Done.  :-)

Here's a list of 820 cryptocurrencies.  Most are dead, some were scams, and some of them are even still alive.  Of the dead ones, some died for lack of interest, some due to dev abandonment, some because of cease and desist orders about trademarks, and some because the operators never intended to keep them going after the pump-n-dump.  

I think maybe the initial post in this topic ought to be updated.

In several cases, several different cryptocurrencies have traded under the same symbol at different times.  In several other cases, several different cryptocurrencies having exactly the same name have been released by different people.  

2chcoin (2ch), 365coin (365), 42 coin (42), 66coin (66), 8coin (?), 99cents (?), Acros (ACRO), Aerocoin (?) IPO SCAM,
Aiden (ADN), Aimcoin (AIM), Aircoin (AIR), Alcohoin (ALC), Alicoin (ALI), Aliencoin (ALN), AllAgescoin (?), Allahcoin
(?), Alphacoin (ALF), AlphaOmegacoin (AOC), Altrocoin (?), Americancoin (AMC), Americoin (?), Aminacoin (?), aminacoin
(?), AmKoin (AMK), Androidtoken (ADT), Animecoin (ANI), Anoncoin (ANC), Apecoin (APE), Aphroditecoin (APH), Appcoin
(APP), AppleByte (ABY), Applecoin (APC), Argentum (ARG), Arkhash (ARK), Armoredcoin (), Asiacoin (AC), Asiccoin (ASC),
Astrocoin (ASR), Auroracoin (AUR), Australiacoin (AUS), Babycoin (BBC), Bacoin(?) BaconBitscoin (YUM), Badcoin (BAD), Badgercoin
(BDG), Bankcoin (BANK), Banknote (BN), Basecoin (?), Batcoin (BAT), Battlecoin (BCX), BBQcoin (BQC), Beaocoin (BEC),
Beatlecoin (BEA), Beecoin (BEE), Beercoin (BEER), Belicoin (BELI), Bellacoin (BELA), Bellscoin (BEL), Benjamins (BEN),
Bestcoin (BSC), Betacoin (BET), Billaume (BLL), Billioncoin (BIL), Binarycoin (BIC), Birdcoin (BRD), BitBar (BTB),
Bitcoin2.0 (?), Bitcoin2 (BTC2), Bitcoin3.0 (?), Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Plus (XBC), BitcoinScrypt (BTCS), Bitcoin (XBC),
Bitcredits (?), Bitecoin (?), Bitgem (BTG), Bitgold (?), Bitinium (BTN), Bitland (?), Bitleu (BTL), Bitpeso (BTP),
Bitpug (?), BitQuark (BTQ), BitRaam (BRM), BitShares-PTS (PTS), Bitstar (BITS), Blackcoin (BC), BlackDragoncoin (BDC),
Bladecoin (BLA), BlakeBitcoin (BBTC), Blakecoin (BLC), Blitzcoin (BLTZ), Blobbycoin (?), Bluecoin (BLU), Bones (BONES),
Bonuscoin (BNS), Boomcoin (BMC), Boostcoin (BOST), Boringcoin (?), Bosscoin (BOS), Bottlecaps (CAP), Bountycoin (BOC),
Boxxycoin (BOXX), Boycoin (BOY), Brokebackmountaincoin (?), BTCtalkcoin (BCC), Bumbacoin (CLOT), Bunnycoin (BUN),
Burbucoin (BUR), Burnercoin (BURN), Butterflycoin (BFC), Bytecoin (BTE), Cachecoin (CACH), Cagecoin (CAGE), CaiShen
(CAIX), CAIx (CAIX*), Canada ecoin (CDN), Cancercurecoin (CCC), Cannacoin (CCN), Carboncoin (CARB), CarpeDiemcoin
(DIEM), Cashcoin (CASH), Casinocoin (CSC), Cataloniacoin (CATC), Catcoin (CAT), Catedoge (?), CGAnomaly (CGA), CGBullion
(CGB), Chaincoin (?), Championcoin (?), Chancecoin (CHA*), Charitycoin (CHA), Chicoin (CHI), CHNcoin (CNC), Chococoin
(CCC), Choomcoin (?), Chuckcoin (?), Cinni (CINNI), Citizencoin (CTZ), Cleanwatercoin (WATER), Cloakcoin (CLOAK),
Clockcoin (?), Clockwisecoin (?), Cloudcoin (CDC), Cnote (CNOTE), Coffeecoin (CFC), coin2.0 (NC2), coin2.1 (C2), coin2
(C2), Coin (COIN), Coincoin (CC), Coino (CON), Coinyecoin (), Colbertcoin (CC), Collegecoin (?), Colossuscoin (COL),
Cometcoin (?), Communitycoin (COMM), Communitycoin (CTC), Compasscoin (CPC), Conspiracycoin (CYC), Continuumcoin (CTM),
Coolcoin (COOL), Cooperationcoin (COOP), CopperBars (CPR), Copperlark (CLR), Copycoin (COPY), Corgicoin (CORG),
Cornerstonecoin (CCX), Cosmoscoin (CMC), Counterparty (XCP), Craftcoin (CRC), Crapcoin (CRAP), Crapplecoin (?), Credits
(CR), Credits (CRD), Creds (XXC), Cross Generation coin (XGC), CRTcoin (CRT), Cryptcoin (CRY), CryptoApples (CRA),
Cryptobits (CYB), CryptoBuck (BUK), Cryptoeagle (CREA), CryptoEscudo (CESC), Cryptogenic Bullion (CGB), Cryptographic
Anomaly (CGA), CryptoLoot (LOOT), CryptoMETH (METH), Cryptonium (CRN), CryptoStuds (?), Cthulhucoin (OFF), Cubits (QBT),
Cuntcoin (MUFF), Curecoin (CURE), Cyclecoin (CCC), Cypherfunk (FUNK), Damacoin (DMC), Darkcoin (DRK), Datacoin (DTC),
DCom (DCM), Deletecoin (DEL), Denarius (DRS), Detacoin (?), Deutsche eMark (DEM), Devcoin (DVC), Diamond (DMD), DigiByte
(DGB), Digitalcoin (DGC), Digital Commerce (DCM), Digit (DIG), Dimecoin (DIME), Dirac (XDQ), Dishercoin (?), DistroBlitz
(DB), Distrocoin (DIS), DNotes (NOTE), Dobbscoin (BOB), Dodocoin (DDC), Dogecoin (DOGE), Doggcoin (), Dollarpounds
(DPZ), Domecoin (DOME), Donationcoin (DON), Dopecoin (DOPE), Doubloons (DBL), Dougcoin (DOUG), Dragoncoin (DNC),
Dreamcoin (DRM), Dubstepcoin (WUBS), DuckDuckcoin (DUCK), Duckiecoin (?), Dvorakoin (DVK), Eaglecoin (EGC), Earthcoin
(EAC), EBTcoin (EBT), ECcoin (ECC), Ecocoin (ECO), E-currency (ISO), EdisonX3 (?), Educoin (EDU), E-Gold (?),
Einsteinium (EMC2), Ekrona (KRN), Elacoin (ELC), Electriccoin (VOLT), Electron (ELT), Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT),
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT), Electronic Gulden (EFL), Elephantcoin (ELP), eMark (DEM), Embargocoin (EBG), Emerald
(EMD), Emoticoin (EMO), Emucoin (EMU), Energycoin (ENRG), Entropycoin (ENC), Eoncoin (EON), Equestrianbit (EQB),
Ermahgerdcern (EMG), Eternalcoin (?), eToken (ETOK), Eurocoin (?), Execoin (EXE), Exilecoin (EXN), Extremecoin (EXC),
EZcoin (EZC), FAILcoin (FAIL), Faircoin (FAC), FairQuark (FRQ), Fantomcoin (FCN), Fastcoin (FST), FastoinSHA (FSS), Fck
Banks coin (FCK), Feathercoin (FTC), Fedoracoin (TIPS), Fellatiocoin (BLO), Ferengicoin (FER), Ferretcoin (?), Firecoin
(?), Fireflycoin (FFC), Fitcoin (FIT), Flappycoin (FLAP), Floridacoin (FLC), Floridacoin (FLC, (which it shares with
Fluttercoin) ), Florincoin (FLO), Floripacoin (FLN), Fluttercoin (FLT), Forexcoin (FRX), Fourchan (?), FourtyTwocoin
(42), Foxcoin (FOX), Fractalcoin (FRAC), Fragcoin (FRAG), Franko (FRK), Fraudcoin (?), Freedomcoin (FDC), Freicoin
(FRC), Frictionlesscoin (FLC), Friendshipcoin (FSC), Frozen (FZ), Frycoin (FRY), Fuelcoin (FUEL), Furrycoin (FUR),
Gaelcoin (GAC), Galaxycoin (GLX), Galleon (GLN), Galtcoin (GLT), Gamecoin (GME), Gamerscoin (GMC), Gasolinecoin (DZL),
Gatescoin (GTC), Gaycoin (GAY), Genecoin (?), Genesiscoin (GNS), Geocoins (GEO), Germanycoin (GER), Ghostcoin (GHC),
Giarcoin (GIAR), Giftcoin (GFT), Gil (GIL), Girlcoin (GIRL), Givecoin (GIVE), GlobalBoost (BST), Globalcoin (GLC),
Global Denomination (GDN), Globecoin (GLOBE), Globe (GLB), Glyphcoin (GLYPH), Goatcoin (GOAT), Gold Bars (?), Goldcoin
(GLD), Gold Pressed Latinum (GPL), Gollumcoin (GLM), Goodcoin (GOOD), Goxcoin (GOX), GPUcoin (GPUC), Grain (GRA),
Grandcoin (GDC), Granitecoin (GRN), Graphene (GRP), Gravycoin (?), Greececoin (GRCE), Greekcoin (GRK), Greencoin (GRE),
Gridcoin (GRC), Groestlcoin (GRS), Growthcoin (GRW), Grumpycoin (GRUMP), Guldencoin (NLG), Guncoin (GUN), H2Ocoin (H20),
HackerNewscoin (?), Happycoin (HPC), Harmonycoin (HMY), Hashcoin (HASH), Hawaiicoin (HIC), Heavycoin (HVC), Heisenberg
(HEX), Helixcoin (HXC), Hellcoin (HLC), Herncoin (?), HighFivecoin (H5C), Hirocoin (HIRO), Hobbitcoin (HBC), HoboNickels
(HBN), HongKetocoin (HKC), HongKongcoin (HKC), Honorcoin (XHC), Horsecoin (HORS), Hotcoin (HOT), HTMLcoin (HTML),
Huatecoin (HUC), Huitong (HTC), Huntercoin (HUC), Huskycoin (HC), Hypercoin (HYC), Hypercoin (HYPER), I0coin (I0C),
icoin (ICN), Imperial coin (IPC), Incacoin (NKA), Incakoin (NKA), Infinitecoin (IFC), Informationcoin (ITC), Inkcoin
(INK), Insanitycoin (WOLF), Instapay (IPC) An IPO scam., Inven (?), Ishacoin (?), Isracoin (ISR), Italycoin (ITC),
IXcoin (IXC), Jackpotcoin (JPC), Jasoncoin (?), Jennycoin (JNY), Jerkcoin (?), Jerkycoin (JKY), Jesuscoin (JJC),
Jesuscoin (GOD), Jezuscoin (?), Joecoin (?), Joulecoin (XJO), Junkcoin (JKC), Junnoncoin (JNC), Kakacoin (KKC),
Karmacoin (KARM), Karpcoin (KARP), Karpelescoin (KAR), Kashmircoin (KSC), Keisercoin (?), Khalsacoin (?), Kiffercoin
(?), Killercoin (KILR), Kimcoin (), Kimdotcoin (), Kingcoin (), Kittehcoin (MEOW), Klingon Empire Darsek (KED),
Klondikecoin (KDC), Koindashian (KOIN), Krugercoin (KGC), Krugmancoin (?), Kryptkoin (KTK), Kudos (KDS), Kumacoin
(KUMA), Kushcoin (KHC), Latinumcoin (LAT), Leadcoin (LDC), Leafcoin (LEAF), Leaguecoin (LOL), Lebowskis (LBW),
Legendarycoin (LGD), Legitcoin (?), Lemoncoin (LMC), Leprocoin (LPC), Levelcoin (?), Libertycoin(XLB), Lightvelocitycoin
(LVC), Limecoin (LIM), LimecoinLite (LCL), Limecoins (LC), LimecoinX (LIMX), Liquidcoin (?), Litebar (LTB), Litecoin
(LTC), LitecoinPlus (XLC), LitecoinX (LTCX), Livecoin (LVC), Logicoin (LGC), Lolcoin (LOL), Lottery Tickets (TIX),
Lottocoin (LOT), Lovecoin (LOVE), Lucky7coin (LK7), Luckycoin (LKY), Lycancoin (LYC), Machinecoin (MAC), Magiccoin
(MAGIC), Magicoin (MGC), MaidSafecoin (MAID), Makicoin (MAKI), Malecoin (?), Mammothcoin (MAMM), Maplecoin (MPL),
Marinecoin (MTC), Mariocoin (?), Marscoin (MRS), Marucoin (MARU), Mastercoin (MSC), Mastercoin (MST), Mastiffcoin
(MAST), Maxcoin (MAX), Mazacoin (MZC), Mediacoin (?), Mediterraneancoin (MED), Megacoin (MEC), Megcoin (MEG), Melange
(SPICE), Memecoin (MEM), Memorycoin (MMC), Metiscoin (?), microcoin (MRC), Milancoin (MLC), Millionairecoin (MIL),
Mincoin (MNC), Minerals (MIN), Mintcoin (MINT), Mjollnircoin (MNR), Mmjcoin (?), MMXIV (MMXIV), Molecule (MOL), Monacoin
(MONA), Monero (XMR), Moneyenom (MYM), Monocle (MON), Mooncoin (MOON), Motocoin (MOTO), Mousecoin () A Malware scam -
client contained wallet stealer., MtGoxcoin (GOX), Mugatucoin (MUGA), Muniti (MUN), Murraycoin (MRY), Mutcoin (MUT),
Myriadcoin (MYR), Naanayam (NYM), Nakacoin (NKC), Namecoin (NMC), Nanotoken (NAN), Nas (NAS), Nautiluscoin (NAUT),
Nbcoin (NBC), Neocoin (NEC), Neoncoin (?) An IPO scam, Nerdcoin (NERD), Netcoin (NET), Networkcoin (NWC), Neutrino
(NTR), NewStatesmancoin (?), NewYorkcoin (NYC), Nexuscoin (?), Niuecoin (?), Noblecoin (NOBL), Noirbits (NRB),
NoirShares (NRS), Noodlyappendagecoin (NDL), Novacoin (NVC), Nucoin (NUC), Nutcoin (NUT), NXO (NXO) Fork of NXT, NXR
(NXR) Fork of NXT, Nxt (NXT), Nyancoin (NYAN), Nybble (NBL), Obama_bin_lotterycoin (?), Obamacoin (?), Ocoin (OSC),
Octocoin (888), Oilcoin (OIL), Olympiccoin (OLY), Omnicoin (OMC), Onecoin (ONC), Onioncoin (ONI), Onlinegamingcoin
(OGC), OpenSourcecoin (OSC), Orangecoin (OC), Orbitcoin (ORB), Orcacoin (ORCA), Oreocoin (OREO), Orobit (ORO), Paccoin
(PAC), Pandacoin (PANDA), Pandacoin (PAND), Pandacoin (PND), Pangucoin (PGC), Parallaxcoin (PLX), Particle (PRT),
Patriotcoin (USA), Pawncoin (PAWN), Paycoin (PYC), Peacecoin (PEC), Peercoin (PPC), Penguincoin (PENG), Pennies (?),
Peoplecoin (PPL), Pesetacoin (PTC), PetroDollar (PD), Phicoin (PHI), Philosopher Stones (PHS), Phoenixcoin (PXC),
Photoncoin (PHO), Photon (PHO), Picoin (?), Pieces (?), Piggycoin (PIG), Piggycoin (PIGGY), Pikacoin (PIKA), Piniumcoin
(PNC), Pinkcoin (PC), Piratecoin (PIR), Pixelcoin (PXL), Platinum Bars (?), Platinum (PT), Playtoken (PLT), PLNcoin
(PLN), Pokercoin (POK), Polcoin (PLC), Polishcoin (?), Polycoin (?), Popcoin (POP), Populacecoin (POC), Popularcoin
(POP), Potcoin (POT), Poundcoin (PUK), Powercoin (POW), Powercoin (PWC), Premine (PMC), Primcoin (?), Primecoin (XPM),
Procoin (PCN), Prospercoin (PRC), ProtoShares (PTS), Pwnycoin (PWNY), Pxlcoin (PXL), QQcoin (QQC), Quackcoin (?),
Quarkbar (QB), Quark (QRK), Quazarcoin (QCN), Qubit (Q2C), Quebecoin (QBC), Quick Quick coin (QQC), Quora (QUORA),
Rabbitcoin (RBBT), Radioactivecoin (RAD), Rainbowcoin (LGBT), Rainbowgoldcoin (RAIN), Rapidcoin (RPD), Rastacoin (RTC),
Ratcoin (RATC), Realcoin (REC), Redcoin (RED), Reddcoin (RDD), Ricecoin (?), Richcoin (RCH), Riecoin (RIC), Rightcoin
(RTC), Ringo (RIN), Ripple (XRP), Risecoin (?), Rocketcoin (ROC), RonPaulcoin (RPC), Rosecoin (?), Rotocoin (RT2),
Royalcoin (RYC), Rubycoin (RBY), Rubycoin (RUBY), Rupaycoin (RUP), Saffroncoin (SFR), Sailcoin (?), sambacoin (SMB),
Sapphirecoin (SPH), Saturncoin (SAT), Savecoin (SPC), Savingcoin (SAV), Saw (SAW), Scamcoin (SCC), Scoin (SCO), Scotcoin
(SCOT), Scotcoin (SCT), Secondscoin (?), Securecoin (SRC), Seedcoin (SDC), Serracoin (SRR), Sexcoin (SXC), Sha1coin
(SHA), SHAcoin (SHA), Sharecoin (SHARE), Shares (?) Apparently a pure IPO scam., Sherlockcoin (SHC), Shibecoin (SHIBE),
Shillingcoin (?), Shopcoin (SHOP), SiliconValleycoin (XSV), Silkcoin (SC), Silkcoin (SILK), Silver bars (?), Silvercoin
(SRC, before Securecoin had it), Silvioberluscoin (?), Skeincoin (SKC), Skycoin (SKY) This is the second "skycoin" to be
launched., Skycoin (SYC) This is one of at least 3 different "skycoin" that have been launched., Skynet-coin (SNC) This
was initially launched with the name "skycoin" (the third coin by that name), Slendercoin (SNC), Slothcoin (SLOTH),
Smartcoin (SMC), SnakeXcoin (SNCX), Snowcoin (SNC), Soapbar (SOAP), Sochicoin (SOCHI), Socialcoin (SOC), Solarcoin
(SLR), Solcoin (SOL), Spaincoin (SPA), Speedcoin (SPC), Spirecoin (), Spodermancoin (SDM), Spots (SPT), Sprout (?),
StabilityShares (XSI), Stablecoin (SBC), Stackedcoin (?), Stacycoin (?), Stalwartbucks (SBX), Starcoin (STR), Startcoin
(START), StarvingArtistcoin (?), STLcoin (STL), Stockcoin (STC), Stop (?) A fork of NXT, Storagecoin (?), Stories (STY),
Streamcoin (STRC), Summercoin (SUM), SummercoinV2 (SUM2), Suncoin (SUN), Supercalifragilisticexpialidociouscoin (?),
Supercoin (SUPER), Superherocoin (?), Surgecoin (SRG), Swagcoin (SWAG), Swisscoin (?), Switchcoin (SWITCH), Syncoin
(SYN), Sync (SYNC), Tacocoin (TCO), Tagcoin (TAG), Takcoin (TAK), Teacoin (TEA), Tekcoin (TEK), Tenebrix (?), TenFive
coin (10-5), Terracoin (TRC), Teslacoin (TES), Thaicoin (?), Thcoin (THC), Thebotcoin (TBN), Thecoin (?) Thecoin was
malware; the wallet contained a keyboard recorder,, TheSmurfscoin (TSC), Thorcoin (THOR), Thundercoin (?), Tickets
(TIX), Tigercoin (TGC), Timekoin (TK), Titanium (TTN), Tittiecoin (TTC), Tokecoin (?), Tomatocoin (?), TomScottcoin (?),
Topcoin (TOP), Torrentcoin (TC), Tracecoin (?), Tradercoin (TDC) Tradercoin was malware. It contained a
keylogger., Traincoin (XTN)0, Trollcoin (TRL), Troptions (?), Turbocoin (XTP), UFOcoin (UFO), Ultimatecoin (ULT),
Ultracoin (UTC), Unbreakablecoin (UNB), Unioncoin (UNC), Unitecoin (UNI), United Federation Credits (UFC),
Unitedscryptcoin (USC), Unitycoin (UNT), Universitycoin (UVC), Unobtanium (UNO), Urocoin (URO), USDe (USDE), Vadercoin
(VADR), Valuecoin (VLC), Vampirecoin (VMP), Vanillacoin (?), Vcoin (?), Vegascoin (VGC), Velocitycoin (VEL),
Vendettacoin (VAC), Vericoin (VRC), Verncoin (VRN), Verocoin (VRO) An IPO scam., Version (C), Version (V), Vertcoin
(VTC), Virtualminingcoin (VMC), Viruscoin (?), Visacoin (VISA) Another IPO scam.  This one was also up for a
cease-and-desist order due to its name., Visncoin (VISN) Another IPO scam., Vodkacoin (?), Vootcoin (VOOT), Votecoin
(?), WeAreSatoshi (WAS), Webcoin (WEB), Wecoin (WEC), Whitecoin (WC), Wikicoin (WIKI), WildWestcoin (WEST), Wincoin
(WIN), Wolongcoin (WOL), Worldcoin (WDC), Wpcoin (WPC), Xcoin (XCO), XC (XC), Xedoscoin (XDC), Xencoin (XNC), Xivra
(XIV), XXLcoin (XXL), YACcoin (YACC), Yacoin (YAC), Yamashitacoin (YMC), Yangcoin (YANG), Ybcoin (YBC), Yellowcoin (YC),
Yincoin (YIN), YinYuancoin (YYC), Yuan Bao (YBC), Yuan Bao (YBC), Zccoin (ZCC), Zcoin (?), Zedcoin (ZED),
Zeitcoin (ZEIT), Zenithcoin (ZTC), Zetacoin (ZET), Zeuscoin (ZEU), Zimstake (ZS), Zodiaccoin (ZOD), Zombiecoin (ZMB),
Zurcoin (ZUR)

okay....  Some of the added coins are old issues I've just found out about, and some of them are current issues whose value is dropping toward zero. 

Added:  Alphacoin (ALF), Applebyte (ABY), Bitland(?), Blakebitcoin(BBTC), BTCtalkcoin(BCC), Cagecoin(CAGE), Citizencoin(CTZ), Conspiracycoin(CYC), Cypherfunk(FUNK), Dishercoin(?), EmbargoCoin(EBG), Failcoin(FAIL), Genecoin(?), Globe(GLB), Heisenberg(HEX), Horsecoin(HORS), Kumacoin(KUMA), LimecoinX(LIMX), Litecoinplus(XLC), Litecoinx(LTCX), Lottery Tickets(TIX), Megcoin(MEG), Mjollnircoin(MNR), Networkcoin(NWC), Protoshares(PTS), Quora(QUORA), Thebotcoin(TBN), Topcoin(TOP), UnitedScryptcoin(USC), Wincoin(WIN), XXLcoin(XXL), Yamashitacoin(YMC).

Also, I removed some, in the course of reconciling my list with the one posted here:  Some of these are coins where I hadn't saved a specific, dated, observation of low market cap and had seen them trading on at least a few occasions with higher market cap.  Some are cryptocurrencies I added to the list when they were withdrawn from exchanges, but they are now back on exchanges. 

Removed Battlecoin (BCX), Benjamins (BEN), Bitbar (BTB), Dimecoin(DIME), Earthcoin(EAC), Emoticoin(EMO), Nybble(NBL), Solarcoin(SLR), Spots(SPT), Tekcoin(TEK).

Universitycoin will remain on the list until it convinces me it isn't just drain circling, ie, until it has spent at least 90 days trading above market cap $5K.  If it doesn't fail, that will occur no sooner than 29 August. 

I see it.  You can't make the blocks much faster without creating a buncha internal-chain orphans.

It's a design issue, and fixing it will require some redesign.  This isn't just a tweaking-the-parameters problem.

The block rate of p2pool is 20x the block rate of bitcoin, and it awards one share per p2pool block.  That makes the share difficulty of a particular instance of p2pool 5% of the Bitcoin difficulty divided by the ratio of in-pool hashing to total Bitcoin hashing. 

The internal blocks can't be made much faster but they can be made bigger.  Instead of just recording who gets each 30-second block, it could be forming a block every 30 seconds and also recording in each of those 30-second blocks 100 transactions (bitcoin hashes meeting a lower share threshold) per block.  That would move the people on the chain from mining against 5% of the bitcoin difficulty to mining  against 0.05% of the bitcoin difficulty, and smooth it out by a factor of 100.  Not the best solution possible, but certainly one that would be relatively easy to implement.

The best solution possible would be for p2pool servers to participate in peering with other servers of approximately equal hashing power; then you'd have 100 guys with 50Mhash rigs in one pool, and the host playing the part of a 5Ghash peer in a pool of 99 other 5 Ghash peers, which constitutes a 500Ghash peer, etc.

I thought last night about having multiple thresholds, so that someone with a 5Ghash rig could be aiming for one to five hits of a deeper threshold and someone with a 50Mhash rig could be aiming for one to five hits of a shallower one - but the problem with that is that the guy with the 5 Ghash rig is also going to be getting all the hashes to hit the shallower thresholds a really stupid number of times. If he takes all the profits possible he would completely defeat the measure because he'd be pretending to be one 5Ghash rig, *and* 100 50Mhash rigs, *and* etc.... so that won't work at all.

Odds of an MIT student producing or using a new application or seeking a way to monetize something interesting?  Maybe 5%. 

Odds of a homeless shelter resident producing or using a new application or seeking a way to monetize something interesting?  Maybe 0.0005%. 

That's why.

Okay, wait.  Why is that?  

It sounds like a "policy" issue that can be fixed easily.

If I were to hack P2Pool to fix that, or create a workalike that didn't have that problem, would that get people the hell off Ghash.io?

Edit:  Okay, I see in the source code why that happens.

It's all about how often you can reach the "share threshold" that you get paid for.   And it looks like it was probably introduced by the same blockchain-based demand-payout system that addressed the "dust" problem.  

There's a technical constraint in the number of "transactions" that will fit in each block in their internal blockchain, and the software is regulating the threshold so that you don't have more miners reaching that threshold, per block, than there's room to record.  So it's bumping up the share difficulty until the number of shares awarded per block is less than the number it can record.  

I see a way to fix it so it doesn't affect the system as badly as it does now; it looks like it's recording single "share threshold" hashes as transactions, and with some tinkering about how transactions propagate and which ones can displace others in the pool of uncommitted transactions, it could easily be recording single transactions containing many instances of someone hitting the share threshold.  That ought to smooth things out by a factor of at least twenty, depending on the variance of hashing power in the pool.  

There may be a better fix; I'll have to think 'bout it.

As I understand it, there was a problem where people with hash rates that were very low would get lots of "dust" payments that would take a lot of fees to spend. 

But that got fixed, now that P2Pool has its internal hash chain that stores amounts due a particular miner until the miner draws them.  P2Pool users don't get dust anymore unless they draw their earnings so often that they haven't earned more than dust since last time they drew their earnings. 

And there has never been an issue with people having "too much hash power" using P2Pool. 

That said, I'm not a miner myself; there could be issues I'm unaware of. 

I just see all these pool operators raking money off the top and threatening decentralization, and I'm asking

'Miners!  What do we need to fix for P2Pool to serve your needs???'

How did it fail you?  

Why doesn't it meet your needs?

We have P2Pool available; why is it still possible for pools to even get traction, let alone come close to 50% of the network?!

What do we have to fix?

ARGH!  It WIGGLES!!  Either you stop adding that stupid graphic to your posts or you get a spot on my ignore list. 

"Or something."  It was off the exchanges for a week or so a little while back, and I added it.  Mistakenly as it turns out; it came back.  Fixed now.  Thanks for the heads up.

Today added coiled coin (a merge mined coin that went down due to a 51% attack launched by Eligius Pool) , Ixcoin, and SolidCoin (which I haven't researched any good information about yet).  

One problem is that the value being transferred is not evident in the blockchain; If colored coins are used a lot, we'll have no idea when the chain is becoming vulnerable to attack because the value being transferred has grown higher than the cost of an attack. 

But the main problem, IMO, is that what you just described is an invalid transaction, but it can get mined and committed in the blockchain anyway, and there is no way to undo it or recover those tokens.  Any client or miner unaware of the colored-coin issue will see nothing wrong with it.  And that means your colored-coin issues are not getting the full benefit of the trustless distributed transaction checking; instead they're getting some kind of after-the-fact transaction checking that doesn't notice the invalid transactions until they're already committed. 

And there will be people motivated to get others to do such destructive transactions; we're going to see phishing scams directed at getting people to do stupid shit that will destroy their colored coins, for no reason other than because that will increase the percentage of a colored-coin issue held by the scammer.  Technically this motive also exists with Bitcoin, but you can't easily accidentally use a regular bitcoin client to do transactions that will destroy coins, and more importantly Bitcoin is a single issue; widespread losses would increase the percentage of all bitcoins held by the scammer, but would decrease their value  due to a loss of confidence in the system.

A colored-coin issue, OTOH, is tiny when measured in bitcoin; the destruction of stocks represented by a quarter of a single bitcoin can cause the transfer of a million-dollar company without affecting the wider economy which the winning scammer has available to spend their ill-gotten gains. 

Do what I do.  Every time you make a long post, check it.  If you can read it back and still think you weren't just blathering, then it should go up on a blog!

If you're going to build colored coins, IMO you have to build it in far deeper than just the wallet. 

Colored coins are supposed to simulate multivalent amounts, but if you want multivalent amounts and you want them to be solid, you have to represent them as such in each transaction and txout.   

If I understand the goals correctly, Bitcoind is going to have all the "wallet" stuff removed from it, and then your "wallet" will be a separate program that communicates with your bitcoind using RPC or similar.

That means, bitcoind will be in the business of getting and sending messages, keeping track of transactions and blocks, and will have no idea which transactions might belong to anyone on the local machine and will have no access whatsoever to any privkeys under any circumstances. 

Your wallet on the other hand will be communicating with a single local instance of bitcoind, and unless you and the owner of some remote node agree to the configuration, will not talking to anything over the network.  It's going to be keeping track of your balance and txouts, and when it's unlocked it'll be able to get keys for your  txouts - but it's going to ask bitcoind for anything to do with confirmations, transactions, or blocks. 

When you pay someone, your wallet will notify bitcoind of a new transaction (which bitcoind will then propagate to the rest of the network).  When someone pays you, bitcoind won't notice, or care, because there are no keys that are 'special' to it.  It'll just check and log the transaction the same as it checks and logs all the other transactions.  But when your wallet asks it about transactions involving a particular pubkey, it'll cough up all the transactions that changed that key's balance. 

Well for starters total bitcoin days destroyed is something whose supply isn't limited in a very useful way. 

The problem with bitcoin days destroyed as a measure of chain priority is that If you are making an attack chain, and you want your coins to earn more credit for that chain than they do in the one you're trying to displace, you just have to make sure that all the coins you control are spent in the last block of the attack chain.  You can spend them (to another address you control) in every block before that, too, if you feel like it, but it won't matter; they'll just start accumulating more bitcoin days to destroy at the new address.   The total bitcoin days destroyed represented by the coins you control is just the product of the time from the start of the attack chain to the moment the coins get spent *LAST*.   

Similarly, you want to avoid presenting the opportunity for an attacker to combine priority from coins owned by him (or by anyone who'd give him access to their old "now-useless" keys for coins that are spent in the real chain) at different times into priority for purposes of a single attack. 

What I'm trying to produce is a situation in which the attacker cannot make any coins count more priority for the attack chain than they do for the legitimate chain.  Therefore it mustn't matter at what block height he spends the coins he controls, nor whether he re-spends subsequent outputs created by those spends, etc, up to the last block.  So it really isn't the same as bitcoin-days destroyed. 

A spend of a coin in a given block chain can be read as an irrevocable event that guarantees the owner of the coin accepted that block chain as legitimate at the time. 

Because new txOuts created after the fork can be created at will (out of old txouts) in an attack chain, there's no point in counting them. 

Because any coins created after the fork will be controlled by the attacker in the attack chain, you actively screw yourself over if you count spends of them for chain goodness.

Because replaying transactions in a new chain should not allow the attacker to add priority to a bogus chain, each transaction record would have to be extended to contain a block hash, just to make sure that it counts as support for the chain it's in, and not as misplaced or replayed support for some other chain.  This means that clients would have to commit replacement transactions after a reorg, instead of just taking transactions back to the memory pool to find a place in the new chain. 

Because any conflicting transactions between the two forks are either replacement transactions (so it doesn't matter which chain they're accepted in) or controlled by the attacker (so you don't want to give him any control over which chain they're accepted in), there's no point in counting them for chain goodness.   Otherwise the attacker could use a spend in one chain only to add priority to the side of a fork he wants to 'win' because it contains a double spend of some other coin.  This is especially true of conflicting transactions attempting to spend intersecting but nonidentical sets of tXouts.  If a 10000- coin transaction in one chain conflicts because of a single common txIn with a 1-coin transaction in the other chain, you count neither tx. 

Because the attacker can generate more 'bitcoin days destroyed' with the same coins in the attack chain by just putting the spends of them into later blocks, you put tools into the hands of the attacker if you count them.  They're nice for calculating the priority of individual transactions where there's no conflict to resolve, but not so nice for calculating the priority of the blockchains. 

Ultimately, the only 'finite resource' I've come up with so far that is finite in the way we want it to be, is the TxOuts that exist at the fork point.  Whichever chain has had more of those coins spent in it is the chain created by the majority of the stake that existed at that time. 

The only way the attacker can use his 'stake' to generate more priority for the attack chain than for the main chain, under that measure, is to spend his coins in the attack chain while keeping them unspent in the main chain.  And if he does that, then the attacker cannot be executing a double spend.

Whatever 'old keys' the attacker may be able to get from others will be keys to TxOuts that they have already spent; by using them to create fake spends in the attack chain, he cannot (must not be able to) add any more priority to the attack chain than the genuine spends add to the main chain. 


Well, my point is that if we're serious about proof-of-stake, "doing the work" means doing transactions that prove your stake supported a particular chain.  In a Proof-of-stake universe that, and not hashing, is what keeps the chain secure.  And by paying 'interest' on coins transacted in a chain, we would be paying exactly the people who did the work to secure the chain.   


"Decreasing security in some other way" seems quite likely, unfortunately.   While I'm reasonably confident in the above as a general measure  of chain goodness that isn't vulnerable to the nothing-at-stake issue, I don't know if it can really function as the *only* measure of chain goodness.  I haven't provided for any real control over who gets to build the next block and when.  And if the attacker can find any way to control that - building N blocks in a row at a time of his own choosing - he is quite likely to find a new way to mount an attack. 

In all, no, this measure of chain goodness isn't a solution to the whole problem.  As I said at the outset it's still awfully sensitive to large transactions. It's an important part of a solution but it isn't a solution of itself.

SPV clients shouldn't have trouble unless trying to resolve a very deep fork -- and that's the same circumstance where they have trouble now.  They'd be doing an algebra problem instead of checking hashes - but it wouldn't be more difficult.

I don't know of an alt-coin that is using anything really like this measure of chain goodness.  It's a worthwhile thing to try but I still feel like it's "not ready for prime time" until it provides a better way to determine who gets a chance to form each  next block.

When I finish working out its kinks it'll probably be one of my 'Cryptocurrency 101' blog posts.  But I don't consider it to be quite unkinked just yet.   

I think I've come up with a way to make PoS - at least potentially - work as a good solution to the Byzantine Generals problem.  It's still kind of shaky in terms of practical applicability because it's sensitive to when large transactions are made - but if transactions are reasonably 'steady' the math works against an attacker.

With Nakamoto's Proof-of-Work solution, we keep track of the difficulty solved at each block, and from that, when we evaluate two chains to see if one should displace the other we can work out how much hashing work went into each chain.   That amounts to the irrevocable consumption of a resource in finite supply, with the result that we can be certain that the hashing was not expended on both of two chains. 

The crucial point is that a resource in finite supply can be shown to have been irrevocably consumed.  Well, the point at which a TxOut gets spent or transferred is also irrevocable. 

The first 'serious' proposal for proof-of-stake essentially said, we can keep track of the amount spent in a version of the block chain, and treat that as the measure that a 'superior' chain has to beat, in the same way that a 'superior' chain in proof-of-work has to have generated more hashing. 

The problem with that idea is 'nothing-at-stake.'  A TxOut can be spent in both chains, and therefore the priority generated by its expenditure can be counted in favor of both chains.    When you're talking about multiple chains each with its own 'consensus reality' you're no longer talking about the irrevocable expenditure of a finite resource. 

But my opinion is that you can make it finite if you are careful about exactly what you compare. 

The set of TxOuts at the last block that two chains have in common is identical.   That is a finite resource whose expenditure can  be measured when you're comparing two divergent chains.   It may not be the only one, but it is one.  So, when you compare two candidate chains, you should be counting the expenditure of that set of TxOuts, and counting it only once for both chains.  You could count nothing for any coin spent in both chains and full-points for anything spent only in one, and compare the priority on that basis.   Expenditures of the set of TxOuts created after the chain's divergence cannot be counted;  they're already counted when you count (or refuse to count due to conflict) the expenditures that have gone to make them. 

That rule is all about resolving which potential blockchain gets to displace the other; it says nothing about how blocks are formed in the first place.  In fact you could go on forming blocks by proof-of-work, but instead of paying a large coinbase to the hasher, you could pay a very small coinbase to the hasher and distribute most of the coins as 'interest' on the txouts spent in that block.   

The efficiency argument for proof-of-stake would work fine with that structure.  With Bitcoin's blocks worth a little over $17K right now, and ALL of that awarded for proof-of-work, people are spending up to $17K per block on generating proof-of-work; custom ASICS are old news, now there are multimillion dollar 'hash farms' with their own power plants are getting built.   But if, instead, the hasher were getting, say, $10 for forming a block, people would not be spending more than $10 for enough electricity to get a block regardless of how much bitcoin were being created/distributed per block in Proof-of-Stake or 'interest' payments.   

Trading altcoins is not necessarily a losing game, but unless you truly believe that an alt is going to displace bitcoin in the long run, it is a negative-sum game meaning that an average player will lose.  

Analyze it like this:  There are scammers, and the scammers are making a profit.  There are people who invest in hashing hardware, and they probably at least break even in the long run.  Both of those are taking money (profits, or money to invest in hardware) from the traders.  

And whenever traders do business with another trader, one of them loses exactly as much money as the other gains.

Yes, you can make money at it.  But you have to recognize it as a negative sum game and use a strategy appropriate to negative sum games.  

Those who are playing it as a positive-sum game (positive-sum game strategies include 'buy and hold' for example) will not make money; it isn't even remotely possible for them to do other than lose money.  As a negative-sum player you're just hoping they lose money fast enough to compensate for what  the scammers and hardware investors are taking out or investing. 

The only meaningful play is between people playing it as a negative-sum game.  And in order to win you must be at least as cynical as all the others who are also playing it as a negative sum game.  If you allow them to be more cynical than you, you will lose money to them in the long run.

In the long run everyone is dead.