Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on September 27, 2015, 04:09:39 AM

Quote from: leithaus on September 26, 2015, 10:58:34 PM

Quote from: fartbags on September 24, 2015, 07:22:54 PM

Quote from: Elokane on September 21, 2015, 04:11:18 PM

We've run into some difficulties WRT the Docker container which has thrown a wrench into the plans. The work with Ethereum (see latest hangout for details) has also diverted some of our attention.
I'll post about a timeline as soon as we're back on track.

From what I can tell, it looks like Ethereum is going to be outdated once Synereo is out. Scala looks impressive. Why are you working with Ethereum so closely. Ethereum isn't very impressive.

Thanks for your vote of confidence! Synereo was originally assuming there was a viable blockchain technology it could ultimately rely on for distribution and maintenance of AMPs. Proof-of-work is not going to be that technology. To understand that claim, here are a couple of numbers to keep in mind. The bitcoin blockchain is currently processing somewhat less than 2 TXNs / sec. For this transaction rate the network spends the electricity of the nation state of Ireland. By contrast Visa processes in excess of 4K TXNs / src, and by some reports an order of magnitude more in peak times. Scaling linearly (which the bitcoin blockchain will not achieve) to meet a transaction demand near Visa levels would require enough energy to melt the planet. It's just not a good solution. There are people working on addressing these shortcomings. However, i don't believe they are well positioned to role out proposed solutions given the community governance challenges. Ethereum is considering alternative blockchain technology (notably Casper) that has a better shot at scaling. Additionally, Ethereum is at a different point in their adoption curve (much earlier) which means that they don't have the same governance challenges. It's just basic arithmetic. There's too much work for any one group to do: reinvent the blockchain, reinvent social networking, ... . It's much better to cooperate and share the load. We can see the shape of the place we're going. We're much likely to get there if we help each other. (Greg Meredith, Synereo CSO)

All bitcoin has to do to overcome the transaction limitation is increase the blocksize. I have no doubt that a blocksize increase will occur which will make this argument a moot point. I agree though that from a decentralization standpoint PoS is better than PoW. Can you explain how the Casper implementation of PoS is different from NXT's implementation of PoS?

Thanks for your response and the link to NXT. i'm not intimately familiar with NXT and didn't find a detailed spec, yet. Part of our work with the Casper folks is to get up to speed on variants of PoS. i don't know if these are real differences but Casper maintains an order for validators in each round. Casper creates a betting market on blocks. The bets are highly unusual in that the bets are on what the other validators will predict is the winning block. Finality arises when the bets converge. Casper weights payouts by bond size and deducts for deviation from order, and failure to converge in a reasonable way.

i would be interested to see your data that blocksize will solve the scaling problems. Have you run some simulations? Do you have other supporting calculations? All the simulations reported at the Scaling Bitcoin conference in Montreal suggest a very different picture, with increased blockchain size having, in many instances deleterious effects on some scaling phenomena. Certainly, back of the envelope calculations do not support the position your espousing, but i'm always open to entertaining good discussion about this problem.

Thanks again for your engagement!