Did you see the other proposal?

Peter R, that is a nice tl;dr!

I have not read much of this thread or the article. But does realcoin allow any named thing to be in IOU form on the block chain? If so that would be huge.

OT: Has anybody implemented a real world proof of burn, where notes are destroyed in return for crypto currency, perhaps using the serial numbers as a proof?

to be explicit, does this mean there will be a buy order at the purchase price which people can sell in to? one which reduces in price over time?

From PM.


Yes, technically there is no reason why this couldn't happen. Part of the rationale of a shorter block reward schedule is to allow for this in the future, say in 10-15 years.

I have one social issue regarding switching to PoS, and that is that I feel a premature switch to PoS creates a wealthy elite of first adopters, as has happened recently many times with the craze to switch to PoS, but this will be less of an issue as the block reward schedule progresses, reducing to a non issue by the time it's zero.

It is still early days for everything crypto currency related, we'll see which features mature and prove to be valuable. The good thing about Alternative Currencies is that you have multiple different approaches to each problem, there will often be a winner, and where there is no clear winner standardising could step in to create a balance.

See this thread for discussion, but, no.

The problem we found was that any taxation requires some transaction to be present (standard or non standard) in a block, any time you add a constraint like that any extending software (like mining software) needs to be modified to adhere to the constraint you added. This breaks compatibility, some coins may be happy with that, but it contradicts what we hope to achieve with Bitmark.

There is a project which is embracing scrypt asic mining

Initial Difficulty


From much earlier in the project, but we need to define this now.

What should we use as a starting difficulty for the first day of mining?

Suggestions can take the form of hashrate or difficulty.

A small update, a dedicated server has now been acquired for the project.

That is one of my main priorities, also potentially bitmarkj so that Hive and Multibit are possible. Electrum is first choice however.

Part of the development of the new (additional) API, a primary area of functionality and innovation if you will, is to create an html based wallet, with the notion being that it should be hosted on a website, or locally, and the ability to specify any bitmark node as a data provider. This should provide both an accessible alternative interface, and a base for others to further improve what the end user sees.

Thank you so much for this feedback, it's exactly the kind of discussion which benefits a project.


Almost exactly as I see it. I would clarify:
1. Bitmark will implement proven and useful innovations from alts, if and only if they increase the usability of bitmark as a currency, so no token things like chat.
2. Any Bitmark innovations will be in making it more accessible and simpler to integrate with, i.e. focussed on adoption, technically the user interface and API.


1. It is possible, more likely to be 5-10 individuals though, and for hoarding not malicious purposes, as there is nothing to be malicious about with a zero value coin. This itself, the zero value, should hopefully mitigate the risk of excessive hoarding. We must factor in the cost of mining and length of time to a return. In this economy who is willing to mine for weeks in order to hold a coin for a few years? Not many, and not at such a speed that they would dominate the network.

This is speculation with some reasoning, we do not know what will happen but can try to influence things or mitigate risks.

Perhaps the proposal I made about reverse-ipo/ipm can have some impact, ensuring that hashing power is distributed evenly over the first weeks and months..

Some observations: hoarding and dumping is natural, the dumping distributes coins to new adopters, so does have some value. People will always speculate, either by mining or buying, there is not much we can do. There are lots of ASICs to rent, short term it is insignificant, long term has a more noticeable associated cost. People have always been rewarded by adopting early in to successful projects.

2. As a programmer I cannot see anything lacking, it works, it's modern, it's updated daily, and most importantly it is future and backwards compatible with possibly the highest quality assurance in the world. The developers focus on streamlining it and making it more useful, rather than bloating it up with "innovation". I've been a senior level programmer since the 90s and rate it higher than any other project I've encountered. There is some truth the code could have been developed differently, more modular, perhaps in the way an enterprise project would be, but there are major benefits to having simple reduced code, much easier to debug, easier to read, and critically far less bugs. I am happy using it for sure, and comfortable modifying it as I have been.

Thanks again and these are not definitive answers, they are personal, fallible, opinions. It will take a community effort to iron out the faults.

A valid point, there will be ways to oversea this, escrow, partial daily release, something else?


That would be part of the point, it helps mitigate attack from private miners and ensures no stalling of the network if a multipool drops off.

Percentages could be adapted, and BTC per day cap's imposed to handle this. Although if the network is growing, it may make investment sense to mine earlier rather than later?

I do not see this as a negative, rather as just a reality.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this approach and to question it, it is appreciated.

I've created a thread for the concept PROPOSAL: An alternative to IPO for PoW coins so it can be discussed separately and within the context of multiple coins.

No idea if it has been done before, if it has we can be sure someone will say.

Following on from a chain of threads: How should coin developers be remunerated?, followed by Non-IPO project funding?, and further discussion on the Bitmark thread.

A common issue [POW] coin developers face, is how to fund the project both initially, and long term. Also how to balance distribution between miners and investors.

We have a simple proposal, we will call it Initial Public Mining.

First, we establish three things:
1. The startup amount required for developers and resources.
2. A foundation fund % to support long term development.
3. A ratio of investment from miners and investors.

For example in Bitmark's case, we have:
1. 0.6 BTC
2. 5% to a cap of 70,000 BTM (0.25% of the total coins minted)
3. 35% tbd.

Process.

• We the open an "IPM", where investors can choose how much BTC they want to invest in the project.
• The startup amount (1) is taken from the top of the amount required.
• The remainder of the BTC acquired is then used to fund hired mining rigs on the network on a daily basis rated at 35% (3) of the hash power of the network.
• 5% (2) of the coin generated by the hired mining rigs is sent to the foundation fund.
• The remainder (95%) of the coin generated by the hired rigs is split between the investors according to how much they invested.

This way the network is supported, the IPM is limited to a reasonable amount, the coins distributed fairly between investors and miners, start up funds are secured, the project secures long term funding and therefore development incentive.

Extras.
Optional cap per investor, and cap on entire IPM amount
Coins over and above the capped foundation amount are distributed evenly between investors.

Has this been done before, any comments or discussion?

We have not yet decided on whether to do this for Bitmark or not, but we may after discussing here first.

Update
I am pleased to announce, that thanks to a 0.1 BTC donation from Este Nuno we now have enough to secure a dedicated server for the project today, and maybe also a domain name for the project website and first dns-seeder.

It has become a reality. 

We will provisionally schedule the launch for saturday, with confirmation later today. Much depends on whether the community feels the "reverse-ipo" mentioned before is worth doing or not.

I'm sure you follow what I meant, you can put in a special char, wrap each of user/pass in a hash function, whatever needed to make it work... it is much better than /unlock?secretPhrase=test you must agree.

To be constructive, here is a simple proposal which includes 2FA for creating private key, run on the client:

result = hash('username', password');
private-key = hash(result, '2fa');

This way people can remember their details, and the overall length is high and hard to crack, whilst the resulting private key is as strong as whatever you choose for the hashing algorithm in terms of collissions.

If you want send private key via post over https to server.

Alternatively you can store the key locally using sessionStorage and sign transactions with it to send to server, then you can potentially use system as web wallet, as no keys ever leave the private device. Upgrade to RSA keys to fully encrypt instead of just sign.

Yes, it is important to note that it's done locally. But it's still shockingly insecure. POST and SSL will help.

Next:
Since the passphrase provided appears to be the only reference to the account, what happens if two people select the same password? same private key and account?

If this was crypti now, could I just dictionary attack the api to generate keys and gain access to accounts?  .. can I just do this http://crypti.me:6040/api/unlock?secretPhrase=test on any crypti instance to get full access to any account?

  okay I cannot help here.

http://crypti.me:6040/api/sendMoney?accountAddress=15413165176907764021C&amount=100&fee=0.31640625&recepient=2896597140253424866C&secretPharse=lksdjfhsdkfjsdhfksdjfhsdkjfhsdkjfhksjdfhkjsdfhksdjfhaskdjfhksadjfhaskldf

How is that secure? Click it to send 100 coins from an account to another one.