Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 13, 2016, 08:39:34 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on February 13, 2016, 08:00:24 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 12, 2016, 09:20:46 AM

The point about standing up decentralized nodes with Docker is a worth while technical point to be aware of.

However it still doesn't change my opinion that Synereo is building the wrong model for decentralized social networking.

What is your main objection to the model that Synereo is using? Is it based on the thought that asymmetric connections will lead to ISPs blocking connections for Synereo data nodes or your thought that all PoS systems will centralize? While I agree that all PoS blockchains will centralize to an extent around the holders of the PoS tokens, I don't think that is necessarily a detriment to the system. I've stated before that as long as the currency holders have direct proportional input to the security of the chain based on their holdings that I think centralization around these parties is acceptable. Your opinion is that this is unacceptable centralization and my opinion is that it is the currency holder's right as long as participants aren't forced to join the system.

1. Synereo is based on Ethereum and Ethereum can't ever work technologically. I detailed my reasoning and specifically what I think is Greg's myopia on Ethereum's future version named Casper (which Greg Meredith is involved with on the math for consensus-by-betting). (Will be adding more on that technological point soon in the linked thread)

2. Synereo is based on decentralized file storage for sharing content (such as music, videos, etc) and this can't ever work technologically (review all my posts in the linked thread) at least as currently envisioned by all the decentralized file projects I am aware of. I also proposed a solution in that linked thread, so perhaps you might want to pass it along to Greg.

3. PoS has failure modes which don't sustain Nash equilibrium. I have some links and posts in the Ethereum Paradox thread which expand on that point.

4. Most fundamentally to Synereo's design is I don't see how Greg's math model for the attention model (Reo & AMPs impacts) can be enforced on all nodes. I admit I didn't dig into the math and research he cites in the 56 page white paper (I do sort of understand it conceptually), but i think I don't need to because there is no way to enforce that all nodes which run the same math model. Additionally I think the concept of paying with AMPs to force content to move uphill against Reo is the wrong model, because the value of advertising is orders-of-magnitude smaller than the value that users get out of social networks. Thus the only model that makes economic sense is Reo. Removing AMPs of course destroys Synereo's funding and profit model, so would kill the project. Thus I don't expect them to adopt a corrected design.

Thanks. I'll have to consider these points.

Quote from: smooth on February 13, 2016, 08:53:17 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on February 13, 2016, 08:00:24 AM

I've stated before that as long as the currency holders have direct proportional input to the security of the chain based on their holdings that I think centralization around these parties is acceptable

That will never happen because any voting or consensus type system gives disproportionate, not proportional, weight to the larger holdings.

The reason I so strongly opposed DPoS was for this exact reason. It allows disproportionate control over the chain via approval voting which is easily rigged via strategic voting. To my knowledge, NXT's PoS algo is slightly skewed in favor of larger stakeholders, but so slightly so that it is imo negligible. I'm unsure as to how Casper's PoS algo works, but Greg seems like the type of person who would oppose any type of disproportionate allocation.