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

[coins101]

I often wonder if users know better what they want then coders.

I think the most suited entities to participate in any voting process are miners.

They are already involved in some sort of voting process just by deciding what version/fork of the protocol they are going to use.

I will probably let the miners decide the amount of reward they are willing to give to the servicenodes.

BTW, I recognize your avatar pic. That's the trippiest film I ever saw.  

Letting miners choose how much to give up is unlikely to workout very well. They'll keep everything.

If they knew what was good for them, the bitcoin miners would pay some of their rewards to nodes. But they don't.

[Moneroman88]

What would you say if I asked you to convince me of Spreadcoin?
What does it have to offer that makes it hot?

[Abou Talha]

What would you say if I asked you to convince me of Spreadcoin?
What does it have to offer that makes it hot?

$$$

[georgem]

Letting miners choose how much to give up is unlikely to workout very well. They'll keep everything.

If they knew what was good for them, the bitcoin miners would pay some of their rewards to nodes. But they don't.

I understand, but wouldn't that in turn incentivize more people to want to mine so they get to influence the result?

Imagine for example a reward system where the average of such mining reward votes of the last 24 hours (~1440 blocks) is taken to decide the current servicenode reward.

Every miner that creates a block adds a number between 0-100 in a specific field in the block header to indicate in what direction he wants to influence the average.

So a miner doesn't get to exclusively decide how much he has to award to the servicenode,
instead his current vote is just added to the pile of 1440 blocks that will derive the average value the miner must give on a protocol level.

So, if we see a large part of miners that don't want to give more than 0 reward, you just have to mine 1 block and give it a "100" to move the market quite a bit.
(well, relatively speaking: 1439 votes of "0" versus 1 vote of "100" leads to a reward of 0.07%. Well, doesn't look like much, but still! It was caused by just 1 Vote!)



Couple that with us adapting SpreadX11 to stay GPU-friendly for the foreseeable future... and this might introduce an interesting dynamic.

I would totally give servicenodes a share of my coinbase, IF the functionality they add to the network is increasing the price of SPR.

Who knows what voluntary negotiations between servicenodes and miners this will trigger.

...

All this reminds me of a dynamic I always wondered about:
What results can you expect in a society where people aren't forced to pay taxes?
Would they still voluntarily fund all the important services (like healthcare, security, fire service, etc...)
or would they just let everything go to shits?

I love to look at things in this libertarian way!
Decentralized all the way!

[coins101]

What would you say if I asked you to convince me of Spreadcoin?
What does it have to offer that makes it hot?

Here, a summary so you can catch up.

Large BTC buy/sell trade on trex, following on from some big market buys a few months back.

What's the story? Big announcement coming?

OP looks interesting. Any other sources of good information?

Georgem is working on his implementation of Service Nodes and many are awaiting that.

More information can be found at the following websites:

Spreadcoin Official Website (Link can also be found in the OP): http://spreadcoin.info/

SpreadcoinTalk (Link can also be found in the OP): http://spreadcointalk.org/

Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpreadcoinOfficial/

Also, we are working on some events for the halvening of uᴉoɔʇᴉq which will be coming up this summer. The website for these is here:

http://blockchain2020.com/block-420000/

My summary is here

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1403629.msg14244341#msg14244341

[coins101]

Letting miners choose how much to give up is unlikely to workout very well. They'll keep everything.

If they knew what was good for them, the bitcoin miners would pay some of their rewards to nodes. But they don't.

I understand, but wouldn't that in turn incentivize more people to want to mine so they get to influence the result?

Imagine for example a reward system where the average of the mining votes of the last 24 hours (~1440 blocks) is taken to decide the current servicenode reward.

Every miner that creates a block adds a number between 0-100 in a specific field in the block header to indicate in what direction he wants to influence the average.

So a miner doesn't get to exclusively decide how much he has to award to the servicenode,
instead his current vote is just added to the pile of 1440 blocks that will derive the average value on protocol level.

So, if we see a large part of miners that don't want to give more than 0 reward, you just have to mine 1 block and give it a "100" to move the market quite a bit.
(well, relatively speaking: 1439 votes of "0" versus 1 vote of "100" leads to a reward of 0.07%. Well, doesn't look like much, but still! It was caused by just 1 Vote!



Couple that with us adapting SpreadX11 to stay GPU-friendly for the foreseeable future... and this might introduce an interesting dynamic.

I would totally give servicenodes a share of my coinbase, IF the functionality they add to the network is increasing the price of SPR.

Who knows what voluntary negotiations between servicenodes and miners this will trigger.

...

All this reminds me of a dynamic I always wondered about:
What results can you expect in a society where people aren't forced to pay taxes?
Would they still voluntarily fund all the important services (like healthcare, security, fire service, etc...)
or would they just let everything go to shits?

I love to look at things in this libertarian way!
Decentralized all the way!

Places which don't have taxes, have higher prices. It doesn't work for the little guy.

The trick is getting the right balance.

[georgem]

Places which don't have taxes, have higher prices. It doesn't work for the little guy.

The trick is getting the right balance.

There is not a single country on this planet that doesn't force its population to pay a certain amount of taxes.

So how do you know?

[coins101]

Places which don't have taxes, have higher prices. It doesn't work for the little guy.

The trick is getting the right balance.

There is not a single country on this planet that doesn't force its population to pay a certain amount of taxes.

So how do you know?

Ever tried buying milk in Monaco?

[georgem]

Places which don't have taxes, have higher prices. It doesn't work for the little guy.

The trick is getting the right balance.

Also, much like we will recommend what altcoins people could host for the decentralized blockexplorer,

we can give miners a recommendation what reward percentage they should apply.


This will add yet another market (yet another interesting chart to watch), and miners will feel empowered, not abused.

[georgem]

Places which don't have taxes, have higher prices. It doesn't work for the little guy.

The trick is getting the right balance.

There is not a single country on this planet that doesn't force its population to pay a certain amount of taxes.

So how do you know?

Ever tried buying milk in Monaco?

meh, monaco, just like vatican city... you can't really count them as countries...

[alganonim]

I often wonder if users know better what they want then coders.

I think the most suited entities to participate in any voting process are miners.

They are already involved in some sort of voting process just by deciding what version/fork of the protocol they are going to use.

I will probably let the miners decide the amount of reward they are willing to give to the servicenodes.

BTW, I recognize your avatar pic. That's the trippiest film I ever saw.  

I was mining SPR 24/7 for month and half but irregular rewards was discouraging me from going on, yeah I know it's normal without pool, from my limited experience miners would give as small amount as they could, more complicated voting system is another story ...

Sidenotes , You have a good eye or even too   , that's the reason why I like it, director said in interesting document released after a movie that all that was about aya not mesc, but script/commic book was written that way so he didn't change it.

[coins101]

Places which don't have taxes, have higher prices. It doesn't work for the little guy.

The trick is getting the right balance.

Also, much like we will recommend what altcoins people could host for the decentralized blockexplorer,

we can give miners a recommendation what reward percent should apply.


This will add yet another market, and miners will feel empowered, not abused.

It won't work.

People in China won't care. People paying higher electricity will say they Chinese don't have as high costs, they should pay more and those in Europe will do some fancy analysis to ensure they keep as much as possible while saying they give away practically everything.

If people knew what was good for them they would not buy food in supermarkets. They would pay a little extra to have good quality local shops. But people are inherently about spending the least amount

[georgem]

I was mining SPR 24/7 for month and half but irregular rewards was discouraging me from going on, yeah I know it's normal without pool, from my limited experience miners would give as small amount as they could, more complicated voting system is another story ...

Exactly, Spreadcoin Solo-Mining has very irregular rewards, and imagine we now just skim a certain fix percentage (30%? 50%?) away from them to give to the servicenodes.

That's why I'm thinking about alternative ways, or spreadcoin miners will be really pissed!

Also, by letting the miners decide themselves, we don't have to set new percentages with every new fork, it will not be the responsibility of the devs anymore to make decisions in the name of a whole group of people.

[coins101]

I was mining SPR 24/7 for month and half but irregular rewards was discouraging me from going on, yeah I know it's normal without pool, from my limited experience miners would give as small amount as they could, more complicated voting system is another story ...

Exactly, Spreadcoin Solo-Mining has very irregular rewards, and imagine we now just skim a certain fix percentage away from them to give to the servicenodes.

That's why I'm thinking about alternative ways, or spreadcoin miners will be really pissed!

We already had this discussion in DASH.

Now with 50% given to Masternodes, Dash is one of the most profitable coins to mine. Well it was until ASICs happened.

[georgem]

We already had this discussion in DASH.

Now with 50% given to Masternodes, Dash is one of the most profitable coins to mine. Well it was until ASICs happened.

I don't think that ASICs will hurt Dash.

With spreadcoin everybody solo-mines. Luckily with our current low net hashrate even a single GPU can find blocks a few times a day.

This will NOT be the case anymore when our hashrate is 100 times higher.

With other coins, if you can mine in a pool you don't care much about a fix deduction, you just want to see the milliCoins trickle down constantly.

But if you solo-mined for a week to find a single block, you'd probably enjoy your whole block much more if it isn't taxed.


Look, this will again introduce dynamics that we can't even fathom right now.

What if a short term small 1 GPU miner doesn't want to give much percentage to the servicenodes (so he votes "0", and the average makes him pay 21.345 % or something)
but a large GPU farm that is in it for the long haul votes for a very generous percentage because that's what empowerement means:
Think of it as a form of patronage.

[georgem]

How is the Service Node development going? I thought it would be here by now  

There are like half a dozen things that are in development to make this happen, yep.

UBA, my own UTXO database format, new wallet, new protocol. They will all have to come together to create what you guys call "servicenodes".

[rhinomonkey]

Georgem, why is it that you are framing the miners as the receivers of a tax and the service nodes as the tax leviers?

For example - In the instance of say, me wanting you to stop smoking because you're "ruining my clean air". I (tax levier) frame you (tax recipient) as the damager to the air. However, equally I impose damages on to you because I would be stopping you from smoking. And you as a smoker (tax recipient) would decry "He's taking away my right to smoke!" framing me as the bad guy (tax levier)

Really what this comes down to is attempting to find an optimal way for the network (society) to operate under. I'm skeptical that either party by itself will be better at determining that through their votes.

Perhaps a series of votes on each side would be better?

It might be also important to note that obviously my example is representative of two parties that have behaviours mutually exclusive of each other. A smoker won't want to take away his own right to smoke. nor will non-smokers want to smoke if they want others to stop smoking.

This won't be the case with SPR, because miners can mine and run service nodes & vice versa. I don't like the idea of pitting them against each other.

[MrZillion]

miners as the receivers of a tax and the service nodes as the tax leviers

Wow, how did this come into play? Aren't Service Nodes an eco system where all parts play a role? Let's not overthink and get the ball rolling! Just my 2 cents 

[rhinomonkey]

miners as the receivers of a tax and the service nodes as the tax leviers

Wow, how did this come into play? Aren't Service Nodes an eco system where all parts play a role? Let's not overthink and get the ball rolling! Just my 2 cents 

This is partly the point I was attempting to make. They are both different parts of the whole and it is hard to measure which provides more value thus making relative rewards also difficult to determine.

[georgem]

Georgem, why is it that you are framing the miners as the receivers of a tax and the service nodes as the tax leviers?

For example - In the instance of say, me wanting you to stop smoking because you're "ruining my clean air". I (tax levier) frame you (tax recipient) as the damager to the air. However, equally I impose damages on to you because I would be stopping you from smoking. And you as a smoker (tax recipient) would decry "He's taking away my right to smoke!" framing me as the bad guy (tax levier)

Really what this comes down to is attempting to find an optimal way for the network (society) to operate under. I'm skeptical that either party by itself will be better at determining that through their votes.

Perhaps a series of votes on each side would be better?

It might be also important to note that obviously my example is representative of two parties that have behaviours mutually exclusive of each other. A smoker won't want to take away his own right to smoke. nor will non-smokers want to smoke if they want others to stop smoking.

This won't be the case with SPR, because miners can mine and run service nodes & vice versa. I don't like the idea of pitting them against each other.

I call it tax because it's arbitrary and probably not very welcome, especially in a solo-mining environment.

Look, contrary to DASH, I design our competitive collateral scheme specifically so that everybody will easily be able to run a servicenode, especially in the first years.
There will be no fix collateral that lets the ownership of a servicenode get out of reach of the underprivileged class the higher the SPR price gets.

Couple that with the reality that everybody can participate in solo-mining, and miners don't just receive the block reward they also get to vote regarding servicenode rewards.
Mining will be more empowering.

Everybody will be mining and 'noding!

I don't like the idea of pitting them against each other.

And therefor that will be like saying: your left hand is pitted against your right!