Good thoughts in here.

Nxt voting -- Because votes count if holders have "minimum required balance of NXT", people with money will just make a bunch of accounts and spread out their money into buckets with the minimum. This just boils down to voting based on whomever has the most money.

Counterparty voting -- Even if distribution is perfect, people will just sell their coins or votes (since they aren't tied to them and the votes aren't secret) also from BIP-100 "what if they’re not online? lacks bias for active users? biased towards early adopters? miner self-dealing?". Again, this boils down to just voting based on whomever has the most money.

.

.

I want to improve Bitcoin crowdfunding!

In short here are the problems with Bitcoin crowdfunding via Lighthouse currently:

• Can't "refund" with any sort of automated confirmation back to the pledgers
• Campaigns can't expire or be cancelled
• High minimums on amount you can pledge (often $20 or more)
• Limits on contributors (684 max, many Kickstarter campaigns have over 1000)

My proposed solution allows:

• Enables donations to be made from any BIP70 wallet
• Supports timeouts and canceling projects
• Prevents double spending pledges
• Supports partial refunds
• Supports any number of contributors
• Has no minimum amount requirement
• Allows contributions past campaign goal

I'm seeking feedback and suggestions. Let me know if you are interested in seeing this developed or if you think it's awful!

---

Full proposal. Warning: Long and boring read

https://github.com/vinumeris/lighthouse/issues/196

And download more ram?

The Bitcoin core client sends to peers concurrently? Well that's not quite ideal if you have a limited amount of bandwidth. See this image: http://www.enggpedia.com/images/stories/fdm-tdm-300x205.jpg

For reducing orphan rates, we want to lower latency as much as possible. Therefore putting all of your bandwidth towards sending your discovered block to a fast relay will raise propagation rates more than splitting up your bandwidth with concurrent connections.

Simple: Previously many computers were hidden behind a NAT and therefore couldn't receive any incoming connections. Once IPv6 rolls out people's computers will suddenly be routable. Now if a remote code execution 0day for some service you have running (like cups, dhcp, etc.) people can just spam the exploit across the net and collect private keys and install keyloggers to get passwords, etc. Even if you have a firewall most people just spam the "allow" button and enable incoming connections on all their programs.

Not what I'm thinking At all. I'm not pro-"one big datacenter" approach. I'm talking about relaying blocks through fast relays.

Cool! So Part B] is done. The Bitcoin core client doesn't prioritize peers through (at least as far as I can telling looking through it), so adding that relay network might help or it might not.

One "Disadvantage" to larger block sizes is that miners want to squeeze their blocks onto the network as soon as possible, and larger blocks cause them to orphan more. I was talking to Luke-Jr about IPv6 multicasting, and I was disappointed to find out that in the real world it looks like that won't be happening. But after some thought I realized we can virtualize it with just a fast superhost that turns Unicast into "Virtual" Multicast (by proxying unicast connections) i.e. what happens naturally during block propagation

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fdvx7/discussion_what_ipv6_means_for_bitcoin_and_the/ctods5w?context=5

Basically instead of doing this:

1. Miner New Block -> Peer 1 (1 MB, 1 second)
2. Miner New Block -> Peer 2 (1 MB, 1 second)
3. Miner New Block -> Peer 3 (1 MB, 1 second)
4. Miner New Block -> Peer 4 (1 MB, 1 second)
5. Miner New Block -> Peer 5 (1 MB, 1 second)
6. Miner New Block -> Peer 6 (1 MB, 1 second)
7. Miner New Block -> Peer 7 (1 MB, 1 second)
8. Miner New Block -> Peer 8 (1 MB, 1 second)

= 8 peers in 8 seconds, 1 peer / second after that (+ P2P exponential peering)

Let's do this:

1. New Block -> "Virtual Multicasting Superhost" (1 MB, 1 seconds)
2. "Virtual Multicasting Superhost" -> Peer 1 (1 MB, .1 second concurrently)
3. "Virtual Multicasting Superhost" -> Peer 2 (1 MB, .1 second concurrently)
4. "Virtual Multicasting Superhost" -> Peer 3 (1 MB, .1 second concurrently)
5. "Virtual Multicasting Superhost" -> Peer 4 (1 MB, .1 second concurrently)
6. "Virtual Multicasting Superhost" -> Peer 5 (1 MB, .1 second concurrently)
7. "Virtual Multicasting Superhost" -> Peer 6 (1 MB, .1 second concurrently)
8. "Virtual Multicasting Superhost" -> Peer 7 (1 MB, .1 second concurrently)
9. "Virtual Multicasting Superhost" -> Peer 8 (1 MB, .1 second concurrently)

= 8 peers in 1.1 seconds, 80 peers / second after that (+ P2P exponential peering)

For those with slow network, using a proxy like this can reduce orphan rates.

As for costs, I'm sure many of the big name bitcoin companies would gladly pick up the tab for a chance to be the first recipient of new blocks.

To be 100% clear here, this is what I'm proposing:

1. Allow miners to add custom peers and have them prioritized when broadcasting blocks
2. Build/Find and advertise super peers that are able to broadcast blocks quickly

I wanted to post this here in case anyone was interested or have some thoughts they'd be willing to share: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fdvx7/discussion_what_ipv6_means_for_bitcoin_and_the/

Here's my list for posterity:

[Con] Bigger headers
[Con] Possible Privacy issues
[Con] Possible Security issues
[Pro] DHCP not required (SLAAC may be used instead)
[Pro] Faster Headers
[Pro] Multicast Support
[Pro] NAT issues disapear, IPv6 Bitcoin nodes can accept incoming connections

I like the 'cost of living' idea. Though for a world currency we would have to settle on one cost of living or have some sort of multiplier system.

Imagine 365 units == basic cost of living in South Africa. 1 unit == estimated amount of money needed to live 1 day.

Then you know you are being ripped off because beer costs 5 units in the us.

To take this further and give it a cynical twist, an iPad could cost "50 poverty days" given that most of the world lives off of less than 10$ a day. Yes sir, I would like a raise bringing my annual salary to 6000 poverty days.

There's also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity.

It's time to accept Bitcoin price fluctuations aren't going anywhere. Even look at the value of gold over history, its value was constantly changing.

We tend to use the dollar or euro as the standard of value, but how stable is that really in terms of value?

What if we invented or chose another unit of value as the standard? Like the consumer price index, or the average cost of an hours worth of human labour.

Then we could denote prices in that instead and communicate prices to people across the globe without worrying about Bitcoin or dollar price fluctuations.

The point would be to not give children their entire life savings as Bitcoin. Just a small amount to learn how to use money. Also I'm not a parent but it seems to me that if my hypothetical child gambled away 5$ at Satoshi dice and came to me about it I would use this as a learning opportunity. Yet this is just my opinion, it's also possible this experience could cause a lot of problems with the youth later on. That's Australia's political stance anyway: nogame.sa.gov.au

And yeah, I read the other commentators and I agree that it would be better for kids to want Bitcoins then for parents to just give it to them. Although marketing things to kids always feels wrong to me, maybe as other people said their interest in it might come about naturally.

That's true that some kids might think it's pretty lame (like a debit card but worse). They would have to want it before it rather than it being forced on them.

Do you think that users of Bitcoin should have to understand the technology to use it?

The idea would be to create and promote marketing material based around this idea as an application for Bitcoin. Knowing about it before hand wouldn't be a requirement, and hopefully with some marketing the Bitcoin community could help change the perception.

Hear me out, it's just an idea... (continuation from this)

Inspiration: https://usbank.visabuxx.com/

Kids i.e. ~13-18 year olds. Old enough to want to spend money online, too young for their own credit card.

Some parents want to give their kids a way to spend a small amount of money online without giving them a credit card or debit card. Bitcoin is:

• completely anonymous (read: safe)
• has strict spending limits (can't spend more then you have)
• has no monthly fees
• is accepted at (some) online merchandisers (parents might like the idea that it's limited).

Kids can spend money securely through a program on their computer (maybe a dumbed down version of electrum).

Kids can buy the latest humble bundle for example without having to ask their parents.

It makes since that you have to convert money into kid money. It doesn't make since (for the average person) to buy bitcoins to shop at newegg. You could have just used your credit card and skipped a step and saved time.

I know this might propigate a bad image for Bitcoin (i.e. it's kid money) but I don't think that would kill it.

-> Remember kids grow up. <-