Slimcoin | First Proof of Burn currency | Decentralized Web

[muf18]

slimco.in domain is prolonged for another year.

Will do also an update on it, cause there a few new things.

[muf18]

Hey. Please join Slimcoin community chat - https://discord.gg/ffeDjmV so we can talk in real-time. I know there is still a handful of people interested in SLM, we can also hang out .

[gavrilo77]

Did someone contacted Nova regarding to SLM how long they need to fix the wallet?

[muf18]

Please reunite on discord channel.

A lot of folks are still on this forum from back, when cryptocurrencies or "P2P digital currencies" were just a novelty and fun experiment. If you do so - please join SLM channel.

Cause Slimcoin is still a uncensorship, irreversible, without possibility to double-spend money and an untangible asset.

It has awesome qualities, in terms of durability, stability and still resilience of the network even when being in hard position. In 5 years we have achieved considerably low inflation rate, due to burning and self-regulating PoW/PoS/PoB consensus. I think it proves a point of being strong and viable coin.

[gavrilo77]

NOVA opened trading for SLM

[muf18]

I wanted to ask, because I don't know if community would be ok with it but...

There are probably going to be opened USDT and DOGE markets for SLM soon on freiexchange. And as I thought maybe we should ask exchanges to shut down BTC markets from nova and frei (there are barely any orders too)?

And continue to trade USDT and DOGE markets? Liquidity wise it's much easier to provide USDT liquidity, then BTC liquidity

It could give us a real USD price of SLM.

That's my opinion, but BTC markets are taking liquidity out of alt markets, not in. That's bad, because we can't have any real price discovery due to that.

[d5000]

The drawback of shutting down the BTC market is that it would be more complicated to buy/sell SLM from and to real fiat currency, as the the main fiat markets are for BTC. Exchanges like Bitstamp do not offer a fiat<->USDT or fiat<->Doge gateway, so you would have to do fia->BTC->Doge->SLM for example. That could mean getting even "less" liquidity.

I would prefer to maintain at least one BTC market (would prefer Freiexchange), but to drive attention to the other markets via the webpage etc.

BTW: According to my current calculations, a hard PoS cap of 13 blocks (i.e. clients should reject PoS blocks if there are more than 13 PoS blocks in a row) would be probably enough to allow the difficulty to catch up fast enough (see the conversations with iguanodon1 in 2018 on this and the following page). This would make it more difficult for strong stakers to dominate the network in a harmful way, and would not require a hard fork. I will test that on a private testnet in the next days, and then start a public testnet for it (hopefully still this week).

[gavrilo77]

The drawback of shutting down the BTC market is that it would be more complicated to buy/sell SLM from and to real fiat currency, as the the main fiat markets are for BTC. Exchanges like Bitstamp do not offer a fiat<->USDT or fiat<->Doge gateway, so you would have to do fia->BTC->Doge->SLM for example. That could mean getting even "less" liquidity.

I would prefer to maintain at least one BTC market (would prefer Freiexchange), but to drive attention to the other markets via the webpage etc.

BTW: According to my current calculations, a hard PoS cap of 13 blocks (i.e. clients should reject PoS blocks if there are more than 13 PoS blocks in a row) would be probably enough to allow the difficulty to catch up fast enough (see the conversations with iguanodon1 in 2018 on this and the following page). This would make it more difficult for strong stakers to dominate the network in a harmful way, and would not require a hard fork. I will test that on a private testnet in the next days, and then start a public testnet for it (hopefully still this week).

Sound good! If i understood well this should come with the new client? What if people will still use the old one? I missed how to do that without some fork

[d5000]

Sound good! If i understood well this should come with the new client? What if people will still use the old one? I missed how to do that without some fork

Yes, there should be a new release for the client. That however means we have to test the other 0.6 changes more thoroughly.

The update would be only mandatory for miners and stakers. That's why I'm - in the case the tests are successful - looking if I get a "clean" soft fork mechanism working in SLM, which would allow to track how many clients are using the updated code and only updating the protocol when e.g. >95% of the last blocks were produced by updated clients. This change (the earliest incarnation was with BIP34 and related issues) was introduced in Bitcoin relatively early (in 2012), but AFAIK unfortunately after the Peercoin/Slimcoin code forked away from the Bitcoin codebase.

However, the PoS "hard cap" would not solve the problem of dominant PoS stakers entirely. It provides a little bit of protection regarding attacks, as you could be sure if you accept a payment after 30 confirmations that there will be at least 2 PoW blocks with them. But a more profound solution, allowing less than 10 PoS blocks in a row, would need a hard fork, which is something difficult at this moment, because not only all miners and stakers but also all other users would have to update.

Also, the new Peercoin PoS algorithm (called sometimes PoSv2) would help as it encourages staking participation.

I started a hard fork wishlist page at the Github wiki. Everybody is free to contribute there.

[muf18]

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.6.3 - that's the version we have forked off from as peercoin/slimcoin.

@d5000 - did you thought about instead of hard-fork on current code - code up on the new branch of 0.16.3 of Peercoin client?

It would have a lot of improvements, and could interconnect us to PPC chain.

https://github.com/peercoin/peercoin/tree/release-0.8

I know that's a lot of work, but I know some people would could be interested in it.

And a lot of things it would enable in reality.

If it would be hard to keep dcrypt algo, I would even be in favour to drop it for standard sha256 - at least we would gather some pool software, and miners support.

3 profound advantages I see with re-base on 0.16:

1/ Much faster and stable client

2/ Better stability of the network due to high hash-rate for the chain supported by sha256 miners

3/ Keeping all original promises of PoW, PoS, PoB


And disadvantages:

1/ Basically not feasible today

2/ Cutting of CPU miners (but they were/are rather weak)


If I find more people willing to join, I'll certainly report.

[d5000]

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.6.3 - that's the version we have forked off from as peercoin/slimcoin.

Exactly. Soft forks were added for Bitcoin 0.7 in August 2012. I have however not revised Graham's and P4Titan's additions after the launch, so there is a minimal possibility the softfork code was ported (but I don't really believe that, as I don't remember anyone posting here about that).

@d5000 - did you thought about instead of hard-fork on current code - code up on the new branch of 0.16.3 of Peercoin client?

That would be ideal, but we need developers that can do that.

If it would be hard to keep dcrypt algo, I would even be in favour to drop it for standard sha256 - at least we would gather some pool software, and miners support.

Standard sha256 could expose SLM, in theory, to attacks from Bitcoin ASIC mining farms. With the current difficulty/blocks spacing algorithm this moment it's very difficult to do that without owning stake because of the large proportion of PoS blocks, but if PoW blocks got more prominence then it could become possible.

Instead, I would search for another CPU-based algorithm. Sure, there are also CPU farms and botnets, however, they are much less powerful than Bitcoin SHA256 farms.

Edit: I just saw your hardfork wishlist additions. I basically agree with the reduction of the PoS block reward, however, the high PoS reward in 2014 was introduced because there were not many stakers participating. So in this case this is changed I think a higher PoW block proportion (via difficulty algorithm) would be almost mandatory.

[casper77]

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.6.3 - that's the version we have forked off from as peercoin/slimcoin.

Exactly. Soft forks were added for Bitcoin 0.7 in August 2012. I have however not revised Graham's and P4Titan's additions after the launch, so there is a minimal possibility the softfork code was ported (but I don't really believe that, as I don't remember anyone posting here about that).

@d5000 - did you thought about instead of hard-fork on current code - code up on the new branch of 0.16.3 of Peercoin client?

That would be ideal, but we need developers that can do that.

If it would be hard to keep dcrypt algo, I would even be in favour to drop it for standard sha256 - at least we would gather some pool software, and miners support.

Standard sha256 could expose SLM, in theory, to attacks from Bitcoin ASIC mining farms. With the current difficulty/blocks spacing algorithm this moment it's very difficult to do that without owning stake because of the large proportion of PoS blocks, but if PoW blocks got more prominence then it could become possible.

Instead, I would search for another CPU-based algorithm. Sure, there are also CPU farms and botnets, however, they are much less powerful than Bitcoin SHA256 farms.

Edit: I just saw your hardfork wishlist additions. I basically agree with the reduction of the PoS block reward, however, the high PoS reward in 2014 was introduced because there were not many stakers participating. So in this case this is changed I think a higher PoW block proportion (via difficulty algorithm) would be almost mandatory.

botnets are worse than farms
maybe CPU solo-only like zettelkasten, zillioncoin, nerva ?

[muf18]

Well, if we could have CPU algorithm pool-friendly (Monero-like?), than I would be all for it.
Pool because we have a thought to enable people mined it from anywhere (from scripts on websites etc.). I too like solo-mining, but I don't see really any possibility to keep, if we want to bring more people - it's quite hard to download client and configure it for avg people.

Well, we should be resistant to any PoW attacks imo, so PoS/PoW/PoB balance must be place intact, to keep it secure at any time.

I'm still wondering, why nobody tried to 51%-attack Bitcoin network early on? People were so loyal to BTC network, and others didn't hear about it? Because it seems strange - I know maybe there wasn't many incentive, but when it started in 2010 being traded on Mtgox, it was still only CPU-mineable, and attack was easy to stage as network was miniscule, and it had already some value (0.06-0.1USD/coin but still).

[eddycurrent]

I'm still wondering, why nobody tried to 51%-attack Bitcoin network early on? People were so loyal to BTC network, and others didn't hear about it? Because it seems strange - I know maybe there wasn't many incentive, but when it started in 2010 being traded on Mtgox, it was still only CPU-mineable, and attack was easy to stage as network was miniscule, and it had already some value (0.06-0.1USD/coin but still).

I seem to remember that I read an article discussing 51% attacks, and as far as I remember, their opinion was that they were sufficiently detrimental to the attacker themselves that the author did not consider that they were as big an issue as they first thought.

[d5000]

I have drafted a proposal on the wiki which could improve incentives for burning: PoB-based tokens.

The idea is to create tokens or assets (based probably on the Peerassets protocol) which "track" the coins one has burnt. So every "burner" gets an equal quantity of coins than those that he has burnt. The maximum total amount of an instance of these tokens will always be equal to the maximum amount of burnt coins.

These tokens could be used for several purposes:
- Slimweb/Web2Web payments
- Donations
- Voting (e.g. for bounty proposals)

In a later stage they could be moved to a child chain or sidechain. However, presently we have no problems with blockchain bloat, so they can live perfectly on the main chain.

The proposal should be possible to implement in a forseeable timeframe (a couple of weeks to months). The PeerAssets protocol would have to be modified a bit, but from my current understanding the changes should not be very complicated, and as pypeerassets is a Python program I can participate with development.  It would also enable other crowdfunding schemes, as the token mechanism can track any address, not only the burn address. That would enable to create tokens based on donations for developers, which would allow donators to vote for proposals or even "profit" from them.

Feel free to comment!

[muf18]

Seems like a good proposition to me.

[dzarmush]

If anybody interested in selling or acquiring large amounts of Slim please pm. Like if you want to sell 1M at 7 sat, or buy 1M at 35 sat. Or name your price.

[chrysophylax]

Interesting ...

The concept is a good one, but what has happened to the development?

#crysx

[d5000]

The concept is a good one, but what has happened to the development?

0.6 is in development, a release candidate has been published, but we're testing currently an algorithm improvement to improve the balance between PoW, PoS and PoB blocks.

[chrysophylax]

The concept is a good one, but what has happened to the development?

0.6 is in development, a release candidate has been published, but we're testing currently an algorithm improvement to improve the balance between PoW, PoS and PoB blocks.

OK ...

Any place (on github specifically) that we can see, or access the test versions for compile or use?

#crysx