I don't comprehend your notation and its applicability, but I was just thinking conceptually that you have a these N block chains operating orthogonally, thus any one can receive the transfer of value from the other. Then you can have double-spends and what not. So then you can have different block chains disagreeing about a plurality of different orthogonal block chain states. There is no global unified state, that is the entire point since missing the global PoW block period to force timely consensus to this single objective reality. If we don't want a global state, then we must use a probabilistic forking structure such as Iota's DAG to obtain Byzantine fault tolerance. You've conflated the independence with the determinism required for global coherence. Global coherence with individual realities (relativism) can only be probabilistic. I believe this follows from Brewer's theorem which says it is impossible to have all three of consistency, availability, and partition tolerance.


Not necessarily. They could collude to steal value from another fork by double-spending to the other fork and then disagreeing about the objective time of spending. Perhaps other complex game theory as well. Also it may not be intentional. Per my point above, the objective reality may be indeterminate and the system may have a plurality of minority realities (votes). That is what I expect to be the normal mode due to chaos theory.

Does Iota (DAG tangles) need to be only for IoT applications?

What advantage does it have over a normal block chain? Only the faster confirmation time (yet to be quantified) and not needing large blocks (yet all "full" nodes still pretty much need to see all transactions so that aspect of scaling isn't changed from Bitcoin)?

Please translate that general math to some concrete examples for us, so we can compare likely confirmation delays.

I could work it out but I don't have time to dig into your math. You already know that math like the back of your hand. Please help us quantify in terms we all can readily compare to other coins.

Also I conflated issues in my haste. Stan.distortion was raising the issue of unregistered securities law in my thread. Actually in my interpretation of the (at least USA) law, the instamine isn't absolutely necessary to have a violation of that law. Rather there only needs to be that the developers are using funds taken from the common enterprise or shares in it, managing those funds they have received, and the community following them as managers, thus the developers become the backing for the shares providing reasonable expectation of future profits for coin HODLers. This would be the reason Dash and other coins with managing groups are probably in violation of the law (meaning jail time unfortunately for them).

So stan didn't bring the instamine issue to my thread, I replied only that the instamine isn't required to still have a legal problem in my view. My request to stan was not to discuss specific coins but rather just the legal theory, because I didn't want to make the legal theory thread into a flame war between coin proponents. So copied the quoted post over here, so that discussion could be carried on some where else besides my thread and it seemed stan had followed me from this thread to the other one. But really that isn't fair to assume. He just posted in this thread and my other thread.

So my mistake. I conflated. I am just too overloaded. Okay please continue back on topic about the Evolution upgrade coming.

Unless every owner a token is going to be online mining all the time, then mining will need to be delegated. So some pools have more weighted-balance voting power than others. You need to offer some incentive for mining. Profits accrue to those with the most economy-of-scale if the incentives are market (competitively) priced, thus you will likely end up with the situation that Bitcoin had where a single pool or potential grouping of large pools had more than 51% of the hashrate but in your design this would be more than 51% of the voting power.

Is a cascade of intertwined inter-chained reorganizations when multiple double-spends are reverted by a fork more onerous than in a single block chain? Isn't that complexity similar to the reason you rejected multiple inputs and outputs in transactions?

The key failure in your design is the lack of incentive to have a consensus. What is the incentive for voting nodes to agree with the correct fork and for minority nodes to agree with the majority fork? Seems to me they can all disagree and no one can prove otherwise, because they can pretend to have never heard the votes of others (no way to prove receipt of a vote on the internet). This shows that without the objectivity of a PoW, then there is no objectivity and you end up in chaos.

In PoW, miners have an incentive to reach consensus because otherwise their rewards won't be honored by the longest chain. In your system the majority of the vote is the winning fork, except there is no penalty for delaying for an indefinite period acknowledging receipt of such a vote. Thus complex game theories arise. Even more critically, the majority vote may be split among multiple forks, such that there is no consensus, because you have multiple chains thus a plurality of permutations of forks.

I do want readers to note which of the three posters in this thread was able to state directly the design error. That should be instructive to investorswhich lead developer is most qualified.

Someone voted "see my suggestion in the thread". Which suggested name?

I didn't start the side tangent on the instamine. And one of your own stan.distortion came and posted that to my thread, so it seemed like a continuation of the side thread that was ongoing here. And I urged him to not continue that tangent in my thread (which is focused on general issue of securities regulation and not Dash's specific instamine issue), so I wanted to bring him back here where the discussion started.

Apologies. You know how BTT is. Chaos.

I hope you were not implying I was asking for legal advice?

I am certain that if you review my posts you will find I am discussing my non-expert (layman's) interpretation of securities law as it applies to crypto-tokens with (so far ostensibly although open to further analysis) non-experts. Maybe you are perplexed as to what my purpose could be if not just to waste my time or ask for advice?

Consider that I am talking to users of crypto-currency. Consider I have to build a reputation. Consider I have an incentive to raise awareness on this issue for numerous reasons (one my reputation, two competing coins are mostly all culpable under securities law, etc). Go from there in several directions of motivations...

If your only point was that we are unlikely to get expert advice here in these forums, then my apology for overreacting if you weren't implicating me.

I have added a new choice to the poll:

cliklet

I was thinking about a wavelet and then thinking more in the frame of mind of a typical social network user and what they would associate with a micropayment, is "clicking", "likes", and "swiping". For once we can associate crypto-currency with some metaphor that means something to your average person.

let
verb
: not prevent or forbid; allow.

I see clickoin already exists, but coin doesn't seem to be the correct metaphor for a micropayment. To the user, they are not exchanging coins when using micropayments, but rather enabling features! Think deeply about the way micropayments will really be used, i.e. click here with your micropayments already enabled in the browser cookie and get automatic access.

I am preferring something that means something to people who are not technophiles, because I want microtransactions to used by average people on social networks. What is an ion?

Netoken even makes more sense to more people I think. What is a bit coin? I bite the coin?

We geeks like ion because we want something technically cool but don't we want to market this to the billions of people in the world? Come on guys think marketing.

I still sort of like 'ion' because maybe normal people will just get used to saying it. And it is short and one syllable. And it is associated with electric charge.

The other issue is to try to select a name that is unique enough it won't just sound like many other copycats. For example, netoken may have that quality. What other way is there to say something similar to a "token on a network"? Tokenet is not the token rather the network itself, so doesn't work.

Ditto clicklet or cliklet. Perhaps clickgrant or clickpass but the latter was used already for some implementation around OpenID (but now defunct) and it doesn't sound great pluralized, clickpasses. Clickgrants is too long and it seems to imply a revocable grant and let implies not impeded, which in my mind is a subtle but significant psychological nuance.

The problem with all the names that end in 'bit' is there are so many possible copycats, such as "cloudbit". Hyperbit stands out for me though because Hyper means fast to me, and it is also associated with the internet in HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol) and hyperlinks. So it is like saying a linked bit of information (hyper means over and beyond just a bit) that can move at hyper speed. So it seems to really fit well with the planned feature set of this project. Yet I don't know if all people will get that meaning out of it?

OTOH, token is not as general as 'bit' of information, since I am targeting more than just a ledger of value transfer eventually.

Netbit I like because it is clear and short.

So we will have ions, iotas, and aeons. Can you imagine how confused users on the internet will be? Send me some "ions". Umm, did you mean "aeons"? No, I meant "iotas" sorry for misstating. Oh what are "iotas", not familiar with that one. Wholly mother of clusterfuck, this is so supposed to improve matters  I guess you can make the argument to hope that one of those will either become more widely adopted than the others.

I think my preferences at the moment with the most preferred first are:

cliklet / clicklet
netoken
ion
hyperbit
netbit

I am still trying to think of the greatest name since sliced bread, but apparently so far not succeeding. Those above don't appear to be horrible to me, but I am respecting community feedback.

Some ideas that have run through my mind while brainstorming:

weblet / netlet
datium
ionugget
netgold

Thanks for the heads up. It depends on if they can get wide adoption and awareness, versus if the coin can. I lean towards they can't.

Then again "Cy" almost sounds like "Spy". I am conflicted by the term "cyber" because it seems to carry negative and positive connotations, e.g. "cyberterrorism", "cyberstalking", "cybersex", "cyborg", "cyberspace", "cybernetics".

I registered those just after when my eyes had fallen asleep sitting upright watching the Andreas Antonopolous presentation on YouTube. I was asleep while operating the computer, almost literally. I vaguely remember the actions including making the post above.

Pushing too hard.

I agree, you'd be much better off being an investor in coins produced by experts than rolling your own coin.

I thought you might need advice on interpreting the technical differences between coins, and I suspect I am one of (several or few of) the most expert on the forums. As with any expert, they are aware of the holes in their knowledge and can advise you whom to ask in those areas (I don't know all the coin technologies as deeply as I know other coin technologies, e.g. just starting to study Sergio/Come-from-Beyond's DAG/Iota and Fuseleer's eMunie).

Any way, I can't tolerate the distraction, unless you are paying top $ per hour of consultation time.

stan you are conflating issues and glossing over the relevant definition of a "security" in the other thread linked from the OP of this thread. Try to read again my posts more slowly and carefully. I will also make a few more clarifying posts in that other thread.

(not to be condescending, but also no time to repeat myself again)

Prosecuting Silk Roads was an effective action of warning people that they will be caught doing these things.

The legal specifics of "unregistered investment securities" is much different than the laws that were employed to prosecute "Silk Road".

Proprietors of these suspected or alleged (i.e. not proven in court action) "unregistered investment securities" crypto-coins are much easier to track down and many are already public, such as Evan from Dash and Daniel Latimer from Bitshares. I am not aware of good forensic data on the Protoshares and Bitshares saga (apparently Chinese were involved).

If your point is the users can always move on to another illegal platform since open source is like a virus that can't be destroyed and that it is impractical for the authorities to bring actions against all millions of individuals, I think the authorities want a much more efficient solution and will rather go for some scenario where they just automatically fine your bank account or access you some tax FINRA fine, and if you don't pay they just keep raising the fees and penalties until it is worthwhile to sell you to a Haliburton prison where they are paid by inmate by the government so have a financial incentive to increase inmates and pay off the court system to send them more prosecutions. Westerners are not at all prepared for the reality payback for socialism that is going to slam the door to freedom in their face over the coming years.

Just want to be fair and let others know that Dash discussion leaked into another thread about regulation of "investment securities":

Just want to be fair and let others know that Dash discussion leaked into another thread about regulation of "investment securities":

Emotions affect everyone and it seems they are always flying high on these forums and the shit is flying all over the place (the more dung the merrier right). Any way, I try as much as possible to keep myself focused on extracting the factual conclusions of discussions, i.e. the useful information that can aid my work.


One very incriminating question is whether Evan (and any others) conspired to instamine what I understand was basically greater than 50% of the money supply as of the time that the masternodes were created. And thus given the recent chart showing Dash's protocol is paying up to 50% per annum return on the coins locked up while running a masternode, then it means basically their conspiratorial group could control greater than 50% of the masternodes and money supply right now, and thus very much control the coin. If it ever goes to court then most certainly forensic evidence will be applied and I understand some others are fairly certain they can prove beyond any reasonable doubt the culpability. I haven't dug into that evidence so I can't offer my opinion on the veracity of those claims. And going off on that tangent of proving something about Dash is off-topic to this thread.

Notwithstanding even if it was impossible to prove sufficient control over the masternodes by Evan and other conspirators, it would still be the case that Evan and his group used funds extracted from the common share of the tokens in managing the common enterprise and the community follows their managerial control. Thus per my understanding of USA securities law, Evan's group is managing unregistered investment securities and thus are liable to be in prison for a long time. I really pity him at this point. Perhaps he got himself into something he didn't realize and now can't easily extract himself from it. Evan stated that he comes from the financial industry, so one would ponder that maybe he should have known better.

Unless Evan has connections with the SEC and others in the financial industry that can protect him, based on my recent research linked from the OP of this thread, I think he has a world of hurt ahead of him. I do believe the authorities are just letting these scams pile up on top of each other, so they can bring a wave of massive regulation once the economy turns down hard in 2017 or 2018. The authorities will become very motivated once the economy goes south.

I don't personally have any vendetta nor need to bury Dash with my words. You raised the issue, so I am responded honestly as to what I believe to be the facts as I know them.


What is the "SR case"?

I think I have clearly stated that I intend to create a cryptographic protocol (thus operating over a network of computers which I will not control) that has a genesis block of tokens, and I will offer to release this software code to the open source in exchange for payment for my efforts to deliver those works in an operational condition. Those who fund this work from me by paying for my contracted work, will each get private keys to these tokens on the genesis block. The genesis block is actually orthogonal to the protocol, because the protocol could be used with a different genesis block if the community-at-large so desired (and some of the source code will probably be launched to open source after some delay to give more time for the buyers' genesis block to have some exclusivity in the public market-at-large). Due to open source, the community-at-large (not just those who purchased my software) can then do what it likes with my software, as pertains to defining, assigning, using, furthering, forking, or replacing any value attached to those tokens in the so called genesis block.

The economic case is entirely clear. I work to design and code software; I get paid by a community that collectively wants such software to be produced; and the community agrees the software is released as open source.

The developer might also purchase or receive some of those tokens, and thus become an interested member of the community of open source and might even want to contribute code patches over time to this open source project, as any other member of the community-at-large may. Every owner of these tokens in a ledger of an open source project has the only control that anyone can have over this open source project, since no one has represented to the market that they are the controlling entity and attempting to retain such control. And no representations have been made to the buyers thereof, in fact disclaimers ad nausuem will be made to the contrary, so that participants are in no way mislead about the situation. There is no representation nor any way for anyone involved to know if these digital markings in some ledger will have any future utility or value. This is just a protocol and a network that is not owned by any entity. If the community-at-large replaced the genesis block then the developer would likely have to follow the whims of the public and contribute his patches if any to this replacement genesis block.

Your other points continue to belie the ability to separate concerns that are clearly delineated in the law as orthogonal. I will respond to those in detail in a future post, but really if you don't have anything new and just repeating the same myopia, eventually I am going to see this as a waste of time. But I'll go one more round (or so) to see if you can (or have) presented any new point. That you apparently don't realize that you continue repeating the same point is instructive of your inability to extract the generative essence from orthogonal concerns which was quite apparent to me in the way you were responding in Nagle's thread.

I understand your general line of thinking is that obfuscating the essence of the economic truth in some wording of case law is not a justifiable defense. But the economic case is clear. No warranties nor representations of anything backing the tokens has been made which is the required essence of what constitutes a 'security' (the reason for the word 'secured' by something). This is totally unsecured (as in no backing, not meaning cryptographically insecure which is an orthogonal use case of the definition of secure). If you can make any argument that tokens are backed by anything, then they are backed by the future whims of the community-at-large, the decentralized protocol, and any pre-sale design decisions such as delayed open source release of some of the code. The key test is that no entity is in control (nor managing) of anything that can argued to be the backing for the tokens. The economic case is clear that at the time of sale when the backing starts, there is no entreprenurial or managerial effort on the part of any entity that is capable of making representations about that backing to the holders of those tokens. The holders are in control of the only control of the backing that any entity could have. It is open source and subject to the collective outcome of the community and market-at-large. That is what differentiates it from the other cases you have cited as precedents, thus rendering your citations inapplicable.

And with that explanation it should be much easier for voters to select the correct choice from the poll, but I tend to think voters are not reading the OP and they are voting for what they think is NOT an investment security or basing their vote on their misunderstanding of what a "security" is under the law.

Well everyone in the USA is on average committing 3 felonies a day just by breathing.

Life is about weighing relative risk vs. reward probabilistically.

Also there is the concept of near-term and long-term. Long-term legal risk is much higher than short-term, but at age 50 I care much less about my long-term risk because I might be dead or too old any way. Also there is the concept/option of changing citizenships after some time. Etc..

As for users of crypto, I would track your capital gains when you are holding it in large enough quantities (e.g. over $600 worth in the USA) and also your income. Report everything on taxes as you are obligated to in your jurisdiction.

But this thread was more about how to single out which coin models are at very high risk of being classified as "investment securities".


Edit: also the law exists to protect the "public interest" (although it may be gamed by the powers-that-be, I am referring to the official raison d'être for law), thus doing acts that harm others in unjustified ways, then expect to incur the wrath of the law. Whereas, if you try your best to really help others and be very thorough with disclosure, then risks of unjust legal culpability decline.

* cybit has trademark issues.

---

The chosen name is intended to be for both the name of the coin network and the coin units, e.g. "pay me 5 ____s".

The general feature set targeted is instant transactions, even microtransactions, solving the block chain scaling issue entirely, and a fundamental breakthrough for the general solution to the programmable block chain, so working towards digital assets, smart contracts, etc, as well as the ability to plugin the strongest and most efficient on-chain anonymity which I have also been working on. The feature set will be firmed up as development proceeds. I just mention these goals in order to drive a name choice which is general enough for both the token of the network and also the general block chain 2.0 type functionality. I am not sure if I will get all the way to block chain 2.0 in version 1 of the release of this effort. Choosing a name which can also apply to a version 2 is forward looking.

Note my anonymity work may appear in another coin(s) before it appears in my effort, but this has not yet been finalized. I am trying to work with others so as to hedge my bets in terms of where success will be maximized. I am trying to follow the path of least resistance and lowest hanging fruit, while also attempting to push the envelope of the technologies with my own style of creativity. So a mix of my individualism with collective effort.

There is an ongoing discussion about how I might go about releasing a coin and working with the open source concept and the legal ramifications.

When choosing a name, also ask yourself how would this roll off the tongue when someone is saying it (in their mind or actual vocalization) over the internet to get some coin units from a friend to go play some social networking game or the ilk. What is going to be catchy over time for that purpose? "Zap me over some ____s, I want to join you on game XYZ". Of course the name has to have applicability in more serious contracts and trades as well.

Prior discussion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174653.msg12769598#msg12769598

Some definitions:

• bit
  /bit/
  noun
  :  a unit of computer information equivalent to the result of a choice between two alternatives (as yes or no, on or off)
• cy·ber
  ˈsībər/
  adjective
  : of, relating to, or characteristic of the culture of computers, information technology, and virtual reality.
• hyper-
  prefix
  : over; beyond; above, exceeding.
  : relating to hypertext, hyperlink.
• to·ken
  ˈtōkən/
  noun
  : a thing serving as a visible or tangible representation of a fact, quality, feeling, etc.
  : a voucher that can be exchanged for goods or services, typically one given as a gift or offered as part of a promotional offer.
  : an individual occurrence of a symbol or string, in particular.
  
  • an individual occurrence of a linguistic unit in speech or writing, as contrasted with the type or class of linguistic unit of which it is an instance.
  • the smallest meaningful unit of information in a sequence of data for a compiler.
  : a sequence of bits passed continuously between nodes in a fixed order and enabling a node to transmit information.
• i·on
  ˈīən,ˈīˌän/
  : an atom or molecule with a net electric charge due to the loss or gain of one or more electrons.
• -tron
  suffix
  : denoting a subatomic particle.
  : denoting a particle accelerator.

For netron, I think of neutron, but applicable to a network.


P.S. I dropped my intention from 2014 to not release an effort under my own reputation. I did this because of a) financial realities of my life demanding I move forward PDQ, b) the realization it is probably not illegal for a US citizen to release a product with unregistered tokens if the law is followed carefully (per the linked ongoing discussion above), c) the decision to make the anonymity implementation modular and orthogonal to the block chain protocol,  and d) because I think I've learned how to navigate the political landmines by now (much revolves around demonstrating a sincere intent to strive over time for a leaderless, decentralized, open source result so that people don't feel I am trying to put my ego/control all over crypto-land, i.e. ideology is very important in our technophile market at least until we scale out to millions of n00b users with microtransactions on social networking). Haters and competitors yield when the market has beat them into submission. I don't worry about their negativity. It is more motivation for me. Bring on the negative votes please!