For consideration, next-gen coins... Gen-3

[ISAWHIM]

Yup, I am Mr Sunshine... lol... (No, certain things just touch on certain nerves with me... Like "god complex doctors", who are just pissed that they spent so much money, to make money, and can't... because, well, they just are not worth what they think they are. Pure opinion.)

To the above, who should have shortened my quote.

The moving I was talking about was from Wallet A to Wallet A, not to Wallet B. It is not a MAJOR problem, but there are many who get pissed about being charged 30 coins for trying to send 35 coins, because the "wallet", which created the dust-coins, is now trying to send 1000 chunks of 0.02, 0.00123, 0.12314 ... ... ... to "make" 35 coins. The "tax-penalty", for merging all this "dust", is x-per-kb of data. (Something that you don't even know exists, you don't know the size, and you can't control it, and you didn't create it. But you are still "charged", or it refuses to send the coins.)

That can easily be solved by "moving" from Wallet A -acct 1234, to wallet A -acct 7473.... a bunch of small tx's, which then does this...

0.02 + 0.00123 (two small dust tx's) = 0.02123 (one small dust tx)

Turning that 35 coins from 1000 dust-tx's into one solid tx of 35, before it tries to leave your wallet. (You do not have to do that ONLINE, as long as it confirms... it should be valid... thus, no ONLINE sending penalty.)

As for the 10 chains... You don't grasp what I was saying... (My fault, I am sure, I am not easy to follow without a diagram.)

The hash-rate would still be 100Ghs for the network, not 100/10... However, they all work chain 0, then chain 1, then chain 2, then chain 3... They are all bound like one chain. However, each would be prepared in advance, with the following results deposits, and incoming tx's, which have had 9 blocks of time to propagate through the network, before being worked.

Like this...
(#2 being worked/solved/hashed, 3 being "setup", 2 is hashed to 1 on this row, and 2 below in the column, and TIME.)
{Building audited valid tx's in room #3, while #2 is being solved}
0,1,2->
0,1,2,3,4,5
0,1,2,3,4,5 (withdraw (#0), deposit-1 (#4) OVER ->, deposit-2 (#0) ABOVE ^... forward moving only.)
0,1,2,3,4,5
0,1,2,3,4,5
0,1,2,3,4,5
0,1,2,3,4,5
0,1,2,3,4,5(-> connects by hash to the next row, column 0)
 - SEED -

However, this is 3D... the solutions would be behind, off the block#... not part of the TX chain. The results of the solution are kept as a hash. Those get trimmed-off after like 1000 confirms, and that tx-chain is the only hard-coded part sent to others who are not block-archivers, who ARE keeping the archive of the solutions.

The purpose, besides security... (you can't "fork" block 7, because we are all doing the same one, if a centralized tracker indicates block 7 @ 12:34:00 is the block being worked and the results of that prepared block has a hash of a0f0123 for the contents.) The non-security aspect allows you to 1, prepare tx's in advance for block 7, while block 6 is being worked. You can then jump right onto block 7, after 1 minute, when 6 has now been solved, and you have already preloaded block 7's data and confirmed it, and KNOW it is the right one to work on. (You would not have to "check" to see if you are on the right chain. However, if for some reason you notice, or the porgram notices that it is stuck, or failing a lot... You would know, and have the ABILITY to "look for the correct chain", if that ever happens, or leave and mine something else, until the issue is resolved... The issue may be an attack, or a natural OOPS, or something like a severance of a major back-bone hub on the internet. The internet is not persistent. ISP's disconnect all the time to reset and packets get delayed and lost and corrupted.) Even if it is just something related to trying to mine on old software that needs upgrading... At the moment, that just creates a fork, of old and new software results. Only takes one person to start mining with old software that ignores checks, or a hacked program to pretend it is on the right chain.

As for your comment about 11...

I "know" the "existing method" is to use only "one solution"... But there are many solutions in a hash. We are told to submit the first solution we find "above" that difficulty. There are billions of valid solutions, because each one is unique to our wallet identification, which is how it confirms "A valid solution". Though, I assume you were talking about "prime". However, my suggestion was to accept the top 100 in x-time, (as opposed to rolling for a lotto-diff result), and auto-close the block after 1-minute. (With the end-time being part of that solution-hash, which would auto-reject any solution that didn't match, as the new-time would not match the solutions, which instantly get hashed/solved to any-diff, closing the block... so that the hash can be used to start solving the next block.)

The point of that was... then there is not 1 winner per block. There is 100 winners per block, which gives a more even reward, and helps to remove the "luck" that pools and solo miners have to loose-out to... also... related to security... if the 100 winners are the same every time, you can safely assume that the results are a hack, or the block data you are being fed is wrong. Unlike being fed one block with one winner, which never even gets checked, beyond checking to see if it is valid. (The bonus was, for those coins that wish to keep coins off pools, they could sort-of control the abuse of power from a pool, as pools would have to use multiple wallets and couldn't accidentally attack the network... because if the 100 had to all be unique wallet-id's, a pool could only have 1:100th of every solution, and 99:100 would have to come from another wallet, another pool, another solo-miner.)

Remember, pools were intended to attempt to defeat the "luck losses", and "spread the wealth". If the program did that by nature, you would not need all that additional overhead, and you would have more personal gains. Not to mention less theft, and less sour-play pools that just take your coins and run. (They still exist, there is one up every day... Ever see your shares rejected, but the pool operators also mining, and seems to have more than the normal amount of shares, with the same power... or ever notice the pool seems to have a "technical difficulty" or "lots of rejects" from nowhere... then you find they swapped wallets, and just took your hashed coins. It has happened many times.)

[skaffen]

For me, Gen-3 means another innovation, that we can't predict.  Once this innovation comes it will be important enough to be considered a new generation, just as POS was.

The problem with POS for me is, that it doesn't discourage hoarding.  I know that hoarding isn't considered bad in the bitcoin community, but I tend to think that the reason for this opinion is that Bitcoin doesn't encourage hoarding.  Kind of a Halo effect: other attributes of Bitcoin are attractive, so if Bitcoin encourages it, then hoarding is good too.

My thought on hoarding is that a coin that doesn't have a limit to the number of coins minted is better, because it provides inflation.  One idea that occurs to me, is that a fixed minimum, such as Quarkcoin provides, (never going less than 1 coin per block), doesn't necessarily provide inflation (in terms of reducing value of goods that can be purchased over time), because the number of people using it may increase faster than the supply.  What if somehow the supply of a coin is related to the number of people who want to use it?  Perhaps each wallet created comes with a supply of x coins, but all of those "free" coins get paid as transaction fees?  That way, the minting is increased if more people want to use it.  That is probably easy to exploit though, anyone have any ideas?

[ISAWHIM]

Also... When I said "destroy"... that destruction is not permanent. The term was used to suggest, "removal from circulation". Like I said, you get all your destroyed coins back, PLUS interest, based on the volume of transactions.

What is actually destroyed (not created), is the "coins from nothing". The gains would "replace" the destroyed coins with the other coins. Thus, less coins are "created", which is a form of minting destruction.

The governments estimate "lost or destroyed" coins/bills, and over-print that estimated loss. They also under-print (well they would), if the population suddenly deceased and left an abundance of money "in hand". They destroy by "not minting", not by actually destroying printed money. (They just don't mint more older bills that they would normally physically remove from circulation, and don't over-print estimated losses as much.)

This works on that same method.

The more transactions there are, the less "cons from nothing" you need to make. Since the largest portion are coming from fees. BTC sort-of does this, but it just halves every four years. Leaving miners to demand fees later-on, or leave. If the percentage is fixed, and non-invasive, from day 1... it will always be accepted by those who use it. No shock factor later on, when you find BTC programmers decide they want to force you to pay 150% tax-fees just to make a transfer for you. Not to mention, the fees simply give more, in addition to block-rewards, to the miners, which pools take now.

Holding 1,000,000 and not knowing when someone is going to dump it, scares investors away. Not as much as when they actually decide to dump it all at once...

Knowing that 1,000,000 were destroyed (sent to a time-released invested holding that you can see), comforts them, and limits dumping of large volumes of holdings. They get the 1,000,000 + tx fees back, in time... not all at once.

When you said that limiting transfers will not stop theft... you are right. But it will help to LIMIT damage to theft. Imagine someone hacking in to an exchange with 1,000,000,000 coins to steal. If they are limited to only transferring 10,000 per block... (1 minute) it will take them over 100,000 minutes or 1666 hours to transfer all the money. On that same respect... it will take them just as long to upload those stolen coins into an exchange, from one wallet. (If you are that rich, you have multiple wallets.)

The value would never get up to $1000 per coin, with the stuff above taken into consideration. That is the point. The reason BTC went from a stable $0.01 per coin, to $0.10, to $1.00, to $10.00 to $100.00, to $250.00... was because of the horrible economic considerations for how the system operates. The guy was a programmer, not an economic analyst. Most programmers think in forms of pyramid-schemes and "perfect world operation", and rarely make plans for complications. They deal with those things as they come, at our expense.

The things above, help to ensure a more stable value, that still rises within reason, and maintains itself with little intervention. BTC and most other coins, were created to make the first 20 people rich, at the following 20,000 others expense. (Pre-mining, insta-coins, easy-mining, super-rewards... followed by degraded value, in addition to exponential increasing difficulty, knowing that more miners would come and attempt to "demand crazy unworthy values" for them to cash-in on.) These things mentioned for consideration, are to actually develop a coin that is as worthy as a monetary alternative, as any other form of physical or digital currency. While still keeping it decentralized as a transfer-agent.

Also... the reason for the "destruction ability", is for legal reasons too. If ever a country demands that you must destroy your funds, for whatever reason... that ability is there. Destroying the wallet is useless, because wallets can be recreated, because they exist on the net, not on your computer. Your computer only shows what the contents of your wallet is, online. This destruction process would simply return the coins back to the miners, replacing the "coins from nothing", with the "legally surrendered mined coins".

For those who wish to take a political and economic stance, they could convince others to "donate to destruction", a set number of coins, or a percentage to never be returned... (not invested)... which would also help to stabilize the network by removing "coins from nothing". As well as allowing any other developer or generous person to do the same. I am sure you wouldn't ever "donate"... but someone might. Every coin added is one not created from nothing, and thus, a gain to all.

[ISAWHIM]

This is what I was working on, for my coin... (Was... I have hit a road-block at the moment.) It did not take everything I said into consideration, but it does have a lot of it. Some stuff was more recently "thought-up" as I was working on my coin, and studying some new coins. (Bottlecaps, for one, and primecoin and copperlark.)

WARNING: It is just as long as my first post... lol

http://www.isawhim.com/coin.txt

[dfxygtreywa]

nice suggestions  for a new coin:)

[tyranosaur]

Isn't the semi-decreased reward employed with PPC?

Enjoyed reading the thoughts either way.

I don't know all the details of how PPC functions, personally, but at this point, they all reduce rewards without consideration for actual individuals. That is why they all end-up depending on pools for any kind of fractional reward.

They decay based on hash-power, fast, leaving the only real rewards for early miners.

Eg, 1 miner gets 10 a day early on, solo-mining... then a month later, gets only 1 a day... then a month later the reward is 1 every 10 days... then ultimately, it takes 1000 miners to get 1 coin a month, which they all have to split 1000 ways. (As the network grows from 1 to 10 to 100 to 1000 to 10000000 miners {miners hardware})


To the comment about PrimeCoin and other forms of "do something" coins...

Just replacing "scrypt" or "sha256(sha256)" with "solve another solution"... I do not personally see as a "generation upgrade". That is just a swap of "solutions". (But like I said, I have mixed feelings about that feeling.)

IF they rewarded YOU, in coins, for that work... (Coins they had to purchase to get those results). That would be a generation-3 coin. However, finding a cure for cancer, by burning power (coal/nuclear/hydro) and using Chinese manufactured circuits that contain more cancerous elements and cause more cancers than they solve... that only rewards "pharmaceutical companies trying to save millions and making you spend millions and then use that solution to charge you for a cure"... I don't quite see "That" as being a gen-3 coin. However, it is better than the "do nothing" for a coin. That I agree with.

By the way...

Cancer has no cure... Nothing actually has a cure. That is just false advertising. That is how they manage to sucker people to give them money, so they don't have to spend it creating "ailment alleviations", that they call cures. If you had cancer in your body, and you "cured it"... that would leave your insides looking like swiss-cheese, full of holes where the cancer previously lived. Even if they found a cure, they couldn't cure you until you got it... and that would kill you, curing it.

Name one thing that was ever cured? You can't. Because nothing has ever been cured, only delayed, hidden, masked, subdued, or made worse... TB, Polio, Syphilis, Chicken-pox, Cow-pox, Small-pox... They all claimed to have a cure, they simply created more deadly versions in the process. The cures kill more people than the actual ailments ever did, and it only cost us trillions every year, for them to find new ways to kill us!

You want to cure cancer...

Stop buying cell-phones, stop listening to the radio, stop sitting next to a wifi computer, disconnect your RF power-grids, move away from the city, stop ingesting toxins, stop washing your clothes with cancerous bleach that you sit-in all day long, and move away from the radiation-screen blasters that you are reading these words on...

Oh, and stop breeding with people who are prone to cancers. Get to know the mother, father, grandmother, grandfather of the person you mate with, before you spawn genetic variations of undesired traits.

Problem solved... but no coins earned... and you CAN afford that cure!

Harsh, but true... We all start to die, from the second we are born. Some just do it better, more efficiently, peacefully, and willingly, more than others, who normally go out kicking and screaming, like they way they arrived in the world. In the end, we all just make things worse for those entering the world, before we exit. Even if we lie, and tell ourselves it is better... it is not. Thus, we offer only ailment alleviations, to those who pay us the most, the rest just have to suffer.

I enjoyed your first post... you should have stopped there.