iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 26, 2017, 08:30:35 PM #562 Quote from: alkan on March 26, 2017, 09:42:55 AM I really like the comparison with the n-body problem and now even think that the block size could in fact stabilize around an equilibrium point. It seems that there must be a block size (the central mass) where no individual miner has an incentive to deviate by building smaller or larger blocks.



But the point was that is not a stable equilibrium because the profits are not accruing proportional to hashrate due to unequal propagation or orphan rates (i.e. wasting more hashrate). Thus over time the hashrate concentrates until there is a 33 - 50% attack and then eventually the cartel can set any block size it wants with a 50% attack.



That is why Monero's design also will end up centralized. But the point was that is not a stable equilibrium because the profits are not accruing proportional to hashrate due to unequal propagation or orphan rates (i.e. wasting more hashrate). Thus over time the hashrate concentrates until there is a 33 - 50% attack and then eventually the cartel can set any block size it wants with a 50% attack.That is why Monero's design also will end up centralized.

iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 26, 2017, 08:55:16 PM

Last edit: March 26, 2017, 10:07:36 PM by iamnotback #563 Quote from: iamnotback on March 26, 2017, 08:52:28 PM Quote from: dinofelis on March 26, 2017, 07:52:10 PM except for burning seigniorage where it is brilliant



Again, PoW is great for coin creation. But that's it.



Burning seigniorage (i.e. sending the capital to the electricity costs instead of to any entity involved with the token) doesn't prevent whales from taking a power-law distribution of the money supply. So I fail to see the advantage of having one set of whales or another set of whales.



If the people who take the seigniorage are evangelists and developers of the ecosystem, and if they are sufficient in number, then at least some of your whales are hopefully ardent supporters and not some venomous snakes that appear from the dark shadows of high finance.



OTOH, if the venomous snakes don't want to share the stage with whales who they think are undeserving, they make take their capital else where. So once again whales are back to competing for the other 50% of the wealth which isn't concentrated.



I think it is true though that if the money supply can be distributed competitively then more whales and talented will see it as a level playing field to compete in.



So I think any competitive distribution which doesn't give privilege to any group is acceptable. But even with PoW, it isn't truly competitive because so many people do not know how to mine. So in effect your distribution paradigm is filtering the type of people you want in your ecosystem.



So if you want only geeks, then do a PoW distribution. Maybe geeks are all that matters now and the rest of the world are fodder?



https://urbit.org/docs/about/objections/#-urbit-is-a-total-scamcoin-it-s-100-premined

Burning seigniorage (i.e. sending the capital to the electricity costs instead of to any entity involved with the token) doesn't prevent whales from taking a power-law distribution of the money supply. So I fail to see the advantage of having one set of whales or another set of whales.If the people who take the seigniorage are evangelists and developers of the ecosystem, and if they are sufficient in number, then at least some of your whales are hopefully ardent supporters and not some venomous snakes that appear from the dark shadows of high finance.OTOH, if the venomous snakes don't want to share the stage with whales who they think are undeserving, they make take their capital else where. So once again whales are back to competing for the other 50% of the wealth which isn't concentrated.I think it is true though that if the money supply can be distributed competitively then more whales and talented will see it as a level playing field to compete in.So I think any competitive distribution which doesn't give privilege to any group is acceptable. But even with PoW, it isn't truly competitive because so many people do not know how to mine. So in effect your distribution paradigm is filtering the type of people you want in your ecosystem.So if you want only geeks, then do a PoW distribution. Maybe geeks are all that matters now and the rest of the world are fodder?

alkan



Offline



Activity: 149

Merit: 103







Full MemberActivity: 149Merit: 103 Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 26, 2017, 09:02:57 PM #564 Quote from: iamnotback on March 26, 2017, 08:30:35 PM But the point was that is not a stable equilibrium because the profits are not accruing proportional to hashrate due to unequal propagation or orphan rates (i.e. wasting more hashrate). Thus over time the hashrate concentrates until there is a 33 - 50% attack and then eventually the cartel can set any block size it wants with a 50% attack.



While it's true that bigger hashrates and better network connectivity might result in centralization (eventually leading to a 33% or 50% concentration), the problem of proportionality isn't specific to the question of unlimited block size or the fee market in general. It also occurs for block rewards (



In the short run, I don't see how this problem would affect the equilibrium. It's an expected behaviour of markets that the suppliers don't have the same conditions and cost structure, which is why their individual supply curves all look different. Together they build the market supply, so that an equilibrium can finally be reached.

What makes the present case (unlimited block size vs. tx fees) really different from other markets is not the centralization aspect (economies-of-scale exists in a lot of markets), but the fact that the supply curves are interdependent.



It's a bit like a group of professional fishers who are all fishing in the same lake and selling their fish to the same consumers. The amount of fish produced by any single fisher can contribute to overfishing and diminish the supply of the other fishers as well. While it's true that bigger hashrates and better network connectivity might result in centralization (eventually leading to a 33% or 50% concentration), the problem of proportionality isn't specific to the question of unlimited block size or the fee market in general. It also occurs for block rewards ( https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time ).In the short run, I don't see how this problem would affect the equilibrium. It's an expected behaviour of markets that the suppliers don't have the same conditions and cost structure, which is why their individual supply curves all look different. Together they build the market supply, so that an equilibrium can finally be reached.What makes the present case (unlimited block size vs. tx fees) really different from other markets is not the centralization aspect (economies-of-scale exists in a lot of markets), but the fact that the supply curves are interdependent.It's a bit like a group of professional fishers who are all fishing in the same lake and selling their fish to the same consumers. The amount of fish produced by any single fisher can contribute to overfishing and diminish the supply of the other fishers as well.

iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 26, 2017, 10:34:06 PM

Last edit: March 26, 2017, 11:22:57 PM by iamnotback #565 Quote from: iamnotback on March 26, 2017, 10:23:17 PM Quote from: IadixDev on March 26, 2017, 09:34:16 PM It's the same pb with plato and athenian liberal democracy vs republic. The former always lead to collusion of interest and the second lead to ethics and putting wisedom and competency at the center of the game. The two are always in opposition.



Interesting analogy. Bitcoin is a republic where knowledge is power and the whale MP took control early on by establishing the MPEx stock and options exchange so that all the speculation in the system was feeding back to him and he was able to aggregate a million "Butts". He also become familiar with all the whales via that business. Heck maybe MPEx is Satoshi or knows who Satoshi is.



Bitcoin isn't a democracy because there is no need to



What I try to do in my design is balance the power between the democracy and the republic, so that they keep each other in a stalemate. That doesn't prevent the power-law distribution, nor should it. It hopefully makes the system anti-fragile, thus (hopefully) superior to Satoshi's design. And then I make it (I think) implausible to buy the vote of the n00bs, because there is no voting. The result (hopefully) is the nobody controls it and it obeys its protocol in a Nash equilibrium. My design I think quite clever, but we'll have to see what peer review thinks (hopefully it doesn't stink).

Interesting analogy. Bitcoin is a republic where knowledge is power and the whale MP took control early on by establishing the MPEx stock and options exchange so that all the speculation in the system was feeding back to him and he was able to aggregate a million "Butts". He also become familiar with all the whales via that business. Heck maybe MPEx is Satoshi or knows who Satoshi is.Bitcoin isn't a democracy because there is no need to fool the n00bs to buy their vote . The whales (aka economic majority) have the only vote in Satoshi's PoW.What I try to do in my design is balance the power between the democracy and the republic, so that they keep each other in a stalemate. That doesn't prevent the power-law distribution, nor should it. It hopefully makes the system anti-fragile, thus (hopefully) superior to Satoshi's design. And then I make it (I think) implausible to buy the vote of the n00bs, because there is no voting. The result (hopefully) is the nobody controls it and it obeys its protocol in a Nash equilibrium. My design I think quite clever, but we'll have to see what peer review thinks (hopefully it doesn't stink).

IadixDev



Offline



Activity: 294

Merit: 124





They're tactical







Full MemberActivity: 294Merit: 124They're tactical Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 27, 2017, 10:43:01 AM

Last edit: March 27, 2017, 02:24:04 PM by IadixDev #567 I dont think Nash equilibrium is the same things than byzantine general problem.



Nash equilibrium idea emerge from cold war and reaching stability in bipolar world.



Equilibrium = equi + liber , which describe a system remaining stable by itself without external force applied to it.



In term of newtonian physics a system is at equilibrium when the sum of forces is equal zero and the system remain stable by itself



Like a scale with equal weight on both side remain immobile.



The byzantine general problem is another thing, it's a system to be able to reach a decision between several party to go forward all together in the same plan.



The goal of blockchain is not to reach an equilibrium or point of immobility, it's goal is to constantly make new decision that all participant agree on without requiring a single point of authority.



To me it seems to be a different pb.



In a world in perfect equilibrium, there is no trading or exchange at all. http://nodix.eu

iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 27, 2017, 03:25:13 PM

Last edit: March 27, 2017, 04:18:24 PM by iamnotback #568



I am feeling better on the 2 antibiotics, but I still go through a fair amount of pseudo-delirium (very difficult to explain, not quite delirious but not totally lucid). It is much improved and I am having some very lucid periods, but also I get very exhausted at the latter end of each work day and also I have this "hum" of brain fog that sort of hangs around nearly always.



So do expect lapses of logic and assimilation (even of things I had written before). Not that I wouldn't make errors if totally healthy, but that it is more likely now.



I expect this to continue to improve and especially so when I complete my TB medication in ~14 more weeks. I've completed ~10 weeks of TB medication thus far (first 8 weeks was the intensive 4 drug phase).



My energy level is much improved since I reduced from the 4 drug to 2 drug daily regimen 9 days ago. And my productivity is increasing as a result.



Quote from: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080708160152AAakNm8 How does someone die from tuberculosis?



Best Answer: They often died of blood loss ... the infection eroded a blood vessel and they bled to death, which could be spectacularly messy and gory if your plot needs it with blood pouring out of their mouth and nose OR or just a sudden fit of coughing and falling over dead with an internal bleeding.



Another way, less spectacular, was slow suffocation as the lungs became filled with the "tubercules"and the person slowly breathed less and less well and then died. The lack of oxygen was stressful to the heart, and it would just stop.

Source(s):

I'm a microbiologist ...we study this gory stuff.



No replies desired on this. This is just an update for those who are interested in the progress of the project.I am feeling better on the 2 antibiotics, but I still go through a fair amount of pseudo-delirium (very difficult to explain, not quite delirious but not totally lucid). It is much improved and I am having some very lucid periods, but also I get very exhausted at the latter end of each work day and also I have this "hum" of brain fog that sort of hangs around nearly always.So do expect lapses of logic and assimilation (even of things I had written before). Not that I wouldn't make errors if totally healthy, but that it is more likely now.I expect this to continue to improve and especially so when I complete my TB medication in ~14 more weeks. I've completed ~10 weeks of TB medication thus far (first 8 weeks was the intensive 4 drug phase).My energy level is much improved since I reduced from the 4 drug to 2 drug daily regimen 9 days ago. And my productivity is increasing as a result.

alkan



Offline



Activity: 149

Merit: 103







Full MemberActivity: 149Merit: 103 Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 27, 2017, 04:57:16 PM #571 Quote from: jbreher on March 27, 2017, 06:26:44 AM I think the market is merely an aggregate of individuals. I think there is no requirement for each miner's fee vs orphan balance point to equal any others' for the market to create an aggregate equilibrium.

Well, in regular markets there's no such requirement. Every individual supplier has its own cost structure and supply function. What makes the mining market special is the fact that every miner who changes his block space supply (i.e. block size) will influence the supply curves of all the other miners.



If we set aside the problem of unequal hash rates/network connectivity that gets reinforced by the free choice of block size, the block size could IMO stabilize at an equilibrium point, which would not be at the intersection of market supply-demand but a converged individual equilibrium where no miner has an incentive to deviate from the average block size by building smaller or bigger blocks. Unfortunately, it seems that such an equilibrium can only exist if everyone has the same supply curve, but not in the real world scenario where economies-of-scale and geographic location (both in terms of connectivity and electricity price) results in different supply curves for individual miners.



Quote from: jbreher on March 27, 2017, 06:26:44 AM

I think several parties would be well served by re-reading 'I, Pencil': https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil-audio-pdf-and-html/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwzd3GBRDks7SYuNHi3JEBEiQAIm6EIwYR2Fs9fOqpwy_2NVN1xOT4S8hBws9q6EnTWxCLAn4aAn8B8P8HAQ

Thanks for the hint. Well, in regular markets there's no such requirement. Every individual supplier has its own cost structure and supply function. What makes the mining market special is the fact that every miner who changes his block space supply (i.e. block size) will influence the supply curves of all the other miners.If we set aside the problem of unequal hash rates/network connectivity that gets reinforced by the free choice of block size, the block size could IMO stabilize at an equilibrium point, which would not be at the intersection of market supply-demand but a converged individual equilibrium where no miner has an incentive to deviate from the average block size by building smaller or bigger blocks. Unfortunately, it seems that such an equilibrium can only exist if everyone has the same supply curve, but not in the real world scenario where economies-of-scale and geographic location (both in terms of connectivity and electricity price) results in different supply curves for individual miners.Thanks for the hint.

CorePrime95



Offline



Activity: 190

Merit: 101







Full MemberActivity: 190Merit: 101 Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 27, 2017, 06:57:35 PM #573 Quote from: iamnotback on March 27, 2017, 03:25:13 PM

Best Answer: They often died of blood loss ... the infection eroded a blood vessel and they bled to death, which could be spectacularly messy and gory if your plot needs it with blood pouring out of their mouth and nose OR or just a sudden fit of coughing and falling over dead with an internal bleeding.



Another way, less spectacular, was slow suffocation as the lungs became filled with the "tubercules"and the person slowly breathed less and less well and then died. The lack of oxygen was stressful to the heart, and it would just stop.





Shit mate, you need to take high doses of Vitamin C. It is used for repairing blood vessels. Shit mate, you need to take high doses of Vitamin C. It is used for repairing blood vessels.

Fatoshi



Offline



Activity: 672

Merit: 251









Sr. MemberActivity: 672Merit: 251 Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 27, 2017, 07:27:39 PM #574 Quote from: dinofelis on March 27, 2017, 06:53:00 PM Quote from: iamnotback on March 27, 2017, 03:53:55 PM



Quote from: iamnotback on March 27, 2017, 03:53:16 PM



Quote from: iamnotback on March 27, 2017, 03:07:03 PM Quote from: iamnotback on March 27, 2017, 03:41:51 PM And realize that the whales' can kill the fork because they already own tokens in both forks from the inception .



And that is what makes it different from launching an altcoin.



The whales of Bitcoin get free tokens to dump on your coin so they can buy Bitcoins.



However in Byteball's case looks like Tony could have made deals with the exchanges to kickback some of the tokens to him in exchange for his scheme. It certainly could be a scam, as @cryptohunter alleged. Who knows? Where there is honey, there are usually flies.

The fundamental reason that giving away tokens without proof-of-burn makes it impossible for that token to compete with Bitcoin:The whales of Bitcoin get free tokens to dump on your coin so they can buy Bitcoins.However in Byteball's case looks like Tony could have made deals with the exchanges to kickback some of the tokens to him in exchange for his scheme. It certainly could be a scam, as @cryptohunter alleged. Who knows? Where there is honey, there are usually flies. I don't like the Byteball distribution method:

I think there is a solution to this. My idea would be to give all past bitcoin addresses between two given block numbers (say, after 2011 and before 2014 or so) that ever appeared in an input a single coin. So there's no proportionality between bitcoin WHALES and the new distribution. The reason to pick inputs is that that means that the corresponding secret key exists or has existed.

Next, each of these redeemed past addresses would have a deterministic random number of blocks before they can spend it, spreading the "dumping" over a long time.

I think there is a solution to this. My idea would be to give all past bitcoinbetween two given block numbers (say, after 2011 and before 2014 or so) that ever appeared in an input a single coin. So there's no proportionality between bitcoin WHALES and the new distribution. The reason to pick inputs is that that means that the corresponding secret key exists or has existed.Next, each of these redeemed past addresses would have a deterministic random number of blocks before they can spend it, spreading the "dumping" over a long time.



This might be the key for distribution.



I have always thought anominity is the key element of Bitcoin, libertarianism and generally fits with my idea of freedom and internet usage ....and in many ways it is. But after watching a YouTube clip of Gavin Mcginnes I felt challenged by this idea. Maybe anominity in many cases is actually cowardice? Of course there are times you don't want those in authority to know what you are doing but sometimes it's used to be a dick, and a I should know cause sometimes I'm a dick online.



Check out the clip, Gavin has got to be the funniest guy in the who alt right/libertarian scene.



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V0WBAjIP2Yk









So how about those who want to buy have to post their face and passport or something that identifies themselves in some way. Of course this will be painful and for many unacceptable BUT that's the point, it's a hurdle you got to cross to get coins. Plus you put a limit, say 5-10btc per person. Plus no whale is going to get all their friends to post themselves with passports so it's an effective whale deterrent.



Good idea? This might be the key for distribution.I have always thought anominity is the key element of Bitcoin, libertarianism and generally fits with my idea of freedom and internet usage ....and in many ways it is. But after watching a YouTube clip of Gavin Mcginnes I felt challenged by this idea. Maybe anominity in many cases is actually cowardice? Of course there are times you don't want those in authority to know what you are doing but sometimes it's used to be a dick, and a I should know cause sometimes I'm a dick online.Check out the clip, Gavin has got to be the funniest guy in the who alt right/libertarian scene.So how about those who want to buy have to post their face and passport or something that identifies themselves in some way. Of course this will be painful and for many unacceptable BUT that's the point, it's a hurdle you got to cross to get coins. Plus you put a limit, say 5-10btc per person. Plus no whale is going to get all their friends to post themselves with passports so it's an effective whale deterrent.Good idea?

contraband



Offline



Activity: 1134

Merit: 514





Community Manager: ETN







Hero MemberActivity: 1134Merit: 514Community Manager: ETN Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 27, 2017, 10:26:53 PM #575 It is scary how long you were talking about being sick, and didnt know what is was. You definately seem less stressed lately, compared to months ago. I know it had to drive you crazy knowing "something" was going on, and sitting there wondering.



I always check in and see how you are doing.



The fact that you have had success in the early stages of the internet, and made it happen "in the real world", is what gets my attention.



Its great to see you are well on your way to putting this health scare in the rearview mirror, and can then move full speed ahead on the project.



Byteball was a horrible distribution. Hell of a racket for those that knew it was coming.

iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 27, 2017, 11:07:31 PM

Last edit: March 27, 2017, 11:51:54 PM by iamnotback #576 Quote from: IadixDev on March 27, 2017, 10:43:01 AM I dont think Nash equilibrium is the same things than byzantine general problem.



...



Equilibrium = equi + liber , which describe a system remaining stable by itself without external force applied to it.



...



The byzantine general problem is another thing, it's a system to be able to reach a decision between several party to go forward all together in the same plan.



Nash equilibrium means there are no secret strategies which make any choice of strategy less than optimum. It doesn't mean the system doesn't trend towards economies-of-scale which make it centralized.



BFT is the ability of the distributed system to perform its function with up to a certain threshold of faults and liveness amongst system components.



I won't get into BGP because there was some debate as to whether Satoshi even solved it. I don't want to get into that discussion right now. Nash equilibrium means there are no secret strategies which make any choice of strategy less than optimum. It doesn't mean the system doesn't trend towards economies-of-scale which make it centralized.BFT is the ability of the distributed system to perform its function with up to a certain threshold of faults and liveness amongst system components.I won't get into BGP because there was some debate as to whether Satoshi even solved it. I don't want to get into that discussion right now.

iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"? March 28, 2017, 02:04:30 AM

Last edit: March 29, 2017, 04:35:51 PM by iamnotback #578 Quote from: contraband on March 27, 2017, 10:26:53 PM It is scary how long you were talking about being sick, and didnt know what is was. You definately seem less stressed lately, compared to months ago. I know it had to drive you crazy knowing "something" was going on, and sitting there wondering.



Thanks. Really it was a horrible 5 - 6 years and I don't even want to think about how I wasted the tail end of my 40s and the physical struggle was like a low grade torture for 5 years (not quite as acute as waterboarding but worse cumulatively I think ... and I don't know what are the long-term psychological impacts ... no time to ponder that now ... just happy to be feeling better and able to work and soon ramping back up sports/sex life). One positive is that Bitcoin and BCT provided an outlet that kept my drive to live going, sustained me financially, and gave me some productive base with which to rocket forward now that I am getting back to normal productivity.



Btw, I think I am feeling much better today, because I got some serious urge to slam dancing when I stumbled onto



OpenShare Forum?



I don't want to keep bumping this thread as it is annoying to the readers of Altcoin Discussion. So I want to get a forum rolling for OpenShare.



So I am reviewing some information about forums and I think it is also interesting to analyze this in case we will have discussion forums and comment threads on OpenShare apps.



I think we also need



I think we should learn from the excellently written



Quote from: Joel Spolsky If you offer the notify me checkbox, these people will post their question, check the box, and never come back. Theyll just read the replies in their mailbox. The end.



Agreed but stated from a non-monopolistic perspective. No features which encourage users to forsake the interactivity for no justifiable reason.



Quote from: Joel Spolsky Branching makes discussions get off track, and reading a thread that is branched is discombobulating and unnatural. Better to force people to start a new topic if they want to get off topic.



https://blog.codinghorror.com/web-discussions-flat-by-design/

https://blog.codinghorror.com/discussions-flat-or-threaded/



Branching. Agreed. I'd prefer a feature where each post has an icon where one can see a drop-down list of all the threads which branched off from that post. Ditto for the OP thread an icon to click for showing which post the thread branched from, if any.



Quote from: Joel Spolsky Q. Your list of topics is sorted wrong. It should put the topic with the most recent reply first, rather than listing them based on the time of the original post.



A. It could do that; thats what many web-based forums do. But when you do that certain topics tend to float near the top forever, because people will be willing to argue about H1B visas, or whats wrong with Computer Science in college, until the end of the universe. Every day 100 new people arrive in the forum for the first time, and they start at the top of the list, and they dive into that topic with gusto.



The way I do it has two advantages. One, topics rapidly go away, so conversation remains relatively interesting. Eventually people have to just stop arguing about a given point.



Two, the order of topics on the home page is stable, so its easier to find a topic again that you were interested in because it stays in the same place relative to its neighbors.



Joel's preference seems to be better for discussion that is current events and not normative. So I'd want the option to do it both ways. For sub-forum categories which are normative, I'd want the most recently commented to be first to be the default. For current events categories, I'd prefer by default ranking by age of the OP of the thread. I think the user should also be able to change the ranking preference.



Quote from: Joel Spolsky Very few people reread their post carefully. If they wanted to reread their post carefully, they could have done it while they were editing it, but they are bored by their post already, its yesterdays newspaper, they are ready to move on.



Editing. I think being able to edit a post is very important, but I think if it is edited beyond say 5 or 10 minutes, then it should have icon which shows the edit history when clicked. Also posts edited within that 5 or 10 minutes should have a special highlight when page is reloaded for those who had previously loaded the page with the prior version of the post, i.e. readers should be made aware of the edits of posts they might have already read.



Quote from: Joel Spolsky Q. Why dont you show me the post Im replying to, while I compose my reply?



A. Because that will tempt you to quote a part of it in your own reply. Anything I can do to reduce the amount of quoting will increase the fluidity of the conversation, making topics interesting to read. Whenever someone quotes something from above, the person who reads the topic has to read the same thing twice in a row, which is pointless and automatically guaranteed to be boring.



Sometimes people still try to quote things, usually because they are replying to something from three posts ago, or because theyre mindlessly nitpicking and they need to rebut 12 separate points. These are not bad people, theyre just programmers, and programming requires you to dot every i and cross every t, so you get into a frame of mind where you cant leave any argument unanswered any more than you would ignore an error from your compiler. But Ill be damned if I make it EASY on you. Im almost tempted to try to find a way to show posts as images so you cant cut and paste them. If you really need to reply to something from three posts ago, kindly take a moment to compose a decent English sentence (When Fred said blah, he must not have considered ), dont litter the place with your <<<>>>s.

Quoting. I agree too much quoting is noisy (yet I quote frequently myself) and indicative of a conversation that has been tedious and pedantic. Better if the writer can compose a cogent reply without any quotations. But sometimes that is necessary, and especially for technical discussion. I quoted Joel above. I think perhaps what I would like is for quotations to be displayed in much smaller fonts and greyed (or lower contrast for colors) out. Then when the user hovers their mouse over a quotation for a second, the color returns to normal contrast until the mouse moves (even if still within the quotation rectangle). Clicking the quotation would increase the font size to normal (and color to normal contrast) until it is clicked again. That makes it more work to read quotes (either eye strain at smaller size or more hovering/clicking) but they stay out of the way when not really necessary to read them so clearly. So then the person replying has to optimize their quoting to essential quotes and/or ones that are only need for reference but aren't absolutely necessary to read. I also like that when replying to a post, there is an icon on your post which links to the post that was replied to, so then it isn't necessary to quote to indicate which post is being replied to.



Quote from: Joel Spolsky Q. Why do posts disappear sometimes?



A. The forum is moderated. That means that a few people have the magick powah to delete a post. If the post they delete is the first one in a thread, the thread itself appears deleted because theres no way to get to it.



Q. But thats censorship!



A. No, its picking up the garbage in the park. If we didnt do it, the signal to noise ratio would change dramatically for the worse ... I am pragmatic and understand that a totally uncensored world just looks like your inbox: 80% spam, advertising, and fraud, rapidly driving away the few interesting people.



Q. How do you decide what to delete?



A. First of all, I remove radically off-topic posts or posts which, in my opinion, are only of interest to a very small number of people. If something is not about the same general topics as Joel on Software is about, it may be interesting as all heck to certain people but its not likely to interest the majority of people who came to my site to hear about software development.



Q. Instead of deleting posts, why dont you have a moderation scheme, where people vote on how much they like a post, and people can choose how high the vote has to be before they read it?



A. This is, of course, how Slashdot works, and Ill bet you 50% of the people who read Slashdot regularly have never figured it out.



There are three things I dont like about this. One: its more UI complication, a feature that people need to learn how to use. Two: it creates such complicated politics that it make the Byzantine Empire look like 3rd grade school government. And three: when you read Slashdot with the filters turned up high enough that you only see the interesting posts, the narrative is completely lost. You just get a bunch of random disjointed statements with no context.



I noticed that censorship on Joel's StackExchange sites causes the politics to end up in Meta. Thus I think Joel is wrong in one sense in that it is not good to remove an activity that people want to do, if you can allow it in a way that doesn't degrade the experience of the site. So I have a different proposal for how to handle it.



I also dislike noise. I often wish I could organize threads to push what I think are not very important posts to the side so they don't clutter the readers' focus. Nobody has time to read everything. Would any of us read this entire thread if we just arrived at this thread for the first time today? Also voting reflects many diverse opinions which when summed together don't necessarily make any sense. So what I'd prefer is that reader can select the preferences of the a moderator which they can select from a drop-down menu, with the thread creator as the default moderator. If they select "no moderator" then they see all the posts. So no posts actually ever are deleted, rather only hidden by the moderator. And every user is a moderator, they just aren't the default moderator which is exclusive to thread OP or blog author.



As an added level of complexity and I am not sure if I would end up liking this, I might like to experiment with users can have their own personalized list of moderators they trust, then have the option to views as moderation by the union of those moderation actions. In addition to deletion, I'd experiment with moderation of ranking of threads and rankings of any branches of discussion (note no branching within forum threads, but perhaps blog comments would have branching).



These are examples of innovations I would like to do for apps we create. And I am an idea machine that will spew out 100 ideas a day if that is our focus. Perhaps some of you too also have great ideas or even corrections/improvements on the above ideas.



Edit: also want it to support markdown.











Does anyone know of any forum software which has these features? Btw, I think I am feeling much better today, because I got some serious urge to slam dancing when I stumbled onto this old song . And past days I've been eating like crazy: cheese, butter, Angus beef, every 2 hours woofing down more food.I don't want to keep bumping this thread as it is annoying to the readers of Altcoin Discussion. So I want to get a forum rolling for OpenShare.So I am reviewing some information about forums and I think it is also interesting to analyze this in case we will have discussion forums and comment threads on OpenShare apps.I think we also need a Q&A functionality , because for some topics the format of competing answers that are voted up or down is superior to a long-winded discussion. These Q&A form the basis of a Wiki.I think we should learn from the excellently written Building Communities with Software by Joel Spolsky who is btw the creator of StackExchange (which pisses me off with their censorship sometimes).Agreed but stated from a non-monopolistic perspective. No features which encourage users to forsake the interactivity for no justifiable reason.Branching. Agreed. I'd prefer a feature where each post has an icon where one can see a drop-down list of all the threads which branched off from that post. Ditto for the OP thread an icon to click for showing which post the thread branched from, if any.Joel's preference seems to be better for discussion that is current events and not normative. So I'd want the option to do it both ways. For sub-forum categories which are normative, I'd want the most recently commented to be first to be the default. For current events categories, I'd prefer by default ranking by age of the OP of the thread. I think the user should also be able to change the ranking preference.Editing. I think being able to edit a post is very important, but I think if it is edited beyond say 5 or 10 minutes, then it should have icon which shows the edit history when clicked. Also posts edited within that 5 or 10 minutes should have a special highlight when page is reloaded for those who had previously loaded the page with the prior version of the post, i.e. readers should be made aware of the edits of posts they might have already read.Quoting. I agree too much quoting is noisy (yet I quote frequently myself) and indicative of a conversation that has been tedious and pedantic. Better if the writer can compose a cogent reply without any quotations. But sometimes that is necessary, and especially for technical discussion. I quoted Joel above. I think perhaps what I would like is for quotations to be displayed in much smaller fonts and greyed (or lower contrast for colors) out. Then when the user hovers their mouse over a quotation for a second, the color returns to normal contrast until the mouse moves (even if still within the quotation rectangle). Clicking the quotation would increase the font size to normal (and color to normal contrast) until it is clicked again. That makes it more work to read quotes (either eye strain at smaller size or more hovering/clicking) but they stay out of the way when not really necessary to read them so clearly. So then the person replying has to optimize their quoting to essential quotes and/or ones that are only need for reference but aren't absolutely necessary to read. I also like that when replying to a post, there is an icon on your post which links to the post that was replied to, so then it isn't necessary to quote to indicate which post is being replied to.I noticed that censorship on Joel's StackExchange sites causes the politics to end up in Meta. Thus I think Joel is wrong in one sense in that it is not good to remove an activity that people want to do, if you can allow it in a way that doesn't degrade the experience of the site. So I have a different proposal for how to handle it.I also dislike noise. I often wish I could organize threads to push what I think are not very important posts to the side so they don't clutter the readers' focus. Nobody has time to read everything. Would any of us read this entire thread if we just arrived at this thread for the first time today? Also voting reflects many diverse opinions which when summed together don't necessarily make any sense. So what I'd prefer is that reader can select the preferences of the a moderator which they can select from a drop-down menu, with the thread creator as the default moderator. If they select "no moderator" then they see all the posts. So no posts actually ever are deleted, rather only hidden by the moderator. And every user is a moderator, they just aren't the default moderator which is exclusive to thread OP or blog author.As an added level of complexity and I am not sure if I would end up liking this, I might like to experiment with users can have their own personalized list of moderators they trust, then have the option to views as moderation by the union of those moderation actions. In addition to deletion, I'd experiment with moderation of ranking of threads and rankings of any branches of discussion (note no branching within forum threads, but perhaps blog comments would have branching).These are examples of innovations I would like to do for apps we create. And I am an idea machine that will spew out 100 ideas a day if that is our focus. Perhaps some of you too also have great ideas or even corrections/improvements on the above ideas.Edit: also want it to support markdown.Does anyone know of any forum software which has these features?