Pages:

Author

Topic: Synereo (Read 10209 times)

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: ?? on ??

They just built a teaching tool to help evolve the crypto app space not unlike Visual Basic, or Lego which are great tools to get kids hooked on construction and development of science.

You would not construct your house from Lego, no more than you would build a blockchain in Basic.

Ethereum is crypto for kids, and if have not noticed, the potential market for young humans is like 1/5th the entire human population. So Ethereum is just filling a niche (teaching crypto developers). All crypto communities fill a niche. Bitcoin, Ripple, Doge, Dash, MAID, you can go right down the list.

You would not expect there to only be 1 company in the world would you. So why are you so surprised that there are so many communities in the Coinmarketcap100?

Crypto communities act like "dot com" era companies who are in their growth/adoption phase. Eventually, however, investors will be looking to get profits/ROI.

Why did Google not crash and burn with the thousands of other internet companies from the dot com boom?

Because after their growth/adoption phase where they lost millions of dollars in investment capital, they began to earn profits for their shareholders.

Ethereum is an amazing tool that teaches kids about Bitcoin.

Be glad it's not banned:

Just becuase Ethereum won't scale doesn't change the fact that we still can't have some fun while the chain is still alive!

Any real world problem that Ethereum can solve, will thrive on a scalable smartchain.

I like your point.

alyssa85

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1088

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

So - is this coin formally dead now, or are they still going to try to somehow get to launching after X number of years?

bigpattywhack

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

4.3.2.1.

Quote from: rapazev on December 16, 2016, 02:39:49 PM

Quote from: Zer0Sum on December 11, 2016, 12:31:45 PM

lol
is there anyone buying this? after see this drop from 33k to 6k i would never put money in this...

i had some hope for AMP, bought some at poloniex right before last ICO, but after all that mess in their team is just impossible to trust in this project

ofc people are still buying, they are trying to get their buy in price lower so then need a smaller pump to get out in the black. Im not doing it but im sure others are..

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: rapazev on December 16, 2016, 02:39:49 PM

i had some hope for AMP, bought some at poloniex right before last ICO, but after all that mess in their team is just impossible to trust in this project

Well upthread (or maybe it was the other thread), I suggested they perhaps replace the Rchain research with Tendermint/Cosmos or DPoS, but I've just blown up the security of everything scalable that isn't PoW. (or you can invest in a whales-rape-you system if that is "secure" from your perspective)

So all these social networking experiments are D.O.A., including Synereo, Steem(it) and clones such as Ark. Nothing is going to scale securely to social networking volumes until I release my new "Bitcoin killer' blockchain technology. Sorry. These are the facts which will be clear to everyone when my whitepaper is published.

Bruce Wanker and I are laughing at you stupid fuckers who invest even after I warned you all not to (go read my posts in this thread, click my signature below to see my former usernames) and even told you that it was all technobabble bullshit. Ditto Steem(it) which I warned about. But I guess I understand that I warned similarly about Ethereum yet some speculators got very large returns on that technobabble delusion. Ethereum seems to have a long half-life because it will take a while for everyone to realize that Vitalik really failed and Casper is flawed. I was warning it was in Ethereum Paradox thread since last year. But these realizations take time to play out, because n00bs don't understand the technology. My whitepaper is going to be very educational, because I explain all these technological issues in simple English terms comprehensible by anyone with a reasonably analytical mind. 27,000 words thus far. Because I want once and for all, that you speculators (and the world) will better understand all this. Including understanding at a generative essence level what Satoshi invented as it relates to prior art in Byzantine Fault Tolerance and how my invention changes everything again. I want you to understand this not from a technobabble level, but really understand. I can't explain it all in a short blog or forum post. The whitepaper is 27,000 words and growing. That is what it requires to explain it holistically.

rapazev

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: Zer0Sum on December 11, 2016, 12:31:45 PM

bigpattywhack

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

4.3.2.1.

Quote from: lafona on December 16, 2016, 08:16:06 AM

What's going on with the internal debate? Is it still being hashed out or is there a direction going forward?

Greg was fired and we are waiting for the new news in January. Till then we all in a holding pattern.

lafona

newbie

Activity: 34

Merit: 0

What's going on with the internal debate? Is it still being hashed out or is there a direction going forward?

bigpattywhack

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

4.3.2.1.

How much money did people lose on it, if it was just a little then its not a really a scam, but if they lost millions and the devs are responsible then someone needs to get taken to court.

c4s7or

hero member

Activity: 535

Merit: 500

Quote from: bigpattywhack on December 14, 2016, 02:26:41 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

this and that, blah blah blah

market makers better get back on this fucking coin and make the price go the FUCK BACK UP

I just want to know if its a scam, if it is im selling, if not im holding.

Its not scam but a lot of people lost their faith in the project. I hold my AMPs but I am not sure if it can manage to recover.

daneranon89

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

True Flip ICO: 28 of June 2017

Quote from: bigpattywhack on December 11, 2016, 05:15:19 AM

Is amp a 100% proven scam now or just a lot of fud?
Figured id ask here as its the proper place to ask.

As per my knowledge, AMPs/Synereo is not a scam. They had some problems in the core team. Especially with this "Greg" and since he is out now, everything should be alright. Price per AMPs will take sometime to recover and get back to the all time high. I have invested into AMPS and holding it.

bigpattywhack

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

4.3.2.1.

Quote from: ?? on ??

this and that, blah blah blah

market makers better get back on this fucking coin and make the price go the FUCK BACK UP

I just want to know if its a scam, if it is im selling, if not im holding.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Gone:

https://blog.synereo.com/2016/09/05/meet-rchain-the-first-scalable-blazing-fast-turing-complete-blockchain/

Archived copy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161018221037/https://blog.synereo.com/2016/09/05/meet-rchain-the-first-scalable-blazing-fast-turing-complete-blockchain/

bigpattywhack

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

4.3.2.1.

Quote from: Zer0Sum on December 11, 2016, 12:31:45 PM

AMP pricing as far as I can determine:

sats BTC USD

ICO spring 2015........2200.... 250.....$0.005

ICO fall 2016...........33000... 600.....$0.200

Dec 11, 2016.......... 6000... 750.... $0.045

The only real bagholders are the recent ICO buyers (like CoinFund)...
And, frankly, AMP still looks expensive for what is basically 18 months of vaporware.

The bigger problem = idea that the world wants complicated blockchain based "social networks"...
Steemit has contracted by 50% in 6 months... people are choosing Medium, FB, Twitter, Reddit, etc.
Because they care primarily about simplicity and pageviews and influence.

But its not a proven scam

Correct?

juras54

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

I do - 500% on them, but I believe in a brighter future)

Zer0Sum

legendary

Activity: 1588

Merit: 1000

bigpattywhack

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

4.3.2.1.

Is amp a 100% proven scam now or just a lot of fud?
Figured id ask here as its the proper place to ask.

Fuserleer

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1016

Quote from: iamnotback on December 10, 2016, 02:18:41 PM

I am going to break my vow ONE TIME ONLY not to post publicly again until my project is ready for the public announcement, because this Ethereum/Casper/Synereo shit has been going on for a long-time and so many of you readers are SUCKERS because you do not understand the technology.

You are so easily fooled by credentials, hype, handwaving, and loads of other bullshit.

So here it is my final public post for next couple of months:

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/alex-in-your-other-draft-https-medium-com-aleksandr-bulkin-7d4cb4933261-5cmhyc151-13062e0b422a#.eis9mxp0h

Gonna throw in my 2 cents here as you've been bombarding me with PMs

RChain, at least as a ledger architecture and partial scalability solution, will work. I know this because it's almost identical to the "block tree" architecture that I developed 3+ years ago to drive the eMunie ledger.

I say partial because while it does improve transaction throughput by allowing sub-trees of blocks to be in varying states of consensus at the same time, there is still an limit to how far it can be pushed.

In testing my implementation we were able to process to ~500 - 750 tps on a network of around 100 nodes before things got a bit "wobbly", and we could probably have approached 1000+ with a larger network before the overheads creep into diminishing returns as it doesn't scale linearly to network size.

The consensus model being used also plays a large part in how much load can be sustained. Back in those early days we were using a POW variant just to test the concept, and that itself played a part in dictating the limits of our proof of concept due to the tradeoff between block times and security.

I never tested out a POS based consensus model as I ended up scrapping the architecture as it wasn't sufficient for what I wanted to achieve.

However, I would suggest that a POS variant would allow transaction throughput to be increased somewhat thanks to faster block times being possible, but again there will be a limit where things start to get unstable and duct tape is required (or centralization).

Realistically, a block tree/RChain type solution should ultimately yield transaction throughput matching that of VISA (2000-3000 tps). My own similar implementation was a proof of concept for the most part, but there were certainly areas and techniques that could have improved performance had I stuck with it, but don't expect it to get anywhere near 10,000s tps without some degree of centralized consensus.

As for Casper, I can't really comment. I've only briefly looked at it and quickly concluded it wasn't interesting enough to warrant my time understanding it.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

chryspano

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cryptohunter on December 09, 2016, 05:50:44 AM

I know the above is casper and not exactly Rchain.

Afaics, the betting aspect is the same between both. The difference is Rchain makes bets on partial orders of blocks, instead of entire blocks. But that doesn't matter w.r.t. to the issue of betting incentives Dan is referring to. Afaics, Dan's logic applies equivalently to Rchain.

See page 4 "Consensus Mechanism":

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xmRvAjJEQ72-sR9luS34TG0BOpPn_6ztZjYBFCByKxo/edit#

You are welcome to quote me or otherwise post this correction. You should not erroneously insinuate that Rchain is significantly different from Casper w.r.t. to the ramifications of using betting for consensus. It strongly appears that it is an equivalent issue for Rchain. Rchain is attempting to make the consensus more granular and composable by betting on portions of blocks instead of only whole blocks, but that is an orthogonal issue to the effects of employing betting for incentivizing consensus.

The bottom line is that the game theory of betting is the everyone has an incentive to collude with the major stakeholders. It is another power vacuum failure mode same as proof-of-work. My whitepaper is all about solving this issue. Thus I remain convinced that I have the only consensus ordering design that solves this issue. Dan is also incorrect to presume/insinuate DPoS solves the issue of a power vacuum disequilibria of stake control. So DPoS has an analogous failure mode as Casper/Rchain/PoW. All those designs suck.

Here is the final nail in the coffin for Casper/Rchain:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3flj4x/if_ethereum_adopts_casper_proof_of_stake_it_is/ctqhekg/

And for sure Casper and Rchain are virtually the same thing, as even Vitalik explains that Casper if voting on blocks as partial orders not one monolithic chain:

Quote from: https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/12/28/understanding-serenity-part-2-casper/

One counterintuitive consequence of this mechanism is the fact that a block can remain unconfirmed even when blocks after that block are completely finalized. This may seem like a large hit in efficiency, as if there is one block whose status is flip-flopping with ten blocks on top of it then each flip would entail recalculating state transitions for an entire ten blocks, but note that in a by-chain model the exact same thing can happen between chains as well, and the by-block version actually provides users with more information: if their transaction was confirmed and finalized in block 20101, and they know that regardless of the contents of block 20100 that transaction will have a certain result, then the result that they care about is finalized even though parts of the history before the result are not. By-chain consensus algorithms can never provide this property.

cryptohunter

legendary

Activity: 2100

Merit: 1167

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG

Quote from: raphma on December 09, 2016, 11:13:36 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 08, 2016, 03:56:55 AM

Quote from: raphma on December 07, 2016, 01:40:33 PM

wasnt greg who said it wasnt possible to deliver Rchain with the current money raised?
I just dont know any more what is FUD and what is real.

Yes, Greg claims it will take $10M USD and five to ten years to produce workable code. The best part is that he wants all the AMP holders and Synereo LTD equity investors to fund him while debasing and devaluing our investments. The guy's a complete nut job.

So, he wants a lot of money and a lot of time to MAYBE deliver the product someday? what a great deal.. Roll Eyes

Yeah that doesn't sound great but let's get down to the details.

1. Synerios team right now minus greg sounds like nothing special right? which celeb math stars, conceptual designers, coders with proven production track records do we see here. How many coders or designers on the team understand enough to code out and produce the Rchain?

2. 3.5 M or whatever left is not a massive amount really. I mean many projects on here have TONS more than that.

3. Who will replace Greg? who? not we expect there are a ton of people like him for 100k per year. I don't believe there are. If there are why not start soft recruiting them now then? I

At this point it looks like Greg is essential right?? but then what about these points....

4. who understands the proposed Rchain design for real? which peers in gregs domain have said this is the best way to go to achieve what synerio is after?

Did greg ever answer these points by DL ( i don't support steam at all and would never invest in that one)

http://bytemaster.github.io/2015/08/08/Review-of-Casper-Ethereums-proposed-Proof-of-Stake-Algorithm/

5. It would be great for some known skilled brain boxes on Gregs level to actually put their weight behind the usefulness and realistic production possibility of Rchain.

6. Synerio must have enough investor advantage with Rchain to justify the financial risk of funding the R and D.

To me it just seems we need a few simple steps to get going with this project again.

1. A second opinion on Rchain's usefulness and realistic costing in time and funding.

2. If it really could spiral to 10M and that is confirmed by outside evaluation of the project costs then Synerio must be given assurances that Rchain would give them a fair investor advantage over those that will get to use it for free (various possiblities to ensure this may exist). I do not think that investors of any project would fund if they were not given clear advantage over others that can use the product. To me that is quite reasonable.

3. If the funding can not be guaranteed or Greg will not guarantee clear investment advantages to synerio then it's game over for this direction for synerio. Even though Greg stated on this forum yesterday he will complete Rchain for the community ( I guess he means synerio not the crypto community at large since he said it would not be fair on investors...that would only make sense if he meant synerio investors) whatever happens between him and dor. I mean how can he say that if DOR gives him no funding?

There is still at this point possibility to go forward with greg on board. Mediation needs to be stepped up and both need to give and take. I think Greg needs funding to a reasonable level perhaps more than he even asked for but there should be a full ledger and he must guarantee a return to investors by giving certain and clear advantages to synerio or even sole ownership if costing realistically 10M or higher. On his proposals I didnt really see any wages for him in there?? I guess that is so that he just gets a huge payout from his AMPS?? this makes sense but it's got to be worth his while. I'm sure " a reasonable level " could be ascertained by some simple polls on here really. Although people with such skill don't usually work for peanuts do they??

Rchain must work and must give investor returns - whilst rewarding greg WELL so he has some motivation to complete and paying for expedient production. If it is feasible after a certain period to release for the commons use after all of these have been satisfied to a satisfactory level then I see no real harm in that.