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

[MrSpace]

MrSpace, I would just like to know what I did for you to be like this.
I can't think of anything.

MOTOcoin !

[1714675158]

1714675158

[1714675158]

1714675158

[1714675158]

1714675158

[1714675158]

1714675158

[1714675158]

1714675158

[e1ghtSpace]

MrSpace, I would just like to know what I did for you to be like this.
I can't think of anything.

MOTOcoin !

What about it?

The developers left and the website has expired and no one on there talks. How is that my fault?

[e1ghtSpace]

Hey guys I stumbled into this:

What the hell. You can at least provide a reason or something.

They don't like fud and criticism.. should ask yourself why

Did sparkster FUD or anything? Maybe an ip issue.

[Andrelvogue]

Building decentralized web on nodes - interesting

https://youtu.be/999q3_htKPU?t=8m58s

edit

https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs

The backstory to decentralised web of nodes proposition (or most things) - which makes sense of what he is proposing and why it will work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa4pckodM9g

edit



With nodes: more decentralized nodes, the faster the download speeds.

With http: the more the users, the slower the download speeds.

Simples,

http://academictorrents.com/

let me check it out

[elbandi]

Building decentralized web on nodes - interesting

https://youtu.be/999q3_htKPU?t=8m58s

edit

https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs

The backstory to decentralised web of nodes proposition (or most things) - which makes sense of what he is proposing and why it will work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa4pckodM9g

edit



With nodes: more decentralized nodes, the faster the download speeds.

With http: the more the users, the slower the download speeds.

Simples,

http://academictorrents.com/

At syncing, the download speed is irrelevant, the hard work for the wallet is to process the incoming data (checkblock: verify hash, verify data, etc)

[coins101]

...At syncing, the download speed is irrelevant, the hard work for the wallet is to process the incoming data (checkblock: verify hash, verify data, etc)

I hadn't really factored that it. Thanks.

I was actually thinking about how you could use a decentralized web to authenticate on the fly login requests. Where do the credentials go, how do they get stored, etc?

Do you create a docker container, let the user pull down a run application request, run the application for a session, authenticate (against what?), then allow the user access to xyz. Does the application issue a public key to the user, and matches the return of the public key with the users issued public key to initiate a session now involving private keys?  

edit

Been for a walk to think about this, and maybe its achievable - well in theory.

* There is a live demo of github repo being pulled into a decentralized environment.
* Protonmail has demonstrated the use of emails using public keys as the initiators of an anonymous and encrypted communication session between two users (user and application, in this example)
* Decentralized web is evidently possible, with live working examples
* Randomly selected ServiceNodes can facilitate and connect all the above

* What this needs are one time issued passwords -> user initiated pull from decentralized github to run a bat file on a servicenode which generates a password and issues it to the user, after entering into anonymous communications with the user through public keys

* the user gets a second layer of protection when initiating a communication 'transaction' by using mobile 2FA against their private keys - two stage login process to prevent sybil attacks.

Don't know why it hasn't been done already, duh  

edit edit

or maybe just use Trezor for password less logins, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114456/trezor-offers-password-less-login-to-other-websites-adds-dash

[georgem]

Building decentralized web on nodes - interesting

https://youtu.be/999q3_htKPU?t=8m58s

edit

https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs

The backstory to decentralised web of nodes proposition (or most things) - which makes sense of what he is proposing and why it will work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa4pckodM9g

edit



With nodes: more decentralized nodes, the faster the download speeds.

With http: the more the users, the slower the download speeds.

Simples,

http://academictorrents.com/

At syncing, the download speed is irrelevant, the hard work for the wallet is to process the incoming data (checkblock: verify hash, verify data, etc)

Well, I wouldn't say that download speed is irrelevant, but the bottleneck of synching a full node is definitely the CPU.

Also, if I am not mistaken (I am not sure how Core does it), a full node will always download a single block, then validate it, then ask and wait for the next block to download, validate again etc...
A very serial process.
While the CPU is validating, the program isn't allowed to download the next block, for obvious reasons: if the last block is false, all following blocks are also false (wrong fork).
But not being allowed to download further blocks is what makes synching even slower.

(And vice versa, while the next block is still downloading, the CPU can't validate yet. All those waiting times add to a large delay, especially when you consider hundreds of thousands of blocks.)

So is this the best way of doing things?

The goal is to have better initial synching speed. It concerns people who download a blockchain from scratch, or need to sync weeks or months of data.

It can be argued that syncing could be much faster by downloading a large chunk of the longest available blockchain once (servicenodes will help out), and then do the initial validation process in one sweep,
and if there are errors, go back to serial processing as it is done now--> validate and download the rest of the blockchain from the last validated index, block by block.

Serial processing is necessary once your wallet is up-to-date (or near up-to-date), and you just need to keep track of the best blockchain available on a per-minute basis.
But is it necessary for the initial sync process, that is the question....

[coins101]

Anyone know whats going with the rich list?

Looks like people have been stocking up!

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/#!rich

Someone, somewhere, knows something.

[coins101]

BitLicences have been updated:

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/speeches/sp1506031.htm

"We are excited about the potential digital currency holds for helping drive long-overdue changes in our ossified payments system. We simply want to make sure that we put in place guardrails that protect consumers and root out illicit activity – without stifling beneficial innovation."

Crypto is going to change the existing financial system, slowly - but surely.

For the automated escrow services everyone asked to see first:

"Second, we have no intention of being a regulator of software developers – only financial intermediaries. For example, students or other innovators who are simply developing software and are not holding onto customer funds are not required to apply for a BitLicense. There is an important reason for making this distinction when a company becomes a financial intermediary: There is a basic bargain that when a financial company is entrusted with safeguarding customer funds and receives a license from the state to do so – it accepts the need for heightened regulatory scrutiny to help ensure that a consumer’s money does not just disappear into a black hole."

If ServiceNodes don't ever hold funds, and they always stay with consumers, there is a clearer indication that regulations won't be necessary for ServiceNodes.

The licence regulations are here:

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/regulations/adoptions/dfsp200t.pdf

There seems to be an exclusion to regulations if keeping away from fiat, but its not clear in some places - ie, what's the point of BitLicences?

edit

Well, it looks like these regulations will cover businesses like shapeshift which keep away from Fiat, but convert between currencies. I'll be interested to see the reaction of shapeshift, Bittrex and Cryptsy to these New York State (only) regulations.

[coins101]

Initial thoughts on BitLicences are based around this reported comment from the regulator:

Lawsky said in his press conference, it is a sign that the regulation is not quite right. Regulators will not please everyone. Any Bitcoin business lost will surely find a new home elsewhere in another state in the union, at least until that state models their future regulatory framework upon New York’s BitLicense.

They are basically saying that all regulators will copy their licensing regulations.

What that means is that anyone wanting to run a crypto service will find it difficult without getting regulated.

Unless

You run a decentralized series of nodes that can run services anywhere in the world, where the regulations don't apply. Of course, consumers IPs will need to be banned if they are coming from regulated locations.

And VPS providers will have to be chosen with care.

Services running on decentralized nodes looks like the way forward.

You are where the future is going to be: Decentralize Everything. Enjoy 

[Ezravdb]

Anyone know whats going with the rich list?

Looks like people have been stocking up!

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/#!rich

Someone, somewhere, knows something.

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/address.dws?175312.htm

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/address.dws?190677.htm

[defunctec]

Anyone know whats going with the rich list?

Looks like people have been stocking up!

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/#!rich

Someone, somewhere, knows something.

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/address.dws?175312.htm

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/address.dws?190677.htm

Over exposure much?

[MrSpace]

Anyone know whats going with the rich list?

Looks like people have been stocking up!

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/#!rich

Someone, somewhere, knows something.

That's the SPR Instamine dump being split up and transferred.

[stonehedge]

Anyone know whats going with the rich list?

Looks like people have been stocking up!

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/#!rich

Someone, somewhere, knows something.

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/address.dws?175312.htm

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/address.dws?190677.htm

Over exposure much?

Or just gambling.  Coins have been very cheap for a long time until recently. 

[stonehedge]

Anyone know whats going with the rich list?

Looks like people have been stocking up!

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/#!rich

Someone, somewhere, knows something.

That's the SPR Instamine dump being split up and transferred.

Lol.  Shouldn't you be at school?

[CHAOSiTEC]

Anyone know whats going with the rich list?

Looks like people have been stocking up!

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/#!rich

Someone, somewhere, knows something.

That's the SPR Instamine dump being split up and transferred.

Lol.  Shouldn't you be at school?

he is too young for school, more like kindergarden :-)

[stonehedge]

I thought I'd share with you a week's average utilisation to run a BTC and SPR node on a T2.small on AWS.  The CPU use is low but I want to factor in the possibility of running services on the same machine in the future.  I expect load to increase.

For info, last month's bill for this instance was about £30GBP

In terms of value provided to the BTC network in the last 7 days, this node has been the first relay point for 1,411BTC worth of transactions (excluding all transactions below 1BTC!).  Thats about $320,000 at today's spot price.  I expect the transactions below 1BTC to amount to a similar value if I could be bothered to sum them all. This one BTC node is handling roughly half a million USD of transactions a week at the moment.

CPU:



Network In:



Network Out:

[coins101]

I thought I'd share with you a week's average utilisation to run a BTC and SPR node on a T2.small on AWS.  The CPU use is low but I want to factor in the possibility of running services on the same machine in the future.  I expect load to increase.

For info, last month's bill for this instance was about £30GBP

In terms of value provided to the BTC network in the last 7 days, this node has been the first relay point for 1,411BTC worth of transactions (excluding all transactions below 1BTC!).  Thats about $320,000 at today's spot price.  I expect the transactions below 1BTC to amount to a similar value if I could be bothered to sum them all. This one BTC node is handling roughly half a million USD of transactions a week at the moment.
.....

Plugging those numbers into a spreadsheet, plus a little extra for sweep in some 1 BTC transactions, gives:

* 100 SPR nodes, would relay $1.7bn worth of transactions per year at current rate of $USD exchange

* 1,000 SPR nodes would relay $17bn per year

* 2,000 SPR nodes would relay $34bn per year

* 5,000 SPR nodes would relay ~$85bn per year (and costs only $3m in hosting)

Add some open source code to show no sybil attacks are being performed, and you have the makings of a great network supporting the mother ship.

Add some heavy handed regulations, and you have an SPR network that is supporting the mother ship in neutral jurisdictions. Something that businesses running full nodes would not be able to say.

Lets assume that there are 2,000 nodes set-up by businesses wanting to keep the bitcoin network stable to protect their business interests.  Sounds very fair and reasonable.

But

If those businesses are based in regulated countries, then a few court orders and you have the makings for a silent surveillance program.

To prevent Bitcoin nodes from going the way of centralized mining operations, Bitcoin actually does need a 'nodes with incentives' initiative, for many, many reasons:

* Risks of reducing node count due to block size increases
* Centralization due to reducing node count
* Regulations creating environment for secret surveillance programs
* For profit sybil attacks
* Increased use of mobile wallets reducing full nodes

[stonehedge]

I personally have no idea why the Bitcoin Foundation aren't willing to solve this problem themselves.

However, if they won't, we will!

Time for a whitepaper?

[defunctec]

I personally have no idea why the Bitcoin Foundation aren't willing to solve this problem themselves.

However, if they won't, we will!

Time for a whitepaper?

Time for new wallet, time for testnet, time for roadmap.

Give me something