A new blockchain designed to destroy fake alarmist news

Fact Checking Alarmist Fake News Now Easy With Trive

Guest essay by Mike Lorrey

NOTE: The author is an advisor to trive.news. He has also made a number of contributions to WUWT over the years including moderating during the Climategate era.

We have seen over the past decade plus of the climate wars how the alarmist establishment has exploited its advantage in the halls of power and wealthy influence peddlers in Silicon Valley and the Left Coast to seek to do its best to propagandize, promote, filter, dissimilate, dissemble and to downgrade the search rankings those fighting for truth in science like us at WUWT, JoNova, ClimateAudit, etc.

We saw how WUWT search rankings on Google steadily fell from its once commanding position on page one of search results to page 36, effectively making it impossible for those using Google to find our articles unless they specifically looked for our publication by title. As Al Gore joined the board of Google and Alphabet instituted a team of crack propagandists to intentionally tilt the scales of reality in favor of their propaganda, WUWT continued to consistently score far higher on Alexa than almost any other science blog, and ahead of every other climate blog, on the planet, despite this active interference in our search rankings that only impacted this sites ad revenues, minimal as they already were.

Without similar influence in Alphabet, Facebook, Twitter, etc, how could we hope to compete of control over the media? Despite their corruption of peer review into pal review, control over climate data sets that they’ve “adjusted” to match their failed climate simulations, blackballing and blacklisting skeptic scientists, we HAVE taken the advantage in the public debate if only because people have learned to be skeptical of the amount of fake news of all kinds circulating. The victory of Trump despite all the media claiming he was losing and would lose, convinced a large percentage of the population to not believe the media on anything.

While I’ve personally had successes legislatively (I wrote the New Hampshire state constitutional amendment to restrict eminent domain after the Kelo decision, an amendment which passed a statewide vote by 86%), I prefer technological solutions to legislative or judicial ones. While they’ve captured control of Web 2.0 to work to their propaganda advantage, I work in Web 3.0, the blockchain world.

Two fields I worked in prior to joining WUWT were futurism and cryptography. In the late 90’s and early oughties I belonged to the Extropy Institute think tank where I met and collaborated with individuals like Ray Kurzweil, Peter Theil, Max More, Robert Bradbury, Robin Hanson, among others.  Among these were Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, Ralph Merkle, and Wei Dai, who I had discussions over several years about the problems with early digital currencies and how to fix them. I won’t get into the technical aspects, but simply put, I had a hand in developing the ideas that we called at the time “Bitgold” and most of you now are familiar with in a slightly modified form, as a fully developed application, called “Bitcoin”, the first functional, trustably trustless decentralized anonymous cryptocurrency. Since then I’ve worked in Virtual Reality and Blockchain tech, and advise a number of blockchain companies about their projects.

One of these is Trive.news, a blockchain designed to destroy fake news.

Trive uses the smart contract and immutable ledger features of blockchain to store permanent records of what facts are true and what are not, by combined adversarial and Nash Equilibrium engine process to fact check the claims made in current news articles through the wisdom of the crowds, incentivizing three main players: the researcher, the challenger, and the witness jury member, to do their jobs right.

Most of you have probably heard of bitcoin, but are not aware of what blockchain is or how it works. A blockchain is a new form of database that is distributed among many nodes, in which data transactions are stored not in relation to each others relevant artefacts or records, but in chronological order, where said transactions are cryptographically authenticated by a competitive and computationally expensive process we call “mining” but which resembles the sort of brute force processes used by Alan Turing in WWII to decrypt Enigma encyphered Nazi transmissions.

By using public key encryption to secure the transactions, and have the mining process competitive, we make this process secure against hacking by being “Byzantine Resistant”, which refers to the Byzantine Generals game theory thought experiment. As long as 51% of all miners agree on the authenticated block of transactions, the blockchain is secure against attack.

This makes any data that the miners authenticate a permanent, unalterable record that is distributed among many nodes. Blockchains are thus great for protecting the validity of the truth of various records, like land titles, election votes, bitcoin transactions, and yes, climate records (hint hint suggestion for you climate coders). It also helps to store a record of what really happened in any venue, including news, which is of high importance in a world where news stores online disappear or are altered regularly when the narrative conflicts with reality or a party’s new agenda.

This means when you find a news story online you think is of questionable validity, you can “trive” it. Either submit the URL on the http://verify.trive.news website, or download the chrome plug-in to do this on the fly as you are browsing.

This puts it in the queue to be trived. At present the financial incentives are not active as there is still development going on, but once complete, you put a bounty on articles you report. When enough people post enough TRV tokens as a bounty up, a researcher will grab the story and set up a claims sheet and do the research to verify or disprove the claims made in the article (and not just that article, but all other stories making the same claim, and stories referencing those stories.)

When the researcher is done, they submit their work, which is hashed and stashed on the Trive blockchain as an immutable record. The researcher then wins the bounty in an escrow. Now, others can check the work. If someone doubts the validity of the researchers work they can challenge it, and redo the work, finding new information. Both researcher and challenger can do original research (like doing their own climate studies) if they want to as evidence.

Now that there are two challenging sets of research, a jury is chosen. Jurors are paid no matter which side they pick, and they cannot have participated in a similar process with any of the other participants to prevent Sybyl Attacks by teams of biased individuals (like we’ve seen at Wikipedia’s climate articles). The jury examines the differing facts and votes on which is true. They can theoretically reject both sets of research if they choose. Whichever side the jury chooses gets the bounty, minus jury fees, and the juried facts are then hashed and stashed again to create a permanent record of this peer review process that is auditable by anyone.

It should now be clear to WUWT readers what this means.

Here we have a technology that ensures a provably fair fact finding process. But it goes beyond this. More in a part 2 coming up on WUWT.

 

Advertisements

132 thoughts on “A new blockchain designed to destroy fake alarmist news

    • I’m with Bob Tisdale; welcome back Mike!

      On a side note, I seen a number of links to Trive.com in Tweets. Thank you for explaining about Trive.

    • Leif,
      It just means you can’t go back and revise your 2005 manuscript submission to claim primacy on an finding in your field over a competitor without block-chain outing you. Sorry, but no Nobel chicanery.

      It doesn’t mean new findings cannot overturn prior consensus.

      The biggest problem is currently in the EU, where the EU has declared that people have a right get an order to cleanse their private data by deletion from the public records. If it is in block-chain that is not allowed, unless a hard-fork change by the majority of block-chain users agrees, which is quite unlikely. Thus Block-chain permanence of a past records and EU privacy law is severely at odds.

      • The printed record of research papers is already unalterable.Publishers are moving to electronic publishing only, and for those papers a blockchain my be useful [without the 51% ‘consensus’ nonsense].

      • Of course you are a physicist, so appreciate block-chain from a thermodynamics viewpoint.

        Blockchain is best seen as the computational realization of the Second Law on an unalterable timeline, immutable.

        Information and entropy are immutably linked

      • But that is EXACTLY the point. Publications are moving to digital records, ePubs.
        Digital records can be altered with the right hack unless secure.
        Images can be photo-shopped.
        Electronic lab notebooks entries can be altered remotely.

        What can secures them is the cryptographic Hash. The Block-chain.

      • Of course if private data is “cleansed” from the public record, that makes it much easier to disappear someone.

    • No, but there are verifiable falsifications.

      This is not about arriving at truth, but about eliminating demonstrable lies.

      Consider the statement ‘Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is responsible for rapid and dangerous rises in temperature in the past 50 years’

      This statement cannot be proven to be true, but it can be proven to be false.

      – How much of atmospheric carbon dioxide is anthropogenic? C14 tests etc.
      – How much of the temperature rise, if any, is attributable to carbon dioxide ? Since the rate of temperature rise is not correlated with the rise in CO2, not much, if any.
      – How dangerous is the temperature rise – or is any temperature rise? Plenty of evidence suggest that up to 2°C warming would be entirely beneficial to mankind. For every ‘it will make X worse’ we can find ‘ it will make Y better’

      A series of simple researches could elicit the above information allowing the original statement to be downgraded to ‘probably false’

      But even here, I fear we are in trouble with blockchain.

      As long as 51% of all miners agree on the authenticated block of transactions, the blockchain is secure against attack.

      There’s that darned consensus again. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

      Let’s say the combined computing power of google and the NSA make the blockchain miners largely under government control…

      Globalisation is relentless. There is an undeclared war between what forces with deep pockets want you to hear and what people who realise it;s actually lies are able to bring to bear. Who controls the media controls those who rely on it for information beyond their own direct experience.

      Social media has to be controlled, or the ‘wrong’ messages may escape.

      Truth or lies are unimportant. What matters is what those who survive believe and pass on to their children.

      We have probably built a social world and a communication network that is actually beyond our power to control wisely.

      It is for sure being controlled, for power, for profit and for ideological reasons, but is it being done even in the best interests of those who are controlling it?

      We talk blithely about globalists – Soros, Goldman Sachs, the New World Order, or of you are a Neo Nasty., the International Jewish Conspiracy, but even if these forces are the Illuminati behind whatever it is that is being lied about this week, are they actually achieving what they really want?.

      The climate debate is salutary. Here we have a complex non-linear system of interconnected phenomena that defy easy modelling and without accurate models, control is a lottery. I am firmly of the opinion that it cannot be modelled accurately, either. We (sceptics) know just enough about the climate to know we know far to little to control it.

      Now consider the social network of humans. societies, cultures, leaders, media, informations, cash flow, economics, psychology, and the whole panoply of what makes humans act as they do. We have added massive amounts of communication power to whatever was there before. System theory shows it too is beyond accurate analysis or modelling.

      There is an inherent paradox in the conspiracy theories of global mind control. If they were that good, we wouldn’t know we were being controlled. Ergo they are either rubbish at it, or we are being misdirected into thinking we are being controlled when we really are being controlled!

      And if they are rubbish at it, what actually are the chances of them achieving their aims? I think there are none.

      Before they rather clamped down on it and started propounding the standard Marxist economic line, the London based Financial Times used to, in its more recondite blogs, ponder on the global financial crisis. The consensus, among those who were not paid to have an opinion, was that it never ended. It was just a can being kicked down the road, that the whole world market was in fact a giant ponzi scheme which relied on ever increasing levels of debt to finance the existing debt, and in fact the element of trust was being completely lost.

      Without trust, credit has no meaning. Without credit, society collapses. Do those who peddle ‘false news’ realize this?

      History has always been rewritten by the victors to validate their authority. We cannot prevent that.

      At most we can whisper to each other, that it is so.

      In my own country, England, Brexit is remarkable, not because we will leave the EU, which still hangs in the balance as the forces of the incumbent establishment fight to preserve their comfortable status quo with a stream of vicious and unsubstantiated and fully bought and paid for false news that I have never seen the like of before…but because a majority still voted to leave – an achievement that those who did not, ‘explain’ by presupposing that they must have been swayed by ‘false news’!

      Which shows where their heads are at.

      I do not know where the idea came from, that ‘you, our media, and our political class, and the European Union, are lying to us’ came from, but that is what the Brexit vote amounted to. It didn’t depend on blockchain, it didn’t necessarily propagate via social media either. Perhaps what happened was that people felt uneasy, as if they thought they might be being taken for a ride, and when this vote happened they realised that they indeed were.

      I do not pretend to know what is happing in the world today. Or where it will end. But I sense that it is out of the control of anyone. No one knows what is happening and no one knows what they are doing, or at least what the effects of their deeds will be. I do not think we can restore trust, and a single set of truths to populations that are unable to interact without them.

      I fear that the necessary antidote will be war. My parents generation survived WWII, but by the end of it their cosy complacency had been stripped away. They had been subjected to massive propaganda, and their lives had been put at risk, and they learnt to distrust nearly all authority and politicians as a result. The political ideologues of the 1930s met in Spain, but after Guernica, what price ideology?

      We will stumble on, fixing what is so obviously broken that its a no brainer, but there are plenty of potential ways to commit cultural and actual suicide that are not so easy to spot.

      Ultimately this conflict between Liberal and Conservatism, between Alarmist and Skeptic, between false news and the truth, boils down to the inability to educate a vast bulk of modern urban populations into the actual realities that underpin everything they depend on to live. They are full of opinions, and ideas, but they have remarkable little aptitude, or contact with the real world. They are controlled, but to what end?

      This is not a stable situation. And a potentially chaotic one. Like balancing a pencil on its point, we cannot say which way the pencil will fall, only that it must.

      For those of you still reading, I apologise for the grinding of the same axe that I always grind. We have to look beyond conventional wisdom, beyond science with its philosophy of hypothesis and falsification, to the whole process of what the human mind is involved in when it frames its ideas of what is real, what its true, and what is not, because those notions frame the stage upon which human actions take place.

      Ultimately the world, is facing a crisis that can best be described as a crisis in metaphysics. And that is where salvation lies, if anywhere. The crisis is not even in deciding what is true, because if we apply the post modern ideas gleaned from mathematics physics and engineering, we can arrive at only a single self affirming true statement, and that is that the only thing we know for sure is that we dont and can’t know anything for sure with the single exception of this statement!

      To the Post-modern New Left, this is interpreted as ‘reality is a cultural construction’ . That is it’s all lies, and lies become truth when they are believed. This is ‘magic thinking’ and it lies behind the whole phislophy of the New Left …and is the basis of virtue signalling – that ‘right thinking’ will transform the world without need for any action other than that needed to emphasize the rightness of that thinking.

      Physics and the hard sciences do not ascribe to that: They affirm that what is, is whether we believe in it or not, or understand it or not or can model it or not, what is, is, whether we believe it or not. And, indeed in the realm of Nature, that is substantially true. Our thoughts feelings and beliefs only affect the natural world via our actions. If we refrain from acting the world is unaffected.

      But that is countered by the demonstrable fact that what we think and believe utterly affects us, our body chemistry and our behaviour towards each other. In the world of human mass psychology, magic works. Markets move, and solar panels are sold, on mere belief. And in quantum physics, reality seems not to be established beyond mere probability, at all, until we notice it.

      I sense that this leads to an impossible impasse. One that can only be broken by developing a new relationship between what we think and the world at large. The New Left has to be made to understand that while the world may appear to be exactly what we think it is, in reality there are some thoughts that do not accord with our experience usefully. They can be tagged with the description ‘wrong’. That while reality is indeed a cultural construct, it is not created out of nothing, but is a more or less accurate model of what lies behind its appearance.

      And scientists have to realise that their reality too, is less stable and real than they had supposed. They have no access to Truth, either. Just a handy toolbox for determining the grosser lies.

      We make up the world as we go along, but it is neither just what we make up, nor is what we make up a wholly accurate reflection of what it is. It is likley that it is elements of both.

      WE must hold that Truth exists, to make sense of the immutable parts of our experience, but we cannot hold that we have ever arrived at it, to account for the malleable nature of human beliefs and hypotheses.

      In a sense, therefore , everything is ‘false news’. ‘Climate change’ is false news. What is climate? What constitutes a change? It is all to some extent, lies. What matters is what lies we believe in and where they take us.

      Take renewable energy, another of my hobby horses. I say it doesn’t work as advertised, others say money must therefore be spent to make it work, so its full virtue may be exploited. Because if humanity wants to live forever, it should not depend on finite resources. I point out that the Universe as science understands it is a finite resource, and they tell me not to be so stupid.

      What happens if we examine this argument critically. What we see is on the one hand a desire for eternal life, if not for the individual, at least for the species, a desire to do something that no other species has actually achieved, to outlive its ecological niche. A desire for a Final Solution.

      And on the either an acceptance of the impermanence of all phenomena, that Life , such as it is, is change, mysterious and forever unknowable…

      This is my best attempt at actually getting to the heart of the underlying metaphysics of the two sorts of world views described. On the one hand a hopeless need for permanence and security and on the other hand an acceptance of uncertainty and insecurity.

      Where do these views take their protagonists? Cosy certainty, free from worry, or smug complacency?

      On the other, mature realism, or a self defeating vision of a world where all things must pass and nothing really matters?

      Which view is more likely to destroy itself?

      Perhaps in the end, that is what really matters.

      • Consider the statement ‘Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is responsible for rapid and dangerous rises in temperature in the past 50 years’
        This statement cannot be proven to be true, but it can be proven to be false.

        I think it is the other way around. In another 50 or 2*50, etc years it might be proven true if it continues.

      • Only if you take the position that human CO2 will cause such change that we can with certainty state that the warming from it exceeds natural variability. The problem is defining the physical limits of natural variability and one only need look at ice ages and interglacials to see how big those limits can be.

      • Leo – a tour de force, amazing. Disturbing, thought-provoking, and sounds about right from my corner of the world.

        Rich.

      • “I think it is the other way around. In another 50 or 2*50, etc years it might be proven true if it continues”

        That reminds me of the man on the street corner, holding a sign “The end is nigh!”

        Yah.. Ok.. whatever, just another sad, deluded individual.

      • “What is climate? What constitutes a change? It is all to some extent, lies.”

        I use the word “claim” in the place of “lies” since to presume that a claim is a lie, is itself a claim (or a lie!).

        Suppose I write: “There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don’t”.

        Is that a true statement? It becomes true if you interpret “10” as a representation of the value “2” as expressed in a string of 1’s and 0’s with most significant bit on the left. As with Schroedinger’s cat, it is both true and false simultaneously depending on your observation that the number is binary.

        I look to motivated sources as advocates, with myself as jury. I don’t automatically believe a story told from a single source, but I don’t disbelieve it either. I try to find the “Minority Report” (movie by that name) since the majority is really just one voice most of the time.

        Example: “Firm Tied to Russian Oligarch Made Payments to Michael Cohen”

        It isn’t very exciting, not even news, really. How many Russian companies (or companies of any nation) hire American companies to do things? Rather a lot I imagine; tens of thousands of such transactions probably take place every day.

        Same story: “Porn star’s lawyer says Russian paid Trump attorney Cohen”

        The second of these is highly misleading and widely distributed with minor variations. The presence of irrelevancies and too many adjectives makes it suspicious even before I look into the story.

        I think of my employer; money comes IN from rents mostly and money goes OUT for a great many reasons; but this should not be taken that a rent-payer has any connection with the things my employer purchases.

    • I think that the idea is to have an inalterable record of the facts, so that covert adjustments can’t be made.

      • lsvalgaard ==> we have a good case in the recent claim by Science News and the NY Times that the recent CDC report found that “warming is a major cause of the explosion in vectorborne diseases in the United States”. The report said no such thing, but the NY Times journalist paraphrased a crypto-quote from Dr. Petersen attributing the claim to him, and Science News then ran that as the main story.
        I am writing a follow-up to my recent piece on this having communicated with the CDC division head and press officer about the matter.
        This will make a good Trive test.

    • Correct, there are theories based on evidence. This is the nature of science (as opposed to the nature of belief, which implies that there is a ‘truth’ in which to believe.) I would expect that if new evidence is uncovered then it will appear further up the blockchain. Importantly, it would appear that one would be able to see the evidence developing.

    • Correct, Isvalgaard.

      Scientists would rarely be needed if every
      scientific consensus was correct, and
      all science was “settled” !

      I note that the coming climate change catastrophe
      is a (fake) “crisis” that is always coming, but never arrives.

      A fake crisis serves the purpose as a leftist boogeyman
      if people believe it is coming — an actual climate
      crisis does not have to arrive ( and won’t ) !

      The crisis is ALWAYS in the future, and how can you disprove
      predictions of the future, other than waiting and waiting
      until that future arrives, and nothing bad happened.

      Wait !
      We’ve already HAD 30 years of scary climate
      predictions, and yet the current climate seems wonderful
      — maybe slightly warmer at night if you live in the
      northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, but
      nothing people would notice anywhere else.

      My climate change blog:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  1. I speak the truth, but I do so in a bombastic, sarcastic, demeaning unpopular way. What’s in it for me?

      • This is the case. Its 2018. Where is the collapse? According to Mann, we should be dying in floods.

    • LOL! Great point! When we hear people talk about AI doing what Trive will. We to point this very issue. Crowds in collusion proof antagonistic incentivized game environment can sort even Hocus’ truthiness where AI just can’t and if you consider language derivation and cultural change with it, it will be a hard challenge always for AI even as it matures.

      • True. Bitcoin has been of value to those who dumped at peak Bitcoin. I don’t think that that includes the Winklevoss twins. But even at today’s relatively depressed prices, they’re still way bucks up.

      • Bitoin was a mere 800 dollars in January 2017. Even at todays relatively depressed prices, of 9900, thats still way more than 10x profit over a year ago. Hardly a “dump”. Recent market activity has tested a ‘bottom’ of 6500 that seems to be fairly solid and it is now poised according to technical analysts to break through the recent (four month) downtrend and start heading to a new high.

      • Bitcoin is still here, and while volatile in its price largely due to market manipulation by big bankers using the naked shorting of futures on the chicago commodities exchanges trying to capture control of it, it remains the largest market cap cryptocurrency and most trusted one in the business. In an actual pump and dump, there would be no intrinsic value behind the asset. Not true with bitcoin.

    • I would like to see this claim submitted to trive to assess its truth content!

  2. What is the Truth?

    Does this blockchain process mean that an answer, in every given case, is ultimately decided by the 51% majority of people interested in researching the question? If so, the whole process seems dubious, since, in many cases, it is the minority that gives the correct (or the closest to the truth) answer.

    • I think it is not necessary to “know” “the truth”, it is enough to know what different parties have said. The usual MSM trick is to “say” what contrarians opine, but misrepresent it slightly, take these extreme views usually not even quoted from anybody significant, and then use an authority attack on them.

      For example, I’d be perfectly fine with somebody telling the Arctic sea ice has decreased pretty linearly since 1979. It is also a fact that some eminent scientists have expressed their fear on its disappearance. These facts are not the problem. The problem is the combination of facts like these that create a misleading, alarmist viewpoint that is used to push policies that will provably not work.

      I’m sure alarmists would say the same: that contrarian arguments are sometimes correct, but in combination create a false narrative.

      Climate change is very much a hoax, but not in the way that “climate” wouldn’t “change”, but that a chain of partly correct statements are used to push a more or less political goal, such as stopping plastic use in Western countries, or making money with wind power plants.

      For example, when Al Gore makes a lot of $$$ from misrepresenting facts, I do call it a hoax. I actually paid for his film. And it took a long time before I realised how bad the movie was in representing facts right.

      • I actually paid for his film.

        You and many others. I chose to ignore it, since the propaganda clearly started before you could even enter the theater. Calling it “An Inconvenient Truth” rings the a priori fallacy alarm.

      • I didn’t see the film but I bought the book. But I wasn’t going to pay Gore for the book, so I waited until I found a copy of the book second-hand in a Charity shop. That way I gave no money to Al Gore, only to charity.

    • If 51% disagree with gravity…. does it cease to exist ???
      Truth is not a consensus game.

      • The 51% figure has to do with which data records in the block chain are considered to be valid. This is a mechanism to prevent a bad actor from corrupting the block chain with corrupt/fabricated records. It has nothing to do with the truth measuring aspect of Trive.

  3. Who funds the bounty? Seems like the bounty money (?) has to be distributed to various parties, especially jurors who potentially only receive a tiny part of the original bounty in return for fact checking the fact checking?

    • Hi Eric thanks for asking. Anyone can buy Trive tokens on various cryptocurrency exchanges that will list it after their public ICO. There will be various campaigns to “airdrop” trive tokens widely not just to give people a chance to try Triving, but to ensure that the pool of people submitting stories to be trived is ideologically diverse.

  4. A computational intensive process is an energy intensive process. And the computational loads are growing even faster than the stagnating microprocessor Moore’s Law, so energy expenditure still goes up… and up.

    The Greens are slowly awakening to the required energy expenditures of cryptocurrency mining and block-chain accounting. It will create conflict among their tribes.
    Expect the Greens to eventually attack and revile cyrptocurrency and block-chain. Because not only does it mean energy is needed, its means they cannot revise the past.

    There are hard-core tribal environmentalists that subscribe to sending mankind back to the StoneAge in one swift viral epidemic. The Green elites tribes want a kind of restored Dark Ages feudalism, of course with them as the Feudal Lords. The Malthusians say it is all futile, we’re all going to die.

    But that is what Liberals/Progressives/Marxists subscribe: The Dark vision, of death, of limits, of Pessimism.

    They have been wrong, consistently. And in all likelihood, will continue to be grossly wrong.
    Embrace optimism. Embrace Abundant Energy. Embrace Fossil Fuels and nuclear power.

      • outpacing, not pacing. (time to go to bed)

        [Reply: Fixed it for you. Now sleep in peace. ;-) -ModE ]

      • Man you guys do NOT get it. there is no “NEEDED” computational power. They didnt understand in 2014
        they dont understand today.

        Every 10 minutes there is a problem that the Miners solve. It’s a guessing game.

        Suppose the game is guess the secret number between 1 and 100.

        Suppose there are two people guessing with a CPU, and it takes them on average 5 minutes to guess
        the number.

        Suppose the cost to guess ( machine + electricty) is 5 dollars and they Win 10 dollars when they guess
        correctly.

        What happens? Well the first thing that happens is we CHNAGE THE PROBLEM and make them guess
        a number between 1 and 200, so that on average we have a winner every 10 minutes.

        Then one of the guys decides to buy a second CPU. Now he wins twice as much as the first guy
        and the time to guess drops below 10 minutes. So we change the problem again ( every two weeks)
        and make it harder to guess. But both guys are still making good money.

        So a 3rd person joins and 4th and 5th, and a guy figure out how to guess 10 times as fast with a GPU

        We just adjust the DIFFICULTY of the problem so that the average time to guess the right number is
        10 minutes.

        More guys join, and someome build a FPGA ( its 2011 now) More guessing power is added
        The sum of all guessing power is the GLOBAL HASH RATE. as more join the problem gets harder
        Every two weeks… its adjusted.

        At this point some guys have to stop guessing. WHY? because there cost of guessing exceeds there
        winnings. Guys with CPUs stop guessing, guys with FPGAs stop guessing and the difficulty goes
        DOWN.

        Then guys figure out they need really cheap power and buildings full of miners… More people join
        the total guessing power goes up. the difficulty goes up and profits go down.. Some people with
        expensive power drop out. More powerful machines ship.. chip count per machine goes from
        8 to 16, 20 to 24 to 200.

        A single machine can guess a 15 trillion time a second. Data centers popup around the world

        Shipping containers with hundreds of machines pre wired start to show up next to sub stations.

        the hash rate goes up, the difficulty goes up, players with high cost power drop out, difficulty
        decreases, profits go up, more people come in.

        At some point ( maybe at 5nm in the future) we hit the end of getting double digit increases
        in power and power efficiency.

        machines grow from 200 chips to 400.. global hash rate goes up.. profits go down, weak players
        exit. the strong remain. they buy more machines. they use immersive cooling and overclock the chips hash rate goes up, difficulty goes up, profits go down, weaker players exit. those with cheap power
        and operational excellence ( at scale) buy more machines

        you get the picture. The processing power required is somewhat Self governing. If you throw more network hash at the problem after two weeks the problem will get harder. If YOU CANT thrown more processing power at the problem then the difficulty stays the same and the system continues to work. If power prices go up or the value of the coin goes down, then some miners exit. As the weak players exit, the hash rate goes down, and the problem becomes easier.

        At some point, yes the individual chips may hit a processing wall. duh, more chips in the miner.
        more miners in the data center. etc

        There is no “NEEDED” computational power. The protocal looks at the available power ( as evidenced by the last two weeks of data) and ADJUSTS the difficulty of the problem to make sure that the network will be able to solve the problem every 10 minutes or so.

        So if 20 percent of the network disappeared and start working on something else ( like bitcoin cash) then the protocal ADJUSTS the problem being solved so that the remaining network can solve the problem.

      • “[Reply: Fixed it for you. Now sleep in peace. ;-) -ModE ]”

        The question is, would that be allowed in a crypto fact checking environment? :)

      • “At some point, yes the individual chips may hit a processing wall. duh, more chips in the miner.
        more miners in the data center. etc”

        equals more power expended. each chip in the miner uses energy. more chips & more miners = more energy.

      • joelobryan
        May 8, 2018 at 10:55 pm

        The needed computational power growth is outpacing actual processor power growth.
        ——————————–

        I see no problem with that, what actually is the problem there?!

        You can not get a next evolutionary processor, unless what you say above becomes real.

        Better memory management, and faster memory and more robust databases increase computational power.

        Bill Gates comes to mind…..

        You somehow point out to this “peak processor power”….

        Maybe I may be misunderstanding what you actually mean by computational power!

    • Steven,

      With each technology increment CPU to GPU to FPGA to ASIC, early adopters always harvest the low hanging fruit first and profit the most. Now they are all reduced to finding the cheapest electricity. The technology leaps are ending, now it is becoming processor size. But there is no doubt progress is slowing down dramatically as physical feature limits are being approached.

      So yes, there are changes to problem difficulty in both directions, but this is just a game of 2 steps forward, 1 step back. But overall, the march is toward increasing difficulty solve. Power consumption will increase even more dramatically if crypto-currencies become actual useful money that can buy everyday stuff like groceries or your home’s electric and water bills.

      In any case, computations go up, energy consumption goes up.

      And ironies abound everywhere.

      There are quite serious pushes to put crypto-mining data centers in the high Arctic to take advantage of the cold as a refrigeration source for processor cooling. Greens are gonna love that anthropogenic warming. Think of it — an Alaska North Slope cryptomining mega-center. Cooling comes by circulating warmed cooling water to the Chukchi Sea in the dark of winter, the centers will be basically a big warehouse filled with shipping containers pre-loaded with piles of machines made in SE Asia, whirring away on the extracted natural gas – which has no way to get to a market. Next to the warehouse is mpoderate size CCGT power complex with a big pipeline to nearby gas fields.

      Sea Ice anyone? Melting permafrost? Emissions? Green heads exploding.

      • Of course, crypto-miners like Mosh only use pristine Solar and Wind generated electricity to power their rigs. Which is why Mosh is moving to South Australia to build his data center.

      • Actually all the big crypto miners are moving to the poles. Siberia, Mongolia, Alaska, northern Canada, Iceland, etc go there because you don’t need air conditioning to cool your rigs for most of the year when you already have frigid ambient air to do it for you. Just a little air recirculation in your filtration system and you are good to go. This reduces the power requirements by at least half. Plus there is a lot of cheap hydro power in those regions.

  5. As a skeptic, I am skeptical of preprocessed fact-checking.
    Fact-checking is what we all do every day, it is the battlefield of ideas. We find wattsupwiththat because we search for the truth.
    I read “alarmist sites” for the same reason.

    • I am a fan of fact checking as well. Although I am no fan of Al Gore, I was dismayed to see him noted as a board member of Google when he is in fact a board member of Apple.

  6. The problem I see is the “Fattest Wallet Wins” problem. (My term)

    Frequent in economic systems.

    Here, the folks with $Billion budgets to rake in subsidy and “must buy” incomes: can fund a gigantic flood of “jurors”. A Sybyl Attack is only prevented if the cost to produce new identities is expensive to the funder; and for folks like Soros and “AlGore & Friends” that rate is vastly different than it is for me.

    Just the WWF or Greenpeace could field tens of thousands of “jurors” and volunteers, to boot.

    All suitably zealous, biased, and ready to type in whatever “talking points research” arrived in their email (from the “private server” run in an “offsite location” with lots of discussion of wedding plans on it, no doubt).

    Basically, your blockchain can preserve the record, but it can not force the record to be truthful in content, only in immutability. Then the “jury system” is only as truth-finding as it is honest, and money can buy a LOT of jurors, zealotry supply vastly more, and you end up with the intersection of Fattest Wallet Wins meets Effective Mass Propaganda…

    Kind of like lobbyists buy the politicians, laws, and NGOs they need, that then shape the opinion and field the needed “rent a mobs” to display “public opinion”… No matter how perfectly you prevent that from being changed after it is done, you are still left with Laws For Lobbyists, not for We The People..

    • Thats a very good question! The fattest wallet only determins which stories get the largest bounties put on them. They cannot determine the results that researchers and challengers come up with in their research, nor what choice the jury makes between the two competing sets of research.

      • How does this prevent Mr. Fat Wallet from hiring hundreds of people to be researchers and report only what their employer tells them to report, and thousands of jurors to vote they way he wants them to on any particular issue?

  7. How is this different from something like Reddit, which devolves quickly into mob rule?

    • We use chrome specifically because we know its been subverted, AND its relatively easy to create plugins for Chrome, while Firefox has gotten away from allowing plugins.

      • Plug-ins are prone to creating serious security holes. Apple has long understood that about Adobe’s Flash Player. Fortunately the world should be fully to HTML5 by 2020, and Flash will be relegated to dustbin of history.

        The tech industry wants that to, because full migration to HTML5 platforms is driving hardware replacements at all levels due to programmed obsolescence.

      • See part II. Chrome uses user browsing behavior to inform the google search engine of what to rank higher.

    • Actually, previously Trived articles, claims, or facts CAN be re-Trived as new information comes to light, so the blockchain stores a permament record of what has been agreed are the facts, at the time the agreement is made. New information obviously means that the stories can be reTrived.

  8. I checked out the website. The presentation is pretty compelling, but the web site listed for Matt White (valdezhelicamps.com) does not appear to be active since 2012. That might not be a good credential to list for a member of the executive team.

  9. How about a Bitcoin that is NOT based on the mythological version of Potlach, i.e. proving your worth by destroying part of what you own.

    • Actually bitcoin is based on the same economic basis of any sound currency like gold or silver: Proof of Work. Gold and silver money have intrinsic value because capital is invested at some time in the past to dig them from the ground, refine and mint them into coins or bullion. That value appreciates forward in time to the present, hence why sound money is deflationary as the supply is provably scarce and unforgeably costly to create, against a market of growing demand.

      • The difference is there is finite supply of gold and silver. This is not the case for cryptocurrencies. Yes,there may be a finite supply of Bitcoin, but there a dozen or more other cryptocurrencies. There barriers of entry are low.

        Traditional First World currencies have a vested interest in keeping their currencies within a certain trading range and therefore are relatively stable.There are exceptions\corrections of course, like the Pound Sterling after Brexit. Who is backing these currencies? Look at what just happened in Vietnam.

        “It comes after a Vietnam company, Modern Tech Jsc, was accused of scamming US$660 million (S$864.37 million) from tens of thousands of people who bought iFan and Pincoin cryptocurrencies, according to state media.”

        The other major issue is that because of the volatility, few businesses accept cryptocurrencies as payment. Microsoft does, but only on apps, games and movies — items were the marginal cost of the product is nil. So basically cryptocurrencies are rendered little more than speculative investments.

        What happens when Bitcoin gets too expensive to mine? My guess is that investors and miners will cash out and invest in another newer, lower-valued cryptocurrency.

      • Proof of work does not provide the value by itself. I can put a lot of work digging a big rock out of my back yard, but that will not make it valuable to anybody. Now if I make a statue out of it, then it may have value. The difference is that it has to provide some usefulness to someone eventually in order to have value. Art and Music provide entertainment. Gold and Silver can be used to make things that people want. The work done to produce Bitcoins is not useful in any way, kind of like my labor to dig up that rock. A dollar bill is not worth something based on the amount of effort it took to print it; indeed, you want that to be as small as possible. The same goes for mining of raw materials. A lump of coal has no intrinsic value no matter what it cost to mine; it is only valuable because it can be burned to produce heat.

      • Of course POW doesn’t provide value in and of it self. That only creates the scarcity function on the supply side. The demand side is totally reliant upon the free market.

  10. One should not confuse this “thrive” with the “thrive” weight loss program.

    Unless this thrive is lifting the weight of misinformation.

  11. Behind every blockchain is this massive computational effort that also requires the personal time (presumably compensated by presumably valuable tokens) of thousands of users. It’s working for cryptocurrencies because the inevitable sad ending hasn’t been written yet, but I’m skeptical that it will work generally for all of the purposes that have been described so far.

    A trustworthy intermediary does serve a purpose, after all.

    • Blockchain is a technology that is going to transform much of the world, helping to build institutions of trust through smart contracts on-chain that people in developing nations can rely upon when they cannot trust their own governments, banks, etc. As we are seeing in our own media and government, that erosion of institutions of trust has been a cancer upon developed nations civil societies as well. Blockchain restores trust because you don’t need to believe the person you are doing business with, because everyone can trust the smart contract to execute the same way every time for everyone.

      • What if their own governments block them from the technology?

        North Korea is an example.

        (Yes, I do know what is going on right now. Referring to the past, I am.)

      • Sara, yes governments can block people from using the technology, or try. The great firewall of china, the russian firewall, and north korean firewalls are all rather porous. All you need is a VPN application on your phone and you have pretty wide open access to the global internet. Make your phone a mobile hotspot for your PC and you are browsing the world inside the hermit kingdom.

    • Wait till part II is published. unfortunately there was not enough room to talk about that part.

    • Exactly. A consensus arrived at by means of an elaborate algorithm remains a consensus. That seems to me to not modify the relation between science and consensus (there is none) one whit.

  12. A look at how and why Blockchain will destroy the Lyin’ Left!

    https://www.maddogslair.com/blog/a-look-at-how-and-why-blockchain-will-destroy-the-lyin-left

    The environmental movement, the Population Bomb, Global Warming Alarmism, and most of the other progressive social movements are predicated on lies. The left has adopted these lies into the Democratic Party platform, and, so, will suffer greatly once there is a verifiable information platform which can ascertain the truth.

    Further, postmodernism’s base contention is that there is no truth, everything is subjective narrative. This starkly disagrees with human experience, so postmodernism will also have a tough time in a new fact and truth driven world.

    Good, these are malign entities and influences which are trying to destroy the West and civilization.

    Mark Sherman

    • the blockchain is a distributed public ledger. That means it is not in any one place. It is in many places, many nodes, even right in the users wallet, so you can store a full copy of the blockchain on your own PC. If the power goes out permanently, the world has a lot bigger problems than a little CO2.

  13. At work, our Sonicwall blocks websites that are ‘not rated’ which trive.news comes back as.

    URL: http://trive.news/

    Block reason: Forbidden Category “Not Rated”

    Could you please rate your site into some category like ‘News’? Thanks.

    • Sonicwall is a horrible product. In the early days of the product, we had customers and other business contacts adopt it. Sonicwall blocked all of our emails to them, even though we were never blacklisted by anyone. The solution: pay Sonicwall to “rate” your domain.

  14. Like writing a check, if you write two of them, then there is the “delay” between clearings. What stops one from writing more checks then in the account?

    Same goes for land titles. Two people attempt ownership – only one can go through.

    So blockchain is a great technology for these types of systems.

    There is even talk of using it for issuing stocks. A recent audit of some brokerage houses found an “extra” 10 million shares of Target having been issued.

    However, it remains a “big” question if brokerage houses will adopt blockchain technology to prevent “extra” shares being issued to more than one person.

    At the end of the day, using such a transaction system for peer review (pal review) is possible, but those providing the encryption (the mining) have to be paid for that service. So there have to be a cost attached to the system – and that tends to be an issue. I can’t say this will go any different then “pal” review as opposed to peer review.

    No one is going to provide “mining” or computers to encrypt unless they are paid.

    And normal folks are not going to “pay” to review some document – it will come down to who is being paid for such reviews.

    Right now, bitcoin pays for the “rather” larger numbers of people providing the computer processing by rewarding with bitcoins. However, there is a fixed limit on the number of coins to be issued (about 21) million. They are at what, about 19 million right now?

    Once they finished issuing coins, then they will pay minors by attaching a transaction fee to the system. In other words, to pay and give incentive to “mining” operations, a transaction fee will be attached to the bitcoin transactions to pay for the system. So in place of issuing coins as a reward, they will now collect a transaction fee and be paid that way.

    So blockchain is a great concept, but fees do have to be attached to the system and someone has to pay for such transactions. No one going to offer such large amounts of computing power without being paid.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Well, the looney left says that carbon taxes are neutral. I mean, if the government takes your money and then spends it back into the system, that’s considered tax neutral!!!!

        To be honest, I am surprised that blockchain not been proposed for carbon trading! – after all we see massive fraud in Europe in this regards. So combine “cool” next great thing called blockchain with carbon credits – Al Gore would be proud!

        As noted, many people are tossing around block chain like it is the 2nd coming here. It is a transaction system like a paper ledger used 100+ years ago. Banks used to fill up stagecoaches with large amounts of cash to transfer money between cities. They then figured out with a clearning house in each city, then they wipe out the differences in the ledger, and the stage coach only need transfer the difference in money. Sometimes very little if any money need be transferred as a result.

        So blockchain is a great system – but anything right now from land titles, check clearing etc. been based on a ledger system for a very long time. As noted, I not sure brokerage houses would accept such systems anymore then say banks will. However, banks do see blockchain/bitcoin as a real threat. There is now some startups printing actual paper with bitcoin codes. So such a move could really cause people to start using bitcoin, since it can be transferred via paper. And keep in mind that the transaction costs for bitcoin have become rather hight right now ($18). So what SubWay does (yes, you can buy subs with bitcoin now) does, is batch up the transactions for the day – and send that out. JC Penny also now accepts bitcoin (but only though a gift card program). And now expedia (air travel, hotel bookings, car rental etc.) also accepts bitcoin.

        So governments and banks are VERY worried about this technology, and it not so much that the system is great for transactions (like writing checks), but the spill over potential such as startups now making paper money and other devices to exchange bitcon – that is the real threat. I mean, how about a bridge between bitcoin and your bank (interac) card? I mean bitcoin machines spit out a paper “code”, but the real threat is that of system starting to issue a currency that has VERY ease of use to buy things – that is the REAL threat.

        Argentina is a great example. They what about 16+ years ago had some serious currency problems, and have strong restrictions on foreign exchange. So a recent story shows a musician who plays at a local bar. The owner pays him in bitcoin. Of course he can’t buy everything he needs, so he texts a local teenager who rides around on a bicycle – and he will exchange bitcoin for local cash. Imagine that – a kid on a bicycle with a smart phone is now able to provide banking services to the local community!

        So this technology is here to stay. I remember talking to people who had not been on the internet. They really could not “get” what all the fuss is about. Now they “get” it and can’t live without it!!

        The same thing is occurring with bitcoin – once people start to grasp what it can do, then adoption rates will continue to rise. The huge issue is governments really don’t want a “general” new currency that they don’t have control of.

      • @Mikelorrey – thanks – did not realize it was cut.

        I was in the final sentence anyway. The last point was govts are worried about this technology since when you start talking about “paper” bills used for bit coin transactions, then they feel the currency system slipping away from their control. As noted, this is much like the “internet” – as more grasp what this can do, then the more people will see it as a useful technology. But such a system will involve fees – but in most cases such fees are far less then say traditional banks.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Hi Albert. Governments are in such a trap of unfunded liabilities that they are inherently fiscally unsustainable over the next 10-20 years UNLESS governments convert their national currencies to national blockchains and decentralize government services into smart contracts on the national blockchain. Unless they all transform in this manner, the only governments that will exist in 30 years are those backed by Sovereign Wealth Funds.

  15. Absolutely no such thing as security in the digital realm. If it’s cyber, it can be hacked. How much time it takes is the only question. The only answer is to find a way to make security obsolete.

    • Christopher Paino
      May 9, 2018 at 10:47 am

      The main point of blockchain,,, you can hack if you dare, but you can not destroy data, and then you can run but you can’t hide…
      If you hack, you get a “bounty” on you….regardless of who you are.

      cheers

      • Security in blockchain is not just a matter of consensus, but of time. Blocks that have been authenticated for more than an hour will never be alterable by any means whatsoever, and those authenticated more recently are generally 99.9999%+ sure of remaining valid. Of the 1500 known public blockchains, I have only seen one, Verge, fall to attackers using a sybyl attack, and Verge’s XVG coin is a very thinly traded coin, with a very small community of miners involved.

    • Many have posited that the advent of quantum computing will make non-quantum encryption untenable. This is false. All this means is you need longer keys. Doubling the size of your encryption key gives you trillions of times more security. I give classes to people about how to make more secure passwords that are easy to remember. It is possible to use simple passphrases you can remember that are 20-30 characters that are secure against even quantum computing for trillions years.

    • You know, Raino, it was an argument like yours that inspired me to conceive that a proof of work money system needed a public ledger to be secure. The idea of a public ledger, to track the chain of custody of every coin from its moment of inception, was my own contribution to the project. Nick’s brilliant game theory, Hal’s cryptography, Ralph’s Merkle Tree math, and Wei’s wallet system all made it possible for those that followed to complete the development and release the Satoshi paper. No, a blockchain cannot be hacked so long as sufficient participants resist a Byzantine Generals attack or Sybyl attack, or any number of other attacks. Those attacks are possible given certain conditions, but they are not probable, and the more a blockchain is used, the less likely they are to succeed. Nobody has EVER hacked a 256 bit public key encryption system in sufficient time for the result to be relevant. The amount of resources you need to hack the cryptography consume so much resources and energy that it is less expensive just to mine the blockchain honestly, even though doing that is an expensive proposition. Unforgeable costliness.

  16. I can’t see this working or at least not working the way the author seems to think it will. If you take
    climate change as an example the overwhelming majority of scientists believe it is happening and
    that it is man made. Thus any researcher or jury member is most likely to re-affirm the consensus.
    And people here will ignore this as just another example of some wide-spread global conspiracy.

    Another example might be whether or not Obama was born in the USA. A majority of republicans
    still don’t believe that he was despite all of the evidence. Would a block chain record persuade someone
    that Obama was born in Hawaii? Or that Trump has lied over 3000 times since taking office starting
    with his claim that he had the biggest inauguration crowd.

    I find it very unlikely that showing someone a record in a block chain will persuade anyone of anything.

    • Conspiracy claims will always exist, some true, some not.

      The Climate Science conspiracies have actually been proven true, by top Climate Science like Jones, Hansen, Mann, Trenbrith, etc, who:

      – conspired to dodge FOIA request
      – conspired to delete emails
      – conspired to delete data and methods
      – conspired to corrupt the peer review process
      – conspired to blackball scientists who questioned their beliefs

      I find it very showing that either you are not aware of the truth, or simply choose to ignore the truth.

      BTW consensus is not a part of the Scientific Method.

      • Reg – consensus is a vital part of the scientific method. It informs researchers about what is known and what isn’t and thus represents the starting point for
        research. Biologists do not have to continually demonstrate that DNA forms a
        double helix or that the genetic code consists of 4 letters for example. Rather they buy sequencing machines that spits of the genetic code for them and rely on consensus that what the machine is doing is correct. Without consensus science could not progress.

      • Germinio May 9, 2018 at 2:44 pm

        LOL at how you ignore the first part of my response — typical, really.

        Regarding scientific consensus: hypothesis are tested, some become theories. Theories are then tested through experiments and observations, either to be upheld or rejected. You seem to have no understanding of the Scientific Method — something established centuries ago, something I learned in Middle School.

        Consensus in Science is not achieved through surveys. It is established through replication of predictions.

      • Reg – I ignored the first part of your original comment since it did not appear to be make much
        sense nor was it relevant to the discussion. With regards your comments on the scientific method
        you state that “Theories are then tested through experiments and observations” which is what is
        consensus science means. Nobody has the time to replicate all of the tests of particular theories
        but instead relies on the existing consensus of what is known when starting a new research topic.

        Another example is that of Morley of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. After his initial experiment disproving the aether he went on to conduct many more experiments with Dayton Miller which he claimed to show the existence of the aether and which disproved special relativity. So
        if I wanted to research special relativity would I need to start with testing whether or not the aether existed or could I rely on the consensus view that Einstein was right and proceed from there?

      • @ Germinio May 9, 2018 at 4:05 pm
        Reg – I ignored the first part of your original comment since it did not appear to be make much
        sense nor was it relevant to the discussion.
        —-

        How so? I provided concrete examples of how Climate Science has been corrupted, and at the highest levels.

        How does this not make any sense to you you?

        Are you really that incredibly thick?

      • Reg,
        If you want to discuss the alleged conspiracy concerning “climate-gate” then perhaps you should
        start with the fact that 8 seperate enquires found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. I would suspect that you would disagree with the conclusions of those enquires so the next more
        relevant question would be how with Trive help with this at all? If all of those reports were on Trive would you believe them or would you decide that Trive was corrupted as well?

      • Germy, I’ve read the climategate emails, have you? The so called “enquiries” that supposedly “cleared” the coconspirators are about as reliable as James Comey’s clearing Hillary of wrongdoing months before she was interrogated, or Congress clearing her of culpability for the Benghazi attack and murders. Those in power protect their own, and if you don’t know that, or refuse to admit it, you are part of the problem, or else actively complicit.

      • Anthony your lack of integrity is disappointing. Are you going to reveal the identities of everyone
        who posts on this site or only those you dislike? If you want real names then you should ask for
        them instead of letting people use whatever alias they like.

      • mikelorry – you are missing my point. The question is not whether or not the enquiries’ conclusions are
        accurate but rather why should I believe Trive compared to the House of Commons? The basic issue is
        trust and Trive does not seem to solve that. Why would anyone trust Trive? Having a permanent record
        of who said what established authorship it does not guarantee accuracy.

      • The House of Commons “enquiry” never actually established any facts. They did not document their claims, they did not actually DO anything resembling any form of due process. They claimed they looked at the evidence, and they declared nothing was amiss. Attempts by citizens to FOIA their internal records have been ignored as “confidential”, and every “enquiry” is clearly a white wash by ANY nations standards of jurisprudence, never mind any process of peer review. Anyone who claims the enquiries are not whitewashes is either lying or hasn’t actually paid any attention to the details. People should believe Trive’s conclusions on such a story because it will document all the facts, point to all the evidence, and the jury will be blindly picked randomly and the jurors will view all evidence on a double blind basis. By comparison, the enquiry of Commons was rigged by hand picking the enquirers to deliver a predetermined conclusion to serve the interests and narrative of the ruling party.

    • @ Germinio,
      If you want to discuss the alleged conspiracy concerning “climate-gate” then perhaps you should
      start with the fact that 8 seperate enquires found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

      ____

      I’m am happy to discuss the Climate Gate Emails with you. I have actually read them, have you?

      Why would I need someone else to explain that to me?

      Do you require everything to be filtered down to your tiny little mind view?

      • Reg and Mike:
        Can you explain to me how Trive would solve the problem of trust using the climate gate emails as an example? If I understand it correctly somebody would ask Trive whether the emails demonstrate that there
        was a conspiracy to make the public believe in global warming. Trive would then send out a request for a
        researcher to answer the question. And then what? If the researcher comes back with the statement “there
        was no evidence of scientific misconduct” and provides as evidence the results of the various enquires
        then what happens? There is a verifier who checks the research and the quality of the evidence and again
        most people would accept the results of 8 seperate enquires and so it would then appear that Trive would
        mark the story as false. However I would guess that neither of you would agree with this assessment so
        it would appear that the Trive model is never going to work since people will just continue to believe whatever they want to believe.

        The same issue would appear whenever stories about climate would be checked. The vast majority of actual climate researchers would back the consensus view and so you would expect if there were any experts on Trive that it to would reflect the consensus opinion on any matter.

      • The researcher would create a claims sheet of each claim made in a story about the emails. The emails are source material. The news stories about them are what we trive. So a researcher would look at a story for instance about “hide the decline” as “Mike’s Nature Trick” and the researcher would see what the story is claiming Mike’s Nature Trick was. Thats a claim on the claims sheet. Then they would look at the emails about Mike’s Nature Trick, and look at the article in Nature by Michael Mann that term refers to, and thus the fact that the term “mikes nature trick” and “Hide the decline” are in the email is provable by reference to the email itself, including the email header info documenting it came from the email account it is attributed to, etc. They can verify that the Nature article has the chart in question and what the chart is displaying.
        That all gets hashed and stashed on the blockchain. If someone challenges the documentation of those claims, they perform similar research showing how the original researcher is wrong. Then the competing documentation about the claim goes to the jury to decide which set of documentation and conclusion is what really happened. Their vote becomes the permanent record on the blockchain, and ALL news stories that repeat the original claims made by the story that was trived are either emphasized, if the original story was telling the truth, or the text is greyed out if the original story was telling a lie, thus effectively demonetizing the story since nobody will read a story with no visible text, and nobody will view the ads on that page.

      • Mike –
        Thanks for that. But the case you are describing is a simple case of facts. In general people argue about
        the interpretation of them. And here Trive would appear to be useless. Nobody is likely to worry about
        whether or not Mann used a certain method to produce but whether or not that method is valid. If somebody
        were to ask Trive whether a story alleging that the climate gate emails revealed scientific misconduct
        how would you get a response that people trusted given that every enquiry about the emails has exonerated
        the authors and yet people still disbelieve the results? Why would people trust Trive over any other fact-checking service?

      • Sorry Germy but you are yourself generating fake news there. You are not telling the truth in claiming that every enquiry has exonerated the coconspirators. Particularly in the blogging public, there have been any number of quite open and honest enquiries performed by people without a government agenda who have publicly posted content from the emails, including the context of those comments, and the information the comments relate to (like the Nature article), so that anyone can form their own opinion without relying on some stooge in government to tell them what to think. Now, I get it that some people like yourself may wake up every day looking forward to some government apparatchik to pronounce what you are supposed to think that day. We get it, that’s common with the types of people who look at Orwell’s 1984 as an instruction manual and not a warning. But those of us who can think for ourselves don’t need to be brainwashed by some priestly panjandrum of political pomposity pronouncing prescribed positions from government on high. The state may be your god. It is not ours.

      • Mike – Again I am not concerned with the actual validity of the various enquires but rather how Trive would
        handle the fact that clearly there are people like yourself who disbelieve the conclusions and there are plenty of others who are happy to accept the word of governmental enquires. Again why would anyone believe Trive over any other fact-checking service? And even if it was popular how could it get around the fact that most people probably would believe the government and thus in the pool of researchers the majority would support the consensus view?

  17. What is so hilarious about Bitcoin is that it assumes the Quantity Theory of Money is true. But QTM is merely an emotionally-potent oversimplification (similar to: CO2 goes up; temperature goes up).

    People make the same stupid-ass mistake about gold — that gold is valuable because it’s “scarce” (that is, the scarcer something is, the more valuable it is).

    Gold is not scarce. In fact, in terms of stock-to-flow, it is the most abundant commodity on Earth … by orders of magnitude!

    Gold is valuable not because of its quantity, but because of its quality, and that quality is that gold is the most marketable commodity.

    Yes Dorothy, there is something called the Quality Theory of Money. Bitcoin ignores that reality. And that is its flawed premise.

    See: Bitcoin’s Flawed Premise
    http://www.maxphoton.com/bitcoins-flawed-premise/

    • Max – you are confusing two difference functions. Bitcoin works very well as a
      medium of exchange – especially if you want to buy drugs or other illegal commodities. What it is not good at is as a store of wealth and there I agree with you that anyone buying bitcoins thinking that they will always see an increase in value is a fool.

      • For most people it does not work very well for a medium of exchange. None of the people or companies I do business with accept it.

        At best, it is a Ponzi Scheme. Great if you get in early and get out before the sky falls.

        I

      • That is your choice. I know plenty of merchants who won’t accept checks, or credit cards. For the unbanked in the developing world, bitcoin and other crypto is becoming an indispensable requirement to save money and transact trustably with mechants and customers. There are well over 30 million unbanked persons in the US also whose lives can be improved by using crypto.

      • actually bitcoin is an excellent store of wealth and has scaling issues at becoming a global medium of exchange due to overuse. Yes there is short term volatility in bitcoin just as there is in gold and other scarce commodity assets.
        There will only be 21 million bitcoins minted, EVER. There are already 16 million bitcoin in circulation. There are currently 15 million millionaires in the US alone. If every millionaire in the US decided to buy just one bitcoin, how high do you think the price would go?

      • And no, Bitcoin is the exact opposite of a ponzi scheme. The US Dollar is a ponzi scheme. It is not backed by anything other than a thugs gun to your head. Bitcoin is backed by the cryptographic math that makes it unforgeably costly to create, impossible to counterfeit, and there will never be more than 21 million.

      • BTW Reg: Do you do business with Dell Computers? With Overstock.com? I can name dozens of major corporations that DO accept bitcoin that you are probably not aware of.

    • Your quality of money theory also applies to bitcoin. You can do a number of things besides currency transactions on the bitcoin blockchain. You can store hashes of various offchain assets, like smart contracts on a side chain. In fact this was one of the largest uses of bitcoin before the Ethereum blockchain became operational. The RarePepe is another example, where you can validate the ownership of off-chain assets like artwork (and yes, even gold or silver assets).
      When we created the original ideas that evolved eventually into bitcoin, all of these applications were foreseen. Nick Szabo has been talking about smart contracts since 1992. The entire REASON we developed proof of work (First implemented as code by Hal Finney long before the Satoshi paper) was we realized that gold and silver backed digital money was inherently weak because having metal lying around is a point source security risk, so PoW was created to simulate mathematically the macroeconomic behavior of sound money without needing metal to back it.
      Furthermore, bitcoin is of HIGHER quality than gold because not only can you store it more securely than gold (compared to bitcoin, gold is bulky and massive and you need to secure it in vaults that are easy to find and rob, I can store a billion dollars in bitcoin on one USB drive and hide it ANYWHERE, securing the contents with an unbreakable password), and I can move it faster and more securely than gold (I can transfer a billion dollars in bitcoin in a single transaction on a single block, and send it to anyone in the world in ten minutes, with maybe an hour or two confirmation time at worst, with a transaction fee less than what you’d pay for a Western Union wire. Five to ten bucks to transfer a billion. There is no other currency or money system on Earth, other than another blockchain, that can beat that. THAT is quality.

      • But this isn’t money, it’s information. Maintaining it’s integrity after it is stored is a noble objective but I’m not seeing anything to guarantee that the information was correct when it was initially stored.

        I maintain that critical information should be stored on unalterable media such as paper or film. You can make several copies and have it stored in vaults. With no wires attached and nothing electronic involved with the storage it simply cannot be hacked. Ditto voting – hand marked paper ballots that can be physically counted and recounted.

  18. Mike,

    An interesting concept. I’m curious as to whether or not you have had an opportunity to review Hashgraph technologies. Hashgraph claims to be superior in some respects (specifically in speed of developing consensus an in true Byzantine fault tolerance) to Blockchain based technologies. If you have reviewed the technologies what were the primary drivers to selecting Blockchain over Hashgraph for a project such as Trive news?

    For reference: https://www.hederahashgraph.com/

    • Hashgraph technology is interesting as it does allow for a much faster transaction authentication rate than a proof of work algorithm and blockchain. However, it is not yet proven that hashgraph is secure against attack as a public system distributed widely. It is certainly secure as a private permissioned system.
      There is a divergence going on in blockchain technologies (which is a broad term applying to subsequent innovations like hashgraph, blocktree, etc) in which there are public distributed systems that everyone can access and trust, and private permissioned systems which are more secure but are ultimately controlled by some corporate entity and while you can trust the system is secure from outside attack, you remain subject to the whims of the company that controls it and so that remains a form of centralization that is a security weakness for the individual user at the mercy of the corporate owner.

      • Thanks! I enjoy reading and learning about cryptographic systems in general, but in my profession I don’t have much time to devote to actually performing a study. I do appreciate opportunities such as this forum that give me the chance to communicate with individuals who know more about the subject than I.

Comments are closed.