Getting globally consistent state is fine though it comes with two penalties, confirmation delays and transaction throughput limitations. If we could trade off some of this global state knowledge for faster confirmation time and higher transaction throughput, this would be desirable.
I agree with at least this part of your post. And getting the details correct on this goal is where we are now. |
|
|
|
dont you think you are overreacting?
just show your prio art and all is fine...
It is your community's attitude that is never going to be fine. atm i think that you just want to position yourself as a new coin developer and go for a little advertising yourself (i was not part of that discussion - its just how it looks from the outside)
Think what you want. Then observe what really happens and how the coming result had nothing to do with my reputation on the forum. This is going to be an ass whipping lesson to those who perpetually disrespect others. Enjoy your useless microcosm here in the Altcoin forum in the meantime. |
|
|
|
Smooth is one of the most to the point, cold-blooded, factual posters on this forum I've run into.
He is. And when he is challenged on logic, it is often myself. But the point against smooth made by the OP is that he argues ad nauseum even where there is no point and it is wasting time. He tries to control the entire forum. Logic can be a means to an end, but is not an end unless you just want to be mired in verbiage. The real world is where we deliver 10 million new users to the ecosystem. None of the Monerotards have done that and they will never do that because they target this forum instead of targeting creativity and respecting it. They prefer control over creativity. They want everyone to think their expertise is the highest and nothing else can match their collective capabilities. Yet the reality is they don't even have the best technology, even against a non-cryptographer and a non-mathematician. Boastful groups are like Humpty Dumpty. That is too much work for circle-jerkers to actually go and look at the whitepaper (including shen's new release of Ring CT) + the source code for themselves?
You are so proud of a design that will be an order-of-magnitude more bloated than the superior design. |
|
|
|
when I release
Then there will be something to back up your claims, and basis for credit to be given. Currently there is not. For my demand that he cite my prior art, I only referred to the publish prior art on the combinatorial unmasking prevention, of which his published proposed solution is incorrect. Thus even if I published my solution now (instead of the June 2015 provided by my published prior art, and I also have posts on that same art from 2014 if necessary I can dig them up), I would still have the prior art on the correct solution. If you are going to post, at least bother to get your facts straight by reading my post first. |
|
|
|
The Monerotards just can't ever admit that someone else could do anything they couldn't do and give proper credit and respect where it is due. Sigh. And then they wonder why their shitcoin is going no where and those who have the talent to make it go somewhere are not motivated to join with their sick attitudes. You guys are hilarious. Keep making excuses to deny reality but it won't help you in the real world. Not even one thank you for pointing an egregious error in Shen's proposed solution which could have enabled me to crash your market price had I withheld the information and supplied it after you implemented a hard fork with the design error. Instead I get verbal diarrhea about senile rage. My and the community wide anger against Monerotards, is because of for example your Shen's condescending verbiage and now more of it from all you key persons in the Monerotard community and even the lead developer. How on earth do you get that you have prior art?! Where is your published paper, predating Shen's, that describes your scheme???
fluffypony, I provided links to the prior art that was published in public. If there is contention about the date of who published first, it is possible to go digging in AnonyMint's archives to find the earlier dated posts with the relevant information. Why do you waste my time with a post that shows you didn't even read the post I made that contains the links to the prior art (and the mention of earlier dated posts being in the earlier archives if necessary)? Do I waste yours? WOW... Just WOW....  Very indicative of the brow beating mental disease of Monerotards. Then there will be something to back up your claims, and basis for credit to be given. Currently there is not.
For my demand that he cite my prior art, I only referred to the publish prior art on the combinatorial unmasking prevention, of which his published proposed solution is incorrect. Thus even if I published my solution now (instead of the June 2015 provided by my published prior art, and I also have posts on that same art from 2014 if necessary I can dig them up), I would still have the prior art on the correct solution. If you are going to post, at least bother to get your facts straight by reading my post first. |
|
|
|
I'm not really following it
If you took the time to read what I wrote, then you don't have to waste my and your time writing this. I provided links to the published prior art. As for proving my white paper was finished before theirs, you ass-u-me I didn't sign a hash to a public block chain and that when I release my white paper, that I can't make all you eat your verbal diarrhea. |
|
|
|
The Monerotards just can't ever admit that someone else could do anything they couldn't do and give proper credit and respect where it is due. Sigh. And then they wonder why their shitcoin is going no where and those who have the talent to make it go somewhere are not motivated to join with their sick attitudes. You guys are hilarious. Keep making excuses to deny reality but it won't help you in the real world. Not even one thank you for pointing an egregious error in Shen's proposed solution which could have enabled me to crash your market price had I withheld the information and supplied it after you implemented a hard fork with the design error. Instead I get verbal diarrhea about senile rage. My and the community wide anger against Monerotards, is because of for example your Shen's condescending verbiage and now more of it from all you key persons in the Monerotard community and even the lead developer. How on earth do you get that you have prior art?! Where is your published paper, predating Shen's, that describes your scheme???
fluffypony, I provided links to the prior art that was published in public. If there is contention about the date of who published first, it is possible to go digging in AnonyMint's archives to find the earlier dated posts with the relevant information. Why do you waste my time with a post that shows you didn't even read the post I made that contains the links to the prior art (and the mention of earlier dated posts being in the earlier archives if necessary)? Do I waste yours? WOW... Just WOW.... Very indicative of the brow beating mental disease of Monerotards. |
|
|
|
Ten days later I found some time to follow up... https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cw7kkvyNo, I understood your point clearly: you clearly do not understand elliptic curve math: How do you know that zG is not z'G +aH without knowing z? At this point I've just been correcting your math for like 20 comments so I'm not sure how you expect me to take these comments seriously. Pfff, you did not correct my math. You failed to grasp what I was stating. My point is that for the commitment to the sum, even though the z is not zero, we know that the values on the base point H must sum to zero, because of the way ECC works, it is impossible to find values on the base point G that can offset any non-zero value from values on the base point H. And then I proceeded to explain that since we know the sum is always zero regardless of the fuzz provided by z, then if we know the hidden values for the inputs and the outputs, then we know with high probability which of the i (out of the n possibilities) is the pi which signed the ring. Dude your hubris is insane given that your implementation relies on CT, which requires 850% more space than my design which relies on CCT. Perhaps you've seen the comparative benchmarks in the updated CCT paper. Also I have found another weaknesses in your design which I will be explaining in another post shortly. the points G and H aren't actually orthogonal, as H = xG for some G, it's just that no one actually knows what x that is (in fact in the ed25519 public key group "every" point is a multiple of the basepoint) Btw, if you were thinking you were correcting me when you wrote that, then I suggest to you that presumption is the enemy of truth and the obfuscation fuel of overconfidence. Of course I know that! Why would you ass-u-me otherwise. @NobleSir,
I think it is time for you to move on from discussion with him. He obviously enjoys the attention. Anonymint is probably very intelligent but at this point it it may not be worth your time if you are constantly correcting his math. I invented the technology and wrote a complete white paper in July three months before he releases a half-written draft, then I expend a week of my time for free giving him peer review in spite of his condescending attitude which always seems to seep back to the surface even after he stated he would stop being a jerk. And then I leave for 10 days because I thought this was settled and I come back here to find out you guys acting like 5 year olds again. Sheesh. Craving attention? Have you got screws loose in your head! To help them with their delusions, I have taken to logging into my various Reddit accounts and up voting their posts and down voting my own posts. Hopefully that causes them to think more highly of themselves and stack on more overconfidence. Maximum overconfidence comes right before Humpty Dumpty has the great fall. The implication is that an adversary doing combinatorial analysis on the block chain employing overlapping rings and hidden values extracted in different ways, e.g. users that employ Coinbase to do their transactions, can prove relationships across rings without knowing the private keys.
This part, it's not too hard to make the combinatorial type attack impossible using the pidgeonhole technique I mention in mrl_notesv0.3 In section "4.1 Example of the attack", why are you not acknowledging me as the first person to both communicate that sort of attack to smooth during the BCX incident in 2014 which I assume was relayed because the issue was subsequently mentioned in a Monero Labs Report and then sometime earlier this year I wrote down that tree case in a post in the Monero forum (and even explained that my solution would provide a method to prune the block chain) and they told me they had relayed this info to you and I believe you even replied there. So please give acknowledgement to prior art. This point of traceable ring signatures is the "tag linkability" property referenced in the RingCT paper and has been thoroughly explored in Fujisaki / Suzuki 2007 "Traceable Ring Signatures" lemma 5.3 (in fact that lemma proves the solution in mrl_notes_v3 is not breakable using any combinatorial analysis). My understanding is that tag-linkability is the property of traceable ring signatures such that the total number of signatures with unique (i.e. unlinked tags) cannot exceed the total number of ring members. From this follows obviously that if the total number of untagged signatures equals the total number of ring members, then all members of the ring have signed. However, your pidgeonhole technique mention in mrl_notesv0.3 is a proposed solution preventing combinatorial (tree analysis) unmasking due to the implications of the tag-linkability property. Such a solution is additional art that exceeds the prior art in the Fujisaki / Suzuki 2007 paper. Notwithstanding that your pidgeonhole technique appears to me to be flawed as I will explain below, I claim to you that I provided the correct solution in writing as of June 13, 2015 in the Monero thread. Additionally I was claiming this solution since the BCX incident in 2014. There are other off-hand written mentions of this that can be dug up from forum archives. Smooth concurs that I did discuss with him combinatorial unmasking in 2014 and that he relayed that to you, which ostensibly was input for the subsequent MRL-0004 Monero Labs Report: https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0004.pdfHere are the Monero thread links for your verification (one of which you replied to): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg11770837#msg11770837https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11614538#msg11614538https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg11663084#msg11663084https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg11661985#msg11661985Btw, your stated solution attempts to be more general than the solution I stated which was simply to insure that all pubkey outputs mixed with the same set of pubkey outputs.
What's wrong with that? It's a write up from a theory perspective, so it is certainly within the scope to be general about it. Because Shen's pidgeonhole technique appears to me to be flawed as I will explain below. Your proposed solution instead eliminates the possibility to prune the block chain.
No Shen's pidgeonhole technique requires that every ring has to respect m < n, thus you'll never be able to see enough spends to be sure that a set of rings have spent all the pubkeys in those rings. Plus his technique appears to me to have other problems which I explain below. Also I believe there are other combinatorial faults in your stated solution, but maybe not, I will need to think about it more deeply.
In any case, even if you apply my prior art solution from 2014, it doesn't completely address the risk of combinatorial cascade, because the additional knowledge which eliminates some of the pubkey outputs as candidates thus reduces the effective value of 'n' and you can't know how small 'n' has become because you don't know how much information the adversary will have.
Shen's pidgeonhole technique suffers from the fact that is violates the autonomy of ring signatures, because the signer can't autonomously know the state of all the rings the other members of the rings that his output has been included, and this only known once a chain reorganization becomes improbable. So there is no way for any ring to be signed reliably autononomously. And it can potentially cause a ring signer to have to search the entire block chain in the degenerate case. Additionally as I explained previously as quoted above, there is no way to actually know the value 'n' because the adversary may have other ways of reducing 'n' by unmasking rings with side-channel information such as IP address correlations, etc.. Thus as I wrote before Shen's method is too general, highly incorrect and egregiously broken. So please credit me with the prior art and then you need to implement my solution and not Shen's. Lastly due to this fact, there is another flaw in Shen's design for integrating Cryptonote rings with CT hidden values. Since my solution for preventing combinatorial unmasking requires that ouputs mix always with the same set of mutual outputs when used in rings, this requires that each input to a transaction be mixed orthogonally to the other inputs. If instead multiple rings are conflated as in MG signatures that Shen employs in his CN + CT, then new combinatorial analysis vectors are enabled. Appears Shen can correct this by putting one input and one put in each MG signature and then using a separate CT only proof-of-sum to spend all those summed outputs into the desired summed outputs. This will drastically increase the size and performance complexity (overhead) of his CN + CT design. I can really see that my design is far superior now. P.S. given the egregious error that would have been in Monero had I not bothered to come back here after 10 days and endure the abuse I get from Monerotards, one would seriously have to doubt whether Monero is technically sound. Their attitude is their biggest enemy. Perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut and waited until you hard forked the broken design, then crashed your market price with this revelation. Surely I won't get any niceties for having done the honorable thing and not the one that could benefit me the most since I am a competitor to Monero. |
|
|
|
You're going to launch your coin and not tell anybody about it and try to avoid [all] people knowing about it!?
I didn't write that. I'll tell you right now, removing the speculatory and early-adopter incentives from your coin is going to absolutely destroy any economic velocity it might ever hope to have.
Observe and be schooled in marketing. If people are not incentivized to use your currency in increasing numbers, why would they ever start using it at all?
Investors don't use a currency. I told you that up thread, but now you make me repeat it again. Everything for you looks like a nail, because you've only got a hammer. As well, the fact that you are going to make efforts to keep 'a lid' on the launch and creation of your coin is going to absolutely ruin any chance of people later growing interested in your coin (no matter how good the protocol).
Actually it is quite the opposite. By your logic, Bytecoin should be considered the 'true' implementation of Cryptonote since they claim to have had a 'token' for two years before it became public knowledge and people began speculating on it through exchanges.
And ~0 usership. Rethink your strategy, as well as your legal analysis of the situation.
You need that advice, not me. |
|
|
|
My reading of the law is that the only way for cryptocurrency to not be a security and thus not be illegal when it is not registered with the SEC, is for the cyptocurrency to be issued entirely to users and no investors. And by the time investors purchase tokens from users, those tokens should have all been clearly issued for users and not investors.
Which makes no sense at all. There is no line between a user and an investor; it's impossible to draw such a line, because anyone can believe anything they like. The Howey test clearly states how to make the distinction between users and investors.You have entirely failed to comprehend what I wrote upthread over the past several posts where I detailed the case law. It clearly states that users have no expectation of appreciation in the value between their cost ("consideration") to acquire the tokens and what they are able to obtain in exchange for the tokens later. Investors instead do expect gains and that is why they obtain the tokens. Users obtain the tokens to use them for some need or activity. It is quite easy to prove that the crypto-tokens you are involved with are being predominately obtained by investors who are not using the tokens but rather HODLing them for future gains. Please do not make me repeat this again. Please go improve your reading comprehension. With increased utility in a cryptocurrency comes increased value, due to networking effects.
Yes that can be the case, but users do not hold tokens for gains. An apt distinction is the difference between having $500 in your checking account and having $5000 invested in a pink sheet stock. It is quite clear which holding is for use and which is for expectation of investment gains. Courts are not blind. They can easily discern the actual economics facts. If you are saying that no other cryptocurrency other than bitcoin can ever be legal, then why are you working on one?
Because I will design my crypto-platform to not issue crypto-tokens to investors. Do you plan to register yours with the SEC or declare to no investors are allowed to buy your coin from an exchange?
No issuance to investors. No public announcement nor offering will be made to investors. No representations nor promotions will be made to investors. That already suffices to be exempt for the Howey test in my opinion. There will likely be no exchange for as long as I can prevent one from existing hopefully at least 6 months after coins have been issued to users, although I think this requirement is not strictly necessary since the prior paragraph is sufficient. If investors on their own accord find ways to trade for coins that were issued to users, per my interpretation that is outside the scope of the Howey test. It is obvious they were not encouraged, promoted, nor even facilitated in having expectations of gain, solely (or predominantly ) from others. They will have proven their expectations rely solely on themselves. And in fact such effort on the part of investors to obtain tokens, becomes a form of use and adds network effects. Reading the law carefully is important. |
|
|
|
Haha, your form is slightly altered. Either you are being facetious, or entirely don't understand. You wouldn't report changes in ownership of non-securities to the SEC. By filing a report to the SEC about Monero, you are asserting that Monero is a security. But since Monero is not registered with the SEC by its issuers and promoters, then it would be illegal if it is deemed to be a security. The Form 4 has nothing to do with the process of registering a security with the SEC. My reading of the law is that the only way for cryptocurrency to not be a security and thus not be illegal when it is not registered with the SEC, is for the cyptocurrency to be issued entirely to users and no investors. And by the time investors purchase tokens from users, those tokens should have all been clearly issued for users and not investors. Since none of the cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin can come close to complying with user-only issuance and distribution, they are all illegal in my opinion. |
|
|
|
and don't forget investors greedy ponzi fans YOU may not care.. but the general public obviously does.
which is why this crap has been a ghost town for a good 2 years roughly.
...
You reap what you sow guys.. enjoy.
The general public does not want to invest even in Bitcoin, much less in pink sheet (penny stocks) speculations. If any of these altcoins want to target the general public then it must be as users, and they need to grow by about 1000 times more usership (not investors) than they have. Dogecoin perhaps the lone exception at its high point. Altcoin area is quiet because Bitcoin fever has been on the downtrend since 2013 (when I called the top and said it would decline to $300 and later I have said it will decline to $150 and then before summer I said it would bounce to as high as $315 then decline and then as high as $380 and then make final lows below $150 this Spring. No joke I made all those predictions in advance so now we can see if the latest one will be true again). Bitcoin will finally bottom in Spring, so we can change direction on the trend of declining speculation interest. And this is because Altcoins are just for speculators only. We are not building new user markets. Perhaps GetGems is an exception. I also think we will get some shift on user adoption in either 2016 or 2017 as well. I don't yet know for sure what the "secret sauce" is, but I think someone will produce it and drive usership. It might be Lightning Networks on Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Spoetnik I've had a very similar realization recently as I was doing the research about how to avoid having your coin project classified as an "investment security" (and thus potential problems with the SEC down the line), the key appears to be predominantly obtaining users who want the tokens because they want to build an ecosystem and use it, not attracting speculators. I don't have anything against speculators (they provide a market function), but if you aren't building a product with 1000s if not millions of users, then you don't really have anything yet but an investment speculation.
As a developer of other kinds of end user software in the past, I was accustomed to serving users and not investors.
Speculators are limited to what the developers provide to them to speculate on. If developers are only targeting speculators and not users (which seems to be mostly the case in the altcoin arena), then all that can exist is greed and cat fights. Whereas if some developer(s) are demonstrating they can open large new user markets, then everyone will be too busy trying to emulate that and speculation will shift to a market information function on adoption. Whereas right now we mostly have is speculation providing market information function on reputation factors that can influence other speculators, e.g. premines, instamines, plagarism, etc..
I am confident that if there is a altcoin with 1 million actual users attained in the first 1 year and even if was 90% premined, the speculators would be stampeding over each other to buy it (assuming someone couldn't easily fork and take the usership away with a more "fair" distribution).
IMO we are largely focusing on the wrong data points, due to having the wrong goals. Any way that is my opinion and I will learn a lot over the next months so perhaps my opinion will change. So we will see...
|
|
|
|
|
CoinHoarder, agreed about experimentation is necessary.
Investors need to be realistic though on moving past the cacophony of features laboratory to the breakthrough synergism that will propel new user markets.
I think we are too eager to wet our pants on featuritis tech envy.
|
|
|
|
2.0 coins have been mostly hype so far and not only not truly solving the technical issues they claim or target, also afaik not amassing significant usership. Who knows what the killer app for 2.0 is yet? So it is basically a game of musical chairs to on who is first to jump out of the latest rise into the next rising thing and who is late to follow. Bitcoin blasted off and the news on 2.0 coins has been coming fast and furious past months, so it was time to sell the news and buy Bitcoin. Monero is busy implementing value hiding improvement to Cryptonote rings (yet afaik it will use 850% more space than my comparable design because their "very successful, massive developer resources" coin can't afford $21,000 to implement the better design) and yet even when that is done they still can't give you an iron-clad IP obfuscation (relegating you to I2P or Tor which are both very likely honeypots for the NSA and tax agencies and who ever they intentionally and unintentionally leak their data to, such as hackers and what not). I mean anonymity isn't even a very wide scale target market, but heck if you can't even give me IP obfuscation then the rest of the anonymity is unmasked any way so what is the point? I need a 100% solid anonymity otherwise I better not even use it, and end up incriminating myself in the process. I mean if you are going to do anonymity it doesn't really help if you can only serve a fraction of a very small market, because you can't even do anonymity completely. Sorry because I've been pushing for anonymity and still hoping we will get to a robust solution, but we are a long ways away from such a robust solution that I can trust enough to even rely on. My point is not to pick on Monero. I do understand they argue for business privacy (and not for use against the NSA) but that market isn't adopting crypto-currency yet so they aren't yet at the stage of needing privacy for that which they are not compelled to use any way. My point is what are these people smoking that they can't even see reality properly  If you are going to attempt something, then at least have your plan on how you will hit a market sweet spot that is large enough to give you the actual usership momentum needed to really make an impact. There probably are significant markets for anonymity in terms of Silk Road type activities, if you can make it really solid but that is a huge undertaking (anonymity is unmasked in numerous side channels). Down the line it could be critical for fungibility. But next month? I doubt it. I probably take some of the blame for all of that. My incessant emphasis on anonymity in 2013 and 2014, probably somewhat contributed to the mass mania into the likes of Dash (I don't know to what extent I influenced that, as you had others such as Gmaxwell pushing CoinJoin and Mike Hearn created a rukus with the redlisting crap so there was a push towards wanting anonymity for fungibility). Lately I see several derogatory comments about jl777/Nxt (in other threads) but at least I know he (and I understand he is not all of Nxt) has been trying to work on the issue of a network for the IP obfuscation and generally wanting to make anonymity really complete. He claims to have written 100,000 lines of C code cumulative for all his various crypto projects. I haven't checked into all that, but I know he has bounced some of his anonymity ideas off of me. I was sort of too ill in August and Sept to really help the way I would normally. Haven't caught up with him yet on where he is with all that. Everybody has an opinion about who the scammers are and who are the upstanding devs and community folk. I really don't know. I suppose I would need to expend much more time researching that than actually coding and so I guess I will remain somewhat naive or ignorant of all that goes on in crypto land (which is probably better than knowing too much as curiosity killed the cat). |
|
|
|
That appears to have been an open source proposal for bits to be an alias for µBTC (and not even BTC), thus bits was not an actual name for Bitcoin and was an alias for micro-transactions which are not prevalent (at least from a user perspective where any stake for confusion and market adoption would lay, although perhaps auto generated by bots such as SatoshiDice) in Bitcoin because the block chain can only handle 7 TX/s.
I think the idea was not necessarily for micro transactions but to transition to more of a Yen-type model where ordinary transactions that people already do are for (relatively) large numbers of bits rather than small fractions of Bitcoins, the latter being seen as less user-friendly. Also, by making a satoshi 1/100 of a bit, accounting software that supports two decimal places becomes more compatible. It seems to have mostly gone inactive as BTC value dropped. Ah yes, thanks for the clarification. Even if BTC had remained high, the rebranding as bits would not have likely gained support, because people are quite proud of how much their BTC is worth (scarcity and the pride of owning an entire Bitcoin, 10, 100, or 1000 of them) and they are also quite proud of their Bitcoins, not their bits. I think the resistance against rebranding an established product is much more inertia that inexperienced marketers may comprehend. Bitcoin ever since it became a speculative fever (and become much more popular and well known, i.e. branded), has always been about how many of these precious limited supply items you could obtain in the mad rush to convert the entire world's $250 trillion net worth into BTC. The Bitcoin community did not adopt Ƀ (which is a unicode character that can be pasted into any text displayed in a browser) and clung to BTC which is an image, I presume not only because it was already established, but because of pride they wanted to emulate the  and not emulate the Thai baht ฿. We have all seen how pride as been one of the common traits of Bitcoin fanboiz. So either bits was was for micro-transactions alias as I posited (but Bitcoin can't do micro-transactions volume) or as explained by smooth it was for a "Yen-like" rebranding which was rejected by the community, which he explains due to a lowering of the BTC price, but regardless I think is simply a fact of brand inertia. It is virtually impossible to have two branded names for the same product in same target market (notwithstanding one could have two related products in two different target markets, e.g. Sync consensus network and Bits currency but I will probably abandon Sync if we choose Bits since the latter could serve both target markets and ostensibly unification is preferred in that case). Edit: The more I think about this rebranding point, the more important I think it is to recognize that the target market is not easily changed midstream into a product's adoption. I posit that Bitcoin's demographic has been one the inertia humps that is retarding it from moving to the next order(s)-of-magnitude in mass adoption. I have some very specific reasons for positing that which I will detail in hindsight at the appropriate juncture. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin could attempt a reverse coup d'état, by fully embracing bits over btc/bitcoin and then attempt to siphon back the usage. But I think this might fail, because essentially they'd be doing advertising for Bits as well. And I am fairly confident about who can out innovate in terms of when users land on something, do they get what they wanted immediately (and don't have to sign up for sn exchange, KYC, and that crap or funding via localbitcoins, coins.ph, quickbit, or what ever using a credit card perhaps).
bits has already been proposed, and on a small scale perhaps even used, as a smaller unit for bitcoin. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1rmto3/its_bits/https://blog.coinbase.com/2014/06/20/its-bits/Thanks. Yeah I remember I had seen something like this before, but as I said it has not been widely nor consistently adopted. In other words, there can't be confusion because Bitcoin has never been pervasively referred to as bits. That appears to have been an open source proposal for bits to be an alias for µBTC (and not even BTC), thus bits was not an actual name for Bitcoin and was an alias for micro-transactions which are not prevalent (at least from a user perspective where any stake for confusion and market adoption would lay, although perhaps auto generated by bots such as SatoshiDice) in Bitcoin because the block chain can only handle 7 TX/s. Thus I don't think Bitcoin supports can righteously can claim a monopoly over the use of term bits for crypto-tokens. It appears to be an unused term w.r.t. to an open source block chain and widely adopted currency unit. In effect those are Bitcoin µBTC bits, and not just bits the block chain unit. Coinbase might be induced to change their GUI to indicate that reality of the fact that Bitcoin is named Bitcoin and not Bits. A lawsuit by Coinbase against Bits would be excellent publicity for a nascent coin. What is the most they can accomplish with a lawsuit? Confiscate the domains? They can't prevent an open source name. What really matters is what the community wants. And again I don't think we will grow crypto by only targeting the existing Bitcoin monotheists (putting all their eggs in one basket). Rather if they are wise, they will embrace a project that lights a fire under the Bitcoin community and shows them how apathetic they've been. A project that can actually fix and organize some things that Bitcoin hadn't managed to get done in 6 years. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin could attempt a reverse coup d'état, by fully embracing bits over btc/bitcoin and then attempt to siphon back the usage. But I think this might fail, because essentially they'd be doing advertising for Bits as well. And I am fairly confident about who can out innovate in terms of when users land on something, do they get what they wanted immediately (and don't have to sign up for an exchange, KYC, and that crap or funding via localbitcoins, coins.ph, quickbit, or what ever using a credit card perhaps).
|
|
|
|
I haven't voted, but from the list you've got, love is probably the best IMO. It's a juggernaut providing you can transcend it out of the male-orientated nerd soup of the cryptosphere. Tricky to pull-off yet potentially stratospheric.
That is what I was originally thinking. But I have since become more enamored with 'ching' and 'ka-ching' which seem much more naturally fit to a fungible money. Love is damn adstract and is reach to get people to think about fungible money and love being equivalent. After further contemplation, I don't think love is as general as fungible money. Thus we'd be pigeon-holing (subsetting) fungible money. Perhaps "enlightenment" is more general than love. Please be aware my tentative (subject to change) plan is I will not launch the currency unti here in this forum, to investors nor to cryptonerds. If my plan succeeds, I will be launching it directly to the users (a.k.a. technophobes) via an application they need. The block chain network name will be targeted to the cryptonerds (a.k.a. technophiles). ... | ka-ching | ching | chan | | ka-ching | | = 1000 ching | = 1 million chan | | ching | = milli-ka-ching | | = 1000 chan | | chan | = micro-ka-ching | = milli-ching | |
The techno-nerds might prefer: | ions | axions | bosons | | ions | | = 1000 axions | = 1 million bosons | | axions | = milli-ions | | = 1000 bosons | | bosons | = micro-ions | = milli-axions | |
Thinking further, there is a desire for simplification. I think it would be better to pick one name for the currency until, e.g. 'ching' or 'chan', then use only two currency units, e.g. 'ka-ching' and 'ching'. If via block chain updating, we peg 'ka-ching' to a value between $0.1 and $1, then it covers normal commerce values with large whole number quantities than dollars. Then 'ching' would range between $0.0001 and $0.001 which probably about perfect for whole number quantities for most micro-transactions. For a smaller unit, employ 'milliching' and/or a decimal point number. I am more inclined to choose 'ching' over 'chan' because it is already understood to be money. The 'ka' prefix (for kilo or 1000) doesn't work for other proposed currency units such as 'loves', 'vibes', 'ions', 'swaps', 'bits', 'nuggets', 'clicks', 'zing', etc.. Instead one can form the smaller units from the largest until by prefixing with 'milli' (thousandth), 'micro' (millionth), 'nano' (billionth), and 'pico' (trillionth). In that case, a name that begins with a vowel doesn't work well as you will be need a hyphen after the prefix. But it does mean micro-transactions with have a more verbose unit, but maybe that is not an issue in many cases (and may have a currency symbols for the smaller units). The range to 'pico' eliminates the need to rebase the primary unit in the block chain as exchange value changes, which is better because for example the dollar may become undefined in the future. Note millichan, microchan, nanochan, and picochan work also, but seems really Frankenstein to mix those prefixes with that suffix. Although I like "ka-ching" and "chan", I am concerned they might not be taken seriously and there is the chicken and egg dilemma that need users to take the nascent project seriously before many of them will embrace it, and probably need many users to embrace so as to achieve viral branding on a new use of a word. Noting that 25% of the voters have preferred names with 'bit' in them and noting the dilemma explained above, as well nothing there are many ___coins, but very few Bit___ projects and there can only be one Bits project... Thus I propose a radical simplication:
bitsThis seems to hit both the technonerds and the masses can latch onto this. I prefer this over Bitcoin actually. I am very surprised no one has used it already. As for the "go asian" theme, the Chinese will love 'bits' as much as or more than 'chan', because they respect the role of authority, establishment, tradition, wisdom, and new technology. Bitcoin's community has never quite worked out consistently whether they refer to smaller units of Bitcoins as mBTC, millibitcoins, m BTC, satoshis, etc.. Perhaps I have seen or heard some refer to bits, but it is far from a consistent and endorsed usage. And the Bitcoin currency symbol is an image BTC and not a unicode symbol Ƀ. This is what happens between a block chain 1.0 and a block chain 2.0. Many errors get fixed. The positive thing about going this direction is many technophobe people will just assume this is extension or upgrade or simplification on the concept of Bitcoin. The negative is it may anger Bitcoin supporters (but that might actually be a good result because people who dish out dogma about open source and then get angry when something is improved with a fork are hypocrites  ). I propose the following units and currency symbols. | Ƀ | Bits | | ҍ | millibits | | ḅ | microbits | | ʘ | nanobits |
There are many choices for symbols for currency symbol units: Ƀ
฿
ƀ
ѣ
ҍ
␢
ꝥꝧ
ъ
ƃ
ᵬ
ƅ
ꙏ
ɓ
ᶀ
ḅ
ḇ
ᖚ
β
ϐ
ʘꙩꙫꙭ
µ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
