Bitcoin Forum

I will create a forked chain of bitcoin to accomdate for broad adaptation.

The only major change from the old chain is:

Reward of 200 BTC per block for each new block - (never changed)

• The chain will produce 10.5 million coins/year (which is far from enough to cause inflation)
• The clients (incl source) running the new fork will be made available well ahead of the fork
• All bitcoins created before the fork will by nature be contained in the new chain

what problem does that solve?

Not be a early adopter !

Genius !

If bitcoin is to become a true alternative currency, the amount of users will grow exponentially over next few years. It will not be possible to realize this when 'all' coins already are held by early adapters. Early adapters will anyway become rich if the new chain is successful.

Count me in. Any deadlines set?

I think a Keynesian would say... Lack of credit expansion? By creating a decentralized analogue to a central bank?

I guess I could see it working (though less efficiently than Bitcoin) due to the fact that people will use a fiat currency. Theoretically, as long as people would accept it in exchange for goods and services, then it would work by definition. The target inflation rate would be predictably steady. I suppose if people wanted decentralized fiat, that'd be the way to do it.

Not that I think OP is serious, since the whole point of Bitcoin is to be deflationary.

This proposed currency would be pretty close to deflationary as well. A fixed sum of new coins means that inflation will decrease every year percentage wise, until it is practically negligible.

Yes it's possible!
With 8 decimal and more if needed, a infinite value each !
You can do anything without new bitcoin.

But price need to go at 10K 100K, who know ?

Exactly. And before it becomes negligible it will by far be outmatched by increased demand and market cap.

So this will produce alle the coins that are meant to be produced in several years in one and then it suddenly stops?

Bitcoin already accommodates broad adoption because they are divisible to 8 decimal places.

What you propose is something that has already been discussed. Your fork won't work because the forked coins won't ever have comparable value to bitcoins. The people that hold bitcoins and others interested in their value, like merchants/miners, won't support forked coins that look to disrupt bitcoin in economically messy ways. If they did then what's to stop other forks after your fork?

Bitcoins have value because people accept them. Your forked coins wouldn't be accepted on the orignial bitcoin chain, yet holders of original bitcoins could still spend their coins on your fork, so you haven't taken away wealth from people with many coins at all.

Also, all possible bitcoins are not already held by people, only about half of total bitcoins exist so far. Last, for your coins to even have a chance at comparable value to bitcoins there should be less of them not more.

That is an inflation rate of 50% per year at 1 year.

What ever "problem" you are trying to solve here, you are doing nothing other than delaying the problem with your new chain.

... "unless you pay me one hundred billion dollars, mua ha ha ha!"

So everybody will already have their same 10M bitcoins in your bitcoin fork too, but they'll be inflated out of existence? SELL!! Target value now, 0, future value 0.[/list]

10 million coins a year sounds like a lot, but if we forward into the future then 10 million coins will becomes smaller and smaller compared to the overall amount of coins, and this supply will curve out like Bitcoins does at the moment.

A better idea would be for the network to mint new coins a function of moved coins (so we don't take into account lost coins)

So if 10 million coins move in a year, the network will mint a amount as a function of that movement in ratio to a percent.

So determine the best % for new coins. Is 3% a year a good inflation rate? 1% instead?

then the network mints 1% of the moved coins over the past 12 months. That would be more stable than 10 million a year, because that 10 million will be less and less each year, eventually it would be 0.0001% of the coin release and less!!!

i made a boat

can we please call it bitcoin also?

I can tell you how this is going to end: a small portion of the hashpower of the Bitcoin network will join your chain, then 51% you, then you are game over.

I would have nothing to gain from that, besides it would not neccesarily be possible. My intention starting the new chain is to allow bitcoin a future.

may I suggest your has algo use a combination of PBKDF 2 followed by bcrypt.  Should make it harder to gpu mine (bring back the cpu mining!)

Also consider dropping to a 5 min block interval, and requiring more than one nonce.  Requiring several nonces, i *think* will cause there to be move 'movements of nature' that will get us to a tighter distribution of the block generation time window.  Instead of one block in 6seconds the next in 24 minutes.

Consider, reducing bitcoin to just 4 decimal places.  With permanent inflation you will never need so many, and decimal places allow for strange 0.0000000001 txns.  

Also consider implementing a block pruning method.  You can mess with the headers if it a new change.  So try to incorporate other important changes to make it better.


Also 200 btc/block forever is kinda weak too, shouldn't it start at 100/block for the this year. move to 125/block next year, 150/block year 3, 200/block year 4, THEN stay there.  Let inflation accelerate to accommodate more noobs.


Just some thoughts

I am just telling you this is what is gonna happen, not making a judgement. Bitcoin's design precludes the chance of survival of any copycat, you need to come up with some new mining algorithm which is incompatible with Bitcoin(like LTC's scrypt) to survive, FYI several altcoins had been taken down by 51% attacks because they can be merge-mined with bitcoins.

At 200 coins / block, would there be no transaction fees?

I know there is some issues with that, but I think it can be solved somehow. My goal now is to gain understanding for the need of faster money supply in bitcoin.

There is none. There is no need for more money. Maybe there will be a need for some redistribution should all fiat money fail (because there would be a lot of people ending up with nothing)

Are you going to call it forkcoin?

I like the idea of altcoins quite a bit.  I'm not as enthused by this one, since it sounds like very little thought went into it.  You are changing a single variable in main.h, and doing some cross-compiling.

If you're going to fork something, maybe start with one of the recent innovations, like LTC, PPC, or NVC?  Hit up newnetcoins.com, read about other failed coins, and try to learn from how and why they failed?  Then, make your modifications, release the new coin, but have things already in place...  binaries for at least 2 platforms, a couple competing pools, a faucet, and maybe a service where you could spend it?..  a game or something?  Run a closed alpha with a small group on a testnet, and a beta with volunteers (blockchain will be deleted) so you can work out the launch bugs.

You know...  launch a coin?

Or, you could do as you've said you would, create a new coin, post a link in the JokeCoin thread, and see how many days it lasts.

Something something something raise pirates from the dead? :(

it's: looks like poo, unhappy user, close program, dead altchain. In wingdings for the wingding dingdong.

If the form supported emoji in Unicode 6.1, there's an appropriate character: http://we.lovebitco.in/img/emojidollar.png

You could also fix the early adopter/bitdust problems.


1)  Any unspent coins generated/transferred but not spent since the first 18 mos of the network are deleted.

2)  Unspent balances less than .01 are gone

3)  Coins older than 12-18 months are divided by 2.  Coins 18-24 months old divided by 4.  Coins 24-36 months old divided by 8, and the rest are older than 18 months and are deleted.

4) to prevent windfalls to mt gox, who hold a bunch of accounts and won't give that money to their customers in the new chain, cap btc address balances at 100 BTC (currently $10k).  

This might reduce that 11 mil number to like 7 or 8 mil.   you then increase the total coins to ever be released to 100 mil, so current users wind up with 7-8% of the total future supply.

You could form a genesis block that has a special coinbase.  All the current unspent addresses would be the coinbase with balances next to them.

Then you could come up with an adoption schedule over the next 10 year:
Year   % distributed
0:          7 or 8 %  (current base of coins)
1:         +2%
2:         +3%
3:         +5%
5:         +7.5%
....
8:          +15%
9:          +5%
10:        +1%
----------------
Total:    100%


I also suggest changing the protocol to prevent dust.  The minimum unspent output should be established at say 0.001 for txs created in the next 10 years, then 0.0001 (add a decimal place) next 10 years, etc...

Also consider implementing a minimum tx fee, which would kill the need for all this 'how old is yo coin' crap code.

I suggest calling it Splitcoin, since you forked or split it from the original.  :D

I think Litecoins can solve this problem right? Then maybe years later when Litecoins are worth $1000 another coin like PPC can be used for smaller transactions since it has no currency limit.

That's an interesting concept.... perhaps a deflation model where the block reward starts at say 1 coin per block and every 4 years 1 coin is added to the block rewarded.  Someone graph the inflation rate :-)

the only "fair" way is to implement demurage to BTC and eventually to all other coins out there. FRC has it already! :)

No I would never ever touch the earlier coins- that would certanily be a disaster. And the early adopters arent a problem. The problem is that there are not supply for tha large masses to enter - who now are completely left to the grace of the early adopters.

How would you do that?

From another thread by winding:


And yet another thread by wingding:

I bet the OP intention are not a fork but an alt-coin !
Bad title, and no future to this !

FAIL

This sounds like a good JokeCoin submission to me.

I think after 75% of coins are mined, these kind of thoughts will become more and more

Just feel strange that people never complain that central banks being the only early adopter of fiat money creation

Agreed, any other ASIC HOSTILE crypto currencies out there with a working forum (https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,2571.0.html)?

Seriously dude?  Thats mondo easy.  take all the adjust values for unspent outputs and write them into the genesis block to the address they belong as coinbase txs. 

I was interpreting wingding's statement as describing how coins issued prior to the fork would still be spendable on the inflatacoin side of the fork ... that they wouldn't be touched (i.e., "harmed").    But my assertion is that any spending of a "pure" coin issued pre-fork is a valid transaction on both sides thus any spending on the inflatacoin side is harmful to the holder of the coin.

A pure coin is one that has no taint from the coins issues after the fork, and thus would be a valid spend transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain side as well.

Now I suppose you could ensure that the inflatacoin client included in every spend transaction some taint in the INPUTs so that the transactions would only be valid on the inflatacoin side.  I still personally wouldn't use any coins with that client until they've been fully spent on the Bitcoin blockchain side, but after that I might milk the inflatacoin fork for whatever I could get from it, sure.

Yes you understood me right, I dont have to create any genesis block. All oldcoins get included by beeing there. How in the world do you think I could influence the transaction in the old chain? Thats not possible. Appearantly your term inflatacoin suggest that this new coins would be subject to inflation. In that part you are wrong, and I believe you know it. Bitcoin had even larger rate of increase in its beginning. Remember that word inflation refers to value of the asset, not the amount.

Random thought; probably nonsense...

Couldn't someone fork one of these AltCoins while it's still early, leave everything the same, but adjust the difficult to a something stupid low, and solo mine it?  Wouldn't that fork the chain at the genesis block, essentially?

I hate to tell you this, but no, it doesn't.

Hi wingding! Thanks for introducing yourself in my thread. I read both of your threads and agree with your "why" logic. I have to admit this is one of the more interesting approaches so far. Specifically forking off the existing chain.

How far along are you? I might like to help out.

Technically, it doesn't seem particularly hard. Are you going to set it up to use merged mining? That seems logical since you are giving the people already mining bitcoin free coins.

I think the word "forked" in the topic is confusing people. It makes it seem like you are trying to create duplicate BitCoins. I'm pretty confident that is not your goal. It might be useful to adjust your description to one that parallels what other AltCoins have done.


You should also make it clear that LinearCoins are not BitCoins and will never operate as interchangeable (value equivalents) with merchants or existing exchanges. Might also make it clear that BTC to LnC trading will have its own market determined exchange rate.

Just a suggestion.

Actually, he has a pretty solid point. I missed it on first read.

Any spendable BitCoins that existed before the form are spendable LinearCoins on the new fork. Stephen is pointing out that spending the LinearCoins from address "ABC..." creates a transaction that is bitwise identical to the one needed to spend the BitCoins at address "ABC..."

Is that an intended feature or an issue?

It means that your ostensibly pre-distributed LinearCoins exist in a strange state. If I send my BTC to Fred, my LNC goes with it. If I send my LNC to Fred, my BTC goes with it. On the other hand, Fred receiving the coins post fork WILL get two independent coins to spend. That's twisted

Yep, you need purposefully spend both sets of coins to different addresses before a replay happens on the other network. I think I'd generate 2 new keypools too and redo my vanity if I started using it. The problem is that if you are not aware of it you are sending your alt-chain value to uncontroled addresses in an alternate universe, so the number of lost coins will be HUGE unless a large portion of the bitcoin ecosystem takes action at or around launch of the fork.

Congratulations, you have figured out how to premine to pure hoarders and insiders only. Any addresses that do transactions between launch and alt-coin discovery are at risk of losing it all in the new chain.

It's still a pretty big quirk but I guess you could fix the client to warn about and correct the issue. You pointed out the fix...


But I think it's easier than that. You just need to send all of your coins to yourself first. Doesn't matter which chain you do that on. That will split all your coins into their appropriate forks. From there you can spend them independently. The client could do this automatically for you the first time you use it. That would destroy all your coin age and maybe cost some fees.


Fortunately, even if that happened "lost" LinearCoins coins would still be spendable. The BitCoiner would just have to come looking for them. Theoretically they still have valid keys.

You just don't care, as long as it's a new coin ? These crapcoins only distract on what we should be focussing on : actual innovation.

The solution to fix accidentally spending on both forks is pretty simple: use an incompatible address in LNC. Existing txouts will be acceptable as inputs, but new outputs can only be sent to LNC addresses.

Keep in mind anyone holding money for someone else (mtgox) is now wholly entitled to that money on your chain.

The transactions on the new chain must not be valid on the old chain, and vice versa. So the old coins present in the new chain can only be spent as LNC. The two chains should then be independent after the split (or am I wrong here?)

I think merged mining should not be possible, because it would be a strength to maintain a relation by mining cost and value of coin. As suggested in Etlase's signature. I think merged mining would disturb that relation.

Have you already started work on this? Or is this your pre-project brainstorming?

WARNING: I am not an expert on this but I have a software engineering background and reasonable familiarity with the block chain and transaction graph data structures.

There are two ways to approach the problem.

1. Create a new LinearCoin P2P network entirely disconnected from the existing BitCoin P2P nodes.

    This would require copying the entire BitCoin block chain to your new nodes before they could start relaying
    transactions independent of the BitCoin P2P network. Theoretically, this keeps LinearCoin transactions from
    spending BitCoins. HOWEVER, new LinearCoin transactions accessing these pre-fork blocks would be bitwise
    copies of transactions that COULD spend on the BitCoin Chain. All it would take is for ANYONE to copy it and
    submit it to the BitCoin network. You have to presume some malicious node WOULD.

    Merged mining is theoretically possible in this case. Search for NameCoin they invented the concept.
    Merged mining does NOT imply that LinearCoin block creation would be synchronized with BitCoin nor
    that its difficulty be the same. It doesn't come for free though. You have to convince existing BitCoin
    miners to support your chain as well. If they saw LinearCoins as valuable, supporting merged mining
    would be as easy for them as supporting NameCoin.

2. Attempt to "peacefully" use the existing BitCoin P2P nodes for relaying transactions.

    In this case your fork might be able to coexist on nodes along side the bitcoin fork. I think nodes do this by
    default. However, long term support would require BUY-IN from the existing BitCoin developers because at
    some point they will lock-in a block CHECKPOINT outside your fork. At that point BitCoin nodes would likely
    stop relaying your transactions.

    Mixed mining is this case should be even easier. However, again, it requires BUY-IN from the BitCoin developers.

Nope, if the transaction includes any INPUTs from a block post-fork, that transaction would be invalid on the Bitcoin blockchain side and those nodes would not relay the transaction. 


If the fork is trying to use the same port (8333) and it gained a following (i.e., a lot of nodes using it) then likely the Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind client would treat these as harmful and possibly require an update to address this thread (e.g., have the client disconnect early after some threshold of invalid transactions is received).

That makes sense. In fact, I just read that in the transaction validation logic last night. Duh!
But they do relay new block announcements. Even if they are off the current chain. Right?


So option (2) requires BitCoin developer buy-in even for a plausible test.
I'm not an advocate of that path. I just mentioned it because I presume that is what wingding was initially thinking.

1. Download source
2. Change the mining parameters
3. Checkpoint a particular forking block
4. Compile, run and "Away we go!"

Could do option (1) by:
1a Download source
1b Download block chain
2a Change the mining parameters
2b Change the port
2c Tweak the genesis to change its hash
2d Re-hash all the other blocks at trivial difficulty
3. Checkpoint a particular forking block
4. Compile, run and "Away we go!"

At least that would get to a stable TestNet configuration to mess with.

Now I'm not Pollyanna. I don't expect this concept to be popular despite the free coins.
Without significant mixed-mining support people are going to treat this chain like Indiana John's whip!

I just want to compile the client and dink with it for practice. I've got my own Alt-Coin ideas. I just need a simple shared goal as motivation to get started.

Guys come to freenode #noobcoin lab :) Plenty of discussions there and ready to swap ideas :)

Nope, for two reasons.  Firstly, only if the block is of a greater height than any block the client already knows about will the client then relay it.   Secondly, the amount of coin generated (200 BTC) would fail the block validation logic (as it exceeds 25 BTC at these block numbers), so the Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind client would reject the block and, of course, not relay it.

These steps aren't necessary. You could prune everything down into one block with just txouts and use that as the genesis block itself. Sort of starting with a clean slate but with coins being currently where they are. No bitcoin client is going to accept this fork, so you may as well put some effort into making LNC less of a hassle.

Before anything happens can we get a date for when the fork will be?

I want to move all my Bitcoins to a wallet I control before the fork. (Some of my coins sit in exchanges)

This seems a great idea. The bitcoins are mostly controlled by early adopters now. Most people have very little of them ... so most will be willing to have a forked chain. The problem is the preparation. Since only longest chain will prevail, the new client program for it would sync with the normal chain for a while (could be a few months), when enough people using it, then at a given time it can trigger the fork, and if more people using it, it will supersede the original one and become the dominate chain. An idea worth a try.

Based on the comments right after yours, it looks like that attempt is successful, unfortunately.

Whats the worse that can happen? They can't use this fork to steal coins can they?

The forking can't harm bitcoin in any way. If so I would have found a fatal weakness - but no. And regarding Ukigo's comment; I do not have ill intentions for bitcoin - on the contrary! I urge you to read my earlier post explaining the motivation. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179961.msg1878463#msg1878463

A key point for success - and the key difference from the current branch history - is that a large community are given opportunity to start at same time. The whole world actually. So the date should be announced well ahead the fork, and software be made available in good time too. Also exchanges and places who hold other peoples coins must be given time to keep track of the owners of the bitcoins at the point of the fork. (in my main paper I suggested 1st September mainly as an example date)

As one can see from this thread, there are a lot of technical question, innovation and decisions to be resolved. So the idea is still premature. But I would really like to see some experimenting take place.

A forked chain just for the purpose of testing Bitcoin's resiliency to forks would be interesting and possibly useful.  If somebody who had a quantity of coins on the original Bitcoin chain and a significant bit of hashing power started running a modified client, and convinced a few others to join, and conducted some transactions on the forked chain for awhile, it would be interesting to see what it did to the main network and if it reveals anything that needs to be done to make Bitcoin resilient to this as a form of attack.

we already have an alternative blockchain. Its called bytecoin. Sorry but its questionable whether there is room in the market for 2 bitcoins there is no question in my mind about whether there is room for 3

You solves nothing with inflation,..., useless bits.

It should be, adjust money supply in reference of transaction-user ratio,..., deterministic mining has no capacity of regulate different scenarios.

so my bitcoins held at mtgox will not be in that fork, correct? I would have to move them before the fork to bitcoin-qt?

All bitcoins produced before the fork will be duplicated into the new chain. So all the coins held by mtgox at fork-time will be held by mtgox also in the new chain. Mtgox should keep track of who owns these coins at fork-time, so they can transfer them to their legitimate owners.

Thanks for the thoughtful response Stephen. That makes perfect sense.

I agree that makes more sense long term operation. The first solution "seems" easier only as a first step towards your proposal.

I'm guessing the BitCoin developers would suggest the TestNet for that...

@wingding, Have you started trying to build the code? Are you a software developer?

No I am not skilled in C++. I welcome any initiative taken to test the concept.

so bitcoins moved on the fork, can be stolen on the original blockchain?

I don't get how do you create an address that is identical on the other blockchain

Newly created address will be different from the other chain. However, since LinearCoin will copy BitCoin's database of addresses. The same wallet (public keys) you use for BitCoin will also work for your LinearCoin "free-premine".

EDIT: NO, your coins will not be able to be STOLEN under any circumstance. The necessary LinearCoin client would warn you about your pre-fork coins. The easy solution is to just send your coins to yourself. This will push them past the fork on the LinearCoin chain. At worst, someone could copy that transaction and re-submit it to the BitCoin network. That would have the effect of sending your coins to yourself there as well. The BitCoin move will not be automatic. Moving BitCoins effects your "Coin Age". Some may not want that.

I think it is only fair to call this bootstrapping method a "pre-mine". Some people get coins before the p2p network even launches. Those people are current BitCoin holders.

HOWEVER, there is NO ADDITIONAL pre-mine by wingding or I should I choose to help him. I would be doing this purely for the technical experience of creating an alt-coin. I don't want to speak for wingding. He has already made his philosophical reasons known elsewhere.

FULL DISCLOSURE, I am not a BitCoin holder.
I do not know if wingding is a BitCoin holder.

I have made my reluctance to purchase bitcoins known elsewhere as well. However, if you read my old posts you will see that I have a long history on this site. I am also a 100% supporter of BitCoin's use in making ANONYMOUS purchases over the internet possible. That is why I (might) undertake this project.

There's no difference between an address created using Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind versus inflatacoin LinearCoin.  So me sending to my own address is a transaction valid on both chains.  

So the private keys in my LinearCoin client would be as valuable to an attacker as my Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind wallet.dat.

I personally am not a thrill seeker who jumps off bridges tethered by a bungee nor does playing Russian roulette appeal to me.  Trying to use LineaCoin without losing my bitcoins seems like an equal challenge.

I'm sure they would, but it wouldn't be a real test.

This is so silly. Bitcoin isn't going to accept LNC transactions as long as the addresses are incompatible. If the addresses are compatible, no one should touch the software because the designer is brain-dead.

Point taken. You've posted pretty darn intelligently on this subject. Would "rolling-up" all a new LinearCoin user's address into a single new address be any better?

Personally, I think that would be even less popular.
Even if I changed the rules to wave that potential transaction fee, it would affect transaction privacy ON BOTH networks. Creating Etlase2's "Open TX Only" approach would avoid accidental transactions, but it wouldn't change the privacy issues.

That's a shame. I wanted to do that automatic roll-up block work and and donate it back to BitCoin. It's on the future features list.

This is sounding like a dumber and dumber idea. Amazing how hard it is to give out FREE COINS! :-)

------------------

Again, if I undertake this it is just for the practical experience of working with the codebase. I don't really think the LinearCoin philosophy is logically any better than BitCoin's. After all for most of the time I've been watching BitCoin it has been a LinearCoin system. It wasn't till late last year that the mining rate dropped. In fact, for the next couple of years BitCoin will continue to be a LinearCoin system. And the 4 years after that, and after that...

Giving away coins linearly didn't stop the repeated Bubble and Bust cycle over the first 4 years. In that regard things haven't changed in the second 4 years. Isn't that what makes Coin speculation fun for so many people?

Can you develop a genetic proof of work that changes over time to prevent ASICs from dominating the ecosystem? Also how will you address transaction fees and the notion of colored coins? Are you writing a whitepaper like satoshi did to explain some things? I would be willing to help write code for you if we are philosophically aligned

See my original post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179961.msg1879143;topicseen#msg1879143
It explains more of the motivation and philosphy behind the concept. Not the technical solutions.

I started this thread here to get some opinions on the technical aspects - and I think many of the above replies raises interesting and relevant topics.
If you like my philosophy, I would be happy to discuss more with you. All intelligible contributions are highly appreciated ;)

PS: Would not the appearance of ASICS be handled easily by the increased difficulty adjustment? Yes, they may come to dominate, but does that pose a problem for the system as such?

thanks

I think LTC tries to address this by using script hash instead of SHA