Topic: Nemesis - the open source intellectual property system - page 3. (Read 10662 times)

It can't work because there's no easy way to verify it. Look at Bitcoin's proof of work. It's very hard to find a block, because it takes a ridiculous number of hashes to do so on average, but it takes only one hash to verify that someone has a correct block. Similarly, proof of storage would have to be the same way, that is, easy to verify. However, how do you do it? If you just ask for a hash of the data the node is being paid for storing, then that node can just store the hash of the data and keep getting paid. The only way to verify that a node is storing something is to have the data yourself and have that node send it to you, every byte, and compare it against what you have. Therefore, you have to do the same work as the node to verify the node is doing what it's supposed to.

this would be good, however, if your message was really valuable then the first person to unlock might just host it on his/her own, maybe even selling it to recoup whatever they paid to get the message unlocked in the first place, effectively taking money from party 1

I do think this model is applicable for advertising space within Nemesis.  Say Nemesis is hosting a video, and sells advertising space with 0 hour contracts for the video, payable only in Nemesis stock.  Then an advertiser has to purchase Nemesis stock from the general public or through proof of work to sell back to Anarcorp's wallet (where the coins are removed permanently) to advertise alongside content.  This will be a major source of demand for the Nemesis stock, causing its value to increase a lot.  

There can be two types of advertising slots.  1 in a common area, that is paid for with Nemesis general stock, and one within a claim-specific area that is paid for with claim specific coin.  That way if you submit a good movie and there is lots of advertising revenue from it, the submitter of the movie, who owns most of the currency for that submission, will get most of the advertising revenue (due to increased demand for the currency to pay for advertising).  

Its very exciting seeing you guys brainstorming on the subject.  This is where real innovation happens.  

Thanks I follow you.  So POStorage maybe out of the question. 

I wonder if it would be possible to send a message to another address, which can only be unlocked after paying a certain number of coins.

So for example:

1) Party1 sends message (+ network fee)  to Party 2  (The fee could be based on size of message and/or assigned monetary value)

2) Party2 receives encrypted message and ask. Party 2 sends requested coins back to Party 1.

3) Party1 sends private key to unlock message.


1 and 2 happen via manually intervention. Part 3 would happen automatically as part of the client/network.

So why can't it work?

Could the proof of storage, be an encrypted message, where the sender sets the price? 

Only the sender can decrypt for free. Everyone else has to pay with POW, or POStake.

Anything else?

I agree with the idea , execution is the problem .

For exampme the devcoin idea in principle is a great one except the problem is of course structure ailure points of which there are many , even a rudimentary once over exposes these .

I agree that if there were a more streamlined and effective way In which innovations were paid even in a small way to innovation then that would in no small way be a revolutionary event .

Especially if achievement was base on a decentralized system .

The reason this is not functioning now is because the basic aspects of "a market" really don't exist anymore , modern "western" nations a long time ago left a "market" economy for a more structured corporate communist structure , in which all monetary liquidity is controlled by a centralized source issued as debt , that fundamental communist structure directly kills innovation.

The only reason the "cold war" was won by the west was because there was the underlying base of a market that existed despite the communists strucoverlaying both systems .

But what had occured now is that one has become free .

But its happend at a time when information is in revolution.

oh man i LOVE lenny!

Thats a good, logical analogy.  

I don't think I would.  Its against humanism and evolution in my opinion.  Every time I embarked on a new invention project I had the benefit of the human race in mind.  I always thought that gave me clarity.  

It is very difficult for creators to get paid now because the USPTO has been lobbied in such a way that the biggest determinant in making money through intellectual property is whether or not you already have money.  If you don't have money, you can go through venture capital, but then all kinds of things come into play such as how good you are at marketing, your connections, and your personal character, none of which has anything to do with the quality of your innovation.  If you are a talented inventor with no money, you shouldn't be forced to give all royalties to a corporation or build your own business to get paid.  Being a good inventor and being a successful entrepreneur aren't related at all.  Let someone else build the business.  Someone whose niche is building businesses not someone whose niche is inventing.  

I really believe our current system has made a logical fallacy in thinking that resources means financial resources.  The primary resource of capitalism is human capital, including the brainpower of a population.  It should be as easy to make money off of the investment of your brain power (exactly what I'm doing when I decide to start a new invention) as it should be to make money off of the investment of money.  

You make a lot of good points.  I spiced things up with rhetoric to try and compel people who feel strongly about these things to support the project.  I have other winning inventions too, but I can't make money off of them if I can't get them made through an agreement with a business and most large businesses have adopted a policy of never making these agreements.  If I post my inventions on the internet for free, they can get made but I won't get royalties.  Thats why I invented this concept.  It bothers me that they sit in a closed book where they can't be of any value to the world.  I want inventors to be able to post their inventions on the internet in exchange for a credit in a crypto ledger, let someone else make the business, and still have the inventor get paid.  

Proof of storage is basically where you would be paid for storing information, rather than doing work.

+1

Sounds like the rest of the damaged human race

There is  beauty in broken things . We are definitely more interesting.  

Ive still got a couple of winners the nsa guys didnt get . , youve got to learn to throw lots of fakes .

Which is kind of , now I look at it,  your writing style.

I dont want to personally make anyone a slave , " big business" is just a sum of its parts.



The banking / financial system is just a premine scam , but in a way the ultimate , imagine this forum was full of ignorance regarding all things cryptocurrency , BTC got 100% pre mined ( as opposed to the inequitable state it is now)

But everyone was too dull to notice ...

Then the BTC preminers encouraged by the ignorance created ....

"Bipple"  in which btc was only ever Loaned into existence .

Everyone thought thats pretty good .....

A few year's go by and pretty soon the BTC preminers own all the media , all the political structure , and wield good control over the army , due to control of all the " liquid" of trade .

Say you wouldn't do it if you had of thought of it early enough ?

If you're suggesting a proof-of-storage mechanism, it's not going to work.

Optimal Strategies / Balanced Range

A balanced range is a set of occurrences with neutral expected value.
Decision making against a balanced range is indifferent.
As a result, a balanced range is game theoretically unexploitable.
Whatever action is taken against a balanced range has neutral expectation.
An unbalanced range is exploitable.  
An exploitable strategy is not optimal.  

The current American economic climate is unbalanced.  
The expected value of an invention that takes place within an organization is higher than that of a similar invention invented outside of an organization as a result of legislation forcing independents to play a cooperative game. (while organizations are able to play a non cooperative game through lobbying to change the rules of the game) 
This means the current economic climate is exploitable by providing a non cooperative game for the people playing the game (citizens).  

advertisement song^^^  to listen to while reading

     \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/ raise yur dongers \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/

     \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/ raise yur dongers \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/

     \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/ raise yur dongers \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/

     \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/ raise yur dongers \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/

     \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/ raise yur dongers \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/

     \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/ raise yur dongers \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/

     \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/ raise yur dongers \( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)/

Rules
The object of the game is to have more value than your competitor at the end of the game

2 parties (partyA, partyB) are in direct competition

Each party has a message (MA, MB) with respective values (VA, VB)

PartyA has a number of constituents NA

PartyB has a number of constituents NB

Once a constituent has been exposed to a message there is no way of proving the removal of the message from the constituent

Competing parties are allowed to pay a competitor's constituents to disclose a message

Constituents can disclose a message to a competitor

If a message is disclosed, the chance a given constituent disclosed the message is 1/N where N is the number of constituents exposed to that message by the party

Constituents make decisions based on the options with the highest expected value governed by the equation:

               EV = Summation from i=0 to n of (Pr(i) * reward(i))

Strategy: the more constituents a party has, the more likely the party's message will be disclosed

// Getting Familiar with the Concept //

Nemesis is an encryption based proposal for a cipher space hosting corporation backed by the inherent value of useful information (inventions, software, movies, music)


- a new claim specific currency is generated for each data submission, a portion of this currency is transacted to the submitter's wallet, the rest is transacted to public wallet, where it is paid out over time to the proof of storage miners, storing the submitted information

- each data submission is timestamped to prevent forgery (information can be copied but the date cannot be reproduced)

- each submission (claim) can be linked to (cite) a number of previous submissions

- Nemesis has a user interface with two types of advertising space: the first is advertising in a common area, the second is advertising in an information specific area

- advertisers compete for advertising space with bids of the respective currency to the respective wallet with 0 hour contracts, the highest bidder wins

- claim specific currency can be transacted for general use currency at the market price (these are effectively two types of stock: A and B)

- claims (data submissions, new software) can be voted on to elect new source code



heres a few ways of thinking of the Nemesis concept:
1) a combination of bitcoin and pirate bay/megaupload
2) a polymorphic program enacted by voting parties

Let me raise the nudity score to 2/10.


And


(requires some imagination and a table).