The legends of bitcointalk should make our own altcoin together, thoughts?

[monsterer]

What about a trustless, decentralised ripple for altcoins?

Possibly would be to work together to create a ledger type system that could be implemented into current Coins.

The thing here is that people do not want more Coins so the options can be that if a group of people wanted, they could takeover a current dead Coin which would reward a number of current investors, collaborate around some current and running Coin/s, or work on things or projects that can universally benefit many Coins.

Personally, I'd like to see a true proof of burn consensus, where participants compete for transaction fees (and, or block reward) by bidding stake - the highest bid wins, and all bids are either burned (as in POW) or are also awarded to the winner. This is basically analogous to POW, except that the cost is not in computation, but currency which means you can have a much faster consensus.

[Crestington]

What about a trustless, decentralised ripple for altcoins?

Possibly would be to work together to create a ledger type system that could be implemented into current Coins.

The thing here is that people do not want more Coins so the options can be that if a group of people wanted, they could takeover a current dead Coin which would reward a number of current investors, collaborate around some current and running Coin/s, or work on things or projects that can universally benefit many Coins.

Personally, I'd like to see a true proof of burn consensus, where participants compete for transaction fees (and, or block reward) by bidding stake - the highest bid wins, and all bids are either burned (as in POW) or are also awarded to the winner. This is basically analogous to POW, except that the cost is not in computation, but currency which means you can have a much faster consensus.

How so if the Stake is burned or rewarded to the winner? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

I think for a type of ledger system it would have a reduction of money supply but multiple chains being created with new Genesis Blocks with snapshots of the old chain. I envision something similar to how Clams distribution was handled but rolling over into new chains. Is that what you mean?

Edit: How do you suppose you would handle both types of Fees in different Coins that it could be more universal? In Coins there is both destruction of Fees and addition of Fees to the next Block.

[jabo38]

I see all this talk about legends, but all I see here are heroes.

 

hahahahaha.  that is sooooo true.

this thread should be called "heros" thread

[jabo38]

we don't really need another coin too.

it would be better if more coins merged their resources actually.

[monsterer]

How so if the Stake is burned or rewarded to the winner? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

I think for a type of ledger system it would have a reduction of money supply but multiple chains being created with new Genesis Blocks with snapshots of the old chain. I envision something similar to how Clams distribution was handled but rolling over into new chains. Is that what you mean?

Edit: How do you suppose you would handle both types of Fees in different Coins that it could be more universal? In Coins there is both destruction of Fees and addition of Fees to the next Block.

The first is a very good question - if the bidding is done in local currency, it cannot be via transactions (since they'd need consensus themselves) but some other method. I'm open to ideas on this.

Not quite sure what you're asking in the 2nd question. For coin distribution, you could either have share-drop on bitcoin, ICO, or separate the block reward out of the main consensus and have it (the block reward only) be POW based.

[Crestington]

How so if the Stake is burned or rewarded to the winner? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

I think for a type of ledger system it would have a reduction of money supply but multiple chains being created with new Genesis Blocks with snapshots of the old chain. I envision something similar to how Clams distribution was handled but rolling over into new chains. Is that what you mean?

Edit: How do you suppose you would handle both types of Fees in different Coins that it could be more universal? In Coins there is both destruction of Fees and addition of Fees to the next Block.

The first is a very good question - if the bidding is done in local currency, it cannot be via transactions (since they'd need consensus themselves) but some other method. I'm open to ideas on this.

Not quite sure what you're asking in the 2nd question. For coin distribution, you could either have share-drop on bitcoin, ICO, or separate the block reward out of the main consensus and have it (the block reward only) be POW based.

Well I was thinking something along the lines of a type of ledger system within current Coins (and could be adapted within Bitcoin) in which at regular intervals a snapshot of the chain is taken and parsed into a new genesis Block with all current balances and the old data is trimmed off. Were you thinking of something different?

[g3rszpi]

we don't really need another coin too.

it would be better if more coins merged their resources actually.

Can you explain this a little more detailed.I don't see the point.

[monsterer]

Well I was thinking something along the lines of a type of ledger system within current Coins (and could be adapted within Bitcoin) in which at regular intervals a snapshot of the chain is taken and parsed into a new genesis Block with all current balances and the old data is trimmed off. Were you thinking of something different?

Ahhh, for the burning part? That's certainly one way of handling POB for external burning... I was thinking about internal currency burning, simply because that breaks the tie with the slow confirmation times of external blockchains.

[Crestington]

Well I was thinking something along the lines of a type of ledger system within current Coins (and could be adapted within Bitcoin) in which at regular intervals a snapshot of the chain is taken and parsed into a new genesis Block with all current balances and the old data is trimmed off. Were you thinking of something different?

Ahhh, for the burning part? That's certainly one way of handling POB for external burning... I was thinking about internal currency burning, simply because that breaks the tie with the slow confirmation times of external blockchains.

I'm not really a fan of burning coins itself within a currency where you get a reduction of currency supply in the form of fees being destroyed because it should be where as much of the money supply is as active as possible and to reduce that active supply you would get less strength of the network as people forget about Coins they have or lose keys over time. What I was talking about before is that in different Coins the Fees can either be added to the next Block (like BlackCoin), or are destroyed and reduces the money supply (as in PeerCoin).

I would like to figure out a good way in which there is a type of constant redemption of balances where you reset the Blockchain so the idea is where a snapshot is taken automatically and the balances are parsed into the first Block in the new chain so you don't need the data left over from the old chain so that you could infinitely keep the chain within a certain data size.

[monsterer]

I'm not really a fan of burning coins itself within a currency where you get a reduction of currency supply in the form of fees being destroyed because it should be where as much of the money supply is as active as possible and to reduce that active supply you would get less strength of the network as people forget about Coins they have or lose keys over time.

Reducing money supply increases scarcity and therefore increases coin value. I'm not sure how reducing active supply decreases the network strength?

In POB the network strength comes from the ongoing cost of block production, just like in POW.

[Crestington]

I'm not really a fan of burning coins itself within a currency where you get a reduction of currency supply in the form of fees being destroyed because it should be where as much of the money supply is as active as possible and to reduce that active supply you would get less strength of the network as people forget about Coins they have or lose keys over time.

Reducing money supply increases scarcity and therefore increases coin value. I'm not sure how reducing active supply decreases the network strength?

In POB the network strength comes from the ongoing cost of block production, just like in POW.

But to decrease money supply and scarcity there is also reduction in volume and trade, exchanges need volume and trade in order to keep Coins listed so if you are losing money on every trade then you won't trade, exchanges have less volume, less distribution of the money supply, less nodes and consensus. IMO Proof of Burn is not as popular as higher inflation because in higher inflation Coins people will sell excess coins for profit and retain most of their Coins once they reach ROI so you get wider and wider distribution over time.

[Hippie Tech]

Ok ok.. I'm in.. as long as we call this the HOWaHANDFULofEARLYadoptersANDshitclonersFUCKEDtheCRYPTOmovementCOIN.

Its time to fleece the greedy noobs !

[monsterer]

But to decrease money supply and scarcity there is also reduction in volume and trade, exchanges need volume and trade in order to keep Coins listed so if you are losing money on every trade then you won't trade, exchanges have less volume, less distribution of the money supply, less nodes and consensus. IMO Proof of Burn is not as popular as higher inflation because in higher inflation Coins people will sell excess coins for profit and retain most of their Coins once they reach ROI so you get wider and wider distribution over time.

You're assuming that price remains fixed. A reduction in supply tends to increase price - take a look at 42, for instance: 42 total supply, coin value: 3.4 BTC / coin.

https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/42_BTC

Inflation reduces the value of coins overall, because it increases supply... In essence what assume is the case is completely backwards from reality

There are no functional proof of burn coins that I'm aware of, which is why I'm interested in exploring how it would work.

[Crestington]

But to decrease money supply and scarcity there is also reduction in volume and trade, exchanges need volume and trade in order to keep Coins listed so if you are losing money on every trade then you won't trade, exchanges have less volume, less distribution of the money supply, less nodes and consensus. IMO Proof of Burn is not as popular as higher inflation because in higher inflation Coins people will sell excess coins for profit and retain most of their Coins once they reach ROI so you get wider and wider distribution over time.

You're assuming that price remains fixed. A reduction in supply tends to increase price - take a look at 42, for instance: 42 total supply, coin value: 3.4 BTC / coin.

https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/42_BTC

Inflation reduces the value of coins overall, because it increases supply... In essence what assume is the case is completely backwards from reality

There are no functional proof of burn coins that I'm aware of, which is why I'm interested in exploring how it would work.

42 Coins is the total amount of Coins that will ever be produced and it's extremely low coin supply (0.9178677 Coins currently) has the negative effect of making the Coin seem much more expensive than it's worth, the total marketcap for 42 is $902 USD or just over 3 BTC and being POW only it has been dropping in value ever since it was launched. Over the last 6 months it has lost about 25% in value http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/42-coin/

I only remember one Proof of Burn Coin which was launched with such an extreme amount of burn that it was burning about 50% of the Coins in every transaction and then burned down to nothing.

I'm not sure how Proof of Burn can realistically work???

There is

slimcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=613213.0
ÇoinProLite https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763364.0
levelcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422309.0
Third Generation Coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=643300.0

and I think KoreCoin utilizes POB as a type of anonyminity https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=668886.0

ChanceCoin? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528023.0

That is the few I could find on the subject.

[Hippie Tech]

This is just another shameless plug for craptsy and one or more of it's inhouse crapclones.

The 42 coin supply is much higher and is unlimited. This was hardcoded and has not been fixed even though this thread claims that it has.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=444775.0

[monsterer]

I only remember one Proof of Burn Coin which was launched with such an extreme amount of burn that it was burning about 50% of the Coins in every transaction and then burned down to nothing.

I'm not sure how Proof of Burn can realistically work???

There is

slimcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=613213.0
ÇoinProLite https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763364.0
levelcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422309.0
Third Generation Coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=643300.0

and I think KoreCoin utilizes POB as a type of anonyminity https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=668886.0

ChanceCoin? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528023.0

That is the few I could find on the subject.

I think those are all distributed by burn, not by using burn in the consensus.

POB by consensus is analogous to POW, but instead of electricity being burnt, you are burning currency. Every block costs coins to produce, which immediately fixes all the nothing at stake problems which plague POS. The block reward is what incentivises miners to continually burn their own stake in order to produce blocks, and it has equilibrium at break-even just like POW.

The advantage of using burn instead of POW is that you can burn infinitely fast, meaning block times are not artificially constrained by computational difficulty, leading to faster confirmation.

[kelsey]

Ok ok.. I'm in.. as long as we call this the HOWaHANDFULofEARLYadoptersANDshitclonersFUCKEDtheCRYPTOmovementCOIN.

Its time to fleece the greedy noobs !

i was more leaning towards

Bitcoin 2.0: the Quest for More Fiat 

[Hippie Tech]

Ok ok.. I'm in.. as long as we call this the HOWaHANDFULofEARLYadoptersANDshitclonersFUCKEDtheCRYPTOmovementCOIN.

Its time to fleece the greedy noobs !

i was more leaning towards

Bitcoin 2.0: the Quest for More Fiat 

Hio kelsey !

I'd say my idea has a better ring to it... no ?

[bit1]

Ok ok.. I'm in.. as long as we call this the HOWaHANDFULofEARLYadoptersANDshitclonersFUCKEDtheCRYPTOmovementCOIN.

Its time to fleece the greedy noobs !

It is a  very long name to any exchange.    HOWaHANDFULofEARLYadoptersANDshitclonersFUCKEDtheCRYPTOmovementCOIN / BTC  

[Crestington]

I only remember one Proof of Burn Coin which was launched with such an extreme amount of burn that it was burning about 50% of the Coins in every transaction and then burned down to nothing.

I'm not sure how Proof of Burn can realistically work???

There is

slimcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=613213.0
ÇoinProLite https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763364.0
levelcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422309.0
Third Generation Coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=643300.0

and I think KoreCoin utilizes POB as a type of anonyminity https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=668886.0

ChanceCoin? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528023.0

That is the few I could find on the subject.

I think those are all distributed by burn, not by using burn in the consensus.

POB by consensus is analogous to POW, but instead of electricity being burnt, you are burning currency. Every block costs coins to produce, which immediately fixes all the nothing at stake problems which plague POS. The block reward is what incentivises miners to continually burn their own stake in order to produce blocks, and it has equilibrium at break-even just like POW.

The advantage of using burn instead of POW is that you can burn infinitely fast, meaning block times are not artificially constrained by computational difficulty, leading to faster confirmation.

Block times are more or less irrelevant compared to the amount of data accumulating in the Blockchain, this is my main concern with Cryptonote Coins because the amount of data accrued over a yearly basis is multi-gigabytes so if it can be 10 second or less Block times but the Blockchain grows so quickly that you have a base rate of growth in the gigabytes so if there is a large amount of adoption that it will compound the growth then users will not adopt it for that reason.

How do you suppose proof of Burn could be adapted in order to create a type of ledger type system within Bitcoin based Coins? I am thinking something along the lines that current Coins could be burnt within the same chain for a subset of the new chain with the same balances?

I don't really want to start a new type of Coin, most anything we could come up with could be adapted within current Coins and would be the best method to go for.