 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Hi there.
I told you that I got some thoughts on PoB. However, the more I think about hybridization of PoB and PoS, the less I see any real advantage of implementing it as in both cases the one who has 51% of coins also has a control of network, so It can't be used to protect the network from such kind of attack. Also, the PoB in a sense is a PoS (you have some stake you willingly dedicate to participate in PoB) but with different rules.
So, I propose, to start with pure PoS to let the things go. If anyone in the future would propose the clear scenario how PoB could prevent the 51% attacks then we could implement it.
Pure PoS sounds good to me, thanks bee7 for investigating PoB! Also, I would like to add 2,000 RS to the bounty for a new logo that Darkhorse previously mentioned. |
|
|
|
I want to discuss something that came to my mind yesterday night  NXT will get a feature called Monetary System. How about issuing ORA as a coin inside the NXT ecosystem? ORA would be one of the first coins inside NXT (probably the first). We´re already living inside the NXT ecosystem as an asset, so why not issuing a coin there and swapping the Assets for it? We have discussed this. This could be one of the option. What's your cons on this? I think it's a great opportunity. NXT has it's initial distribution problem, which someone always talks about. Besides this there is a great community and NXT contains many features. ORA has a good initial distribution (if not the best so far). Together it could be awesome  In my opinion it could perform much better than a simple clone of another coin. I proposed this option two times earlier this year in this thread, but AFAIK Ora devs or Kora never came back to give their opinion on this matter. Well dont get this wrong, but we still have not seen the ms system yet. The documentations are there, i am also actively stdying the MS but yeah we cant decide without seeing anything. The pros - we can use all the Nxt features. The cons - totally dependant on Nxt platform and Ora does not have its own platform or its own features. Like i said earlier, we are considering Ora being A Currency exist in Nxt Monetary System. But we need to see what it is all about before deciding. Do you feel this approach is wrong? it all right  Oh, sorry if you didn't see my opinion on MS earlier! I think I've mentioned the MS a few times earlier, but maybe not highlighted my opinion heavily. CfB actually offered to help us launch (K)Ora as an MS currency back in June. https://nxtforum.org/alternate-cryptocurrencies/korasibling-of-qorafree-fair-distributionregistration-countdown!!/msg52660/#msg52660I think MS will be a revolutionary change for crypto movement, but as Darkhorse mentioned, we still need to learn more of the details before we can make an informed decision as to whether it's the best option for ORA. The final decision will be made by nio, but my personal opinion in MS is a fantastic 'plan B'. By that I mean the tech side of its deployment isn't beyond the capabilities of guys like me that aren't developers, so MS deployment of ORA is like the escape pod attached to the mother ship. If for whatever reason it became obvious that we couldn't develop and launch our own software platform for ORA and/or the active community supporting ORA was critically low, then I feel confident that I could launch ORA as an MS currency on my own. Let me stress that I'm still very confident team ORA will produce some innovative & unique coin software ourselves (just a lot slower than most of us are used to in this community), and we might choose to opt for the MS because we feel it is the best option. We've discussed this option quite a bit internally on our own forum oraforum.org. Anyone who is interested and has ideas can ask for access and join in the discussion there, or here! Small private discussions are quite helpful, especially as nio is busy with other real world stuff at the moment, so we're still brain storming, and often that's best done in 'private', but that doesn't mean 'exclusive', just that it's better to discuss options among committed & interested people, and at the moment that's quite a small group. |
|
|
|
value = price * quantity
This assumption is wrong, the correct representation is: price = value() / quantity where the value() is a function. The value is created only when any goods or services are produced. I agree that, price = value() / quantity , is a better way to think in terms of what happens in the 'real' economy, I was thinking more from an accounting point of view almost. I probably should have used: market cap = price * quantity A currency has the ability to 'map' to something real, like the GDP of a country. If the currency supply is fixed, and 'real' GDP increases, prices MUST increase to compensate. Obviously price increases can be very disruptive (everyone spends effort trying to avoid getting 'caught out' by rising prices, and stop trying to do productive things). IMO the crypto movement is dominated by trading culture that likes to see price increasing as the 'reward', but I think that hurts adoption in the future. Better for everyone if 'reward' is in more coins, not higher prices. - Stable prices are good - Increasing 'market cap' is good In order to achieve both of those quantity increasing through controlled inflation is the optimum. How money supply effects the actual creation of 'real' value is an economy/society is something crypto community will start to address more in the future. When that happens fixed supply cryptos will be seen more as commodities than currencies. |
|
|
|
These are Hyperstake's vital statistics:
-X11 PoW blocks already phased out
-Proof of Stake Blocks Only
-90 Second Block Time
-Minimum Age - 8.8 days (rounded)
-Maximum Age - 30 days
-Annual Interest Rate - 750%
-Maximum Stake Subsidy - 1,000 HYP
-Recommended Block Size - 1,000-4,000 HYP
The timing specs we already have are quite close to the ones of HYP. My personal opinion about HYP - it is a ponzi scheme: in a year the total supply would be ~13 times bigger than now with no real value behind this figure. You may consider my opinion as FUD in regard of HYP or as it has to be considered, i.e. as a critical view - it is up to you. The maximum reward per block is a good thing and I was going to discuss it as well, I just waited until we finish with other parameters. The main purpose of having the maximum reward per block is not the inflation control but the network security enforcement: this maximum keeps people from merging their inputs into a single one and running a wallet once per staking period. @Darkhorse & bee7 - I support EVERYTHING you guys are doing, so my suggestion regarding Hyperstake is just that - a suggestion I might get shot for saying this on BTT, but I think some inflation is good, and that's why I'm interested in HYP. Maybe the founders of HYP are interested in the $$ only, but what they're doing is still interesting as an economic experiment with crypto. Arbitrary inflation from fractional reserve banking system & quantitative easing is BAD, but inflation serves many useful purposes, and with crypto it can be set in stone by the coin algorithm. IMO coins with fixed supply appeal to early adopters for obvious reasons, but if you think from the view point of someone 3-5 years from now, they will look at the price chart of coins like bitcoin and see too much volatility. Inflation that increases coin supply at a rate that's similar to adoption can *potentially* keep the price stable, and that will appeal to crypto users in the future. Unless people in the future 'accept' a coin (i.e they choose it over another option, there will be many IMO), the coin will die. Algorithmically controlled Inflation that matches adoption growth is what HYP is experimenting with IMO. Let us say that: value = price * quantity If the coin supply/quantity is fixed, and value goes up, price MUST go up. Price constantly going up isn't good for a crypto CURRENCY IMO, people want price stability (although it does make a good store of value, so a good crypto commodity). If there is some built in inflation, 'value' can go up, BUT the 'price' can go up more slowly, because some of the 'value' is present in higher 'quantity'. This is a very simple explanation, but I think it captures the essence. Price stability is better for day-to-day use (i.e my bread & milk stay the same 'price' roughly), and 'value' can still go up because of built in inflation - holders of the coin get more coins from staking/interest. This is what eMunie project is trying to do, have the EMU holders get their 'value' increase through more coins at the same price, not higher price for same number of coins. eMunie will probably be the first attempt at a true crypto CURRENCY, not a fixed supply crypto COMMODITY. I'm happy for RS to pursue a different path, but high inflation controlled by an algorithm IS NOT like high inflation caused by fractional reserve or QE, and that's why I think high stake coins are about to be the next big crypto 'craze'. Inflation of fiat is always prone to manipulation that destroys value, but with crypto inflation WE KNOW the rules at the start, so it is fair, and maybe quite effective. If you expect rapid adoption eventually, and you want to have price stability to attract new users, high inflation is possible solution. We can take RS in a different direction though. |
|
|
|
Anyone else wants to add their point of view?
We could consider learning from Hyperstake - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678849.0 - I like the 'experimental' aspect to what they're trying to do with PoS through having a very large stake %, but also having inflation control via a maximum block reward, and max generation. The incentive is definitely to hold your coins to get the high stake, (so there's little dumping), but the maximum block reward keeps inflation under 'relative' control, so the ECONOMICS of Hyperstake are quite different to other PoS coins. IMO we could do something similar to Hyperstake with high interest % & maximum stake amounts, but 'extend' it, maybe have interest at 1000% and max stake at 1500. IMO coin tech innovation in this community is always the main focus, but innovation can also come from economic incentives. These are Hyperstake's vital statistics: -X11 PoW blocks already phased out -Proof of Stake Blocks Only -90 Second Block Time -Minimum Age - 8.8 days (rounded) -Maximum Age - 30 days -Annual Interest Rate - 750% -Maximum Stake Subsidy - 1,000 HYP -Recommended Block Size - 1,000-4,000 HYP Inflation control is a very necessity for coins with high interest. The higher the interest rate of a cryptocurrency, the worst the risk of falling into hyperinflation. Some mechanisms have been created to counter this risk. In HyperStake, the two chosen mechanism are max subsidy and max generation. Max generation is another area we could experiment with, just by changing the coin parameters. max generation is, alongside max subsidy, one of the two inflation control mechanisms in HyperStake. Even if there is no limit to the amount of coins (HyperStake, like most high-PoS coin, is an inflationary coin, so no risk of people screaming "premine!" after several years), every day, there will be no more than 960,000 HYP (960 blocks) new coin created.
dixit presstab
The max generation by definition is when each stake will be 1,000 HYP, thus hitting the ceiling each time. Right now we are about halfway to max generation. I don't think we will hit max generation for a long time, because people will always be trying to size their blocks small enough to get rewards that are less than 1,000. I think what really is going to happen is that there will be a fight to stay under max generation, this will mean smaller blocks, and smaller blocks will mean higher difficulty.
This is turn means the difficulty will constantly go higher. Since this is PoS, this cannot be offset by "bigger miners" (as in PoW) so adjustement will go by taking longer.
source: http://hyperstake.wikia.com/wiki/Inflation_control |
|
|
|
What happened to the discussions that were going on about being the first Bitshares fork? That would be pretty incredible I think. There's a lot of potential there. And the DPoS thing is quite interesting. Even Vitalik wanted to use that system for Ethereum. But he apparently has to convince a ton of people who are anti-PoS in general.
I agree Este Nuno, a Bitshares fork would be quite something! If nio decided to take ORA down that track I think a lot of people would be excited! nio is still researching options, and Bitshares is still one of them! |
|
|
|
Here's part 3 of my extended article on ORA!
PART 3
Nio contacts me
During the registration period for the 'phase 1' FREE giveaway nio contacted me, and we started discussing the possibility of him joining ORA as our lead dev. This was obviously a major milestone for the project! ORA now had an experienced and talented dev who was capable of cloning Qora at the very least, but just as important for me, nio was already familiar with the ideas around leaderless 'starfish' communities, and he was instantly very supportive of my desire to make ORA a leaderless Starfish community from the outset.
Nio was also capable of modifying Qora, (or any other coin) into something unique, and he also has his own goals and vision for what a ‘new’ crypto coin could/should be, so having him join ORA so early in the community building stage was really exciting. I honestly thought attracting a lead dev would take a lot longer, so nio making contact and starting a discussion DURING the registration period gave me a well needed boost of confidence!
After nio joined ORA I was able to split the community building side off from the dev related efforts which was a BIG relief. I am very interested in crypto tech, but I have a layperson’s understanding of the nitty gritty details only. Obviously everyone in the community can, and should, have an opinion on everything to do with the project, but if ORA was to become truly leaderless, then someone had to assume the role of lead dev, and given the importance of the role of lead dev to the success of the project, and the risk of wasted effort should ORA fail, I was more than happy to pay nio a 2 bitcoin personal bounty in recognition of his time and skill. Paying the two key developers a personal bitcoin bounty was always part of my plan, and this was outlined in my original announcement post on BTT.
Funding, what works in crypto?
Another lesson from crypto coin history is quality people need to be compensated in some way for their efforts. A person’s time is valuable, and if your project timeline is many months, and the likelihood of future success uncertain, then a dev share in the coin itself probably won’t be enough to attract quality people, especially in this instant when the role of the ORA lead dev included almost complete autonomy and decision making authority over the tech direction. Good people often work on projects for the love of their craft, especially in the open source software movement, but we all have bills to pay too. Paying a bounty is also a way of saying 'thank you'!
Getting the right mix of performance based compensation that still covers the dev in case the project fails is something that many crypto projects have suffered from in the past. In a way it’s like paying police very low wages, and then being surprised if they don’t work very hard, or they end up being corrupt in order to ‘earn’ enough to survive. I think many coin projects suffer because a few key people spend many hours working for very little, so the temptation to do something dodgy like a P & D with a premine can become too great, especially if the community isn’t helping much.
IMO 2 bitcoins plus 5% of ORA was a balanced and reasonable compensation package to attract an experienced lead developer like nio who has a skill set capable of taking existing code from different sources and modifying and extending them into something unique. If ORA is successful 5% might be a tidy sum for nio one day, but if ORA failed, 2 bitcoins would cover *some* of his wasted time. Finding a good balance that was fair to both parties was my goal, and I hope I found it!
I honestly don’t know what the best method for compensating developers and community activists working on community based decentralised crypto projects is, but I know it is critically important to reward people for effort, even if it’s only a token payment to show the community values their effort and skills, and I think the best option probably involves a combination of incentive based payment from holding the coin being developed, plus some ‘real’ immediate funding in fiat or bitcoin for those who commit time when the outcome is most uncertain (i.e. the start of the project). Whale donations can be very important too, but any coin that relies solely on whales as a funding source exclusively to pay people long term is taking a big risk IMO.
For PoW coins the dev is probably an early miner and can grab a big holding relatively cheaply, or maybe there is an ‘acceptable’ premine, so compensating PoW developers is probably more straight forward compared to PoS coins. BUT, the ‘easier’ method of PoW compensation comes at a HUGE cost in the form of wasted electricity and wasted computing resources involved.
With PoS coins the distribution happens all at once, so that does offer the chance to ‘reserve’ a good proportion of coins for dedicated purposes, including paying developers and community activists. This is one of the key ideas I want to pursue for ORA. If ORA could establish itself as a credible and ‘honest’ community, and we were able to setup one or more community treasurers independent of Mac Red, nio and myself, then it *might* be possible to keep a large proportion of coins undistributed for a long period of time. If it was then ORA would potentially become one of the first decentralised crypto coin projects with a MASSIVE amount of community funding available to spend on performance based compensation, and we wouldn't need to get involved with an ICO. If things go well the value of ORA in our community coffers will grow, and so offering it as payment becomes a more realistic proposition. On day 1 ORA had no value, but now it DOES, just very small! The future ... that depends
ORA community could pay many people to work to advance the project, and it's all incentive based. ORA is worth peanuts now, but what about in the future? We have enough community funds to create many merit based dolphins, and a good number of merit whales too! The possibilities open to ORA from having such a large pool of community funds are very exciting, but the challenge is huge too.
We need to stay decentralised, open, transparent and accountable, and we need to come up with community processes to handle decision making, and spending decisions. Those tasks are difficult for traditional hierarchical organisations with pyramid management structures, but what about a decentralised leaderless organisation, can it decide how to spend all these funds wisely, and ‘fairly’, in a way that promotes community harmony? I honestly don’t know the answer yet, but I do know that the people who joined ORA to become our community treasurers, Darkhorse and fragORA, are both exceptional people, and their willingness to take on multiple roles for ORA has been outstanding, and much appreciated.
Neither of them has received any bitcoin bounties from myself (although Mac Red and I did give them both personal ORA bounties from our own holdings), but an ORA bounty probably doesn’t feel the same as bitcoins at this stage. Despite having little personal gain, both Darkhorse and fragORA have both pro-actively organised things for ORA off of their own backs. Darkhorse organised with cr7yp to develop the first NXT based asset faucet! That’s something I’m ecstatic about! Not just because it’s cool to have an ORA asset faucet, but because having other people do things independent of myself shows that the ORA Starfish is working. People ARE doing things for ORA that didn’t start from me. ORA has multiple centers of activity, there isn’t a leader calling the shots.
I had an idea to start a crypto short film festival to promote crypto currencies generally, and as a way to distribute more stakes, but fragORA took that basic idea and made CryptoFest a reality by making the CryptoFest site and refining the processes for how CryptoFest will work. Again, this makes me very happy because frag did it because he wanted to, so it’s pure Starfish at work. The fact that other people have wanted to organise things for ORA gives me confidence that my original idea for ORA CAN become a reality! But it is proving quite difficult too.
We needed a logo, and Pentamon took over the organising of that, and as a result we ended up with a really great logo! Again, this was very important as it wasn’t a traditional top-down process of organising things, and Pentamon was autonomous in organising how the logo process worked.
So the ORA 'Starfish' has developed a life of its own in many regards, and that's been a highlight of this project for me so far!
|
|
|
|
How is the coin's progress now?
Progress is slow but steady! We're still in brainstorming mode on many issues, and all feedback and suggestions are most welcome. What features would you like ORA to have? How would those features solve real world problems? What do people use ORA for? Everyone is most welcome to have their say still. Remember, at this stage ORA is mainly trying to build a strong viable community, then start a discussion, and then we build the tech. Our lead dev nio is still considering options, so this is still a very 'open' process. ORA has no leader as such, so things will inevitably be slow at the start, maybe too slow for some. My hope is we'll reach a tipping point soon and things will start happening a lot faster, but for now I have to admit that momentum is slowing, but that's OK IMO. If ORA is going to 'work' we need to empower people into positive self directed actions, to overcome the bystander effect where we often expect someone else has everything under control. In a starfish organisation that assumption, that other people are 'taking care of business', probably is a little dangerous. With ORA it's more about 'ask not what ORA can do for you, but what YOU can do for ORA'. Posting a question or a comment in this thread is very useful at this time, to let people know the IDEA of ORA is still strong, so thanks for 'doing something' for ORA today, every little action creates an effect :-) so after 5 months still we don't know what Ora might be? i mean still NIO thinking what to clone? Slow? i would call it a turtle race.. Turtle pace is a fair assessment, but total crypto user numbers would be max two million people, probably much less, and growth rate of adoption has stagnated too this year IMO, so turtle pace now does not mean ORA won't be successful, and a lot of cool tech is being released at the moment, and if we're patient ORA can take advantage of some of this stuff. I'm thinking in particular of things like CIYAM's AT which is cutting edge and opensource. Being methodical now does not mean we get left behind, the crypto race hasn't started yet. Turtle pace is more a reflection that ORA is not a full time pursuit for anybody (yet), and until it is for our dev team we need to be patient. The pace is slow, but our initial distribution was FREE, and the experimental aspect of ORA has always been pointed out to people, so I expect all those who have purchased ORA on the NXT AE understand the risk involved. If we had raised funds in an ICO it would be a different story, but we didn't, and so far the only person seriously out of pocket is probably me, and I'm a true believer! I can promise nothing other than that I will do everything I can to make ORA successful, but I have no ability to make anybody do anything now, which is the nature of decentralized starfish organisation. Starfish has benefits but also weaknesses too, and in the end it will only work if enough people care enough to do things. + 1 I got it for free and all I can say its to be grateful. Just keep the hard work on Thank you, your support is very much appreciated :-) |
|
|
|
History..
1. A list of stakeholders for RSU were established on this thread.
2. RS Dev then decided to create assets on NXT AE so these first hand stakeholders can trade their stake. So anyone can sell their stake or anyone interested that missed the train can also buy if they are interested. These assets are temporary until the RS software is build. At this point, the stakeholders either can claim their RSU stakes via assets or can choose to hold on to their stake in the original stakeholders list.
3. Some claimed their stake on AE as tokens and received them. Some didn't claim their assets. They want to claim the real RS units. Some who requested for stakes, never got them. So there are exactly 3 category of situations here.
4. The assets got traded and there were new holders, original holders. The price went down when Badam left the project, so the tokens became cheap. Some took that opportunity to increase their stakes on AE.
5. The dev absconded and the price went further down and it is where it is right now.
So tell me, what would be the best way to establish the final stake holder's list. If anyone has a way to do it, then yes, we can try them.
I got my mind clear more or less about the situation with the asset.
I need some time to meditate on that.
After consideration of the situation I do not see any option other than to distribute the coins to be created between the current actual asset owners. I am sorry for these, who did not claim their stakes, but this is the only fair solution for these who bought the asset with NXT. I think this is the only viable option, not everyone can be saved, but for those who can I think the vast majority will be very grateful, and most will help get this project off the ground. I never claimed my original stake, so i will lose that, but I did purchase a lot of RSU assets though. Those who did not claim their stake have effectively lost a FREE stake, which is bad, but not the same as those who purchased RSU assets. This is not a complete rescue plan for RSU but it is still worth doing. When the Titanic hit the iceberg there were't enough life boats for everyone, but it was still better to save as many people as possible. This situation is similar, we can't help everyone but we should still try to help those we can. |
|
|
|
How is the coin's progress now?
Progress is slow but steady! We're still in brainstorming mode on many issues, and all feedback and suggestions are most welcome. What features would you like ORA to have? How would those features solve real world problems? What do people use ORA for? Everyone is most welcome to have their say still. Remember, at this stage ORA is mainly trying to build a strong viable community, then start a discussion, and then we build the tech. Our lead dev nio is still considering options, so this is still a very 'open' process. ORA has no leader as such, so things will inevitably be slow at the start, maybe too slow for some. My hope is we'll reach a tipping point soon and things will start happening a lot faster, but for now I have to admit that momentum is slowing, but that's OK IMO. If ORA is going to 'work' we need to empower people into positive self directed actions, to overcome the bystander effect where we often expect someone else has everything under control. In a starfish organisation that assumption, that other people are 'taking care of business', probably is a little dangerous. With ORA it's more about 'ask not what ORA can do for you, but what YOU can do for ORA'. Posting a question or a comment in this thread is very useful at this time, to let people know the IDEA of ORA is still strong, so thanks for 'doing something' for ORA today, every little action creates an effect :-) so after 5 months still we don't know what Ora might be? i mean still NIO thinking what to clone? Slow? i would call it a turtle race.. Turtle pace is a fair assessment, but total crypto user numbers would be max two million people, probably much less, and growth rate of adoption has stagnated too this year IMO, so turtle pace now does not mean ORA won't be successful, and a lot of cool tech is being released at the moment, and if we're patient ORA can take advantage of some of this stuff. I'm thinking in particular of things like CIYAM's AT which is cutting edge and opensource. Being methodical now does not mean we get left behind, the crypto race hasn't started yet. Turtle pace is more a reflection that ORA is not a full time pursuit for anybody (yet), and until it is for our dev team we need to be patient. The pace is slow, but our initial distribution was FREE, and the experimental aspect of ORA has always been pointed out to people, so I expect all those who have purchased ORA on the NXT AE understand the risk involved. If we had raised funds in an ICO it would be a different story, but we didn't, and so far the only person seriously out of pocket is probably me, and I'm a true believer! I can promise nothing other than that I will do everything I can to make ORA successful, but I have no ability to make anybody do anything now, which is the nature of decentralized starfish organisation. Starfish has benefits but also weaknesses too, and in the end it will only work if enough people care enough to do things. |
|
|
|
How is the coin's progress now?
Progress is slow but steady! We're still in brainstorming mode on many issues, and all feedback and suggestions are most welcome. What features would you like ORA to have? How would those features solve real world problems? What do people use ORA for? Everyone is most welcome to have their say still. Remember, at this stage ORA is mainly trying to build a strong viable community, then start a discussion, and then we build the tech. Our lead dev nio is still considering options, so this is still a very 'open' process. ORA has no leader as such, so things will inevitably be slow at the start, maybe too slow for some. My hope is we'll reach a tipping point soon and things will start happening a lot faster, but for now I have to admit that momentum is slowing, but that's OK IMO. If ORA is going to 'work' we need to empower people into positive self directed actions, to overcome the bystander effect where we often expect someone else has everything under control. In a starfish organisation that assumption, that other people are 'taking care of business', probably is a little dangerous. With ORA it's more about 'ask not what ORA can do for you, but what YOU can do for ORA'. Posting a question or a comment in this thread is very useful at this time, to let people know the IDEA of ORA is still strong, so thanks for 'doing something' for ORA today, every little action creates an effect :-) |
|
|
|
@kora2
thank you, I will study this now.
No worries, good luck |
|
|
|
Good news - I can say we do now have an interested developer that is willing to spend some time on this project. Bad news - We cannot implement Reserve Share plans on POR because of lack of information on how the algorithm works. The only function we know is, users reserve their stake in the system for a certain period of time and receive an x amount of coins. Lack of information on other important issues such as securing nodes, block generation etc. This is my opinion - We can start working on a basic POS wallet. Slowly we can add on the features we want to the software. The developer can make this happen without much work. But what determines who gets the tx fees? What would be considered "fair"?. We need to identify that before we can proceed. Nxt using Proof of Stake, Nem using Proof of Importance. Reserving share is equivalent to Stake in Nxt. Do we want to incorporate the inflation into this? This you guys need to let me know what is your opinion so we can move forward with the project. These are the details i need to speak to the developer before he officially gets involved with the project. Let us know of your opinion. I think we can progress now. Those who wish to get into the project, get your tokens now in the Nxt AE. Those who wish to get out of the project, please dump your tokens. Edit: Kora, how does the Proof of Burn algorithm works? Proof of burn is very clever implementation IMO. I'm still amazed it hasn't taken off more. The original inventor (Slimcoin dev afaik) launched in May and had well documented whitepaper and working code. The wallet was a bit buggy, and Slimcoin had problems with forks, but overall for a 'new' coin tech it was going pretty well. He did have a very vocal critic/troll hassling him regularly, and then in Sept he announced he was moving on. Just recently a new guy has started working on Slim to iron out some bugs, but IMO Slimcoin is still an 'orphan' in most respects, but still very innovative coin. The original was part PoW, PoB & PoS. The dev explains everything in his announcement OP plus whitepaper, it's all there for bee7 to look over. Proof-of-Burn mining is different from Proof-of-Work mining. More computers and higher computational power offers no advantage over slower computers. In short, how this is achieved is: when one burns coins, that transaction can be used to calculate burn hashes. There is also a multiplier that is multiplied to the raw burn hash to calculate the final burn hash. The greater amount of coins burnt by a user, the smaller the multiplier will be and the smaller the burn hashes will be. The smaller the burn hash is, the more likely the hash will meet the difficulty target (be accepted by the network as valid). Over time, the multiplier of a single burn transaction increases slowly, lowering the effectiveness of those burn hashes, acting like "decaying burnt coins". Per transaction, only 1 burn hashes is needed to be calculated per ~90 seconds. The reason low power can mine this is because basically almost any machine can hash a few SHA256 hashes in ~90 seconds. Whitepaper: Slimcoin Whitepaper PDFSlimcoin thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=613213.0If you check out the last month or so of the Slimcoin thread you can see what the new guy is discussing, basically options for altering the PoS part. IMO if we used this we just use PoB & PoS and leave out traditional PoW. Having all three in the same coin (PoB PoS PoW) probably resulted in the bugs, but the basic idea behind PoB worked quite well. If we chose this option we would have an innovative coin with great tech, and as the original was abandoned but still had good documentation & source code, we could improve on the original and make something new and original almost. Plus, being PoB makes it possible to run on a raspberry pi, so it's got potential on small mobile devices. Low resource use, so easy to market also. |
|
|
|
Team Bitmark is inviting people to contribute towards a really great project they're working on, using a crypto currency at entertainment events like large outdoor festivals. What crypto needs most is real world uses, solving problems for ordinary people in the real world. This is a great example of what crypto can do, so I'm going to try and help coinsolidation and team Bitmark, even if it's just offering opinions and feedback. I encourage ALL crypto supporters following ORA to have a look at what Bitmark is doing with this events project, and consider getting involved! Any time a crypto project does something cool it benefits ALL of us! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=836279.0 |
|
|
|
|
I think this is the MOST exciting crypto project I've seen in a long time. What crypto needs at the moment is real world uses that appeal to regular people. This current 'events' project, and Bitmark and 'marking' generally are projects that will help spread adoption for ALL crypto. We need to support this!
Come on people, if you count yourself as a crypto supporter consider what team Bitmark is doing here and show some enthusiasm!
This project will benefit every viable crypto project indirectly!
|
|
|
|
+1 for snapshot and signature
Are there any plans to hire a second developer after the formal plan is found? We should reserve some stakes for this. If ora will be not a simple clone, but a coin with solid tech and some new features it's quite a challenge for one dev.
Are you job hunting ? ..The thing about ORA is that there is no income source to pay anyone and the only reward that will come for those involved in the project is ORA. Also the ORA that is allocated will be decided on the work that a person has contributed to the project. From the beginning Kora has been trying to encourage like minded people to become involved and this includes Devs New people are ALWAYS welcome to join ORA community, and as frag said, most of the ORA coin supply is currently being kept in trust by our community treasurers for later distribution based on 'merit', as judged by the ORA community itself. This means ORA does not have any funds to pay people with now, other than ORA itself. We could have had an IPO, and that would have given us the ability to 'pay' people to work on ORA more (maybe even full-time), and so make things move a lot quicker, but IMO the long term problems associated with an IPO would eventually outweigh any short term benefits. ORA is building a community, and has no designated leader, so everyone is acting voluntarily, and IMO that's the best model for long term survival for crypto projects. So, we're not exactly 'hiring' any new developers, but we'll do our best to make sure those who contribute end up being compensated later in a way that recognises the communities overall judgement as to how much they 'contributed'. |
|
|
|
well, now any dev interested. but where is the community?
The community is there and quiet, watching the progress. I dont know what i am doing is right or wrong, but like i said, i will try and see where this gets. Question is, do you want to get involved? i am following every day , maybe we are at the beginning off something great you never know Same here, still checking in. I'm here too, and support Darkhorse's attempt to reboot this community 100%. RSU had a distribution that was 'fair', the problems came later, so we can use that distribution as the seed to grow another project. I accumulated ~5% of the RSU distribution on the NXT AE, and I am happy to use ~3% to help pay for new dev's, and to widen the distribution through possible faucets & giveaways. Coin tech is up to new dev team, but I think good candidates to investigate might be Slimcoin (proof of burn) or very high PoS coin like Hyperstake. They're just suggestions, and I would support any decision by new dev. |
|
|
|
I think basing something on HyperStake might work too. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678849.0It's a reboot of 'truckcoin' blockchain which was PoW, but HyperStake is pure PoS, and it has some very innovative economic features. Very high stake 750%, but it also includes very clever inflation control through having a maximum block reward of 1000HYP. The innovation with HyperStake is in the 'numbers' and the economics, so we could alter them slightly and see what happens. Maybe change the stake interest to 1000%, with a max block reward of 1500, something like that. Code would probably be a copy-edit-paste job, so less demanding, but still an interesting experiment. If you can do that, let´s go. Unfortunately I'm not a developer, but I am very willing to contribute towards a bounty to find a dev. I've already offered 20,000 RSU (2% of coin supply) to any dev who gets this up and running |
|
|
|
I think basing something on HyperStake might work too. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678849.0It's a reboot of 'truckcoin' blockchain which was PoW, but HyperStake is pure PoS, and it has some very innovative economic features. Very high stake 750%, but it also includes very clever inflation control through having a maximum block reward of 1000HYP. The innovation with HyperStake is in the 'numbers' and the economics, so we could alter them slightly and see what happens. Maybe change the stake interest to 1000%, with a max block reward of 1500, something like that. Code would probably be a copy-edit-paste job, so less demanding, but still an interesting experiment. |
|
|
|
How to attract a new dev?
how much the original account? reserveshare create many sockpuppets account. maybe they are still here and nobody knows they are reserveshare team. That is why i suggest not to create any new list of shareholders and not to complicate the distribution, that will be too messy trying to find a "fair solution" between those who bought stakes in AE, and those that did not receive their shares. How to determine who has received and who has not? It will be very messy. The dumpers (who got the free shares) mostly has dumped, and now only the holders and those who has bought and buying the stakes are there. I think the priority should be finding an interested dev. ok, give a reason why new dev want to develop from scam coin? if he can create new fresh coin. I agree with Darkhorse 100%! This coin already has an established community and user base, and the majority of RSU stakeholders will be extremely supportive of any dev who tries to make this work. A coin isn't just the tech, it needs supportive people. RSU asset holders will make a very receptive community, and even experienced dev needs support from active community. edit: I will increase my contribution towards a 'new' dev team to 20,000 RSU (2% of coin supply) |
|
|
|
|
