Bitcoin Forum

Greencoin (ZC):

   My Ideas about a better coin. I published firstly in hungarian – I will a hungarian team for a coin too :) - but in this thread please posts only in English (or with an English translation)
   Z = zöld (green in hungarian).
   The smallest possible unit should be named as “finta” :)

My translation is simple, and according to your feedback I can complete my post and the concept. Hungarian text is only the documentation of original ideas.
Green: implemented

- P2P koncepció jó... A pool-ok kényszere már nem (mármint a Bitcoin-hoz hasonló pénzekben).

- P2P conception is perfect... not like the need of "private" pools (for example in case of bitcoin and similar currencies). It can give a person (or his attacker) a too big influence.

- A pénzmennyiség korlátozása, illetve a forgalomban lévő pénz közösségi felügyelete nagyon okos gondolat.

- The limitation of the amount of money is a very clever idea, as well as the common control of money circulation.

- A namecoin-ból kellene leágazni...

- It should be derived from namecoin... Idea of namecoin is also very good.

- 1 pool legyen – és ez beépítve a rendszerbe, így elosztottan üzemelne.

- There shall be one pool built in the system, and this pool would operate distibuted (shared)(3)  - controlled through the greencoin community.

- ne legyen pazarlás. Ha számolnak a gépek, akkor maradandót számoljanak. Akár közösen.

- Shouldn't be wasting (of resources) . When computers calculate only calculate valuable, even together.

- A szerencsét – mármint ki számolhat, ellenőrizhet – másképp is lehet produkálni. Legyen P2P sorsolás – a nyertes számolhat, ellenőrizhet. A szerencse legyen súlyozott... Aki hű a nethez és megbízható (a key párja azonosítja...) annak nagyobb eséllyel adjon a hálózat feladatokat.

- The 'fortune' – who can calculate and check other calculations – can be produced in another way. E.g. P2P drawing, the winners can calculate and check.(1) The fortune should be weighted. The one who is loyal to the net and reliable (identified by key pair) should get more to do with bigger possibility from the network.

- Eme súlyozás befolyásolja a kifizetéseket. Minden block-ért járó kifizetést a rendszer minden a hálózatban (az aktuális  sorsolásban) résztvevő tag között osszon szét, de persze díjjazza a számításért járó plusz kellemetlenségeket (gépterheltség, …) illetve a hűséget, megbízhatóságot.

- This weighting can also influences payouts. The payout for every block should be distributed among  members participating in the network (in the actual drawing) but also should award the extra inconvenience of calculating (i.e. loaded computer) plus the loyality and reliability.

- A számítás legyen elvégezhető egy viszonlag átlagos hardware-en (legyen az CPU/FPGA/GPU/...) elfogdható idő alatt... A difficulty lehet 1 – nem kell változzon - senkit sem érdekel tovább...

- Calculation should be performed even on a simple hardwer (be the CPU/FPGA/GPU/... below a time with an acceptable last of hw and environment) Difficulty can be 1 – shouldn't be changed – nobody interested more about it.

- Ne a daemon generálja, tárolja a private-public key párokat. Az jöhessen egy szabványos felületről, mint pl. az e-mail aláírásoknál használatos gpg. Így az akár trusted is lehet, különböző szintekben. Vagy anonym. Nem a net határozza meg – hanem a felhasználó maga. A súlyozásban (megbízható) azonban ez szerepet játszhat. Külső érdeklődők (pl. bankok, kormnyok, intézetek...) is tudják így a pénz származását vizsgálni, kifizetést ezáltal elfogadni/elutasítani. Persze ez ne akadályozza meg azt, hogy a pénz időnként – mint bármilyen más pénzt/értéket is a világon – időnként ne a nyilvánosság kizárásával adhassák ki az emberek.

- Daemon shouldn't generate and store private-pubic key pairs. This could come from a standard platform, like gpg – which is used by e-mail signature. This can be trusted in different levels. Or anonym. The user determines not the network.(2) It can have also role in the weighting.  External user (banks, government) can also audit the origin of the money, and according to that accept/refuse payment. But this shouldn't block that money  can be payed without publicity, as other money/value in the world.(2)

- Legyen minimum forgalmi díj, de ne akadályozza a micro-payement-eket. Az aktuális forgalmi díjat a kiszámító határozhatja meg előre – és a díj mértéke szóljon bele a sorsolási súlyozásba – minél magasabb a forgalmi díj, annál alacsonyabb legyen a súlyozás. (pl. 10 kisorsolt legyen, és a legalacsonyabb díjszabású kapja a munkát.)

- Only minimum turnover fee should exist, but do not block micro-payments. The actual turnover fee can be decided by the calculator in avance, and the rate of fee should change the weigthing of drawing. The higher the turnover fee is the smaller is the weighting (i.e. 10 drawn should be, and who offers the smallest fee – get the job.)

- Legyen “garantált” értéke. A kifizetések legyenek addig “képzetesek”, amíg valaki a rendszerbe nem pumpál már létező fizetőeszközön (ez lehessen meglévő, “történelmi” coin, mint pl. bitcoin, namecoin, …) keresztül egyfajta garanciát – de ezzel a pénz váljon a rendszerben használhatóvá, és a rendszer forgalmi díjainak egy részét ez a “garanciavállaló” kapja az általa “garantált” pénzek után. A pénzek e fajta “használati joga” legyen szabadon kereskedhető.

- It should be guaranteed value. Payout should be 'imaginary' while anybody pump guarantee in the system beyond existing payments (it can be historical coin like bitcoin, namecoin...) With this action the money can be usable in the system, and part the turnover fee should go to this guarantor after the guaranteed money. This right of money use can be freely traded.

- Aki a számláján pénzt tartogat, fizessen egyfajta kamatot a garantálónak.

- If someone hold money on his account without using it, must pay an interest to the guarantor.

- A kifizetett forgalmi díjak és a kamatok már garantáltak – a “garantáló” a forgalmazott érintett pénzek “garantálója” lesz automatikusan.

- Payed turnover fees and the interest are already guaranteed – the guarantee would be automaticaly the guarantor of circulated affected money.

- Meglévő coin-ok közül a Bitcoin, Namecoin, Litecoin, ... - átválthatóak legyenek  egy az egyben – de ezzel számolni kell az össz pénzmennyiség meghatározásakor, és foglalni kell erre az induláskor megfelelő pénzmennyiséget. Ezen pénzek garantáltak lesznek már az átváltás után. (Kritériumok: induláskor 0 (vagy elhanyagolható) premining, elérhető szabad forráskód, korlátozott pénzmennyiség és így kiszámíthatóság.)

- The existing coins (Bitcoin, Namecoin, Litecoin) can be changed one to one into greencoins – but should be calculating with this when the total amount of money is defined, and it should be reserved at the beginning. These money would be guaranteed after change. (Criteria (what coins may be convertible) – at the beginning 0 (or irrelevant) premining, achievable free source code, limited amount of money, so it can be calculated in advance)

- Nincs premining – kivéve a fenti coin-ok átválthatóságát biztosító alapot. A net publikusan meg kell hirdetve legyen az indítását megelőző hónap 1 napjával úgy, hogy eme post-ra egy reply születik. Úgyanez érvényes egy tesztnet indulására is, az éles indítást megelőző 3. 12. hónap 1 napjával.

- No premining – except above mentioned situation when coin change. Net should be public and has to be announced on the first day of previous month of launching, by a reply on this post. This is valid also for a test-net start,  from the first day of 3rd month prior the real start.

*************************************************************************************************************

Links to very relevant and Interesting posts - to remember:


(1) - I think the current VOTING in Bitcoin system (with the current "difficulty"-system) can be a good compromise - but the voting must be scheduled at a low and fixed frequence with a new communication protocol.  
and

(2)

(3)

would you please wirte in english or go to a local subforum?

I plan to translate it in english and german...

Where is the hungarian subforum?

I think, the Idee is international... And it will be transalted - I need some time...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20301.0

Thank You.

I think, this post is an international thing - I posted it hungarian, becose I documented, what I wanted to say...
I will it translate - but I need some time, maybe a week.

I don't post it yet in local-hungarian topic - I think this is a better place for a such concept.

How much patience you have for a translation? What time I could have?

yes but only if people understand you...

also im not interested in another bitcoin clone with super nice and "innovative" features.

Thanks.

But I hope it will be interresting for rest of the world :)

I start the translation in my next post.

from what google translate can tell me, i do not like your coin. it seems like a SCAMcoin to me. and some of your goals are not possible at all. Google translate might have failed me, im looking forward to your translation.

sorry dude, it was to to be rude.

SCAMcoin? This?  ???

No - this is not a SCAM. But it is an idea from me, based what I found about environmental pollutant-coins in last year.  ::)
It's time to change it.  ;)

I made the translation - see original post - ready to discuss and implement.  8)

will not work on large scale

sorry but smells like scam, to me.

don't know what this means... but bitcoin is not wasting resources.

so you are saying someone should have control over the network?

there are not pressure from the pools, what are you talking about?

i don't understand most of you concerns... and not to be rude, but your english sucks more then mine, it is difficult to understand you.

Just tell us how this differs from BitCoin clearly and in as few words as possible.

You imply there is some element of central control in this. We don't trust any form of central control and BitCoin carefully avoids it.

I can't say I understand all of your statements completely, but I do see things I rather like. Thank you for making an effort to communicate with someone like me who only has a couple of languages and nothing like Hungarian  :)

There don't seem to be many people on this forum prepared to reason outside the Bitcoin paradigm. The request to "Just tell us how this differs from BitCoin clearly and in as few words as possible" illustrates the mindset you are most likely to encounter, many folks actually seem to want to treat the current Bitcoin framework as being a desirable end state.

I'm not suggesting that you are casting your pearls before swine, please continue to refine and share your ideas. Do not take the language criticism seriously, many of these folks can't reason in the king's english either  ;)

following

Thank you for your ideas with this!  Good luck!

I don't follow how this is all that "green" or different from existing coins.

OpenTransactions? - yes, I looked into, but only after your post :) Thank you for this hint. It is really interesting. If it exists widely used and accepted standards (gpg, bittorrent or similar, ... and maybe OpenTransaction) for a job - I will prefer it. Git repository for a chain? With some different branch, and then with merge? This seems to be interesting too.

Thank you for posts, hints.
I did some corrections in translation.
And I began to translate it to German (not yet published).

By 'drawing' - you mean some sort of lottery amongst participants?
If so - how does this make the system less wasteful of resources?
Unless you have some central authority making sure each 'person' only creates a limited number of network nodes - then the end result will *still* just be that people create massive farms of computer systems which act as a *vast* number of nodes.

Instead of 1 person having a few mining machines crunching numbers - that one person will have millions/billions of 'virtual' nodes entering the lottery and so they'll still use a lot of electricity and hardware. 

Please explain how you intend to make the system not waste resources?

That is an unreasonable assumption to make. The problem isn't that greencoin as described is misdesigned or offensive in its differences to BitCoin, it's that greencoin isn't described or designed at all and on top of that it what little description of this that exists appears to be very badly translated. The only idea that seems to come out of the description is some form of central control, something abhorrent to the design of all P2P systems.

i think bitcoin is deeply flawed, just like HTTP or SMTP, or any other internet protocol that was hacked together over night.
but all thiss scam currencies, are just alot worse... the only other cryptocurrencies that are good are: namecoin(reason: distributed dns service), litecoin(reason: cpu mining). anything else is just shit.

and it was the first, and that is that anyone is using, so...

BitCoin is a proof of concept that crypto-cash is possible without any form of central control. As a proof of concept it's a raging success and who knows we might even stick with it if nothing better turns up.

the problem comes from proof of concept and De facto. at the same time.

The million dollar question here seems to be:How is loyalty and reliability determined?

Bitcoin's methodology is to fix the value of a person's word to the computing power they can throw at a "hard" computational problem. The idea is simple: any single "evil" user must outvote the computing power of all the "good" users in order to hijack the ledger. Hence, the ranking is purely to make it prohibitively difficult for any single "evil" user to get strong enough to do damage.

The idea behind your proposal seems to be, let's not use proof-of-work, it's wasteful and pins voting power to "people who can afford hardware". Let's find some other way to verify that the "votes" will be mostly "good" ones. It seems you want to do this by saying, okay, some nodes are more trustworthy "loyal and reliable" than others, so the "good" nodes have more voting power than even millions of nodes made by an attacker.

But that's easier said than done. What determines loyalty and reliability? If it's anything that is weak to social engineering, you're sunk. If it's anything where an attacker could lie low and act "respectable" for five or ten or fifteen years and then steal millions, you're sunk.

Sorry for a little pause - I am a human too :)

"drawing": yes, it is a lottery...

I think it is better, if a miner is an identified person - so it is not possible anonym attack the system, and it is not possible more than one miner computer pro person.

If you think a "central authority" - Yes, we will have - in a form of a peer-to-peer net :)

And that computer is a computer, that is used for an another (daily job, hobby) purpose too. (And not only for "mining"...)

The german translation coming soon - please be patient.
For Idea "garanteer" I have new Ideas too.

from reading your posts, im absolutely does not like your coin.

How would this be guaranteed? How can a distributed network verify unique identity?

Exactly.  If one could solve this problem it would solve a host of issues beyond just Bitcoin.  

I mean it is like saying....
assume I had a device that you put 1 USD in and 2 USD comes out.  Wouldn't that be more efficient than working?  Of course but the "solution" comes w/ a huge caveat that no such (legal :) ) machine exists.  Likewise the OP "solution" isn't unique.  It is an idea which has been bounced around and dismissed as impossible.  


Simple put the blockchain (in Bitcoin) is a voting system.  In "normal" voting systems we can identify the voters and ensure each voter only votes once.  Each voter gets one vote and thus the outcome is whatever 51% of voters say it is.  The cornerstone problem of a distributed network is that you CAN'T identify each "voter" and you can't ensure each voter only votes once (i.e. 1 person making millions, or even billions of nodes).   Bitcoin accepts that limitation and says ok.  1 unit of work = 1 vote.  Thus an attacker still needs 51% of the "Votes" but those votes are issued by hardware which has significant real world costs which can't be faked.  Remove the significant realworld cost and you are back at square one.

How do you ensure a fair consensus in a network which includes attackers (potentially a majority of the entities are attackers) and identities can't be verified, nor can you ensure that each entity only "votes" once.

I think, it is a must, that the miners personally identified. Think an history of bitcoin - and a possible future:

• firstly CPU mining. (technology A - public)
• then GPU mining. (technology B - public (fortunately) but technology A not an opponent)
• ... some other public technology, pools, merged mining, and so on...
• in future: technology X coming - (not published - owned by some (or one) persons/firms/...) AND (technology A and technology B and other public technologies aren't an opponent) - the controll of members of Bitcoin forum over bitcoin (and our "money") loosed!

And about some possible identification attribute of a person (or a computer):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information)
• a fingerprint of a person, a computer, a cpu id or special HW
• I am identified in mtgox through a yubikey (+ some personal data - see wikipedia link)
• I am identified in Bitcoin forum through my activity (+ some personal data - e-mail, ...)

I think not a 100% identifying - I am engineer and not a Mathematicians ;) - me enough for example the last in the list...

and

• Guest
• Newbie
• Jr. Member
• Full Member
• Miner :) - Full Member + an trusted public key
• Sr. Member
• Hero Member
• + Moderators

bitcoin is designed to be DECENTRALIZED, it is a feature!
Therefor it does not need a single point of weekness. your plan is to introduce a SPOW into the bitcoin system, which is BAD. if we did that there would be no need for a blockchain at all, as the central authority could just validate every transaction, like creditcard companies does right now.

Bingo.  Funny how people run around in circles because they never take the time to think (or just read Satoshi' paper) WHY Bitcoin does what it does.

They know WHAT Bitcoin does and HOW that is inefficient and try to run around thinking of solutions without asking them WHY Bitcoin does what it does.


The blockchain is based on VOTING.  However in an anonymous network you can't limit someone to one person is one vote so Bitcoin doesn't try.  Instead it makes it one hash = one vote.  Thus the identity of the person producing the hash isn't necessary.

Info from github:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/574 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/574)

"gavinandresen merged 5 commits into bitcoin:master from sipa:dumpprivkey 9 days ago

sipa (re)opened this pull request October 07, 2011
Dumpprivkey

Introduces three new RPC calls:
* dumpprivkey: retrieve the private key corresponding to an address
* importprivkey: add a private key to your wallet
* removeprivkey: delete a private key from your wallet" - It isn't active yet.

I am a fan of this pull request! One requirement of greencoin was inspired by this...

Congratulation sipa, jgarzik and gavinandresen!

Satoshi' paper (only the first paragraph "Abstract") criticism:

"Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone."


"Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if
 a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending."

- A trusted third party (in greencoin) isn't required for prevent double-spending, it is required
to prevent 50%+1 attack. The trusted third party should be the community
of users/miners/guests/moderators of greencoin... The community of our money.

"The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed,
but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power."

- The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed,
but proof that it came from the largest pool of trusted miners. "power" is
a possible means of a "centralised authority" - please, do not use it for prevent double-spending :)

"The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on
a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will,
accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone."

- "best effort" = "power" => The network should be redesign too.

Sorry but your posts are really hard to understand and don't appear to be complete ideas in any case. Can anyone rephrase this stuff so it's easier to read?

Critical question:
Do you want a central authority? If so no-one will be interested because getting rid of central authority is the best thing BitCoin ever did.

I think current Bitcoin-System will have a central authority - it's needed only some time... See my post:


I will that the Bitcoin (or Greencoin) - community do not lose later the control.
Please, see my first post too... I change it continuously.
This posts are a kind of 'Brainstorming', it is not about a real or implemented money. But it will be later implemented, I hope.

Thanks for criticism, and questions.

I just try p2pool... See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.0)
...
2012-01-13 07:28:19.188111 Average time between blocks: 0.88 days
2012-01-13 07:28:19.189053 Pool stales: 10% Own: 22±9% Own efficiency: 87±10%
2012-01-13 07:28:25.394099 New work for worker! Share difficulty: 149.261210 Payout if block: 0.381068 BTC Total block value: 50.035421 BTC including 13 transactions
2012-01-13 07:28:28.206763 Pool: 71643MH/s in 17322 shares (11958/17326 verified) Recent: 2.53% >1813MH/s Shares: 79 (16 orphan, 0 dead) Peers: 10
2012-01-13 07:28:28.208500 Average time between blocks: 0.87 days
2012-01-13 07:28:28.209375 Pool stales: 10% Own: 22±9% Own efficiency: 87±10%
2012-01-13 07:28:28.986495 New work for worker! Share difficulty: 144.975156 Payout if block: 0.380885 BTC Total block value: 50.035421 BTC including 13 transactions
2012-01-13 07:28:31.215252 Pool: 70741MH/s in 17323 shares (11959/17327 verified) Recent: 2.53% >1790MH/s Shares: 79 (16 orphan, 0 dead) Peers: 10
...
It is a very clever concept, and seems to be a very good implementation yet.

Thank you for feedbacks and votes!

If you didn't do it then

Please, vote, post...

What are you thinking about this ideas?
What to do, implement first?
What is important for you?