Quote from: iamnotback on March 18, 2017, 01:06:09 PM

Hmmm...

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@dan/today-i-submitted-my-resignation-to-steemit-inc#@robrigo/re-ekitcho-re-xeroc-re-dan-re-samupaha-re-dan-today-i-submitted-my-resignation-to-steemit-inc-20170315t234920898z

His deleted post mentioned that he won't write code that isn't MIT or BSD license ever again, so I doubt he will work on Steem unless the license is changed.

I don't blame @dan for sticking to his principles.

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@dan/today-i-submitted-my-resignation-to-steemit-inc#@noisy/re-noisy-re-dan-today-i-submitted-my-resignation-to-steemit-inc-20170315t075858597z

It looks like this is the reason: https://github.com/steemit/steem/pull/936

Dan wanted to open licence of Steem (anyone could then fork Steem without a permission of Steemit Inc.) - that would allow test many assumptions much faster, like every other altcoin is testing new approaches for bitcoin. Unfortunately other guys in Steemit Inc. do not share vision of Dan.

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@dan/today-i-submitted-my-resignation-to-steemit-inc#@dan/re-pairmike-re-dan-today-i-submitted-my-resignation-to-steemit-inc-20170315t060912304z

New opportunities to pursue my vision of free market solutions to secure life liberty and property.

So 5 days ago Dan tried to fork Steem's source code into an open source branch and @sneak a Steemit, Inc. person with greater commit permissions apparently deleted Dan's fork and shut down his issue thread (see quoted link above).

Here is what Dan wrote in a blog that he deleted because @blocktrades asked him to delete it.

Perhaps Dan has gotten jealous of the points I've been making for my OpenShare project lately wherein I decided to not do an ICO and to emphasize the ecosystem scaling benefits of open source. Some recent quotes from the ad hoc discussion thread about my project:

Quote from: dinofelis on February 18, 2017, 08:51:28 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on February 18, 2017, 05:25:22 AM

Open source is the solution. Given enough contributors, all complexity is shallow. The free market works it out.

For example, anything I might bring to the ecosystem, is my contribution to the ecosystem. The crypto ecosystem will digest it and decide whether my particular fork of the action is worthy of a leadership role, yet in either case my contribution will be absorbed into the collective knowledge of the ecosystem.

I can only applaud the clarity of that vision.

Quote from: iamnotback on January 04, 2017, 08:19:31 PM

P.S. What is this with open source projects banning those who want to report fatal flaws? Censorship is the antithesis of open source.

Quote from: iamnotback on January 05, 2017, 09:02:58 AM

The problem with proposing centralization as a solution, is it simply doesn't scale in terms of ecosystems, for the same reason that closed source doesn't scale but open source does.

The world doesn't want to invest in a system that is controlled by China. Centralized control is not anti-fragile.

Bitcoin has a limited lifespan. It will be the stepping stone from fiat to something that really works.

Quote from: iamnotback on February 08, 2017, 10:20:27 AM

If we raise some money, I know who I'd want to try to hire on a flexible hours work schedule (and know damn well he is conscientious and would provide extreme value for the money spent):

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7348

It is not every day that a 160 IQ genius who invented the term "open source" is in the job market and is currently earning less than $60K per year.

Eric is a person with an extremely high reputation and who eats programming complexity like a cake walk.

(I am trying to get my energy up and rid myself of this persistent nausea, but so far haven't found the combination of eating habits and daily pattern to make it so...36 more days of the 4-drug therapy...)

Quote from: iamnotback on February 19, 2017, 06:01:04 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on January 17, 2017, 09:23:17 AM

Apologies I've been suffering a bad GI infection past few days so my attention span was quite limited. I didn't see your reply.

TOR and I2P can be subverted by national security agencies (don't ask me to rehash the details of this as I already had these discussions long ago in the context of Monero and anonymity). Bottom line is that if a government wants to pinpoint an individual, they have the resources to do so. Again I repeat, Centralization is always the weak point.

Please read my prior post just above yours. Understand how the pathetic Apaches defeated the mighty Spanish.

Also it isn't just that the whales can be targeted by the authorities, but the whales themselves ruin the ecosystem. Only decentralized systems can scale. This is why open source trumps closed source. Who would invest in an ecosystem controlled by individuals.

Imagine if the underlying Internet protocols such as TCP/IP were controlled by whales.

Quote from: iamnotback on February 26, 2017, 08:38:47 PM

I am thinking not to do an ICO.

...

Quote from: iamnotback on February 26, 2017, 10:42:20 PM

Quote from: AusKipper on February 26, 2017, 10:36:37 PM

- When the coins are still worthless at the start, and you really need money to pay developers, you have none.

I am a developer. I eat rice. I live in the Philippines and $300 monthly rent, $256 child support, etc. I have angel investors for my basic needs.

Open source. Anybody can code on it.

Quote from: AusKipper on February 26, 2017, 10:36:37 PM

I still think, despite the issues, the first idea I posted is the best long-term (Dash style mining percentage, voting system)

Illegal.

And its competing for a coming ICO graveyard of bankrupted fools.

Quote from: iamnotback on February 28, 2017, 01:25:35 PM

@mining1:

Thanks for your cordial post. My counter argument is the following essay by Nicholas Taleb:

Quote from: iamnotback on February 28, 2017, 11:33:50 AM

Before you read this, please read Surgeons Should Not Look Like Surgeons by Nicholas Taleb, the progenitor of antifragility.

The high IQ¹ genius Nicholas Taleb will publish his blogs to the blogging platform with the most readers, the best tools, and also the one that is the most antifragile (and a blockchain controlled by whales doesn't qualify as antifragile).

Thus I will welcome him to OpenShare (http://opensha.re). He and I have traded a single, terse email in the past.

Note that in open source, the resources needed come naturally to the project which is the most needed by the ecosystem.

Quote from: iamnotback on March 11, 2017, 07:02:18 AM

Quote from: Fatoshi on March 11, 2017, 05:36:35 AM

they are the ones in your sphere you need to collaborate with I guess ... Vision is often a lonely business.

The necessary productive work is done by collaborating with those who are also working at the same technological level. It is best if you are pretty much working decentralized (some minimal level of synchronization) and have a mutual incentive to collaborate on open source.

...

I need remind myself of this and stay grounded.

Quote from: iamnotback on March 06, 2017, 07:42:48 PM

@Fatoshi, there's no need to panic yet. Delegation is also dilution of momentum, focus, leadership, etc. There is a reason Ethereum Classic didn't prosper and that is because Vitalik isn't leading Classic. Leaders can't delegate leadership. If I am not the right leader, then I won't succeed. But I don't succeed by not leading especially at the nascent stage. The Mythical Man Month also applies very profoundly especially at the nascent stage. I'd spend more time communicating everything that is in my head on every little nuance, than the other person(s) would spend actually getting anything done. Open source avoids to a large extent this Mythical Man Month effect, when the contributors are autonomous. How can they be autonomous when there isn't even an existing project and skeleton for them to work from autonomously (i.e. being autodidact). Even Monero had already Bytecoin, a fork, and Cryptonote whitepaper as a starting point for open source collaboration. Once the project reaches a critical mass, then one person is ineffective, and then open source takes over. But at the nascent stage, even two cooks can be less efficient than one in some cases. If the two cooks are co-equals who've been involved together since the beginning, that can work. But bringing in more cooks when one is trying to start the first recipe, is a recipe for muddling it. This is especially true when what is being cooked has never been cooked before and is to a large extent still only existing in one person's head. The draft whitepaper is around 30,000+ words and 250+ cited references. I got exhausted in December and decided I couldn't write everything down. Btw, before @smooth started (or just after) Aeon and got involved in Steem, we explored about the possibility of working together. And he is very skilled and very intelligent. But even then, it was a lot of communication load. It really isn't easy to integrate two cooks, and especially when you are not in the same office daily or at least able to video conference instantly without notice throughout the work day.

The gist of my plan is to try to get as quickly as possible to some point where others could contribute.

P.S. If you are wondering why @smooth and I didn't work together, from my perspective it was probably because a) he is very highly paid, b) he is anonymous (so that means no video or voice communication), c) I didn't have a final design and sufficient confidence yet in 2015, d) slight clash of personalities and priorities perhaps although we didn't get deep enough to know this for sure, e) I felt it would create animosity with Monero's community and I didn't feel confident enough to put this potential problem on him, f) potential conflicts of interest given for example he is the moderator Monero's main thread here. Mostly I would emphasize my illness and that I wasn't ready, then he got involved in Aeon and Steem. Also as much as I respect everything he has done that is publicly visible, his anonymity was point of worry for me.

Quote from: iamnotback on March 04, 2017, 11:08:02 AM

Thanks @Fatoshi. I am a mix of pragmatic and rebellious. Well I won't be doing an ICO, so if and when you decide to buy some tokens, then it will be for an open source project that is already live. And let's hope we can do something that really makes an impact on more people than Bitcoin has thus far. And that means hopefully it will be the product of the effect and reward of a lot of hyper talented and motivated people, not just myself. I am just the initial force to get the snowball rolling downhill.

The key is making it scalable while maintaining decentralization (which no one else knows how to do, even Lightning Networks won't scale decentralized). And making the blockchain open so anyone can build stuff on the blockchain (which then should drive the number of developers on the open source blockchain project as well). And a monetization model that doesn't require all the app vendors to create their own unwanted tokens as in the current Ethereum "smart contract' ICO craze. And more...

Afaics, my blockchain and consensus design eliminates the huge sunk costs of PoW mining farms, while being more secure. It doesn't have the nothing-at-stake problems of PoS nor the "can get stuck requiring a hard fork" problems of Byzantine agreement (e.g. TenderMint/Cosmos, Byteball, Ethereum's Casper, etc). Again I can't easily summarize this design, because the devil is in the details, so you'll just have to read the whitepaper whenever I decide to publish it.

Here is a hint from the whitepaper and probably the most significant hint I've ever released:

Quote from: AnonyMint's OpenShare whitepaper draft

Even if one concluded the transacting participants only have an altruist-prime incentive to do validation spot checks, it is not an undersupplied public good^{[^subjectivity]} because there is no practical incentive, nor plausible way to verify and pay participants, to not do it. It seems plausible that there is the additional motivation of jealously (aka crab bucket mentality^{[^crab-mentality]}) in that any participant or faction wouldnt want to allow any other participant or faction to be able to cheat to obtain an (especially non-meritorious) advantage. A generative essence that seems to drive the viability of decentralized systems is that if no factions are powerful enough to overcome the checks of the other factions, then the resultant Nash equilibrium is a stalemate that preserves decentralization and meritocracy, which is the antithesis of a power vacuum such as is otherwise the case with politics and democracy.^{[^ESR]} ^{[^voting]}

Note I am hoping someone more skilled than myself at the task of technical writing, could rewrite the whitepaper before it is published. Also simply because writing it and thus rewriting is a huge distracting task and I have far too much to do.

Quote from: Fatoshi on March 10, 2017, 05:23:33 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on March 09, 2017, 11:54:26 PM

I commented about Shannon Code and even today I still can't find the open source repo.

I think Loyyal is not open source, the platform is centralized I guess...

Quote from: iamnotback on March 10, 2017, 11:24:20 PM

If they need closed source at the start, then why all the marketing hype on their Medium page. Seems to me they are more about raising money than accelerating a paradigm and open source collaboration.

Quote from: iamnotback on March 09, 2017, 01:00:43 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on March 09, 2017, 12:54:41 AM

Quote from: superresistant on March 08, 2017, 05:45:23 PM

Why Apps Won't Matter in the Future

...

Btw, I really appreciate you linking to that YouTube, because it reaffirms one of the major strategies of my project. Let me state what that is by explaining what I disagree with in that video, even though I agree with the premise that users don't want the hassles of apps and that the app barrier to having an entirely open source mobile OS not controlled by any vendor (which is where I think we are headed).

The emergence of chatbots and voice assistants isn't an orthogonal choice to superapps, i.e. these can be a feature of a superapp structure. And superapps and chatbots aren't orthogonal to having millions of independent developers. Instead the superapp is the conceptual structure by which we make integration more efficient for users of all these, i.e. remove as many unnecessary pain points as possible whilst still giving users flexibility to plugin new features and activities. And enable to them to run every where with the same code.

Why do you think I am creating a new programming language that transpiles to JavaScript (i.e. it will run on any device with a browser control). I have very ambitious plans. A long-range objective of my project is to supercede (abstract away and replace) Android and iOS eventually (many years down the line).

Quote from: iamnotback on March 11, 2017, 02:43:28 AM

I felt I had made enough progress to spill some beans over at Eric's blog:

Quote from: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7348#comment-1811947

Coming back one more time, because I've read two comments here about the Bitcoin ecosystem since I left, I've made some progress since, and I think I am probably qualified to talk about what if any work in the Bitcoin and altcoin ecosystem is fundamental enough to warrant ESR's attention.

Quote from: Steve P.

Have you thought about blogging at steemit.com?

I earned up to $2000 per blog, but the opportunity to do so was only during July 2016 when the price had pumped up to $4. Jeff Berwick earned $10,000+ on his first blog and some sexbomb earned $20,000+ for an amateur video about makeup. Some of those who blogged in the couple of months before the price rise ended up grossing $100,000+.

We were only able to cash out 50% of what we earned, because of the original 1 year average weighted delay for earned tokens to become free trading.

There is no more value in blogging on Steem and the price is continuing to decline. IMO, the model is incorrect and the system is controlled by whales.

Bitcoin and all the altcoin designs to date lack long-term decentralization (and Bitcoin is currently undergoing the "scalepocalypse" that I predicted a years ago). It is a fact of nature that resources become power-law or exponentially distributed. This is a fundamental problem which so far inhibits maintaining decentralization of control over consensus protocols. Decentralized paradigms have the property of not being fungibly aggregated (i.e. lacking economies-of-scale), e.g. sex (although this can even be argued to be top-down controlled via religion, mass-media, culture, etc).

I am working on this fundamental problem. I don't expect a panacea. TCP/IP isn't a panacea. We strive for paradigms which serve some real world purpose. I am working on a new statically typed language which will transpile to JavaScript (initially bootstrapped via transpiling to TypeScript) and which is focused on solving concurrency soundness without the total order tsuris of Rust's IMO incorrect borrowing model, as well adding lucid code aspects that aren't in JavaScript such as "everything as an expression", Python indenting instead of brace-delimited, integer types, etc.. All still very early stage and I had disseminated Tuberculosis (and concomitant delirium) for the past several years and didn't get the diagnosis until January 2017 so all my plans are all very speculative at this point. A community of investor support is forming but the open source aspect has not yet begun in earnest (except for some Issues discussion interaction with @keean on Github).

Quote from: iamnotback on March 11, 2017, 01:11:15 AM

Okay that last post seemed to kickstart the open source process. Now I have at least one person contacting me asking about starting to develop apps now.

So it is almost time for me to start a Slack group and kickstart the community. But I have some more ground work to do first. So I'll try to be quiet for a while so I can get more done.

8 - 11 more days on the intensive 4-drugs, and my daily productivity is ramping up.