Bitcoin Forum

All righty, then. This is it.

The purpose of "towncoin" is decentralization, participation, and circulation. If bitcoin crosses the soccer mom barrier all the "SCAM! PONZI! NO EXPERTS!" wankers will eat their words. Now instead of imposing demurrage or inflation, we use natural analogies. Your heavy Monster Truck isn't worth as much as my heavy farm equipment. I hate arbitrary ego inflating decisions.

Mainline wants blocks to trade. Speculators in mainline do most of the trading. This increases prices but increases instability. Difficulty corrects this process.
Town wants products to use. Producers exchange recycled bitcoin to create products. This gives value to bitcoins and reduces instability. Difficulty interferes with this process.
The benefit to the town is something that works for them. The benefit to mainline is that once a few town pools are up operating on productivity, real bitcoin value will rise many times which benefits everyone.

What I'm proposing induces the feedback loop that people think won't ever happen. They are trying to saddle bitcoin with all sorts of elitist crank modifications. I may be wrong but I won't impose anything on bitcoin. This is just a way to interact with subnets.

The hard ratio: A reference not the actual value
The purpose of lowering difficulty is to reduce the time that CPU miners need to find a block. The town economy is small so entry time is important. High difficulty reduces trade volume. I can build 10 widgets with the same bitcoin if it circulates 10x as fast. But participation doesn't guarantee recycled bitcoin. Shorter entry time is more important than payout. People need circulation and entry ability. Mainline miners sell to currency traders. Town miners buy equipment and sell produce, products, and services to town buyers.
Higher participation and higher trading per participant will lead to higher recycling. Bitcoin which purchases things people need adds value to the coin itself which helps the global value.

Mainline miners increase recycling between currency traders.
Town partcipants (miners and product traders) increase recycling which creates wealth by producing more for less total bitcoins.

So we argue that as a reference and not necessarily the actual value.
A. 50 BTC at difficulty 500,000 = 5 BTC at difficulty 50,000. This is statistically correct.
B. 50 BTC at 1000 traders for every miner is worth 5 BTC at 100 to 1. A reference only.
C. 500,000 difficulty at 100 trades per participant is worth 5,000,000 difficulty at 1000 trades per participant. A reference only.

A. This is like splitting a stock.
B. This is like offering free samples.
C. This is like selling advertising.

B and C will lead to more recycling. Neither is guaranteed to do so alone so they are only reference values. Instead of dropping reward in C we increase difficulty because it avoids speculation at the expense of production and because more drops in reward would cause chaos for prices in stores.

For A we use the hash rate ratio between pools to drop the difficulty and reward. We want more blocks so more can enter the market.
For B we use the mining participation ratio to drop the reward. The increase in participation is natural. We want more people producing to get more recycling.
For C we use the trading participation ratio to increase the difficulty. More people will trade to get more recycling going.

Typically a GPU gets 100x the hash rate of a cpu.
Typically a town pool needs 10x the participants compared to mainline.
Typically a town will have 10x the trades per parti compared to mainline.

In A, drop in reward balances a drop in difficulty.
In B, drop in reward balances an increase in mining participation.
In C, increase in difficulty balances an increase in transactions.

All these favor the town. The town then boosts real world value of bitcoins.

A. 100x drop in reward for change of difficulty = effectively no change at all
B. 10x for change in participation = effectively no change in long term, but an immediate 10 fold drop for short term.
C. 10x for change in circulation = effectively an improvement in bitcoin's value, but another 10 fold compounded drop.

The attractive ratio.
Now we have a problem. Payout is fast for CPU miners who do not want to buy GPUs nor care nor sweat nor drool over them but it undercuts the benefits GPU miners might have expected. So none of the big guys want to join.

To make this more acceptable we take the square root of the ratio:

10000x drop in reward is a bit nuts, even at the lower difficulty. It's an effective 100x drop in output. The town's people don't care. Bitcoin in town means something else from what it does at MtGox. They see the entry time reduced which is a plus. They also see more currency recycling which creates more products for a given amount of currency. This effectively drives up the price of global bitcoin and everybody wins.

Square root of 10000 is 100. So for an effective 100x drop originally, you get a 100x drop in output. As the town gets stronger, it becomes more and more like a classic GPU pool but backed by commerce as well.

Viva la Renaissance.

Sounds like a plan.  I will have to leave others to tearing apart the details.  Lack of a fork makes it simple to get started and keeps everything in the BTC family.

What happens to towncoin subnets if there's a crackdown on the mainline BTC.

Mainline, by definition, has a certain degree of inferred centralization.

We are going for soccer mom coin status. An army of women in hairnets lugging tvs with Oprah and soap operas all descending down on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will keep bitcoins safe from harm.

Honestly I have to say I'm not sure I completely understand your proposal.

But can you tell us in what way this is not a fork?  Because, it seems to me, that if you have a different difficulty then you have a different blockchain.  And if your clients must accept a lower difficulty, then you must use modified clients.  How is this "forkless"?

Because the changes are balanced. The counter balances are based on principles that people here agree with. The changes can be introduced via plugin.

A. A lower difficulty matches a lower reward. No real change.
B. A lower reward matches higher participation in mining. Town people are going to participate anyways.
C. A higher difficulty matches increased trading. Internal difficulty feature.

C is an internal counter balance to A. So the difficulty and reward both behave nicely without spiraling.

No one is forced to accept. And any pools can choose to accept.
It merely introduces decentralization tendencies.

This is part of what doesn't make sense to me.  You want a lower difficulty, to enable CPU mining.  Yet there will be 10x the number of transactions.  So, that's contrary to your formula C here.

Currently, there is no real per-transaction cost.  It is more of an "all or nothing" type of fixed cost.  You're saying that difficulty should be proportional to the number of transactions?

There are three parts to the formula. Two reduce reward. Don't forget reward. Everyone gets fixated on difficulty. Lower difficulty at lower reward is no change effectively. If all three parts reduced reward, no one would get into it. Mainline people would join for the drop in difficulty and then freak out at the reward compared to what they are used to. Town people need to make transactions to have an economy.


Not exactly.

There are two parts to the contract: the hard ratio, which you are quoting, and the actual attractive ratio. The hard ratio is used as a reference for how to make it work. The actual ratio depends on the square root of that.

Main principle is to cause zero net effective, practical, and productive change in BTC. Each benefit the town gets comes at a cost. This allows towncoin to exist without there being a divergence in principle even if the variables change. That way towncoin is equivalent to Bitcoin because it does not come out of thin air, but out of a bargain.

So what's the next step?

Do you need to build support for this or can you do it without asking (via plug in)?

Also, are these towncoins in your proposal different from BTC in terms of having their own supply or is it just BTC generated differently?

It seems like the latter.  I have no preference.  Just looking for clarification.

I'm not getting why/how people become obsessed with mining.

Again:
A single GPU miner is enough to make a BTC system produce blocks at a steady 6 blocks/hour rate. More miners just make this system more secure, but don't add any value beyond this. Transactions still take the same time, blocks still need to be distributed + confirmed by other network nodes etc.

In the decentralized Bitcoin (global) world, there cannot be a good/safe secure way to hand out coins, so miners are allowed by the network to generate 50/25/12.5... coins for each block to arbitrary addresses for some years to have an incentive that the network gets secure.

In a towncoin scenario everything will be regional though, so there IS the chance of having a central authority (if shops need to accept towncoins, they might probably even request this...) that hands out towncoins.

To make towncoins forkless, you wold need to play by the official Bitcoin rules. These include: Coin generation in each block for a few years, globally set and globally agreed upon difficulty.

There is NO way without a fork to let CPUs find blocks in a reasonable amount of time, as such lower difficulty blocks would simply not be accepted by the rest of the vanilla network.

What you could do though is to declare some special Bitcoins in the network as "towncoins" and track (+sell) these seperately.
For example you could take 50 freshly minted BTC and declare that you will sell + buy each Satoshi of these for 1 US cent (or whatever price).

You would still have the problem, that if your towncoins are worth far more than regular Bitcoins, transaction fees might become very expensive. Some pools like Eligius don't accept free transactions for their blocks, so just using a client that does transactions for free might also be no solution. This means you need to be very careful when setting the initial conversion rate, as towncoins need to be worth much more than Bitcoins (but stable!), on the other hand they need to be cheap enough to pay (low) transaction fees to not penalize the towncoin users and spam the BTC network with free transactions.

Once the BTC becomes worth more than the towncoin, your people can (should) then switch to the regular bitcoin which by that time should hopefully be already stable enough (at 1 cent/100 TowncoinSatoshis, 1 BTC needs to be worth more than 10000 USD, so there's a little time until that point is reached...). All the townpeople would need to do then is to either remove the towncoin plugin or jsut use the regular BTC client.



TL;DR:
In the end I don't really get how you will NOT fork Bitcoin but allow CPU mining (whatever kind of calculations you do), as there is no way to include blocks with different difficulty in vanilla BTC.
I would suggest using a few trackable BTC to provide a artificially stabilized/subsidized basis for trade until a certain BTC/USD ratio is reached and it is cheaper to use real BTC for your townpeople.

It's just generated differently. I'm gonna have to make pretty pictures, though. Sigh.

Also see me on IRC, I have an idea for our earlier arrangement.

Some because they want to be big stars. But town people want an economy not a LAN party. They need to get in quick.


In a town, you need farm equipment, a few good strong workers, enough sales to pay the bank for the property. Tell those people you want to sell them a Radioactive 6990 with an processor with 7 eyeballs (what do you think an i7 with a Radeon 6990 sounds like to the average person?) and they will tell you to take a hike. They will look upon the computer as an extra gadget getting in their way. They will never understand why they need to spend all that money.




Rule A. Reduced reward with reduced difficulty is equivalent output. This rule makes no change in the value of towncoin with respect to the network.
Rule B. Reduced reward with increased mining. This is equivalent to higher difficulty. Again this makes towncoin even more compatible.
Rule C. Increased difficulty with more transactions. This makes towncoin extremely compatible with the network.

I'll answer the rest in a bit. That's the hard ratio. The more attractive ratio has some interesting properties. But would you agree that the bare bones formula makes towncoins very compatible?

Keep in mind it would be best if people could get their towns started without waiting for the USD to go bonkers so that BTC also goes bonkers equally in reverse. Alabama and Tennessee are damaged now and suffering now. They can't wait. Not the only use for this system, but it is a future goal.

I'm not sure to which 3rd world country you're refering to, but in my ~5000 inhabitants hometown there are 2 public computer stores and a few service providers for stuff like setting up networks etc. at companies...

Also again: What benefit do a few measly miners bring to towncoins if they are integrated (=forkless) in the bitcoin blockchain?

Compatible with the network means:
Difficulty in the block header = http://blockexplorer.com/q/getdifficulty
Payout at the beginning of each block = http://blockexplorer.com/q/bcperblock

You can NOT influence at all how blocks not mined in your town are going to be like (which transactions they include and who will be paid for the block). The only blocks you can influence are the ones mined by your own miners (or a whole pool, if you want to have a "town pool"). This would again mean you will have to keep up with the global hash rate (otherwise your pool will earn less and less, leading to deflation of towncoins) and people are arbitratily limited to using Bitcoins generated by the town pool I guess (if that's your implementation).


A possible implementation of your proposal would be to send out difficulty 1 shares to CPU miners in a pool but difficulty 5(6? 10?) shares to GPU miners, paying them all the same per submitted share however. This would mean, GPU mining would become less attractive/efficient.
Then you would need a client, that only accepts coins mined by this special pool, so you can enforce your rules (otherwise ppl. would just go to a non-discriminating pool).
The problem still remains that you rely on mining for creating coins, you do not have a fixed amount of coins, you will start with only a tiny amount of coins and you also have to rely on constant growth compared to the global hashrate to ensure more money is being minted.

Once again:
Whatever rules you come up with - if these are NOT compatible with the current Bitcoin implementation, you'll either need to have a private segment of the blockchain (only special coins are accepted by your local clients) OR a complete fork including a different blockchain (that is very very vulnerable if you decide to have coins generated continuously via mining like in the main client).

How many of those techs are Microsoft BTC Economics Certified, licensed, and bonded?


Adaptability to the economic trainwreck and seasonal disasters. They don't need the payout. They need the transactions and recycling of bitcoins.


Doesn't the system accept coins with higher difficulty?

Would it be difficult to make so the system accepts blocks if localdiff / localbcperblock = getdifficulty / bcperblock ? The output is the same over time.


The global rate to town rate ratio determines the reward and difficulty drop for Rule A.


Not limited, but the people will want to be able to get in so they would mine. As the town economy becomes more solid, mining gets less profitable. As the town activity increases, mining becomes less profitable. The more the town economy looks like the mainline the more the towncoin generation resembles bitcoins. It's dynamic.



I had that idea a 5 weeks ago. This one is has fewer obstacles, fewer levers, fewer trust interfaces needed.

Yes it does. However it is quite hard already to solve blocks at the current ~500,000 difficulty... solving more difficult blocks and just claiming the current difficulty for them will work, but why doing the effort for that? You would limit people artificially beyond BTC mining.

As you want to change the btc per block (and block generation speed), this is something that the vanilla network will not accept (and it is against the initial BTC spec). There is NO way that the system accepts other blocks, that might even out "over time". This requires a full fork of the blockchain.


Maybe a few other questions:
Should the Towncoin/USD rate be as stable as possible?
How many Towncoins (or USD equivalents) do you want to have initially? (something like "1 million of USD in Towncoins")
How many BTC should be equivalent to 1 Towncoin?
Do you want townfolk to mine or not? You mentioned that they might NOT be interested in "dealing with nuclear computer parts", on the other hand you seem to want to let people mine their own coins with their CPUs.

To me it sounds like you are overengineering the problem of setting up a local exchanger that offers a mining pool.

Any quiet Sunday morning sipping lemonade and eating watermelons I might agree. There's a slight problem. This can't wait. Developing a trade exchange rate would presume a community that would be willing to do commit to waiting that long. The offer is to hobble the output in exchange for seamless connection. The result is that all subnets have effective difficulty above the network difficulty.

I've read this thread like 5 times in the thought that maybe it is useful.
unfortunately each time it makes less sense than the time before it.

The majority of the modifications are a bargain to be let on the Bitcoin network without forking. The change in the code would happen in three stages and the first is the smallest. Like maybe 20 lines at most. A readable if then else snippet is 5 lines.

"Towncoin" reduces its output in exchange for faster block generation so towns don't have to wait. The blocks are valid on the blockchain and even more secure than mainline. No town is going to accept being run by MMORPG players. And the start up cost is ridiculous.

Also forcing towns to trade physical assets with the network instead of exchanging coins is EXACTLY WHAT NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT have being doing to countries.

That's unacceptable.

An exchange can be set up for a couple thousand.  You're talking about changing the rules on over 6 million bitcoins currently in circulation.  How are you not trying to be a central bank?  I propose there will be 1000 exchanges in small towns before this gets into mainline.  You might have better luck starting a new block chain, but how are you going to build critical mass?

First, this is very similar to slush's pool. In slush's pool everyone gets difficulty one. The angel miners with GPUs who produce the lucky coins have to share the output with everyone else. This just makes it so no angel miners are needed. Towncoins are BTC that are harder to generate.

As for an exchange being $2000, in a town that's been wrecked by disasters? You mean like handing out $2000 debit cards to Katrina victims?

[qoute]
You're talking about changing the rules on over 6 million bitcoins currently in circulation.
[/quote]

No actually it's to be implemented as a plugin.

Options would be something like:
--accept_dynamic_difficulty
--enable_dynamic_difficulty
--enable_soft_gradient


Megaminers are the central banks. They drive the difficulty up which splits the network into players and spectators. I know miners will have cut down or go into physical production to maintain the profitability of mining. But towns struck by tornados can't wait.


It's not an exchange. A "towncoin" is a Bitcoin which is much harder to generate. A townpool is a fast block producing CPU pool. You can have a million townpools if you like. But these fast blocks only contain small amounts of BTC. This is the bargain made with the network.

The people in the town need liquidity and transactions. This system simply makes sure they never produce coins which are of less value than mainline BTC. The reduced value is not a problem. Their value will rise because people need to repair homes and sell milk and eggs not stare at a computer screen waiting for MtGox to update.

In return for the bargain, towncoin productivity will push mainline value up as well. But this will only be realized on the exchanges.


Why should a storm ravaged town starve while they wait for critical mass?

If I understand the underlying idea (between tornadoes, watermelons and whatnot?!) correctly, you want to set up a pool within a town, get some initial bitcoins (to not be dependent on waiting until the first block is solved) and distribute these amongst townsters for mining duties. The mining itself is rather to have "proof of work" than to actually mine bitcoins, as you will distribute only your own initial coins anyways.

How is this different from just starting a new blockchain with all earnings in the genesis block?!


Please get a bit more technical!

I do not want to decouple from the mainline. It makes no sense. Millions of townpools would provide the physical trade features people keep talking about but not being able to start up.
Decoupling will cause all the hard work behind bitcoin to become a casino all because of a slight algorithm detail.


LOL. Nobody could understand the technical explanation. Now you want technical :) Ok.

The first implementation will be using a share based pool system with angel miners. Like slush's pool but with davout's base so I won't have to reinvent the wheel.

What people keep tripping over is the fact that towncoins are bitcoins period. They are just produced in smaller quantities at a faster block rate to match the network value. Towncoiners will be giving up a lot to stay in line. The benefit to the mainline will be the pumping up of the value to where stores can break away from dependence on fiat.

50 BTC at 500,000 difficulty is the same statistically as .05 BTC at 500 difficulty.

True decentralization. But instead of creating the plugin (I'll play with it), I'm gonna use a shared based pool as a bridge.

This is the point that I don't get - how will this work together with the mainline chain?! No mainline client will accept any "fast block".

All in all what you want to do is set up a "pay per share" pool and artificially give GPU miners harder shares to solve while still paying them the same as CPU miners to make sure CPU mining is more profitable - correct?

What I then don't get - why would GPU miners even want to mine in this pool? How do you distinguish between "real" Bitcoin and "Towncoins" and what is the added benefit of owning "Towncoins"?
I guess a subsidized, stable exchange rate, until the bitcoin rate has caught up? Anything else?

Also it might be quite hard to distinguish between someone who mines at 10 MH/s on his 30 PCs and someone who mines at 10 MH/s on 30 instances on the same GPU.

AntiVigilante, I read your post a few days ago and thought A was a pretty good idea, ie, decreasing the difficulty and lowering the reward proportionally. For one thing, it would practically eliminate the need for mining pools. However upon starting to read the bitcoin spec I realized that the entire point of having the difficulty scale with the CPU power of the network is to keep the block generation rate (near) constant. If your idea is implemented, it would allow any attacker to reverse transactions with very little processing power. All they would have to do would be to reduce their local difficulty to 1, effectively netting them 0 reward, but allowing them to overwrite large sections of the block chain, since they could get many low difficulty blocks accepted in the time it ordinarily takes to generate a full-difficulty block.

That's why he only wants to do it in his own "pond" within the real Bitcoin network. Transactions would still be done via the vanilla client, only the money generation would be different. There just needs to be a trusted authority (as in every pool) that watches over money distribution. Additionally he needs to have some incentives for people to mine - especially GPU mining must be more profitable than real bitcoin while returning far less coins. If there are 0 GPU miners in the pool, the few CPU miners won't find blocks themselves and the pond dries out because no money is generated at all.

If I get it correctly, he'd need:

- A pool that somehow detects CPU miners (Hashrate could be cheated by GPU miners launching multiple instances, so there must be another way - probably a quick additional calculation or something that is easy/inexpensive on CPUs but hard on GPUs but should not cause too much loss of hashrate...?!) and hands out getworks of different difficulty but rewards the submitted shares the same. Probably using a PPS system.
- A few Bitcoins to start the system until the first block(s) have been found
- A way to track Bitcoins entering the system and a modified client that gives people the chance to see if a coin or fractions of it is a special "Towncoin" or a regular "Bitcoin" (this might be the hardest part - not the detection, but the distinction so everyone gets the menaning of it!)
- An exchange where you can trade your Dollars for Towncoins and vice versa, with guaranteed exchange rates (that would be quite high, something around a few hundred USD for a full Towncoin probably)

In "Fiat money" this would mean, he'd collect 500 1$ notes, write down the serial numbers and guarantee that he will trade each of these notes for 5 $/piece. Whoever believes him, can now treat these as well like 5$ notes.

Ok now we're getting somewhere. This would be a flaw except that towncoins would not be produced by a person. Only townpools would be able to produce them. Ultimately this would be a possibility only within the first few days of slow start pool.

And there's a feedback loop.

But it would disappear if many people connected quickly such as when the town establishes the townpool system. Bingo 36,000 people on the network. Also mainline difficulty would jump after 2016 blocks were generated. So yes it is an issue, but only a short term one. As mainline difficulty jumps more mining drifts toward the townpools and the gap shrinks and local difficulty goes up and mainline difficulty drops.

Paraphrasing from the first page: Every rule is based on a bargain.
Rule A. Reduced difficulty = Reduced reward. Reason: fast block generation. Bargain: effective reward is the same. Amount of reduction is equal to Global hash rate / pool hash rate.
As more CPUs connect the difficulty rises again.

Rule B. Increased mining per pool = Reduced reward. Reason: mining means more participation. Bargain: mining brings an abstract benefit, reward goes down.
As more people mine the smaller the reward per block which drives local prices down.
Towncoin food prices don't go up because some developer builds a hotel.

Rule C. Increased transactions reverse Rule A so difficulty goes up. Reason: transactions mean more participation. Bargain: transactions = abstract benefit, difficulty up.
As more people make transactions the likelihood of superconducting cycles (1000 BTC cycled 6 times build 5000BTC house) increases.

The reason for Rule C counter balancing Rule A is to return the system quickly back to mainline rhythm once the health and wellness of the town is established.
Also the purpose of Rule B isn't to generate more mining, but to react to it. Town people will mine to get back to working order. Same with Rule C.
Towncoins don't provide the incentive, survival provides the inspiration.

I'm gonna wait a bit longer before I go forward as that was a good find. It's easy to get sucked into a good idea with flaws. Please guys keep tearing it apart.

Yes. Although most of the dynamics will be filtered by the fact it's a share based pool. So even the concerns TI3966 has disappear behind the angel GPU miner curtain. To be honest the small inconvenient shocks to mainline would actually be good in the long term.


I'm fairly certain it may require less monitoring than the mainline pools.


Initially, we are talking about a town ravaged by storms. There would be inspired individuals making the temporary connection, much like jump starting a car.


Once blockrate jumps inside difficulty outside jumps. GPUs will drift into town.


Mostly correct :)


Not quite. The townpool difficulty gets reduced, the reward is reduced for all. However, that special calculation is the attractive ratio aka soft gradient using the square root. I don't know if it will be needed.


Perhaps, but angel GPU miners should be able to kick that off.


This might be a nice feature especially for people to get accustomed to trading decoupled from fiat, as the value of a towncoin is 1 BTC. What towncoin will do is set a lower bound for prices for household items in town. This will have a feedback effect which causes mainline BTC to go way up. Gresham's Law will be hacked. Prices in towncoin will be more stable because of higher transaction rates so people will want BTC but towns will have a strong effect on price.


Think hammers not dollars. Trading for dollars will only have local effects. Trading .005 BTC for candy on one side of town and a hammer on the other side will force mainline to shuffle a bit. Whichever price wins out (hammers make things which bring BTC which make more things so probably hammers win) will force mainline BTC prices to shift upward. And nobody will be able to call it pure speculation. Physical speculation will be in the back of the minds of traders and then hold onto your hat.

This idea of the "towncoin" is good one, and if the technical issues
can be overcome, I see a huge potential. Small towns all over
American (and the world) could effective implement this as way
to keep the economies viable even with the collapse of the dollar.

If a town were to issue their own "bitbills" it could become a
local system of exchange among the merchants.

LETSystems often have all of the problems confronting any voluntary,
not-for-profit, non governmental, community based organisation. LETS
organizers often complain of being overworked, and may suffer burnout.
Many schemes have ceased operation as a result. Many of these problems
can be overcome through the use of Bitcoin. Moreover, the value of local
money is greatly enhanced if it can be converted and spent elsewhere.

I could see a day when various communities issue "Towncoins" in the
form of physical "bitbills" and then individuals can use this money in
the local economy or over the Internet. If the idea were to catch fire
we would see a rapid adoption the of the Bitcoin worldwide.

I, for one, would like to see this move forward.

I've got the means to do it.

Saw your post about your initiative in 'my' topic today. Tried to read it but couldn't really get through. Love to read some more if you can put it together a little more coherent and preferably without insults.

I'm a bulldog. Everything I've seen people complain about can be solved through community action. With an angel GPU miner producing the acceptable coins, you can have whatever system you like behind that veil.

Here's what I see as a workable system: a trusted party acts as a central bank. One or more blocks are used as money supply of arbitrary size, as you fix the exchange rate high enough and shift the decimal point.

The users can rely on the Bitcoin network for secure transactions.

You're giving up protection against government interference, though.

If what you're suggesting does not use any backing, I don't see how anything could be different from the current vanilla system.

No trusted party is necessary. No movement of decimal places is made. These have to be determined by the subnet statistics not by top down decisions. I won't support solutions based on abritrary separation of participant and administrator. That is unacceptable.

Then could you once again explain your main point as specific and simple as possible?
I don't think anybody else has understood it.

Does your system make some coins special, e.g. have a different value from the rest? If yes, how does this happen? Do you want to piggyback the Bitcoin network for security but essentially create your own block-chain?

There will be Angel GPU miners producing coins. The rate of distribution to the town will be based on the relative hashrate of the town CPU pools.

Towns need to be able to cycle coins multiple times to get an amplified productivity from them. $10,000 cycled through a town 10 times can build an $80,000 house.

Cycles come from a resonance between participation and transactions. For this to work, block generation must increase. Based on certain variables the movement of money is preferred to the reward per block.

But I'm going to just go forward with Xenland and davout's work and tweak that.

Do you literally want faster block generation than BTC's average of one block per ten minutes?

Ten minutes was chosen based on a planetary scale of operation: too fast to allow computers on Mars (maybe on Venus too) to partipate but slow enough that even old accoustic coupler modem connections might suffice if located on Earth, or something like that.

How fast do you want blocks?

How fast would allow even the slowest connections in town ample time to participate yet possibly effectively at least discourage distant towns, especially on distant continents, from participating?

I do not think trying to identify miners at their end is a good approach, I think better than trying to certify miners at the mining-software end is to simply have a set of approved addresses that minted (or even mined, meaning minted plus transaction fees) coins must go to in order for a block to be valid.

That way anyone can mine, even "angel GPU miners" (or angel ASIC miners etc etc etc), but either their only reward is the fees or their only reward is the warm fuzzies plus any gains they can get by trying to attack the network, unless they manage to log in to an approved pool.

Approved pools have means to cause the addresses all minted (or even all mined) coins go to to release funds. They can thus use these funds to reward pool participation.

Obviously we are talking alternate blockchain of course, since running at a high rate of block-creation will cause parts of Earth to experience problems similar to those experienced by all of Mars (maybe even Venus too) with the BTC network, depending on just how fast exactly you want your average rate of block creation to be.

-MarkM-