17mNxa…zGjY

At scale, BoostPoW is exactly what we have today. I can't believe you can't see that.

You don't understand the economics of BoostPoW at scale if you think a normal guy will successfully boost.

My ideas come from what really happened already. People steered away from Big Marketing controlled mediums and adopted networks to filter content.

I'm kind of assuming it will succeed..which is not a given. Good chance it will last just until they learn the costly signals are accurate 10% of the time for stuff 99% of people like..99.9% fail for connoisseurs.

@24 The only truly successful aggregator of good content is that which is vetted by a network of people with similar tastes. So BoostPoW would need Boosts that were not anonymous.

I understand it too well. You have people thinking they will be able to boost their own content and have it seen. That's cute. Economically, BoostPoW scales like transaction mining. Big Marketing with crap content would win..until BoostPoW fails.

I just don't want you to get false expectations. Best case scenario is that big dogs will successfully boost in the "boost market" and their products will be crap 9 out of 10 times for genpop and 99 out of 100 for connoisseurs.

Daniel would have you believe that his BoostPoW are equal to transaction miners, but they're not. Get rid of all BoostPoW miners and the network will not blink or hiccup. In fact, direct payments also pay miners with transaction fees.

Paying the recipient is just as good for spam filtering. Spammers can never compete with legitimate email. They cannot afford to pay what legitimate email senders can.

In the case of Baemail, Boosting will be a case of mediocrity. Pay me, pay miners, or under pay both. Pay miners and you don't value my time. Pay both and you undercompete. Pay me and I will be happy. Rationality says pay recipient.

Likes could be additive. Why aren't they? Because frog knows it would make boosting pay to play.

@24 Content creator can't boost their own content if they're poor. As BoostPoW scales only big marketing firms will be able to compete in the boosting market. Good for transaction mining. Bad for good content. Fail!

LOL, someone sends me an email for $1000 I will read it .. I'd feel like I cheated the person otherwise. And I know a spammer could never afford that sort of money. Now if the content didn't justify the price tag I would suspect something.

Rational actors will realize that content creators will be more likely to create more content if they are paid. Your system has miners getting paid and scales such that marketing firms will pay the boosts..content creators will be paid like now..underpaid.

Your whole BoostPoW bypasses the strength of Bitcoin, which is to make micropayments and directly pay everybody for their work. It actually mirrors the current failing system that has big marketing firms pay to play, and pay everyone on the backend.

Like I'm forced to use it on Baemail? It sticks out like an ugly out of place sore ... because that is what it is.

Are you going to honestly say that you think a recipient would rather read an email boosted $1000 vs an email sent with $1000 payment? Given a choice, clearly direct payment wins as a costly signal.

@24 Baemail is a perfect context to demonstrate how BoostPoW loses to just paying the content creator or stakeholder directly. The only way BoostPoW wins is if you get the developer to collude to use an inferior costly signal.

Like I'm forced to use it on Baemail? It sticks out like an ugly out of place sore ... because that is what it is.

That is an argument I expect from BTCers to give for Segwit and Lightning Network.

I would also add an objection: Costly signals compete. Costly signals that pay content creators are more attractive than costly signals that pay miners.

I've been following all the objections to BoostPoW. The objections summarized: 1. You can't use the same costly signals in every context. 2. Getting devs to collude to respect your costly signaling does not make those costly signals valid for the context.

If you're right, BSV gets a win. But costly signaling is fundamentally marketing. This is something I know about.

If you were talking about getting laid and procreating, I would agree with you. But costly signaling when applied to selling stuff is not the same.

The service is only a good idea if the boost applies to both content and some corresponding data such as a review. Then I will use your Boost if I like the association.. because I will be boosting the association not the content.

I'm trying to help you.

I'm mostly talking about lack of negative feedback for @24 BoostPoW, which is just such disconnected nonsense it deserves the Segwit award.

I just gave you a way out of this mess..and that's all you got?

If I want to boost content, I'll pay the content creator..which is on record and can completely be used as a boost. Sales statistics have always served this purpose. I won't buy something because some idiot boosts his own content.

I wish I was wrong. But I'm not. You'll just have to wait for the empirical evidence to contradict your funny ideas.

@24 If BoostPoW also associates content to data sets, then it won't be complete BS. For example the boost simultaneously boosts content and its review/tag etc..then maybe it won't suck. But just feeding hungry miners ain't going to cut it.

Negative feedback just has to be accurate. It's meaningless to qualify the criticism as constructive, destructive, or . Changing course due to accurate feedback is inherently a positive thing.