Bitcoin Forum

Total coins in miner's hands are only around 2 million

LOL make your own coin and screw the original devs.

Start your miners guys. You will get much more FRC than if you mine Maaku's version.

More coins for all!  ;D ;D ;D

Q. If I run this fork will there be any disadvantages to me?
A. Nope. All of your shares, blocks, etc will be accepted.

This is incorrect. Any block that does not contain a valid budgetary output is summarily rejected by the Freicoin network, regardless of the hash-power thrown at this fork.

Want to share in the 80% distribution? Then spend your time putting together a grant proposal for something constructive.

Your claim that this is incorrect is incorrect, because it does generate your forced tax at the current moment. But it will not soon, and it will block all of your foundation (aka "federal freicoin reserve", a private, exclusive group with 80% control of the monetary supply) will be blacklisted.

?

That sentence doesn't even make sense. You've made a hard-fork. Blocks created by your client are rejected by the network. Nodes running your client get blacklisted by the rest of the network for forwarding invalid blocks as a denial-of-service protection. The OP incorrectly implies otherwise. You could have million times the hash of the rest of the network and it wouldn't matter.

We've said this so many times I've simply given up on repeating myself. But here it goes once more: every single satoshi of the Foundation outputs will be given out in grants in an open, transparent process. You can take part in that discussion here:

http://www.freicoin.org/freicoin-foundation-development-thread-t81.html

Or simply start drafting your own grant proposal.

Block reward will not be changed. The coin creation will not be changed. Only the distribution will. Instead of putting 80% to the developers (you could call the 1%), 100% is given to the miners.

Vote with your hashpower. It's how cryptocoins are decentralized and open.

1. Somehow you're failing to comprehend it. Blocks created by this client will not be rejected by the network at the moment.

I like how you (not singular, but foundation) think you own Freicoin, the network, and all coins, which is probably why you decided to even come up with this 80% idea.

3. Every single satoshi that you're taking in right now will be blacklisted and won't be able to spent once this network takes over. And it will - it just takes a few pools to see the benefits in making Freicoin more decentralized, secure, and better for miners (vs your foundation).

False (try it). Specifically, see lines #2004-2005 of main.cpp. And no, it doesn't matter if you change that line either - it only matters what code the rest of the network is using.


Come back to reality. Industrial mining has become dominated by a privileged technological elite. Maybe when bitcoin started it was democratic (before GPU mining, before ASICs), but it certainly isn't anymore. The purpose of an initial distribution is to get currency in the hands of everybody as quickly as possible, and to get money flowing in the marketplaces (and not just the currency markets). If you have a good idea for accomplishing that goal in a fair and democratic manor, submit it to us. Or come work with us and become a part of the foundation.

20% + perpetual subsidy of an active, vibrant economy is worth infinitely more than 100% of a dead coin.

Oh I see. You're looking to get over 51% of the FRC hashing power running this fork. Like a hostile takeover.

This needs to be a new chain not a takeover. Maaku I don't suppose you'd be interested in running a demurrage coin without the 80% non-miner distribution.

if your fork really works, probably you will kill Freicoin. But in the end, the miners will decide that ;D

THIS WILL NOT BE REJECTED BY THE NETWORK. Wanna know why? Because the blocks are still valid to the network with the 80% foundation backdoor issuing method.

Ok, then when you your fork starts rejecting them it will be a hard fork. At that point honest nodes will start ignoring your branch of the chain.

And again, even if all nodes accepted your hard fork, if you don't change the reward for miners formula it will take many many years to have a fixed supply. We wanted less years than bitcoin even before the 80% fund decision and your fork will take many more than bitcoin.

It's like when IXcoin creator thought he was issuing the 21 M twice as fast when in fact with his original code he was issuing 42 M in the same time. You just don't understand "your own" code.

By "honest" nodes, you mean nodes that pays the 80% tax? Hmm?
By using this fork right now, you're voting with your hashrate.

Also, this fork will put MORE frc in the hands of miners and users, instead of more frc into the foundation. It's basically what happens if the Foundation Reserve distributed their self-printed to everyone in a open, decentralized and fair manner.

You can discuss about how mandating 80% of mined coins goes to you is honest, but at the end of the day, the network, the miners and the users makes the decision on which version they're going to use.

Yes, I meant that by honest nodes, nodes that follow the initial rules instead of your attack. Seriously, if you really like freicoin without the fund, just start a new chain, but do it right: rewrite the reward for miners curve. You just need to copy and paste from an earlier beta (I think beta3 will make it).

By giving more coins to miners you'd be putting more of them in the hands of miners, not necessarily users, that's our point.

If you know of a method for distributing the foundation's part of the supply to everyone in an "open, decentralized and fair manner" (we disagree mining is such a method), please let us know. We've been trying to think of something for years without success.

>initial rules

Alright. Freeze your code base please, rule changes are not allowed even if the majority agrees to it. Currently Bitcoin contributors are planning to change the coin dust constants and the transaction fees, but if they do they're not honest according to your definition!!

Mining isn't the best method for distributing coins. But it's the a method for rewarding people to keep the network secure. There's a difference. Welfare might be the best way to distribute money, but getting a job would be a method to be productive towards society.

@hanzac

It's a one-time-only initial distribution of coins that (unfortunately for greedy miners) doesn't go to miners.
A tax needs a State or another coercion source to enforce it. This is a voluntary currency, if you don't like the initial distribution rules just don't use it. If you like demurrage but not this distribution rule, just fork it instead of planning a hard-fork attack.
If miners colluded through a hard fork to change initial bitcoin rules to their benefit (for example, issuing 100 M instead of 21) wouldn't that be considered an attack? The honest (in the same meaning it has in Satoshi's bitcoin whitepaper) nodes would just reject those block and the real bitcoin network would continue, just with less hashing power.

@hanzac

It's a one-time-only initial distribution of coins that (unfortunately for greedy miners) doesn't go to miners.
A tax needs a State or another coercion source to enforce it. This is a voluntary currency, if you don't like the initial distribution rules just don't use it. If you like demurrage but not this distribution rule, just fork it instead of planning a hard-fork attack.
If miners colluded through a hard fork to change initial bitcoin rules to their benefit (for example, issuing 100 M instead of 21) wouldn't that be considered an attack? The honest (in the same meaning it has in Satoshi's bitcoin whitepaper) nodes would just reject those block and the real bitcoin network would continue, just with less hashing power.

@ hanzac

You should check our public forum at http://www.freicoin.org/ (linked from the main page)
Specifically this public thread http://www.freicoin.org/freicoin-foundation-development-thread-t81.html
We would update the main page when the granting process is more formally defined (I'm not saying again that you can contribute to define the process as fair as possible because obviously you're not interested).

@ TradeFortress

Whatever, then Luke-jr has never attacked a chain, he was only voting with his hashing...
Still, if you take over the network the supply graph will be completely flawed and we would have to start from scratch (also people that like demurrage but not the 80% fund if they like to have a fixed supply this century).
If effectively destroying a chain is not an attack, I don't know what is it.

the intent of this fork isn't to destroy or attack freicoin. As of now it just makes printing money for the Foundation optional, by accepting all otherwise valid blocks. I'm not sure if you understand this part ???

I am also not against creating a currency blockchain by the way, maybe with some other differences decided on a voting based approach.

can somebody build binaries for windows, please?  :)

Do you have any way to tell how much hashing power your fork is getting?

By the way if this succeeds I expect you will ruin FRC for all.

Do you have any way to tell how much hashing power your fork is getting?

By the way if this succeeds I expect you will ruin FRC for all.

Oh, even better! Maybe the hashin power that the MaakuCoiners celebrate already is FortressCoin hashing power. We wouldn't know until somebody spent some MaakuFoundation coins.

It's getting 0 hash power. I doubt a compiled binary of this exists anywhere. It's not even a fork yet. It just removes one check from the code.

I doubt there is anyway to tell how much hashing power the fork is getting. I imagine it could be cruising along stealthy for quite awhile waiting to get far enough along.

I've compiled it just for fun :)

EDIT: another reason that i support this is that original devs bitch about it

another reason that i support this is that original devs bitch about it

I'm 'bitching' because there's a serious concern for user's security. Someone transacting on the hard-fork chain could be tricked into revealing signatures allowing their coins to be stolen on the main chain. If you transact with this client, be aware that there are security issues, and you risk losing your balance.

That is pure nonsense.  Either a) you are clueless about how transaction signing works or b) willing to blatantly lie to see your agenda carried out.

Which is it?

What does this
"Foundation"
Do with the 80% tax they receive anyway?

Give all of it away in grants. We're currently forming a review board to select proposals to fund, and coming up with bylaws and selection criteria.

Maybe when bitcoin started it was democratic (before GPU mining, before ASICs), but it certainly isn't anymore.

Give all of it away in grants. We're currently forming a review board to select proposals to fund, and coming up with bylaws and selection criteria. You can take part in this process:

http://www.freicoin.org/freicoin-foundation-development-thread-t81.html (http://www.freicoin.org/freicoin-foundation-development-thread-t81.html)

Just let me know when the coin crashes tp being worthless  so I can buy free games with all the free coins I get

Just let me know when the coin crashes to being worthless  so I can buy free games with all the free coins I get

Thank you for some constructive input jancsika, that's exactly what we have been hoping for.

You hit the nail on the head for why bootstrapping is so much harder now then it was in early Bitcoin days, mining is so industrial now the solo miner using a normal computer is immediately pushed out.  Proof of work is just not a viable distribution medium in our opinion, we have said that the distribution of the new money should be as democratic as possible and the ideal would be to simultaneously give everyone on earth an equal quantity, that's just not logistically possible so were going to need to come up with the closest equivalent.

Mandating a time frame to complete the distribution would be a good idea, this is typical in many foundations (Bill and Malinda Gates for example) to prevent the funds from being 'sat on' forever.  I'd say something like 5 to 10 years as a maximum period for the foundation to be distributing all the funds, if they aren't distributed by then then they could all be 'destroyed' aka sent to an inaccessible address, demurrage will gradually recycle them of course.

I think your right that we are to a degree over our heads, that making a foundation is harder then writing code.  But we did it because we felt it was necessary for crypto-currency to grow to a wider community.  But that's why people should be HELPING us form that foundation and setting it on a Legal footing that will show how such a thing can be done, or should we fail at least how not to do it.  Many of the abuses that people are accusing us of planning to do would indeed be terrible, so tell us specifically how the bylaws of the foundation should be written to prevent abuse.

Good job TF, i support too, but we need win & linux bins, so we can use it. Not everybody is an expert ;)

After thing about this issue a bit, the problem is the foundation ALREADY has 8 million Freicoins. We need to create a new coin, but I suggest something different.

Currently, all cryptocurrencies are based off Satoshi's bitcoin, with same or slightly modified protocols, and only some modifications (eg demurrage in Freicoin, block timings and distributions with other coins, proof of stake with PPCoin). But look at all the failed cryptocurrencies - we are essentially making a new Linux distro instead of actually making something new.

I propose making a new cryptocurrency from scratch and discussing and testing different ways to do it. Blockchain, hashcash-style mining, addresses, they're all one way to do things. There's bound to be better ways, and for a cryptocurrency to succeed we need to do it differently. Not blindly do things differently, but look at it and see which way is BETTER other than just creating a fork and modifying a bit of code from bitcoind.

I have a few ideas. For example, addresses. Instead of a clunky to remember, hard to type address, why not use something like this?

someguyswebsite.com/wallet
dicegame.com/lessthan512
192.168.0.12/lanpartydonations
wc6sbavw7fcotfgm.onion/order1274621
mywallet.bit/someusername

To verify those addresses, we could use a similar system to randomart. There's of course the attack where say you're on dicegame.com is compromised and the attacker changes the randomart displayed on the site for verification, but that's similar for bitcoin too. The coin obviously won't actually use http, it'll use it's own protocol, but will find addresses via DNS, tor, other darknets, etc etc.

Again, this is just one of the ideas I have about addresses. I'm sure if people think about it, experiment with some test code, we'd come across different ways, maybe better.

Another important thing is that the core development needs to be just that - core. Make the protocol extensible. Have headers, like HTTP requests. Over time, the community will enhance this currency by itself. For example, say a header called 'RETURN_ADDRESS: freewallet.org/ponies', say if you're betting on a gambling game and send an amount greater than the max bet, and you want returns in a DIFFERENT address (eg if you're withdrawing from an exchange) It's a nice thing to have, but it might not need to be in the core development. People will be able to add this feature, peers and nodes would implement and support it.

Take a look at websockets. Take a look at new IRC features and additions. If we make the protocol robust and extensible, the currency will involve by itself, and with the community and the users to make it last. There obviously would be a core set of guidelines - max cap of X coins, but if we discover a BETTER address system, maybe if someone wants to make it work with emails, they can code a module or extension, tell people and nodes to install and use it, and supported clients will use it automatically. Not supported? "Command not found. This command is part of coinemail, sudo cpm install coinemail".

Just some ideas. Can we do a system where transactions have a verifiable sending time? Use the hashcash mining system. A new "timecode" every 20 seconds (as it is not a block, it is not coupled with transactions, each timecode would just be a few bytes). Transactions would include the latest timecode as proof of when it was sent. First sent coins triumph in double spend attacks. 3 confirms in 1 minute on average. Still vulnerable to 51% attacks, but again this is just one idea.

Please stop.

After thing about this issue a bit, the problem is the foundation ALREADY has 8 million Freicoins. We need to create a new coin, but I suggest something different.

Currently, all cryptocurrencies are based off Satoshi's bitcoin, with same or slightly modified protocols, and only some modifications (eg demurrage in Freicoin, block timings and distributions with other coins, proof of stake with PPCoin). But look at all the failed cryptocurrencies - we are essentially making a new Linux distro instead of actually making something new.

I propose making a new cryptocurrency from scratch and discussing and testing different ways to do it. Blockchain, hashcash-style mining, addresses, they're all one way to do things. There's bound to be better ways, and for a cryptocurrency to succeed we need to do it differently. Not blindly do things differently, but look at it and see which way is BETTER other than just creating a fork and modifying a bit of code from bitcoind.

I have a few ideas. For example, addresses. Instead of a clunky to remember, hard to type address, why not use something like this?

someguyswebsite.com/wallet
dicegame.com/lessthan512
192.168.0.12/lanpartydonations
wc6sbavw7fcotfgm.onion/order1274621
mywallet.bit/someusername

To verify those addresses, we could use a similar system to randomart. There's of course the attack where say you're on dicegame.com is compromised and the attacker changes the randomart displayed on the site for verification, but that's similar for bitcoin too. The coin obviously won't actually use http, it'll use it's own protocol, but will find addresses via DNS, tor, other darknets, etc etc.

Again, this is just one of the ideas I have about addresses. I'm sure if people think about it, experiment with some test code, we'd come across different ways, maybe better.

Another important thing is that the core development needs to be just that - core. Make the protocol extensible. Have headers, like HTTP requests. Over time, the community will enhance this currency by itself. For example, say a header called 'RETURN_ADDRESS: freewallet.org/ponies', say if you're betting on a gambling game and send an amount greater than the max bet, and you want returns in a DIFFERENT address (eg if you're withdrawing from an exchange) It's a nice thing to have, but it might not need to be in the core development. People will be able to add this feature, peers and nodes would implement and support it.

Take a look at websockets. Take a look at new IRC features and additions. If we make the protocol robust and extensible, the currency will involve by itself, and with the community and the users to make it last. There obviously would be a core set of guidelines - max cap of X coins, but if we discover a BETTER address system, maybe if someone wants to make it work with emails, they can code a module or extension, tell people and nodes to install and use it, and supported clients will use it automatically. Not supported? "Command not found. This command is part of coinemail, sudo cpm install coinemail".

Just some ideas. Can we do a system where transactions have a verifiable sending time? Use the hashcash mining system. A new "timecode" every 20 seconds (as it is not a block, it is not coupled with transactions, each timecode would just be a few bytes). Transactions would include the latest timecode as proof of when it was sent. First sent coins triumph in double spend attacks. Still vulnerable to 51% attacks, but again this is just one idea.

So I take this fork / 51% takeover of FreiCoin is now dead.

So I take this fork / 51% takeover of FreiCoin is now dead.

Unfortunately, it never got off the ground. It was impossible for it to work how it was coded. I really hope TradeFortress is done posting about this. It's very embarrassing for him. I'm not sure if hes completely unaware of that or this is some weird troll.

yup i agree never got off the ground, we still wait for the bins

I'm really not going to focus any time on this fork because I think the best approach would be a new cryptocurrency protocol. Feel free to submit pull requests through.

Well, I don't get it. TF apparently doesn't want it to take off.
What was his change to the code anyway? Why is it a problem that the foundation already has the coins? If moving these coins never makes it into a block there is no problem.

I have a few ideas. For example, addresses. Instead of a clunky to remember, hard to type address, why not use something like this?

someguyswebsite.com/wallet
...

May I ask you a two questions about FreiCoin?
- How long blocks is immature  or  need confirmation?
- Award for the block is constant?
Thanks.

We're working on it:

http://foundation.herokuapp.com/

Who knows? You'd have to ask the people I'm buying from. Keep it low, please!

Those clunky to remember addresses are the hash of a public key. The public key is part of a key pair composed of public and private key.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_key

Good luck with your fork, it seems you will need it.