My neckbeard demands bitcoin-like-scale for this, which does not happen with reputation, but that's probably retarded anyway.

None of the AI power users on my X feed care about Gensyn or any of the other projects prioritizing inference verifiability.

How many decentralized inference power users are there? What kinds of customers want such inference? I'm curious which use cases experience such an inference shortage that they'll pay for it even when unverfiable and unaccountable.

Not to trivialize its importance, just rather focus on network growth first & upgrade later.

That makes sense. Overcooking is worse than undercooking. I'm probably out of the target demographic because you wouldn't be doing it this way if probably-inference didn't have value.

Mushandam

Strait of Hormuz is what we call my uncle Hormuz running for a long pass.

What is your reliable measure of Bitcoin adoption?

It's not reliable, but I go by how much I'm using it, how much it's relevant to my day-to-day life (excluding my chosen profession), and how much my frens (bitcoiners included) are using self-sovereign bitcoin setups day-to-day. And it'd be reasonable to round either of those to near zero.

I don't think that will change until we have something with lightning-like payment properties that doesn't require federation-like trust.

Psionic is our Rust ML framework, source here: https://github.com/OpenAgentsInc/psionic

Awesome, thanks!

Lots to solve here but wethinks we have the right primitives for it

fwiw The point I'm trying to get across, and I make this point to anyone in this problem space (I've seen two other bitcoiner projects in this domain in the last month): I think the primitive that matters is verification, because it's the one thing no one has solved afaik. That's not to trivialize everything else. The default position of we'll engage in the verification arms race eventually might still allow someone to build up a position in the market with everything else on point. It's just that imo the eat-the-market winner will have solved this problem (if it's solvable) and, also imo, projects that aren't terrified/hyper-focused on that, should be.

I think I retested and shared it here recently. Let me see if I can find it.

If we start experimenting with personalization again, I'll for sure seek your input. Right now at least, I'm biased toward proving/ruling out solutions that are explainable to a five-year-old that provide a relatively raw commons worth inhabiting.

i'm so annoyed of being annoyed

I don't know what your Psionic ML framework is. Is the source code somewhere? Is there more going on than "if we presume they are running our unmodified client software, then we presume they are doing what we asked?"

I ask because I find that part most interesting. Every other project I've seen claiming decentralized inference tends to punt the problem when, imo, that's where all the value is. It's kind of like decentralized money without a blockchain and double spend prevention and all that.

How do you verify inference without doing the inference yourself?

I get you.

So an example of reputation might be: your zaps/boosts have limited power until your account total_earned_zaps - total_earned_downzaps > 100k?

And that's better because that's not as subjective.

reputation is a form of memory, the way I mean it, but that's not important

what's the important difference between trust and reputation to you?

You can use it in a browser or install the PWA. Or are you talking about a mobile lightning wallet?

on the hat feels less derivative imo

To be clear:

• I like the auto-item-mute feature idea
• I don't like plutocracies deciding content
• Without some kind of collective memory or a constant zap war being waged
  • n people will need to pick up the same m pieces of trash
  • folks who are logged out or lazy or whatever will see lots of trash and leave

The benefit of SN is the commons. It's a level playing field - you don't need to be an influencer to influence - just someone that shared something valuable to someone(s). That becomes less true as:

• a plutocracy decides content, or
• it turns into a trash heap that non-trash doesn't want to inhabit/visit

imo the commons needs some memory, or zap militants, to avoid becoming a trash heap. Neither demands a plutocracy - just something clever in terms of incentives, signaling, or mechanism that I'm unaware of.

other variations:

• https://chorus.community/groups
• https://flotilla.social/
• https://pyramid.fiatjaf.com/

also see: #1466789

I bonked pretty hard late last week. Probably because I've been refining the UX of wallets in preparation of more refining and still have wallet PTSD.

Other than that, I started the week with admin. I'm going to do a small bug centric release today, then I'll continue my wallet refinement work and round out the week with code review.

I like it, but that makes the problem worse unless it's paired with something else - lurkers and casuals will still be exposed to the trolls, and even more so if we're 1 sat downzapping to mute posts/comments.

Someone should start some kind of bitcoin city team sporting league - like Austin vs. Nashville.