Author Topic: Post-mining crpto world  (Read 668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Post-mining crpto world
« on: January 11, 2014, 02:11:04 pm »
These are all great points. When thinking about the other side of the argument I have visions of FUD in the form of

"centralized"

"they changed what they originally sold shares for"

"they can't be trusted"

Just for reference what are we talking about here Dan? Like an MVP in Feb as opposed to a full product at the end of march? Where do you guys think our competitors will be along this timeline?

Our competitors haven't even realized the problems they have to overcome.  Anything based upon mining will be destroyed in the market because mining is an expense that eats the profitability of the DACs and ultimately centralizes control.   This means that everyone will end up having to change their designs to replace mining to stay competitive.   Mining also slows block production and is not viable for blockchains with markets built in because the 'miner' has the power to control what transactions get in the block. 

Our competitors are all based upon 'one blockchain to rule them all' mentality which is a side effect of the mining mentality.  These systems will not scale in the end.  They may spring up quickly, but will die once reality hits that a 'market' is different than a 'currency' in terms of transaction volume.

Mastercoin has so many inefficiencies, and baggage from being layered on top of Bitcoin and the original designer isn't even working on the project any more.  I wish them well, but they too will end up having to move to their own blockchain and this will set them back in development.

In other words, I am not aware of any competitor that actually understands the nuances of DACs, blockchains, and the like at the level I do today and their lack of understanding is going to set them back dramatically in the long run.

I am sure I have things I do not yet fully appreciate or grasp, but what I do get shows me that the competition is far behind.

The FUD and legal risk arguments are the primary argument against MVP.   However, FUD is just a profit opportunity for those who can see through it because in the end FUD has no substance.

I believe that a MVP that is command line / JSON-RPC based where the 'consensus' algorithm as a Unique Node List of 1 will be viable especially once I lay the mental framework that demolishes the false decentralization offered by Bitcoin, Ripple, and other mining based systems.    Bitcoin is effectively centralized in GigaHash + 1,  Ripple is centralized in the inner circle cartel that makes up the Unique Node List.   The only thing that is required to eliminate the need to 'trust' is to eliminate the potential of cheating and getting away with it.  The only thing required to be decentralized is market competition and elimination of barriers of entry.   

I think our marketing will begin to shape the narrative in a way that our competitors will have a hard time escaping from.

In conclusion I think a MVP may be the best way to go as a stepping stone to realizing the final goal.   When can such a MVP be available, I cannot say for certain but probably sooner than may think and later than I would estimate.

I think if we use a token system we can solve this problem.

1000 encrypted tokens are passed around and whichever machine has the "active" token, destroys it and creates another encyprtes token and passes it along. In the even a machine with the active token goes offline, one of the other tokens goes active and that machine creates two tokens, one to pass on and another to replace the lost one. machines trust level with token is based on time online and how many token passed around successfully. The higher the trust, the more "fees" it earns.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.