....
Sergio is refining my proof-of-storage concept from 2013. But I don't think proving you are full node is important in my design. Everyone seems to view this as important for eliminating the centralization of pools, but there are no pools in my design because in my design proof-of-work is not profitable (but it is economic). I am going to reveal the unperceived dualism in some of the concepts of crypto-currency.
..
Sergio is refining my proof-of-storage concept from 2013. But I don't think proving you are full node is important in my design. Everyone seems to view this as important for eliminating the centralization of pools, but there are no pools in my design because in my design proof-of-work is not profitable (but it is economic). I am going to reveal the unperceived dualism in some of the concepts of crypto-currency.
..
You're underestimating the importance of proving a full nodes' existence.
The utility of money is built around confidence. Almost everything else that drives adoption revolves around features and ease of use.
I assume that you are thinking that the proven number of full nodes being a metric of the decentralization strength of the network and the confidence in the network.
This is entirely proven in my design but nothing like what Sergio was proposing because his basis has no basis in my design as I exchange some concepts to their dual.
Better technology itself these days is not the guarantee of the mass adoption.
No coin has any prayer of being massively adopted so far because none of them can even do the basic thing the crypto coin could do for the masses that credit cards can't do from the perspective of any mass adoption audience. (I am not including non-payment markets such as smart assets and programmable block chain which is another wide open space I have not entirely characterized in my mind yet)
Monero folk suggest to me to work with Monero (at very low to no pay and invest for the future in XMR) but their stated future profit model is waiting for the mass adoption which I believe is never going to come (IMO not within their leadership structure and only my opinion matters when making a decision for myself), so why I would adopt what I think will fail. Doesn't make any sense.
Bitcoin can get there with Lightning Networks and massive block size increases (because without massive headroom for massive spikes in block sizes, Lightning Networks does not work), thus mining centralization obfuscated as being decentralized using IBLT. Or instead we can adopt my design and have true decentralization along with the necessary scaling and transaction speed (as well as low TX fees).
The writing is on the wall. Bitcoin is scaling toward a spying, centralized platform controlled by large corporations and easily regulated top-down. You've got a small window of time to try to out compete that trajectory with an altcoin. You damn well better get organized, or mankind loses. This is too fucking important to trust to ideological molasses. Who ever can get it done and build the community, then do it. Enough talk.
P.S. thanks for the kind/amicable sentiments. I am not angry
