I think we need to decide the structure of how the organization will operate.

I just wanted to start drilling down on Adams open governance idea, which I'm fully supporting. I think we should decide things in the following order.

-Core Areas of Operation and Rank (5 nodes)
-Distribution model (Cyclical)
-Method of Operation (Strategic)
-Road Map (Plan)

I would like to develop a platform for building token machines that operates on the language of the John Conway's Game of Life. Utilizing its basic distribution taken from the glider operator a sustainable life form. Essentially utilizing massive augmented multitasking. I think each cycle has a goal and the goal of the game is to go through cycles as fast as possible. Time is the method of control and growth of the platform by user nodes.

The first operator to design in my opinion should be a glider structure based on 5 collaborative node groups. The distribution of resources and assets to sub nodes will be based on the distribution of connections to the network. This is serves as the foundation to build different Tokens like LTBcoin.

The first operator coin I've proposed is based on the Glider. I'd like to establish this as the basis for the TestNet, which will operate on its own blockchain. The blockchain is untrusted so it be becomes a hard node on the system. Coins go in but they don't come out, essentially the recycling bin for wasted assets. Coins don't necessarily need to be burned, but assets owned by the users could be stolen, so all stakes are held by a proof-of-burn node., which has still yet to be proven.

The basis of the test net is give hackers a platform for hacking the system. The automated distribition node controls the stake of the entire network so the coins are never fully utilized. After a test cycle is completed X amount of glider coins are released as ok to leave the network.

By utilizing resources into GliderCoin we are essentially taking a step back before we move forward and becomes and ongoing playground for collaborating on network development and proof-of-hack models. Everything built into LTBcoin comes through Glidercoin first. The machine that built itself essentially or turing complete I suppose?

I have a general rule of which laws the system needs operate on, but need help collaborating and determine if the logic makes sense. I look at this as the collaborative gateway for building all the great things we want to do.

I think there are other coins needed for the system we also didn't expect like proof-of-participation/identity. These need their own structure as well.

Here is the thought experiment I proposed on the forum defining the loose structure of LTBcoin.

http://ltbcoin.com/discussion/61/what-are-should-be-the-core-areas-that-cover-all-of-ltb-s-coin-distribution#latest

This should not affect the timing of LTBcoin distribution. Manual practices for disbursement for LTBcoin may be required in order to operate the system while GliderCoin establishes proof models that the GliderCoin validates as un-hackable thus far. New proofing models are then sustained on both networks, but Glidercoin continues to validate new concepts essentially becoming the Gosper Glider Gun, which continuously generates Glider Automaton or machines like 'LTBcoin' that do not interfere with one another and are available to the entire network.

TLDR: Decide on the LTBcoin foundation and operation, We need to build a prototype first. The prototype 'GliderCoin' will serve as rough operational method for both users and collaborators, while the LTBcoin operation is built and launched.

Given the complexity of this idea I need help discussing the feasibility of this proposed distribution of attention model.

I think one of the most important things to look at first is the CMS and how that will work to serve the overall project goals, since that will be the platform that everyone uses to submit content and interact with the network. Someone has to build the system that tracks contributions to the network and establishes the rewards, and that someone has to tell us what can and can't be easily done.

I created a project outline that I think will help us with this decision-making exercise. It would be great if you all could take a quick look at the attachment, identify any decisions that have not been made yet, and post them on here for discussion.

Project Outline Attached

Another important thing I think we need to discuss regarding development is between the core group of thinkers and doers, what are our beliefs and what problem(s) we're ultimately trying to solve, essentially the culture/philosophy of the group.

I'm a firm believer in things like this since many successful companies like zappos, facebook, google, apple put a lot of emphasis on the culture which their supporting. I think this is important when determining who will fit well in certain areas of the business, like OKcupid for finding job within the organization.

If you haven't read "Delivering Happiness" by Zappos CEO I highly recommend it. It's an easy enjoyable read and shows hows changes in how they operate has made huge leaps in adopting their market. The most important thing to Zappos is their culture followed by customer service.

It's not a problem that can be decided over one meeting, but it's something we should be thinking and talking about. I also imagine each group operating in its own network will develop their own culture, so this is something each network group should document.

Here a plan I've laid out for this weeks podcast, thoughts?

Looks good.