A brief observation since you made a reference to the subject op of ai.

‘Artificial’ is a word, and ‘intelligence’ is a word.

Both words widely used with pretty concrete definitions.

But when you combine the two you get a phrase ‘artificial intelligence’ which is not well defined. It means vastly different things to different people.

When a new concept is formed, any new concept, it takes on a bit of color from projections made by those who use the new phrase. In other words people ‘add’ something to the meaning of the word based on their own emotions, history, schooling etc.

https://www.psychceu.com/Jung/sharplexicon.html

Artificial intelligence has a lot of different meanings depending who you ask.

1) A system designed to superficially mimic human responses

2) A system that can learn the way animals learn

3) A synthesized human like intelligence that has motives which can be programmed.

etc

4) One very obvious definition of artificial intelligence is simply any tool which magnifies or increases the intelligence available to some ‘system’.

By that definition any computer is ‘artificial intelligence’. A microscope or a telescope also. Very simple objects which you can extend from your senses to increase your intelligence, increase the sum of what you know.

~

All of those kinds of artificial intelligence have developed somewhat. 1, 2, 3, and 4 and many others already exist in some form.

Which one should a person focus on?

Obviously a person should try to minimize projection when doing anything scientific, else nightmares.

So that reduces numbers 1 and 3 above. Number two is highly subjective and a person gets into definitions, epistemology, who can say what an animal ‘learns’ etc.

The last and simplest definition of artificial intelligence remains.

So that starts with humans, who by definition have ‘intelligence’.

They use an artificial intelligence tool, computers to artificially extend their intelligence.

So then people, + computers, what’s next? You already have an artificial intelligence ecosystem just with those two things. Is there any possible next step?

Simple solution. Return to developing the coin, as you were doing before I intervened.

You were developing the coin, correct?

I made some comments which were not received well and have said several times ‘please return to what you were doing, and I won’t comment here unless something is addressed to me.’

Please return to the development you were doing before my intrusion.

Develop the coin as you were.

Continue. I watch the thread because the coin is interesting but will not try to influence it in any way, aside from responding if you directly say something to me that seems like it needs a response.

Continue developing your coin. Please.

Stfu. I’ve been involved with this coin for years. I was asked to leave the thread and my response is I will not intrude anymore unless a comment is directed to me.

Don’t address a comment to me, moron, and I will not respond.

That’s true. Namecoin has more security than virtually any other coin because it’s security is never less than that of bitcoin.

~

The most important thing though is to look at how the crypto economy is, and should be developing.

If you had no interest in coins and only an education you would laugh at people spending millions of dollars worth of electricity every day to produce nothing except temporary coins which will disappear eventually.

The earth has a lot of problems that could be solved by people incentivized to solve them. Things that involve scientific research on a vast number of issues which could be developed using non technical input from people who are not utter experts in a specific field.

There are currently a few primitive science coins that use computing power to develop sciences in a primitive way, but they are completely neglected coins because they lack a celebrity factor and any easily facility to be pumped.

If you are not interested in scamming then the best way to use Namecoin might be as a bridge between the scamcoin normal crypto community and the academic types who are interested in pushing sciences.

As long as you don’t pretend that any coins that exist now are great coins, including Namecoin, it would be possible to push the ecosystem in a direction of higher quality.

Gapcoin was designed obviously to find prime gaps for a short period of time.

You can pretend what you like, but anybody can go to the explorer and look at the coin counts each 100k blocks.

People who mined early got a lot of coins, a big reward for finding gaps, people who do so now, current miners, are getting a small fraction of what early miners got.

I never mined any coin. I bought small amounts of many dozens of coins, some of them paid off big, some not.

Gapcoin is one of a few coins that I supported out of interest, but I never mined it nor had interest in mining it simply because it consumed a bit too much resources even to run the wallet.

By your comment you were evidently one of the people mining and accumulating during crypto winter, and now you feel like you are heavily invested and must convince others that you were mining to find prime gaps, and not for longer term financial reasons.

I totally get the financial side. I was living in my car and a tent for a while and coins paid for a substantial increase in my resources.

~

Gapcoin was one of the first coins made to use the electricity consumed to produce data. It has some value for that, and it should be developed in a way that anticipates the coin economy, not as a simple pump. It is obviously not a super high quality science coin despite what you pretend. Anybody can check and see the coin supply over time. That’s just the truth.

~

Again and again, continue your development of the coin as you were doing before I interfered. I’m sorry I intruded and will not comment anymore on this thread unless something is specifically addressed to me and needs a response.

The bottom line really is that 16 million coins exist already, and the block reward has halved a few times.

So most of the ‘incentive’ is with people who hold the coin already.

If you want to strengthen your argument you would make a best case example of how many coins would be issued if the network became active.

There are already 16 million coins issued to people who mined the altcoin winter.

Under the best possible scenario, how many coins could be issued in future years?

Block 100,000 April 2015 2,300,000 coins

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/gap/block.dws?9f71c39ec777fa17296962cd61b0889d50a13e1709a6f4b430d6d53cd5efc54e.htm

Block 200,000 September 2015 4,500,000 coins

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/gap/block.dws?a3c68367258526a34533610865b6bba58348f868ce125e0d39554a651f837cb3.htm

It doesn’t really look great, but it is a decent coin otherwise.

I don’t feel like arguing in circles, but one last point.

There are a few ways something can have value.

Something can have objective value that is indisputable. An apple or orange has indisputable value because you can eat it. Every day thousands of people in poor countries die for lack of food, and any of them acting individually, with no group, would say an apple or orange has real value.

Cryptocurrencies do not have real value unless they produce scientific data.

A coin like bitcoin or Namecoin does not have any inherent value, aside from the value that a group of people agree amongst themselves to give it,

When a person supports any medium of exchange which does not have inherent value, they are doing so on behalf of a group.

Nobody supports bitcoin or Namecoin purely as an individual. The calculus is “If enough people pretend that x coin has inherent value then it will have use as a currency”. Same calculus as fiat.

Pretending that Namecoin at this point offers something unique is not a path to success. There are more and more coins that offer domains, name resolution etc.

Namecoin stands out only for its being the first useful coin and for its celebrity factor. Pretending something else will not work.

Eventually coins will be valued according to what they produce, and it would be wise to keep an eye in that direction, but for now the crypto economy is all a big con game. If you want to promote a Namecoin by itself then you must do what works, which is scamminess. It has no value that would let it be promoted legitimately.

Namecoin, like bitcoin, due to its cloudy history is not a good basis by itself for a project that is completely above board.

A suggestion, discussed elsewhere, is to start with a clean project whose value nobody can dispute. An example would be an exchange listing science math etc coins. There are lots of higher quality math and science coins with sub $1m market caps because there is nowhere to trade them.

If you copy the old BlakeTrader from circa 2015 you could have a simple high quality exchange that would promote better coins and raise the bar a bit, as long as you ran it well. There are lots of people who are interested in coins, digital economy, and so on, but not interested in swimming in the sewage of the current coin economy.

You could add Namecoin as a base for trading pairs, and as long as you are upfront about the flaws in its history, and it’s inferiority to most science coins, you would get some traffic from academic types, college people etc, who might be interested in coins.

A few days ago there was a coin that suddenly jumped into the hundreds of millions market cap.

Researching a bit, the developers had come upon an intriguing idea.

They asked themselves ‘What if people could go to a website and use the website to trade one coin for another?’

So they invented a thing called ‘a coin exchange’ which lets anybody trade any coin on the exchange, and the made their own coin to make money on this fascinating concept. This was just a few days ago.

~

There is no such thing as general usage. It’s all a scam. Nobody is interested in useful currencies. All anybody wants is to be an early bird on a coin before it starts rising meteorically and then to dump it before the crash. Including bitcoin.

These scamcoins all use the same general techniques. If you have a Twitter profile, your profile will be given extra credibility if you click on sponsored links. Some people know this and click on all sponsored links. This gives a Twitter a pipeline to make money. Coin devs can ‘promote’ their Twitter account and select the option ‘goal = followers‘ and they will inexpensively get a large number of followers if they target their ads properly.

Namecoin is actually a sort of legitimate coin. In the scammy fake crypto sphere it has far more real legitimacy than virtually all multi hundred million dollar coins.

Best plan to promote it would be the scam route. Gather some Namecoin whales from the Russian mafia or wherever. Get a competent marketer to make a Twitter account with 100k plus supporters. Use Calvin’s bsv scam model to incentivize hungry devs to create vapor ware tech around the coin, bells and whistles, then kick back and cash in.

It baffles a person how Calvin can shit on a computer and get it listed on hundreds of exchanges but the second recent cryptocurrency to exist, which has a few people who respect its original intent, is struggling.

When I get my pimp suit and have buckets of cash I will declare redheadedness a disease. Shoeshine polish cures it, but first red heads need to know they are ill.

Namecoin could easily be pumped like any coin. It has the unbelievable leverage of being the only coin aside from bitcoin associated with the main celebrity of the current digital coin phase.

It’s weaknesses are known, and they are the same as the weaknesses of all other coins.

1 poor distribution

2 political overtones to the coin

3 etc

But the current coin economy is 100% based on celebrity and fluff. There isn’t the slightest consideration about the actual value of a coin, aside from ‘can I make money selling / dumping after I buy it.’ Nobody, no person anywhere, honestly believes bitcoin actually does anything. It is the ‘herd mentality’ that makes bitcoin into a drug people need.

You won’t create a herd mentality by browser plugins.

From the website and announcement


Now there are ~ 16 million.

It isn’t clear to me exactly how production increases. j0nn9 was doing what all devs, including ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ did. He was pretending the coin was not issued to favor early adopters. Of course any coin whose reward halves in less than a very long time is designed to favor early adopters. Once a coin has bag holders those people can be trusted to promote the coin because they will make extra money. A serious currency for longterm use of course would not cut its issuance rate within a few years. No problems with that, the current economy is about making money and using cleverness to make more than other people.

Regardless, even though prime numbers and gaps might have practical uses, the main appeal to people who work on a coin like this should be that prime numbers are ‘interesting’. They create a new landscape or numberscape that is different from integers. It’s like the difference between walking one foot step by step or jumping a ‘random’ distance each time you step.

I’ve given my opinion on how coins like this will develop eventually, and recommend defanging those devs who stifle outside opinions, including complaining to mods about posts they disagree with. The simple fact that moderators are willing to delete posts by a new profile based on a complaint from an older profile makes this a difficult place to discuss anything.

But the fact that the core crew complains about the opinions of new profiles which do not defer to them makes it a very unworkable environment.

Good luck with developing it, and I hope the price gets pushed up, etc.

First, regarding Aspergers, of course it is one more fictional illness meant to provide a way to make money from its fictional treatment. There are not a lot of tests I have scored 100% on, but I did it on the Aspergers test. So if biolizard has that fictional illness too, I wish him well.

Regarding Namecoin, there is one huge thing that it seems like everybody ignores.

It was the second cryptocurrency and the only cryptocurrency other than bitcoin that Satoshi worked on.

The crypto economy is entirely bogus, but even bogus things are based on something.

In this case, there is a celebrity, Satoshi Nakamoto, who is a major anonymous figure in the public view.

He created bitcoin, and while he was doing that he helped start Namecoin, which was the first coin that followed bitcoin.

All of the Russian spies and FSB and CIA and hundreds of other little bands of local mafias utterly control the coin economy. So it isn’t a real economy. But it’s sort of like a game of musical chairs where you listen carefully to the music, always ready to make a quick exit when the music ends.

Just to point out some history that is relevant to Namecoin’s ‘acceptability’ among many people.

A lot of people avoid coins that might be targeted by a government, and Namecoin falls in that category Somewhat.

Namecoin was heavily trades on the exchange of somebody the U.S. calls a Russian spy or hacker

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/russian-national-and-bitcoin-exchange-charged-21-count-indictment-operating-alleged

and “ On 28 July 2017, US authorities seized the BTC-e.com domain name and 38% of all customer funds.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTC-e

If you look at the blockchain for Namecoin you will see a massive whale held an incredible amount of Namecoin but some time recently dispersed it into many smaller wallets.

It sort of looks like the political drama which will make Namecoin risky has not played out yet.

Going back a few years, it looks like some Russians sort of cornered Namecoin the same way some Americans cornered bitcoin, then U.S. political and legal machinery was used to reduce Namecoin to benefit the U.S. players.

The Mount Gox fiasco involves a group of corrupt U.S. federal agents who were stealing massive amounts of bitcoin.

https://freeross.org/parallel-construction/ Click through linked pages to see the story.

The U.S. refused to arrest any of the corrupt agents until they were literally forced to, and they only arrested those agents who were literally handed to them. Then, of course, they charged a Russian with hacking it.

So for quite some time, the bulk of the crypto economy was a group of corrupt Russian agents and a group of corrupt U.S. agents playing games with huge amounts of crypto.

Things have not changed much since. It doesn’t really look like there will be a level playing field any time soon, and a person should not put too much of their effort into any one crypto project.

What you ‘discovered’ is just the actual crypto economy. It has existed for years. Scam after scam after scam.

There are no coins that were simply created to make a fair economy, and there won’t be any until tribal economies start developing.

You are missing the point.

Gapcoin was made by somebody who wanted to start a small niche in the coin economy that would find prime gaps. In other words a small amount of the energy used to ‘secure networks’ in the coin economy would be directed toward computing to find new gaps, previously unknown gaps.

At that point there were two possible directions the coin could have taken.

a) It could have been refined, step after step, in which case the 2020 coin would have little resemblance to the initial coin,

Or

b) it could simply stagnate with trivial code fixes etc.

Which direction it went was determined by the motives of the people on the network. The network consisted mainly of miners, investors etc.

There were several coins created around that time which used productive algorithms to do various things.

Primecoin looked for prime numbers and initially attracted attention because of its obvious usefulness. In other words bitcoin’s electricity simply disappears, but primecoin’s electricity leaves behind scientific data.

As much as people recognized the usefulness of primecoin’s ‘productive algorithm’, the main public focus was on mining and pumping. It became stagnant and was eventually hijacked by a pump crew for a revival.

Even before gapcoin there were a few Primecoin imitators which tried to issue a new version and pump it.

Several coins came out with a similar focus, doing things like folding proteins with their computing power.

~

When it was issued gapcoin represented a bit of work. It was not a complete clone coin like most coins that year. So it wasn’t a huge amount of work, but it was some work.

Now suppose you are a scientist in 2020 interested in finding primes or prime gaps.

Would you use the existing coins e,g. Gapcoin and Primecoin?

Of course not. You could easily hire a few people to create a far more productive gap or prime seeking coin. A lot has happened in the coin economy since these coins were issued and there is a good reason why they are no longer supported except by bagholders, stakeholders.

It makes no sense to ‘create’ an $x market cap coin to do something which ultimately is a function of its popularity or $ value, if 90% of its supply is distributed.

My suggestion was to start the coin on a path towards becoming a 2020 science coin.

I am not especially a scientist, but a person working on a science coin should try to act on motives that represent the coin. In other words if you want to support gapcoin you have to try to do what will make the coin most productive from the viewpoint of those who might have a scientific interest. I’m not especially interested in prime gaps, same as everybody else on this thread, it’s basically just a ‘prototype’ of a science coin, an early example.

My criticism of Graham specifically involves his trying to determine who should and should not be involved in gapcoin. He has the view that he is in charge of gapcoin because he is a coder and therefore he has a flock on this thread who should either follow him or leave. He is a competent coder but you can look at his work and see his focus is on ‘competent coding’ and not on anything more meta than that. Bayareacoins likewise, a competent marketer without much sense of a bigger picture. Bitcoinfx has a better view but for whatever reason feels compelled to not stray from ‘the group’.

In general, coins, the coin economy, has been hijacked to serve coders.

All of the money flows in a direction that supports the view that coders manage policy, and that problematic path is maintained by people, as on this thread, who imagine that their views have more value because they can code.

It’s the same thing you see in a lot of industries.

Look at the police. Law enforcement in the U.S. is run by the police, police unions, etc, so it’s purpose is to serve police. I remember the original NYPD blue flu seasons when they would demand more money then call in sick en masse until they got a massive pay increase.

Look at big Pharma. It’s run to provide as much cash as possible to its stakeholders with only superficial respect paid to medicine. They know they have to do a bare minimum of real development to make money, but their main product is diseases not cures.

TLDR There is plenty to read. Please continue with your development of gapcoin. I will avoid responding to anything on this thread that is not directed to me, so you can develop without interference.

Perfect example. Wasn’t going to respond because he has obviously blocked me, but it’s an example.

I posted a list of domains being offered free to somebody who could be trusted to make a math / science exchange.

Somebody reported the post to moderators.

Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.
Deleted Post
« Sent to: SinbadGuthrie on: August 29, 2020, 09:22:06 PM »   Reply with quote Delete

Then he and his pretzel head partner Graham make a big production out of blocking me so all of their supporters know to do that.

I’ve got nothing against BayAreaCoins. He dresses like a wannabe pimp but acts like a coin whore, so who knows what he is after. Graham likewise, reading back a few pages he lets his followers know that he is blocking another long time gapcoin supporter for not being up to his snuff, even before he blocked me. This is like a bunch of dogs sniffing each other to determine who is part of the gang.

Multi tasking. As I said before if something is addressed to me I may answer, but otherwise won’t interfere in what you all are doing.


As mentioned before, I paid Fairglu to start the cryptoid explorer when all of the miners couldn’t be bothered to spend a little money. I never made a penny mining, but invested more than those who were making money. I did make a few hundred trading gap on Polo. If nobody else wants to pay for the explorer now then I guess you will have to do it. 🥱

I’m not questioning whether you are putting work in. Your website is focused on the purpose of the coin, little doubt.

My doubts are about the people involved, including you, blindly yielding to various people because of their specific tech ability to help prop up the coin, and not anything else. It’s a bunch of sheep blindly following anybody with tech skills and trying to eliminate any threat to that hierarchy. Coins have been hijacked by developers who now appoint themselves as leaders of the coinosphere. I get the whole ‘we have to be nice to developers because they can push the coin up’ thing, but people like Graham and BayAreaCoins are going to run gapcoin back into the ground if you continue blindly submitting to them.

Fact remains, simple statistics, you could find 20 or 30 John Freys with stronger evidence of being Gap dev.

The reference to Satoshi was poking fun at your making a random person the Gapcoin developer. In other words if you are going to pick a random person as Gapcoin developer why not go the whole 9 yards and make him Satoshi also?

I didn’t deliberately ignore your questions, I’ll go through your post and answer everything that has a “?”

1 @SinbadGuthrie - Your 'evidence' in regards to the 'true' developer would be?

Not my business nor interest to find the specific John Frey who made Gapcoin. My only point was that the person you identified is pretty likely not the Gapcoin developer. If you want to find the original Gapcoin developer send an email to that email address. Or Google “John Frey” + bitcoin, or “John Frey” + prime gaps, or look for John Frey on LinkedIn.

2 @SinbadGuthrie - The improved Prime Gap finding cryptocurrency is where?

In Korea somewhere if I recall, not sure. When you post serious evidence about your claim I’ll try to do the same.

Then use it.