most? Did I miss something? Do you know of another altcoin that has attracted outsiders in comparable numbers?

AFAICT (and I have been looking), out of 1500+ efforts thus far Dogecoin is the one and only altcoin to have achieved this.

That's a very impressive feat for a $hitcoin with broken mechanics. It's almost as though the contempt is misconceived and the assumptions underpinning the economics aren't as pertinent as is widely believed. But that can't be right, can it?

If the model can't provide a supportable explanation of Dogecoin's appeal then it's not the altcoin that's broken, it's the model.

Nice hole you dug there, it'd be a shame to waste it, so ... given that it is such a remarkable singleton, how does Dogecoin fit your definition of “$hitcoin” in this context?

Cheers

Graham

Could Moon actually go to the Moon? In reality? I don't see any reason not. I don't see any reason why this particular group of aligned interests shouldn't start investigating down here the issues pertaining to what it'll be like using only cryptocurrency in real lunar life up there, just like other formal research programmes. Simply re-orient the elevator pitch slightly and Moon becomes everyone's opportunity to engage in genuine, honest-to-betsy, blue-sky research preparing for the time when humankind finally manages to get to its first save point and also solves the problem of what to do with 38 billion MOON.

Unlike many other altcoins, it doesn't take much imagination to ground Moon in the existing current of related human endeavour. There is the option of hitching up to a wide variety of lunar-related scientific programs and activities, large and small, across the entire globe, validating the coin's role at the same time by lending whatever support it can to the efforts.

One immediate opportunity is obvious, researchers and engineers are almost always struggling with inadequate budget, if Moon can offer genuine economic and financial value, they'll be interested. And, with an intelligently-designed education program of some degree of appeal, Moon can offer Joe, Janet and young Joey Public an opportunity to use it as vehicle to engage lightly with the effort as a whole or more deeply in specific detail.

Things will be different living on the Moon. For a kickoff, they just won't be using a currency with metal coins and plastic notes. And whilst some things are already nailed down by treaty (the Moon Treaty bans any state from claiming sovereignty over any territory of the Moon), no-one's made any move yet to establish a position of primacy with respect to the currency to be used on this celestial body.

We are the first generation(s) of the Space Age, we're the ones reaching out to the moon, our descendants will eventually grasp it. Only time will reveal when that will be but there's no reason why we shouldn't actually join the effort. Yeah, MOON can go the moon.

Cheers

Graham

I can only point to evidence that I am Graham Higgins, unfortunately I cannot point to evidence that I am not deacon boogie.

Cheers

Graham

No-one seemed particularly enthused or interested. Change in a stable p2p environment is a hard sell. That's the way things are.


Cheers

Graham

I recall a time, back in the mists of February, when this was a regular practice . I believe this was the last post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=457575.msg5204471#msg5204471

“Caveat emptor” is irreducible.

Cheers

Graham

I added Ambercoin to the Minkiz ACME “block explorer”. Don't expect too much, it basically just dumps decorated RPC output into a web page, it's a work in progress but what isn't?

http://acme.minkiz.co/amber/


Cheers

Graham

That's the thing about Mother Nature, whilst she may indeed abhor a vacuum, she finds irony irresistible.

Cheers

Graham

Thank you for your consideration and the specific pointer to meta. I have a couple of problems with that thread: firstly the statements are being made by people posting from pseudonymous accounts, this is ungrounded circular reasoning which has to be considered fatally weak as a matter of course. Secondly, and more compellingly, the information presented there is irrelevant to the issue, e.g. “WTB: HERO member accounts (several) active in altcoin forums !  (Read 1096 times)” https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=728902.0.

For me, the simple fact that the above-mentioned thread has not been deleted by a moderator informs me that private purchases of bitcointalk accounts, even of Hero status, are tolerated, perhaps even approved of. So, I apologise for gainsaying you but it is possible at least to publicly attempt to make a private purchase of Hero status bct accounts and there seems to be no board-imposed obstacle to the completion of the transaction, hence my original tongue-in-cheek question.

There is no reliable means of distinguishing your Heroic pseudonymous a/c from that of an arbitrary person with BTC to spend. Because this is bitcointalk, I am obliged to doubt both your intentions and motivation merely as a matter of principle. Lest I inadvertently give offence, I should hasten to add that this is nothing personal, I am sympathetic to the views that you espouse, I'm merely restricting myself to what I can reliably infer from the facts that I can discover.

However, the unfortunate upshot of this is that it will seriously weaken the effectiveness of your campaign because it leaves your challenges vulnerable to simple dismissal on the grounds that you are trying to impose double standards.


Cheers

Graham

Edit: removed referential detritus

To which “community” do you refer? And could you give a few more details about the review process you're insisting upon?

(Just because you paid several BTC for your Hero account doesn't entitle you to throw your weight around unilaterally.)

Cheers

Graham

It's a connoisseur's coin, a bit like that Scandinavian tinned rotten fish that you have to open under water. Really off-putting at first but if you can overcome your distaste ...


Cheers

Graham

I don't see a mention of it in your post, but you'll need to account for the hardfork reducing the block time to 60s and a corresponding reduction to the block reward to preserve the overall rate : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg8280156#msg8280156

Cheers

Graham

Ah, no, you can't make that comparison, it doesn't work that way.

That's a wee bit like saying if it takes 4 and half minutes to soft-boil an egg then soft-boiling half a dozen eggs should take just short of half an hour.

But yes, the situation is a little confused/confusing.

As far as I understand it, the absolute basics for altcoin crypto are:

256-bit crypto is appropriate for the task and good until 2040 at least
ECRYPT II's 2012 annual review of key lengths opines “Good, generic application-independent recommendation, ≈ 30 years” and that’s just for 128-bit, for 256-bit they state “Good protection against quantum computers unless Shor’s algorithm applies.”

one round of hashing is adequate to secure the blockchain
Hashing the result of a hash brings no gain in security. It seems that the otherwise-inexplicable double round of SHA256 hashing in classic Bitcoin is a simple-but-tricksy way of defending against the threat of a possible length extension attack which was was being discussed at the time but which subsequently came to naught.

The multi-hash approach was first used in SiFcoin (google translated): “Complication chain to the length of 6 different hash functions and increase bit depth to intermediate 512 - attempt to protect from further development of extremely efficient Mh / s gpu-algorithms and theory, "simple" Gh / s devices”.

Note, no mention at all made of security, just a possibility of limiting GPU advantage (and a dubious possibility at that). But somehow, this tactic to limit GPU advantage has mutated into security theatre cryptobabble: “super secure hashing” (Quark), “X15 adds 2 extra layers of hashing to the popular and already very secure X13 hashing Algorithm” (Maiacoin).

There's a pertinent stackexchange discussion Guarding against cryptanalytic breakthroughs: combining multiple hash functions. The posts by Zooko and by Thomas give a realistic appreciation of the issues.

When it's boiled down to the essence: for an altcoin, a tactic of chaining hash algos can't be proven to increase security nor can the tactic be proven not to reduce security. This latter weakness is usually considered a FAIL in crypto best practice.

The sole purpose of chaining hash functions is to protect mining from being overwhelmed by specialist hardware advantage. Any mention of enhanced security is either a misconception or simply cryptobabble and, for either reason, disheartening to see in an [ANN].

Cheers

Graham

The original question referenced some of the algos in the mix:


And indeed they are. I should have mentioned in my earlier response that they do in fact come in 256 output format as well as 512. There is a general sense that Echo means the standard 256-output format, whereas if you mean to reference the 512-output format, you should do so explicitly, i.e. Echo512. The OP's question is very valid.

However, you are asking a different question: if they're the same hashfns, does that mean x11 and Deepcoin algos are the same?

No, they are not the same. But both algos use chains of hash functions and they share some of the links, specifically the three NIST candidates Luffa, CubeHash and Echo. (Algorithm is a general term and is confusingly correct for both X11-the-chain and Luffa-the-hash-function.)

For chained-hash coins, the action usually takes place in src/hashblock.h, the header file that defines which hashfns will make up the chain and their batting order.

The algorithm basically runs: given a hash “256h” that you want to check, call Luffa512(256h), the result becomes a new “512h” hash, then call CubeHash512(512h), the result becomes the new “512h”, then call Echo512(512h) and finally the result gets chopped back to 256 and returned.

Blur the details a bit and you get

256_hash_result = trimto256(Echo512(CubeHash512(Luffa512(256_hash_to_check))))

Extend the chain by a  couple more hash functions (Fugue, Keccak, etc.) and you're in qubit and NIST5 territory, interweave them randomly but reproducibly and you're off into Quarkland; continue extending and you'll eventually reach chaincoin/x11 (same eleven hashfns, different order for two of 'em), x12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 <- the latter all pretty much just “moar hashfns”.

This time, it's hashblock.h under the lens:

Darkcoin:
https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/raw/master/src/hashblock.h
Deepcoin:
https://github.com/Deepcoinbiz/Deepcoin/raw/master-0.8/src/hashblock.h

Despite a slight difference in coding style it's clear they are related but by no means the same.

There's an interesting-to-me sidenote at the changepoint “62c36”: Deepcoin's chain function is appropriately labelled “Hash5” whereas Darkcoin's chain function is labelled “Hash9” (not 11), apparently a fossilised remnant of Mr. Duffield's design process. Other coin devs appear to have honoured this, at least X15Coin has https://github.com/X15COIN/X15Coin/blob/master/src/hashblock.h#L78

Personally, I'm very cautious of statements about the improbability of ASICs for NIST candidates, whichever round ...



(From http://rijndael.ece.vt.edu/sha3/ - note, the free giveaway of SHA-3 ASICs has finished.)

I recommend a visit to Graz Technical University's SHA-3 Zoo where you check up on things like http://ehash.iaik.tugraz.at/wiki/SHA-3_Hardware_Implementations


Cheers

Graham

Yes they are the same. But you needn't (and shouldn't) rely on my say-so, you can check for yourself, the code is open for inspection.

Using Darkcoin as the reference for X11, the C source for the Echo hash function is here in the Darkcoin github repository:
repos page: https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/blob/master/src/echo.c
raw code: https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/raw/master/src/echo.c

and the Deepcoin C source is in the same place in the filesystem, just a few doors over:
repos page: https://github.com/Deepcoinbiz/Deepcoin/blob/master-0.8/src/echo.c
raw code: https://github.com/Deepcoinbiz/Deepcoin/raw/master-0.8/src/echo.c

There's an online service, http://i-tools.org/diff which you can use to compare the code directly by pasting the “raw code” URLs (above) into the form.

Cheers

Graham

Wow, that's a disastrous choice of fileshare facility --- full-on clueless muppet mode.

It will not allow downloading without signup or being given access to social networking accounts. Worse still, the page is plastered with deceitful links to scumware masquerading as download links in order to trick coin users into going to malware or bilking pages.

Didn't it cross your mind that you should at least check? Whether intended or not, it conveys nothing but contempt for users.


That's very generous of you, lol.

Coin should be renamed “Hardcheesecoin” to suit the attitude.


Cheers

Graham

Not sure where you get that notion from, I was pointing to a pure-text solution which would eliminate any need to use/upload images<- the problem. I thought it might make that particular task a bit easier to manage.


Cheers

Graham

A precise identification of the address as the lynchpin. IIRC, the original instructions suggested that, for maximum peace of mind, any balance in a qualifying BTC/LTC/DOGE wallet should be transferred to a newly-created BTC/LTC/DOGE wallet/address and the now-empty qualifying wallet/address used for the CLAM import. I couldn't pick any holes in that but IANAC (C=Cryptographer).

Cheers

Graham

Edit, use a more precise reference

No, it's a different codebase, they just made an unfortunate choice of unit name (MTS) and didn't check. When they did realise, they changed the unit name in the code to MNS.

G'night

Cheers

Graham

Probably just process lag, devs changed the units 4 days ago:
https://github.com/Mantis-Dev/Mantis/commit/fe4dd7c0e92dfcd4ca4286e4782f7c598b2aa4d8#diff-d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e

Fwiw, we publish an exhaustive list of symbols v names and names v symbols but there's no helping some folk.

Cheers

Graham

Laudable list of features. Trouble is, from the user's perspective, that's what's expected as standard and not exactly a unique selling point for Ethancoin.

I have to raise the question - what on earth made you think the name “Ethancoin” was in any way catchy or descriptive? It's going to be a real millstone around the neck of this coin.

Does Ethancoin have any distinguishing features other than “it's not scam”?

What kind of coin did you have in mind when you created it? (You need to be looking for attributes above and beyond the standard characterisation.)

What kind of user population did you envisage?


I think you have accurately summarised the position of not just Ethancoin but hundreds of other altcoins. You may take some consolation from the fact that it'd still be a seriously uphill struggle with that millstone, even if you were a brilliant marketer. But then again, if you were a brilliant marketer then you wouldn't be facing this problem - instead, Ethancoin would be broadcasting its values in a strong, clear message and you'd be bowling along merrily (under a different coin name, for sure).

A dev can ruin a coin by screwing up the parameter bindings whether they be “brand values” or “pchMessageStart”.

The up side is that you basically have a tabula rasa on which you now need to paint the values that you want the brand to be associated with and the brand narrative that these values underpin. In the process, you need to come up with a plausible means of weaving the charstring “Ethan” into the content in a way that is consonant with both the values and the narrative.

If you can't generate this, it isn't “your” coin, you merely configured some software and compiled it. Think of the difference between a film producer and a film director - by and large the producer decides what the film is to be about and the director makes the film. You need to be producer-director in this instance 'cos you already have the film. It's a bit late to try and find someone to ask “what is it about?”, you're going to have to introspect on your motivation for creating the coin in the first place, that's where your inspiration for a rationale will lie.

I can donate a couple of freebie suggestions:

* stay well away from anything MI unless you fancy going up against the really BIG boys in a rights punch-up
* maybe you can position it as whimsically retro, fish around in http://wiki.name.com/en/Ethan, see if anything chimes.

With the usual 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration, you might end up with the basis for a marketing brief.

No, you need to create the marketing brief. You can't just say "Get on with it and I'll let you know if I'm satisfied." I'd respond with a challenge - “What criteria will you use to assess my work?” Think about the logic for a moment ... you describe your marketing skills as “terrible” - so what kind of a position are you in to assess the quality of a marketing plan were I to submit one? Basically, would you know shit from sugar? The market for marketing experts is as much a market for lemons as is the altcoin market.

fwiw, my (informed) advice is: figure out for yourself what your brand values are and how they drive the brand narrative, then re-brand and relaunch.

The above is a lot more direct than my usual tone but it is a lot more mild than the spittle-flecked rants directed by devs at coin owners who can't code.

(Anybody interested in reading my spittle-flecked rant directed at self-deluding STEMheads whose proudly-proclaimed crashing ignorance of anything from the non-STEM disciplines so often dooms their very best technical efforts? No? I thought not ... so I got you to read it anyway, I can be concise when it suits.)

Cheers

Graham