 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
So who is ready and willing to work on a new coin? Join Nektar, you'll wish you hadn't. Problems to address: 1. decrease in mining earnings. a. Instead of following an unstable exponential decay pattern in rewards we replace it with a natural Fibonacci pattern. I've been studying fractals recently, blah blah blah, the ideal ratio of new cells to large cells is Phi (Golden Ratio). The divine proportion is the ideal ratio for packing spirals about themselves. So instead of making the currency akin to gold, an exhaustible supply source, we put it into a natural growth and decay cycles. Meaning coin can be both created and destroyed in the mines. 2. Anonymity & Security b. We have two block chains A and B. When someone wants a secure and/or anonymous transaction they send between the two chains. At which point a two week hold is put on the funds. And the coin is destroyed for block A and started a new in block B. Why a hold on the funds? For security. Every Wallet will have an email associated with it, and a confirmation email will be sent to the holder of the senders wallet, allowing time for him/her to cancel the transaction if it wasn't initiated. 3. Your reward for helping c. The founding team will be set up phat in Nektar, but their will be a staged vesting period so that you may not trade out your Nektar until it has had a chance to increase in value. 4. Gold Standard, e. Since BTC is the defacto Gold Std for crypto currencies. We will have a wallet set up for Nektar, and all Nektar coins will be backed by BTC. This means we can start mining Nektar now by setting up a pool to mine BTC and all the rewards will be put in the Nektar Wallet, and all the miners will recieve Nektar. The Wallet.dat file will be stored on a Raid Array 5 stripe drive codenamed Fort Knox. Each member of the founding team will have a single drive. Meaning all five drives will need to be united to recover the BTC from Fort Knox. Muhuhaha! We need some other super good ideas to include in this Crypto Currency to end all Crypto Currencies, so please share what things you would like implemented. Thanks, Joe http:// |
|
|
|
The idea of a secure os rocks. But perhaps it should be created from scratch. Even though I worked on unix for many years, it never seemed to be an ideal operating system for most things. Sort of like Pascal. And I've never quite understood why everyone raves about the latest hardware advances in CPUs, cell phones and laptops, and then raves about coupling that gorgeous, ultra fast, ultra capable new hardware with a 45 year old dinosaur operating system. Thus I end up with quad core galaxy note 2 that can't handle real-time multi-track recording ... that a 30 year old atari would have pissed on.
Why can't a Galaxy Note 2 do multitrack recording? I've working in the audio layer of Android and I can say building a multitrack recorder on top of the Android API would be a joke, but buiding something in the Native layer shouldn't be that difficult. I know there is support in the NDK for openAL. how would we build it?
Programming language?
capability?
Connective capability?
Distributed?
A.I. based?
etc?
AI based would be awesome. There is so many cool machine learning algorithms which a kernel could use to optimize processes. And as far as programming languages, how does everyone feel about javascript? I love the language, but it needs to be compiled into ASM, forget JIT. Maybe when the computer goes to sleep it would analyze what it has done and calculate how to do it better  |
|
|
|
Bit OS as in Bitcoin OS or Vampire Bite. Basically just Linux Mint with Bitcoin-QT and CGMiner installed by default. Plus has a mining screensaver for those with multiple GPUs. Dark Penguin, they came from the south. https://sourceforge.net/projects/bit-os/http://We are becoming organized enough we will be governing ourselves soon. Through European history we learn that financial unity precedes political unity. Since Bitcoin is decentrallized it is essentially a one world currency. Does this mean we are heading towards a one world government, or better yet, no world government. |
|
|
|
What would make it a bitcoin OS? It comes packaged with bitcoin-qt?
And a bitcoin miner. Maybe the app/SW is setup to accept payment via bitcoin. A Bitcoin distro will fail for lack of support.
haha, it shouldn't be the case with bitcoins trading for $100, sheash, it should create more excited and funding for development. Do you mean you have the making of a distributed OS? Like... part of my operating system is being hosted from the cloud? is it fully distributed? different parts managed by dedicated computers that manage other computers in the same way? It would be interesting to see a torrented operating system being compressed, encrypted and streamed with only the decoding left to be done, that would be an interesting service to pay for, using Bitcoin.  ... Or hay, what if all that power from all the member computers was funneled into one efficient super computer for calculations available for everyone... that just so happens to be distributed. No, that's not what I was thinking at all. That is much better. That is so flawed I love it. Wasn't there some openCloud project like this? |
|
|
|
What if instead we just parced it, torrent style? if people wanted to, Gavin was talking about paying the nodes... well why not just pay the nodes that have the full copy and the rest get the blockchain torrent? A fee system could be setup to pay an incentive to those who protect the network.
That is an awesome idea. By parce it, torrent style, I assume you mean when you make a transaction you only pull the information you need for the transaction down from the block chain? Correct? I like this over SPV, for the reason natb gave, but SPV works great for say mobile wallets. Whether or not you agree with the OP's premise that the blockchain is too big now, it's clearly possible that it'll run into some natural limitation in the future. It would be good if someone could come up with a practical way to shard it and prove that it worked in practice with an alt-coin.
The bit about moving coins between shards may not actually be necessary at all. Assuming your client doesn't need the full blockchain for all the shards it has coins on - which it shouldn't, given SPV etc - it should be no problem having coins split among a lot of different shards. If you ask me to pay you, and I have coins on shard #123, I send you the coins on shard #123. The end user shouldn't normally even have to know about the shards, any more than they currently care about the fact that the money in their wallet is comprised of a bunch of different outputs. The only new thing from their point of view would be that sometimes a payment would come from multiple shards, so different parts of the payment would confirm at different speeds. ("40% unconfirmed, 22% 1 confirmation, 38% 3 confirmations")
The main reason to want to be able to move coins between shards would be to be absolutely 100% certain that people didn't start getting some mad idea about different shards having different values. The feature would hardly even have to be used - you'd just need to be able to reassure people that it was there if you needed it. I don't think you'd necessarily need a week - I guess you'd have a single small, expensive "transfer" shard which all the miners kept, alongside whichever normal shard they were mining. You'd need to be X certain number of blocks deep in your original shard before the coin was accepted into the transfer shard, then Y blocks deep in the transfer shard before it was accepted in the destination shard. X and Y wouldn't have to be huge numbers (6 might be OK), but even if it did take a week, it wouldn't particularly matter.
The big thing with transferring between shards is it offers both security and anonymity. If there were super nodes tracking cross shard transactions it would defeat the purpose of anonymity. I think leaving it at two shards would be the preferred approach, as it reduces complexity and is all needed. Plus removing a block from the chain would require some torrent like behaviour, as it would create holes right? 12 measly GB is too much to handle? 1999 called, they want their disk space back.  12 GB are not measly by any means. And with the current rate of it's growth... Bitcoin is meant to be "portable", and blockchain feels like a ballchain around your leg. In a world where multi-terabyte hard drives are available for a few $100.00, yes 12 gig is measily. Disk space is nominal server side, but bitcoin is the cryptocurrency of the everyday PC, and 12 gig today might as well be 12 tera tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
Basically the blockchain is getting way too long and out of control. We want to split the block chain into say block chain A and block chain B. How this would work is if you want to make a secure transaction it takes place between blocks, A->B or B->A, but it takes six days to clear. If you want to make an instant transaction it is has to be within the same block A->A or B->B.
Naturally when a block is transferred between blockchains, say A->B, it is removed from A and reborn in B without any memory, but there is a six day hold on the coin.
This would be great because it would shorten the blockchain and create some anonymity and offer a method for more secure transactions.
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be great if everyone started using bitcoins. And wouldn't it be nice if everyone stopped using Windows and Macs. Maybe we can combine these two movements and start a bitcoin OS for everyone. I put together Bit-OS on sourceforge, but I am more interested in what you think. Everything is set up out of box to make using and trading bitcoins more user friendly. Do you think the world needs a bitcoin OS? Do you see how these two ideas coincide and would make the world a better place? Thanks, http:// |
|
|
|
If you are looking to install an OS just for mining, you might want to check into [Bit-OS]( https://sourceforge.net/projects/bit-os), which is a poject based on Ubuntu/Linux Mint with a Bitcoin mining screensaver all setup for you out of the box. If you are just going to be using the machine for mining check out [BAMT]( https://github.com/aaronwolfe/Big-A-Miner-Thing/wiki/Faq), however I didn't see a difference in hashrates running either, so for ease of setup and useability I would use Bit-OS. BAMT can run from a bootable USB, which is really cool, especially if you want run Windows. You can dual boot essentially without wiping Windows. Ofcourse, if you are running Windows it might be time to switch to Linux, and Linux Mint Cinnamon kind of aimed to feel like Windows XP, whereas Linux Mint Mate is more like Mac OSX ... Anyway, come to the dark side, come to Linux. |
|
|
|
|
