@noobnoxious: I have to look into PoT (PoSV) and how they do it. Afaik (had a quick look at Flutter), it only works with PoW blocks. Or I think it was coded to work with PoW blocks. But if I have it correctly, having an exponential decay on stake does pretty much the same thing as PoSV, which is: incentivizing staking only up to a point. No hard limit, just a nice decay. Haven't had much time to look into it.
@jwinterm: I like XFK. Anyone else?
PoSV gives higher stake interest the more network activity that's going on. It's a modification of PoS to take into account the network velocity and use it to secure the network, i.e., the more transactions per block the higher the stake interest and network weight. So it is an incentive to hold because of PoS coin age, and an incentive to spend because the more people spending, the higher the net weight and thus also the stake interest for those who are staking. It's a kind of double-whammy as far as I see it. Both ideas are perfectly valid options, just thought it looked interesting considering what we're developing is a niche tip coin at its core. Although I don't have ANY idea how it uses transactions to secure the network. That'd require looking into. Also XFK looks a bit like X-F**k to me :-P Might just be me though haha. Haha. Perhaps XFN? I like XFK though.  Oh I see, regarding PoSV. Have they implemented it yet? I think a basic decay algorithm will be sufficient? I put the whole thing into a project plan pdf draft including the burning process. https://www.dropbox.com/s/eyw9w8ztk9zni2x/The%20Cypherfunks%20v2%20project%20plan.pdfLooking for feedback! Any critiques, info, details we can add, remove etc. Let me know! |
|
|
|
|
@soundposition: eepppic. Looking forward to it!
@noobnoxious: I have to look into PoT (PoSV) and how they do it. Afaik (had a quick look at Flutter), it only works with PoW blocks. Or I think it was coded to work with PoW blocks. But if I have it correctly, having an exponential decay on stake does pretty much the same thing as PoSV, which is: incentivizing staking only up to a point. No hard limit, just a nice decay. Haven't had much time to look into it.
@jwinterm: I like XFK. Anyone else?
---
It's the weekend tomorrow, so going to try and spend some time tomorrow on finalising the cross-over plans.
|
|
|
|
Just reporting in guys, sorry I've been vacant, been so insanely busy I haven't even been doing anything for fun lately!
All in all I have little to add, except to say FANTASTIC work guys! And yes I agree ROX looks like a total scam. Good chance to differentiate ourselves from them. Could mean our start is mildly harmed, but we know we're genuine, and that'll speak for itself in time - that word is starting to sound like a different 4-letter word to me these days ;-)
I don't think there's been anything I disagree with in the slightest discussed :-) I love the exponentially decreasing PoS reward concept. Covers a bunch of incentives at once on initial inspection.
Can't wait to get this off the ground!
Cool. I'll have a look again at the exponentially decreasing PoS reward. Not sure how difficult it would be to implement. @soundposition: regarding auto-burn. Don't think it is possible. Counterparty auto-burning worked because implementations remained on the same blockchain. Trying to think off the top of my head, this probably means having to run both chains at the same time [to keep checking source of burns]. So, the easiest would be to just do a manual burn process which I will administer. This does mean, it won't be as private as just mining it yourself [only I will know how much you are burning]. If you want to remain anonymous, you could also just sign up for a new account, and do it through that. --- So. To give an update. Just a few things I need to iron out and research. Afaik, last thing on the list is look at the exponential decay PoS. After that's done I'll drop the whole plan into a doc for one final perusal. 2 things I'm going to change. Going to change the leading letter to "F" so not to confuse with FUNK1 addresses. And then the new four-letter name need to still be decided upon so to additionally make sure people aren't confused. Thinking either FUNK2, or FNK. FNK is sexier imho? |
|
|
|
Are we letting the blockchain die for now and turn off the miners? Right now I'm pretty much getting 99.2% of every block unless some more miners jump on P2P and claim a share.  You will to be able burn more when we switch, so there is value in keeping mining right now!  I see at cryptocon FUNK will feature at a talk from the SongCoin guys. Anyone going to be there? Would to hear what they say. http://www.cryptocon.net/cryptocurrency-conference/agenda-sydney |
|
|
|
Still been lurking here time to time...lots of great ideas I see...can't wait to see where it goes.. is there any pools still up other than 0x0a p2pool and n00bsys0ps p2pool (no active miners on Noobs)? Every time I sync my wallet I feel like I won the lottery.  Haha. Totally. Think those are the only pools atm. |
|
|
|
good results need time + careful thought. no point in rushing
i believe FUNK was (perhaps) a perfect creation that the world isn't quite ready for ...
to increase public awareness is desirable
most have no clue how much state subsidized central banks + fractal reserve lending rip us off
Cheers for the vote of confidence. I'm back in the swing of things. So will spend some this week on the relaunch! |
|
|
|
Thanks man! My internet is so patchy (visiting my sister). Will be back in the swing of things on Tuesday. Regarding roxcoin. Saw it. Not fussed. Quick bandwagon coin. We're in it for the long haul. When we relaunch we can already show the big impact we've made so far. Guys. One thing that worries me, is that I worry that it will take longer than expected to relaunch the coin. I'm swamped with stuff [my start-up is slowly eating away all time I have]. So please, please just bear with me. I promise it will get done eventually. I've stuck with this project since it launched. I'm not going away. Great things take time.  . None of this scamcoin bullshit. Love you guys! |
|
|
|
|
@groggin.
Sweet. Will take a look at hobonickels.
@soundposition.
Yes. I have the seednodes mining as well, but it's not enough (clearly). If that's the only thing mining it, it might tank again.
I'll try find time to check out the various parts (hobonickels, auto-burning etc) during this week. I'm away with family so it might be difficult. Will try!
|
|
|
|
I've been mining FUNK hardcore non-stop to keep the old blockchain going while heaping huge piles of FUNK to burn. I found this interesting article while perusing the Lets Talk Bitcoin! comments. It's interesting because it's talking about 'burning' and how this is the next step for the future of BTC etc..
Thanks for keeping the chain going! One thing though, I thought a 'burn' process made the coins un-spendable. If that's the case why would there be any concern that you would sell the 'burn pool' on an exchange?
The burning process is manual, it's not automatic (actually have to see how XCP & Mastercoin did their burning). Currently, I would own the burn pool and distribute it accordingly. So during the 4 months I would own the coins, so I *could* theoretically just dump the coins. Like a pre-mine, but it's not. Actually. Let me check how Mastercoin/XCP did their burning. Perhaps it could be done automatically. Although not sure how. If you burn on the same blockchain (like XCP/Mastercoin) it seems more likely that it can be done automatically. I think for now no we shouldn't cap the coin age. Can we always cap it later if we need to?
Yep. But I think it will be hard-fork to fix. Different consensus model. Not sure about this, but if I understand this correctly for every 4M coins, half of it goes to be burned, and the other goes to an 'artist pool' wallet that you distribute initially to contributors evenly?
Not entirely. There will only be 4M in the initial + PoW phase. 2M of those will be distributed to old FUNK users (through burning) and additional new coins will be distributed through PoW. A 50/50 split is thus the question. ie FUNK1/FUNK2 split is 50/50. In other words, of the old FUNK, all those coins will represent 50% of the new coin stock if all of it is burned. The consideration to make here is: you don't want 100% either way. You want to reward the people like us who've stuck around, but you want some new blood and thus release those new coins through PoW stage. Thanks for the comments. @jwinterm The exponential decay idea is cool. Afaik that's what Reddcoin's proof-of-stake velocity will do. It still increases over time, but it decays faster. In other words, the first 30 days of coin-age is 1:1, but then the next 30 days will take 60 days to accumulate and so forth. Definitely worth looking into. So coin-age will be infinite, but at some stage it just accrues it at a much slower rate (not 1:1). |
|
|
|
Okay. So the gist if very similar to what I originally posted. I really dig the discussions about tying in music into the blockchain. But we first have to fix the coin as it is currently, and then build from there. So the time-frame can't be a year from now. Fork from Bitcoin. Bitcoin is by far the best codebase to work from. Improvements are usually easy to add in as well. Add in Vericoin's network-dependant proof-of-stake. I was thinking about the coin-age cap again... This is a neat idea in order to encourage some kind of spending (and not just holding forever). But, the problem with this is, it can influence the staking time of the blocks. If not a lot of people are staking, you want coin-age to be infinite so that it eventually solves the blocks and keeps it going. So, for now, I'm partial to keeping coin-age cap out. Again. There will be 4M coins. 2M for the BURN pool and 2M for mining. From launch, 4 months will be given to burn the coins. The process will be described at a later point. But essentially, the way I see it: you have to send FUNK1 to a specific address (FBurnAddressxxx or something similar), and then sign an input with the transaction to prove you owned it. The amount will then be converted at the exchange rate determined (FUNK1 supply at determined block: 2M), and I will send you the new coins. After the 4 months is done, I will either (depending on the community) use the rest of the burn pool for bounties (an artist pool for example), or destroy it. I'm partial to turning it into an artist pool: distributing it evenly across contributors at that point. This means that people won't put garbage up or under pseudonyms, since it might be the case that no-one receives any of the 2M (although I doubt ALL the coins will be exchanged). The PoW CPU algo will most likely be a completely new algo if n00bnoxious can get it tested properly. This whole process will happen in the following stages: 1) Develop the new coin until it is ready. > Port Bitcoin over. > Add in Vericoin PoS. > Add in new CPU algo for PoW phase. 2) Then announce a block at which old FUNK won't be valid anymore (a week from the announcement probably). 3) At that point also then announce when new FUNK will be launched. 4) Launch new coin with PoW phase and burning process starts. 5) After 4 weeks, the PoW stage is done for, switching to PoS. 6) After 4 months the burning process will have ended. Questions: - Should we cap the coin-age? If it is capped, then spending is more encouraged. However, this also means that block times might become irregular if not a lot people are staking. - Is the ratio of 2M Burn pool to 2M new PoW coins fine? - Is the time for burning at 4 months too long or too short? - At the end of the burning process, should the rest of the coins that have not been claimed be used for an artist distribution pool? - Is PoS interest capped at 3% okay? - Is 4 weeks a decent time for the PoW phase? As n00bnoxious stated: it's a decent time, and it is short enough so that optimized software can't be written for the CPU algo. Resulting in hopefully fairer distribution. From my side. Considering I'm maintaining & facilitating the process. I promise not to use the burn pool for my own gain. As you can see from reputation (having launched FUNK with no pre-mine and my active contribution to the cryptocurrency space), it's important for me to uphold it. This means I won't sell the burn pool on an exchange. And I won't use the burn pool towards any staking (I will keep it in a separate wallet). If you are fine with the process and don't have anything to add, just give a vote of approval. I'm a bit strapped for time these days, but I'll try my best to get to this as soon as I can (visiting my sister next week). n00bnoxious will most likely be helping with development (I hope so. ). EDIT: If we have a conclusion, I'm going to put this all in a PDF and make it official. I'm not calling it a "whitepaper" as altcoins like to do. I was in academics for several years, and calling all these documents "whitepapers" is a joke. It will simply be a "project plan". |
|
|
|
Awesome discussions! I'll try and get to that draft today, and hopefully get it up tomorrow for perusal. |
|
|
|
Im using Bittorrent sync. I really like it for file sharing.
Kool sounds more decentralized, I deleted all my Dropbox accounts when C Rice was hired! Hey I got a question, if we get a real cool popular hit song would we ever list it on ITunes or beat port or for sale anywhere? I have had a idea for a few years for a song that I think if done right could be big, REAL BIG ;]Update: I looked at the Bittorrent sync and this looks like it will work great, For each song we can even make it read only then add a new folder for song updates if we want, at least this way someone cant just start deleting files lol - we just need a place to keep track of what folders hold what songs im guessn, another thing that would be cool is if the cypherfunks members or contributors had a place on the website to be listed if they wish to be like... Nick - BuckSnot Name - Richard H Age - 39 Location - Billings Montana USA Equipment - Ableton Live Suite, Push, APC40, Launchpad, Ipad, & Many soundpacks and VST's Style - Unknown... FUNK - FUNKaddress BTC - BTCaddress and so on ;] Just ideas me friends... Bittorent Sync looks cool! A directory could be cool as well. Been a bit busy this week, so I'll try go get to that draft post about FUNK v2 somewhere this weekend. I'll try! |
|
|
|
i still have my little gpu pointed at the p2pool, just wanted to post that the wallet is still unstable, falls out of synch 2-3 times a day, last 5 days pulling in 3 mil a day w/88 khps anyway Indeed. Witnessed similar problems. Low hashrates seems to break the KGW. The variance seems to be a problem. Thanks for keeping the old chain going though Groggin! |
|
|
|
I like the idea as well where staking only occurs if you are contributing to the broadcasting network.
This does seem to be closing the trifecta... We have incentive to OWN, incentive to SPEND and incentive to BUY... All of the elements are there. Just got to ensure they're all solid. Also IRL usage is integrated in the core concept - people love to listen to and discover new music. There's even room for keeping the tipping involved in it. Someone's public address could be incorporated in the magnet metadata, so tipping would be a matter of pressing "Tip" in the wallet, and it'd send a tip DIRECT to the person who uploaded its wallet. In fact could tipping be a double vote (a "like" being one)? Obvious abuse potential, but considering it costs money it doesn't really harm anything because to keep it high in the charts would cost a fortune... A tip could indeed count as a vote if address is embedded with the song! |
|
|
|
It's more than possible to include extra information in each block (Darkcoin recently did exactly this to store their Master Node votes) - perhaps we could build a system which allows individuals to submit a single file by concensus per block, as groggin mentioned perhaps utilising the Bittorrent protocol. These tracks could then be streamed from all around the world via magnet/DHT once they had reached a certain level of propagation. The bandwidth requirements of the protocol would be marginally bigger, but no more than running a music player like Spotify constantly, and wouldn't have any kind of centralised server requirements.
At 1 minute block times, this would allow for a maximum 1440 new submissions every day. Is that enough?
People could perhaps even only stream their own "favourites" list or something, encouraging people to produce music that others enjoy, as they wouldn't have any incentive to produce or submit garbage because it would never propagate, and thus would consistently waste their own bandwidth. It would also further incentivise staking, as having your wallet open would be a necessity while initially broadcasting any new track. It'd be like running your own, totally decentralised radio station!
Starting to feel like we might be getting somewhere :-) Definitely feeling the excitement vibe!
EDIT: Another thought: To offset the inflation of PoS, and to de-incentivise spamming the network with garbage, we could introduce collateral payments to make a submission, thus to spam the network would be a considerable expense.
I like where this is going. That gives additional incentive for the coin. You need it in order to broadcast a song to the network. I like the idea as well where staking only occurs if you are contributing to the broadcasting network. And yes, you choose what YOU want to broadcast. So if it's gibberish, a user has basically *paid* to upload a song and it's not getting broadcast. I feel we're getting closer here! |
|
|
|
Looks great, but the problem I see with these is they're all data-agnostic and centralised. We'd have to be able to decentralise it AND detect music somehow - whether that's by individuals listening and voting for and against, or automated metadata checking, a combination, or something else entirely... Yeah. Difficult problem. You basically have to build out consensus networks outside from a basic ledger. Something like reality keys almost. https://www.realitykeys.com/. I reckon we first try to improve the economics of the coin, keep it simple, and keep the discussion going on how to incorporate music into a blockchain: either through consensus, or cryptographically. Both are hard, but we are breaking new ground here. Let's change the world! |
|
|
|
There's a coin in development called NDcoin, designed to fix the issues of using non-deterministic algorithms within the blockchain - these issues being exactly why coins like Primecoin, Riecoin et al have failed. I actually spoke with someone involved in Gridcoin recently, and was most unimpressed. Their entire system seems to be dependent on people WANTING to donate their machines to science, but the coin itself doesn't actually succeed in monetising anything, as they haven't worked ANYTHING into the system by which coin ownership is incentivised, and thus there is no reason at all for anybody to do anything but dump the coins, which is destined to as previously with Rie, Prime and the rest, destroy the coin's value. NDCoin takes a different attitude to this: They are building a decentralised miner-rental system. The idea being you can submit complex computation to the network by spending these coins, and you will be rewarded with your algorithms being processed by the miners, in return for which they receive the amount you paid in a fully distributed fashion. It's extremely clever, and offers good incentive for the big 3: ownership, sales and purchase. I think this is in danger of zipping off on a tangent, so I'm gonna leave my discussion of these coins at this. It's very interesting though... Following a more "appcoin" model it seems. Very, very interesting times! |
|
|
|
No no no.. No company.. Let's keep it decentralized for sure.. I mean that IS the appeal of this approach at least for me.
We share sentiments.  |
|
|
|
All good points Simon, a lot of those ideas were just what popped out my head. I agree of course with keeping it stupidly simple at this point, just to make sure we are taking the right steps. I think so far no one things PoS is a bad idea. I like LTBcoin's approad to what they call "Proof of Work".. Real work like blog posts, and contributions, not mining.. I quote: "LTBcoins will not be mined using algorithmic computations like most crypto-currency. Instead, LTBcoins will be distributed based on a “Proof of Work” concept, in which the “work” will be contributions of valuable content, editorial services, project leadership, tipping, and many other value-added activities that will benefit the growth and sustainability of the network. " http://ltbcoin.com/ltbcoin-for-new-usersThanks for your thoughts. We are breaking new ground here every day, so we need all the ideas we can get! I like LTBcoin's approach, but as we previously stated: distribution happens through them. This isn't bad, but it forever means that LTBcoin is dependent on LTB. If we did like LTB, in the case of The Cypherfunks, it means we might have to approach it more as a "company". Do it more in the fashion of Niceplum ( http://niceplum.bandcamp.com/). Any proceeds (profit from whatever) goes to owners of the tokens. Except contributions are from anyone, not just one person. I like this approach, and it's worth trying (as an alternative). But I just really dig the decentralized approach. . Much more experimental, chaotic, creative and fun imho. @nox, soundposition: Yep. Will get to that somewhere this week. Will post the draft here for feedback. Already started last night. |
|
|
|
how can you prove you've made music?
... SNIP ...
1M artist pool. To be distributed to each musician that contributes. 1M/200 = 5000 each. This will of course be centralized (and issued by me). It will be transparent, open and verifiable.
Ok my 2 sats: You can prove you've made any individual original piece by producing a cryptographic signature of the original file, although I'm still not sure how this could be translated into a decentralised reward mechanism without opening security/legality issues though. Centralisation does suck, but I'm having extreme trouble wrapping my head around an actually decentralised way to do so without screwing up the blockchain. It may be a huge job, but perhaps new tx types, like Namecoin uses for name_new, name_firstupdate etc... Just spitballing ideas, could we integrate some kind of decentralised voting mechanism for reward of artists? This could integrate with the in-wallet player concept nicely at least - people can upload files and signatures, but unless it gets majority-voted it'll get pruned perhaps? Obviously there is room for abuse, but if the network is strong enough (perhaps we open up staking when people are playing music or something) then it should be able to withstand it. Yep. A voting system is interesting, but it seems prone to exploitation? ie, in order to be accepted as a contribution, do you go with %50 of votes? Centralized issuance from an artist pool is also exploitable. Contributors can just create psuedonyms and look they are several people. You don't want to encourage that. --- @soundposition. The problem with systems like hashing files, is that it's difficult to determine what makes it "music". A hash doesn't reveal it. And then you need to start thinking. If you have a file, how can you cryptographically prove that it is music? So, yes. If you have a mp3 of the song you just made: you put it on btproof. If someone in the future uses your song, you can then prove you originally made it. But it is still human *ears* that have to do arbitration. A computer won't know. Or rather, the blockchain can't know. A possible idea, is to use audo fingerprinting. And that can only be sampled, if played. Something like the number stations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station. This guy has a similar idea. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53371.0. More experiments: http://www.vanheusden.com/baa/. If the blockchain *can* know. ie if it sees a file, it can legitimately discover that it is indeed music, it still brings into the question of what you reward. Someone can create a shitty 1 note 10-min song and that will "music". Or a 1 sec blip. It will all look like music, but because rewards are explicitly tied into the blockchain with it, it incentives "attacks" like that. These are high level theory that's going to be difficult to solve. It's worth a try. Perhaps in the next 5 years someone does solve it, then we can just fork again? I think for now. Just to get the economics back up to scratch we keep it simple? btw. New tune from Bucksnot! https://soundcloud.com/bucksnot/see-how-you-areEDIT: Damn you guys keep posting. Can't keep up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
