Please provide links to the peer-reviewed journals in which the proofs can be found.

Actually of course I mean not just to the coverpages of the journals but directly also to the papers themselves within those journals.

Also links to any confirming or refuting papers or threads of papers (after all, Harmony Christian has papers out there claiming Bell's Theorem is wrong, but digging deeper we find other people have papers claiming Christian is wrong).

Which is a problem it seems of non-peer-reviewed journals; Christian's stuff is on arXhive or whatever it calls itself, a non peer reviewed site, so the only reviews - his supporters and detractors - are just as hard to decide amongst as he is, who is right, those who agree with Christian or those who claim he himself made an elementary math error?

So please, the proof, along with good supporting reviews from real mathematicians, cryptanalysts, computer-scientists and such indicating your purported proof does in reality prove what you think/imagine that it proves...

-MarkM-

And is that how bitcoin checks that same thing?

I understood that the new I0COin, on which this is based, was in turn based on new bitcoin?

-MarkM-

What did you spend your 300 bitcoins on, exactly?

Surely for 300 bitcoins you should have been able to take some time off work to write your whitepaper, and hire programmers to help you finish your code, and maybe even pay whatever fees or deposits the card networks want for accepting your card on their network?

Paying 300 bitcoins and not even getting a github repo out of the deal sounds like you got ripped off...

-MarkM-

I was adding to previous post, please re-read.

-MarkM-

Oh well then just another toy coin too insecure to store serious value in.

Too bad.

Even worse, all these toy coins might be why bitcoin failed to stay more valuable than the coins that moved away from blockchains into Open Transactions due to blockchains being too insecure to store serious value.

Look at the plots at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html

See how bitcoin dropped from being the most valuable asset?

By rights none of the others should ever have been able to even catch up with bitcoin, let alone surpass it, because bitcoin was and is the only blockchain having enough hashing power that it is pretty much impregnable even to all the supercomputers in the world all put together.

-MarkM-

What does bitcoin use instead? Presumably bitcoin still needs to validate its old blocks that did use 160 bit whatzits?

-MarkM-

That just makes it even more vulnerable, as even people with FPGAs can attack it.

Design an ASIC as soon as possible.

You should have designed one before even considering such a coin, ideally even actually had them on the shelf ready to sell to the initial miners. But failing that, start designing one already before the chain is valuable enough to be worth attacking!

Take the damn FPGA firmware/design and hardcopy it (make a "hardcopy" ASIC) for starters just as a stop-gap to help try to discourage attack long enough to get a good well designed 20 nanometre or 28 nanometre ASIC made for it.

-MarkM-

There is only one coin that uses Blake hashing anyway.

But, get ASICs as soon as possible, otherwise you are screwed because you are insanely unlikely to get half the GPUs in the world hashing Blake instead of hashing some other type of hash that GPUs are also capable of.

Heck you are quite unlikely even to get half of only those GPUs that are actively used to do mining of one kind or another, or even just half of the multi-GPU rigs that do mining or even half of the huge farms of many many many GPUs that do mining of one kind or another.

-MarkM-

They deliberately design it to be insanely high risk, notice for example that they prefer to use scrypt even though as soon as there are two scrypt coins in existence it is very very unlikely that neither one of them has less than half of the scrypt hashpower and as soon as there are three or more scrypt coins in existence it is mathematically inevitable that all but possibly maybe one of them has less than half the hashing power.

So basically it is not "risk" except in the sense that deliberately playing a ponzi game aka gold-game is a "risk": the gamble aka risk is that you might not manage to get the hell out of there fast enough so will be one of the bag-holders aka losers aka victims.

-MarkM-

They are deliberate scams, designed to fail, deliberately not caring that they are insecure because they have no intention of leaving any of the wealth that they scam out of people sitting there in the designed-to-be-PWNed blockchain that they deliberately deployed and hyped despite it being quite clear from the outset that there was no chance that the chain could ever be secured thus in effect it was deliberately designed not only to scam people with a pump and dump but also to be abandoned before the fact that it has less than half of the hash power causes it to be PWNed by some other criminal(s) than its own developers.

Basically being crooks they know damn well their chain is designed to be PWNed but do not care because they plan to run off with the loot before some other gang of crooks does so by using hashpower.

-MarkM-

We also need to be able to secure it though otherwise the great chain robbery has also been waiting for enough loot to be foolishly tied up in to make it worth PWNing.

-MarkM-

As a meta-level handling finances of many many chains, obviously its hash-power needs to be more than half as much as the total hash-power of all the chains that it serves combined, so that it would take at least a quarter of all the hashing power of all the chains that it purports to be "meta" to aka "above" to PWN it.

However, at the same time, if its hash power is more than half the hash power of any one of the chains that it deals with, then its miners could be tempted to PWN that other chain instead of mining this one.

So it also needs to not be less than half as much hashing power as any one of the chains that it serves.

So basically it seems to need to be merged mined alongside all of the chains that it serves, so that the same hashing power can secure all of them all at once...

Which is awesome because it provides all the chains of its hashing-type that have not yet enabled the ability to be merged mined as a secondary chain to do so - their incentive being that if they do, then they can participate in this distributed exchange...

However that is kinf of wishful thinking, since actually all the chaisn of its hashing-type are potential attackers whether they participate in the distributed exchange or not.

So really it does not merely need at least enough hashing power that all chains it serves cannot gang up to PWN it, it needs enough hashing power that all the hashing power of all the chains of its hashing-type, whether they participate in the exchange or not, cannot PWN it...

It is very sensible not to have it be an scrypt coin because already there are far too many scrypt coins for any but one single one of them to be able to have more than half the total scrypt hashing power that exists, thus already all, or possibly maybe all but one, of the scrypt coins already have less than half of the scrypt hashing power so all of them or possibly, maybe, there might be or might someday come to be one among them all that is not already less than 50% of the scrypt hashing power.

So basically all, or maybe if we are lucky or someday in the future all but one, of the scrypt coins are already way the heck too insecure to be trusted for any serious use...

 -MarkM-

Which card networks accept your card, and where is the github repo of the source code, and where is the whitepaper?

Also can you prove that a trusted escrow agent controls the address you are asking people to send bitcoins to, rather than it being controlled by a sockpuppet / scammer anonymous alias who has only one post, no source code, no debit card / cash-card arrangement set up with any card-networks, no whitepaper, no trusted escrow to hold any funds, and, seemingly, no intent to do anything other that simply steal bitcoins under false pretences?

-MarkM-

Targeting merchants is the payment processor's job.

If it is possible to convince the gaming site or whatever to accept one coin in addition to whatever other coins or fiats or airmiles or whatever variety of things it already accepts, shouldn't it be even easier for a payment processor to convince it to simply accept the payment processor and thereby no longer have to deal with all the spam from different coin enthusiasts urging their coin be accepted, or having to implement yet another currency themselves when some nation changes its currency or when some new nation is born that launches its own currency and so on?

Isnt it just easier on the merchant, however large, to let all the potentially billions of currencies in the universe all be handled for them by a payment processor?

Even if, like e-bay, they buy a payment processor for the purpose?

(Assuming it was ebay that bought paypal and not vice-versa?)

-MarkM-

It is true that the kinds of stuff you are hoping to develop would be nice to have, but since well-funded teams are already working on such stuff does it realyl make sense to blow antoher huge wad of money on funding yet another team to diverge from all the already funded projects that are already working on what to and end user presumably is much the same thing?

If the already funded teams fail somehow then maybe looking around for a different team might make sense, and if the specific implementation-details of how to build such a thing fails then again considering funding yet another different way of accomplishing the same goals might make sense.

Maybe if I had invested in one or more of the others and it was truning out to be massively lucrative i might consider investing sme of the loot I gained from the success of bitshares or Mastercoin or whatever into yet another similar project but as far as I can tell at that point I would already have these functionalities.

Meanwhile if it is really the case that this team needs money, maybe we can hope that they will take a job with one of the already-funded teams whereas if we throw money at them now that probably just makes them even less available to work on the projects we the people or we the community or whatever have already thrown huge amounts of money at toward the same goals...

In a way it seems not all that different from the "yet another altcoin" craze. How many more alternate distributed exchanges are we supposed to fund all at once fragmenting the resulting markets, or is some way of having them all work together on globally integrated orderbooks also part of the plan?

-MarkM-

Isn't this a so called "Proof of Stake" coin?

With someone somewhere sitting on a "checkpoint server" with which they can screw around with the whole thing?

People were smart enough to realise Solidcoin, whose centralisation was twelve "trusted nodes" was not a good idea, yet somehow they fall for a centralisation that maybe involves only one "trusted node"

-MarkM-

Payment processor acceptance is probably much more important than merchant acceptance because probably more merchants sinply let their payment processor worry about what foreign and crypto currencies to accept than run their own payment processing.

For example if paypal accepted bitcoins, presto all kinds of merchants that never even heard of it would, unknown to themselves, accept it, without even needing to know it even exists because the payment processor gives the merchant the type of currency the merchant wants regardless of what obscure currency the customer chooses to pay in, provided it is one that the payment processor accepts.

-MarkM-

The merged-mined coins.

If you are only merged-mining with a block-eruptor or a few block-eruptors, the chance of finding a block of any of the child chain coins that is already on a public merged-mining pool is so slim you might feel that you can afford to leave them out of the merge, afterall you could get those just by using a public merged mining pool; but CoiLedCoin and GeistGeld are not included in the merge of any public merged mining pool that I know of and are thus low enough difficulty - especially GeistGeld - that even just a single block eruptor might well still be able to find blocks reasonably. So you could set up p2pool to only merge those two alongside the primary chain. The bitcoins would pay the electricity so it would even be funded speculation thus pretty much risk-free.

-MarkM-

Bitcoin value is ridiculously volatile, we should be hoping that we will have a far more stable value than bitcoin has.

Bitcoin continues still after all these years to keep changing the prices of everything, you can check the price of something in bitcoins, decide it seems affordable, dig out your offline wallet machine from your vault, set it up, figure out which of your online machines has the most up to date blockchain on it, fire up a bitcoin client on it, wait for the blockchain to get up to date, go through whatever steps are required to get the online machine and the offline machine to agree about a transaction to move offline funds online or to send offline funds directly to the merchant from who you wanted to buy something, and find that the price has already changed.

Some payment processors only give you 15 minutes to send coins once you have found out from them what the price of what you want to buy is and lock it in for 15 minutes, so maybe if you get so practiced at the whole business of getting coins out of your offline wallet inside of 15 minutes you are okay, but otherwise you are very likely to find the price has already changed.

Hopefully with devcoins we can much faster move toward setting wages and prices directly in devcoins.

For example once various sites like devtome get their share directly to the site instead of directly to their employees/team/authors/workers, they can know how much devcoin they have in their kitty and set pay in devcoins instead of in shares. So workers will know how many devcoins they will be getting instead of having to wait to see how much a share happens to be by the time they get it.

Hopefully we can also set prices of services directly in devcoins too. For example we could have a food site that pays people per thousand grams of food produced or per thousand weeds pulled or whatever, and, having paid the workers in devcoins to produce the food, we'd know, once the food is harvested, how many devcoins it cost to produce it, thus we would be in a position to price it in devcoins directly when offering it for sale.

Possibly devcoin might be just the right coin with which to develop the entire supply-chain all the way up from the ground, the wind, the rain, sunlight, seeds and labour.

Free open source quarrying and lumber-jacking, free open source stonemasonry and brickmaking and carpentry and architecture - how to build affordable simple housing from local materials or from sustainable materials located nearby, or free open source materials so revolutionary that shipping them from a distance is actually more sustainable and more environmentally friendly than using local materials, whatever, basically free open source shelter so people can shelter from the elements and such while eating our free open source foodstuffs.

(I categorise clothing as shelter since it seems to me that unless clothing provides shelter it maybe is really not as totally essential to survival as shelter is; shelter from prurient eyes is maybe not always more life-or-death than shelter from inclement weather/elements.)

Maybe if we are to try to make our currency stable we should try to make it stable in relation to food and clothing/shelter more importantly than stable in relation to hideously volatile things like penny-stocks, bitcoins, tradeable pokemon-cards, fiat currencies and so on?

Maybe we could even reach a point where when the number of dollars it costs for a loaf of bread increases the number of devcoins it costs does not increase?

Would something like that constitute being even more stable than the fiat in terms of which the price of bread increased?

-MarkM-

It is a free (and open source!) world, if you wish to promote devcoin please do go ahead and do so.

If not, no problem, others are promoting it.

Have you examined the bounties available for promotion?

I think you might be able to get a bounty for having a certain type of header type banner on your page or something like that.

However I think maybe you might find you have to put it on the front page of a hostname and get paid even more if you put it on the front page of the default host of a domain or something like that.

But take a look, maybe they have something there about facebook pages, social media pages in general, or whatever that might be applicable.

But don't let that stop you, you don't need permission to go ahead and promote devcoin even if there is no bounty offered for the specific kind of promotion you would like to do.

It is even possible that devcoin or devtome or both might have a facebook page, in which case if you have a tool that gets followers to such pages and it is not some kind of black hat spam thing or some "get pointless followers who don't care what the page is even about because they are following in return for being followed - paying by following so that other people will in return follow them" maybe it isn't worthwhile if they are like automatically-gotten twitter followers.

Or hey maybe merely having lots of followers who never actually look at the page were never interested in the page and maybe even are mere robots themselves all following each other's pages so they all like like they are popular maybe that is worth doing for some reason?

If you are planning some kind of mindless zombie followers who really are just doing a "I will follow any page you tell me to if you follow any page I tell you to" without any regard for what people are genuinely interested in or even whether they are people at all then maybe we might prefer you not do that, since we claim to be an ethical coin or in some ad copy maybe even to be 'the' ethical coin, so un-ethical methods or followers who are not really following in the sense of actually being interested and reading-along and participating in the discussions and so on might not be something we would want. (It could make us look unethical.)

-MarkM-