|
I've come up with an idea for the simplest (for me to create) InertiaCoin I can think of. I'm going to write about it in a separate thread. It is based on the "complementary currency" idea (a la NameCoin). It will use mixed-mining so there is zero extra PoW to be done.
It will use BitCoin's transaction fee to reward miners and discourage chain bloat. BUT, there is no preset mining reward. Over time mining rewards will vary with monetary policy to create price stability.
Monetary policy will be set in a completely distributed fashion. It will use a proof-of-stake "Vested Interest Voting" system. In other words, users who don't vote are presumed to be OK with the status quo. Those who want a change in the current coin creation/destruction policy, Vote. Voting can be done at any block change. Creating/destroying coins will be done similarly to my GEM proposal.
Any initial thoughts?
By the way, this is the Cheap and Sleazy version of my plan. I have a much more stable version. And a PeggedVersion. But before we get lost in details, I want to see if there is any interest at all. I think if I don't act on the idea immediately, Ripple will run the table on Coins.
|
|
|
|
|
@wingding, we've "imagined" that coin a number of times. See my GEM proposal linked in my introduction post. Etlase2's proposals are based on that concept as well.
@Etlase2, been looking at Ripple's underlying mechanics. They've implemented a lot of the stuff we've wanted to do.
1. Keeping a balance sheet instead of separate inputs and outputs. (Encoin style)
2. Distributed consensus building. For this they used the personal trust rules I described somewhere.
3. Instant irreversible commits based on that consensus. (Encoin)
4. No mining rewards. Peers validate the ledger because they have a long term self-interest in doing so. (My assertion)
5. No cpu power wasted on POW at all. (My assertion)
Edit: WRONG! Ignore this presumption
6. (unconfirmed presumption) Every Ripple peer is a stakeholder with a vested interested in stable valued XRP. They will use a centralized LETS-like process to "fairly distribute" some initial XRP among early adopters. With the goal being to drive the initial XRP exchange price into a pre-planned trading price relative to some Fiat benchmark. After that Ripple will release XRP from their huge reserve in order to meet demand. This will be OK with a consensus of users because stability is a quality of every user's social contract with Ripple.
Neither of us was a proponent of the number 6 implementation. However, we were both in favor of the stability social contract idea.
|
|
|
|
Ripple's basic protocol seems fairly sound in this manner.
Can you link me to this discussion please? Want to see if they do it the way I presume they do it. |
|
|
|
Transaction history. Balances. Ownership. Whatever.
Oh, it turns out that problem is pretty easy. They've already solved it. You will never notice a single consensus problem with Ripple. That's what the XRP are for. |
|
|
|
Way back in 2010 I proposed that BitCoin's intention was to be a Global kind of LETS system. There has been much discussion on this site about how best to describe bitcoin to the uninitiated. Some people, favor currency metaphors, others alude to commodity metaphors. Others caution either of these as dangerous taunts to authority. I posted the following in another thread and there was a suggestion that I write an extended article about my simile. It seems likely that my suggestion is as polarizing as any other. So to avoid any unnecessary aggravation, I'm soliciting comments in advance. Any thoughts are appreciated. ------ I'd like to submit that I think the most apt description of bitcoin is that it is most like a Global Exchange Trading System (GETS) which is a variation on the LETS concept that isn't for hippies. Descriptively it differs because it's community is loosely knit and global rather than an intertwined small-town. As such, there can be no commonly trusted party to operate and monitor the system, so that function is trusted to redundancy and mathematics. (block list) LETS communities can rely on "local knowledge" of peoples historical behavior and intentions. As such it is perfectly reasonable for them to advance credit to people (negative balances) in certain situations. In a GETS community advanced knowledge of all parties and intentions is not practical or even preferred. As such, GETS operates on a zero credit policy. (no negative balances) Also, since GETS trade globally, there is no "national currency" that can be used for equivalence. As such, GETS defines it's own unit for accounting purposes. Since this currency must necessarily vary against some national currencies, the LETS strict "no interest" principle cannot be preserved. ---- I think if people understood LETS they would intuitively understand GETS. The rest of the bitcoin details are just one possible GETS monetary policy. Now, Ripple is proposing itself to be THE global exchange trading system. I think that has significant consequences for BitCoin. |
|
|
|
So, how r u going to reach a consensus when different nodes contradict each other?
What do you mean? On price? Or on transaction history? |
|
|
|
If there's no point in speculating in XRPs then why is that OpenCoin's business model?
It is not speculating in the sense that BTC is speculating. XRP's already have a pre-planned *FIXED* value. We just don't know what it is. That is why I was asking for somebody to send me XRP. Then we would see how much is MISSING. In other words, what is their transaction FEE in XRP. They already told us their transaction fee in USD ($0.0001). If I could see the the transaction fee in XRP, the FIXED rate is simple division. If anyone is interested. My ripple address is: rHUipvsbBKagmU5qxFYCVfRoHKkBaYztm2 I'll send the coins right back. That is indeed the point of the exercise. |
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure most people don't grasp what Ripple is. It's not money in the sense that BTC is money. It is not a store of wealth at all. Their is really no point in speculating in XRPs. That's not what it's for.
If there is a scam it is that OpenCoin used the "Coin" suffix to confuse BitCoiners. It's a self-promotion scam.
|
|
|
|
I think ripple will actually increase the bitcoin market. They are complimentary, Ripple does not fill the same niche as bitcoin, but it does allow things like instant transactions and community credit creation.
I think you are right about Ripple's niche. "Community credit creation" seems to imply that you think my LETS analogy is appropriate. That pretty much makes Ripple the LETS clearing house right? LETS by design is a pure facilitator of exchange. Storing personal wealth inside a LETS system is actively discouraged. The same will become true for Ripple as well. So that relegates BitCoin's primary function to storing personal wealth... |
|
|
|
I personally am not a thrill seeker who jumps off bridges tethered by a bungee nor does playing Russian roulette appeal to me. Trying to use LineaCoin without losing my bitcoins seems like an equal challenge.
Point taken. You've posted pretty darn intelligently on this subject. Would "rolling-up" all a new LinearCoin user's address into a single new address be any better? Personally, I think that would be even less popular. Even if I changed the rules to wave that potential transaction fee, it would affect transaction privacy ON BOTH networks. Creating Etlase2's "Open TX Only" approach would avoid accidental transactions, but it wouldn't change the privacy issues. That's a shame. I wanted to do that automatic roll-up block work and and donate it back to BitCoin. It's on the future features list. This is sounding like a dumber and dumber idea. Amazing how hard it is to give out FREE COINS! :-) ------------------ Again, if I undertake this it is just for the practical experience of working with the codebase. I don't really think the LinearCoin philosophy is logically any better than BitCoin's. After all for most of the time I've been watching BitCoin it has been a LinearCoin system. It wasn't till late last year that the mining rate dropped. In fact, for the next couple of years BitCoin will continue to be a LinearCoin system. And the 4 years after that, and after that... Giving away coins linearly didn't stop the repeated Bubble and Bust cycle over the first 4 years. In that regard things haven't changed in the second 4 years. Isn't that what makes Coin speculation fun for so many people? |
|
|
|
|
OK, so begging doesn't go over well. I updated the original post to expand on my intentions.
I propose that left unchecked, Ripple has the potential crash the BitCoin market. Anyone want to argue about it. Those are really smart guys FFS!
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I tried that first but they are not responding quickly.
If I wanted to test it tomorrow, I'd have asked tomorrow! ;-)
|
|
|
|
I'd like to test out ripple just for the hell of it. If you are wondering why... Way back in 2010 I proposed that BitCoin's intention was to be a Global kind of LETS system. There has been much discussion on this site about how best to describe bitcoin to the uninitiated. Some people, favor currency metaphors, others alude to commodity metaphors. Others caution either of these as dangerous taunts to authority. I posted the following in another thread and there was a suggestion that I write an extended article about my simile. It seems likely that my suggestion is as polarizing as any other. So to avoid any unnecessary aggravation, I'm soliciting comments in advance. Any thoughts are appreciated. ------ I'd like to submit that I think the most apt description of bitcoin is that it is most like a Global Exchange Trading System (GETS) which is a variation on the LETS concept that isn't for hippies. Descriptively it differs because it's community is loosely knit and global rather than an intertwined small-town. As such, there can be no commonly trusted party to operate and monitor the system, so that function is trusted to redundancy and mathematics. (block list) LETS communities can rely on "local knowledge" of peoples historical behavior and intentions. As such it is perfectly reasonable for them to advance credit to people (negative balances) in certain situations. In a GETS community advanced knowledge of all parties and intentions is not practical or even preferred. As such, GETS operates on a zero credit policy. (no negative balances) Also, since GETS trade globally, there is no "national currency" that can be used for equivalence. As such, GETS defines it's own unit for accounting purposes. Since this currency must necessarily vary against some national currencies, the LETS strict "no interest" principle cannot be preserved. ---- I think if people understood LETS they would intuitively understand GETS. The rest of the bitcoin details are just one possible GETS monetary policy. Now, Ripple is proposing itself to be THE global exchange trading system. I think that has significant consequences for BitCoin. So just to keep an Eye on the competitors, I'd like to push some ripple back and forth. If anyone could send me some ripple, I promise to send it right back. I've got a lot of posts on this site. Nobody has called me a scammer yet! Thanks a lot for the help Red rHUipvsbBKagmU5qxFYCVfRoHKkBaYztm2 |
|
|
|
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you. The proof of work is retrieving the file piece asked for, so you can't delete file pieces otherwise you won't be able to provide the proof of work and receive your coins. Since random file pieces are asked for, you can't delete any pieces.
An amazing amount of date is stored but rarely fetched. Your approach might not know until too late. Also, it requires needless (slow) network traffic to test. Since I'm supposing your proof-of-stake is related to (number of blocks stored) * (time stored/block). Gaming the system might be to a malicious node's advantage. |
|
|
|
There's a "create a wallet" link at the bottom.
Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
rHUipvsbBKagmU5qxFYCVfRoHKkBaYztm2
|
|
|
|
The blockchain stores one small number for every file. It is an accumulator which has all the file pieces added to it. To verify file segment storage nodes retrieve the accumulator from the blockchain and check that the file segment is in the accumulator.
That is an interesting concept. Thanks for the reference to a Bloom Filter! The problem I see is that while you know the stored a data. You don't know if that store displaced something else. (They deleted the data afterwords) Would you know on the next store? Does every byte stored need to go through the Bloom Filter each time? Article was TL;DR; (yet) An alternate solution is just to pose a proof-of-storage piece of work. Obviously there would need to be redundant storage of each data block. Just ask each redundant node to re-hash the block using a random seed that you choose. They should all match. |
|
|
|
|
I don't currently hold BTC but how do I get a Ripple account/address? The web site just put me on a mailing list. Do you have any invites?
|
|
|
|
|
How do I get a Ripple invite/account?
I signed up on they're website, but that just put me on a mailing list.
Did I miss something?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
