DeathAndTaxes for president!

Well stated.  

I see a number of questions developing.  Here is one:

1)  Imagine you are a miner (pool operator) in, lets say, 2015.  You have a choice to include more TX to go over 1MB or not.  You know going over 1MB is better for the network, it has to happen, etc.  However, you also know there are some nodes on the network that might reject your block.  Your fiduciary responsibility is to your hashers.  Leaving out a few TX, with minimal fees, lets you stay neutral on the issue as all nodes will accept your block, and increases your chance of getting 25 large coin.  What do you do?  

RIP
Can we get a moment of silence for Salim's laptop?  I believe it has played a momentous role in the history of woodcoin. 

... 

Have you tried using "curecoin" or "gridcoin"?  I have not researched them but from what I understand they are efforts to support foldersAtHome. 

   

Lol, thanks for the bump.  Probably I was liquored up on maple whiskey too, holding you back from beating some trolls though they likely deserved it. 

This thread does not yet have in it a proof that the harmonic series diverges.  It's time to correct that oversight.  

As you may remember, the woodcoin supply of LOG increases with every block, with a reward slowly decreasing like this function:

H  =  1/2  +  1/3  +  1/4  +  1/5  +  1/6  +  1/7  +  1/8   +  1/9  +  1/10  +  1/11  +  1/12  +   1/13  +  1/14  +  1/15  +  1/16  + ......  


It may come a surprise if you have never heard it before that this diverges, that is it will grow without bound.  Apparently this was proven in 1382 by a guy called Oresme.

Thus the woodcoin supply would grow without bound if we didn't stop giving away LOG after the reward dipped under 1 wood chip  (a LOG satoshi) (which by the way, won't happen for a long long time).


Lets regroup the terms:  



H  =  1/2  +  {1/3  +  1/4}  + { 1/5  +  1/6  +  1/7  +  1/8}   +  { 1/9  +  1/10  +  1/11  +  1/12  +   1/13  +  1/14  +  1/15  +  1/16 }  + ......  

now lets consider another series:


G  =  1/2  +  {1/4  +  1/4}  + { 1/8  +  1/8  +  1/8  +  1/8}   +  { 1/16  +  1/16  +  1/16  +  1/16  +   1/16  +  1/16  +  1/16  +  1/16 }  + ......  


As you can tell, this new series G is smaller than H.. because we have only replaced some of the terms in it with smaller numbers (we replaced 1/3 with 1/4,  1/5 with 1/8, etc...)

So:   G < H

But G  =  1/2  +  1/2  + 1/2  + 1/2  +  . . . . .. .. .. . . . .    

So G diverges and therefore so does H!  


Cheers and happy woodcutting --  


funkenstein the dwarf

All of them. 

Who would clone from a repo that doesn't have multisig? 

Perhaps you can find a dead one lying around from 2012 that nobody updated but I doubt it.  All public coins have multisig as far as I know. 

Coming soon:  A deal on these and other wood products for LOG.  

OK I can follow that logic, thanks.   Next (no pun intended), lets look at network security on a per confirmation basis. 

With bitcoin I can easily estimate the cost of reversing (by renting hash) a singly confirmed transaction: 25.15 BTC  (25 coinbase plus average of 0.15 fees).     

Now how much would a similar estimate run (renting NXT from holders to get the required stake) to reverse a singly confirmed NXT transaction? 

I'm not sure it will be that chaotic.  The last hard fork wasn't that bad. 

NXT is an interesting experiment and I salute the experimenters.  The question in my mind is: what incentive is there for stakers to secure the network?  It seems the coinbase rewards are nil.  So, it is a combination of altruism and simply the desire to keep the network alive to maintain the value of holdings.  Is this enough?  We will find out. 

Now it's my turn to tell you to be a bit careful with the blanket statements?   

Don't confuse underlying coin tech with pump-and-dumpers, angry gambler coinahaulics, scamonomists, and sock kiddies.  Cryptonote is worth a look. 

Proof of Stake can offer variable rewards, from massive coinbase inflation like BALLS and 10K to zero coinbase inflation like NXT and all intermediate values between starting with the 1st one PPC. 

In essence, the issuance (staking or printing or minting in the lingo of different coins) has zero cost of production.  It's unclear to me just what kind of role this kind of system is built for.  The "energy efficiency" argument has zero validity as proof of work networks do not require any energy level to work, the amount of energy is used that miners choose to use.     

The network security is also an issue, depending on the implementation.  See for example the discussion of "nothing at stake" problems.  Typically these are solved with various degrees of centralization and or combination with proof of work.  A lot of people talk smack but I haven't seen that many real attacks.  Possibly we will see more such block chain reorg attacks if any of these coins build more value.   

In the end, the security of the network is going to be proportional to the rewards given to the stakers or miners.  This cannot be avoided.  What is the incentive is for them to put up the resources to stake?  In the case of NXT for example, there is basically no incentive to stake as the rewards for solving a block are near zero.  Hopefully the fees will grow, but in the meantime we rely on the founders of the coin who got all the units to keep the network alive for us, the incentive being that a living network is better for their holdings than a dead one. 

Personally, I like to play with coins and have used a number of stake coins.  I encourage those who are building and working with the technology.  However I wouldn't recommend holding serious value in any POS coin.   

If it were true, why would you be making this statement? 

Another one to file under: "Bitcoin won't work because I can't counterfeit it".

Good point.  I guess it is the massive inflation draw that I was referring to.  I think some coins even PoS with no inflation, but I'm not sure they call that staking when there is no reward.  I need to learn to hold my tongue and let these experiments play out.  We will learn what we have to from them in the long run. 

We've all heard a lot about proof of stake issuance.  People have discussed the pros and cons quite a bit.  Many security issues with the different implementations have been discussed, and remain outstanding. 

However it is only with recent developments of very high percentage staking coins that the truth has come out: this is a thinly veiled HYIP scheme designed to appeal to investors greed over their common sense.  At best, a gambling game that cannot last very long.   

I believe the developers of these coins deserve their winnings for teaching us a valuable lesson in what to avoid when designing a coin for long term stability and use in real commerce. 

Development Notes:

1)  Merged upstream/master in woodcoin to include minor litecoin changes which coblee added this january.  See:

https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commits/master-0.8

2)  Almost finished with woodcoin-b.

https://github.com/funkshelper/woodcoin-b

This is a fork of bitcoin core that runs the woodcoin chain.

   In making these changes it is interesting to note how the litecoin repo and the bitcoin-core repo have diverged.  There are a ton of refactors and code changes in the bitcoin-core repo.  uint256 became arithunit256, and there is a new uint256.  whole new libraries for some core crypto that are used instead of OpenSSL and many other changes.  The one named "secp256k" is misnamed as it can be easily adapted for other curves.  The repo is probably harder to deal with for altcoin devs, but that has nothing to do with their goal.  However the new class chainparams actually makes the package more extensible by altcoin devs who are just starting out.  I only hope that it isn't too crufty (bloated).  Litecoin has kept additions to a minimum and true to its name retained a lighter profile.  I only hope nothing important is missed in terms of network security.    

  One nice thing is that a given chain / coin can be accessed from whatever client you like.  A lot of people fail to realize this, and talk as if bitcoin-core "is" bitcoin, or litecoin-project/litecoin "is" litecoin.  Of course that is nonsense.  

   The original VPSs that are hardcoded into the client are down now, only a single one as dnsseed is up.  Because I have a goal of maximum decentralization, you might need to come to this forum or others to look for nodes when this comes down, if you are restarting a client from scratch.  It sounds annoying, but full decentralization requires it. 

   I am still looking for contributors and bounty hunters on:

3) Windows builds

4) Android client

5) iOS client

  I have one contributor working on an electrum fork for SPV client.  

More development ideas and suggestions are welcome!   happy chopping --  
    

Greetings Woodcutters!

Wow, the altcoin scene has been pretty depressing recently.  What do you think, should we follow suit and hire a few people to market woodcoin?  Send in some press releases with payment to a few "coin news" sites?  Get a couple people to pump the troll boxes?  Claim we are backed by real South American hardwood?

How about a little fake volume and more exchanges?  Promises of high yield returns? 

All these things would let you dump your LOG soon and then you could watch the price crash.  Sound like fun?   This hasn't been my design philosophy in any way but hey I thought we should let the community decide  

Cheers,  happy chopping  -- 

funkenstein the dwarf 

"Gold backed currency" has always worked so well in the past.  I know it seems like impossible to verify all the gold would be available for everybody at all times but usually the players involved in these things have been totally honest and had the best interest of the currency holder at heart. 

Yes, toilet paper is very anonymous.