HMC, I've just reread your previous posts.

It seems that you completely forgot how hash table works.

Sorry, I thought you just wanted to play funny games with my brain.

I still don't follow what you're getting at with this.  Can you write out an overview of the proposed logic, defined in a more abstract form?  (Formulas instead of numbers?)

I'm still holding out hope for some solution that doesn't require any reduction in security, as well...

What I'm saying is, if the bot were to only allow their own solution into the block they would be losing motocoins. This is because the reward for humans miners is based off the average human solves in the last 10 blocks (regardless of how many humans play in the current round) not just the current block (and the bot gets 10% of each human's reward). So if 10 humans solve a block, and the bot will get 10% of their rewards, then if the bot chooses not to allow human solves then they won't get the human's 10% reward. This gives them an incentive to include the human's reward.

If they only accept their own solution, and an average of 10 humans mined the last 10 blocks, then they will only get:

10 coins (from the bot's block) + 10 coins / 10 (average human players of the last 10 blocks) * 1 (number of human solutions in block)

But if they accepted, say 10 humans rewards, then their payout would look like this:

10 coins + 10 /10 *10     /  10 (10% of the human's reward)

So in total the bot would get 11 coins by accepting human solutions.
If they also accepted their own solution with the human solutions they would get 12 coins.

This means on average the bots will get 1 extra Motocoin if they accept all human solutions.

I don't know if I explained that right but I don't really have much time to check.

Human solutions should be n=10 to stop "premining" from the bot or someone else because then it could stop them from suddenly releasing 100 solutions in one block to get lots of coins but penalise real human miners.

Edit: Can you also answer this please?

Edit 2: Wow, syncing is taking forever, 3+ hours and its only synced 100,000 blocks. Will we ever get on of those blockchain torrents (i've forgotten the name) where you put it in your %appdata%/Motocoin folder and the wallet imports the blocks? Maybe its bottlenecked by my CPU... Its an i5-4670K @ 3.40 GHz

I don't follow what you're getting at here...  In any case, it doesn't explain why the miners wouldn't simply *only* include their own transactions, and ignore anyone else's.

The bot miner would need to get a larger reward than if they simply provided a solution themselves, otherwise there is no incentive to take someone else's solutions...  In other words, the reward for the "human" solution would need to be a net negative in order for the bot to see incentive to include it in a block instead of their own solution.

http://www.qmole.uk
Would it be possible to compile Motocoin for iOS on the Qmole app?

Ok. What if we make it so that the human blocks are treated like hashing power (relates to difficulty). So the reward of finding a block as a human is determined by the average of the last 10 human mined blocks. So if an average of 2 people found blocks from the last 10 blocks (getting a 5 coin reward each), and then suddenly 10 people mined a block, they would each get 5 coins. But then the next block finders would get 2.8 motocoins (average of the last 10 blocks) regardless of how many people found blocks. (if my math is correct)

Would that work? Maybe the real bot miners could get a percentage of the human's reward as incentive to include the transaction.

I really like this idea, as it gives humans a real chance whilst also allowing bots to battle it out.

This is also why our current "solution" of simply letting the dominant bot miner remain dominant is not actually any "solution" at all.  It only works so long as our benevolent dominant bot remains altruistic in transaction selection.  It has been OK so far, it seems, but who can say how long this will remain true?  This is not actually ever a safe assumption to be making.  

The "real" miners are the ones doing the transaction selection, though.  Why would they ever include someone else's solution transaction into a block when it dilutes the reward for their own solution transaction?

As ElvenArcher proposed the transaction could carry a fee but this fee to include the tx would have to be larger than the reward for not including the tx, on average, meaning the humans would have to pay to play in the long run.  I don't think that this is desirable.

PROGRAMMING LANGUES

Common Lisp (ECL)
C, C++ (gcc, g++, clang, clang++)
Java (JamVM)
Clojure
Lua
Scheme (Gambit)
OCaml
Python
Perl
A+ APL

There was a step that has been bugging me since June. I figured out how to overcome the issue, so I have updated the white paper and also the press release.

At this point, I am not sure if I should even continue the discussion without at least requiring them to confirm their identity as the operator of the bot.

Thoughts?