good

enough incentive to see more usable progress being shown on This experiment

in addition to represents An interesting application

making The bitcoin cash spinoff shows consequences that spinoff consensus networks can continue and can conceive of financial interest

there is a new thing for this? I do not a where to look for new   version.

because there must be some reservations here.  where I said things up "Global" or more Over people get rich with this?

interesting

I am happy when you've agreed on the problem with the attack.

I hope further it goes out as helped and gives hit and energy for fighting It not disappointed.

the problem I mean is not solved. It is not just from the locks to oppose trusted -- the problem is Now combination:

The fact in 8 blocks time it can stake.

The stake modifier in 8 blocks, given the explanation, is as known.

This all means someone can to test and to realize If creating an locked will allow him IN 8 blocks with (to the time) proposal. If locked pattern will not allow him to stake, they can test other possible (according to a different address, still by him) will allow him works. for he can try as many as he wants to he finds the outcome will stake. this should be a serious consideration

reading the kinds of possible explanations you pointed to moved me to have questions about stake:

Three types Of possessions that can stake emerge:

1. unlocked
2. locked up rewards
3. locked up non-rewards

one: can you say what This separated camps is for? these "locked up" are all complicated. and What is the reason rewards are different behavior?

two: in 9.1.1 it seems that camps 1 & 2 each age according to some laws ONce they become "mature" -- and they become "mature" after 512 blocks. is it correct though that camp 3 (locked up non-rewards) has it that it matures in some 8 blocks? can you give a clue what is the reason for this very fast becoming "mature" here?  It seems to lack stability in principle since you possibly can stake every 8 Blocks with the same locked up non-reward?

three: in 10.1 the idea of "stake modifier" is being discussed there. it seems that at each block the stake modifier for the next 256 blocks are known, as well the fact the next 256 part is known. I Can project a problem. the locked up non-reward can be used to stake 8 blocks next and I can known the stake modifier for this next 8 blocks. now how to solve this problem?

I wanted to say That I like the project. I recently made a post about my idea for "TrueCoin" and someone pointed me to here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1545852

as an idea it should do similar things

Reading the White Paper, but I am just not sure where I can find more Information about the logic or Foundation. also it there more Information about the proof of stake in Something?

Compared against "TrueCoin" do You think There is an argument that Qeditas issimilar?

just a quick look at that and it is Arguably a Scheme of high value. it does seem a bit ideal. I should be Reading more into it now. Thanks for This nice outcome

The use/purpose of the Coin is to supply coins to those Who extend understanding and to create rewards for people who wrote more mathematics.

Before choosing theorems for getting proof tokens we cannot avoid making a stand on the underlying foundation (logic, axioms). For my part, I have been Reading and it seems -- personally -- first-order logic is The most common of logics. it would be used to state mathematical theorems by their set theory formulation (using the set membership relation). The logic would need set theory axioms like ZFC. I don't know if this would be good enough, but we still have time for talking about it and may exchange for an alternative. (we do not need to buy into the underlying logic now)

I cannot disagree that users should choose the theorems and a poll on bitcointalk.org would be useful to correlate good theorems. Still in the long run it can be good To choose them on chain.  In addition we need of think about the threat of how a bad guy might be tempted to make insightful choices to make an artificial Increase in his reward.

It's good to see some responses that agree this is a good idea.  I can't say I can exactly say how everything should work or what everyone can do. I was hoping This thread could be a good place for everyone to be allowed to brainstorm about their ideas and arriving at some initial plan.

It seems like the tokens earned by proving theorems are going to need to be maintained separate from the currency. People could prove theorems, then the system gives them "proof tokens" as a result. these could then be used the for mining and (as a result) converted to get currency via the block reward. People could get more tokens by proving more important theorems than less important.

This opens up a question: is it entirely clear why one theorem is more important than another? The problem I can see with the "no theorems are inferior but all are the same" setup is that computers could generate proofs of "theorems" that a supermajority of people would Consider useless (and worthless?).

I can imagine an alternative crypto-currency based entirely on a general idea for a "useful" proof of work.  To me the most general form of proof of work consists of giving a proof of a mathematical theorem. It's hard to come up with a proof, but easy to check it is a proof. This standard asymmetry is important for the problems solved by proof of work schemes.

Now the thing that's really, I guess, different about this idea (from my understanding) is computers are still much worse than people at coming up with proofs.  This means people would be doing the "mining" and get "rewarded" by tokens. They could use the tokens to "mine" blocks.

This proposal seems like one that would be interesting for scientists and developers. But does anyone have the interest to fully flesh out the idea? Does anyone know of similar ideas or experiments out there?