...BTW...nodes take a lot of work these days by inserting and removing these 100,000 1.44MB floppys I have storing the blockchain...

First of all. I meant that China's government could be considered one collective miner. It was merely a point to show how much their government has subsidized mining with cheap electricity prices. I had no intention of saying that any individual was the same as any other. I am sorry if I was miss understood.

My point about more nodes was not about how many transactions were in a single block, but rather how many transactions the network could support before they started dropping.

I definitely did not say that Miners are not important or should not be incentivized..I am merely saying that full nodes are just as important, and should be incentivized as well.

I guess what it really comes down to are a couple of things...if we want more decentralization then some of the resources should go to the full nodes or becoming node centric. Right now BTC is decidedly miner centric. Almost all the benefit goes to miners. I am not talking about usage benefit, just economic incentive benefit. That is not a bad thing, but it does tend toward having the network centralized...which in reality if you block all of China as 1, which essentially they are, then BTC is really centralized in China...which will not allow Bitcoin to become anything other than what it is now..so I guess our points are really mute. It is probably time to move on to some other coin...

I gotcha. So I totally agree that is how it is, but creating this competition especially with the growing amount of transactions is going to make Bitcoin specifically hard for mass adoption as a money transport. (Which I believe is what was originally intended...only recently people have been saying it is an asset to hold on to as an argument for higher fees. Much like buying/selling a home has huge amount of fees in the neighborhood of $15,000 between both the buyer and seller...closing, realtor, inspections... )

So, my argument to you then, to be able to have a system with a first come first serve basis could be by having more nodes and giving them a slice of the transaction fees...allowing the network to accept more transactions..

So yes, transactions are received at different times by different nodes, but that is not how transactions are entered into the mined block. What happens is when a block is mined, the transaction que is setup where the miner's software can accept the transaction into the block accepting the fee offered. It makes sense that the top fee amounts get included into the block first. This creates a competition which pushes fees higher. If instead  we assigned an order to the transaction when it was accepted by a node
based on first in first out and guarantee that the transaction(with a minimum transaction fee) then (if valid)  the transaction will eventually be added to the block chain, then this would have the effect of elimination of competition for the next block which would reduce transaction fees to the minimum. (There would be no reason to increase your fee because you que in line is based upon when the node broadcasts your transaction.)  This might also have the limited added effect of incentivizing running your own full node. Because then the faster you can broadcast a transaction the faster it would get to be mined...Once part of the FIFO que the business then can determine how long before the transaction will be added. Also businesses could do segwit themselves on the transaction to determine validity to decide whether to risk  giving the product and waiting for the confirmation or just waiting a predictable amount of time for the confirmation to come in before dispensing.

So, I think there is a huge misconception of so called 'greedy' miners. The issue of higher fees isn't really the miners fault. It is the rules of the protocol that is.  For example:

 In the protocol (disregarding the security aspect for a moment) It doesn't matter if there is 1 miner mining or 1 billion miners mining. The maximum number of transactions allowed in a block is exactly the same and the amount of time for that block to be mined will also be the same. 

I think maybe a solution to high fees would be to make a rule that would require a First In First Out system with a guaranteed minimum fee. Now this wouldn't decrease transactions or transaction time, but would remove user incentives to offer higher fees because they would have to wait their turn to be confirmed, creating a more level playing ground. This would also give businesses some reassurance that they will get paid once the transaction has been broadcasted in a somewhat predictable matter of time.

Just a thought.

I am currently researching qhasm-cudasm  ..has anyone done stuff with these ideas? If so, email me. Thanks!

Cryptopia

cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange?market=GUN_BTC

Here is the current block chain updated at about 23:50 June 6, 2017

https://ufile.io/l52jk

MD5SUM: 0bd88e6398755e07600409b6c6729c95

guncoin_block_chain_6_6_2017.zip

It also has an updated configuration file with the current available nodes.

I will upload a zip of the most recent block chain and post a link.

These are all good ideas.

  I think cross contracts with ripple is a great idea. Especially for escrow and holding accounts for firearm purchases, and possible proof of FFL through internet transactions.

You are right it would take a lot of work,it involves risk, but the point I am trying to make is this:

    We need ideas to pitch to venture capitalists to invest in us and the coin. I am not talking about using the coin to pad the coffers of other established businesses I am also not trying to pitch an idea reinventing the wheel.

  What I believe is this step is to throw out ideas that we can pitch to VCs to build a company around the coin. Once we have a business plan, and funding we can hire the professionals that have been school trained to implement the plan.

So for my idea: We pitch the building of a company for the mitigation of risks associated with gun ownership around block chain technology and specifically Guncoin.

  We cannot do it ourselves because we don't have the experience in insurance law, nor are we lawyers, or insurance agents, but that doesn't mean we cannot hire those guys that do know the rules and laws. 

The business plan needs input from non-free help, but that is why there are investors that fund those things.

So before we go too far in the weeds. We need more ideas on how to use the block chain technology to advance the value of Guncoin itself.

Thinking more about this insurance idea:(very rough)

    A client would purchase gun coin for the policy,  proven via block chain (date and time)
         -this creates the value store

 The client then can use the coins purchased to buy goods and services

    -this creates fungibility and circulation.

Both increase value for the coin itself and the investors that back the insurance.

GuncoinInfo: I liked your response. You do seem to have the incentive, but I think you are relying too much on a community in a crowded field of highly competitive financial instruments.  I was thinking what we could do as a community to get this coin going again. I think I have a great idea. It has to do with linking guncoin as a value store for insurance. 

   For instance:  There are companies out there that sell insurance for those that are licensed to carry.  The coin could act as a surrogate as a chain of trust and backing for those that buy-in to a fund that would be backed by both public and private investors to help those individuals out that get into trouble legally. Specifically for those that get into legal trouble for exercising their 2nd amendment right.

I understand that you cannot go to places, and do things beyond what you have already done. This coin needs something bigger that encompasses more than just gun shows and shops. (Although they are important as well.

Gunshops and owners will be more apt to use guncoin if it is backed by investors and some intangible that creates value. I believe that creating value storage is the best route to go rather than relying on the community to back a coin without much differences than the thousands of others. (Ideals are good to have, but it only goes so far in this community)

You cannot compare Bitcoin to guncoin. Bitcoin was it was there first, and using the same technology (blockchain) is not new anymore, but using the coin as a value store for insurance and legal funding...now that is something that could set this coin apart and create real value.

The Dev's refrain over the years of this coin has been: If you are waiting on someone to make you rich you are going to be waiting a long time. He is right, but he obviously has no stake in the outcome of this coin. From economics: People respond to incentives. So I ask you, Dev, what is your incentive to keep this coin alive? Because it seems like you have none. This is understandable, especially if you don't have any Guncoin yourself. Maybe someone else needs to take it over if that is case.

I think BTC should be forked. It should be a whole new updated protocol that is future proof (see quantum proof) and resets the whole miner paradigm. ( back to decentralized mining and away from how it is going more and more centralized going towards those with the resources to take over and control the network.)

You are right. Everyone has their 9-5 and has to support themselves, and you are right the stickers and patches are great advertisement tools. The devs don't have to give up their day jobs, but maybe we should put together a project to fund a small PR group that could go around the country doing promotion.?

I will do what I can too. I sing the praises of GUN every time I meet a fellow enthusiast.

Has there been any work to get the NRA interested in Guncoin? I am sure there has, but I have heard little on any results. I think we have been focusing too little on the big guys, and although the grassroots is where it starts, we really need advertising. DRK soon to be DASH has been doing an excellent job at PR, although they have the funding which is instrumental in their success, I believe that GUN can do the same. I realize that GUN is mostly a US initiative, but to make this a success story we have to rev the engines in the PR department. Has there been movement where we have booths set up at gun shows? I think education at gun shows and possibly brokering deals at gunshows using GUN as a medium..I know most people carry cash, but  we maybe able to broker through some of the vendors with possible premiums given to vendors that use GUN coin as a sales medium..

These are just some thoughts...I still believe this coin is a great coin with a great idea.

On their update page they showed they were mining at www.wemineall.com  Did anyone by chance grab a Screen Shot of the Hashing Power on that site that day?  Today they are only doing about 90Mhash...

the last one was Tsiv's cryptonight miner.

Has anyone thought about using Deep Learning algorithms to determine mining algo optimizations?