Digibyte
Has $250,000 investment and is spending it on Chinese programmers in Hong Kong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRull_S1RW0 (see them in the office) http://www.digibyte.co/content/digibyte-faqs1st coin to fork to multi-algorithm mining (Most fair distribution).
With 5 unique algos & independent difficulties a 51% attack is significantly mitigated and becomes much harder to carry out.
1st coin to develop & implement DigiShield (asymmetrical difficulty adjustment).
30 second blocks are better for merchants transactions.
Professional & dedicated development team since launch on Jan. 10th 2014.
Strategic long term road-map & vision alongside pending global corporate partnerships.
1:1000 ratio with Bitcoin, better for micro transactions.
No white paper can be found. It claims 1 - 3 second network propagation which is no big deal. 0-conf security is not improved which is the only reason you use 1 - 3 second propagation. 30 second blocks have a much increased orphan rate and this will likely cause problems. Orphaned chains can cause a 0-conf retail transaction to be revoked thus merchant loses the money. 5 hash algos for mining doesn't make a coin more resistant against 51% attack. That has been refuted extensively. X11 has 11 mining hashes. Why did they regress then?  The rest of what they claim is also just marketing bullshit. In short, another Copycoin with marketing fluff on top. Do you n00bs need a cherry and candles on top to convince you to lose your money? |
|
|
|
I would like to bring your attention to Fractalcoin (thread located here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=650173) which, in my opinion, has the most important innovation of 2014. The devs of Fractalcoin have created Slingshield which takes the dreaded 51% attack we all worry about and makes it so that you have to have 71% of hash power to have a successful attack. They have managed to increase network security SUBSTANTIALLY. The white paper can be read here: https://mega.co.nz/#!gBEQ3JhQ!0R40rMjdN8jbzxKAtH9X3ZciRx5yuBOsq7KWosGUFgo That Slingshot is complete nonsense. How can you n00bs be so gullible to believe that  I guess you all do not understand even the basic foundations of proof-of-work. Let me ask you a rhetorical question to demonstrate how idiotic that white paper is. Why would a double spender be restricted to only performing a double-spend when his/her transaction fees would amount to a significant increase in block reward? Besides, the main threat from 51% attack is not double-spending (who would waste all that hashrate just to double-spend?), but rather it is the threat of government regulation via censorship of transactions that don't comply. Slingshot doesn't address this case at all. |
|
|
|
My thoughts about general features to look for... ...anyone have other ideas on very important features? Excellent poll choices. I wish there was a choice for "side step KYC", but I guess "decentralization" and "ease of access" covered that.
I voted:
Anonymity
Decentralization
Ease of Access
Edit: one of important factors in distribution is giving a wide range of people the reason to obtain your coin. So to those who say a use case doesn't matter, I think they are delirious.
Nothing else besides anonymity is ever gonna be enough to ever match (or unseat) bitcoin.
Disagree. I think instant transactions and scaling to microtransaction volume (million transactions per second) will unseat Bitcoin. Anonymity will become more important, but most people in the world don't care about anonymity. They care about social media and stuff like that. Monetizing that with microtransactions is the huge market. Anonymity could end up being very important as the bankrupt States of the world start to tax everything that moves. Chicago is going to tax video streaming on the internet. But these anonymity markets may be much slower to develop than microtransaction markets. I'd pursue both if I did a coin. What marketing plans do you suggest for Monero? I also believe that Monero has the best tech but could benefit from more effective promotion
I would suggest making it super easy for people to mix BTC. Then try to hook them into using XMR from there. I would suggest creating new uses for anonymous coins and especially combined with microtransactions. |
|
|
|
Excellent poll choices. I wish there was a choice for "side step KYC", but I guess "decentralization" and "ease of access" covered that.
I voted:
Anonymity
Decentralization
Ease of Access
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent poll choices. I wish there was a choice for "side step KYC", but I guess "decentralization" and "ease of access" covered that.
I voted:
Anonymity
Decentralization
Ease of Access
|
|
|
|
Risto...
...is frank: This strategy gives you peace of mind when operating large fake walls. I wonder why I know it Lol.  |
|
|
|
This strategy gives you peace of mind when operating large fake walls. I wonder why I know it Lol. |
|
|
|
|
Gold is rallying. Armstrong predicts $1155 max. Will BTC follow?
|
|
|
|
not scams like the ICO ones.
Why do you assume all ICOs are scams? Actually mining launches can be scams too. We've been having a discussion about this over in another thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151565.msg12136597#msg12136597My opinion on developer anonymity is that it is very difficult to make a successful altcoin when the personalities of the core devs are unknown. However, jl777 has been quite successful at raising capital and talking very, very little. How did he do it? Apparently by delivering code fast. I am not attesting to the quality of his code or designs. I will remain agnostic on that. I am just pointing out that anonymity can work if you are not a bullshitter and actually deliver the goods. |
|
|
|
|
Yes rpietila is a for-profit investor.
I think rpietila is against scams where a few people have most of the coins and/or the devs just run away without actually achieving goals.
His weakness IMO is he sometimes tries to top-down manage or direct. Then again he does sometimes have insights. I think he potentially has a strong point with his experimental Crypto Kingdom game that distributing the coin to the users drives network effects and thus the wealth effect.
Btw, I've known him since 2007 or 2008, and his networth was less than mine then. He was buying BTC hand and fist at $10. I believe he sold $100,000+ of silver to buy BTC. He bought smaller portions at lower prices.
|
|
|
|
fwiw; I really enjoy your ongoing discussions guys. not that I would understand most/everything of it, but it's been some nice food for thought over the last two days.
Thanks. When smooth and I get into one of our discussions, it is usually like that. smooth, I stand back now. Thanks for the discussion. (yeah smooth afair rpietila was the main voice of that phrase) |
|
|
|
(Serious question not trying to hate)
Apologies if I expressed animosity in my postings about VanillaCoin. Such would be counter productive. I guess I was aggravated that I would investigate and then find not even documentation of the main claimed innovation and vaporware for the claimed anonymity Dark-PP. To his credit, he promptly corrected the deficiency on documentation of the zerotime (but not yet on the Dark-PP) and provided a more detailed white paper. Perhaps his zerotime algorithm can be rescued somehow, but I don't see how to do it. For example, even the transaction fee can't be forfeited when there is a lock conflict stalemate, because innocent victims could be attacked by attacking the P2P network with a Sybil attack. Sybil attacks and game theory have to be considered in great detail when designing any consensus network or even an anonymity network. john-conner should be aware that I've been working on these short of designs for a long time too. He is obviously knowledgeable about some research I wasn't. So maybe he has something else up his sleeve, but we don't see it in what he has published thus far. |
|
|
|
Yeah I've got one of those (a dick). smooth, I think Monero people have tried to claim that mining for all made their coin the fairest launch. Yet we see even the emission curve declined egregiously faster than Bitcoin (and I pointed that out last year). We know the miner wasn't optimized on launch. Isn't it time we come off the high horse? Bottom line is we need to distribute the coin as transparently and widely as possible. That is my goal. No method can be perfect. But at least I don't want to worry about the accusations about mining optimization which are not proven for Monero. We have no way of knowing who had what optimization and when. And at least with my proposal, everyone will be able to calculate the math that I documented. The plan has been (unless we receive severe admonishment to do otherwise) to launch a coin with a series of ICOs, not just one. Each ICO would follow the prior one by a month or perhaps two (needs to be decided by the community). Each ICO would be 2X more coins than the prior one. Each ICO will be an auction format, where participants place a bid & qty in a transparent auction and then at the close of the auction, the top bids are filled and the rest refunded from the escrow agent (of course the community must select a trusted escrow agent who has a great reputation or perhaps we can design some sort of block chain escrow that is automated). The point of this is everyone can see the bids and adjust their bids during the auction period, so that there is a market pricing effect. We want an honest market result. This also insures the controlling group can not get any of the funds until after each (monthly or bimonthly) auction closes, thus the controlling group can not bid in the auction using other bidders' funds. This provides a mathematical proof that the controlling group can not own more than a certain amount of coins by the time all the planned ICOs are completed.
For example, assuming there will be 10 millions coins sold in ICO, the ICOs might be:
32,768 x 10
65,536 x 10
131,072 x 10
262,144 x 10
524,288 x 10
-------------------
1,015,808 x 10 = 10,158,080 coins
The calculation for the maximum coins the controlling group could retain if they used all the proceeds of the auction to purchase their own coins of each subsequent auction is as follows.
Assuming the market driven auction price of the coin was constant across all ICO auctions, the controlling group could purchase 0 coins in first auction, 32,768 x 10 coins in 2nd auction, 65,536 x 10 in 3rd auction, 131,072 x 10 coins in 4th auction, and 262,144 x 10 coins in 5th auction. Thus the controlling group could own at most 491,520 x 10 coins or 48% of the ICO money supply.
Assuming the market driven auction price of the coin increased by 100% of each subsequent ICO auctions, the controlling group could purchase 0 coins in first auction, 16,384 x 10 coins in 2nd auction, 32,768 x 10 in 3rd auction, 65,536 x 10 coins in 4th auction, and 131,072 x 10 coins in 5th auction. Thus the controlling group could own at most 245,760 x 10 coins or 24% of the ICO money supply.
Assuming the market driven auction price of the coin increased by 300% of each subsequent ICO auctions, the controlling group could purchase 0 coins in first auction, 8,192 x 10 coins in 2nd auction, 16,384 x 10 in 3rd auction, 32,768 x 10 coins in 4th auction, and 65,536 x 10 coins in 5th auction. Thus the controlling group could own at most 245,760 x 10 coins or 12% of the ICO money supply.
The point is that no matter what happens with the prices of the ICO auctions, the maximum stake of the controlling group can be mathematically calculated.
The above calculations assume that the controlling group offers no bounties and pays for no development from the time of the first ICO until the last, which is not going to be the case. The controlling group is going to be attempting to spend the funds as quickly as possible...
Correction: upthead I made a mistake in that electric and hardware companies don't get the wealth effect as the coin appreciates in value. The point was the cost of the hardware and electricity is wasted capital. Edit: one of important factors in distribution is giving a wide range of people the reason to obtain your coin. So to those who say a use case doesn't matter, I think they are delirious. |
|
|
|
The guy is seriously smart...
Any evidence? Looks like a P2P software developer and not someone incredibly smart. His argument with gmaxwell showed that he was only capable of looking at the issue from one stubborn perspective and thus not able to hold all possibilities in his mind at the same time pertaining to that complex issue. He may have extensive knowledge in some areas of software development. I distinguish that implementation knowledge from "super smart". To invent totally new paradigms such as proof-of-work (or something like a zerotime that is actually proven in a white paper), you need to be seriously smart. He may be seriously smart, but he needs to demonstrate it before I would claim that. For example, Daniel J. Bernstein is seriously smart. Vitalik Buterin is seriously smart. In both cases, that doesn't mean they are qualified to create a successful altcoin. Berstein probably lacks relevant domain experience in economics. Buterin appears to lack experience and decision making/prioritization/realism skills. My guess is fluffypony is probably not as mathematically endowed as those 2 guys, but already proven he is seriously capable of helping launch a fork for a successful altcoin. So my point is I am not even sure "seriously smart" is entirely informational in the context you are trying to employ it. incredibly smart (?) super smart (new paradigms) seriously smart (mathematically endowed) seriously capable (forkers) successful smart (decision making/prioritization/realism skills) any more kinds of smart? Thanks for concurring with my statement: So my point is I am not even sure "seriously smart" is entirely informational in the context you are trying to employ it.
I indeed made the point that performance trumps labels or assumptions about performance due to labels of intellect. |
|
|
|
You don't know who has optimized code, even GPU optimized, etc. None of that matters if your own mining is profitable. Why does it matter if someone else makes more? Why are you worried if a few people own most of the coin then? Of course it matters. The entire point is we want distribution to be widespread to maximize network effects, interest, and maximize the power of the free market when transparency and liquidity are maximized. Obviously I meant in the context where you can profitably mine, pretty much as much as you want, without anything special, like Monero in the first few months. You, AnonyMint/TPTB, personally, could have made money mining, maybe even a lot. You could perhaps have used that money to support something bigger and better, I don't know. This was not a design goal, just a realistic observation about how things are. Of course, I don't think it is a good idea to set up a system where people can get huge advantages, but there will always be some advantages, and if the distribution is gradual (not concentrated into a few hours) then that these things happen from time to time doesn't matter much. So you do admit then that opaqueness is a cost. It would actually been more efficient for me to just buy XMR on a liquid exchange, so that is why I think decentralized exchanges are so important, because I can not qualify for KYC. And besides I don't want to hassle of signing up an account and researching if the exchange is reliable, etc.. I'd prefer to just be able to exchange directly from the wallet. I better not have to download any damn client to run a wallet. I didn't invest in XMR because I don't believe in it. I still see all cryptoland as stuck in the Stone Age. Basic things that should be easy as point and click are not. |
|
|
|
I'll just say that for example mining is not that transparent, because you don't know who has figured out how to rent AWS, etc. Renting nearly always makes more sense than buying hardware. This is incorrect. I did the math in 2014 when I was evaluating my PoW hash and VPS renting was definitely far advantageous to buying hardware for any scenario where the price was increasing fast and the emission curve was declining fast (which is nearly always the case for any coin worth mining). One could aggregate more hashrate faster reinvesting mined coins from rented VPS than the slower return of capital from buying. Math doesn't lie. You are assuming the equipment does not have residual value. I have also done the math for various reasons (not just coin-related). Cost per cycle is much lower off-cloud in general (of course there are exceptions, promotional discounts, etc.) $200 for used hardware versus $millions for more coins obtained If you believe in a coin, you mine the hell out of it with rented hardware or even better rented bots. Btw, launch by mining can never be transparent, because we don't know who purchased a 10,000 bot miner for $100. 10,000 bot miners don't matter if there are millions of people mining, and the experience with Monero shows over time that claims of botnets are overblown. My theory, unproven but consistent with observed data, is that mining on botnets is pretty expensive because bots have a cost and lifetime and mining burns them up too fast. With slow start rewards, it doesn't matter much if someone throws bots on it early, they'l never accumulate a large portion of the supply anyway. Good for them, they'll probably become early advocates, and promote the coin in some markets you'd never reach otherwise. If someone gets $1000 of coins for $100, while every normal JoeBlow gets $150 of coins for $100, the free market is not operating with transparency. It is an opaque market and thus not efficient. Besides mining hands all the capital to electric and hardware companies. We enslave ourselves   And giving preference to those who are savvy miners over every normal JoeBlow who might want to invest, thus not achieving maximum distribution. And you wonder why Monero is stuck in mud. |
|
|
|
...It was an exception of Monero due to the newness of the technology and the high level of investor demand that it stayed profitable there for several months (even with public unoptimized miners).
Which was in part a function of Darkcoin popularizing anonymity, you are correct about that, but it was also in part a function of the fair and transparent launch, visible integrity of the team, etc. because that brought investors who had rejected Darkcoin, Bytecoin and others.
Some people might have the perspective that Monero brought people who were savvy miners and saw an opportunity to hijack Cryptonote and mine it for themselves. And then managed to have enough clout to hoodwink a lot of others into siding with the coin with the most clout. Thus you can clearly see how politics enters the picture. I sure do hate politics. I wish I could be free from it. You don't know who has optimized code, even GPU optimized, etc. None of that matters if your own mining is profitable. Why does it matter if someone else makes more? Why are you worried if a few people own most of the coin then? Of course it matters. The entire point is we want distribution to be widespread to maximize network effects, interest, and maximize the power of the free market when transparency and liquidity are maximized. |
|
|
|
I'll just say that for example mining is not that transparent, because you don't know who has figured out how to rent AWS, etc. Renting nearly always makes more sense than buying hardware. This is incorrect. I did the math in 2014 when I was evaluating my PoW hash and VPS renting was definitely far advantageous to buying hardware for any scenario where the price was increasing fast and the emission curve was declining fast (which is nearly always the case for any coin worth mining). One could aggregate more hashrate faster reinvesting mined coins from rented VPS than the slower return of capital from buying. Math doesn't lie. You are assuming the equipment does not have residual value. I have also done the math for various reasons (not just coin-related). Cost per cycle is much lower off-cloud in general (of course there are exceptions, promotional discounts, etc.) $200 for used hardware versus $millions for more coins obtained If you believe in a coin, you mine the hell out of it with rented hardware or even better rented bots. Btw, launch by mining can never be transparent, because we don't know who purchased a 10,000 bot miner for $100. I don't have the skills to deploy a bot net. Do you? |
|
|
|
I'll just say that for example mining is not that transparent, because you don't know who has figured out how to rent AWS, etc. Renting nearly always makes more sense than buying hardware. This is incorrect. I did the math in 2014 when I was evaluating my PoW hash and VPS or hosted dedicated servers renting was definitely far advantageous to buying hardware for any scenario where the price was increasing fast and the emission curve was declining fast (which is nearly always the case for any coin worth mining). One could aggregate more hashrate faster reinvesting mined coins from rented VPS than the slower return of capital from buying. Math doesn't lie. |
|
|
|
Why does nobody use something like proof of burn to defend against sybil attacks? Because then they would have to create an actual economic system instead of just a consensus mechanism? We are getting to the point where it's not possible to make any progress in the cryptocurrency space if you don't address consensus & economics at the same time. People are so desperate to avoid arbitrary variables they end up not creating anything.
Astute. Agreed. Well yes but then the problem is I stated in my post on the first page, how do you set the globally consistent level of "burn" (which afaics is just a transaction fee) without centralizing? What motivation would a peer have for participating if the peer must burn his coins to participate in the P2P network? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
