Okay, are you going to clear this up? Or are you just going to make a baseless statement..

Clone of Novacoin. Why would that be legitimate/solid?

Nxt - Do you like 100% premine? Is one person owning the entirety of a currency something that appeals to you? Also did they fix PoS or is it forced to be centralized along with being 100% premine? Nxt is the USD of cryptocurrencies.
Quark - Clone of Bitcoin with 6 different hashing algorithms. Leads fools into believing it is ASIC proof, but really it is just temporarily a botnet-miners friend.


ANC - Bitcoin already can connect through Tor. Coin Control is a good idea, but it isn't a protocol modification and doesn't require a new currency.
MEC - Probably made by an art student. All that it looks like was changed was the block rewards (doubled) and a flashy website was made for it.
BTB - PPC except "super rare" (in other words the creator has no idea how economics works)
GRC - LTC except centralized. You're better off donating your processing power to BOINC and mining LTC at the same time than supporting this centralized scamcoin.

I feel like this coin is a satire of all the other worthless altcoins.




TL;DR: Buy coins that have actual features and aren't premined or centralized (BTC, NMC).

Do you have any feature ideas you'd like to share, or do you just have a plan and fans?

Do you have any ideas for improvements or are you just making a PPC/Litecoin clone and hoping it will succeed?

I've talked to some devs about this. They said it would bloat the blockchain quite a bit and cost a lot in transaction fees. Along with that, you are left with unconfirmed transactions unless you wait 10 minutes between the the flop, river, etc.

Something similar to a Finney attack can occur. A miners program can give priority to higher fee transaction instead of earlier transactions. If I transacted to you, then paid a higher fee transaction to an address I owned, then the miner might chose to put the one that will make them more money in the blockchain.

There is no absolute safety for 0 confirmation transactions. Greedy miners can easily accept higher fee transactions and ignore lower fee transactions.

If I wanted to defraud you in a 0 confirmation transaction, I would give you $10 with a $0.01 fee, then immediately after send a transaction of $9.50 with a fee of $0.51 to another address I own. Any miner can ignore the old transaction in favor of the more profitable transaction.

There are 2^160 possible Bitcoin addresses. If you make it so each square is either one of 31 colors or off, then you have 5 bits per block. Along with that, make it 9x5 and symmetrical so you have 4x5 unique squares. 2^(5*32) = 2^160.

Basically the solution is to give each block a unique color. With this fix, you could allow addresses to be scanned by smartphone apps without even requiring a link back to the address hosted on your website.

Thought about this a bit. One way you could do it is to have an event that happens 50% of the time be part of your transaction.

Not sure what event has a 50% chance of happening other than a trusted oracle that signs transactions 50% of the time.

Basically for rock, paper, scissors, you would make a transaction with two inputs, the two betters and have it spent to one users output if an oracle signs it within 24 hours. If an oracle doesn't sign it, then the other user gets it.

Edit: Look at this post, he has a much better algorithm than me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=277048.0

This is 7 pixels tall by 7 pixels wide and symmetric meaning you have 28 independent bits and 12 bits for the color I'm guessing. This adds up to 2^40 possible images.

Generating 2^40 of these seems pretty feasible. Is there a chance a malicious entity could pretend to be someone else?

Reversing a transaction doesn't involve having any keys.

1
Reversing transactions can gain you much more than the sum of the transaction fees spent.

Yes, I was speaking of a $50 average transaction block reward.

I see, so a colored coin always has only one output?

Seems like instead of people spending electricity on mining, they would be spending it on making as many transactions as possible to mine the coins. If there is a 1% chance of earning a block reward by making 100 transactions, and the block reward is more than the cost of 100 transactions, then the users will make those transactions to earn money.

In the end, the sum of the transaction fees will be close to the price of a transaction block.

If a transaction block reward is $50, and you look back at the past day, someone could pay for the majority of the days transactions and 51% attack. Much more feasible than paying for 51% of the hardware used to mine.

Reported for making a terrible post.

No, but you made a link on the internet by posting it from your IP.


Unless you are involved with terrorism or a major drug dealer I wouldn't be concerned.

One question I've had about colored coins.

What happens if an address has a colored coin with an arbitrary value as an input and another non-colored input with arbitrary value, then I make a transaction with two outputs. Who gets the colored coin between the two outputs?

The buyer has posted a hash sum of the work data. You post a hash sum of the result to the publicly visible transaction log. Equal work must (by BitWrk's specification) lead to an equal result. All messages are cryptographically signed.

So the buyer of the computer time would have to know what the result of the work was before-hand?


In case of a dispute, the correctness of the computation can be verified by a third party. The third party could be a computer owned by the BitWrk service operator (who must be trusted in anyway) or by the market itself (this hasn't been decided on yet).
I think a web of trust is viable, but proving arbitrary computational work was done with zero trust is not.