[neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?

[TPTB_need_war]

Simplification of my retort.

"Price: 10 ______" (insert what you prefer such as 'doodats', 'jades', 'chans', 'yoobits', 'vibes', 'swaps', 'ions', 'blowjobs', 'scoobydoos', 'thingamajigs', 'whatchamacallits', etc)

"Price: 10 netcodes"

Which makes more sense? For many netizens, codes are an access code or coupon code. So the user will naturally ask themselves "where can I get these netcodes access codes or coupons".

Whereas, for the "10 doodats" or "10 yoobits", the user will "WTF  ". The user won't know if that is a price or a joke or a game or puzzle or wtf. The 'doodats' can only make sense in context of some marketing concept or campaign which brands them for some purpose. There is no pre-existing implicit association of "do that" with accessing a desired resource. "Clicks" was somewhat better, because at least people loosely associate clicking with accessing a resource, but:

• Clicking is normally not an action that is the value conveyed for access. Rather it is some code entered, before clicking that contains the value.
• Clicks are not fungible, e.g. if the price is "10 clicks" but you only click once to access the resource. Also clicks are not fungible to resources that are not accessed with clicking.

Instead of netcodes, we could choose some more explicit name for net money:

netcoin
netcash
netmonie
netoken

But those do not convey that the money is autonomous because for one reason it is bewildering (for n00bs and those who are not Bitcoin aficionados) how a physical coin or cash can be exchanged over the virtual information highway.

Whereas, a 'code' is obviously intangible and it is already associated with virtual access. Thus afaic 'code' is a more natural association that already implies personal control (autonomy) and intangible asset.


Edit: Since others will be able to create other tokens and assets on this new block chain 2.0, I think leave the doodats, mojos, etc for others to create for specific marketing concepts such as a game or social network tokens. This will leave room for the eco-system of specializations. For the network and platform wide currencies, I think netcode and netgold are apropos and sufficient.

[OROBTC]

...

OROBTC notes his name taken in vain (reply #233), but is not in a position to judge a name for a crypto, assess likelihood of success (particularly among Asians whose mentality I do not know), nor even make any comments on what I would like to see in a new coin.  Or even understand what TPTB is trying to accomplish (that may be because I have not read anything before this page).

A "Store of Value" coin would be interesting for me to look at, but TPTB is going in other directions.  SoV coins would be attractive only to a small minority with mind-sets similar to my own.  And Asian young girls (young latinas as well) just aren't on my wavelength.  Nor would I even have a clue how to design a crypto to even BE a Store of Value.

*   *   *

I would note that "Bitcoin" to me sounds like a great name to me.  Very snappy, *crack*!  Digital, yet money.

But, my wife tells me that I have no imagination..., so NOW is a good time for me to GTFO of here.  

Good luck, TPTB!

[TPTB_need_war]

Bitcoin-NG: A Scalable Blockchain Protocol

http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02037

Their design lacks several of the key features of my design wherein I can (in theory) attain confirmations in seconds or less with real world network performance far in excess of Visa scale with current hardware and internet connections. I did see one key element of my design in their design, but Dash Evolution sort of has this same element too, so this one element is not the key epiphany to get to my design.

The following criticisms of Factom appear to apply to this Bitcoin-NG proposal as well:

• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't defeat selfish mining employing my math derivation.
• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't fix mining so that proof-of-work is unprofitable for ASICs and thus only the users mine.
• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't eliminate the 51% attack.
• Factom transactions don't become irreversible for 10 minutes, whereas my design is on the order of a second or seconds to become irreversible.

In Bitcoin-NG, the winner of a block solution does not propagate a block of transactions. Instead that node wins the right to propagate smaller micro-blocks of transactions at shorter intervals than 10 minutes. The next winner of a block solution signs the last micro-block seen, thus tying that (and preceding) micro-blocks into the block chain. The economic incentives to propagate these micro-blocks seems not well designed, and it certainly doesn't solve the selfish-mining nor the 51% attack.

The advantage is of Bitcoin-NG's design is that micro-blocks can propagate more frequently; and thus one huge block doesn't have to propagate instantaneously every roughly 10 minutes. This is essentially eliminates the transient spike of the Satoshi design; and thus improving aliasing error which takes the form of propagation delay and orphan rate in Satoshi's design. However these micro-blocks are not confirmed until the next 10 minute block is won; and thus afaics Bitcoin-NG does not speed up transaction confirmation speed. Blockchain-NG enables the block chain to scale to the rate at which the prior block winning node can process transactions and propagate them to the network; and scales without requiring all nodes to have the same capabilities nor delegate to more powerful nodes such as Gavin's proposed IBLT design.

However, the same criticism I leveled again BitShare's 2.0 design applies, in that the performance will vary every 10 minutes depending on which node has won each successive block.

BitShares 2.0

• Any engineer should know the antithesis of reliability is lack of fault-tolerance, i.e. depending on only 1 node for each block validation. Variability in the network hiccups, DoS-resistance, hardware, and other aspects of witnesses will mean that some can't keep up with the 3s block time every time or they drop transactions and transactions need to propagated to further witnesses and blocks. So either will have unreliability on the real-time promise, and/or this will push approval voting for witnesses that are centralized by those who have the resources to defend their nodes and maintain uptime and performance loads. These issues don't matter as much with longer block times and/or lower expectation of tps, but if you are seriously expecting 1000s of tps in 3s block times sequenced (funneled) into a queue of witnesses then issues will amplify exponentially not just linearly.

[TPTB_need_war]

OROBTC notes his name taken in vain (reply #233)

Thanks for posting. How so in vain? Perhaps I misunderstood what you intended by that word. Perhaps you mean you can't offer "expert" feedback.

And netgold is conceptually what I believe the store-of-value ("tin foil hat", hard money, "sound" money, or anti-central banks) folks such as OROBTC et al and perhaps rpietila want.

Any way just in case you thought I was accusing you of being a "tin foil hat", I wrote that "I believe" (meaning not an assertion of fact but "afaik") that OROBTC adheres to one "or" more of the following demographic categories: "'tin foil hat', hard money, 'sound' money, or anti-central banks". Meaning that I think there a market of men who believe in concepts such as those and they are prevalent in the Bitcoin ecosystem. I did not necessarily assume you are a "tin foil hat", but yet I do see you appear to at times write affirmatively to those theories from GATA et al about how the gold market is manipulated. Btw, I used to trade emails daily with Bill Murphy from GATA. They are no where near Armstrong's league. Any way, it is not my role here as a marketer to determine the facts of the gold market. I am merely identifying and targeting preferences of different market segments.

A "Store of Value" coin would be interesting for me to look at, but TPTB is going in other directions.  SoV coins would be attractive only to a small minority with mind-sets similar to my own.  And Asian young girls (young latinas as well) just aren't on my wavelength.  Nor would I even have a clue how to design a crypto to even BE a Store of Value.

*   *   *

I would note that "Bitcoin" to me sounds like a great name to me.  Very snappy, *crack*!  Digital, yet money.

You may not realize I am proposing to have two currencies, netcodes and netgold. The latter would be conservative and a debasement rate similar to gold and thus be a "store-of-value" marketing concept (similar to the 21 million coins hard limit concept for Bitcoin).

I think you will find it is not a small demographic (w.r.t. to Bitcoin's current demographics, yet maybe small relative to the 6 billion) and many, many people demand that Bitcoin's 21 million coin limit not be violated.

The netcodes currency would be separate and is intended to be more of a transactional currency.

Bitcoin of course doesn't mean just digital money, because nearly all fiat is digital money these days.

What you mean is that Bitcoin is some form of autonomous code (some binary bits) that you can control autonomously, i.e. the private key codes are held in your control.

I am thinking netgold could capture that same concept while also indicating that it is intended to mimick gold for the network. Bitcoin can't decide if it wants to be a transactional currency or a store-of-value, e.g. if you scale up the block chain to support high TX/s, then the mining becomes more centralized so it loses it's autonomous, permission-less security (especially given Bitcoin's design is subject to selfish mining and 51% attacks). There is a fight on going about keeping Bitcoin for hobbiest miners and letting all the scaling to happen in side-networks such as Lightning Networks, but this belies technical understanding because LN still requires block chain scaling. Thus netgold would be a more certain demarcation from netcodes and the (so far) hapless Bitcoin technical quagmire.

[TPTB_need_war]

eMunie is still an enigma, thus no determinations can be made yet.

Is there a whitepaper available also is open sourced or is everything closed currently?

I'm here because I find different solutions interesting, so congrats for it.

Unfortunately Im spending much more time in development and testing than actually writing docs....I've got a few half finished that I really need to get to that explain the ledger, balance system, consensus, debit cards and more in detail, I just need the time to get around to it.

I did post a consensus primer a couple of weeks ago you can find at this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159624.0

Even that is a little out of date now and there are some things I need to revise within it.

Code is closed source while under development.

there is no way to predict which SN will get the next transaction as it is based on human behavior

Ahem. You need to prove mathematically and holistically that is a random process and not subject to game theory. That is essentially the fundamental problem with PoS, its entropy is bounded unlike PoW where the entropy is external.

Bitcoin's ledger is a state machine also

A very simplified state machine of the longest chain. The block solutions are nearly independent events which can be approximated by the Poisson distribution.

One exception is the selfish mining attack where in the longest chain rule is subjected to selfish hiding of the dominate hash power. Yet even this state machine is reasonably simple, just a few simple equations.

Whereas the state of your system is numerous agents and states. It is not yet clear to me this model can be modeled with some simplifying assumptions. Perhaps you can work with your academic researchers to see if they can.

Yet my design maintains the simple state machine of proof-of-work, while removing virtually all the bandwidth scaling restrictions. You say you can't do 100,000 transactions per second microtransactions. I can easily.

Indeed it appears his system needs to be modeled as a complex state machine.

You can't just make a claim out-of-context that an "honest" majority of the trust reputation will decide the winner of a double-spend. You have to model the state machine holistically before you can make any claim.

Proof-of-work eliminates that requirement because each new iteration of a block solution is independent (trials, often simplistically modeled as a Poisson distribution) from the prior one (except to some small extent in selfish mining which is also easily modeled with a few equations). See the selfish-mining paper for the state machine and then imagine how complex the model for his design will be.

This is independence is what I mean when I say the entropy of PoW is open (unbounded), while it is closed for PoS.[1]

[1]	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159691.msg12242278#msg12242278 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159691.msg12227357#msg12227357

Imagine this highly technical discussion comparing PoW and PoS can't happen in the Bitcoin Technical & Discussion forum, because the overlord Gregory Maxwell moves it to the Altcoin Discussion thread.

[OROBTC]

...

TPTB evidently does not know that I "outed myself" as a new member of The Tinfoil Hat Brigade there at Zero Hedge the day they purportedly killed bin Laden and put him into the Indian Ocean without ANY evidence for us to see.

That day I lost all confidence in our government (and I mean ALL), so I signed up.  Under the direction of Senior Zero Hedge Contributor "Cognitive Dissonance" I joined the Lunatic Fringe Battalion (instead of the possibly more glamorous Space Cadet Battalion).  I am now at the rank of Junior Corporal.  Promotion is slow with the Lunatics, it is also noisy and chaotic around here...

Now that you know some history, I will just mention that I would be getting lost in the tall weeds by further commenting on a new crypto.

I guess for me, I will wait until you have your work done.  Then you can explain it to our community, and we will take it from there.

[tat123]

Just throwing it out there AM... how about CipherCash/CypherCash? Anyways, looking forward to seeing your work.

[americanpegasus]

Cybercash.

[tat123]

Cybercash.

Already taken. That's why I thought of an alternative.

[coins101]

Bloqcash

'Netcash' is good.

[TPTB_need_war]

Some posts about competing block chain scaling designs Bitshares, Iota, eMunie, and "block list":

Let's talk software engineering a bit...

Hmmm...Ive found that the major bottlenecks on lower end stuff is actually the IO DB writes/reads and not so much crypto related stuff.  Sure it has a positive effect if you can speed it up, but a good 70%+ of optimizing I do is how to get data over the IO quicker and more efficiently.

That was like word for word what Bytemaster said in this youtube video heh:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBlAVeVFWFM

Daniel Larimar incorrectly claims in that video that it is not reliable to validate transactions in parallel multithreaded. Nonsense. Only if the inputs to a transaction fail to validate would one need to potentially check if some other transactions need to be ordered in front of it, or check if it is a double-spend. And he incorrectly implies that the only way to get high TX/s is to eliminate storing UXTO on disk, because presumably he hasn't conceived of using SSD and/or RAID and/or node partitioning. It is impossible to keep the entire world's UXTO in RAM given 36 bytes of storage for each 256-bit output address+value, given even 1 billion users and several addresses per user. He mentions using indices instead of hashes, but enforcing such determinism over a network makes it extremely brittle (numerous ways such can fail and having addresses assigned by the block chain violates user autonomy and the end-to-end principle) as well even 64-bit hashes are subject to collisions at billion-scale. Essentially he is making the error of optimizing at the low-level while breaking higher-level semantics, because he apparently hasn't gone about the way to really scale and solve the problem at the high-level semantically.

Edit: Fuseleer applies the term "vertical scaling" to describe Bitshare's optimization strategy.

Hmmm...Ive found that the major bottlenecks on lower end stuff is actually the IO DB writes/reads and not so much crypto related stuff.  Sure it has a positive effect if you can speed it up, but a good 70%+ of optimizing I do is how to get data over the IO quicker and more efficiently.

What DB system do you use? MySQL? I use http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/nio/MappedByteBuffer.html.
I have just recalled that Emunie does much more than just payments, in this case we cannot compare our solutions, because our cryptocurrency works with payments only and doesn't need to do sophisticated stuff like order matching.

MySQL and Derby for development, probably go with Derby or H2 for V1.0.  

The data stores themselves are abstracted though, so any DB solution can sit behind them with minor work so long as they implement the basic interface.

That solution for you (if it fits your purpose) will be very fast, then your IO bottleneck will mainly shift to network I imagine?

Both of these methods are horridly inefficient. Cripes disk space is not at a premium. Duh!

That solution for you (if it fits your purpose) will be very fast, then your IO bottleneck with shift to network I imagine?

Network will become a bottleneck at 12'000 TPS (for 100 Mbps).

Yup, partitions my friend, that problem goes away

I expect that when you do finally issue a white paper, the weakness is going to be the economic model will be gameable such that there is either a loss of Consistency, Availability, or Partition tolerance (CAP theorem). Because without a proof-of-work (or proof-of-share[1]) block chain, there is no objective SPOT (single-point-of-truth), which really becomes onerous once partitioning is added to the design because afaics there is then no way to unify the partitioned perspectives. I believe this to be the analogous underlying flaw of Iota and "block list". Challenge with proving this flaw for Iota et al, is to show a game theory that defeats the assumptions of the developers (white paper), e.g. selfish mining game theory against Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, I have argued in Iota's thread that this onus is on them to prove their design doesn't have such a game theory. Otherwise you all can put these designs into the wild and then we can wait to see if they blow up at scale. Note I haven't had enough time to follow up on Iota lately, and I am waiting for them to get all their final analysis into a final white paper, before I sit down and really try to break it beyond just expressing theoretical concerns/doubts.

[1] In PoS the entropy is bounded and thus in theory it should be possible to game the ordering. In theory, there should be a game theory such that the rich always get richer, paralleling the 25 - 33% share selfish mining attack on Satoshi's proof-of-work. However, it is not yet shown how this is always/often a practical issue. Proof-of-share can't distribute shares of the money supply to those who do not already have some of the money supply. Proof-of-share is thus not a debasement power-law flattening (recycling) distribution compatible scheme, although neither is proof-of-work once it is dominated by ASICs. Without recycling of the power-law distribution, velocity-of-money suffers unless debt-driven booms are employed and then government becomes a political expediency to "redistribute from the rich to the poor" (which is then gamed by the rich and periodic class/world warfare). Proof-of-share suffers from conflating coin ownership with mining, thus if not all coin owners are equally incentivized to participate in mining, then the rich control the mining. A coin owner with a holding that is only worth less than his toenail, isn't going to bother with using his share to mine. Thus proof-of-share is very incompatible with the direction towards micro-transactions and micro-shares. Any attempt to correct this by weighting smaller shares more, can then be gamed by the rich who can split their shares into micro-shares. Ideally debasement should be distributed to an asset that users control but the rich can't profitably obtain.

You can't just make a claim out-of-context that an "honest" majority of the trust reputation will decide the winner of a double-spend. You have to model the state machine holistically before you can make any claim.

Proof-of-work eliminates that requirement because each new iteration of a block solution is independent (trials, often simplistically modeled as a Poisson distribution) from the prior one (except to some small extent in selfish mining which is also easily modeled with a few equations). See the selfish-mining paper for the state machine and then imagine how complex the model for his design will be.

This is independence is what I mean when I say the entropy of PoW is open (unbounded), while it is closed for PoS.[1]

Daniel Larimar incorrectly claims in that video that it is not reliable to validate transactions in parallel multithreaded. Nonsense.

Why nonsense, it depends on linearity of the system. For a linear system order doesn't matter, for a non-linear one it does.

PS: We assume that multithreaded execution can't ensure a specific order of events, which is pretty reasonable for current architectures without placing a lot of memory barriers which would degrade the performance significantly.

Because (as indicated/implied by my prior post) it is more sane to design your system holistically such that ordering of transactions is an exceptional event, and not a routine one.

Conflation of "order book" with TX/s is a category error. It is not even clear if a decentralized "order book" can or should have a deterministic ordering, because determinism may allow the market to be gamed. In any case, it is not relevant to the issue of rate of processing TX/s for signed transactions. Separation-of-concerns is a fundamental principle of engineering.

I expect that when you do finally issue a white paper, the weakness is going to be the economic model will be gameable such that there is either a loss of Consistency, Availability, or Partition tolerance.

I believe Availability will always be nine nines for any decentralized cryptocurrency and Consistency will always be eventual, so Partition tolerance is the only toy we all can play with.

I have already argued to you in your Iota thread that your definition of Availability has no relevant meaning (propagation to across the peer network is not a semantic outcome). Rather a meaningful Availability is the ability to put your transaction into the concensus. In Bitcoin, that availability is limited in several ways:

• Confirmation is only every 10 minutes.
• Inclusion is in a block is dependent on the whims of the node which won the block, and on the maximum block size.
• One who has sufficient hashrate power, has higher availability.
• 51% of the network hashrate power can blacklist your Availability.

It is my stance, that the holistic game theory analysis of Availability in Iota, eMunie, and "block list" is much more muddled thus far. The multifurcated tree of Iota appears to be multiple (potentially inConsistent) Partitions, so Availability to create a new tree branch doesn't appear to be meaningful Availability since there is no confirmation of consensus.

[TPTB_need_war]

'Netcash' is good.

This appears to not be used. If the community prefers this over netgold, then I will strongly consider using it as the non-social targeted currency unit.

Please feedback immediately on this name, because I am weary of registering domains we won't end up using.

I sort of like that because we can keep Netcode for the project and social currency unit, and then for those who are concerned about the explicitness of money in the name have this non-debased ("hard money") currency unit to satiate their Bitcoin-envy.

[tat123]

'Netcash' is good.

This appears to not be used. If the community prefers this over netgold, then I will strongly consider using it as the non-social targeted currency unit.

Please feedback immediately on this name, because I am weary of registering domains we won't end up using.

I sort of like that because we can keep Netcode for the project and social currency unit, and then for those who concerned about the explicitness of money in the name have this non-debased ("hard money") currency unit to satiate their Bitcoin-envy.

Netcash is a good pick.

[coins101]

Netcash is good to go.

I double dare you to delete this post.

[CoinHoarder]

Netcash is good to go.

+1

It sounds less geeky than Netcode. I still like Ion tho...  

[TPTB_need_war]

Netcash is good to go.

I double dare you to delete this post.

Haha, no information has been deleted. Chillax.

Already registered:
netcash.click
netcash.me

Note I still think netcodes is the good risk to take on the social currency unit for reasons stated upthread, unless a better idea comes up. Any way if the market sells off netcodes and buys up netcash, then so be it (we won't lose either way). For the consensus block chain 2.0 network name I am still leaning to Netcode, but I haven't totally abandoned Sync, SyncNet, or Syncnode.

Netcash is good to go.

+1

It sounds less geeky than Netcode. I still like Ion tho...  

Ion is donated to Aeon (but they haven't availed of the domain transfer yet).

Ion doesn't mean money. And it doesn't mean anything as a social money to normal people. Ion/Aeon is a geek forum type pump name. Good for a coinmarketcap listing, but not enough for big time user adoption. Cool for altcoin speculators, but very limited user adoption scope. It is perfect for the Aeon folks. Let them have it. I want to attempt something with much wider adoption ambitions.

[OROBTC]

Netcash is good to go.

I double dare you to delete this post.

Haha, no information has been deleted. Chillax.

Already registered:
netcash.click
netcash.me

Note I still think netcodes is the good risk to take on the social currency unit for reasons stated upthread, unless a better idea comes up. Any way if the market sells off netcodes and buys up netcash, then so be it (we won't lose either way). For the consensus block chain 2.0 network name I am still leaning to Netcode, but I haven't totally abandoned Sync or SyncNet.

Netcash is good to go.

+1

It sounds less geeky than Netcode. I still like Ion tho...  

Ion is donated to Aeon (but they haven't availed of the domain transfer yet).

Ion doesn't mean money. And it doesn't mean anything as a social money to normal people. Ion/Aeon is a geek forum type pump name. Good for a coinmarketcap listing, but not enough for big time user adoption. Cool for altcoin speculators, but very limited user adoption scope. It is perfect for the Aeon folks. Let them have it. I want to attempt something with much wider adoption ambitions.

Consider netcash.io as well.  That .io [Indian Ocean] domain I am seeing more and more.  Perhaps .gl as well (Google uses .gl [Greenland] at their equivalent of tinyurl.com: goo.gl).  An example of goo.gl's URL-shortening service:

https://goo.gl/jiJcK7  (bearing sales 2012 - 2015, my avatar is the 11-IJ-111001 wheel bearing)

You may be able to lock up other domain names too, THAT would be a good investment IF NetCash takes off.

Also, contacting the owner(s) of netcash.com, .org, etc.  RIGHT BEFORE you go live...

[TPTB_need_war]

Alternative ideas to netcodes (: codes) that retain net prefix are:

neato
netangos: synergies
netarots: fortunes
netips: tips
netikis: collectibles, ornaments
nethrills: thrills
netokens: tokens
netroves: treasures

[TPTB_need_war]

Bloqcash

blocoin or bloqoin  

Sounds like blowcoin so cocaine.

P.S. In tagalog, the word for love and expensive are the same: mahal.

[TPTB_need_war]

I see that ion, ching, etc came from the ideas I had February 2014.

Thus another name for social money unit is:

moola

Note a copycat used that idea after I presented it, but it is already defunct.

The following sounds like "moo love it" (also from my 2014 ideas):

moolabit

Perhaps emoola or imoola is better than moolabit or bitmoola if trying to convert moola into a internet money, except it sounds like ebola.

Note ioney.net and ioney.io is still available should someone want to try to brand ions as money.