Topic: Synereo Community Hangout - 11 Feb 2016 - Protip: Get In Here! (Read 993 times)

I've read most of the 50+ page Synereo white paper, expended several hours viewing some of their YouTube Hangouts, done some limited discussion with their founding developer (username here Elokane), and posted in every recent Synereo thread in Altcoin Discussion.

Synereo was launched as a vaporware ICO and the math whiz on the project is Greg Meredith who is into process calculus research and was one of key persons apparently on Microsoft's BizTalk design. Greg is into using Scala and also is collaborating on the math modeling of Ethereum's upcoming, promised Casper design (which btw several of us, excluding smooth, have criticized in the Ethereum Paradox thread for its fundamental insoluble flaws).

I have pointed out that there are numerous P2P (aka distributed) social networking projects, so the idea of Synereo being the first and able to sweep the world, is very slim, especially they have no compelling features afaics. Thus I have criticized them for preselling tokens ("AMPS") with no adoption and on hype. Their major claim as an innovative feature is an "Attention Model" which is composed of reputation ("Reo") and a counter-vailing force of being able to pay to override reputation with the AMPS tokens. In other words, they aim to make the content that the users share more relevant. I had pointed out that the Reo needs to be fine-grained on for example #hashtags, and Elokane indicated that although that is not in the white paper they are implementing something like that, yet there is no holistic public specification afaik. They are claiming to be very close to beta, but I've pointed out that doesn't mean they are any where near adoption. I have also pointed out that Facebook users don't seem to have major complaints about the relevance of shared content on feeds, thus I doubt anyone will adopt Synereo (because their friends won't be there and much less content sharing and other chicken and egg dilemmas).

Also I have pointed out that the economics of advertising is the most someone could expect to earn by being paid to share (the AMPs model) is perhaps about $1 (in developing world) to $10 (first-world) per day and probably not that much. It simply isn't worth anyone's time. People don't join social networks to be paid some palty income. They join for other more important reasons. Thus I've argued the economic model for the AMPS is fundamentally flawed.

Thus I have argued they are preselling shit which no market.

Also I don't really understand the process calculus well enough to know if it is technobabble bullshit or not, but it sure looks like it to me. It looks like ivory tower shit that has no real implications in the real world. What did BizTalk do that was relevant? I did a Google search and it seems basically no one used it? Excuse me for being skeptical but the selling of ICOs is becoming too lucrative and attractive for every Joe who has some technobabble to make n00bs drool.

Smooth is not involved in my JAMBOX project at all. I occasionally trade ideas with him about technology. My JAMBOX project will when it is crowdsourced (not for tokens just for Tshirts!) will explain that it targets compelling features and economics. I have not yet announced that, because for one thing is that at the moment I am working on potentially creating a new programming language based on top of Rust, or perhaps contributing to Rust. Because JAMBOX is based on the concept of empowering mobile apps, and so I need to be sure the language we are using is the best in severals ways one of which is JIT compilation.

I don't hate Synereo's people. I just wish they hadn't done a vaporware ICO, both for the legal reasons of selling unregistered investment securities to non-accredited USA investors apparently in violation of securities law as provided for by the Supreme Court's Howey test and simply because it is the antithesis of the objective ethics (i.e. no zero-sum games) of meritocratic software development to sell vaporware.

The music distribution model on Synereo isn't limited to "music downloads funded by advertising".  Go listen to this Synereo Hangout Music Publishing, and let me know if you have the same opinion after you are done.

Go back to the prior Synereo thread I linked to and find the link that shows how much download music pays per play funded by advertising. You can see that "Don't Worry, Be Happy" with 30 million plays earned a $1000 in payouts. Certainly the value people get out of the music is worth much more than the advertising and this is apparently why free music distribution sites such as SoundCloud is transitioning away from advertising model towards a subscription and track sales model a la Spotify and BandCamp.

What people want to find on social networks is what other people want to share. They don't want to find what people were motivated to pay to spam them with. The Knowledge Age economy will be about quality of production, not salesmanship.

The entire paradigm of commerce and production is changing to one of merit and social benefit.

Can you elaborate on the bolded part of your statement?

4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes will run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.

I did hear (in this video Hangout) Greg mention that Synereo might use a more integrated form of Casper's consensus algorithm. My point is that if Casper's consensus algorithm is flawed, then so will be Synereo on the AMPs part. But again, please follow the Ethereum Paradox thread so we can discuss more the issue of Casper.

Ethereum 2.0 will be based on Casper which Greg is the head designer.  Both Synereo and Ethereum 2.0 will utilize Casper PoS.  Other than that to my knowledge, Synereo holds no other resemblance to Ethereum.  There is no scripting or turing completeness in Synereo.

The solution is to force all data nodes to share equal amounts of data through encryption to ensure that there are no leechers, correct?

2. Synereo is based on decentralized file storage for sharing content (such as music, videos, etc) and this can't ever work technologically (review all my posts in the linked thread) at least as currently envisioned by all the decentralized file projects I am aware of. I also proposed a solution in that linked thread, so perhaps you might want to pass it along to Greg.

1. Synereo is based on Ethereum and Ethereum can't ever work technologically. I detailed my reasoning and specifically what I think is Greg's myopia on Ethereum's future version named Casper (which Greg Meredith is involved with on the math for consensus-by-betting). (Will be adding more on that technological point soon in the linked thread)

...Greg seems like the type of person who would oppose any type of disproportionate allocation.

1. Synereo is based on Ethereum and Ethereum can't ever work technologically. I detailed my reasoning and specifically what I think is Greg's myopia on Ethereum's future version named Casper (which Greg Meredith is involved with on the math for consensus-by-betting). (Will be adding more on that technological point soon in the linked thread)

2. Synereo is based on decentralized file storage for sharing content (such as music, videos, etc) and this can't ever work technologically (review all my posts in the linked thread) at least as currently envisioned by all the decentralized file projects I am aware of. I also proposed a solution in that linked thread, so perhaps you might want to pass it along to Greg.

3. PoS has failure modes which don't sustain Nash equilibrium. I have some links and posts in the Ethereum Paradox thread which expand on that point.

4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes which run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.

That will never happen because any voting or consensus type system gives disproportionate, not proportional, weight to the larger holdings.

I've stated before that as long as the currency holders have direct proportional input to the security of the chain based on their holdings that I think centralization around these parties is acceptable

What is your main objection to the model that Synereo is using?  Is it based on the thought that asymmetric connections will lead to ISPs blocking connections for Synereo data nodes or your thought that all PoS systems will centralize?  While I agree that all PoS blockchains will centralize to an extent around the holders of the PoS tokens, I don't think that is necessarily a detriment to the system.  I've stated before that as long as the currency holders have direct proportional input to the security of the chain based on their holdings that I think centralization around these parties is acceptable.  Your opinion is that this is unacceptable centralization and my opinion is that it is the currency holder's right as long as participants aren't forced to join the system.

The point about standing up decentralized nodes with Docker is a worth while technical point to be aware of.

However it still doesn't change my opinion that Synereo is building the wrong model for decentralized social networking.