Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on April 18, 2016, 11:52:27 PM

Quote from: SynereoCommunity on April 18, 2016, 01:02:03 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 16, 2016, 02:14:59 PM

Quote from: SynereoCommunity on April 16, 2016, 12:42:53 PM

One thing that might help, is to understand how other terms are used instead of the perhaps more familiar "hashtag". It is just a content identifier. You will find this represented by other terms, like "channels", "syntactic entities", or terms specific to pi-calculus like "persisted queues", or even the word "network", as this does not apply to "gods-eye" perspectives here - so these sub-groups are most typically defined by a topic, or keyword.

So in short, Greg is using a private language for technobabble.

That is sure helpful for peer review. Roll Eyes

Well, if you don't understand something, maybe I can help? You are the only one saying it's "technobabble" - which just means you don't recognize it. I understand it just fine. Content management, including "hastags", is sophisticated, and thorough in Synereo. Your "hashtags" are not left out, even though that concept does not appear in Twitter-language form.

And yes, you will find the same expressions in peer-reviewed papers, textbooks, etc.

TPTB_need_war will never admit that he really isn't that smart.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 18, 2016, 05:56:41 PM

Quote from: SynereoCommunity on April 18, 2016, 01:02:03 PM

You think all "ICOs" are manipulation.

I am confident they are ILLEGAL if publicly marketed to USA investors.

And no those weren't just my opinions. You will always try to distort what I wrote. How about you just state what you think about Synereo and stop trying to tell readers what I said. They can read my posts to see what I wrote.

Greg @ Synereo is avoiding explaining all the specification and technology to us in terms we can understand. No excuses you can make for that which are valid. He is selling AMPs and not giving us information we can verify. That is an illegal prospectus. If Synereo didn't sell AMPs to the public, Greg et al would have no obligation to explain the technology in detail to us in terms we can understand and verify.

Edit: it is rather useless if I go expend my scarce time to become an expert in process calculi so that I could find game theory flaws in Synereo's process calculi approach to their hyped Attention Model feature. Because it would still be an asymmetric information market for the investors, as then they would be required to trust either my conclusions or Greg's (Synereo's). The only solution is for Greg to do proper disclosure by explaining the technology in terms that all AMP investors can understand. They have the time to produce a very exquisite website and consume hours every week on video Hangouts that do hyped handwaving on technical details, then they should also have enough time to explain the technology in sufficient detail that we can analyze without requiring us to become one of the few process calculi researchers on earth.