Well, if you freeze the supply increase at 0% (as with bitcoin) you can problem ensure that the currency will continuously go up in value over time in comparison to inflationary fiat.  I think there needs to be some mechanism for the regulation of long term supply increases, and the easiest way it to allow people to vote based on the PoW or PoS pool that they join.  There will be a lot of politics for such a chain, and I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing.

One thing I'd been considering was allowing for the easy creation of other chains than the main chain, then being able to join and mine these chains too by selecting them from a list in the client, e.g., as you would select a channel in an IRC client.  This could let people play with the parameters as they saw fit.

They will live from both fees and block reward.
I plan to sell about half of the network fees to kickstarter investors for the first five years (I don't think I can get >$50k for development otherwise), but at this time PoW block reward >> fee amounts, if Bitcoin is any indicator.


As others have stated, PoB still seems like science fiction to me and needs further work.  I don't really think energy efficiency is a massive issue either; for instance, we waste about somewhere less than 137 mW/(cm^2 s) of photons every day when they collide with the earth's surface and do nothing except heat it via atomic absorption and excitation.  Just by making more of the network run on solar energy by increasing investment in solar energy because of increasing demand for energy itself we can increase global energy efficiency, which is something people often fail to consider (the impact of energy demand on finding new, cleaner, less expensive, and more abundant sources of electrons to power things).  Every couple years major breakthroughs are made in solar panel array technology that further increases yield while driving down the price of the panels.

Fault tolerance (it's not guaranteed that you will find exactly the same hash) and because if you reject blocks with only one Nay vote you may not invalidate any block you'd like to with only 20%.  10% stake means half the blocks, etc.  You also don't want to invalidate blocks based one one or two MIA signatories, as with 3 signatories the chain still works fine.

You also add a very easy attack vector by unanimous voting requirement, as you only need to DDoS one node per block to control the chain.

This brings up another important point, though.  As described in the paper the system of ledger hashes only works well if transaction volume is relatively small.  Ideally, you need a system which records the time of all incoming transactions then compares it to the list of transactions in the block, and decides what the probability is that the PoW miner saw precisely those transactions.  For instance, if it saw only one new stake transactions but you saw five, and you saw these all five seconds from each other right after the previous block had been solved, the probability that the PoW miner is manipulating the chain by excluding PoS submission transactions is very high.

Unredeemed tickets are ignored.  If 3/5 ticket holders vote Yea on the block, the block is considered secure.  If 2/5 ticket holders vote Yea on the block and the others abstain, the block is kept but should not be considered a hard confirmation. Tickets expire after 2^16 blocks unless the ticket is never called upon by the lottery, in which case a brief extension is allowed until the ticket comes up.  However, if the ticket comes up in the lottery and the stakeholder is MIA, the ticket expires after 2^16 blocks.

Well, it's equally easy to destroy unclaimed tickets right after the lottery block if you wanted to, for instance if you thought people were hoarding them for a malicious attack.  I guess, really this is the easiest way to do so and may add it into the next draft.


This is the most controversial aspect of the blockchain and will probably require more input from economists.
I think the assumption that PoS workers wouldn't do anything to threaten the currency is naive; for instance, if a 51% PoS minter doesn't like a pool on the network, they can simply invalidate all the blocks it solves on the network and destroy it without massively affecting the function of the blockchain.


I need to look over that paper some more before I can give some more feedback as to the system it proposes.  The method I proposed should be very fast for both the accession of values and the manipulation of values for the lightweight client.

If I wanted centralization and a closed source server code, I'd use my credit card.

Yes, kind of, probably

http://www.openwall.com/lists/crypt-dev/2013/03/21/1

The issue is that C. Percival's algorithm has a "feature" called time-memory tradeoff (TMTO) also known as space-time tradeoff.  Basically, you can trade more ALU cycles for less memory usage.

Very smart people have tried to eliminate this problem and failed; I won't pretend I've solved it with MC2, I myself am only using an alternative algorithm to further delay FPGA introduction.

I will have an actual host within the next couple of days, sorry.  Where do you want it?

New version of the whitepaper is out.  Download from the front page.

Changes:
- New consensus-model PoS system added, old PoS system removed
- Section on Coloured Coins added
- Section on lightweight client added
- Lots of typos fixed

I have not had a chance to read over it yet and fixed typos in the last couple of sections, so forgive me if you find a bunch (they are probably present).

My brain is toast from working on this for almost 10 hours straight, so I'm going to go relax.

BILLIONS OF PEOPLE MESSAGING ME VIA PM -- I HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO REPLY TO MESSAGES BUT WILL GET BACK TO YOU ASAP.  THANKS.

N = memory/computation complexity factor
r = memory complexity factor
p = parallelization factor (1 = hardest)

Once you get into big memory sizes for CPU calculation of sCrypt hashes using either very large N or r values, you get get a massive dependence on memory bandwidth rather than any computational function.

As long as gpu memory has way more memory bandwidth than cpu, gpu will be much faster regardless of N value, I would expect.  In fact, the greater the N value the greater a gpu will hash compared to cpu, because the dependence on memory bandwidth increases.

There is data on hash time in the memcoin thread, once you hit the ddr3 memory with a cpu it's clear that the bandwidth of dram limits you.

Not really true. Space-time tradeoff will still allow efficient mining by fpga/asic/gpu.

In consideration for netcoin/mc2

See the original memcoin thread for why this is a bad idea

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122256.0

Still can't pull output from it with python (trust me I've tried)

MC2/netcoin has been keeping me busy

I need to address something else.  I'm asked a lot about the adoption of some kind of useful work for a coin. Netcoin will not directly incorporate this.  However, I'm looking to incorporate coloured "coins" in subsequent editions of the whitepaper, which can be arbitrarily generated by an address.  So, say you have an address owned by Folding@Home.  This address can then generate x many coloured 'Folding@Home' coins (which contain an originator field with the address from which they spawned).  These coins can then be traded for NTC using the blockchain as an intermediary and two conditional transactions dependent on the presence of the other transaction.  This facilitates non-NTC coins from whatever source and also decentralized exchanges (as the blockchain can be used as an escrow).

I guess you could use an eventual number of coins aiming in the trillions -- but it has the possibility of making people feel like the coins are worthless in the short term.

Let people lose their life savings on a game of pump and dump chicken if they want to.  It only makes me more coins.  Alt chains have been around since right after the introduction of Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is still 100% alive.

I welcome all new copycoins that will pull hashing away from the Litecoin network, so that I can get more Litecoins.

LTC is almost exactly the same currency, but will block halve two years before FTC --> FTC is more or less another pump and dump...

http://feathercoin.com/about/

I haven't even switched my miners over to participate in the pump and dump because it seems like too much effort.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying the lower difficulty of the LTC network. C:

guiminer-scrypt sets its own environmental values rather than writing them to the registry

you can set them yourself using Note that this sets them for all consoles not the one you run that command in (windows is really weird)

get mining_proxy.exe from ltcmine.ru
mining_proxy.exe -pa scrypt -o coinotron.com -p 3334
connect cudaminer to localhost port 8332, use normal miner password

Waiting to see if the next update brings console output in the form of stdout that python can read, otherwise I have to hack cudaminer and recompile it myself.  Right now I'd like to avoid that.