Topic: Proof of market (POM) - page 2. (Read 4923 times)

I'm not calling you a scammer here. Read this again, it's hypothetical:


Bear in mind that the scenario is hypothetical. I am not accusing you of being a scammer. I'm asking how somebody who wouldn't trust you to tell him the time of day can accept your "proof of market." There's no way to deny PoW, everyone will always reach the same result given the same input. The same doesn't seem to be true of your concept.
I fully support anything new and creative in cryptocurrency, I support open source projects. I want you to be aware of the flaws that I see in your concept. Because if I see them, then people much smarter than me will see them too. I'll watch, but if you want to keep refusing to provide answers, I will leave you alone.

We are doing both, have investor fund where are coins is selled to gamers through game developers. It is done through freshonline payment platform and API in games using in-game purchase. So everything of that is POM. Coins are generated with POW system but used with POM system which is price and market cause!

We will have freshcoin dedicated games with similar as POP but better because it will use POW into games and that mined or collected coins into games will be used for sell over market. So it is circled...everything is showed in marketing plan

Profit of coins is divided 50/50 investors/game developers so 1$ for 1 freshcoin is our retail price. Investors profit is proportionally shared.

First game that will use your coin, is a totally new game or is game on the market yet that will add this feature?

Wow too much claims without knowing the matter. Firstly if I am a scammer wouldnt tlk to anybody or if I try to cheat you i wouldnt open thread about this. There was so much frauds in cryptos that you are scared of anything new and honest. So lets divide unknown from cheat in your head. If you dont understand something and you think that I am scammer or cheater, that means you dont understand it.

Cryptos are mostly open source platforms. You need to understand that and it says, that you can connect lots of on it, so using another science is something new to you. Economic has different measurements and scales but still it is numbers. So POM is new live creative way of thinking. It is communication, negotiation, agreement, attraction, promotion, defying of price etc. So it had lots in common with people and its goals has to be different in terms of understanding. So do not please be scary with new things. I am not pushing anybody just explaining new kind of things. Computer cannot deal things, open negotiations, talk with people...it must done by another science. So POM i not just proof it is systematic using social business methods for implementing crypto into real market.

I dont want to fraud, scam, cheat or judge something just explaining new stuff!

POW is not always you have to trust me...because it has its holes in terms of fraud it is human mistakes or deliberately but unfortunately nothing is perfect. I want to be optimal not subjective thinking. So, POM is existing and it is step forward. There is lots of coins here which could use POM and which could be better in terms of price!

POM is usability meaning not generating coins. So you create them and then use them. We like to measure that usability!!!

This is going nowhere. Frangomel, what HunterMinerCrafter (to the best of my knowledge) is trying to clarify, and me to a lesser extent, is that "proof of market" is not valid. It's a marketing term with no real meaning. The validity of PoW is that even if I am 100% sure that you're a scammer and that you're trying to con me, I can still acknowledge a proof of work that you give me. That's what the whole thing hinges on; proof is a way of saying "you don't have to trust me."

Now consider your "proof of market" concept in the same context: You claim there is proof of a market, and I am 100% sure that you're a scammer and that you're trying to con me. How can I verify your claims? How can my computer verify your claims? Will every computer in the world agree that the proof is valid?

If you understand that "proof of market" has no actual meaning, then you can say so. I'm posting this because I don't think you understand.

If you have POM in your work price should be for sure bigger, I would like you to understand that price of most of the coins is not about programming and POW and POS it is about investors, usability, real market sell etc. that is proof of market.

When I will have first coin into game (from 15th of October) it will be proof of market, because I sell it to gamer and investors and game dev. gets profit of that, so I prove what I promised and it is not all I will give them phase 2 which would be more attractive.

Bitcoin community, I am one of them from 2012. understand what is POM Hope that you will also

I suspect that you are thinking of the notion of "proof of concept" not market.  You don't even have a proof of concept to demonstrate.


If you don't think my big posts say anything then you are just refusing to listen and hear me.


Huh?


Yes, there's no place for concern about what is real and true (the definition of philosophy, which it seems you can't even manage to spell correctly) in the altcoin business.  Can't have that, people questioning what is or isn't real.  If people do that it might be harder to fleece them, right?

As I said proof of market exists in other forms of peoples activites, plan is proof when time passes. Till now lots of things was proved. We are going in circles in this speak, you are not saying nothing but big posts. POW is nothing than mathematics with workflow which is time related so it is just name.

Bitcoin is POM and POW, because whole industry is created from it and price is like this because POM was stopped (POW is growing but not related to price because POM is not well), but it will go up soon further, hope so.

You are phylosophy programming oriented, I am showing you another door here, lots of people understood it. There are not hidden doors, just another complementary science into this. Phylosophy is something which is not good in here because for phylosophers truth is lie and vice versa. I do like it but not proper into this kind of business.

No, a plan is written in the marketing plan.  After time passes, we will know if it was a good plan and came to fruition or if it was a bad plan and failed miserably.  At no point will anything written there suddenly become a proof.

Proofs are not affected by the passing of time.  A proof either holds eternally or not at all.  If you have something you call a proof and then some time passes and you discover that it does not hold as a proof, then it never was a proof to begin with.


Precisely.  "Just trust me" is not a valid assertion step in a proof.  If it were, "one plus one equals five because just trust me" would stand valid as a proof, and we obviously can't have that.  "Frangomel is an asshole because just trust me" does not make you an asshole.  "Our coin will be valuable on the market because just trust me" does not prove anything about your coin, the market, or anything else at all and this is precisely the problem.

In my experience those who resort to "just trust me" as their justification for their "proof" instead of simply retracting their claim have all had nefarious intent.  If you're really going to fall back to "just trust me" and then ask for our money, you're going to be labelled a "scammer" so fast that it will make your head spin, regardless of your actual intent.


You can collect as much evidence as you want but until you can infer, in an independently reproducible way, the conclusion from that evidence you have not structured any proof.  All you will have is evidence of correlation, no hard proof.


No, it is only the study of it.  This is precisely the concern.  You want to point to some potential future reality and say your proof can be found there.  I want to study the actualized reality that we're stuck in here.  Your potential future reality holds no proofs to be found, those can only be found in actual reality.  You know, this one.  Where we are right now.  Are you familiar with it?


Huh?  No idea what you're trying to say there.  I'm speaking about things that are inherently "ours."  Reality is, unfortunately, forced upon us as a shared construct.  We're both stuck here in it.  You are making some claims about it that don't jive with the notions the rest of us have about it.  Our notions can be measured directly within that reality, and we call those measures "proofs."  You're talking about some thing that does not seem able to be connected to that reality by any measure and calling it a fact.  This is unreasonable behavior to begin with, but to explicitly label it as rational is simply offensive.


Lots of people claim lots of things as proof.  At least he knew how to structure a proof, even if his proposed proof doesn't hold as a proof because of the logical inconsistencies of (among other other things) division by zero. At least he "made the right motions" in starting from something to be proven and working systematically to some conclusion.  His system was logically inconsistent so his conclusion can not be taken as factual and his writings can not be called proof, but he was at least going about the practice of trying to prove.  He just failed.

You aren't even carrying out the practice of trying to prove, and yet still claim to hold some proofs.  Absurdity.


I'm not sure what bearing his video has on tangibility.  His "inconsistent notion sketched out and claimed incorrectly as a proof" is just as tangible as any legitimate proof.  That is entirely beside the point.


You're simply wrong, but this is not the particular holy war that you decided to pick a fight on so we'll leave that aside.


You can prove your product successful over some span of time in the form of an existence proof, sure.  Later you can come back and say "look, I can prove my project worthwhile because, look, here it is existing and holding value."  I still don't think you could call this "proof of market" but whatever you call it it certainly wouldn't be anything novel.  Bitcoin already has this sort of proof.  Further, you certainly can't claim such a proof exists today.


I am not the one who has any obligation here.  If we never resolve our dispute I walk away from it entirely unaffected.

However, you have everything on the line, here, since you are the one making the claim.  If we don't come to some resolution that only reflects, to your potential adopters, on you.  They will forever be forced to wonder whether it is the case that you innocently lack competency and misunderstand the meaning of proof or the case that you are simply trying to defraud them through lies and trickery.

Either way, I suspect this will deter rather than inspire confidence.

I see an easy solution for you, just retract the claim in question and move on confident in knowing that there will be no question over the validity of your claim of proof.

To be serious here...POM is another strategy of doing things and it is proof of market. People who doesnt do economics do not understand it but that term is existing in our activities and means strategy concepts with measurable indexes. So sorry people, proof stays in other social flows not just in cryptos

POM would probably confuse Australians because that's their name for a British person.

ahahahah right I forgot that

You might get sued. POM is a brand of pomegranate juice  

Proof is written in marketing plan When time pass it will be proof like in POW and POS, it is not proof till time pass

You can trust me or not and you can watch on our work which was passed and see what we did and what we will proof on market related to marketing plan!

@hunter

Phylosophy is not reality, lets make it easy to understand 1+1 = 2 or not what is proof you are speaking about your things without permission to accept another things! That is unfortunately your problem, not mine

look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW2DFz9VaoE (it says proof in the video), but I know that 1+1=2 I will give my hand for that proof so hmmmm what is tangible or what isnt....ask yourself

Another thing, bitcoin will never get here if there is not economy and market proof!!! Phylosophy doesnt help it much, programming did, mathematics did but economy and business mostly. If you have greatest product in the world (perpetum mobile, zero energy electric generator) it will work but should it be proved to the world if there isn't economy or business. Maybe you are great mathetamatician or phylosopher but narrow as I said, I am sorry for that

I really would like from you to understand this, it is up to you not me

I'm not sure that their materials successfully fall into any of these three sorts, which is just downright hilarious to me.  They've failed to even "actually" be gimmicky.


I'm sure they will say they have some magical way to be able to assert with certainty that their coin will be super valuable and the greatest thing since sliced bread because (paradoxically?) it is the first proof-of-market coin.  They'll push how magically "special" their game related integration models are and somehow assert that this factors to spot price, even though this is inconsistent and circular reasoning.  In the end you'll be better off with WoW gold and Riot points when it comes down to it because at least they'll have some minimal security, while these guys will still be wondering why they have no miners on their broken algorithms, and still going around trying to pick fights about things they know nothing of.

Just another day in altcoinland.

Again, I am not talking about programing at all.  I am talking about reality, philosophy, and our notions of truth.

Proof is a much bigger subject than computers.


We share this goal.    Motocoin does not use proofs over hashing in any traditional way, as your coin does for example.  Our proofs are not about hashing but about game-play, and this is the trans-formative differentiation of proof of play.  What are your proofs about?  What are you actually proving?  What is your schema?  What axioms do you hold to begin?  What process of reasoning do you employ in your rationalization?  What conclusion do you draw, and how is it justified?  If you do not have answers to these specific questions, defining proof, then you do not hold a proof.


Amen to that.  Certainly being from a financial background you will know of the notion that if you can't kiss it then you don't own it.

Proofs are certainly tangible.  I can own it, print one out, cut it in half, paste it onto a second proof to possibly construct a third proof.  (More likely I'll end up with something that is no longer a proof, and this is what is most magical about them.)  I can hold it, kiss it, mail it to a friend for a second opinion, send it to someone on a p2p network called bitcoin, bury it in a time capsule, hide it from the world or share it with everyone, take a crap on it, burn it with fire, etc.


Any proof should certainly be both, and the two notions are deeply and inexorably intertwined.  You cannot measure what you cannot, in some way, touch.  If you can't stick a ruler to it, weigh it, bounce a photon off of it, bend some electromagnetic force around it, or otherwise make some "touch" thing happen to it, you cannot measure it.  Much of modern philosophy and logic is about this notion of measurement of proof, in particular metrics over their poly-topos "surfaces" or "shapes." (This is actually something I've been in some deep discussions about lately with the zencoin developer, randomly.)  The shapes we call ontological lattice structures and convolution based belief networks are both of particular interest lately, but mostly for reasons related to AI and that "programming" thing that you want to avoid talking about, so I won't go into it further.

Let's take programming out of the question entirely for a moment, and just talk about the most basic elements of a proof.

I know for damned sure that 1+1 is 2 not because someone said so but because
(source Metamath OFC)

This thing *is* the tangible form artifact of the "frozen into material being" knowledge that one and one are, undeniably, two.

I know for damned sure that you have no single argument against the claim that 1+1=2 because of QED at the 18th assertion, there.  I can, independent of anyone or anything else in the universe, hold this epic knowledge, this proof, with my hands, see it with my eyes, kiss it with my lips, and most importantly know it to be not only a thing but that special sort of thing that we can call a proof (I'm even blessed to be able to see that it is one specifically shaped like "closed, total, peano arithmetic form induction over ordinal naturals") and I can know this not only with my brain but with all of my heart and soul.

How can I print out one of your proofs of one of your claims, hold it with my hands, see it with my eyes, know it to be a special thing that is called QED, and then kiss it with my lips?

This claim could be any one of your claims about the market or the spot price or anything at all other than your classic PoW hash function blockchain which we'll certainly agree is the one proof your system can/does offer up. (*YAWN*)

If I can't print your claim, evidence, and reasoning out on paper and kiss it with my lips I can't own any meaningful token of open interest in it.  If I can't own it, why exactly should I buy into it, particularly when you are (perhaps intentionally, for hoodwinking, this is alt-coin land after all) mislabeling it as a proof?

I've said this before to others.  At best, you are misunderstanding the meaning of a proof.  At worst, you are attempting to defraud people.  Do you really even want to be seen as being on this spectrum at all?  Best to just retract the claim of some novel proof mechanism from your materials until you can either offer an exposition of that proof mechanism or some proofs themselves.  Certainly best not to go around calling other peoples *actual* proof models "copy paste" from your brilliant notions, in any case. 


How?  Please elaborate on the structural composition of your proofs, that is all I'm asking.  Show me how to measure one in an independently repeatable (i.e. verifiable) way.  Show me one of your proofs, and how to read it, ideally. Tell me how your proofs stand as proofs.

Prove.

Prove, or don't go around running your mouth about proofs.  If you don't know what one is, if you don't understand deeply in your core being what is so fundamentally critical about the nature of the funny little turnstile |- symbol, then you're not qualified to critique them.


You're right.  You don't know how right you are.  You don't even have axioms, you are so far from the "end" that you haven't even begun.

It was almost like I posted https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/on-the-nature-of-proof-and-valuation-of-proof-of-coins-785372 this just especially for you.

A whitepaper > a marketing plan. If it can't be explained in a whitepaper, it's not a "proof" - it's just a gimmick. Consider that "proof of work" is actually mathematically verifiable. "Proof" means that nobody has to trust you, is that the case here?

@Hunter

you are speaking about programming now, I said it is spreaded

POM is market proof, price proof, we are proofing something what are we doing it is more social-economic question than just hashing. I want to spread things up to do it more open for more activities than just hash. Tangible is something touchable, POW is not toungible it is measurable and POM is also measurable so from phylosophy it is time dedicated. Proof is nothing till it is proved till end.

In programming world yes...we are talking here about word proof. Nothing is not proof when it is proved, so in terms of time or when time pass and job finishes it is prooved. So nothing is prooved till it is not done. Proof of marketing in terms of price which is follower of our work, smething is done but it needs to be done in future

Wrong POM, but at least their form of proofs are tangible and somewhat traceable.     (Though perhaps not the best thing to base distribution/subsidy on, IMO!)  I think those memes come (much) closer to constituting proofs than anything Frangomel is able to demonstrate so far.