Quote from: ttookk on April 05, 2016, 09:16:52 AM

Their main advertisement point is the first point, actually. Which leads to a kind of "grassroots" ad spam, people posting the same thing over and over again, low quality/big quantity posts, generic comments, stuff like that. And there are sponsored posts, which are basically ads.

So are you telling me the model leads to more spam (low quality/big quantity sharing)?

This is where Synereo reputation model comes into play so that users who spam low quality will have lower reputation in the eyes of the target viewers. So thus this another evidence that Synereo's model of paying users to share isn't economic for users (because Tsu's users only find it most economic to share low quality/big quantity).

Quote from: ttookk on April 05, 2016, 09:30:18 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 04, 2016, 02:57:52 PM

r0ach, smooth, I, and some others think the only killer app of blockchains is probably currency because of the self-referential requirement of what a block chain can reach consensus on securely. Thus technically we think all the other crap won't work, unless it is using a centralized block chain and then what is the point of that?

Bitcoin locked up large $ transfers. Monero has locked up anonymity. I am going after micro-transactions.

To be honest, I don't understand this statement. Maybe I'm missing some parts of the thought process, part of it might be a language barrier. Anyhow:
While this might be nitpicking, I think representing non-monetary value is a valid idea for blockchain tech as well; basically like stocks or shares.

You would need to digest the Ethereum Paradox thread and perhaps a couple of other threads r0ach started wherein I and smooth commented. I am stating a technological conclusion that I believe we arrived at, which basically is that there is no decentralized block chain consensus that is secure (doesn't violate Nash equilibrium) with external data (external to the block chain). And without decentralization, we lose the permissionless, trustless quality that makes block chains worthwhile. Note it would help a lot if someone put that into a white paper. Perhaps on my TODO list, but I have a lot of work to do now.

Greg Meredith @ Synereo has a different model for decentralized consensus that isn't based on a block chain. It is based on (in my poor understanding) propagation within a process calculus that models the nodes. Note the AMPs use a block chain, but the other aspects of Synereo's model do not. Greg's model may have some useful applications notwidthstanding I think they have the marketing model wrong for Synereo.

Note I am not saying there might not be some way to redesign some of the aspects of Synereo's focus in order to improve the marketing plan. It is usually possible to redesign something, but that doesn't mean it is probable. The multiple reasons (biggest one being preselling AMP tokens!) I didn't choose to enter Synereo Hangouts and try to work with them instead of making my own project includes that I studied them enough to come to the conclusion that their culture of development, their various skillsets, and their existing inertia in the current focus would not be an ideal fit for what I want to do. For starters, there is no way I will be working with a guy who has himself spread all over the place (Casper, etc) and not laserbeam focused on my project. It doesn't mean I disrespect their abilities though.

As Guy Kawaski says, I have a very low tolerance for bullshit and too much blahblah (although one would wonder about that claim given the number of posts I have made in these forums).