The coin I am making is pretty unique and different from any other coin I've seen out there.

Let me talk to you via private message, I suspect we could work something out though, particularly if you guys have any developers or marketers that I could hire, such as you.. mostly paying stock options for now but I could probably pay one developer in cash to help with a few of the smaller features required for the initial release. At that point we can get investors and have enough money to hire others.

Yeah, we choose the name first, then we did realize there was a coin with that name. It seemed like the coin died.. market cap of < $6000? Dead site, etc.

Fractal just so perfectly describes one of the key concepts of what is unique about this coin.


We could talk to them, my first inclination is I want to start from scratch but would be willing to talk to them, maybe some very small piece of the coin. Feel free to put some of them in touch with me.

True, maybe a little trickier but I don't see it being impossible. Perhaps something like your chaining idea could be involved or the block creator could simply include a numbering for all trades on same asset in same block.  And again, right now I'm focused on version one, assets probably won't be till version 3, and parallelizing their processing until later still.. or perhaps parallelize first, then assets. Either way, I'm still in the early stages of the initial product, eventual parallelization was just meant as one more reason for choosing Rust.

CfB based on the previous conv, sounds like you are too busy for something like this. Bcdev,would you be interested?

It's going to be a little bit, least 2 months, probably 3ish.

Coin is going to be named 'Fractal', happy to ping you and let you know. Feel free to do the same when you release your new project.

And like I said, parallel processing probably won't be in version 1.

I'm planning account based, makes blockchain trimming much more compact.


Nah, same idea, just treat every asset balance like a seperate account balance for that account.

Something like this could also help where you link transactions back to the ones they rely on seeing first though my initial thought is that dipping into negative balances may be easier to implement and enforce.

Good point. One fix is to allow account balances to dip into negative, keeping track of which accounts currently have negative  balances. And when finished processing, accept the block only if no such account balances exist.

Again, two steps, each of which can be done in parallel.. or maybe the second step can even just be, "Is list empty?"

I don't see any reason you can't parallelize transaction processing, which seems to be the majority of the work miners are doing.

I intend to keep basically a running total going for the most frequently used accounts, and as you process a transaction, you check to see if that account had enough money, assets, etc at that moment.  Even if they are out of order, the miner who initially mines them can mine them in either order.

I don't know that I would use it here would have to think through security implications further, but hashing these blocks together to make sure they have the correct hash could be done this way too, you just could keep an accumulator which is basically the 'sum' of all the byte values of transactions so order isn't important, appended to the header info, then at the end you put it through the hashing function.  And when it comes to verifying transactions, similarly it doesn't matter if they are out of order or not, either the block is valid or it isn't.  You can process all transactions in parallel into a buffer that is sorted by changes to individual account ids, then go through and check those all at once, then finally apply them. Each of those steps could be done in parallel.

Granted you would have to verify and manipulate all transactions in the block you are checking before you starting building the new one, but building a new block or verifying a block someone else mined could be done in parallel.

This probably would not be in version one as it is indeed a little trickier, but somewhere does the line, it would be nice to have this easy to add.  You could hope for 3 times speed up of block processing on a 4 core CPU.  Which may someday be significant.

Hello,

I am in the process of writing a new cryptocurrency, because of the uniqueness of the mining algorithm, it needs to be re-written from scratch.  I've started the program using 'Rust' to do this.  I went with Rust because it means it means the transactions processing will be able to be parallelized easier and also because it forces you to write secure code that doesn't have the potential memory risks of C++ but in theory runs as fast as C++ (C++ has had lots of time to optimize itself.. Rust is still newish).

Any chance any developers are out there and interested?  I'd be happy to further explain the idea behind this new coin which I think will grab some attention.. the project just still happens to be in 'Stealth Mode'.


If you want to learn more about Rust developed by Mozilla, I recommend reading this post. It was the eye opener for me:
http://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/04/10/Fearless-Concurrency.html

Or check out rust-lang.org

Realize it's a fairly small consideration, but if I'm releasing a new coin, how high would you set the total supply of coins?

Anyone have a favorite?  21 million? 1 billion?  100 billion?  Any reason it's your favorite?

Thanks!

I want to give them 'special abilities' or rights if they are a unique person, I'm thinking maybe combine POC with picture or something like that.  So you need to spend at least a minimum amount of economic resources as well as providing an image.

So a private key isn't enough by itself.

Very interesting..  The issue though is that I would like to be able to prove that you don't have multiple identities as best possible.

Actually that is a very interesting idea adamstgBit...  issue is on a massive scale and people faking photos.  But there might be something there and it might be good enough.

For one of my projects, I would really like a way for people to be able prove their identity.. ideally in a trustless way.  Is this possible?

I believe the answer is an obvious it's not possible.. but just curious to hear thoughts.  As far as I'm concerned, anonymity is not an issue.

I hear you only need such a page if you are selling something, as far as I can tell burstcoin.eu is not selling anything.

Source (may not be the most accurate but worth examining): http://www.toytowngermany.com/forum/profile/16-editor-bob/

Point being,  no reason to close it smaxzer! It's a really nice site and I'd hate to see it disappear.

You told me you made .01 BTC max per account you own... I highly doubt the story but pretending it is true for $2, could you please stop posting from our dead friends account?  In fact I'll buy the account off of you for .05 BTC.  And how many accounts do you have that you are posting from?  I'm guessing a job at McD's would probably pay better.

I'm convinced that mmmaybe's dumping his coins and this whole thing is his attempt at a PR story to try to get some press before he dumps them all.

If you are worried about transactions per day.. go look at Nxt's transaction count.. we're beating them by a lot I believe, mostly because mining granted but it counts for something!

I have trouble understanding how they can promise to double it.. are they buying that extra Burst now and holding on to it?  Otherwise,  what about when Burst shoots up in price by at least 10x? And how do they make money from this asset? Idk.. I'd avoid it.

How is viral a scam?  And doesn't look like you could've lost that much looking at the price chart. Every stock/crypto will have it's up and downs.. just have to buy during the down, not the up! Anyway I still don't own any as I tend to stay away from POS but it's one that's always seemed interesting to me and I may buy in at some point.

Yeah, I'm with Iron, HDD mining totally beats GPU mining After all GPU mining can't really be made ASIC proof... so if it ever takes off, it loses the feature it was built on.

What?  Could you please elaborate or show us posts or something?

Keep in mind thought that it is largely vbecas and burstdev who implemented smart contracts.  CIYAM wrote them initially in C++ but he's barely touched the Burst implementation as far as I know.

Personally though, I think CIYAM is a great asset, and I'm not trying to distance ourselves.. just want to hear details for what you are saying and saying that even if it's true.. smart contracts will go on.

Appreciate the thoughts laurelled.

I will look into Lisa Chang.. perhaps we can pay her for some help crafting a better paper.  Step number 7 of "Eight Rules for Creating Great White Papers":  Have a writer write it..  maybe we could could at least get someone to help us organize the flow.

Should a whitepaper be focused just on Proof of Capacity?  Then a separate white paper for our smart contracts implementation?

Whoops!! Mistyped that.. I don't think miners would stop mining.. I meant stop dumping as much.  Corrected in the versions I could change.

I mean let's face it, they have the equipment set-up already, it's quite cheap to mine, and there still is the same amount of money to be made in the long run.. and given that investors would see the price increase that would almost be bound to occur short term.. they'd probably rush in, we'd see a bubble and network strenthen would actually increase.

Theoretically anyway.