Am I too closed-minded? Am I being too judgemental? Or is this correct discernment? Am I too biased as well incentivized to delude myself into thinking that my work is important and others' work is not?
Was my analysis of the impossibility of the economics of the AMPs attention model upthread (months ago) irrelevant?
I read what other speculators write and it just boggles my mind that they would be shocked or have ever thought that Synereo could become anything other than a pump and dump.
the fight within the dev team was a shocker to all investors and people who followed Synereo closely...
I am amazed how you guys can't read the personality of a person. Meredith was an attention whore babbling incoherent nonsense in Youtube hangouts. He was an opportunistic parasite on the paydole coattails of the $18 million Ethereum slush fund (which shrunk by 2/3 because it was held in BTC all the way down to $200).
It was entirely clear to me that he was misapplying some hair-brained research and spending all his time pumping up the
pre-sale of AMPs to n00bs.
There was no fucking way his concepts for process calculi have relevant applicability to crypto and social networking. It is all hair brained technobabble to fool the n00bs.
If his research was credible, he would be off doing research instead of retired from Microsoft. The research he did for Microsoft was applicable in a narrow way. He is reaching for the stars now because he of a combination of inflated ego and the fact that he is easily taking candy from babies. Scammers are more convincing when they also fooled themselves (he presumably really believes his research is important and should be funded with your BTC)
Flies are drawn to honey. You n00bs are the honey. When will you ever learn. You won't. And that is why there is an endless stream of technobabble ahead...
"Zerotime", "Zeroledger", "Rchain", etc.. Technobabble nonsense.
If they can't explain it in a whitepaper in sufficient detail and specification and in a way that we developers can readily comprehend, then they are technobabble bullshitting.
For example, when you boil all that Meredith process calculi research down to actual effects, that is when you find out it is not a panacea. But they hide that in all the technobabble and moon math, to obfuscate the actual flaws and weaknesses of the technological concept.
Bitshares' DPoS is not technobabble nonsense. Dan's TaPoS is not nonsense. Tendermint's BFT with bonded collateral is not nonsense. These were real innovations (with flaws) as valid experimentation towards improving consensus ordering systems. There are flaws and we can discuss and analyze the implications. The technological concepts are approachable for any one who takes some time to learn. Afaics, the flaws weren't entirely acknowledged by Bitshares though. But at least they are not throwing at us unapproachable technobabble nonsense that our best developers can't analyze.
Dan @ Bitshares has built a community of quality developers. I still think they lack insight though (I could be wrong, they have a growing level of open source participation). What I remember from the Hangouts was Synereo is a mismash of a wide-eyed researcher, a young inexperienced dev in the Netherlands, and some old guy coder with a beard. I listened and I heard mostly unfocused, hyperbole coming from the 3 of them. But you n00bs hear something entirely different. You seem to hear, "something great is happening".
I think there is nothing we can do about this. I think this is why @smooth and others have STFU. I guess I need to do the same. We can't help you n00bs. Sorry we can't.
Edit: the fact that they were pre-selling the AMPS should have been enough of an indication of the likely failure. Stealing candy from babies.
).
