Bits is much better for money name. Concise and generic to technology of trading bits of information (and money is information).
You're pay me what??? "Shares". I don't want to share my payment with anyone!
I think Bits is much better for money name. Concise and generic to technology of trading bits of information (and money is information).
You're pay me what??? "Shares". I don't want to share my payment with anyone!
Lol. Because of network effuckects. <--- Note I am the username @anonymous commenting there (and I have another more important mathematical insight comment coming)
Done.
Quote from: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7460#comment-1817193
O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.
Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.
I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.
Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.
I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.
And how do you plan to go for the blockchain developpement ?
You want to start from an existing code base, or code a whole new blockchain node/wallet/block explorer from scratch ? That is monthes of steady daily work, at best
Especially if you want to have high level scripting engine, on top of Blockchain protocol, how many time to get all this from scratch ?
Because I have already large part of this already done, not sure after how you see the priority between the blockchain itself, the script language, and the application layer , and if you plan to start from scratch how many time before an application can be programmed with it ?
If you are ok with the model of script I explained before ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18375980 ), I can start working on it and have something working soon, but it would probably not be directly suitable for javascript transpiling as such.
What you have in mind is starting on node.js code directly, or develop the transpiler first, and then develop the blockchain and application with the language directly and transpile it to node.js ?
Or starting from a code base in c++ or other ?
Normally my framework in C can do the node.js job for many things and I still have the prétention to say it's much better on all aspect, less memory use, more stability, direct access to kernel api for i/o & threads, compiled to binary code, can put in line sse or avx in the code direct, integrate ffmpeg with ogg, deal with binary data easily, and have efficient crypto, and it has the reference counter and dynamic typing, so I dont see how you can have better in shorter time
If you see big problem with it or how it can be improved nothing is really fixed
My criteria is i want cpu power and parallelisation, opencl/opengl, modularity and dynamic typing.
With node.js I dont have cpu power and efficient parallelisation, and not sure about opencl/opengl support. Dynamic typing and modularity ok, but not at the price of giving up on all the rest
For quick prototyping ok, but then need something else at some point too than node.js modules.
The things I like with node.js is the module system to manage large software stack in js, but the node.js runtime in itself not too much, it doesnt look all that stable etc. To export node.js app to browser bundles with html5 app ok, but not to run full nodes with the node.js runtime.
My main objective with blockchain is to develop distributed applications, because I think it open new paradigm with public sharing of information etc, the fact that there are well valued coins only add to the attractivity of the ecosystem, cause real value can be traded "in app" which is completely cool
After im not here to invent the perfect blockchain or ideal currency, im only in to program distributed application, for the economic aspect I trust the high valued coins, and i make a module to use them in the applications
I believe more in user controlled private network based on modular application layer to optimize security for the application / user group purpose, rather than having to rely on complex whole chain conscensus for everything, hoping that everything will always sort itself out the best for everyone by itself
The way i would see it is application producer have key pair to authentify affiliated nodes who run their modules, to have a degree of verticalisation in private network, and nodes not involved with this application just skip the block data, and just keep the proof of existence hash in the block headers, if they just keep track of coin transactions. And the node running the modules can validate the blocks based on higher level protocol rule implemented in the modules. People who are affiliated and run the application modules can get some form of reward from application supplier if their module is run, or if transactions happen through it ( nodes never have to know private key , all signature happen in the browser with in browser crypto). Need to be careful it doesnt turn into some pyramidal scheme too much, but with only one level of affiliation normally it's ok. But I bet there are always some people who can turn it into a pyramidal scheme
Only the nodes involved with the application affiliation can validate the application blocks, and the higher level of the protocol is handled in the affiliated group. It could have its own pow difficulty targeting , or pos based on app tokens.
I also plan to develop tradional web market, to integrate app in cms or prestashop, symphony etc for integration of web app in traditional web platform.
Either it's blog content, audio, app data for social media ( caregories / threads / post / users ), or shop with article item, it can be handled in application layer modules.
It's more the way i view it globally
You want to start from an existing code base, or code a whole new blockchain node/wallet/block explorer from scratch ? That is monthes of steady daily work, at best
Especially if you want to have high level scripting engine, on top of Blockchain protocol, how many time to get all this from scratch ?
Because I have already large part of this already done, not sure after how you see the priority between the blockchain itself, the script language, and the application layer , and if you plan to start from scratch how many time before an application can be programmed with it ?
If you are ok with the model of script I explained before ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18375980 ), I can start working on it and have something working soon, but it would probably not be directly suitable for javascript transpiling as such.
What you have in mind is starting on node.js code directly, or develop the transpiler first, and then develop the blockchain and application with the language directly and transpile it to node.js ?
Or starting from a code base in c++ or other ?
Normally my framework in C can do the node.js job for many things and I still have the prétention to say it's much better on all aspect, less memory use, more stability, direct access to kernel api for i/o & threads, compiled to binary code, can put in line sse or avx in the code direct, integrate ffmpeg with ogg, deal with binary data easily, and have efficient crypto, and it has the reference counter and dynamic typing, so I dont see how you can have better in shorter time
If you see big problem with it or how it can be improved nothing is really fixed
My criteria is i want cpu power and parallelisation, opencl/opengl, modularity and dynamic typing.
With node.js I dont have cpu power and efficient parallelisation, and not sure about opencl/opengl support. Dynamic typing and modularity ok, but not at the price of giving up on all the rest
For quick prototyping ok, but then need something else at some point too than node.js modules.
The things I like with node.js is the module system to manage large software stack in js, but the node.js runtime in itself not too much, it doesnt look all that stable etc. To export node.js app to browser bundles with html5 app ok, but not to run full nodes with the node.js runtime.
My main objective with blockchain is to develop distributed applications, because I think it open new paradigm with public sharing of information etc, the fact that there are well valued coins only add to the attractivity of the ecosystem, cause real value can be traded "in app" which is completely cool
After im not here to invent the perfect blockchain or ideal currency, im only in to program distributed application, for the economic aspect I trust the high valued coins, and i make a module to use them in the applications
I believe more in user controlled private network based on modular application layer to optimize security for the application / user group purpose, rather than having to rely on complex whole chain conscensus for everything, hoping that everything will always sort itself out the best for everyone by itself
The way i would see it is application producer have key pair to authentify affiliated nodes who run their modules, to have a degree of verticalisation in private network, and nodes not involved with this application just skip the block data, and just keep the proof of existence hash in the block headers, if they just keep track of coin transactions. And the node running the modules can validate the blocks based on higher level protocol rule implemented in the modules. People who are affiliated and run the application modules can get some form of reward from application supplier if their module is run, or if transactions happen through it ( nodes never have to know private key , all signature happen in the browser with in browser crypto). Need to be careful it doesnt turn into some pyramidal scheme too much, but with only one level of affiliation normally it's ok. But I bet there are always some people who can turn it into a pyramidal scheme
Only the nodes involved with the application affiliation can validate the application blocks, and the higher level of the protocol is handled in the affiliated group. It could have its own pow difficulty targeting , or pos based on app tokens.
I also plan to develop tradional web market, to integrate app in cms or prestashop, symphony etc for integration of web app in traditional web platform.
Either it's blog content, audio, app data for social media ( caregories / threads / post / users ), or shop with article item, it can be handled in application layer modules.
It's more the way i view it globally
@ladixDev, you should let me handle the design around economics of consensus, as it is an area where I am expert (and bluntly stated, you are not). That doesn't mean you shouldn't share ideas, but please recognize the years of research and thought I have here on BCT focused on economics and game theory study.
I will go as far as to predict that if I get my project launched as planned, your ICO will be much more valuable if you are building your apps for BitNet than for your own blockchain, because your investors realize that BitNet is going to generate much more revenue (BitNet tokens) for your apps than your own lonesome blockchain.
NuShares and voting is as stupid as democracy.
I will go as far as to predict that if I get my project launched as planned, your ICO will be much more valuable if you are building your apps for BitNet than for your own blockchain, because your investors realize that BitNet is going to generate much more revenue (BitNet tokens) for your apps than your own lonesome blockchain.
NuShares and voting is as stupid as democracy.
Yes I wanted to have your opinion on this nushare system , it's a solution I looked over to solve this issue to avoid all the power to be driven by the whales, but maybe it's not a good solution
Seemed to go in this direction to have token for decision power separated from the main blockchain mining / emission
Like this can accumulate decision power independantly of economic interest and wealth.
So Bitcoin killer will be BitNet
Net > Coin
Net > Coin
Lol. Because of network effuckects. <--- Note I am the username @anonymous commenting there (and I have another more important mathematical insight comment coming)
So Bitcoin killer will be BitNet 
That would be hilarious 
You can only imagine bitcoin maximalists laughing and thinking it's just another shitcoin trying to ride btc wave. Then they would realize BitNet is not a joke and would fight it, and eventually BitNet would win.
Net > Coin
That would be hilarious You can only imagine bitcoin maximalists laughing and thinking it's just another shitcoin trying to ride btc wave. Then they would realize BitNet is not a joke and would fight it, and eventually BitNet would win.
Net > Coin
The buzz word for this is collaborative economy
Thanks for jogging my memory. I've used that term before also. Note my Copute name idea (for the PL) originates from Coopute and also I did contemplate (and discard!) the name OpenCoop.
What can NuShareholders vote on?
@ladixDev, you should let me handle the design around economics of consensus, as it is an area where I am reasonably expert (and bluntly stated, you are not). That doesn't mean you shouldn't share ideas, but please recognize the years of research and thought I have here on BCT focused on economics and game theory study.
Your expertise is in programming and content production interfacing (and probably out-of-the-box thinking creativity). You should focus where your expertise is. Those who maximize the division-of-labor are the most successful. Inviolable fundamental economic laws should not be ignored (except by the fools who like failure).
I will go as far as to predict that if I get my project launched as planned, your ICO will be much more valuable if you are building your apps for BitNet than for your own blockchain, because your investors realize that BitNet is going to generate much more revenue (BitNet tokens) for your apps than your own lonesome blockchain.
NuttyShares and voting is as stupid as democracy.
Jump to: