Topic: IDEAL: no ICOs, no proof-of-work, no proof-of-stake, no governance, and no forks (Read 6519 times)

Clarification about the OP:

I am probably beta w.r.t. to this at this current juncture. Not because I think Steemit will succeed (well I am still waiting to confirm the adoption data to make a final determination on that stance).

If I am alpha w.r.t. this, you won't be reading any words from me.

I expect that troll kiklo to come into this thread since I locked the other thread.

So unfortunately I am locking this thread for now.

No offense brah but you're sounding so beta.

Unfortunately or not, I know inside info of what went down during Charles' ouster that would make it nearly impossible for me to trust Dan's word.

I will not repeat that information to anyone, nor allude to its content. I will not mention it again.

I'm almost tempted to pick up the phone, but I've never had something like that work out well. All my successes have come from my programming keyboard, not from my mouth. He doesn't need me. Why should he want to give me a large role. They are busy on Steemit. I should not interrupt their focus.

Are they the only people worthy to collaborate with. I hope not.

I will read the post again later with your links however:

A simple conversation with him would be worth MUCH more compared to arguing with the trolls on here.  Time is a limited commodity, make the best use of it.

I wrote about that:




Basically I am thinking that Dan and I would argue about everything and that he wants to always be in control. I think he would take my ideas and then kick me out of the project, same as he did to Charles.

Also I do not like the type of design decisions Dan makes. For example, the decision to use a quadratic weighting in Steem was done purposefully to cause users to do more work than they would be compensated for. This was a conscious decision to cheat the users. That sort of ethics does not belong in s/w from my perspective. I want to do something to help the users. He is thinking the ends justify the means, but even his expected ends appears to me to be a miscalculation.

Who wrote "no PoW"? Did you read the OP:


And the thread:

Why not contact Dan?  Crypto does not have to be you vs me mentality, I'm sure talented people can find common ground and work together...

No pow - i dont think it is possible.
POS is far more centralized than pow and it is not fair.

To make good decentralized coin we must solve 2 things:
1. Absolutely no pools. Pools can collude and make any changes into blockchain using free computation power(as we can see that happening with ethereum where 3 pools - dwarf,ether and f2pool controlling whole network). Algo must prevent pool creation. Such algo exists in SpreadCoint and Steem
2. Solo mining must not have big variance for small miners. We should solve this task and then our coin will be truly decentralized.

and of course no premine

Bottom-up organization is also an aspect of nature, because if it was not then it would require that a top-down omniscience was possible, which is impossible because it would require an non-finite speed-of-light, which would collapse the future and the past into nothingness (read two pages of my posts following the linked one in order to capture my complete reasoning).

There are systems in nature which have successfully resisted top-down organization thus are not power vacuums, e.g. sexual reproduction. Their key trait is that they can't be top-down organized, because they have a local, real-time environment relevance that can't be managed nor captured by the top-down organizer. This was essentially the key fundamental insight of my famous essay about the Rise of Knowledge being that individually empowered (by the Internet) knowledge creation is individually serendipitous and accretive, not capable of being captured by top-down finance:


Satoshi's design was an attempt to create such a permissionless, trustless system, that unlike fiat and democracy, would not be captured by any top-down oligarchy. Unfortunately his design is a power vacuum that fails to power distribution of control (e.g. Bitcoin = ChinaCoin) due to economies-of-scale in profitable proof-of-work mining.

I have conceived of a design for unprofitable proof-of-work mining which I believe has the necessary trait to not be a power vacuum.

Note that even phenomena which are not currently a power vacuum, can later become one. CoinCube has been arguing that human reproduction is soon to come under the control of the State or Corporations due to advances in technology for reproduction such as In Vitro Fertilization and other factors. I don't completely recall his reasoning off the top of my head.

Thank you. And you will not be disappointed. I was awake for 28 hours and had a lot of energy. So my health should be fine enough by now. Been having many days like this lately.

I am busy first trying to figure out exactly what Bitshares/Steemit is up to. I want to see where they are headed before I get back on my work, because depending on whether they are doing some valid or not, it might impact my priorities and plans.

If you are doing all this work on crypto community behalf to better things you are entitled to be rewarded for your work.Many scammers have profited with hyped shitcoins and then when profit run with funds leaving community to try to rescue project but developers who are genuinely working at important ideas and innovations that will give better choices and services to all need to be properly funded and incentivised so yes profit is nescessary.Words do not feed the baby or pay the bills no matter how nice they sound.

I didn't intend to write anything in this thread that is contrary to your expectation. What did you read that indicated to you otherwise?

I believe in a meritocracy, so why would you think I am not expecting winners and losers?


I didn't mention doing a coin drop. I do not agree with giving people coins for nothing. I agree they will sell immediately.

I think you need to rather understand for example the problem with instant distributions versus mined distributions:

---

I am expecting profit quickly too.  

Why you don't like profit  

What did I write in this thread that caused you to think that I don't like a token that rises in exchange price?

FUD ALERT
*********

I think you've taken on an unbeatable challenge. As long as the token is to be used by human beings, and used on this planet, there will always be winners and losers, whales and minnows, speculators and users (unless it's a non-tradeable entity so really has no value to any traders). I just don't see you breaking that fundamental human law no matter what you release.

The people you will code to treat fairly in distribution will sell their portion to the highest bidder (as soon as they can - as is their right). And that's when the imbalance will start to take root. The early adopters (whether they care about the new tech and concepts embedded within it or not) will be expecting massive profits, and quickly.

If they don't get that, then you are in trouble. Fact. Read the boards.

Maybe I'm just too cynical.

I wish you luck.

Proof-of-Stake Isn't Trustless Because It Has No Time Objectivity.

I have an idea for IDEAL. It is basically a decentralized "App store".

My idea is a box that runs open source software. This software allows you to validate for any coins that you chose. Anyone can create any coin and anyone can use any coin. Some coins may fork and others may not. You can not use any coins if you do not own a box. Coins select the reward you get for processing its transactions.

WTF  I asked you idiots to stop spamming your off-topic shitcoin in this thread. Your post has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Have you heard about carbon coin?  The best part is that amost no one uses it.  It is part of our model to stay green.

My analysis of Paul Sztorc's blog post about oracles, smart contracts, and side-chains is relevant to this thread.