Quote from: jae208 on June 14, 2014, 03:14:33 am

I'm waiting for Truthcoin to be created.

Putting a professor in charge of your project can slow things down for a decade or so.

I know.  Thank goodness Paul is no professor. 

Quote from: xeroc on August 13, 2014, 10:50:17 am

Oh yhea ..
http://www.reddit.com/r/BitShares/comments/2dfcv7/bitsharesx_to_pass_peercoin_in_marketcap/

I am starting to see wisdom in the infomercial strategy. Apple invented the first personal computer and had to rely on infomercials. The people who were supposed to buy the computer didn't know what a computer was yet and it's the same situation with us.

Most people don't know what Bitcoin is or why they need it.

Luckybit,

In what era did apple use infomercials that contributed to their success.  I certainly don't recall Steve jobs ever relying on infomercials.

I'm also skeptical that targeting the older generation who normally buy vaccumm cleaners and p90x videos would be a good tactic.  Those who are comfortable with te internet don't watch info commercials.  They stream all their desired contents

I'm stuck on the End User Agreement screen.  Can't create new account or Go to my accounts.  These buttons don't seem to work.  Using dmg version.  Anyone else having this problem?

past due commentary on this:

Much of the paper was devoted to how to organize a order book for prediction market trading. Truthcoin, takes a much more effective approach using Robin Hanson's Market Scoring Rule, which seems to be getting overlooked by centralized prediction markets like Predictious and Fairlay. The Market Scoring Rule can allow for instant buys and sells.  Order books would require you to wait for someone else to take the opposing side.

Voters as shareholders in a company.
Essentially a public company that votes on the outcome of a market.  Shareholders vote on the outcomes of prediction markets based on their proportional to their ownership of the company.  The paper makes a case that voters are disincentivized from misbehaving because a false vote would result in the bankruptcy of the company and therefore future earnings. 

This is very similar to Paul's idea.  However I think Truthcoin is much better because it puts constraints on voters through SVD.  So whereas in this paper someone with a large stake can swing the consensus and pull everyone to his position, SVD mathematically weighs the consensus across all the votecoins for that period.  Even with a 50%/50% tie, SVD is able to find the consensus because the Truthcoin voters who voted Yes matched more closely together.

Voting as a Keynesian beauty contest.

Sounds like a arbitration formed based on having a pool of voters who post a collateral bond.  At the end of an outcome, votes are tallied, where a majority decision is called when 2/3 of the voters agree.  The 1/3 left behind loose their collateral. 

The paper acknowledges that there is a risk.
" If either coalition is able to convince the other that they are absolutely going to spend their N/2 votes on their preferred outcome, the other side is incentivized to back down and concede to prevent losing their bond."
 
I think is probable, since due to the transparent nature of posting a large bond publicly opens doors for collusion.  People would therefore have many communication channels to reach a voter and convince them that the group is voting against the right outcome. 

Paul's Truthcoin is great because voters are distributed into many smaller shareholders, where it would be impossible to get in contact with everyone before a prediction market is decided. 

[/quote]

Stealth addresses is one thing... eliminating the use of 'addresses' is the real feature... ie: send to a name. 

Does Darkcoin have an internal name system?
[/quote]

Has the Keyhotte id changed in the scheme of things?  It would be strange to have a ID for bitshares x and a ID for Keyhotte?

Quote from: AsymmetricInformation on April 29, 2014, 05:41:37 pm

Quote from: nakaone on April 23, 2014, 02:37:26 pm

any updates on this?

Quote from: Gentso1 on April 24, 2014, 07:22:56 pm

I am also curious about what is going on with this project.  Can anyone comment?

I am still working on the project in my free time, writing and reviewing my code for clarity and performance. Recently, I (finally) perfected Scaled Claims, which allow a PM to take on a final value between 0 and 1, which can be scaled and shifted to represent a price index such as the DJIA or a number of House of Representative seats (the two examples I used in the R code). I have yet to rewrite this in Python or document it. I also still have to write a FAQ and more clearly document the project's requirements.

For details of what I am working on, see the 'Pipeline' section of my GitHub ReadMe, which I update occasionally https://github.com/psztorc/Truthcoin#pipeline

One issue is the economic model. Should this create new currency units (in addition to creating shares)? I had originally planned to use Bitcoin, but this depends on the development of, for example, side chains / tree chains / whatever. I may use Bitcoin's UTXO set purely to gain network effects and testing (distributing the shares [not currency] to the developers [currently just me]).

Many individuals have expressed interest in the project via private message or email, including one developer here. However, no one has volunteered to do what is actually required, and commit a few weeks of undivided development attention. Currently, I am not comfortable hiring anyone, mainly because half-finished code is worthless.

Bitcoinfan indicated to me that Bitshares would be able to provide dedicated developers and/or funding-for-developers in exchange for proportional ownership of the project's shares, but I instead expressed the opinion that Dan would (understandably) be hesitant to fund something which might directly compete with his own project. While meeting with Dan, he indicated that he had not read the whitepaper/code/supporting-documentation, and that he would not be able to directly provide any funding. Nearly all of his questions were about how Truthcoin would compare to his BitsharesX + Feed(s) idea. I interpreted this as confirming my original expectations.

So I am not sure that there is any room for partnership, but Bitcoinfan remains very optimistic so I am leaving it to him to arrange.

I think the community has shown great interest in the project. When a few DACs are out and Invictus is a well recognized brand/company it will be much easier to hire developers. I'd like to see a collaboration!

There is good reason why truthcoin is the top alternative dac post.  I think once the community reads and thinks about Paul’s whitepaper, more will see the light and how essential it is to have a decentralized protocol such as Truthcoin. Principally, Truthcoin’s entire theme is that “talk is cheap,” and to actually believe people’s words they should have “skin in the game.”  We are enthusiastic about creating a system that will enable people to put up money where their mouth is before they are seen are credible by the public. 
We hope the interest is enough to get Truthcoin off the ground, but that alone wont be able to kickstart anything.  I know Paul.  He has his own hesitancies about taking people at their own words.  He even has a plaque in his kitchen that says. “Nullius in Verba” (i.e. Take nobody’s word about it.)  He doesn’t care what people say, only which actions will make this project happen. 

any updates on this?

I think this one of the most promising ideas in crypto - to get an anonymous prediction market bootstrapped is like bootstrapping trading reality, with all his up- and downsides.

Yes!  Thank you for your interest.  We have not received any commitments of developers or funding just yet.  Dan is waiting for us to send in some proposal documentation before we can proceed with the Bitshares Foundation.  Stay tuned!