Well off the top of my head, I believe the MC2 guys are working on incorporating something like this into their coin. There is a project called MITOSYS which seems to be aiming for a system like Bitmessage but with the ability to function as a crypto-currency and not just a messaging service. There's also a relatively new project called NEX which seems to be some sort of fork of Nxt.

But honestly none of these projects are what I would like to see. I just want to see a plain implementation of the mini-blockchain scheme. A simple cryptocurrency implementation. MC2 is the closest thing to what I'd want to see but based on my discussions with tacotime it seems like they are working on an efficient blockchain pruning algorithm, which is completely different to the mini-blockchain scheme.

I don't know much at all about Ethereum but it seems to be the complete opposite of the mini-blockchain scheme, like I mentioned in the video. I don't see how Ethereum could be taking a similar approach because the mini-blockchain scheme doesn't support scripts, and Ethereum is all about taking scripts to the extreme.

And your Polymium proposal sounds very much similar to Etherum with its claim to support "user-defined applications" so I don't see how you are going to be able to incorporate the mini-blockchain scheme into such a design. I would appreciate an explanation for how you believe it could be possible.

I'm always receiving messages from people who have trouble properly understanding my mini-blockchain scheme so I thought it would be a good idea to make a video which could provide a brief description and explanation of the mini-blockchain scheme and the advantages it offers. I would recommend reading through the mini-blockchain wiki for the full technical details but hopefully this video will help out a few people who can't be bothered reading through the wiki. Make sure you have annotations enabled because there are a few important notes that I forgot to mention in the video.

Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQsIEXZYQMQ

Thanks to steamgames I was made aware of some bugs with the new search functionality in the latest release of BitShop. If you already downloaded version 0.9.8 then download it again to get the fixed version and update the 3 files listed in the client file area (read the notice).

I am not using any libraries other than the libraries I have created myself. The fitness of each net is calculated as a percentage of profit or loss with respect to the starting balance. If the net starts with a balance of $1000 and it makes a profit of $10 during the virtual trading test then it gets a score of 1.01 but if it makes a loss of $10 then it gets a score of 0.99. If it were to double its starting balance then it would obviously get a score of 2. A set number of nets with the highest scores are placed into the elite group for breeding (although the parent pairings and offspring mutations are random). To make the process faster I also included a mechanism which allows nets to "die" if they aren't performing well enough. For example if the net seems to be making a consistent loss or if it isn't placing enough trades then the testing process will be cut short and that net will incur a large score penalty to make sure it isn't included in the elite group. Doing that helps speed up the training process by a large degree and it also mimics natural evolution where the subjects who are bad at surviving die quickly.

Version 0.9.8 of BitShop has been released. Only two more releases until we're at v1.0.0.

No I think it's very relevant to this discussion. Even if we get the ability to move gold to earth from other planets at a cost less than the worth of the gold, there's still a finite limit to how much we can bring to earth because there's a limit to how much we can increase the mass of the Earth before we risk destabilizing the orbit. It doesn't matter how large that limit is, the fact is there's a limit. Of course there's always a risk that we learn of a method to turn stone into gold, and that is why cryptocurrency is so amazing, we can use mathematics to ensure that the limit will never be undermined.

And yes, I meant to say centralized debasement is is the problem, I have corrected that mistake in my original post.

And the moment they attempted to change any such critical aspects of the system would be the moment everyone lost faith in Bitcoin and then those pools would have doomed their entire business to failure. But I don't think that will happen because when ever a pool gets near 50% of the hashing power we always see a rebalancing of power by concerned parties. The network seems to have a natural tendency to ensure that no one entity will ever gain the majority of the hashing power. And now that we have decentralized pool software it's even less likely that one entity will ever gain more than 50% of the hashing power.

Why, explain to me the exact reason why that would be true.

How so? I surely cannot afford to buy the mining equipment required to mine gold. I might be able to sift out a few flakes of gold worth a few dollars if I spend hours panning down at a river, but I doubt anyone would be willing to buy a few specks of gold from me. Gold mining is a highly centralized industry which requires large and expensive machinery. So why is it ok when gold mining is so centralized but when it happens to Bitcoin its the end of the world? I designed the mini-blockchain scheme because I was worried about the centralized mining og Bitcoin, but that doesn't mean I think it will lead to the downfall of Bitcoin and it doesn't mean I've lost my faith in Bitcoin. I accept Bitcoin for what it is.

You do know that there is a finite amount of gold on the Earth and that eventually all of it will be mined?

I don't necessarily have anything against a coin with perpetual debasement, as long as the cost of creating the new currency is equal to or more than the value of the new currency, and it happens in a decentralized fashion. Like you said, the main problem is centralized debasement, and it's because it costs them very little to generate the new currency and because they hand it out to a small group of banks instead of to the average joe. I don't necessarily care if my savings go up in value or not, what I care about is that my savings HOLD THEIR VALUE. The reason people save their wealth in gold is because they trust gold to be a secure store of value, and the reason they trust it is because they know gold cannot be created out of thin air. The same thing essentially applies to Bitcoin, I know that bitcoins are very difficult to create and it requires a lot of electrical energy to generate them.

The stone money used on the island of Yap is a good example of why it's important for a currency to be hard to create, but it's also an example of why perpetual debasement can work so long as the currency is hard to create. It was extremely difficult for them to create those huge donut shaped stones, so every time a new stone coin was created the market didn't freak out because the market knew a lot of energy was burnt up in their creation. And there was essentially no limit to how many coins they could create, so long as they didn't find an easy and cheap way to craft the stones into a donut shape then they could keep making them and adding new coins into circulation without worrying about price inflation. You can even have an increasing money supply while the value of the currency is increasing at the same time, in fact that's exactly what has been happening with Bitcoin for the last few years.

The problem with government fiat money is not necessarily the fact that they debase it, it's that they can cheaply and easily put new currency into circulation and they don't have to hand it out in a decentralized fashion, they simply hand it out to large member banks. And they create so much that they not only prevent price deflation, they debase the money supply to such an extreme degree that they cause consistent price inflation. That is the type of perpetual debasement I dislike, excessive and stupid debasement used to fund wars and other nonsense that no one wants. Bitcoin was designed precisely to make that sort of thing impossible, it was supposed to be a finite resource in a digital form, like digital gold in other words. That is the fundamental philosophy behind the way Bitcoin is designed.

Fundamentally I agree with you that perpetual debasement can be a good thing, what I don't agree with you about is that a finite money supply is a bad thing. They both have their advantages, gold will always be trusted so long as the amount on this planet always remains finite. Bitcoin will always remain relevant for the same reason. Obviously there are things which make a better currency than gold, just as there may be cryptocurrencies better for use as a currency. But that doesn't mean gold or bitcoin cannot be used to conduct trade, and the finite nature of gold and bitcoin doesn't make them some sort of evil "corporate top-down controlled fully compliant government's money". How you reach such an absurd conclusion is beyond me. The centralized nature of mining could take away some of the decentralization of Bitcoin, but that's just about the limit of it.

But that's not a "flaw", the people with the most resources will always have the most power, that's just a simple rule of the world and it will aways exist. Of course we can attempt to minimize the effectiveness of their resources but they will always have an advantage by having more resources at their disposal. People will always be attracted to Bitcoin because of its features, but there's no reason Bitcoin can't coexist with other cryptocurrencies which improve upon the basic design. You need to learn that there is a place for everything, stop looking at things with such a black and white perspective. Bitcoin is not flawed, it simply is what it is, and if you want something different then build it and prove to us how much better it is.

Edit: added extra paragraph to expand on my explanation.

I think most people would agree with you that we need more anonymity and more ASIC resistance and more scalability. But that's why we have alt coins to solve these problems. All 3 of those problems are already solved and being developed as we speak. But that does not mean the resulting coins which incorporate these ideas will "kill" bitcoin. Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency designed by Satoshi and will never be killed so long as the network remains secure. It has too big of a foothold in the market to ever be killed by an alt coin regardless of how "perfect" that alt coin is.

There are also some things in your list of suggestions which are subjective "improvements" which conform to specific monetary theories and not purely technical theories. For example these two points:

I don't know how long you're going to argue about this perpetual debasement nonsense. It has to get old at some point. There are already several coins with perpetual debasement built into them, what more do you want? Bitcoin will never change to  match your concept of how money should work. And your suggestion about zero transaction fees is completely socialist imo, there is no reasonable way to separate a spam transaction from a real transaction without fees. People who are willing to pay get what they want faster than those who cannot pay, it's as simple as that and you're concern over spiraling fees is completely irrational imo.

1) Cash transactions are already far more anonymous than cryptocurrency transactions.
2) Cryptocurrency cannot be any more transparent than it already is without enabling everyone in the network to see what real people are buying.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's not "linked" to the cost of the electricity used to generate the coins. What you are talking about is a coin "backed" by a real world asset with "intrinsic value". But it's impossible to safely back a cryptocurrency with a real world asset because like you said, we must trust the entities claiming to hold the assets. Cryptocurrency is supposed to be trustless, the moment you add centralized trust to the network you go back to square one. But I do agree there could be some value in a coin liked you described, but it's not the "next step" in cryptocurrency, it's simply a different breed of cryptocurrency which would have its own use cases. I don't see why you feel so strongly that one must replace the other, or what ever it is you're trying to say.

Lol, that's funny, when the majority of normal money only exists as bank credit on bank computers. Apparently 29% of people don't even realize they use a "digital" currency on a daily basis.

Depending on how you define the term "linked" you could say Bitcoin is linked to electrical energy because each coin requires some amount of computing power to generate.  That's another reason I don't particularly like proof-of-stake, it takes away that energy requirement.

The concepts you presented are not solutions necessarily applicable to cryptocurrency. You need to understand the way the blockchain works before you can begin suggesting alternative storage mechanisms. If you want to read a viable proposal then read my post on the first page of this thread and follow the link.

Lol... how long it takes is irrelevant, unless it's longer than the lifetime of the sun.

Typically the best way to store large amounts of data is on a distributed file system where each system stores a small part of the whole thing. But that is not true for bitcoin because of the reasons I already mentioned, mainly that it would require a prohibitive amount of network bandwidth to transmit the same data over and over again. It is also a bad idea because it opens the possibility for crucial data to be lost. Unless every node has a copy of the same data then all that needs to happen to lose parts of the blockchain is that those nodes holding the data leave the network and never return. That is not an acceptable situation because it could wipe out the balances of coin holders and break the network.

There are multiple problems with this idea. First of all it doesn't solve anything in the long term because eventually people will be asking "what happens when 0.1% of the blockchain becomes prohibitively large". Secondly, nodes require most of the blockchain in order to verify transactions and calculate address balances. If they only held a small portion of the blockchain then every time they needed to verify a transaction or make a transaction they would need to search around for other nodes which had the data they needed, and that would dramatically increase the amount of network traffic. It's just a totally impracticable way of going about things.

Pretty much any host that supports PHP and MySQL should meet the requirements. But I don't have a list of hosts available. Maybe some users of BitShop could list their web host in this thread.

That can be done with a single change to one of the config files.

I have lost count of the number of threads asking this same question. I usually don't bother answering but this time I will. The simple answer is blockchain pruning. Old spent transactions buried under enough blocks can be trimmed from the blockchain. Satoshi mentioned this as a method for reclaiming disk space in the original white paper. However, it's easier said than done now that the network is already several years old, and all the unspent "dust" transactions limit the effectiveness of blockchain pruning. I personally believe the real solution to scalability in decentralized cryptocurrency can be achieved with a system like my mini-blockchain scheme. But I wont bother explaining how it works in this thread, if you're interested in the details then read the wiki: http://bitfreak.info/mbc-wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

The key/link is displayed directly on the website at the end of the transaction. In the case of keys/codes an email is also sent just to be safe.

A new address is generated by for each new transaction. The addresses must be manually imported into your own wallet. This was discussed on the last page.
And no it cannot generate deterministic addresses from any type of seed, it generates a completely random address every time.

If someone were to download your content and then reupload it, the only thing you can really do is threaten them with legal action and hope that they stop. That's a problem with pretty much any digital item, and there is no easy way around it.

My plan wasn't to train just one net and then use it to trade for me. My plan was to train multiple nets and then use them to create a committee of machines and average the outputs from all of them. Associative neural networks seem to be an extension of that basic concept but I'm not really sure of the exact details. Autoassociative neural networks seem to a whole other thing and I haven't read much about how they work either. Apparently the Hopfield network is one example of an autoassociative neural network but I'd have to read more about it to understand how it works. However I did read that one of the main uses of the Hopfield network is to pick out patterns from noisy data so I can see why you'd think that was a good choice.

I described exactly how my nets are structured when I described how the DNA is formatted. The design is not autoassociative as far as I know but the nets are obviously trained using unsupervised learning because they use a genetic algorithm for training and nothing else. All I do is give them some training data and then let them evolve by themselves based on how well they perform at virtual trading (which is linked to their ability to predict future trends in the data). If I had of ranked them based purely on their ability to predict what data will come next in their training data then I would still have to build my own trading algorithms based on the predictions they make. I wanted them to evolve their own trading strategies by themselves so I ranked them by how well they performed at virtual trading.