Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Brent.Allsop

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17
46
General Discussion / Re: A BitShares Constitution?
« on: November 01, 2014, 07:56:11 pm »
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

 +5% +5% +5%

So is a 95% consensus sufficiently hard enough?  That is the initial thinking in the first camp on this issue:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160/2

If it is, lets continue building consensus around this proposal.



47
General Discussion / Re: A BitShares Constitution?
« on: November 01, 2014, 07:52:38 pm »


@Brent.Allsop:  Please explain the Registration form. Why is "Legal Middle Name" the only required field, and not, say, "Nickname"?

Sorry, yet another issue that needs to be fixed in this mere prototype.

There are two types of *s.  Red ones, always required, and black *s, only required for any financial operations, which is all future proposed stuff, so can just be ignored.  If there is no *, it is not required, ever.

I'll get started fixing that.




48
General Discussion / Re: A BitShares Constitution?
« on: November 01, 2014, 07:24:33 pm »
And we need to be able to dynamically change what we are proposing in an efficient and easy way, which will ensure everyone is still on board, until we get things at least near unanimous, so we don’t lose anyone.
This is the tricky part, at least for me. Could you please explain in plain language how exactly it could work?

Yes, this is the specific part that Canonizer.com does, and it should be integrated with the rest of the vote DAC systems, as you describe.  No need to duplicate effort.

And I love the algorithmic voting and such ideas LuckyBit is proposing.  Yes, I am the founder of Canonizer.com, and it would be great to either interface Canonizer.com into something you are proposing.  Send me an e-mail and help me better understand the details of your great ideas.

As far as the Canonizer consensus building methodolodgy, it helps to start with what is the ultimate goal.  Rather than having 1000 individual posts, by 1000 individuals, The goal is to have a concise, quantitative, hierarchical representation of what everyone is currently thinking, with the fewest possible camps, with the most people in each.  The focus always being for each camp, what would it take to convert you to another camp.  In other words, what kind of experimental results would falsify your theory, and convert you.  Or what would another POV have to give up, to get you on board.  Then you work on doing those experiments, continually reducing the number of camps, till there is a unanimous consensus.

Any One person starts the survey by putting up the purpose or goals of the survey topic in the root or top camp, then they create the first sub camp describing what they think they currently want/believe/predict.  Then when others come, they assume what is there now, is the yet to be completed consensus of the crowd.  You can assume you are an expert, and are the first participator that has justification for a new and better way than what is there now.  So you propose changing things accordingly.  Proposed changes go into review for 1 week, and if no supporters of the camp objects, your changes go live, ensuring unanimous consensus of all camp supporters.

If someone does object, you can start the negotiation process to find a way to state things that everyone agrees with.  If this is not possible, you can keep what you agree on (usually the most important issues) in a supper camp, and push the disagreeable issues into supporting sub camps.

If one person is objecting to a change everyone else wants to make, everyone else can threaten to fork and jump to the new camp, leaving the lone objector in a camp that will then be filtered out by most people.  Keeping as much consensus as possible motivates people to work as hard as possible finding creative ways to keep the consensus.

There is much more than this, and if you see problems, we have likely also solved those.  So just keep asking questions, if you still see other issues.

For those that don't yet know, I've started a survey topic for the single issue of BTS dilution here:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160

And I've created a camp expressing what I believe.  If your camp is already there, you just cast your vote by joining the camp, possibly improving it if you want.  Otherwise, if your view isn't there yet, you start a new camp so others that agree can find you and help.



















49
General Discussion / Re: A BitShares Constitution?
« on: November 01, 2014, 06:54:43 pm »
I am in strong favor of controlled by a law or constitution that should be stable as possible as it can be, instead of relying on so called "trusted" people who have more power than others and harness the power to implement "better and flexible" policy.
I actually don't trust the "trusted" authoritative people.

Exactly the problem.  Canonizer.com solves this problem by giving people the ability to choose their own preferred canonization algorithm, on the side bar.  In other words, YOU select the people you most trust, and measure the consensus according to that, while comparing that to popular, or any other type of consensus.  It may turn out to be something like 75% of your selected experts think we should dilute Bitshares by X amount for Y purpose.

Nothing is censored on the way in, but individuals can prioritize, or censor things as they choose, on the way out.


50
General Discussion / Re: A BitShares Constitution?
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:43:18 am »
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that is true, you can canonize that, and start to build consensus to see just how much consensus there already exists for your 4 lines.  Or, just post the 4 lines here, and I can canonize it for you, along with what I do and don't agree with, so everyone else (that isn't afraid of the MORMONS) can do that same, and so we can start knowing, concisely and quantitatively, exactly what everyone may still disagree with, and what modification will be required to get unanimous expert consensus.


51
General Discussion / Re: A BitShares Constitution?
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:29:23 am »
<sarcasm on>

Oh, darn, you guys are so smart and able to see through the plot of the Mornons and the Transhumanists, (I am their stooge puppet) to take over the world.  Once you guys sign up with Canonizer.com, a transhumanist pair of missionary from the LDS church will show up at your door, and they will be expecting 10% of your bitshares and income and also expect you to start hating Gays and so on.  And if you don’t the avenging angels will arrive, shortly thereafter.

</sarcasm off>

If nobody is thinking anything like the above, what, exactly are you afraid of?  You guys seem to be acting worse than so many of my Mormon friends that think all you Atheists really believe in, and in fact have been visited by....   SATAN!  So, no the Mormons are to afraid to go there.

The only agenda, is to first do the work required, so we can know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone else wants.  Our theoretical testable prediction is that Peacefully getting at all for everyone, will be easy, after that.


The only reason the Mormon Transhumanist Association is listed in the sponsor section, is because they have used this a bit, in their operations, and support the general idea.  Nothing more.  Oh, and by the way, the Mormon Transhumanist Association has nothing to do with the organized “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, and there is only a minority of membership that is a fully believing member of the LDS church.  If you must know, I consider myself to be a "Bitshare holding, Mormon Transhumanist Atheist", so more an anti Mormon, than any other type of Mormon you may know.  If you Google a bit, you'll find out how much of an Anti Mormon I really am.

I’ve requested permission to include the Bitshares organization, ahead of the MTA, in the sponsor section, but so far haven’t heard an official OK to do that.


52
General Discussion / Re: *Draft* October Newsletter - Halloween Edition
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:02:50 am »

BitShares will integrate the following common services that would be much less effective if they weren’t common services:

•   A unified consensus-based governing system


I understand all the other features, and think everything else is great, but what is that one?


53
General Discussion / Re: A BitShares Constitution?
« on: November 01, 2014, 02:26:55 am »
People, People, People…

Constitution technology is more than 200 years old.  All you would get from that is a polarized, deadlocked, bickering 2 party congress that can’t do anything.  How much time would it take to build a constitution which would have enough consensus?  Who is going to write it?  How much consensus is enough?  How could we rigorously measure how much more consensus we had achieved by any proposed changes?  If we only lose 25%, is that enough?  Many have expressed doubts about us being able to even write such a contract, and I am in that camp (unless maybe we used Canonizer.com).  Even then it would take years.  I love it when The bytemaster talks about no contracts!!  Another of his brilliant ideas.  But a constitution is just a contract that will start polarizing everyone, which will hobble us, and make us very vulnerable to an intelligent community without such unintelligent bureaucratic red tape.

Enshrining a maximum dilution rate into the code is really doing nothing more than placing a spending limit on government.   This spending limit is fundamentally tied to the markets ability to absorb the new shares. 

Exactly, any dumb hard coded red tape we enshrine makes us very vulnerable.  Modern internet and consensus building technology makes it so we do not need to make these kinds of binding red tape rules and bureaucratic polarizing contracts in order to get anything done.

All "Democracies" suffer from the potential of shareholder abuse of power and desire to have unlimited spending ability.   Do we trust the shareholders to make good judgements?  Do we know enough know to bind them for ever?  By what process can we change the rule?

Obviously, if you can efficiently achieve 100% consensus, you can change absolutely anything.  If you have the ability to use a modern consensus building tool, which can creatively and dynamically give and take to both sides, to achieve consensus, it isn’t that hard.  The bytemaster talks about doing things like giving extra shares to camps objecting to making a certain change, in order to build a larger consensus.  Yet another of his brilliant ideas.  But, you need a system that can facilitate this kind of stuff efficiently.  That I know of no other system in existence could do anything like this, especially without polarizing people into parties, making things worse.

For anyone doubting that building unanimous expert consensus is hard, or not possible with modern consensus building tools, check out what we have done at Canonizer.com among world leading experts in the philosophy of mind field.  At least within the Bitshares community, we have a community that thinks much more alike than all experts, hobbyists, and religious nutbags, in the philosophy of mind field.  All the extreme crazies that can’t get published to any particular school of thought “peer reviewed” rag being published by the Ivory tower, flocks to Canonizer.com because nobody is censored there.

Before Canonizer.com, no 2 experts even in the same school of thought could even agree on the definition of consciousness, let alone achieve any kind of measurable scientific consensus amongst everyone, with zero censoring of anyone.  But with now more than 50 experts participating in greater or lesser degrees, including diverse experts and lay people from many schools of thought like Daniell Dennett, Steven Lehar, David Chalmers, John Smythies, and a growing number of others, including non-censored crazies, we have proven that it is possible to build a definitive near unanimous expert quantitatively measurable scientific consensus.  For example, go to this survey topic to see these definitive shocking, (When we started, I never would have believed this much consensus was possible), consensus results:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88

With the default Canonizer algorithm selected, you will see that the popular consensus achieved to date, which includes all the religious nutbags, for the “Representational Qualia Theory” camp is about 75%.  Then switch to the expert consensus canonizer algorithm on the side bar, (filters out the crazies) and you will see an effective unanimous scientific expert consensus for that camp!


On the other hand who will trust a constitution after our recent moves?

Exactly, we need to have a way to rigorously measure, concisely and quantitatively, how many people are willing to support any particular action.  And we need to be able to dynamically change what we are proposing in an efficient and easy way, which will ensure everyone is still on board, until we get things at least near unanimous, so we don’t lose anyone.

We have already proven the ability to turn on a dime and issue new BTS as necessary.

No, The bytemaster has turned on a dime, but who knows how many of the herd are still running in the other direction??  The Bitshares price crash is proof the entire herd has not turned on a dime.  Is it even approaching 75%??  What we need to do is get the entire herd to turn on a dime, and we need to have the ability to know, quantitatively,  how many people will follow, if any particular decision is made, and we need to be able to use creative dynamic intelligent negotion tactics to make everyone happy, and easily achieve near unanimous consensus for all such decisions.


In the free market, there are no rules except survival of the fittest and most flexible.

Exactly, and the first crypto currency community that can amplify the wisdom of the entire herd, and get the entire herd to change directions on a dime, without significant losses of the sheep, no matter how dumb, will blow any contract or “constitution” based bureaucracy away, with a leader making decisions before knowing how many of his heard will follow him.

Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.

While it is true, that it takes quite a bit of effort to teach any community how to build consensus by communicating, concicely and quantitatively, on large scales, Canonizer.com has demonstrably proven we can do way better than this, in far more difficult to build consensus circumstances than exists in the Bitshares community.

54
General Discussion / Re: What is BTS mission?
« on: October 24, 2014, 03:02:51 am »

You seem to be asking for answers about short-term goals and measures of success, so you may not be interested in the long-term reasons for why I am in this, and my goals.

For me, it is all about making all the hierarchies, bureaucracies, and selfish bastards at the top, getting everyone to do what they want… irrelevant.  It is time to flip things upside down, find out, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone at the bottom, doing all the work, wants.  Once we can know that, and fund that, we can finally ignore all the selfish bastards at the top, and start focusing on what everyone at the bottom wants, without them.  We soon will not need middle-men and hierarchies anymore.


55
These all look like great ideas, intermixed with a bunch of stupid comments and bad ideas.  Do you expect me, or The bytemaster to waste lots of time trying to read and digest all that is being said here, intermixed with all the garbage and changes?

My point being, discussing things like this is a complete waste of time for everyone.  You don't believe you can change the Bytemasters POV, but if you build enough consensus, with enough well reasoned and unanimously agreed on arguments, all very concisely stated (not needing to read 1000 posts to get the state of the art of what you are talking about) you would have a far better chance of having influence on him and everyone else.

We've started a consensus building survey topic on this issue over at Canonizer.com:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160

It would be much more efficient if people concisely describe your proposals, and create a new camp for them, and start building consensus for the ideas.  Getting something done, or convincing someone is not the problem; the only problem is building enough consensus.  Once you have anough consensus, you can do anything.  The first community that learns how to communicate concisely and quantitatively, and is best able to build a large consensus will win this crypto currency battle.

All the chaotic talk like this is just driving down the price of BTSX,, destroying consensus and fracturing the comunity.


56
General Discussion / Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« on: October 23, 2014, 07:04:18 pm »

Hi Thom and donkeypong,

Thanks for pointing out this important issue.  One must first realize that this is JUST a prototype system that has been developed by open source volunteers, that is all.  There are lots of things it needs besides just this.  It needs to be integrated into the Bitshares ID system, so you can login with that, and so that can validate uniqueness, and so we can build canonizer algorithms based on how many shares one holds, we need at least some type of login system to help with that problem till we have that ability, and so on.  Also, once you do create a log in, you can "support" and/or contribute to a camp, anonymously by creating an anonymous ID.

Rest assured that if anyone does create an account, we will not use your information for anything other than to identify you in the canonizer.com prototype system for purposes of preventing people from creating many identities to cheat the system and so on.

Again, this is only a crude early prototype that still needs lots of work.  But there is enough there to start building consensus.  Everything else out there now, and what we are doing in the forums just wastes everyone's time, destroys and fractures consensus.  I'd bet the chaos going on in the forums right now is what is causing the BitsharesX price to crash.  If we had some concise descriptions of the state of the art of the leading camps everyone could get easy access to, and a quantitative measure of how much consensus there was, who this consensus was, without all this noise and chaos nobody can fallow, the price of BTSX will surely go through the roof.  All crypto currency systems are running into these kinds of development problems, and the first comunity to solve this scalability problem will easily win this battle to rule the world.  The community that can best build consensus the fasted and most intelligently on a large scale will win.

So it will take some effort, and this kind of pain, to get things started, and eventually we will get things resolved and fully developed.  Things will speed up if people help with the development.  For example, maybe you or anyone would care to add some disclaimers about we will not use anyone e-mail for anything, to the open source system to alleviate some of the fears?  Or at least make some specific proposals of what text to put where, so everyone is happy?

Brent Allsop

57
General Discussion / Re: Dev Voice Hangout on Mumble Fridays @ 9 AM EST
« on: October 23, 2014, 03:38:26 pm »

Thanks for the notification.

I would like to propose for the agenda a discussion on the various efforts to build consensus around the current proposal to dilute shares and merge various related assets.


58
General Discussion / Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« on: October 23, 2014, 03:17:07 pm »
OK, we've thrown up a first stab at a start of a consensus building survey topic on this bitshares merger proposal at Canonizer.com titled: " BTS Dilution / Merger Survey":

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160

I've started by splitting the general, "should BtsX ever be diluted" at the most important level, as that seems to be the most important and fundamental issue of disagreement.  We plan to create a sub camp of the "Rarely Delute" camp representing the state of the art of the leading consensus camp of exactly what, how, and when... it will be done.  Now we need someone to provide a concise description of their view of the state of the art of what is being or what should be proposed so we can start building and tracking how much consensus, we can achieve for this and all competing proposals.

As always, this is just the first draft stab at a consensus building survey topic.  Anything can change at any time by anyone.  Hopefully people will see a better way of doing things and help make the improvements in a wiki way.  Lots of small contributions and people joining camps are what will make this great and amplify everyone's wisdom on what is the best thing to do.  If a camp representing what you believe is already there, sign and join it to help it along.  If your exact view isn't yet included, please help to get that view started, so others can start building expert consensus around the best ideas.




59
General Discussion / Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« on: October 22, 2014, 02:40:35 pm »
Fuzz,

You obviously still do not get what Canonizer.com can do, otherwise you would have attempted to do this survey with a more modern tool like Canonizer.com.

These issues are the biggest problem facing the crypto currency movement, and we can't take over the world till we get them solved in a very amplify the wisdom of everyone way.  The expert opinion is that mining is bad, but the Bitcoin herd is still running towards mining like a bunch of lemmings about to jump off the cliff and become very poor, throwing away millions of $$$.  Why is it that this problem can't be solved, without some set of experts like The bytemaster and team having to invest huge amounts of effort and capital to get over the huge barrier of entry to create a viable competitor that is strong enough to be able to destroy mining and Bitcoin with it?

And, sure, the bytemaster is brilliant, and we are very agile, while we are small, so we may be able to kill mining (and bitcoin with it), but then what?  How do we scale that?  This dilution issue (or some other similar issue in the future) could kill bitshares, just like mining is about to kill Bitcoin by making it vulnerable to Bitshares like competition, or at best fracture the community.

Let me list just a few of the problems with attempting to quantitatively determine and build consensus in this way.

  • Not Quantitative: When The bytemaster makes proposals like he does to the forum in this way, if people spend way too much time, they may be able to determine how much consensus there is for or against the idea.  But how much time and effort, and how likely is someone to make a mistake and get it wrong, or read the crowd incorrectly?
  • Does not scale:   There are only at about 100 people participating in this process.  We need to be able to scale this to millions of people and more, in a way that amplifies everyone's wisdom, and motivates everyone to be very involved in the process.  Even with 100 people participating, nobody knows who is in what camp, how much and what they are willing to give up, what, exactly, would be required to get the various people in each apposing camp to get on board, and so on.
  • Destroys consensus: Doing things this way just destroys consensus, or at least that's the way it always appears.  People get the perception that there are hundreds of different points of view, and more.  If there are already 1000 posts, nobody will want to post another post as nobody can read 1000 posts, let alone one more.  Nobody can agree on even definitions, let alone what each "yes" vs "no" camp means, and so on.  When, in reality, there is always way more consensus than is apparent.  The important things is, we need to be able to measure and build consensus, quantitatively, from the bottom up.
  • People Loose Interests: If you do not have a constantly improving, easy to follow system, people will lose interest.  Each of the yet to be defined camps or positions, must be able to improve in description, and be stated very definitively and consisely, in a way that ensures everyone in the camp definitely agrees.  The camp descriptions must be able to change and improve, by anyone, in a wiki way, while insuring unanimous agreement by everyone in the camp.  I you can't do that in an efficient way, people will not have enough time to do due diligence, and just not participate.
  • Survey Not Dynamic: People must be able to propose more than just yes / no, and what the yes and no camps mean must be able to change, dynamically, as more consensus is built.  Even the top level question, or goal of the question must change, from the bottom up, in a wiki way, that insures everyone agrees with the change.

Modern systems like the one we are developing with Canonizer.com can amplify the wisdom of the crowd and solve all these problems, enabling the herd to change direction very rapidly and efficiently.  Sure, Canonizer.com is just a prototype, hard to use, and people need to get up the huge learning curve about how to communicate and build consensus, concisely and quantitatively, which takes some work.  But it can be done and more effort can be put towards developing such system enabling is to communicate concisely and quantitatively.

And the first Crypto Currency community to learn how to most effectively do this in a way that scales in agile, intelligent ways, will be the first one to rapidly take crypto currency to the next level (the next level being taking over all hierarchies and bureaucracies, and becoming the new rulers of the world)

I do get what cannonizer can do Brent trust me. I am not an expert on its use, however, on how to effectively maximize its utility.  You want to start one?

Oh and as for alphabar...im too busy trying to help unite the community to deal with your angry posts.  I have and continue to sacrifice for this project...along with a great many others on this forum (who do even more). Please dont talk to us like we are greedy a-holes who do not care about the success of this project.  I sincerely hope we can all take a deep breath and recognize the stakes...and im not talking to our pockets...

I'm not speaking to your intentions, just your actions. You may intend to "unite the community", but you are alienating a huge segment of an already small group of Bitshares stakeholders. When somebody brings up a valid and objective argument and you ignore it by saying "good enough" or "it's the best we can do", don't be surprised if there is a backlash. The allocation issue doesn't take effort. Nobody is criticizing you for not trying hard enough. It's about what is equitable and fair, and your proposal isn't even close.

Hi Fuzz,

Sorry, I didn't mean to be angry.  I very much appreciate all the work you do for everyone!!!  I guess I am just trying to say I am able to help with such efforts, by creating and getting canonizer.com survey topics started.  But if others are using other tools and methodologies, I don't want to split from and detract from what they are doing.  I am in the process of getting a Canonizer.com survey topic started, I will return and report once it is ready for other's to participate.  Anyone that would like to help speed up the process is welcome to contact me.

alphaBar is raising a critically important issue.  We want to have the largest tent that includes everyone possible.  So if we use a tool like Canonizaer.com, we will be able to find out, exactly, what alphaBar, and anyone else believes and wants, at least if they participate in helping us communicate what they and everyone else wants, concisely and quantitatively.  Once we can do that, in a way that scales, finding creative ways to get it all for everyone and building the greatest possible and hopefully unanimous consensus is much more likely.

Brent







60
General Discussion / Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« on: October 21, 2014, 10:14:17 pm »
Fuzz,

You obviously still do not get what Canonizer.com can do, otherwise you would have attempted to do this survey with a more modern tool like Canonizer.com.

These issues are the biggest problem facing the crypto currency movement, and we can't take over the world till we get them solved in a very amplify the wisdom of everyone way.  The expert opinion is that mining is bad, but the Bitcoin herd is still running towards mining like a bunch of lemmings about to jump off the cliff and become very poor, throwing away millions of $$$.  Why is it that this problem can't be solved, without some set of experts like The bytemaster and team having to invest huge amounts of effort and capital to get over the huge barrier of entry to create a viable competitor that is strong enough to be able to destroy mining and Bitcoin with it?

And, sure, the bytemaster is brilliant, and we are very agile, while we are small, so we may be able to kill mining (and bitcoin with it), but then what?  How do we scale that?  This dilution issue (or some other similar issue in the future) could kill bitshares, just like mining is about to kill Bitcoin by making it vulnerable to Bitshares like competition, or at best fracture the community.

Let me list just a few of the problems with attempting to quantitatively determine and build consensus in this way.

  • Not Quantitative: When The bytemaster makes proposals like he does to the forum in this way, if people spend way too much time, they may be able to determine how much consensus there is for or against the idea.  But how much time and effort, and how likely is someone to make a mistake and get it wrong, or read the crowd incorrectly?
  • Does not scale:   There are only at about 100 people participating in this process.  We need to be able to scale this to millions of people and more, in a way that amplifies everyone's wisdom, and motivates everyone to be very involved in the process.  Even with 100 people participating, nobody knows who is in what camp, how much and what they are willing to give up, what, exactly, would be required to get the various people in each apposing camp to get on board, and so on.
  • Destroys consensus: Doing things this way just destroys consensus, or at least that's the way it always appears.  People get the perception that there are hundreds of different points of view, and more.  If there are already 1000 posts, nobody will want to post another post as nobody can read 1000 posts, let alone one more.  Nobody can agree on even definitions, let alone what each "yes" vs "no" camp means, and so on.  When, in reality, there is always way more consensus than is apparent.  The important things is, we need to be able to measure and build consensus, quantitatively, from the bottom up.
  • People Loose Interests: If you do not have a constantly improving, easy to follow system, people will lose interest.  Each of the yet to be defined camps or positions, must be able to improve in description, and be stated very definitively and consisely, in a way that ensures everyone in the camp definitely agrees.  The camp descriptions must be able to change and improve, by anyone, in a wiki way, while insuring unanimous agreement by everyone in the camp.  I you can't do that in an efficient way, people will not have enough time to do due diligence, and just not participate.
  • Survey Not Dynamic: People must be able to propose more than just yes / no, and what the yes and no camps mean must be able to change, dynamically, as more consensus is built.  Even the top level question, or goal of the question must change, from the bottom up, in a wiki way, that insures everyone agrees with the change.

Modern systems like the one we are developing with Canonizer.com can amplify the wisdom of the crowd and solve all these problems, enabling the herd to change direction very rapidly and efficiently.  Sure, Canonizer.com is just a prototype, hard to use, and people need to get up the huge learning curve about how to communicate and build consensus, concisely and quantitatively, which takes some work.  But it can be done and more effort can be put towards developing such system enabling is to communicate concisely and quantitatively.

And the first Crypto Currency community to learn how to most effectively do this in a way that scales in agile, intelligent ways, will be the first one to rapidly take crypto currency to the next level (the next level being taking over all hierarchies and bureaucracies, and becoming the new rulers of the world)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17