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

[TPTB_need_war]

Both problems can be fixed by changing my protocol rule from “honest chain's next block must include the nominations from any that occurred in the 6 second window” to “honest chain must include the nominations from all block solutions that occurred (with the same difficulty)”. Thus the difficulty has to be calculated counting all block solutions.

Thus chains can't diverge, except if they disagree about the difficulty. The objectivity about difficulty is a combination of using very long periods for the calculation so that difficulty is the same in calculations that differ only in small changes in the blocks included can't result in half or double the difficulty (since difficulty increments are a factor of 2 since they are the leading bits of the PoW with a 0 value),

Why don't disagreements in the set of all nominations cause the same forking problem that would occur with a fixed time window?

Astute question.

(also glad you found my last post, I was intending to message you but I haven't opened my PMs box yet and have 16 msgs to deal with there...)

The nominations don't take effect immediately. The nominated verification nodes can't begin verifying until a certain number of blocks announcements. Thus rendering irrelevant any recent PoW chain ambiguity over nominations (said ambiguity due to the last block included in any count of announcements may have disagreement due to propagation). There is still the issue of conflict (even though the conflict is displaced in time, it is still there) if there is disagreement over the nominations in set of blocks in the count. This is fixed by choosing the greater set of any alternatives where the displacement in time allows propagation to be unambiguous and for the set of alternatives to be well defined and stable. See why I have sometimes alluded to my design being an anti-aliasing method for PoW. Again we see that my conceptual insight from 2014 on how to defeat selfish mining is always the way to resolve ambiguity by being inclusive of all block announcement state (and my key paradigm shift that nominations are additive and can't conflict, i.e. I used the concept of separation-of-concerns in order to move the double-spend threat to an orthogonal concern so it gets out of the way of consensus).

Also I had mentioned that to defeat the 49-99% game theory attacks on the predetermined entropy (coming from chain history) of the quorums (very similar to Dash Evolution's quorums except as I previously noted I believe Evolution has design flaws), the nominations are not changed until every verification node has been the designated node for at least one block. This makes it sure that even if a payer's transactiont is rejected by all quorums (the quorum for a UTXO will change every block or after every N blocks) due to the attacker controlling 49 - 99% of the verification nodes, then the payer can alternatively (the designed node for each block is an optional choice for the payee) still get his friendly verification node to be designated (by waiting for the round-robin) so he can push his transaction onto the block chain in a permissionless paradigm even against a 99% PoW attacker! Amazing! I proud of that aspect of the design. And without incurring the flaws and downsides of PoS.

Also because the side-effects of nominations of verification nodes is accumulative and can't conflict, unlike the double-spends that can conflict with different relative perspectives on which PoW chain is valid. Verification nodes can't create double-spends (other than due to conflicts in the PoW chain which I resolved as I already explained as per the above). Explaining in more explicit detail beyond this would require revealing virtually all the finer details of my design and implementation, so I will withhold for now. But I think I have already spilled the beans for any astute implementator can now duplicate my design.

Also, isn't adjusting difficulty by factors of 2 is in danger of increasing the volatility of the currency? The cost of production will double or halve rather than smoothly increasing/decreasing as it does in bitcoin.

Keeping the difficulty in alignment (as required by my design's way of eliminating conflicts by merging all chains) is perhaps one of the areas to look for a potential flaw in my design. I haven't expended as much effort yet thinking about that aspect.

One of the attacks a 49 - 99% attacker can do is to mine sporadically which in Satoshi's design can wreck havoc on the block period variance. That is why I said the block difficulty adjustment will be calculated over a very long window. And remember this amazing insight... that is that since transaction confirmations don't slow down when block period does, my design doesn't have any problem with block period variance!

Remember the cost of production affects the attacker, not the payers who will be mining without care for cost. The debasement rate will be a very small annual % maybe even less than 0.5%. So the economics of the debasement are irrelevant. The only reason to have any debasement (other than the macroeconomic arguments of Gresham's Law), is to countervail the incidence of lost private keys. Bitcoin after 2032 will eventually shrink to a 0 money supply due to lost coins. In a microtransaction world, users will lose coins quite frequently due to abandoning small balance accounts.

Edit:

What I expect to remain the generative essence is that any rule of containment that contains everything that can contain itself (and note I need to correct what I wrote in the post to this improved wording) that does not leak in the type of the computation model employed, would need to be so rich as to model everything that can be modeled, and thus can't exist because the world is open to unbounded composition.

Tangentially I believe my improvement to Satoshi's design essentially hinges on the similar kind of paradigm shift where the containment test for double-spends shifted to an orthogonality via a separation-of-concerns.

Health update is I am cruising along great. After 14+ hours of working my legs and head start getting inflammation, but sleep renews me each time. Very consistent now that I am taking the Turmeric root extract (curcuma longa) in coconut milk with black pepper. Also all my other anti-oxidant supplements. I will make a new updated list of the supplements I've been taking daily. Overall I am very cautiously hopeful and thankful for my progress. I was at the basketball court again a couple of days ago. I haven't exercised the past 3 days. Been really working nonstop other than sleeping. My recent production should be evidence enough that my health has stabilized considerably. In hindsight what destroyed my health from July through September was when my new gf arrived to live with me May 25, she cooked for me all the Omega 6 meats such as pork, chicken, and beef. At the time I was thinking that carbos were my enemy so I was eating massive amount of meat and no rice. Omega 6 is highly inflammatory and this about killed me. Now eating only tuna (which is Omega 3) which is less inflammatory, raw veggies (no night shades!), rice, and coconut milk/oil (which is non-inflammatory medium chain fatty acides that feed the brain energy directly through the liver via ketones instead of circulating into the glucose mechanism for energy. Coconut is a miracle food. Also I think rangedriver was correct when he pointed out that fasting is really bad in my case because I also read that to get inflammation under control requires stabilizing the glutathione/glutamate/glutamine balance where glutathione is produced in the liver and a deficiency is catastrophic and fasting depletes glutathione. So the 10 day water only fasting might have been good for putting a halt to that omega 6 overload that nearly destroyed me, but it was probably counterproductive from the standpoint of glutathione. I am now taking NAC, ALA, and EGCG to restore my glutathione related anti-oxidant imbalance.

[1715544747]

1715544747

[1715544747]

1715544747

[TPTB_need_war]

I think that adoption is largely faked.
Average guys on the play store who run across that app would have no clue what it its or bother with it.
I think any feedback on it would be highly manipulated by crypto nerds.
as a deceitful trap of course.

by the way what stores can you buy something directly with on that app ?
and no i don't want to hear anything about those services like Snapcard for altcoins LOL

Sometimes its better to man up and admit a legit progress instead of blindly assuming things for your own benefit. On oct 24 i remember it was #2 in the US App Store when searching for Telegram and growth has been organic. People are actually familiar with it cus its an instant messenger combined with crypto technology, it has a reward value model inetresting enough encouraging activity and inviting friends. Tokens have already a usecase where u can buy giftcards in app, but the real usecase will be the attention economy where users get to paid directly for ads instead of the gatekeepers like fb or google. Tokens are for gamification and growing the network and will be mainly used inside the app by 100+k users in the near future.  Just look at it https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.getgemsmessenger.app&hl=en even a teen understand it, the incentive and on boarding process is easier than any other coin because the app has much less friction and is not aimed towards crypto nerds. But i forgot this is bct.

Yes appears GetGems is attempting to do what I had proposed to do, but they are going about it in a different way than my marketing plan. They are trying to scale up from instant message to wide spread token usage. So far they are kicking my butt, because they have a product released and are gaining adoption and all I have is words.

Yet still I think I will beat them easily primarily because I think their scaling strategy is slower and flawed. We will soon see...

Spoetnik, I haven't been following GetGems closely. Could you please educate me on the claim that the adoption is fake? I need solid arguments and if possible irrefutable evidence of such claims. I don't have free time to go digging searching for forums posts which have detailed such allegations. Can you summarize and point me to relevant posts?

[Hueristic]

....

Agreed this is a problem when there is a huge double-digit percentage annual debasement due to PoW that is mostly ending up in professional miners hands. The professional miners locate their latest model ASICs next to hydropower plants have 1/4 the electricity costs (compared to residential) and 1/100th - 1/1000th (for a specially designed PoW hash function such as the one I will soon release, not SHA) the computational costs compared to general CPU at home, thus their cost of mining for example a Bitcoin is less than $50 each. They will always have an incentive to add more resources to capture a greater percentage of the mined coins.

But that isn't the only way to structure PoW mining.

There are two ways to deal with this problem:

1) Force every user to submit PoW with their transactions, i.e. no transaction gets on the block chain without PoW attached. Note getting this sort of design to be robust, requires an entirely different way of structuring a block chain. If the attached PoW is low enough difficulty, then it costs more to farm it out (network latency cost) than to mine it locally given it is an insignificant and unnoticeable cost.

2) Limit debasement to a small annual percentage.

In that case, the professional miner will not be able to mine a significant quantity of the coins, and they will not be selling a significant percentage of the market cap. Thus the downward pressure on the price that impacts Bitcoin will be abated....

Why not just use copyrighted cpu extensions that are illegal for manufacturers to produce without Intel and or AMd licensing?

China doesn't enforce our copyrights.

Firstly China DOES enforce copy writes when it is in their best interests. Taking on U.S. Tech Giants is not in those interests. Like it or not the US Gov has sway over every other Gov to a degree and this one crosses the line.

Governments don't enforce our property rights when it conflicts with their power.
If not for the fact that not all global jurisdictions will comply, I would presume that authorities could probably track down the centralized sources of PoW that a botnet could be retrieving the PoW from. The botnet itself can't be targeted with legal action.

Bolded is a true yet not pertinent to discussion. As for the rest of that statement while it is possible that they could and probable that they would this still does not pertain to the question at hand. AFA the last statement on Botnets, Who cares what secures the network. I'd rather see a botnet secure a chain as opposed to making an attack on infrastructures. Like it or not Botnets will have a Global effect in some form for the foreseeable future. As a matter of fact if I were a Corporation protecting against botnets or in Gov position to battle botnets I would most certainly keep the price of coins that can only be cpu mined above the price of making DDOS attacks. I would be much cheaper in the long run.

We are trying to construct monetary freedom orthogonal to dependence on governments.

Which does not mean we cannot use governments to help us. Learn gorilla war tactics.

I don't consider a copyright to be property, rather I consider it to be theft from the future (degrees-of-freedom). Coasian barriers are stable until they burst.

What you consider has no bearing on reality.

Generally speaking I do not even consider any ideas that involve relying on legal structures to enforce, because I am strongly anarchist/Libertarian. But it is also true that until there is a NWO world government totalitarianism that has a monitoring 666 chip on every computer and human, then enforcing law is leaky.

I to am a strong Libertarian but anyone that is an anarchist does not know what true anarchy is. Bolded is of course true, yet also not analogous to our discussion.

Since you have diverged my question into a political discussion I will give my views on this. AFA I'm concerned Mankind will never be free until all commodities are tied to an individuals(ALL) base global monetary unit (GC). GC=t+t*(valuation of profession). A huge portion of government would be removed with this although as you have said it will most certainly come with the loss of many liberties Which blows but is inevitable. At least with global authority much waste from redundancy will be rendered obsolete and a global monetary unit will of course be instituted. What that unit is "Based" on is what will define the future.

[TPTB_need_war]

Hueristic, my best guess is that reason you view those issues so diametrically opposite to mine, is because I have a different perspective on some of the technical issues and also implications of decentralization on governments. I am trying to always appreciate every person's sincere input and yours is treated with no less interest nor any disdain. I simply seem to disagree in spite of us both perhaps having some Libertarian assimilation (but this is a broad term with a lot of differences in interpretation and I don't want to debate with you here in this thread what I think anarchy is, etc as that will clutter my coin's thread with political tangents). We can go debate that in Politics subforum, except I stopped posting in that subforum many many months ago and I don't have time any more. I surely summarized my political views some where in AnonyMint's archives.

Governments don't yet realize they are in an all out war for survival against decentralization. They think they have it under control (evidence Dimon's recent statements that governments will never let Bitcoin get out of control), but the point is they can't see what is really developing grassroots. They don't realize that a million programmers are being unleashed against them, and once microtransactions hits, it will accelerate. They think they can control it by regulating the exchanges and mining, because so far they think Bitcoin is the model for those things and they can see how Bitcoin scales to the exchanges and miners with the largest capital.

Hopefully yours truly is about to change all that. And thus I disagree with you in that I don't believe governments will enforce any copyright to protect my highly decentralized design which improves Satoshi's design. Rather they will let governments and botnets and everyone attack my coin and only protect the coin that is controlled by JP Morgan and the Rockefeller group.

Thus I must design my programs to be robust in the face of reality, not depending on a centralized copyright protection for a decentralized protocol.

Note I don't intend any overt ill will towards governments. Heck I am even making the first version of coin without any anonymity, so that isn't any overt move to prevent their ability to tax and track. It is just that decentralization will increasingly make governments paradigmatically irrelevant, because change moves much faster and more smoothly decentralized without a middle man in the way. Back in the dinosaur age of Industrialization, we needed governments to help us organize, protect, and regulate large fixed capital investments because production economies-of-scale did not allow individual production. The Knowledge Age has totally changed that.

Who cares what secures the network. I'd rather see a botnet secure a chain as opposed to making an attack on infrastructures.

I was writing about protecting against botnets that DDoS the coin network to oblivion, so the coin can't function. Rather than depend on governments to protect with their copyright powers, I instead designed a decentralized protection mechanism:

DDoS Defense Employing Public Key Cryptography

The government would typically be the last to arrive on the scene of the crime (except in some banana republic where the police seem to habitually arrive before the crime begins, lol), such as this case for police who arrive after you've already been shot to death.

I also wrote about professional miners having 50+% of the mining power and being able to change the protocol at-will. We don't know if the NSA, China, or Putin could be the one with botnet. I have explained to monsterer my technical design which I assert eliminates that threat. I have asserted that I have rendered the 49 - 99% attacker impotent in my design. This design needs more thorough publishing and peer view before everyone will accept those assertions as truth.

Like it or not Botnets will have a Global effect in some form for the foreseeable future. As a matter of fact if I were a Corporation protecting against botnets or in Gov position to battle botnets I would most certainly keep the price of coins that can only be cpu mined above the price of making DDOS attacks. I would be much cheaper in the long run.

Appears perhaps you are rushing and making mental errors. That happens to me sometimes, so I won't jump on you for that. It happens to all of us when we are not engrossed in a particular subject then try to jump back into it after some time away.

The price of coins is set by the market. Perhaps what you meant is the mining reward should be sufficient that cpu miners will be profitable? In that case, you've incentivized more professional miners. A coin can't just increase the debasement continuously to keep up, eventually the market price will collapse.

You simply can't control these things the way I assume you are thinking.

The way to deal with these threats is the way I have designed. That is why afaics I am perhaps winning the race to see who will replace Bitcoin and solve the block chain scaling issue.

Since you have diverged my question into a political discussion I will give my views on this. AFA I'm concerned Mankind will never be free until all commodities are tied to an individuals(ALL) base global monetary unit (GC). GC=t+t*(valuation of profession). A huge portion of government would be removed with this although as you have said it will most certainly come with the loss of many liberties Which blows but is inevitable. At least with global authority much waste from redundancy will be rendered obsolete and a global monetary unit will of course be instituted. What that unit is "Based" on is what will define the future.

Commodities (as you refer to them meaning I assume raw materials, not the economic meaning of fungibility) are the old Industrial Age paradigm. I have explained extensively in the Economics Devastation thread that the Knowledge Age will be valued in speed and granularity of knowledge creation. Thinking in terms of models of usury, fixed capital investment and the cost of atoms, is ... sorry to say for dinosaurs.

I had this debate with the 150+ IQ genius Eric Raymond about his assertion that cost of atoms can never be free. It is in the Dark Enlightment thread.

That is old news for me. I have already decided I am correct on the economic theory and I have moved on to implementation.

[Hueristic]

Hueristic, my best guess is that reason you view those issues so diametrically opposite to mine, is because I have a different perspective ....
That is old news for me. I have already decided I am correct on the economic theory and I have moved on to implementation.

Nice reply, I'll get back to it when I have more time. I may need LOTS more.

[TPTB_need_war]

Also I had mentioned that to defeat the 49-99% game theory attacks on the predetermined entropy (coming from chain history) of the quorums (very similar to Dash Evolution's quorums except as I previously noted I believe Evolution has design flaws), the nominations are not changed until every verification node has been the designated node for at least one block. This makes it sure that even if a payer's transactiont is rejected by all quorums (the quorum for a UTXO will change every block or after every N blocks) due to the attacker controlling 49 - 99% of the verification nodes, then the payer can alternatively (the designed node for each block is an optional choice for the payee) still get his friendly verification node to be designated (by waiting for the round-robin) so he can push his transaction onto the block chain in a permissionless paradigm even against a 99% PoW attacker! Amazing! I proud of that aspect of the design. And without incurring the flaws and downsides of PoS.

Note to self to look into the prior research on quorums, which is necessary for citing prior art in a white paper.

Also in my design verification nodes do "secure timestamping" and remembering that I pointed out long ago to smooth that he was correct to point out that for double-spend protection relative order is important, not absolute time (from my up thread discussion with monsterer we see that absolute time windows are insecure because spacetime is relative to the shared units of measurement, which in our case are relative order of block announcements and transaction confirmations).

Here is the post from smooth (sorry I can't quote it because the thread is locked) and I followed up confirming he was stating an important feature of my design.

[smooth]

Spoetnik, I haven't been following GetGems closely. Could you please educate me on the claim that the adoption is fake? I need solid arguments and if possible irrefutable evidence of such claims. I don't have free time to go digging searching for forums posts which have detailed such allegations. Can you summarize and point me to relevant posts?

I don't know what is fake or not fake but I do know you need to take mobile download figures with a grain of salt, even in the absence of deliberate manipulation (this being crypto, assume the worst and you'll only be a little surprised at the level of sleaze). Many free downloads are deleted or just ignored. In some cases updates count toward the download counters and if the user has automatic app updates enabled, all their unused apps will get updated too.

So N downloads generally means the number of actual users is much, much less than N. YMMV.

[TPTB_need_war]

Spoetnik, I haven't been following GetGems closely. Could you please educate me on the claim that the adoption is fake? I need solid arguments and if possible irrefutable evidence of such claims. I don't have free time to go digging searching for forums posts which have detailed such allegations. Can you summarize and point me to relevant posts?

I don't know what is fake or not fake but I do know you need to take mobile download figures with a grain of salt, even in the absence of deliberate manipulation (this being crypto, assume the worst and you'll only be a little surprised at the level of sleaze). Many free downloads are deleted or just ignored. In some cases updates count toward the download counters and if the user has automatic app updates enabled, all their unused apps will get updated too.

So N downloads generally means the number of actual users is much, much less than N. YMMV.

My experience with webpage creation software CoolPage was afair less than 5% of downloads translated to sales. And imagine with highly duplicitous app category mobile stuff there are a higher % of downloads that end up failed, uninstalled, or not used, simply because it is much easier to access so it becomes more like sampling music, where you download willy-nilly. I assume there are many instant messaging apps on the app stores.

I would prefer a metric that measures actual usage if not of the currency itself, at least of repeat visitor statistics evidencing some marketing stickiness and likely usage.

I guesstimate to consider perhaps 1% of the downloads as potentially valid users (of the app function). It might go as low as 0.1% perhaps (especially those who both use the app and find the currency compelling). As always the problem for currency is there needs to be large adoption before there is incentive to accept and use it as a medium-of-exchange currency. The store-of-value function is more about getting people to believe it might be worth something someday, but then it is easy to cross the line into pump&dump and unregistered investment securities...which we have a plurality of already in the altcoins.

I applaud them attempting to market to social networking conceptually and I am not asserting they entirely failed (I haven't even attempted to gather statistics on their results), but afaics marketing a horizontal good (fungible commodity of currency) to a vertical market (instant messaging or chat) has a viral scaling inconguence relation problem.

I expended so much effort on the naming, because I literally want people to say the most natural word for electronic money when they say the name of this coin, even more natural than Bitcoin. Gems isn't. People already have a natural name for electronic money and it isn't bitcoin. For example here in the Philippines they are familiar with the concept of buying electronic load since all the mobile providers here are predominately used in prepaid mode. I can buy load from a guy on a bicycle, a house down the block with a banner, the 24-hour convenience store, etc..

People love free things, especially free money. But the problem is what is the use of free money if you can't buy anything with it. Why would you even want any if you can't do a damn thing with it.

Ah that is where you need to make it game. A sort of a competition, but in a social context...

My marketing plan revolves around being a race to be __ ___ ___ __ _ _______.

And then you need to make it incredibly easy to integrate payments into existing website flows (carts, replacing captchas with micropayments).

I want to do the minimum I need to do in order to enable other developers to go to work on building it out. I need to incentivize others to want to develop on the ecosystem.

All easier said than done...

[monsterer]

I would prefer a metric that measures actual usage if not of the currency itself, at least of repeat visitor statistics evidencing some marketing stickiness and likely usage.

Since you can't use 'market cap' in such illiquid markets; one metric is to clear the available supply against all the orderbook buy sides on exchanges and look at the resulting BTC value generated from such virtual sales.

I will get back to you with further questions on your design, I just wanted to interject this point

[TPTB_need_war]

The basic insight of Bitcoin is clever, but clever in an ugly compromising sort of way. Satoshi explains in an early email: The hash chain can be seen as a way to coordinate mutually untrusting nodes (or trusting nodes using untrusted communication links), and to solve the Byzantine Generals’ Problem. If they try to collaborate on some agreed transaction log which permits some transactions and forbids others (as attempted double-spends), naive solutions will fracture the network and lead to no consensus. So they adopt a new scheme in which the reality of transactions is “whatever the group with the most computing power says it is”! The hash chain does not aspire to record the “true” reality or figure out who is a scammer or not; but like Wikipedia, the hash chain simply mirrors one somewhat arbitrarily chosen group’s consensus:

---8<---

HOW WORSE IS BETTER

In short, Bitcoin is a perfect example of Worse is Better (original essay). You can see the tradeoffs that Richard P. Gabriel enumerates: Bitcoin has many edge cases; it lacks many properties one would desire for a cryptocurrency; the whitepaper is badly under-specified; much of the behavior is socially determined by what the miners and clients collectively agree to accept, not by the protocol; etc.

But it seems to work. Just like Unix, there were countless ways to destroy your data or crash the system, which didn’t exist on more ‘proper’ OSs like OpenVMS, and there were countless lacking features compared to systems like ITS or the Lisp machine OSs. But like the proverbial cockroaches, Unix spread, networked, survived - and the rest did not.29 And as it survives and evolves gradually, it slowly becomes what it “should” have been in the first place.

According to that theory, the priorities should be descending order of priority:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better#Description

• Simplicity
• Correctness
• Consistency
• Completeness

Bitcoin isn't simple for n00bs. You can't even send payment to a name. Private keys are huge garbled text that noooo waaaay normal people will deal with.

Bitcoin isn't always correct, you can send payment to an address which no one owns the private key for.

Bitcoin isn't consistent, because the damn prices changes too much and you can't use it for micro-transactions where the changing price wouldn't bother you that much (small balances). That is great for speculators but not so for the users who don't idolize Bitcoin as Jesus.

Bitcoin isn't complete because you can't use it for most things, not even for the potentially one application (micro-transactions) where it might kick ass on existing alternatives. I am taking a big risk by putting so much effort into a target use case which has not been proven.

and #3-4 are minor details which cannot possibly explain why Bitcoin has succeeded to any degree while ideas like bit gold languished

I disagree. I observed it was the decentralization ideology and elegant Poisson distribution math solution in the whitepaper that made geeks wet their pants, coupled with the insinuation of a better gold with the 21 million fixed coin supply, and spread Bitcoin virally by telling others. It was a contagion between libertarian ideals and technological innovation that spurred such an intense ideological fervor, which was bolstered by the run up in the price and media coverage after the BTC10,000 pizza. It was visualized that you only would get one chance to get your slice of the 21 million pieces of the future of tech and that this would overtake the world.

It will be difficult to duplicate that marketing feat now. Any algorithmic breakthrough such as my design will be viewed as an incremental improvement by those who already idolize Bitcoin.

The realism has also started to sink in a bit (not totally) that Bitcoin is very unlikely to be the only electronic currency and monetary asset that takes over the world. The fervor for any altcoin will be fighting against the fact that it requires admitting that the fervor for Bitcoin was unrealistic.

I believe the next frontier are the masses. Something Bitcoin hasn't been able to leap to. I believe the masses can bring the geeks along, just how the transition of the internet from use by geeks to use by the masses and the change in the sort of applications geeks focused on changed (e.g. from Usenet/Gopher/FTP/obscure protocols to DHTML websites for dummies).

If you want to beat Bitcoin, you have to do it with actual adoption. Anything less isn't going to break the idolization barrier that marketed Bitcoin.

One crucial aspect that Crestington astutely pointed out (which I already had in my design because I was aware of that issue), is to not have the continual selling pressure from mining debasement, but OTOH an altcoin needs distribution otherwise there are no viral network effects.

We can look to the success of DOGE (the doggie coin) perhaps an example of how viral use and adoption can challenge Bitcoin. Some have argued to me that DOGE didn't really attain as much adoption as was hyped, but I think everyone admits it did obtain some significant adoption as compared to most other altcoins and especially adoption of currency users not just speculators. It apparently didn't gain enough scale to sustain as an expanding viral paradigm. And afair DOGE has a lot of debasement selling pressure. Afair, they reduced the debasement. I haven't memorized all the facts about DOGE.

[TPTB_need_war]

I would prefer a metric that measures actual usage if not of the currency itself, at least of repeat visitor statistics evidencing some marketing stickiness and likely usage.

Since you can't use 'market cap' in such illiquid markets; one metric is to clear the available supply against all the orderbook buy sides on exchanges and look at the resulting BTC value generated from such virtual sales.

I will get back to you with further questions on your design, I just wanted to interject this point

If this coin records atomic cross chain transactions on the block chain, then we can see cross chain activity objectively. That is an interesting idea. But doesn't that add a feature that makes your metaexchange less needed? I haven't thought more about that since I mentioned in your thread.

I am really hoping no one will make any exchange in the early days. I don't want users just dumping their coins to speculators. Although the users can't likely find these  exchanges any way (they aren't coming from the funnel on this forum so to market to them you need advertising space assistance from me until the market broadens and fully decentralizes and my role dilutes...which is the goal). Obviously I can't stop that and eventually there will be a demand, but don't be surprised if the coin has been launched already for a month or so before I mention it here. Also so if it is not working, I can just stop before ever mentioning it here.

Please don't rush on discussing the design issues. I'd rather you wait, so I can focus back on coding.

[monsterer]

If this coin records atomic cross chain transactions on the block chain, then we can see cross chain activity objectively. That is an interesting idea. But doesn't that add a feature that makes your metaexchange less needed? I haven't thought more about that since I mentioned in your thread.

I am really hoping no one will make any exchange in the early days. I don't want users just dumping their coins to speculators.

Not sure cross chain activity is any less forgeable than inter chain activity... Having your coin on an exchange is definitely something you want to aim for post any fundraising, otherwise there is nowhere for investors who missed the boat to get onboard. If people see value, they won't dump it, they'll hold; everyone is still looking for a genuine, bitcoin comparable investment.

[TPTB_need_war]

If this coin records atomic cross chain transactions on the block chain, then we can see cross chain activity objectively. That is an interesting idea. But doesn't that add a feature that makes your metaexchange less needed? I haven't thought more about that since I mentioned in your thread.

I am really hoping no one will make any exchange in the early days. I don't want users just dumping their coins to speculators.

Not sure cross chain activity is any less forgeable than inter chain activity... Having your coin on an exchange is definitely something you want to aim for post any fundraising, otherwise there is nowhere for investors who missed the boat to get onboard. If people see value, they won't dump it, they'll hold; everyone is still looking for a genuine, bitcoin comparable investment.

Agreed I remember from my discussions with smooth that the conclusion is there is no way to track the difference between actual use and some others just trading with themselves unless of course the transaction fees are significant and can be provably not paid to the one who is creating fake volume.

In any case, I planning on a different and more direct measurement of activity. If I tell you what that is, you will know precisely my marketing plan. Soon... if you let me get back to coding...  

I am trying to not market to investors. If my project doesn't fail and successful adoption is obtained, then eventually investors will have too strong of an incentive to not find a way to get some tokens. But I am hoping it won't be the case immediately from the start that investors are dominating the acquisition of tokens. So I am hoping there is no demand for an exchange or at least the users that are being marketed to have no way to find the exchange, so there is an intentional disconnect between investors on this forum and the users the software is being marketed to. The reason for that is 1) so this software isn't marketed as an unregistered investment security but rather as a software application for users, 2) so the users don't just dump their free tokens instead of finding more creative uses for their tokens, 3) don't create undo technical challenges for myself too early as in the form of DDoS attacks or what not[1]

I am hoping the market will sort this out on timing of when exchanges are useful and hoping the proper balance of timing will be achieved naturally. I have some reason to believe it might work out that way.

Of course it might all fail too. In that case, I wouldn't probably ever mention a launch here. And I'd have moved on to what ever is next for me.

[1] note that others could accuse and say it is a form of premine or wanting to do an unfair launch but I believe the block chain data and other data will demonstrate the truth on this matter. There is no on chain anonymity in this initial design. And there will be other metadata that isn't in the block chains of other cryptocoins.

[monsterer]

Agreed I remember from my discussions with smooth that the conclusion is there is no way to track the difference between actual use and some others just trading with themselves unless of course the transaction fees are significant and can be provably not paid to the one who is creating fake volume.

In any case, I planning on a different and more direct measurement of activity. If I tell you what that is, you will know precisely my marketing plan. Soon... if you let me get back to coding...  

Usage is almost impossible to quantify because of the pseudo anonymity, so you have to use another metric, which is why I suggested clearing the supply against exchange's orderbooks. Granted it only works on existing coins, not brand new ones, but still I think it's probably the most genuine metric of actual value... supply meaning demand.

So I am hoping there is no demand for an exchange or at least the users that are being marketed to have no way to find the exchange

If it's popular, it'll find its way onto exchanges without your intervention, no way to prevent that, and I don't think you should want to either. I wouldn't

[TPTB_need_war]

I was entirely burnt out exhausted yesterday. My brain was fried. Had that feeling that my head was draped in a wet towel and my legs and feet were so swollen with what looks like edema but is actually inflammation. When you see my writing go into rambling mode, you can safely assume I have been sleepless for too many days and my head is all messed with my illness, because my inflammation goes bezerk when I don't maintain a lot of sleep. I don't like to sleep, because I am so eager to finish! But I need to sleep otherwise I become less productive and make mistakes.

Agreed I remember from my discussions with smooth that the conclusion is there is no way to track the difference between actual use and some others just trading with themselves unless of course the transaction fees are significant and can be provably not paid to the one who is creating fake volume.

In any case, I planning on a different and more direct measurement of activity. If I tell you what that is, you will know precisely my marketing plan. Soon... if you let me get back to coding...  

Usage is almost impossible to quantify because of the pseudo anonymity, so you have to use another metric, which is why I suggested clearing the supply against exchange's orderbooks. Granted it only works on existing coins, not brand new ones, but still I think it's probably the most genuine metric of actual value... supply meaning demand.

Correct in cryptocurrency the pseudonymous anonymity allows Sybil attacking the concept of "username". But at least during the non-leaderless phase of my marketing launch, the usernames won't be anonymous (in most cases). So my plan is that can measure the uptake very accurately during this crucial phase so I will know if it is succeeding or failing. Maybe there is some failure mode I am missing but that is my plan or what I think is theoretically feasible. One scaling issue is that I need to be able to automate part of the process, yet I am starting with manual verification. So I will be very overloaded with programming work if the scaling is exponential. I am really cutting a lot of corners to try to rush to market.

Going beyond that to the leaderless and fully decentralized transition, then some other metric of usership is needed. One possible metric is as the average transaction value decreases, the cost of propagation of the transaction proportionally increases, thus it becomes very costly to Sybil attack the transaction volume (even if you are running your own verification node and paying yourself the transaction fees). Also remember each transaction must include some PoW resources so unless the Sybil-attacker is a low cost professional miner, then the attacker is likely transacting (mining) at a loss and thus Sybil attacking transaction volume would not be sustainable. So by measuring transaction volume for transactions below some threshold value, this can theoretically be a relatively Sybil-free metric. Yet I am not sure yet if the propagation cost will be significant enough against any common level of microtransaction values.

Are you suggesting that exchanges enforce that trades are Sybil-free? Doesn't this rely on KYC? But how do you know that multiple KYC identities are not colluding to Sybil trade?

So I am hoping there is no demand for an exchange or at least the users that are being marketed to have no way to find the exchange

If it's popular, it'll find its way onto exchanges without your intervention, no way to prevent that, and I don't think you should want to either. I wouldn't

Broaden your perspective. The users I intend to market to have no idea what an exchange is. So if I were to succeed to make it popular among the demographic I plan to initially target, it doesn't mean they know or care to find an exchange. Perhaps the speculators will sniff an opportunity at some point and then perhaps try to find a way to make my demographic aware of the advantage of exchanges, but how do you incentivize people to want to exchange $1 a week in tokens? Seems futile. These tokens will be much more valuable to initial users as a form of social game than actual exchange value. Probably astute speculators might want to accumulate as many as they can, knowing that although an individual user might only have $20 worth in a year (yeah I know 52 x $1 = $52), that the massive adoption means the exchange value could potentially be very high in the future. But the problem for the speculator is the inability to get scale at this early stage. Eventually as merchants aggregate tokens, then investors can get supply in a secondary market.

Eventually yes the market demographics will broaden and then there will be a supply and demand for exchanges. But in the launch phase, I don't think there will be any supply even through there might be a lot of demand. I will try to not stoke the demand fervor before it is possible to actually get the supply. Or moreover, I will never stoke speculative demand myself, because I am not creating an unregistered investment security.

I am creating a software for a social game for users of social networking. This will be proven by the fact that all the tokens will be distributed to users of social networking and not to speculators nor investors. Speculators are rational. When they smell opportunity, they will find a way to accumulate in a secondary market, but I am not creating such. I am creating software and distributing it to social networking. I can't control what the free market does after that. I am making no representations about what the free market will or will not do. It will do that it will do. Out of my control.

I am launching a currency the way it should be launched in that the currency should circulate from the users to the merchants to the investors and then back again. Not starting with the HODL investors because they are too miserly and don't circulate the tokens.  They bury the tokens in the ground which is the most wretched action in the Parable of the Talents. And speculators don't invest in the ecosystem but rather just provide liquidity for greater fools. If there is a large functioning market as a currency, then investors and speculators are incentivized to be a more positive force in the ecosystem, because they will see greater opportunities from investing in ecosystem ventures than just always HODLing (which is as the "wise Lord" said in the parable, the way to have your talents siphoned away to those who can put them to more productive use). Short-term HODLing while searching for productive investments is not evil, but rather a required function of a store-of-value, and it helps to avoid hedging risk when it is also the unit-of-account for the fungible medium-of-exchange. Whereas, if launch to the speculators and HODLers, end up only with a shitcoin. As far as I know, no one has done it this way before.

[monsterer]

Are you suggesting that exchanges enforce that trades are Sybil-free? Doesn't this rely on KYC? But how do you know that multiple KYC identities are not colluding to Sybil trade?

Indeed trades are not sybil free, which is why I'm suggesting you use a 'corrected market cap' (as I described) as your estimate of the value of any existing coin. The buy sides of the orderbooks cannot be faked or distorted in this context; the top row is the best price, the bottom rows are the worst, so if you imagine filling the coin supply against the orderbook, you end up with a number in BTC which is the demand for the coin. Do that across all exchanges to give you a far better estimate than last traded price * coin supply (which is what CMC gives you).

Broaden your perspective. The users I intend to market to have no idea what an exchange is.

Initially, your biggest user base is going to be on this forum, I'd have thought - unless you plan not to market here and spend a fortune on advertising that is. But IMO that would be mad because you'll be fighting a war on two fronts: 1. educating people about what a crypto currency actually is, 2. getting them to use/buy yours.

I am creating a software for a social game for users of social networking. This will be proven by the fact that all the tokens will be distributed to users of social networking and not to speculators nor investors.

You're surely not creating an actual social game? I.e. you're not making candy crush, or something here are you?

[smooth]

Are you suggesting that exchanges enforce that trades are Sybil-free? Doesn't this rely on KYC? But how do you know that multiple KYC identities are not colluding to Sybil trade?

Indeed trades are not sybil free, which is why I'm suggesting you use a 'corrected market cap' (as I described) as your estimate of the value of any existing coin. The buy sides of the orderbooks cannot be faked or distorted in this context; the top row is the best price, the bottom rows are the worst, so if you imagine filling the coin supply against the orderbook, you end up with a number in BTC which is the demand for the coin. Do that across all exchanges to give you a far better estimate than last traded price * coin supply (which is what CMC gives you).

It can be faked if supply is tightly controlled. There is no risk to putting whatever offers up on the book you want, particularly below the best bid, if you know that it won't be dumped into your bids.

This makes values of mined coins somewhat more trustworthy than unmined (or lightly mined) PoS-type coins, because it is easier to control supply in the latter.

[monsterer]

It can be faked if supply is tightly controlled. There is no risk to putting whatever offers up on the book you want, particularly below the best bid, if you know that it won't be dumped into your bids.

That's the point tho - the bids *are* the demand. Coin supply is the supply, so when demand meets supply you get your market cap estimate. You can't place fake bids to raise the value of this estimate.

[TPTB_need_war]

It can be faked if supply is tightly controlled. There is no risk to putting whatever offers up on the book you want, particularly below the best bid, if you know that it won't be dumped into your bids.

That's the point tho - the bids *are* the demand. Coin supply is the supply, so when demand meets supply you get your market cap estimate. You can't place fake bids to raise the value of this estimate.

If I understand you correctly, you are proposing to value the market cap at the total bid demand (bid price x supply offered to buy), since the remaining money supply has no bid thus is worth 0 on the market at that instant in time.

It would need to be some average over time, otherwise it could swing wildly.

However it doesn't accurate reflect the demand and will understate market cap, because supply can also be traded outside exchanges at merchants. It could radically understate the relative usership of the coin with high bonafide transaction volume.

Also as smooth indicated, it can be gamed by setting bids much below the market price (that the asks won't bother to meet), thus giving a much higher relative valuation to coins where the supply is more concentrated in a few manipulators.

[TPTB_need_war]

Initially, your biggest user base is going to be on this forum, I'd have thought - unless you plan not to market here and spend a fortune on advertising that is. But IMO that would be mad because you'll be fighting a war on two fronts: 1. educating people about what a crypto currency actually is, 2. getting them to use/buy yours.

Advertising is free if paid in tokens because the tokens don't cost me anything.

Yeah the educating part is the big unknown factor. So my idea is motivate them to educate the others. The education curve should be as simple as "click that, get that, do that, get that".

You're surely not creating an actual social game? I.e. you're not making candy crush, or something here are you?

The game is literally the social networking game and I literally mean social, not an arcade game.