@kurt is on PowPing!

PowPing is a place where you can earn Bitcoin simply by socializing, for FREE.
Never tried Bitcoin? It's OK! Just come, socialize, and earn Bitcoin.
Check out kurt's activities
Total Economy: 0.55 USD
On one side, we have BoostPow, Twetch and others exist under the assumption that proof of work can be added to everything in order to create quality filters, remove sybils and solve the Byzantine Generals Problem for all information - not just bitcoin data. On the other, we have PowPing which exists under the assumption that free data can be pushed like a proposal - inviting a tipping economy to create transactions which reward things that have been deemed by the crowd to have value. So, proposals by proof of work or validation by proof of work. That appears to be the duality at play in bitcoin today. Any thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the competing thoughts?
bender tipped:
0.06 USD
1 year ago
esryix tipped:
0.04 USD
1 year ago
michaelsv tipped:
0.04 USD
1 year ago
burningfiat tipped:
0.09 USD
1 year ago
dozenk tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
manifestable tipped:
0.03 USD
1 year ago
vrt tipped:
0.09 USD
1 year ago
lindsay tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
Payments are not validation by proof of work. Proof-of-work is used to resolve double spends in Bitcoin. It is not associated with any payment.
imagine explaining the handicap principle in relation to proof of work in bitcoin and anti spam control to a normie. This should answer which will succeed
cosmosstag replied:
It doesn't need to be explained. Game theory proves that it's better. The people who use it will benefit more than those who don't.
I still don't get Boostpow Do i need to use specific miners? What if I am greggles and I use all of Blockstream's hash to upvote the fuck out of my messages?
manifestable replied:
Think about it like a game. Boost is like a giant brick wall. If I throw a tennis ball from me to you, then we have no ability to evaluate whether the ball is properly inflated. Imagine if I catch it, that means I have to use that ball for the rest of our game. Imagine inflated balls are better. So instead of you tossing me the ball, you throw it off the wall. By observing how it bounces off the wall, I can determine on my own if it is inflated and decide if I want to catch it. If Blockstream wants to disseminate deflated balls, they can throw as many as they want against the wall, and we'll simply choose to not catch them. Eventually, they'll stop throwing dead balls at us, and Boost will have sped up the process by which they will have stopped their sham because Boost will make it more obvious which balls are inflated vs not. Is that sort of correct,@cosmosstag ?
cosmosstag replied:
You do not need to use specific miners, but you can if you want (that might be cheaper). Greg Maxwell would lose energy if he did that. Eventually he would run out if he only said stupid things, which he would. You have to say things that are good in order to regain the energy you lost.
manifestable tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
cosmosstag replied:
@manifestable yes it is like an easily-assessed contest that is used to detect failures reliably.
PoW as costly signal is no different from... errr... "a costly signal" from the signal interpreters point of view. If I receive a message that someone has burnt $10 on PoW to send it to me I'm more likely to read it than one that was free to send. But if they burnt $10 on extra transaction fees or sent $10 to a known charity the signal is identical from my point of view. They have $10 worth of incentive to want me to pay attention. It only becomes different when the $10 goes to the reader as an incentive to read it, then you get fake attention because the choice to read is economically motivated rather that motivation being piqued interest in why someone was willing to spend high for my attention. PoW works in the context of Bitcoin... In the BoostPoW context it's just a fetish that diverts from Bitcoin's security unnecessarilly.
kurt tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
bitcoinrealist tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
ivmidable tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
dozenk tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
kurt replied:
I actually really like your mention of a charity. Imagine trying to get the attention of someone like Bono. You likely couldn't pay *him* $20k for his attention, but if you donated $20k to a charity that he was advocating for, you likely could get his attention. All that to say the proof of work isn't arbitrary. It needs to have value behind it. I don't want someone to feel like they need to jump on one foot while they ring my doorbell, there are ways where one's commitment to the attention will get the job done. But that requires more pretext.
shadders tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
bitcoinrealist replied:
BoostPoW signaling is only Proof of Advertising. And if you know about advertising, you should know that advertisers have failure priced in, which equates to many false positives. Don't expect a good signal to arise from such a system as there will be multiple players playing a known game.
_kevin_pham tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
bitcoinrealist replied:
However, I agree that sending money to charities makes the game much more palatable as a big good comes from the game.
dozenk tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
ivmidable replied:
the charity idea is interesting, it creates a beautiful costly signal.
manifestable replied:
Well the difference, Mr. Shadders, is that in your analogy, the individual using Boost is attempting to get *your* attention. But with Boost, the utility is that the valuable observer of the signal could just as easily be someone who no one has yet targted as valuable to relay signals to. I don't think BoostPow has anything to do with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is simply the easiest channel to validate the spent energy. If a system evolved that was easier to publicly demonstrate spent energy then BoostPow could simply adopt that method instead. BoostPow means putting your money where your mouth is. That doesn't require bitcoin, but bitcoin is simply a means to demonstrate that, like snowshoes are with respect to traveling through north country.
shadders replied:
You're taking my analogy too literally. A boosted message sent to me can be replicated and spammed to many potential readers with the same one off funding of the signal. Money is a representation of work (aka spent energy). That's why we use it to aquire the fruits of someone else's labours. It allows us to trade the fruits of our past labour for someone else's. If the signal is energy spent for no discernable benefit to the spender why does it matter whether it was spent on PoW vs any other mechanism from the signal readers point of view? In boostpow the signal generator isn't even doing the work themselves. They're either paying a miner to do it for them or they outsourcing it to an ASIC they own and paying the energy company.
bitcoinrealist tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
manifestable replied:
But likewise, someone could use their car to safely get them to and from where they're heading or also use it to drive directly into a crowd of people. Just because something can be abused doesn't diminish the value it provides. And to your second question, I don't really have a great answer. I can't say that BoostPow is necessary the most economically efficient way to signal the value for content. But the important thing is that as a completely new market, if it is inefficient, the market can adjust, just in the same way that difficulty adjusts based on hash rate. I relate with your points about money. I feel strongly that those are easily misunderstood but important points to recognize. I understand your third point. But isn't it occasionally practical and useful to render tasks for which you're woefully insufficient onto services which are aimed at fulfilling those very tasks? When I want to show my wife that I love her, I go to the store and buy roses. I don't plant them. (Although that's also very sweet and romantic gesture, but you get my point.)
cosmosstag replied:
A handicap is provable waste. The advantage of a handicap is that it is easily assessed without context. Not all costly signals are handicaps. Payments are not handicaps, therefore they do not have the same advantage as proof-of-work. More context is required to evaluate them. For example, the payment might have been given back in another tex; thus it may not be as much as it appears. Additionally, the value of money is speculative so the cost of a payment is not necessarily something that people all agree on as easily. Furthermore, if you demand payments to have your attention attracted, there is no reason to believe that it actually worked. You could have accepted the payment without reading the message. With proof-of-work you can't benefit other than by reading the message, thus there is no reason to accept it other than to read it.
shadders replied:
On the third point yes I agree. That is trade. I can use my labour to create value more efficiently in some ways (using my sweet skillz) than others. I'm lousy at baking bread so it's more efficient to use the money I earn from my coding labour to pay a Baker to use their labour efficiently to bake me some bread. To take the mining story a step further, the 'work' that generates the signal is actually the work I did to earn the money to pay the miner (or power company) before the hashing was done. That is what I've burned to create a costly signal. In this case I'm still donatiing the fruits of my labour, just to a miner rather than a charity. BoostPow is just one mechanism to demonstrably waste the fruits of prior labour. Remember in order to convince a miner to abort mining Bitcoin and mine your BoostPow instead you've got to incentivise them, which means they need to earn more per hash than they would from Bitocin mining. So you choose an amount of money you want to burn (because the readers of your boosted signal understand money amounts better than they understand how difficulty translates to value) then calculate a diffiiculty appropriately to make it attractive to a miner. If difficulty on BSV is high you'll get less hashes for your BoostPow for the same amount of money than if it's low. Fundamentally you've convinced someone to accept a certain amount of money to do a thing. You don't derive any direct benefit from the thing they did other than being able to prove they did the thing. Neither does the potential reader. They *might* care that you valued the content enough to waste money on singalling it. But why would they care how you wasted the money as long as they know you didn't benefit from it?
cosmosstag replied:
People do not care if you waste money. They care if you waste energy. With Boost POW, you buy wasted energy with money.
cosmosstag replied:
Money is not work. Money is future production. Work is exchanged for money. That does not mean they are the same thing.
cosmosstag replied:
When you waste energy, that is production which was not done. People care about that because they would prefer there to be more production so that their money is more valuable. Wasted money does not necessarily mean less production because you can waste money on inconsequential things. People must care if you waste energy because that means something useful cannot be produced.
cosmosstag replied:
If you say that money is work, that is past-oriented rather than future-oriented. Past-oriented means you think of value in terms of costs rather than benefits. The cost of money is work. However, once you have it, that work is in the past. It no longer has anything to do with the value of the money you have. The value is what you can do with it, which is exchange some time in the future for whatever goods are being offered for it. This is a game. When you play chess, do you care about whether your queen was always a queen or whether it was a pawn that got promoted? No, you do not, at least not if you want to win. The value of the queen is who you can defend and attack with it, not how it became a queen. A promoted queen is not a representation of a pawn. Thus, the value of money is future production. That is what money gets you. Money is not a representation of work. How much you worked for it isn't what matters once you have it. Future-orientation is just what you do when you play any game but people forget that a lot when the game is real life.
manifestable replied:
Yes, very good points. I think you very much get the concept of what and how but maybe are less certain of why. I think emerging markets need to demonstrate utility in the face of honest skepticism. It's not useful to have a product intended for global adoption to be falsely coddled into a sense of motherly-like utility which will prove untenable at larger scale, and so I think skepticism is an overlooked source of utility when determining use-cases for a new product. As good as it may feel at the time, being told what one wants to hear can harbor long-term consequences. That being said, although the market will mostly be set in terms of the cost per hash by the (for now) larger market of those hashes otherwise being directed toward the main network, at the same time, an entirely spontaneous market can emerge vis a vis the relationship between spent energy and and the representation which that energy has on the accessibility of content. No one knows what that market looks like today because the service is too new. Lastly, I don't think your questions, especially your last one, is or are invalid. I think they are normal questions, and I don't think they can nor should be explained away. You're raising totally fair and valid questions. I see the function more as a cost-benefit relationship. I think sometimes we unnecessarily assume that for something to be useful or important, it needs to be the best in its class. But sometimes a product or feature gets unnecessarily lumped into a class to which it doesn't truly belong. And when it is compared against its "peers" it may have distinct disadvantages or comparative holes in its functionality. I think this is often a process of our need to hyper-contextualize and continually cross-analyze. Yes it is helpful to continually be comparing, but there is also a specific advantage that comes from not defining one's utility by one's comparison to a class of lesser candidates, and instead focusing on the specific functionality that is unique to its own example. I also want to be clear that by advocating for the importance of BoostPow, I'm not making a should-claim in so far as saying that you should have my opinion about BoostPow or that people who don't are wrong. But I think Daniel feels strongly, and this in part weighs into my views, that only by being free to be ourselves are we truly able to serve each other. I think he strongly believes that BoostPow is a way to bet on oneself in a way that signals to others the virulence of that belief, and I just think that ultimately can only be a good thing. <3
manifestable replied:
For example, why BoostPow is useful to me and why it is useful to Daniel could be different, but that doesn't mean that only one of our uses is correct and the other wrong. There is a whole phenomena around life-hacking which showcase the ways in which utility is often a function of the creativity implicit in the user than the products themselves.
shadders replied:
"Thus, the value of money is future production. That is what money gets you. Money is not a representation of work." Work is how you get money in the first place, or rather how money is imbued with value. Whether it's work done by your own two hands, or work initially done by the nuclear reactor in the sun to make the light to grow the plants to feed the dinosaurs that turned into the oil that you burn to run the run the earth mover to dig up the gold. All money has an energy input that gives it value. Then you can buy other production with it.
manifestable tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
cosmosstag replied:
No, money is imbued with value because people mutually believe it will be exchangeable for goods in the future. That is the reason people work for it. Value is always future oriented. Value is not imbued, ever.
cosmosstag replied:
Sorry that last post was contradictory but there is no such thing as imbuing value by putting work into things. Value is always about the future.
cosmosstag replied:
You put work into things because you hope other people will want them. People do not want things because you worked on them. That is backwards.
cosmosstag replied:
Money does not have value because you worked. Money has value because other people will offer goods for it. You work because you want money. You want money because you want future goods. You work because you want money. Money is not work. Money is future goods.
shadders replied:
Goods are a product of work. Why do you give money for the product of work rather than just do the work and make the goods yourself? Work for the money or work for the goods? Same end result, one is just more efficient than the other.
cosmosstag replied:
When you exchange money for goods, you do not care how much work went into them. The fact that they are a product of work does not enter into the decision. You give money in exchange for goods because of what the goods can do for you in the future. If you were to create the goods yourself, you would not do it because of the work it took; you would also do it because of what the goods can do for you in the future. The reason you earn money making goods you don't want and buying things you want with the money is that people can produce more when they specialize and trade. That does not mean that money is a representation of work. Money is a good that is used as a medium of exchange, not a representation of work. The value of money is what will be offered for it, not the work you did to get it. You can get money by winning the lottery. That is not work. You can get money by speculating on the market. That is not work. You can earn money by owning property and renting it. That is not work. There are many ways of earning money that are not work. How you got it does not make any difference as long as it was honest and legal. The reason other people want it has nothing to do with any work you did to earn it. You can buy the same things with it regardless.
cosmosstag replied:
Furthermore, the value of money can change in relation to work. One day work could earn 1 bitcoin a day, and the next it could earn half a bitcoin a day. This can happen if people decide they want more in savings. After that it doesn't matter if people spent a whole day to get a bitcoin prior to that or two days after. The bitcoins buy the same things. You earn money when you work. At any given time money and work are related by a price. That does not make one a representation of the other. Money and work are just two different things.
shadders replied:
" If you were to create the goods yourself, you would not do it because of the work it took;" You're winning my argument for me...
shadders replied:
p.s. I'm not spending anymore energy on this argument. I see no upside to compensate for the expenditure.
cosmosstag replied:
That means "if you were to create the goods yourself, the reason you would do it would not be the work it took"
I don't think the two opposing paradigms you describe necessarily matter that much. Apps succeed on solving a problem, and being simple and a delight to use. In that respect, I think an app that focuses on users and user experience will beat an app that focuses on the BGP and other nerdy bitcoin stuff.
libs replied:
By the way, not implying that Twetch dont focus on users. I know they do and they have a good track record of doing so.
I think the latter is going to win out. Aggression always gets met with similar in return. Bitcoin is not anti-x but pro-y. Taking the playful and inviting approach - not to mention low barrier to entry - means more people get to come in and play without needing to know anything technical about Bitcoin. How it should be.
esryix replied:
Ur discounting vibes...humanity doesn’t care about features as much as what the herd catches 1st
brendan replied:
Why I use myspace
manifestable replied:
I agree, and I think that ideas which embrace new energy and vision have an advantage. If an idea is fixed in nature, even if it is fundamentally correct at its core, it will always face uphill battle in the push for adoption because what's right for one is not always right for another.
I think it's a mistake to assume we can assess the assumptions underlying PowPing. It will need filtration and anti-trolling mechanisms to survive scaling and it doesn't have those yet. But I'm excited for Powping because I have never felt comfortable with the Twetch incentive system. I've tried to like Twetch but I just...don't. Glad to see another option. I don't know that the duality you're proposing is really accurate. There's a trend in BSV lately to apply "proof of work" in various areas. I'm not convinced that's a productive lens for viewing the problems inherent in social media like Twitter. It really comes down to incentives. There needs to be a (financial) benefit to providing value to others (e.g. by filtration and curation) and a cost for being an asshole.
The method that provides the most frictionless onboarding experience to the general public will win IMO.
siosism tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
kurt replied:
I disagree. In fact, every major social network had difficulty to join as part of the sales process.
Peoples attention should be the main goal - if you shrink your market by only focusing on a small piece of the pie you will fail. . If powping creates a gateway for people to monetize content on here, but keeps the free posting and tipping model then it could be very attractive.
monkishrex replied:
Powping is essentially a proof of concept I think. One thing I dont really understand is the desire to try and replace incumbents like Facebook and Twitter... what's to stop them from simply applying the same model (which they've actively been trying to do, e.g. Libra version 6 they've been recently pushing). What's waaaaay more interesting IMO is how powping is storing txs portably. Imagine cloud providers storing all information like this; cryptographically and linked to identity. To me, powping is the inflection point that will launch the new Metanet based paradigm of the internet
monkishrex replied:
If I were Twetch/powping and really aiming to challenge what's a mature industry now, I'd be blitzscaling and looking to sell to one of them within 3 years... Twetch seems like they're more on this path. powping seems more like a proof of concept for much bigger things
I don't think there is a longterm weakness to competition. Take risk, try every thinkable model, fail many times until something sticks...
I'm very disappointed with the BoostPoW theory that user initiated miner PoW as a costly signal somehow demonstrates an increased quality of unrelated humanPoW. I consider it a Gross Conceptual Error.
fomoerektus tipped:
0.09 USD
1 year ago
siosism tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
brendan tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
manifestable replied:
I don't think BoostPow argues that attaching Proof of Work implies more value. Can you explain why that occurs to you?
bitcoinrealist replied:
of course using BoostPoW as an upvote mechanism is trying to imply that. Essential point stands..what makes anyone thing using BoostPoW can be arbitrarily attached and that would actually mean something?
fomoerektus replied:
Agree completely. Don't get BoostPOW at all. The problem with social media isn't that quality messages need shinier window dressing. The problems are that there's too much noise mixed in with the signal and too little disincentive to be an asshole.
bitcoinrealist replied:
BoostPow is suppost to be a costly signal that you can apply to arbitrary humanPoW and that means something. That is insane.
manifestable replied:
Daniel isn't suggesting that attaching more Boost implies that the content is inherently better. Being able to filter by Boost does not imply that. What he's suggesting is that it is more rational to observe content which has been Boosted, but because anything could be boosted it's really impossible to say that content is better simply because it has been Boosted.
paulc replied:
When a signal represents nothing more than the size of a wallet I don't see why it deserves attention. Energy is costly in biology but a mere utility in society.
manifestable replied:
The truth is that Boost is not a system for eradicating personal judgement. It's supposed to aid personal judgement. Nothing is guaranteed to be valuable just because it is Boosted, but something which is Boosted is more valuable to assign personal judgement. If you have enough time to judge all content you encounter then Boost is not useful to you. It is only useful to help you manage what content to evaluate. For example, something that goes to your spam filter is occasionally useful to you. And if you were trying to get the maximum value possible, you would read all your spam on the off chance that some of it is useful. But that isn't realistic. If things which were Boosted were just as likely to be spam as things which weren't then sorting by Boost would not be useful. But because things which are Boosted are less likely to be spam, it is useful. Once an individual discovers for themselves that Boost has ANY use, even a small use, then its market importance necessarily increases. The primary use of Boost is not for people putting content into the world but people receiving content and evaluating it based on their own merit structure. Because it is valuable to users, content creators will identify it as a way to reach users. It becomes its own eco-system. Just because you don't see its value doesn't mean its value isn't there. And just because its value isn't fully understood today doesn't mean it won't be understood tomorrow.
bitcoinrealist replied:
@manifestable Please stay seated for a word from our sponsors. A Boost just means something is sponsored. Pay miners instead of Google or Twitter. It's really that simple. Except that it's less sustainable.
siosism tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
manifestable tipped:
0.03 USD
1 year ago
manifestable replied:
And "I love you" is just a three word sentence. The meaning of any thing is not solely its stripped down essence absent of any context. Even if "I love you" is indeed a three-word sentence, that doesn't define what its significance can be to people who use it intentionally.