[ANN] SpreadCoin | Decentralize Everything (decentralized blockexplorer coming)

[CHAOSiTEC]

...
darksend would need the masternodes, which is not activated, neither is darksend

I'm pretty sure darksend is in there somewhere, or could be.

ServiceNodes could run darksend.

nobody is arguing over not implementing it at some time :-)

first i think we need to get service nodes up and running, and get spreadcoin up on core, then we can begin adding whatever we all need and see as beneficial... its not like we are restricting by basing it on one or the other, it just helps making the progress clean, besides, its better to focus on one task at a time, that makes things cleaner

[coins101]

^^^ I agree with that, 100%

Current masternodes doesn't require many bandwidth. If we will introduce darksend or other features requirements may increase.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=938222.msg10280438#msg10280438

[CHAOSiTEC]

And, by doing it this way, we can make masternodes as "just another service" on the service nodes, instead of hacking masternodes into something that can also run other services, way more clean ;-)

and yes, i like clean solutions :-) (if you havnt noticed :-p )

[coins101]

And, by doing it this way, we can make masternodes as "just another service" on the service nodes, instead of hacking masternodes into something that can also run other services, way more clean ;-)

and yes, i like clean solutions :-) (if you havnt noticed :-p )

+101

With our growing team and community, I would be surprised if we didn't hit the top 10 within the next 12 months.

[georgem]

...
darksend would need the masternodes, which is not activated, neither is darksend

I'm pretty sure darksend is in there somewhere, or could be.

ServiceNodes could run darksend.

nobody is arguing over not implementing it at some time :-)

first i think we need to get service nodes up and running, and get spreadcoin up on core, then we can begin adding whatever we all need and see as beneficial... its not like we are restricting by basing it on one or the other, it just helps making the progress clean, besides, its better to focus on one task at a time, that makes things cleaner

The main theme behind Spreadcoin: "Decentralize Everything"...

So any service we include should try to stay close to this principle, and strive to decentralize something that is now centralized (or needs help to get more decentralized ---> why we want to help bitcoin)

This principle does not necessarily include Anonymization techniques that go farther than what bitcoin has to offer.

But who knows what we will come up with.

I am not against it per se.

But nonetheless we should remove everything darksend/darkcoin or instantx related that is still in our code, at the latest when we move to bitcoin core codebase.

[coins101]

^^^agreed.

When the time is right, we might need Darksend back in there. But that can wait for another day.

[Lebubar]

CHAOSiTEC, georgem, coins101, stonehedge...

All known face. It seams that this coin is in good hands now.

I bough some times ago to made SPR MasterNode. What are the news about this? It'll be implemented "like" DASH with the difference for the dynamic number of SPR needed to create it? Did we have a roadmap aout this? Will they be paid for the service?

Cheers.

(Edit: did you contact vertoe to help for the dev (or he's occupied with CashCoin)? Like this the team will be full  of ex-DASH )

Edit2:

Am I on the good version? :
{
    "version" : 91503,
    "protocolversion" : 70019,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 984913.017500,
    "blocks" : 385196,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "connections" : 34,
    "proxy" : "",
    "difficulty" : 14.85179595,
    "networkhashps" : 1159289318,
    "moneysupply" : 2575326.48712499,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1430933717,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
    "mininput" : 0.00001000,
    "errors" : ""
}

[stonehedge]

Hey Lebubar!  Welcome!

This is my getinfo so it looks like you're on an older version.  I really don't know what the changelog was...I suppose their is no harm in updating though.


    "version" : 91504,
    "protocolversion" : 70019,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : One Hundred Bazillion Spreadcoins
    "blocks" : 385026,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "connections" : 34,
    "proxy" : "",
    "difficulty" : 14.85179595,
    "networkhashps" : 1159289318,
    "moneysupply" : 2575326.48712499,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1430933717,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
    "mininput" : 0.00001000,
    "errors" : ""
}

We haven't got round to creating a new github yet so the code should be easy to find and binaries are on the web site in Georges signature.

Make sure you pop in on us now and again.  We're working on possibilities for using the concept of masternodes (we're caling them service nodes) to do things other than handle private transactions (although the option remains for us to do that if we want in the future).

At the moment, the hot topic of debate is whether we would be able to create an incentive system for people to run a full Bitcoin Node to help support Bitcoin through its node count problem.

Dan

[coins101]

...
{
    "balance" : 984913.017500,
}

The trolling is strong with this one. I Love it  

So far, the known balances from 3 wallets is more than the current coin supply.

[stonehedge]

...
{
    "balance" : 984913.017500,
}

The trolling is strong with this one. I Love it  

So far, the known balances from 3 wallets is more than the current coin supply.

Good morning Spreadcoin 

[Viper1]

...
darksend would need the masternodes, which is not activated, neither is darksend

I'm pretty sure darksend is in there somewhere, or could be.

ServiceNodes could run darksend.

nobody is arguing over not implementing it at some time :-)

first i think we need to get service nodes up and running, and get spreadcoin up on core, then we can begin adding whatever we all need and see as beneficial... its not like we are restricting by basing it on one or the other, it just helps making the progress clean, besides, its better to focus on one task at a time, that makes things cleaner

The main theme behind Spreadcoin: "Decentralize Everything"...

So any service we include should try to stay close to this principle, and strive to decentralize something that is now centralized (or needs help to get more decentralized ---> why we want to help bitcoin)

I would hope that with the "decentralize everything" philosophy, that you guys will seriously consider NOT using any sort of masternode system but instead implementing something else like the cryptonote ring signatures or perhaps have a look at what shadowcash is doing.

[stonehedge]

...
darksend would need the masternodes, which is not activated, neither is darksend

I'm pretty sure darksend is in there somewhere, or could be.

ServiceNodes could run darksend.

nobody is arguing over not implementing it at some time :-)

first i think we need to get service nodes up and running, and get spreadcoin up on core, then we can begin adding whatever we all need and see as beneficial... its not like we are restricting by basing it on one or the other, it just helps making the progress clean, besides, its better to focus on one task at a time, that makes things cleaner

The main theme behind Spreadcoin: "Decentralize Everything"...

So any service we include should try to stay close to this principle, and strive to decentralize something that is now centralized (or needs help to get more decentralized ---> why we want to help bitcoin)

I would hope that with the "decentralize everything" philosophy, that you guys will seriously consider NOT using any sort of masternode system but instead implementing something else like the cryptonote ring signatures or perhaps have a look at what shadowcash is doing.

We are not planning on using masternodes (we call them service nodes) to perform anon transaction functionality so what the anon coins are doing at the moment is largely irrelevant to us.  

This project is about providing other services via a two tier network, other than private transactions.

Masternodes (Dash) and service nodes (SPR) are fully decentralised anyway, whatever services they are providing.

[Viper1]

Masternodes (Dash) and service nodes (SPR) are fully decentralised anyway, whatever services they are providing.

ummm. No they're not. And given human nature, there's no way anyone should want to put any form of "control" in the hands of a few. That goes completely against what the crypto currency thing was originally about. Not to mention the potential legal issues that could come to those running those sorts of nodes if governments decide they're performing some sort of money laundering or get classified as MTSs. It could end up being completely disastrous to create that sort of system and really shouldn't be considered at all when there are alternatives that avoid those risks.

[stonehedge]

Masternodes (Dash) and service nodes (SPR) are fully decentralised anyway, whatever services they are providing.

ummm. No they're not. And given human nature, there's no way anyone should want to put any form of "control" in the hands of a few. That goes completely against what the crypto currency thing was originally about. Not to mention the potential legal issues that could come to those running those sorts of nodes if governments decide they're performing some sort of money laundering or get classified as MTSs. It could end up being completely disastrous to create that sort of system and really shouldn't be considered at all when there are alternatives that avoid those risks.

I think Georgem and Coins101 are best placed to respond to your opinion on decentralisation however it is important to point out that SPR is not currently planning on providing financial services with its service node network.

[gjhiggins]

Masternodes (Dash) and service nodes (SPR) are fully decentralised anyway, whatever services they are providing.

ummm. No they're not.

This issue is potentially too important to be held hostage by unsupported assertions.

Taken verbatim from the “ripple-paid-$700k-for-PoD-from-USG” thread (I paraphrase):

There is nothing new here. FinCEN has issued guidance over two years ago that makes a clear distinction between a Centralized Virtual Currency and a De-Centralized Virtual Currency. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html. Centralized Virtual Currencies mean that the Administrator and this can easily include developers etc. are considered MSBs and subject to MSB and AML/KNC regulations. Premined, IPO, ICO coins and likely many instamined and ninjamined coins are considered Centralized Virtual Currencies and subject to MSB and AML/KNC regulations.

For a coin to be considered a De-Centralized Virtual Currency both the following conditions have to be met.

A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.

This is among many reasons why I have limited my Crypto-currency investments to Bitcoin (XBT), Monero (XMR) and Namecoin (NMC) and have stayed well away from premined, instamined, ninjamined, IPO, ICO, etc coins. We must keep in mind that the whole point of Bitcoin was to create a de-centralized form of money without a centralized controlling entity, and not to replace one centralized controlling entity with another for private profit.

Edit 1: If one wishes to invest in centralized forms of money one can buy shares in a bank.
 
Edit 2: It is not just FinCEN that premined, instamined, ninjamined, IPO, ICO, etc coins need to be concerned about. In the United States there is the SEC, and then there are hundreds of national and sub national regulatory bodies worldwide that could follow FinCEN's lead.  

Cheers

Graham

[Viper1]

Masternodes (Dash) and service nodes (SPR) are fully decentralised anyway, whatever services they are providing.

ummm. No they're not.

This issue is potentially too important to be held hostage by unsupported assertions.

Taken verbatim from the “ripple-paid-$700k-for-PoD-from-USG” thread (I paraphrase):

There is nothing new here. FinCEN has issued guidance over two years ago that makes a clear distinction between a Centralized Virtual Currency and a De-Centralized Virtual Currency. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html. Centralized Virtual Currencies mean that the Administrator and this can easily include developers etc. are considered MSBs and subject to MSB and AML/KNC regulations. Premined, IPO, ICO coins and likely many instamined and ninjamined coins are considered Centralized Virtual Currencies and subject to MSB and AML/KNC regulations.

For a coin to be considered a De-Centralized Virtual Currency both the following conditions have to be met.

A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.

This is among many reasons why I have limited my Crypto-currency investments to Bitcoin (XBT), Monero (XMR) and Namecoin (NMC) and have stayed well away from premined, instamined, ninjamined, IPO, ICO, etc coins. We must keep in mind that the whole point of Bitcoin was to create a de-centralized form of money without a centralized controlling entity, and not to replace one centralized controlling entity with another for private profit.

Edit 1: If one wishes to invest in centralized forms of money one can buy shares in a bank.
 
Edit 2: It is not just FinCEN that premined, instamined, ninjamined, IPO, ICO, etc coins need to be concerned about. In the United States there is the SEC, and then there are hundreds of national and sub national regulatory bodies worldwide that could follow FinCEN's lead.

Cheers

Graham

While certainly interesting and should raise concerns in a lot of people, that was more about whether the currency itself is considered centralized or not. I'm talking about the network, or to be more specific, any functionality that would rely on a "small" pool of nodes that could be compromised.

The FinCen stuff should really raise concerns for those that are effectively paid to run Masternodes, it wouldn't take much to classify them as administrators. There's already issues with the FinCen regulations as by their definition miners can be considered money transmitters and in the same section it says those (think Masternodes that are required for making things anonymous) that transfer currency from one person to another would also be considered money transmitters.

At the end of they day, my entire point is to avoid anything like the use of masternodes etc in order to reduce the risk to the system as they're just not required due to other options being available.

[CHAOSiTEC]

Masternodes (Dash) and service nodes (SPR) are fully decentralised anyway, whatever services they are providing.

ummm. No they're not.

This issue is potentially too important to be held hostage by unsupported assertions.

Taken verbatim from the “ripple-paid-$700k-for-PoD-from-USG” thread (I paraphrase):

There is nothing new here. FinCEN has issued guidance over two years ago that makes a clear distinction between a Centralized Virtual Currency and a De-Centralized Virtual Currency. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html. Centralized Virtual Currencies mean that the Administrator and this can easily include developers etc. are considered MSBs and subject to MSB and AML/KNC regulations. Premined, IPO, ICO coins and likely many instamined and ninjamined coins are considered Centralized Virtual Currencies and subject to MSB and AML/KNC regulations.

For a coin to be considered a De-Centralized Virtual Currency both the following conditions have to be met.

A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.

This is among many reasons why I have limited my Crypto-currency investments to Bitcoin (XBT), Monero (XMR) and Namecoin (NMC) and have stayed well away from premined, instamined, ninjamined, IPO, ICO, etc coins. We must keep in mind that the whole point of Bitcoin was to create a de-centralized form of money without a centralized controlling entity, and not to replace one centralized controlling entity with another for private profit.

Edit 1: If one wishes to invest in centralized forms of money one can buy shares in a bank.
 
Edit 2: It is not just FinCEN that premined, instamined, ninjamined, IPO, ICO, etc coins need to be concerned about. In the United States there is the SEC, and then there are hundreds of national and sub national regulatory bodies worldwide that could follow FinCEN's lead.

Cheers

Graham

While certainly interesting and should raise concerns in a lot of people, that was more about whether the currency itself is considered centralized or not. I'm talking about the network, or to be more specific, any functionality that would rely on a "small" pool of nodes that could be compromised.

The FinCen stuff should really raise concerns for those that are effectively paid to run Masternodes, it wouldn't take much to classify them as administrators. There's already issues with the FinCen regulations as by their definition miners can be considered money transmitters and in the same section it says those (think Masternodes that are required for making things anonymous) that transfer currency from one person to another would also be considered money transmitters.

At the end of they day, my entire point is to avoid anything like the use of masternodes etc in order to reduce the risk to the system as they're just not required due to other options being available.

i think we will find the best solutions to given problems and still be able to maintain decentralisation.. but i also think we should concentrate on one or 2 things at a time, and discuss it through, finding the solutions that gives the needed functionality we want, and still be able to do it decentralized.

right now, the first steps will be the service nodes, and getting spreadcoin on the core source, then we can start looking into what kind of services we want, and what kind of functionality we want and still keeping the promise of "Decentralize Everything" :-)

[Viper1]

Good lord.. Updated my old client to the latest one and I'm getting like 1 connection. Anyone have a config file with a node list they can share?

[stonehedge]

Good lord.. Updated my old client to the latest one and I'm getting like 1 connection. Anyone have a config file with a node list they can share?

All but one of the old full nodes are dead!

The next QT will have at least 8 stable full nodes in it.

In the meantime, addnode=52.17.253.8 if you want to use my node.  My node has 40+ connections at the moment and has good bandwidth.

Dan

[pokeytex]

...
{
    "balance" : 984913.017500,
}

The trolling is strong with this one. I Love it  

So far, the known balances from 3 wallets is more than the current coin supply.

LOL I was starting to feel very inadequate - then I remembered that I am extremely gullible! :-)