« on: May 24, 2016, 07:46:12 pm »
> What I'm arguing is that you can't get the former without the latter. In other words, people won't be able to start viable blockchain business without giving them access to everyone's laboratory.
You may be right about that. I don't think you are, but you might be.
If you *are* right, however, it will just mean that no one ever starts a research laboratory. Instead, people will start something like a lemonade stand. The result will be that decentralized oracles are simply impossible for everyone.
An biological analogy would be that, if cells cannot be forced to cooperate, we will never have multi-cellular life. We will just have single-celled life.
> Because the parasite oracle depends on the real oracle, the real oracle can charge as much as it wants. They can force entire industries to make smart contracts that collectively pay for the information they need.
The real oracle must work for free, if there exist any parasites. This is because the parasites can steal the labor of the real oracles, for free. So the equilibrium price is zero.
> The real target is companies and industries who can ABUSE brand and trust through economies of scale and aggregation of users. Amazon does this to it's suppliers, Twitter did this to it's datafeed partners, Facebook does it to it's users, Uber is starting to do this as well.
All of these companies are considered incredibly successful. They delivered high quality products and services to users at unbelievably low costs and tremendous convenience. These companies gave people what *they* really wanted. You seem to want to give them something else, like Google+, which they really do not want.
I don't really understand your Android Phone analogy. Many iPhone owners "jailbroke" their phones to install new apps, and the Google Play store moderates for content (as do the individual developers who write apps). Apps are constrained, by the operating system of the phone, and by the user's choices...one reason for this, is specifically to prevent the apps from interfering with the phone's core infrastructure or with other apps.
> So the miner judgement thing was just an aside - the real idea here was that no matter how good your forecasting is, it will fall EVENTUALLY to a black swan. Relying on prescreening for security is inherently a fragile system.
No forecasting is "required". If there are unforeseen problems, the sidechain is closed down. Given that this closing-down is inevitable, it is simply more efficient to try to anticipate problems. It is also futile to attempt attacks.
> This of course is entirely dependent on how far you granularize "something". As a reductio-ad-absurdum, you could use this argument to say that as long as an economy has a single company that could fail, the entire economy is considered fragile.
Don't you mean "antifragile"? If layer 6 is made of fragile units, layer 7 might be antifragile.
> Over time, we'll figure out which types of walls work, and which walls still give you interaction with the entire ecosystem WITHOUT exposure to the entire ecosystem's risk.
That is what I have already figured out. It didn't take that long. : )
Assuming that "Cryptocurrency" is the anti-fragile layer, that would imply that the individual crypto-currencies are the fragile layer. So, you are arguing that we should try this experiment of yours, allow it to potentially destroy Ethereum and Bitcoin, and then later start up a new 3rd thing "SztorcCoin" which follows my principles, and have it outcompete the failed Bitcoin and Ethereum.
I don't think that money works that way.
Instead, my vision is that sidechain-systems should be the competitors. Bitcoin's 21,000,000 coin units can compete with Ethereum's ~whatever Ether units. If you think that Bitcoin's sidechains aren't good, start up your own Alt-chain with better sidechains.