Topic: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? - page 33. (Read 79952 times)

@iamnotback, the sooner you realise you cannot accomplish this, the better for yourself. Sorry but you simply can't. For more reasons: to move away from ideeas to a proof of concept, leading a developing team and actually make it work (like what ethereum did and still doing ) it's really hard, from thousands of blockchain projects out there only ethereum stands a chance of accomplishing things.
And i really mean no offense, but there's a long way, atm all you have is ideeas and blockchain knowledge. There are thousands people like that with thousands projects, almost all ( with exception of ethereum ) on the brink of collapse or simply being kept afloat by hype and pumps.
And you're still going strong with "BUT BUT BYZANTINE AGREEMENT" and stuff like that. ETH devs went over that and are searching / found ways to fix most of these things. If you really got the knowledge you claim you do, then your only chance is to join a team before you're getting too old. Your "project" even if it works ( which is like 0.01%) you'd probably need 10 years, it's more likely you'll become senile before that happen.

Ostensibly IOTA sold future promises, a timeline, etc. Afaik, the IOTA blockchain software wasn't even running live when they sold tokens. Afaik, it wasn't even possible transfer tokens to another party for some time until after tokens were sold.

Also afaik, there is no distribution of IOTA other than tokens sold.

Most of the tokens will be distributed, not sold, because there will be an ongoing (perpetual) distribution (but also eventually perpetual monetary deflation...are you confused yet, lol). But there is going to be something very special about the way the distribution works, which I think will be very enticing for everyone (to those who purchased some tokens on an exchange and to those who are receiving the distribution).

You will not be able to get a lot of distributed coins without doing significant work (or paying someone to for you). In essence my distribution scheme is a "proof of work" but not a computational Proof-of-work.

Is it the same model that David and CfB did with IOTA, labelling the token as a software? In the past you were very critical of the IOTA software sell approach by saying such packaging is still violation of certain financial regulations mainly in the US. Right now I have no view what is wrong or right terms of legality, just try to understand your approach.

Personally, I welcome you don't take the ICO route and I am sure many will do and support you, but what is the difference if you premine and sell the coins as a "software".

Monetary theory and my ideas for launch.

I am thinking not to do an ICO.

Alternative plan is to sell tokens little by little on exchanges (i.e. no prospectus, no promises, no centralization) as price rises and development continues. Buyer buys a software token. He gets what he buys on that day same as any other owner of tokens selling his copy of the software, not future promises. A free market.


Note there would also be tokens distributed by "mining" (as onboarding) similar conceptually to PoW but not PoW.

---

IQ is rare and you cant fix stupid or fight against the massive ETH marketing all day. You get the honor to keep trying but humanity only will learn if its too late like we see in bitcoin these days. But bitcoin's store of value function seems not to need much scaling...

ETH's only chance to scale is in forking infinity times or tending to be mostly central - LN style wise - hehe.

 

There is no point in building a project that needs 100 of millions of users adopting it, when the underlying blockchain can't scale!

I can't wait to read your whitepaper!

By the way, it would be great if you could give us an exact definition of centralization (as you try to avoid it in your design).
We seem to have differing views in that regard...

Some interesting potential revelations have come to light:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17968724

Self-appraisal (self-deprecating not narcissist):

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17968898

Revelation from Q4 2016:

The more I think about it, I realize their technology (to the extent it can create a more efficient cloud storage) will end up running on which ever blockchain and token solves the major outstanding problems of blockchains (e.g. pehaps my project's blockchain and token).


I think we shouldn't waste time.

If BTC has a good run until March 11, then I will pay $500. Take care.

If I have some downtime or need to take a break and do something for fun. For $500, I would make it a priority.

Okay I get off this forum and go back to work I was doing before I started this day.

Just trying to goad you Shelby... don't take it personal. You are the only reason some of us come here! Good luck with your health, and get coding! How about $100 usd?

Raise a sufficient bounty and clear rules on what outcome I get paid. Then I will be motivated to go do it. Otherwise, I need to remain focused on my project.

I posted in Spoetnik's thread, because I wanted to make it clear that there is still upside in blockchains and crypto. I was of course alarmed by the notion that we are losing interest. Hell if that is the case, maybe I should lose interest too? Rather I think some speculators may have burned themselves out.

But there is a still a huge market out there of people who not even aware of our ecosystem. I want to expand the market of participants by millions. That is my goal.

Shelby, I just think it would be interesting for you to have a debate with someone with an IQ above 70, as opposed to Spoetnik and his retarded rants. I remembered last year when you dissed ETH, they wouldn't even reply to you. I bet these guys would. Wonder if it would expose them, or you? Hmmmmm.

It isn't worth my time to go argue with them. Carry on with that delusion and you will eventually (another 5 years of promises, technobabble nonsense, and hand waving?) reap what you've sown.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of a Torrent like Dark web network for distribution of files that are otherwise difficult to obtain on more efficient server farms. But we won't be mainstreaming content storage on home computers. Server farms will always be more efficient and mainstream. As for the token and earning money from hosting content on your home computer harddisk, brouhaha. Even a rough estimate on a napkin would indicate it is not viable to resell your Internet connection bandwidth for more than you pay for it, especially since you pay orders-of-magnitude more than it costs Google

The main criticism is that even to the extent that we could create a more efficient cloud storage system comprising a common system incorporating a myraid of vendors by incorporating a signed proof-of-storage along with a blockchain record, the monetization of the system with a token is nonsense (other than as a gambling casino for speculation), because the most widely used crypto-currency will end up being the one the market prefers to use to pay for the cloud storage. These tokens (Sia, MaidSafe, Storj) are not going to be very long lived (because they haven't solved the major problems of crypto-currency), even though their proof-of-storage technology might end up being useful and used. Likewise, the technology for proof-of-storage will end up being used with the blockchain that solves the major problems of blockchains (e.g. centralization of consensus, etc). These projects are just incubators of experiments in cloud storage homogenization technology, not long-lived token+blockchain systems.

Maidsafe is crap? I would love to see you post that on their forum instead of this shit-hole. C'mon Shelby, it's too easy to make a comment like that in this wasteland. Do it! Just Do it!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrr! Lamo!

Edit: Yes, I have been shorting Maid since last week. 

I'm aware of the logic about why microtransactions won't work. But the cognitive load can be eliminated by, a) making the payments so small and automated, and b) making the payments a "game" that people want to be part of.

The common retort to asking people to pay for content on the Internet is that why would anyone pay for what they can get for free. My solution is to make it "free" to pay.  

Also they can't get the (exact) same content for free else where, because the content providers want to be paid. They can get some other content else where for free, but not the exact same content. Then I have a mechanism by which they are already psychologically/socially invested into wanting the exact content that is not free. This also ties into the concept that it is a "game" (or social reward) of sorts.

Life is game. Everyone wants to be part of something. Everyone wants to feel something. Everyone wants a reason to be alive.

One thing to keep in mind is that many people (especially if we include the billions of people in the developing world) either don't have or aren't going to reach for their credit card or Paypal account to grab some content they may want. They'd maybe even be willing to pay that 25 cents for it, but it isn't worth the hassle of figuring out how to pay for it.

More details to follow...


P.S. An excellent ROI from advertising revenue is $0.001 per impression, but typically it is much lower than that. And that doesn't factor in the losses that advertising creates (such as sending the buying power else where and loosing your captured audience) and the loss of upsells+loyalty. For example, musicians make most of their revenue from upsells. So we shouldn't view the $0.001 microtransaction as the most economically relevant level. Probably it will be in the $0.05 or above (maybe even as high as $1) level that will be the most important economically. It may be the case that the $0.001 level is not even worth it. It may also vary given different content and monetization models. More holistically, advertising is a model that has a very low relevance (even with the best targeting). Thus the maximum economic value should be obtained not via advertising but via an organic, viral model of reaching consumers.

Some projects (e.g. Synereo and Yours.network, even to some extent Steemit) have suggested that paying curators is the best model for obtaining the maximum value of matching consumers to content. Rather I think an organic, viral model is superior wherein consumers share with other consumers for reasons of natural relevance, because the cognitive load on curation for profit is too high and not well matched to the finely grained free market annealing (optimization of fitness) of chaos in the human network.

The reason we have 100s of shitcoins (even speculators don't realize they are shit, e.g. MaidSafe) and nothing really substantial is because nothing other than PoW (and its flaws) can function without whales:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17950272 (<--- read all my comments in the linked thread, not just the linked one)