"I wonder when it's safe to spend these"
.. a few years later

Let's put in some constants and swap the last variable to 1 since block time won't vary that much on this coin...

Block 120 (2 hours):
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*120)+3 = 52.99
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 120) + 0.1 = 1.09

Block 525600 (1 year):
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*525600)+3 = 31.04
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 525600) + 0.1 = 0.83

Block 2628000 (5 year):
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*2628000)+3 = 5.776
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 2628000) + 0.1 = 0.312

So you start taking roughly 2%, rising to 2.7% after a year, and 5.4% after 5 years.

Unsure what to say, that's a horrible unfair greedy amount to try and take, and to try and mask using relatively complex equations.

can we track the outputs and have the network reject them?

Okay, I can graph the PoW blocks now over multiple years.

Over what block numbers will the transition from PoW to PoS take place? 1m PoW at block 1, 10m PoW by block x? (what is x)

M >=0 and M <= 1.

[/quote]

so after one hour:
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.1) + 3 = 52.99
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.5) + 3 = 52.99
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.99) + 3 = 52.99

and after 5 years:
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.1) + 3 = 40.44
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.5) + 3 = 14.78
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.99) + 3 = 6.707

okay.

How does the transition from PoW to PoS work, and over what time/block period?

so far it looks like you're going to be making a coin that 50% minted within two weeks!

If there is no merkle tree in the blockheader, does that not leave it open to transactions being removed / replaced /  double spent?

Define a hard range for the value. <1, 1-100, 1-10000 etc.

define "chain time modular", that has a huge bearing on how this rewards..

scary: nothing sure or fair about this

lol well done, although now I assume you have a brain wallet cracking rig ready to accept new dictionaries whenever.

No the unwritten bit which allows not including as many transactions as desired, together with the unreferencing of the tree of transactions from the block header. Merkle root must be in there.
edit: because the transactions merkle root isn't in the header they can be added and removed at will.. it breaks the strength and the point of the blockchain.

From the many proposals I've seen, it seems apparent that Proof of Decentralization is required, as centralization is always the root of the problems. To do this blocks need to be floated around the network randomly in some way until agreed, then the next block can be started.

I can see multiple viable approaches as alternatives, which expand on PoW. For example:

nBlocks: a traditional PoW block is created and sent to the network, it is then recomputed with another hash, and repeat until n-hashes have been found, the block identifier becomes the sha256d of the concatenation of (nhash, n+1hash, ...). block-reward/n is claimed by each miner.

transactional block verification: traditional PoW block is created and sent to the network, each client which sent a transaction included in the block signs the hash with the private key they control associated with aforementioned transaction, once xx% of signatures has been received the block is accepted by the network.

combination of both of the above.

supernodes/unl, trusted nodes which much meet majority consensus that a block is good before it is accepted - perhaps with a latent design which acts a soft checkpoint for currentblock - n.

zero interest PoS and feeless transactions, discourage hoarding and just take it as a given that this computational processing is the fee for using the network.

and so on.

a side point: one cpu one vote was long gone, with the introduction of pools, which centralized the network. The pool problem is primarily a problem because it's been black boxed and miners are now "dumb" with no attachment to the network or awareness of the blockchain. If there was a way to force them to be aware of the network protocol and the chain again, it may open alternative avenues to solve the problems.

aside for tromp: you seem to have some overlap with CPoS and graph based data.. it would be interesting if the block chain was a graph instead, which was mined with cuckoo.

Do not mix authentication with authorization.

Let each node be named with a URI (URI-A)
Nodes issue their own certificates with URI-A in the subjectAltName part of the x509
As authentication dereference URI-A to find RDF-data, check for the public key from the x509.
If public key is found, assert that the node "owns" URI-A and thus can use it as an identifier.

This covers authentication and allows each node to revoke and change certificates as it chooses, it also allows nodes to provide more information at the dereferenceable URI and acts as an extension point.

Layer on authorization using ACL, which can also be implemented using RDF.

See webid (formerly foaf-ssl) for more information, see web access control for more on authn.

Consider defining a simple protocol that allows multiple forms of passing keys and establishing identifiers for agents, x509 may need to be replaced, legacy and different networks may need different auth protocols, your suggested approach binds to HTTP+TLS only, when multiple transport level protocol may be required for this.


I suggest an RDF data API, it will be far more beneficial if the information is machine readable data (possibly with a default HTML view.. RDFa?), then multiple different UIX can be built on top allowing independent innovation and it'll be readily extensible by using new classes and properties in the rdf.

This bit concerns me greatly:

If we consider DOGE http://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-dogecoin-addresses.html

0.08% control 64%+ of the economy, less than 1% control 85%. This is based on address, 1 entity could own 75%+ easily.

The rich get richer, the economy is monopolized, when you have that much of it you can inflate and deflate value however you want. When you earn percentage interest also then it's a recipe for disaster.

addition: regarding 51% attacks, see the comments under: http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinSerious/comments/1xpzb8/pos_is_more_vulnerable_to_51_attacks_than_pow/

That was my understanding. Perhaps "prevent" is a powerful word, and disincentivize more accurate. Thanks.

title says it all - I presume roughly that if you have ASICs then Botnets cannot muster enough power to compete. Is this correct?

There's checkpoint consensus, but then consensus allows for islands to form.

A simple technical (rather than social) solution to the 51% problem must exist, for PoW.

This project will not go ahead.

We are working in numerous threads to crowd source and define a user focussed long term coin. After which point we will post a proposed specification.

discussion on how should coin developers be remunerated?
discussion on feature requirements
PoS/PoW

Please join in the discussion.

Interested to hear what you class as third party development? Software, Hardware, Services, additional core development?


Open from the start, multiple contributors, patches from healthy up to date forks - the usual methods.


The fee model is only to provide a fair approach to remuneration. All aspects of the project would have to be open, right from the start, including the initial requirements and proposal, even before specification happens. As we are doing here