Topic: Proof of market (POM) (Read 4923 times)

Sorry again for not answering earlier...

Yes you are mostly right but there is always exclusions dependable of area of actions. I will give some lets say big examples which are connected to proof with humans actions. So when you are using POW there is only machine which needs to proove their work with calculating but if you put humans into it there is no proof because looking in prediction of what will be prooven, there will be "Pi" number of possibilites, it is infinite. So there if it is infinite there is no proof of doing something till it gets done.

I still define proof as perception of things and if you proof something that is work, that doesnt mean it is prooven, because your proofs and mine are not same. You cant fine universal apsolute proof. Maybe closest match to it is truth. Proof as a root, for sure not...if you look in nature as a proof of life, you can put out minimum two conclusions and maximum infinite!

One is that there is life, second is that life is not prooven even if we are living beings, that is contradictory so that is why I think your statements are too. I could say "Cogito ergo sum" but todays science says lots of about mind at all...from the other side life is existing but are we live or just projections of something which is not existing, or if there is multiple of us in multiuniverse who is living, all of us or nobody? Sorry for going too wide but trying to give an example.

So if it is contradictory there is no definition of it, neither that could be root of things! Root for me is our belief that proof is prooven even looking from super perception (position) there is no proof because it could be alway more prooven. I am telling again, this statement is only works if there is human actions inside of using proof but as there are humans all around combinations are infinite, so proofs are infinite.

Steps which you give to me are just assumptions for proof so with hypothesis you cant proof anything. I want to say that even if you have good intentions, from my point of view you are not right because POW, POP, POS....POM, POC etc. are just names and those are individual perceptions of user satisfaction. So proof for me is not proof for you and vice-versa, universal proof does not exist till we find golden middle of all things!

I understand, I am quite busy myself lately.


Huh?  What statements have I made that are contradictory?


Yes, unfortunately perception is not fact.  While we are talking about proof mechanics, I have a fun one that is related to this notion of differing perceptions.  (Maybe I already brought it up, so I apologize if this is reiterative.)

This is a classic:  All persons are either arrogant or inconsistent.

Proof: Either one believes that everything that they believe to be true is true, in which case they are arrogant, or they believe that some of what they believe to be true is not true, in which case they are inconsistent.  You must be one or the other, and there is no escape.  QED.

So, which are you?

Personally, I try to tend toward arrogance over inconsistency, if you haven't noticed, so I am very curious as to where you find me to be self-contradictory!


This is where your perception is simply incorrect.  Proof is not only defined, it is the root of all other definition.  It is simply "that which must be."  If proof, itself, could not be defined then nothing at all could be defined in turn, and we'd have no ability to rationalize our existence. This obviously isn't the case, thankfully.  Because we can define proof we can define things in general.  (Hooray for set theory!)


Huh?  Again nothing can prove the ephemeral qualification of "good guy" or "bad guy" in precisely the same way that nothing can prove the ephemeral qualification of "market."  Again you've confused logic (math and philosophy) with science (analysis) in your statements.  A person isn't good because they logically must be good, a person is only evidenced as good in the past.  A market doesn't show traction because it logically must show traction, the market only shows evidence of historical traction in the past.  You can never prove a person good, you can only disprove them as historically bad by excluding the null hypothesis over measure of their action in the past to within some margin of error.  Doing so proves nothing of their current state, and says nothing of their "goodness" in the future.  You have the same conundrum in your "proof" of market.  You can never prove the state of the market, you can only measure it in the past.  You can't apply philosophy, only science.  You're offering a (questionable) science to be applied, and purporting it as logical.  (In most cultures, this is considered a form of fraud.  Again, I have to go back to the question of the spectrum between being confused and being a scam.  Do you really want to be seen as either of these, or anything between?)


Nope, there can only be the one definition of "that which must be" or we run into problems.  Any other definition is inevitably an equivocation.

Restated, there can only be one set of "that which must be" because there is only one set of "that which is and was." As such there can be only one set of validity criteria for both proof (math) and for analysis (science) and if we admit anything else we run into nasty problems.  In particular, the inconsistency of having more than one set of things which can be called true when reality asserts only one such set of true things.  If our logic becomes inconsistent with the singular reality, then it no longer functions as a logic.


I don't disagree with most of this, but it is beside the point.  A proof can be asserted in degrees.  We call these bounded models, and they are a part of the "magic" that makes the block-chain proofs reliable.  The mechanics of this became very important in the sha-3 competition, and is why MD6 was withdrawn as a candidate submission.  The proof of the hash function's security was a bounded model and it was discovered that the bounds were only correct for specific round sizes, so the proof didn't hold for the general algorithm.  The submission was pulled because we lacked a proof that it offered the security that it should at all round sizes. Since then, the proof has been extended into a better bounded proof and the proof now holds for the other round lengths.  In other words, we now know that is was "pulled for nothing" and that a correct implementation would actually offer the correct security at all rounds.  Both proofs were valid, they just proved slightly different things. Both things were true the whole time, because they are necessarily true.

We can mechanically verify either type of proof, total or bounded, so we can generally treat them the same with only a few exceptions in some crazy aspects of meta-theory involving things like proofs with sizes that are expanding power-series.  (Infinite hotel problems are fun.)

What you are offering is not a total model OR a bounded model.  It is neither type of proof.  There isn't really a third kind of proof.  If you offer up a proof it will either need to be total, or have stated bounds.


Let's not even bring QFT into the discussion, since you are having enough problems with dealing in logical notions of "past" and "present" realities (science) and general reality (math) in abstraction.  We'll just not discuss "possible future" realities at all yet, so we won't need to go into any non-classical logic for now.  At most we could talk about some deontic logic, if strictly necessary in the future. (Pun fully intended.)  Once you can establish some proofs that necessarily hold in the "present" reality then we could possibly start to talk about proving over eigenvalues in higher dimensional Hilbert spaces.  Until then we should stick to the "basics" like what is and is not possible to be reason about.

Again, all I really want from you is a true simplification.  I want you to simplify down until every single statement made is axiomatic.  (There is no other way to construct a proof, anyway.)  You say you are simplifying, but this is not consistent with your actions which have only served to introduce new context.  I want you to remove context from your statements until there is as little left as is possible.  If you can do this and what you have remaining can be taken as a collection of true statements, only then will you have constructed any proof.

If you really want to simplify, you should go right down to the most basic of basics.  Start by just stating your assumptions and axioms, nothing else.  Define everything "to be used" in your proof ahead of time.  Then we could move on to the theory, itself.

If you want to have any dealing in proof, you must follow Aristotle's order, there is no other acceptable way.

Step ONE: Define assumptions - state the things you assume are true of the context.
Step TWO: Define axioms - state things that are necessarily true of the context under the assumptions.
Step THREE: Apply theorems - show how by way of the given axioms and assumptions combined (and nothing else) some new axioms can be assumed.
Step FOUR: Demonstrate the hypothesis - show how by applying theorems a new axiom that is the very thing that was to be proven can be assumed.

Only by way of those four steps can you construct a valid proof.  Nothing else works.  There really is no other mechanism by which to coax out that which is necessarily true from our reality in a way that can assert to anyone else that it is a necessarily true thing.

Until you're prepared and able to do these four things, there is little more that I can say other than "your claimed proof is no proof" over and over.  I'm even running out of new ways to say it.  I'm sorry if this confuses you, or if you somehow find the statement self-contradictory, but if so then you are certainly not prepared for the task of proving things anyway.

Sorry have lots of work around freshcoin

uhhhh there is lots of contradictions in your text like proof is not proof and proof is proof and it means it is proof hmmmm. We are talking about proof for a long time here and our perception of proof is obviously different. You cannot define it as you cannot define lets say behaviour of lets say yourself. You will say you are great, I will say you are not so great and nobody will be right! Does it proof that you are good guy or bad guy (you as example).

I am again simplifying things, so I think that in different conditions proof could be differently define. Main guideline is that proof of you as a good man is for you enough or it isnt, for me it isnt or is and vice versa (this is just example). So when we look at POW it is not prooven for me till it is end. What is end...hmmmmm for me it is when I finish work, for you is when you finish your work, but generally it is not proof because coins will not be prooven because there are lots of other factors which influence on it (mostly humans - good intention, bad intention). For example I will not get any coin if there is bad intention from main developer or else. Again, trying to simplify but what is simple or it is for me

Main point is perception of things and it is going to philosophy or quantum physics which is not simple. But again, my attitude is to make it simple, not to fraud or have bad intention from start which is mostly given in crypto world!

EDIT: Realized that I had this sitting in drafts for quite some time now.  Going to go ahead and actually click post now, over a week later.  


Good.  All I'm asking is that you "simple it" down to being so simple that it is entirely axiomatic before you call "it" a proof.


Aren't we all. I'm glad that you can admit this of me, and would hope that you can admit it of yourself. If you can, we might just hope to get along some day after all.


Oh dear me.  Again, do you really want to be seen as rejecting this notion?  If you don't take rationality of logic very dearly to heart, how are we expected to even trust your logical proof-carrying-network (coin) let alone your "just trust me" claims and promises?  Without rationality there can be no basis for trust.  I hope you would see why even this statement puts you back onto that spectrum of "misguided at best and scam at worst" that I think you probably want to avoid entirely if you're to have any hope for real long-term success of your coin.


Correct!  I am glad that we agree on that much.  What is interesting is the "even if you proof that" which is central to my point.  You cannot "proof" those things.  They are "unproofable"!  

I only illustrate them to better point to why such things are unproofable, and generally what the nature of proofable and unproofable things are, particularly in the context of your project.  Again, if you are going to claim some proofing as a marketable feature of your coin, you're going to have to be very ready for some peer criticism of your proofs.  What I'm throwing at you is "nothing" right?  If you want to succeed in this proclaimed endeavor, you're going to inevitably either face some "crazy" levels of strict criticism of you notions of proof... and we haven't even gone "deep" into these notions, yet... or you are going to fail to investor scrutiny.  If you're going to slap "proof of market" on your coin, start a "proof of market" discussion thread, and then go into other threads and attack other devs who are (LOL) doing serious proof related work you better be *really* ready to talk about proofs in general, and yours specifically.  Am I wrong?  Either you are very ready to do this at any particular time, or you inevitably fail.  As crypto-currency, if you inevitably fail at some future point then you are (or, arguably just "might as well be") failing already, because the rational thing for any investor to do is to sell right now.

I'm only your first challenger on this.  Imagine if some real investment source wanted to do some real assessment of your claims, and brought in actual experts on the philosophies and sciences of markets!  If you can't stand up to my scrutiny then you certainly couldn't hope to survive theirs.


No, philosophy is the study of reality, both logical and non-logical.  You cannot study the boundary between that which is/isn't real with only an understanding of one side of it!  I suggest you add "Nothing: A Very Short Introduction" by Frank Close and "Unknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of Algebra" by John Derbyshire to your reading list for (respectively) scientific and and mathematical treatments of the concepts around that which is outside of the real.


Is this not the very definition of speculation?  They do have some proofs some time, like an existence proof of design and engineering work in the form of schematics, or proof over some preceding market returns, for example.  What I am saying is that they do not have proof over things that you seem to be claiming that they do, or even can.  Further, I am claiming that the conclusions (and even marketing strategy) that follow from your claims are equivocation over the very meaning of proof - something that we hold very dear to our hearts in this community.  (Again, this funny nature of proof is what gives us hope of bettering those very banks, and is why we even exist as a distinct community, is it not?)


You've said a few times, in a few ways, that proof must be proven over time, which is not true.  You conflate the act of making something appear true over time (by contradiction of the null hypothesis) with the act of proving.  The act of proving is simply the process of discovering and recording the proof.  A proof does not become true because I think of it and write it down.  It is true because it is necessarily so, independent of time.  It is true because it has always been true, and will always be true, no matter what other true (or false!) things get said external to it, or when they get said relative to it first being said.  The act of saying the proof has no impact on the proof itself beyond making it known to us.  It is true because it must be true, and for no other reason, or it is not a proof at all.  If it is only true in the past and not necessarily true in the future (no matter how well supported) then it is not a proof, it is an analysis.

The only thing we can do "over time" is measurement of the past.  This is the very difference between mathematics/philosophy and science.  Only math and philosophy can ever prove the reality, science can only disprove the non-reality, the null hypothesis, the "nothing" in our universes.  Only science can approach a void claim by disputing it with measurement.  For math and philosophy to actually touch a void claim (a "bottom inhabitant") at all is (with only minor exceptions) a total self destruction of the supposed reasoning.

This is my central theme.

Any measure of a market is a science, and constitutes an analysis and not a proof.

Math and philosophy are timeless, inevitably true in their logic, and immutably sound in their reasoning.

You are offering up some science. (It is even questionable science.  If you're going to call your analysis a "proof" even just in being obtuse you at least have to be ready to show a lot of supporting data with a very low error, right? That is beside my point.)

Further, you are making statements (and conclusions) that treat the science you are offering as if it were math instead.  You are purporting that your science should be taken as internally consistent (within some sane bound of reason) as if it were a philosophy, and claiming that as such some conclusions drawn from it can, and should, be taken as fact.

Further still, you are asking people to put money into your endeavor predicated upon those (entirely not-necessarily-true) "facts."

Further yet you are calling the collective motions "proof of market" almost as if to add insult to injury by debasing the actual math on which our community (your market) is founded.

Even further more you show up on threads accusing others' actual maths of just being redundant of your brand new mathematical invention. (Which is neither mathematical, nor novel.)


Right, so they were asking for some statement which asserted a conclusion called "proof of co-production."  From context, I can see that they define "proof of co-production" as being predicated on a disjunction of either a "co-production agreement" or a "deal memo" which in turns carries a constraint of being of the "signed and dated" kind of these things.  I can see how if you sent them one of these things it would have proven to them that a co-production was implied, and that this could serve as something called "proof of the co-production."

And?


Predicated upon only knowing the singular fact that the movie was, in reality, a co-production by way of an existence proof of a thing in a set we call a "signed and dated co-production agreements or deal memos" they probably wouldn't.


No, I very much agree with them that what they were requesting constitutes a proof certificate over the fact that it was a co-production.  Why you seem to think that this has any relation to forming a proof of market power has me puzzled.

Do you think this proof of co-production somehow should prove something more than the presence of a co-production?  Should it somehow assert some aspect of the free market?


The proof of co-production is a proof of co-production.  This has no bearing on any proof of any market.

Why do you think that the two hypothetical proofs would necessarily have any relationship to one another?  (The fact that you go beyond this to claim and jump to the notion that there might even be a metatheory around such sorts of relationships in general is quite amusing to me, but we'll leave that for another time.)


? What criterias for what?  Anyway what I'm looking for is axioms, not criteria.  Criteria has nothing to do with proof, only with bounding your analysis.  Again, you're confusing science, and criterion, which occur relative to time, with axiomatic conclusions, which are independent of time.


With what purpose?


I think if you do get their money it is not because anything is proven, but because they guess that it is probably a good idea to give you their money.
In any case I doubt that they'd find our conversation so humorous as I find your notion that their investments are in any way predicated upon something having been proven.

(Let us know if you do get the money or not.)


I'm sure they would be welcome to join the thread.  I'm sure that if you ever have anyone else doing a similar due diligence over your works related to this coin initiative instead of your works related to some hypothetical movie they will certainly review our discourse, and these specific notions on your claims.  (If nothing else, they will want to see history of your PR skills in action.)

How do you think their review will look, so far?  Do you understand why, as things stand now, they will still have to include you on that gradient between "confused" and "fraud" yet?  Do you understand how easily you could put the whole question to rest?  Do you understand that how you've handled this situation so far reflects directly on your coin, as well?

You should, given the particulars of your absurd claims.  

(P.S. Funny that it is called "due diligence" and not "due assertion" - due diligence is another function that a bank performs specifically because of things that fall into the category of that which is unable to be proven, and can only be accounted for diligently by way of scientific measure, not accounted for in totality by way of proof.  It is a science, not a philosophy.  Is the difference between the two becoming clearer yet?)

I am trying to simple it, you are complicated, beside you are ironic, satirical and so on...but ok, I will go further and over that.

You are constantly trying to put things into logical matter. Proof of me or you or he or she is an asshole doesnt mean that I am, you are, he is, she is an asshole, even if you proof that!!! Why, because nothing is logical even it is logical or looking logical. That is philosophy.

So you are telling that banks, Europe, America, Asia whole world are giving money just on papers, without proof?! I said there is risk and it should be. But proof for which are they giving money or anything else must be proven.

Before few months my job was to proof to European commitee why should I do some movie :

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/calls/index_en.htm#_status=open

they send me this mail with text: (For the attribution of the automatic points to your application, please provide us with the proof of the co-production by sending us by e-mail a scanned copy of your signed and dated co-production agreement or deal memo by 11/09/2014 at the latest.)

and why would they want to give money to me?! So their word proof is not good because you are telling it is not proof. Just to remind you I sent them proof of market of the movie and they wanted co-production agreement as a proof of doing things with other production company! Is that proof or not, you will say it isnt, they (Creative europe) said it is ok, with proof of market . So they wanted criterias, I send them. I wrote criterias in our conversation before, so you have them.

So, do I need to send them a letter with your explanation about proof. I think that they will say HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA and I will not get any money or better...you can send them explanation about philosophy of proof!

Now who is being "narrow"?


Again, proof need not having anything to do with any particular set.  While I get the impression that you are most familiar with the two forms which we might call "natural ordinal proof" (proof with numbers) and "boolean proof" (binary computation)  these are not the only forms of proof that can be.  Proof need not necessarily even be over enumerated sets, at all.  We are most familiar with notions of schema from ZFC, but ZF are not the only logics and many interesting things can be proven without even admitting any predefined set beyond the natural universe hierarchy.  Modern work in type theory is some amazing stuff, and to assume any of it has much of anything to do with numbers or booleans would be quite misinformed.

I have some suggested reading material for you, now that I better understand what your misconceptions about the nature of proof stem from.  I highly suggest you start with a simple treatment like "Logic: A Very Short Introduction" by Graham Priest, Oxford Press, for a general understanding of formalism, what can/can't be proven, and how/why.  You should then move on to the early works (check out http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/) focusing on the ones related to scholastic view of material reality and specifically on the nature of things knowable but external to that material.  In particular, I would read Leibniz and specifically the Monadology.  I hope that you will take to it, and find it enlightening.

(An aside:  Strictly speaking, even bitcoin's proof of work has nothing to do with numbers.  One way function output (secure hashes) are not formally numbers.  They are not meaningfully ordinal.  You can't arrange them inductively in an order along a line. If they were ordinal then they would not be useful for cryptography, because if they were actually "just" numbers then we could readily sequence them and establish an inverse mapping, breaking the security offered.)


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

No seriously, I've been laughing for awhile at this.  My sides hurt.  You hurt my sides.

When banks give money to business and marketing planners they are doing so speculatively, like any investment they make and understand very well that they have no proof.  Speculation is precisely the opposite action to proving.  Speculating is guessing and proving is ensuring that no guesswork is necessary.  This lack of provability is why risk management infrastructure is so critical.  For someone with a background in finance I'm very surprised that you would even purport that banks have any dealings with proofs.  Their very existence is predicated on the inability to prove certain things, like future ROI, risk free rates, or (luls) success of business planners' analysis and administrators' execution.  If we could prove these things then we would have no need for banks, VC, or even corporations.

Oh, we'd also each be infinitely wealthy, because we could all just prove some arbitrarily high ROI assurance on our own self-investments, profit endlessly, and assert our own maximal utility as unbounded..  (Fun things are provable from logical inconsistencies.  In fact, one very important point that you will learn as you come to a better understanding of what are and are not things that we can call proven, provable, or a proof, is that once you are able to conclude an inconsistent assertion within your logic you can go on to logically conclude anything you wish.  From an absurdity, any conclusion follows.  From your youtube video's proof of 1+1=3 I can go on to formally prove that the universe will end in one week, if we wanted.  Fun fact: this is how reductio ad absurdum works.)


This is awesome.  You have boiled down your own circular reasoning to a very succinct logical form.  I applaud you.  I could not have put it better myself.

Your argument is that the proof is true because people will do some things predicated upon the proof being true.  PROBLEM HERE!  Your proof can not become inherently true by some actions of some people which are predicated upon it being inherently true!  It isn't true unless it is, so it isn't.  In order to be true, it needs to be true, which doesn't necessarily make it true in and of itself.  With nothing else added to make it start being true, it remains false.

People might not (and probably wont, if you can't at least disprove the null hypothesis)  behave in the way that you would expect them to if the proof were true, so the proof cannot necessarily become true by them behaving in such a way.  It is entirely possible that nobody but you ever makes a single transaction on your network again after I click post.  Your usage could presumably drop to 0 after your next block is hashed, so no conclusion predicated upon any further action of any participant could remain valid, because you could simply have no more participation!

You can't predicate a proof upon the very conclusion of that proof.  This is slightly different from how my hypothetically stating "frangomel is an asshole because just trust me" does not prove you to be an asshole, but is more like how my hypothetically stating "frangomel is an asshole because frangomel is going to behave like an asshole because frangomel is an asshole" similarly does not necessarily prove that you are an asshole, on it's own.  There is nothing in the statement that logically asserts that you will not behave UNlike an asshole, so my proof can't hold.  The best I could do is show the relationship between time and your behavior, to disprove a null hypothesis that your behavior might be simply random, and offer up some evidence, but I still cannot prove that you are an asshole, only that you seem to *have been* one in the past.  I could go on structure a probabilistic proof that accounts for a statistical likelihood of behavior via this correlation and prove "frangomel is probably going to behave like an asshole" by showing that you have tended toward such behavior, and in turn derive from that "frangomel is probably an asshole" but this is not nearly the same as proving "frongmel is an asshole."

For all of the same reasons that I cannot prove that you are an asshole, you cannot prove the market. (or "market power" as they seem to more commonly say, regardless of whether or not you enjoy the inclusion of the word power.)

They are, logically, the same sort of claim with the same kinds of logical fallacies behind them.  Neither is necessarily true, though either potentially could be.

Are you getting the picture yet?

(P.S. *ARE* you disproving the null hypothesis?  You don't even seem to be doing this in a reasonably way anywhere yet?  What is your R squared, exactly?  How much determination are you making in your "proof" that is actually an analysis?)


Nope, this is a great example of logically rationalizing one inconsistent statement by assuming another.  Your "many millions claim" doesn't hold if your "proof of market claim" on which it is predicated can't hold.  Nothing was proven as following from proof of market, because proof of market wasn't actually proven first.  In fact, even if you try to argue a probabilistic proof that many millions were "probably" demonstrated, by looking over the null hypothesis for the past decade of market power metrics, you will find that you can't even draw out that correlation because it isn't there.

Markets crashed, or did you miss that?

Maybe too many people in finance, like you, thought that they had proofs of things like either "market" or "market power."  If so, they should have studied general reasoning and the definition of "market" much more before drawing such an absurd conclusion.  (Please don't repeat and perpetuate their mistakes, at best it would just be a waste of everyone's time and at worst it would be downright dangerous.  Another spectrum that it is probably best to take explicit action in order to exclude yourself from even being measured against.)


Usually, they do both in series rounds.  First, they will make a fully speculative investment as you describe.  Nothing at all is proven or provable at this stage, they might lose every penny and never see it again.

If the product does materialize and a market for it comes to exist (meaning people buy it) then they can prove one new thing - existence of some prior market.  In other words, once they have sold one unit of whatever they can offer an existence proof that there *was* some market for the thing because the definition of market follows from the definitions of buyer and seller.  Before you make a sale you have only a seller, so no market is made. (Subtle pun intended!)  Once you have a trade between a distinct buyer and seller, you have a market, so QED!  However, what they can't prove is that there is any additional market now, or if there will be any market in the future.  As soon as they make that one sale they "lose the buyer in the present" and can not prove that any second and third buyers will necessarily come in.  This provability of "any" prior market is usually not enough, alone, to raise more capital from the bank or other investor, but it is usually enough to keep them from demanding some immediate return of their purely speculative investment and seeking damages for fraud.  

Let's assume that the market does "sustain" for a span, with lots of buying and selling happening over time.  Now one other new thing can be proven, and that is correlation of the market over that time.  For some "thing external to the market" we can disprove the null hypothesis (show that our numbers are not just random relative to that "thing external") over the prior market state and demonstrate a correlation.  This still only proves "this correlation probably existed" and notably does not prove that it did exist, that it does exist now, or that it will exist in the future.  Usually this probabilistic proof over the past *is* enough, if it shows positive growth correlations, to secure new rounds of investments.  However, no bank goes into these additional rounds of investments with any more delusion about some proof of expectation than they went into their initially entirely speculative round with.  They understand that they are just "doubling down" on one speculative investment with another speculative investment, nothing more.

Past performance is not indicative of future results.  Surely you are familiar with this concept.  Do you argue that it is to be somehow shown not to hold, by your proofs?  If so, you'd simply be another irrational lunatic who thinks he has some crystal ball, and our conversation would be over.  I hope I am not trying to argue rationality with a madman, I've made that mistake in the past a few times.


You seem to have this weird idea that anything recorded, written down, can be called proof if it just "sounds believably good/reasonable enough."  If this were the sum of how we defined proof then we'd be in some trouble.  It would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to ever come to any agreement about what is reality.  I could write "Frangomel is an asshole" without even a "because..." following and it could stand as a proof that you are, in reality, an asshole.  I don't think either of us want that.


I have, for some time now, been trying to disassociate this notion of programming from what we are talking about.  These principles significantly predate any "programming work."  Their applications to contemporary technologies are irrelevant.


Things like "intent" or "a pitch" can't prove anything to anyone.  Intent logically cannot be proven, and "a pitch" is always a speculative beast.  These are different and distinct activities from proving a thing.  Why you want to conflate them is a bit strange to me.  (Also, tangentially, this phrase "claimed money" has an interesting etymology as well, and is a bit strange to me.  I'm curious about your usage, but that is neither here nor there.)


I have not given "my word" here, only tried to explain some very basic and incontrovertible principles of philosophy to you.  I've offered no promise of anything.  I've tried to show you "our word" or the stuffs that we rational people consider to be definitive of truth.

Your very explicit rejection of these principles says so much more about the value of your word than anything I might have to say as "my word" anyway.

At the end of the day, that is what this all comes down to - the value of your word.

My intentions are proovements in world without 0 and 1 I need to proove it other way.

Tell me, how are banks are giving millions of $ to bussines planers and marketing planers? Because of their proof. What is that proof? Their intention that they will do something on some way with proof!!! So many many many many millions are prooven by proof of market!

How could investors invest millions of $ into movies and games? Because of proof. They are not giving money after the movie or game have been made...they are giving money because they are prooved that this movie or game will get them more. It is also proof of market work, but in movie it is called pitching and in games industry it is called claimed money. But papers which are you giving to investors for movie and games are called proofs of markets! So more millions and millions and millions of dollars are going into proofs of market.

So whatever you claims and in terms of comparing it with programming work you are right but into this world where you need to proove harder things with infinitely combinations of possibilities, you need to proof to somebody something, in this case our intention to import freshcoins into games. In movies world it is pitching money, in game dev world it is claimed money...so for many more of activities than just programming we are calling that proof of market.

So your word against billions of $

This is inherently something that is unable to ever be proven.  You can show a correlation and disprove the null hypothesis but that is all, no more.


Intention is also something inherently non-provable.


Future potentialities are a third thing that fall into the "unable to be proven" category.


Your paper itself requires us to "just trust" it. Precisely the problem, here, is that your paper can't be taken as necessarily true.  It is speculative, instead.  It presumes a correlation and declares intents and makes predictions, but we must simply trust you that the correlation is real, that your intents are actually as stated, and that your predictions will come to pass.  Nothing can ever prove that any of these three things, either independently or in conjunction, will necessarily be the case, in any way that doesn't require an assumption of blind faith in your statements.  As such we can never prove the result, only assume it.  At best we can, as I said, disprove the null hypothesis in support of our assumption, but this still proves nothing - only disproves a thing. 


Saying "you can't compare my proofs to other proofs" belies the very nature of proof.  There can only be one definition of proof, to claim two definitions of proof violates consistency of reasoning and makes any subsequent conclusion unsound.

Further, proofs do not necessarily have to have anything to do with numbers, and having a lack of numeric definition does not preclude an ability to prove.  A proof need not contain any ordinal to still hold as a proof, so this argument is spurious.

As you understood it correctly POM and proof of market was created as one of the parts of marketing and economy analysis and uses which could be implemented in all, lets say sort of life. When I say sort of life it means people activites. So its feature is to determine the market and to involve activity into it with giving smallest percent of risk into it. That risk which consist of more human mistakes than proofing the market have to have negligible ammount of existence.

In other term calling it "proving market power" it looses meaning and uses word power at the central point. Proof of market comes from US as defining the market using and it is lets say new area in terms of economy and marketing. That means that I need to collaborate with other parts of activities and be central point in using some product, promoting and selling it on a market. From my central point of activity I need to proove that this product would be usable and adaptable with all possible choices, opportunities and possible negative unplanned impacts. That means that I need to have plan B, plan C, plan D, which I call phases and I incorporated them into evaluation and upgrading process.

So I need to proof my intention with all possible inabilities and it could be done with using analysys, making plan B,C,D....making oportunities etc.

Proof of market is understanding future activites in terms of usability some product. So I have games which is proof. It is not to trust me or you or anybody, thats why I made paper which you look and understand. You cannot compare it with crypto proofs like POW or other becuase those are exact number predictionwhich is into of system of technology, computers, internet. In POM you have people which you cannot define on numbers but you need to translate activity into numbers (calendar, indexes etc.).

About my ignore, I am giving you one more chance just kidding, this talk is more precise and upgradable than just attacking on first posts.

I researched the phrasing extensively before even replying to your initial posting in the other thread.  Since then I've continued to intermittently attempt to track down where you found these absurdist notions.

The etymology is particularly interesting to me.  It indicates that you were trained in a particular sector of market development, during a distinct span of time, in a very specific regional portion of the EU.  The phrase has not seen broader adoption outside of this particular origination.

Most curious is the indication that this phrase is rarely used in this unqualified form.  I've seen it in two specific qualified forms of "proof of market value" referring to an existence proof of a trade spot price (isomorphic to "proof of concept" which certainly can't be what you refer to in your materials, as per my explanation that it is a retroactive existence proof, only, and this would amount to an intractable circular reasoning on your part) and "proof of market power" which appears to be a colloquialism meaning the same as the more broadly (and accurately) applied term "traction."  From everything you have said it is pretty clear that you intend this second qualified form as your definition.

One of the best treatments of the subject (there are not many) was probably contained within the survey "EFFECTIVE USE OF DISCOVERY IN TRADE REGULATION CASES: PROVING (OR CONTESTING) MARKET POWER CLAIMS" from Enns&Archer (also interestingly one of the only usages of the phrase in the Americas that I came across, at all) which certainly held the closest thing to a meaningful formal definition.  Most to the point, it prefaces this definition with the following cautionary detail:

In other words: "that thing which I've been saying over and over but which you refuse to hear."


You were so very quick to judge proof-of-play (an actual proof model where provable things get proven, with proofs) as being some "copy paste" from your (subsequent) whitepaper.  Why should our work be subject to such hasty scrutiny but yours should stand immune?

What purpose can proof serve if not to be shared for the explicit intent of seeking judgement?  Why even claim proof if not to invite the criticism of it?  What other role can a claim of something proven fill?


I did.  I've studied (rather extensively, now) what little material has been produced (all from a specific western culture) offering any exposition of the subject.  All of the materials that I've found seem to reinforce my conclusions.  I invite you to reference some materials which don't.


Philosophy deals with nothing but "the point" and rejects anything external to it, by definition.  It is "nothing more" than the study of truth, itself.  Why you seem to readily reject this, and what your alternative definition for philosophy might be, eludes me.


This is something that has had me quite befuddled throughout this discussion.  You seem to simultaneously be claiming both some innovative novelty and some established precedent both around the same concept.  Is "proof of market" really a novel and unique feature of your coin, as your marketing materials would indicate, or is it something that every coin implicitly carries, as your discourse here would indicate?  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

P.S.
What happened to your "ignoring" plan?  I thought it sounded like a good plan, since you were refusing to hear us anyway.  Seems like it would've been less headache for all if you had stuck to it.  I hope you're better with follow through on your business marketing plan than you were with your ignoring me plan.

You didnt google it yet ha?

and please stop to judge me, we are talking about work, look at your post, every second one is about judging me...so this is not theme. You dont know me, you dont understand POM in other activities, I said learn it first then judge. Your point about proof is not a point it is philosophy, nothing more! Proof of market is derivate from economy, I didnt invent it I just know to use it

I think you are still missing (or refusing to accept) that any answer to Willisius' question must be something that is not just true, but is necessarily true.  Everything you are talking about falls in the "might be" category, not the "necessarily is the case" category.  What you are purporting might be true, but not necessarily.


Yah, I'm such a scammer. 

We were being very careful not to label.  Remember what I said about throwing stones?  You are not going to be earning yourself any points of favor or credibility with this. 


Heuristic, itself, implies a lack of proof by its very definition.  If you have proven it then you have no need for, nor opportunity of, a heuristic measure of it.  If a thing can *only* be shown by analytic methods then it is something that inherently cannot ever be proven.

I did for a few times, your wish to not understand this and narrow attitude doesnt give you opportunity to see answer and you are scamming of course. You can google it if you want and maybe you will understand then or you want me to google it for you?

Again...from the point of creating coins POW and other proofs are existing but from the point of usability there is POM, it is not about you and me it is about measuring the usability using tools for understanding like heuristics, exploring and interdisciplinary methods. Sorry but I cannot learn you how to do that, the core of the system is my proffesional experience for about 12 years in business. If you want to learn you need to open your mind first, which is not problem for most people in crypto and other industries like movie, games, sports, culture, medicine etc.

Maybe you can start with google then we can talk about POM!

Yah, bitcoin had so many hidden blocks, after all.  POW must be broken.

These POW scam systems were working as intended.  Their proofs certainly accounted for those "hidden" blocks, regardless of whether or not anyone was silly enough to actually use the network without first assessing what was proven by it.  In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with Willisius' excellent and pointed question.


In other words, you're not going to actually answer the question, right?

Again, huh?  What coin do you think I've been working on for 10 months, exactly?  Do you mean HUC that I contributed a few patches to once, or MOTO which I am not actually a developer of, only a sort of volunteer code-maintainer.  I've spent nowhere near 10 months involved with either.  I shouldn't be surprised that you can't get facts straight since things like fact, proof, and reality are apparently not familiar concepts for you.


So what, exactly, changes? You were already ignoring me.  By your own admission, you have not chosen to see anything of what I have tried to communicate.

About POW and concept of POW, there was lots of frauds in that terms like hidden blocks, like human mistakes. System as it is works and it proofs a work of validating transactions and rewarding but in the core of it, when we say proof, it could be abused!

edit> we made a business system where all investors will get amount of profit proportionally their input into system divided with game developers claim. It would be done automatically by implementing coin into the games. SO in terms of using the coin on the market, its profitability everybody will get same amount of market share, thats why POM

I would like to ignore you, because you are speaking a lot and saying nothing, but need to write just this and then I am letting you to speak with yourself.

If I am on your place, I would probably be like you because working for 10 months on coin without moving price, I would be desperate also and because of that desperate I would also attack new ideas and doing scams. So you as programmer, mathematician and philosopher, go and be desperate more on other places . Maybe go for a walk or something

This is not appropiate talk for full member as you are!!!!

Now you are free to speak with yourself you will be ignored!

Maybe you should call it proof-of-wants, then.  Or proof-of-hopes-and-dreams.  Maybe proof-of-fantasies.

How about proof-of-"just-trust"-Frangomel?

All seem like appropriate descriptors.

These are the only things that you could prove in your "proof" of "market" system.

@Willisius

Ok, I am also open for anything new thats why I looked for connecting economy with crypto. I didnt deny POW, POS or other system which is for creating coins. They are working and I am glad that they exist. Of course I am happy that this is open source so everybody can attach whatever they want.

Bad thing is that lot of scammers and FUD-ers came in crypto and make atmosphere of untrust. That is why I come into this. I couldnt watch that anymore and wanted to do something new with honest and trust. That was my first word to savale, developer of Freshcoin who made programming of this. There was another trend which is also happening now. Developers (programmers) who cant make new coin, do that and after its publishing they disappear, mostly because they do not understand that this kind of work needs team, marketing, selling, communication, design and lots of other stuff, other developers who disappear are scammers, FUD-ers or just want to fraud, or third category is those who dont want to accept another science into their work.

That is why I implement this package which is called proof of market POM and it prooves in terms of time what we want to do. In our white paper you have time table and you can measure our work. When I say market I mean everything which is connected to market coin:

1. making business system which will be automated (in our example it is investor fund, game developers, gamers and back)

2. call for investors

3. focus groups which will have special attention

4. defining the price

5. exchange politics

6. promotion and marketing

7. analysis, exploring the market

8. evaluation

So that are economy principles which is called POM, because we are proofing our work in time. I am really sorry because this trend made it not trusted, but this system is in economy for years, decades. It is business model which is used in firms. We are looking at Freshcoin as a firm which need to grow in terms of community, usability, price and everything. That is our goals. So I cant see what is missunderstandable with this. This is system from another social activity usable into crypto. I understand that programmers are looking for 0 and 1 but in economy where are living people we need more tolerant model which is called POM.

My bet would be that you don't get the answers that are sought, because they don't seem to be there to be had.  I'm guessing you'll end up leaving him alone.

Alone is where he should be, anyway, left to himself and his fantastical universe in which proof need not prove anything, in which logic and reasoning are too "narrow" to have a place in defining reality, and in which the future value of a thing can be magically constrained to a whim.