IDEAL: no ICOs, no proof-of-work, no proof-of-stake, no governance, and no forks

[CoinHoarder]

some ppl are just ignorant of powows 

I'm all for "powows", but if you are going to promote vaporware and claim to have solved all of crypto's problems, then you need to:

1. Produce proof
2. Produce a working product
3. Produce source code

Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air and there is no way to validate your claims.

Anonymint might as well say that he has developed a cryptocurrency that will solve world poverty. It would be no more untrue than his claims to have "solved" PoW and "solved" distribution and "solved" (the list goes on and on). He can't and won't prove any of those statements. His designs and plans lack peer review, no matter how smart and thorough you are, there is likely something that will be missed while working alone on such complex issues.

I posit that he is likely overstating his developments, and there is a reason why he won't provide proof of his work- more so than the obvious economic one.

[CoinHoarder]

shelby knows his stuff even even when he is trolling.

Maybe you can live in fantasy land with Shelby? I hear it has the worlds-best-super-duper everything.

no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible ... Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals.

[twunkle]

hm being a nasty character eye ego and all that. boring... well I can be like that too if you want; you are saying nothing interesting on a topic to think about, its all and only about how much someone seem to suck. what good is that? Tell me does it make you feel better, what is your problem? Try some other style one time or do you have only one, is that your only face. Maybe I can bribe Spoetnik to turn on you, then at least it will be funny. Is that possible? Your telling me to sod off because supposedly I say nothing while you are saying nothing?

Leave me be dude Im tired, come back when you have a sense of humor 

[CoinHoarder]

hm being a nasty character eye ego and all that. boring... well I can be like that too if you want; you are saying nothing interesting on a topic to think about, its all and only about how much someone seem to suck. what good is that? Tell me does it make you feel better, what is your problem? Try some other style one time or do you have only one, is that your only face. Maybe I can bribe Spoetnik to turn on you, then at least it will be funny. Is that possible? Your telling me to sod off because supposedly I say nothing while you are saying nothing?

Leave me be dude Im tired, come back when you have a sense of humor  

I am sure you are just someone's sock puppet, but you are kind of new here, only a few months, so maybe you don't understand AnonyMint like I do? I don't like hypocrites like AnonyMint.

1. He condemns pumpers whilst pumping vaporware himself.
1a. Meanwhile, not admitting that he is doing so.
2. He champions his "private work" (without showing proof) over other project's work that has been publicly released.
2a. It is an unfair FUD battle.
2a1. His yet-to-be-published and developed vaporware versus developed, released, peer reviewed, and open sourced cyptocurrencies. It is like Mike Tyson on a baby... of course he is going to win, but it was never a fair fight to begin with. He has complete information about his adversaries, and his adversaries have incomplete information on his claims. There is no way for the other cryptocurrencies to debate the other side. Therefore, he considers them all as being dead ends and broken, and since there's no way to debate the other side (his pros and cons), he wins by default. Every aspect of every protocol/cryptocurrency/distribution/etc has BOTH pros and cons. There WILL be pros and cons to Shelby's design. That is a certainty. How can we weigh the pros and cons against other cryptocurrencies since we have incomplete information? Are we supposed to just take his word for it? You do realize that this is the cryptocurrency community, and there are a lot of liars, scammers, and thieves?

He would like you to think I am off topic, but this thread is a microcosm of his relentless FUD and PUMP attempt for his vaporware.

[twunkle]

I love vaporware better
Thinking I am someones sock puppet, sad man

[CoinHoarder]

Thinking I am someones sock puppet, sad man

It is definitely a possibility. I am not saying that you are, and I am not saying that you aren't a sock puppet. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them here, so much so that it is hard to tell the difference.

I only use one account, because I am not attempting to deceive anyone.

[twunkle]

Ok good. Lets see

[b0art]

I love ico's and crowdfunding. Easy 20-100% gains upon launch.

[iamnotback]

I love ico's and crowdfunding. Easy 20-100% gains upon launch.

And I acknowledge your free-will to invest in ICOs:

Copy-cat ICO Schemes Unleashed:
You call stayed silent on that and we seen an explosion of copy cat ICO schemes unleashed..
And we seen the greedy profiteer dregs go along with it all so they could profit off them all.

When i asked the dev of BlockNET why he needed a million dollars in Bitcoin
He told me word for word, "to ensure it's a success"

Crypto-Minimum Wage Increase ?
When i started this coin devs would work on projects for FREE.. mostly.
Satoshi did not put his hand out and say i want a MILLION DOLLARS first before i release anything..

It is true that the ICOs aren't really providing any funding for development that matters. It is just the insiders cashing out.

That being said, no top notch s/w developer will work on a risky project that might net him $0, if he can't at least generate $250,000 per year of effort. And that is really on the low end since most of them can make that much (and more with stock options) in a job in silicon valley.

For example, I have been doing research and basically "working" in crypto since 2013. If I launched a project, I would expect to recover those years of investment.

But I also wouldn't waste all the funds on nonsense development of pie-in-the-sky fantasies.

But any way, I am not going to ask anyone to give me an ICO money. Mined distribution is clearly the fair way to launch a coin.

But just keep in mind if the developer is receivng a $million for years of effort, it is really just about break even, if he is a top developer. Please be respectful of the opportunity cost of top developers.

Also even the developers have a right to seek higher ROI. Speculators invest and risk to get a big payoff. When developers invest their time/effort and risk to get a big payoff, this is capitalism.

Having said that, afaik most of the developers of altcoins are not top developers. Afaics, most of them have nearly no experience as employed software developers before their work in crypto. This is excluding the Bitcoin core devs of course. There are experienced developers in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The DAO is only 2080 lines of source code. And it can never be "fixed" or "finished" any more than it already is, because it is a flawed concept and I have difficulty believing Tual doesn't realize it.. It probably wasn't intended to grow into something great. It was probably a quickie rush to latch on to the euphoria about ETH and so those looking to cash out of ETH at the double-top at $15, had another option The DAO. It was probably a timing and marketing product decision and not an engineering or long-range focus. I could understand your criticism of something like that. But it is a free market and you can't stop them.

[iamnotback]

His designs and plans lack peer review, no matter how smart and thorough you are, there is likely something that will be missed while working alone on such complex issues.

This thread is about IDEALS. It is not about implementation of those IDEALS.

I merely answered a question, when someone asked if there was any potential to reach these IDEALS, I stated I am working on such designs.

I may not be the only person or group working on such IDEALS.

Please stay on topic and stop trying to turn this thread into your private troll box about how much you hate me.

Is it even possible to have unmoderated threads, when some trolls have no shame or mutual respect for at least staying on topic. I already referred you to the pre-existing thread about my reputation. Please post your ad hominem drivel there.

[iamnotback]

This is off-topic, but required in order to illustrate the illogical trolling of CoinHoarder since he has decided to filibuster my thread and fill it up with off-topic drivel:

1. He condemns pumpers whilst pumping vaporware himself.

I guess you missed where I've been promoting your beloved Bitshares' DEX lately and where I had explained to smooth he was short-sighted when he convinced me that Bitshares was likely a failure or scam:

Why does no one use the BitShares Exchange DEX?

Because we are just fools:

It seems that a corrupted exchange is an essential ingredient for pumping a crypto currency to $billion nosebleed mcaps, so apparently not only is demand being created out-of-thin-air using margined coins the insiders deceptively obtained from the ICO by buying from themselves (taking out a BTC loan and paying it back after the ICO)...

...but likely also that some high volume exchange is also creating tokens literally out-of-thin-air and is another Mt.Gox or Cryptsy waiting to default when there is a run to withdraw.

A likely essential ingredient in BitCON's rise from $10 to $1200 was because Mt.Gox was creating coins out-of-thin-air and handling most of the BTC volume, so this provided more coins for everyone to leverage and create fake demand with.

So this huge pump in ETH likely means another high volume exchange will end up stealing all your coins again soon.

The way this criminal enterprise crypto-currency enterprise works is that the insiders create tokens out-of-thin-air on the exchanges, then when the ponzi scheme implodes, the "hackers" or owners of the exchange are blamed instead of blaming the real manipulators behind the curtain.

We apparently have criminal gangs in the crypto-currency ecosystem. The DAO attacker says the UGGovt + MIT/Cornell universities are complicit. Others say Goldman Sachs is in this. Probably also Russian criminals, etc..

That is likely why there is no enforcement from the SEC. Because the SEC is owned by the criminal gangs.

Nothing has changed! We have not defeated fiat. We have not defeated the same banksters bastards who are always enslaving us.

We're just fools.

And especially after he had basically talked me out of thinking that Bitshares might be a credible team to partner with.

I don't remember ever discussing Bitshares with you or anyone else. It seems unlikely because with one small exception I have always been entirely ignorant about Bitshares, something that even today puts me at a disadvantage in understanding Steem (since it is based closely on Bitshares). The exception is that I was pretty sure their original model of pegged assets was catastrophically unstable and would not work. They later added a price feed, which improved it somewhat.

It may be that I made some general remarks that could be interpreted as arguing against the success of Bitshares model, but I don't know.

Thanks for the explanation.

I'll refresh your memory.

It was after I had announced Zero Knowledge Transactions and it was clear that Monero had a competitive solution RingCT and I was shopping ZKT around to potentially BBR and also I approached Bitshares briefly. Thus that must have been roughly Aug or Sept. There is a post from AnonyMint user name at the Bitshares forum as evidence.

I was discussing with you in private about the merits of ICOs and making money from launching a coin in what ever means. And you were trying to tell me that there is basically no money in it and that is why Monero's plan is the best, because the XMR devs just do it as a hobby or labor of love and don't take it too seriously as a way to generate income. You were always in general coaxing me away from any concept of making money from developing and launching CC, and to the open source hobbyist Monero way.

And I mentioned Bitshares as an example with their significant marketcap which had been as high as $40 million at one point for afair the ProtoShares. And had also mentioned Dash. That is when you instructed me about how all the mcaps are fake and you made me aware that insiders buy from themselves to make it appear that the volume is real.

I said okay maybe for Dash, but Bitshares seems to have legit technology and theirs might be real. And you said that look how Bitshares is trying to sell services (at that time in 2015) because they are basically cash strapped and aren't earning hardly anything from creating CCs.

In short, you were trying to discourage me from pursuing making a CC if I expected to earn any $ from doing so. That is not to say you were discouraging me from creating a CC if not for expectation of a payday. That is not to say you were wishing for me to fail if I did attempt to. I think you felt you were just giving sound feedback.

To be fair, you were aware of my illness and perhaps you were concerned and felt I might be better off to take employment, get medical insurance, and have a more stable and less risky source of potential income and funding for health care.

But I just know that before that discussion, I never thought about the altcoin market as being one giant scam and being entirely fake. I really bought into your take on that. But now in hindsight, I think you are not entirely correct. Seems people who have produced less technology than I am working on, having reaped some significant paydays.

Waves raised ~$15 million and referred to IOHK's open source without apparently having developed anything at all. It was apparently purely a marketing campaign. Heck I never expected even a $million, so with better tech than they have, why shouldn't I be able to get my $500,000 and also do some good for the CC community.

When I respect someone, it means I listen intently to what they have to say.

CoinHoarder probably gets pissed off when I write about Bitshares' DPOS consensus system (CoinHoarder if you want to refute the following post, please do it in the quoted thread, not here! Damnit!):

1. Since the chosen single node for each block is deterministic, then in theory it could be very vulnerable to botnet DDoS attack. More generally it lacks fault tolerance, which is critically needed in real world systems. A redesign to have simultaneous disjoint blocks from multiple delegates can't be allowed because there could be double-spends in the presumed disjoint blocks.

2. For DPOS, this is not decentralized control, because the minority has to accept the will of the majority on the election of delegate DPOS nodes, i.e. the permissionless attribute can be lost such as ChainAnchor being planned for ButtCON. No one can just standup a full node at-will. This also means there isn't really competition in terms of a free market rate for transaction fees.

Btw, Bitcoin-NG accomplishes basically the same deterministic node per block and with decentralized control over the selection of the delegate in real-time employing PoW, yet with chain reorganization issues.

3. The maximum speed (minimum delay) of confirmations is lower bounded by the slowest latency of block propagation to every DPOS node, because otherwise some nodes can't keep up. This can be reasonably fast say several seconds if you've got a very organized set of delegate nodes (but then you really don't have decentralized control), but this is not fast enough for some types of instant microtransactions.

4. Zero-confirmation double-spend transactions (aka Finney Attack) are even more plausible, because a colluding delegate node knows deterministically when it will win the block. Note block periods can be reasonably fast in DPOS, so 0-conf is probably not needed although not fast enough for some types of instant microtransactions, although such probably wouldn't be Finney attacked due to their small values.

5. Proof-of-stake is not a secure consensus algorithm, because for example the nothing-at-stake problem. We compiled a laundry list of flaws in proof-of-stake. Note I recently made a suggestion to jl777 and we mutually designed how to record check points for DPoS coins in a PoW block chain.

I am glad you are back youarenotback! Mostly I don't understand all you're saying, but at least your posts challenge me to try to learn new things. Thanx!

Let me try to unpack those points a bit for laymen:

1. Full nodes in DPOS are elected delegates. With Satoshi's PoW, we don't know which node will win the next block. So an attacker wouldn't know which node to jam with a DDoS attack. Any node attacked would simply not participate in competing to produce the next block, but this wouldn't harm the system at all. Whereas, when we designate the node that will decide what goes into the next block, then an attacker knows which node to attack. As well, a node knows when it will control the next block, and thus it can attack the network by withholding (although it would probably get voted out of being a delegate node soon, although it might be difficult to prove when it was a legitimate network hiccup or when it was intentional). I believe Bitcoin-NG may have an analogous weakness.

2. For me, this is the other huge weakness. With DPOS, the set of nodes which process blocks is static until the next voting. And even after voting, standing up a full node is not something an individual can choose to do by himself. There is always politics and centralization involved. The ideologically great thing about Satoshi's design is that anyone at any time can go standup a full node and process his/her transactions on any block he/she wins. The problems of course with Satoshi's design is that it doesn't scale and also that PoW economics of SHA256 means an individual can no longer win a block nor prevent the centralization of mining over time due to it being 100 to 1000X more profitable for the ASIC farms and because scaling can't work without centralization. So DPOS doesn't really gain anything that we can't get by centralizing Satoshi's design other than saving electricity.

I have another solution which I think is a better compromise than both of those. But I won't describe it, because surely others will start to figure out my design if I describe it further. I need to release it asap, so the discussion of its merits can be open sourced.

3. If one full node's block period is say 5 seconds, but the propagation to another of the full nodes is 10 seconds, that latter node will not be able to receive the new block from the former and produce another new block within its 5 second allocation. Thus the block period has a lower bound which is dictated by the slowest propagation on the network of full nodes. And 5 seconds confirmation is too slow for certain types of microtransactions. Imagine you want to start listening to a song, and you have it set to pay a microtransaction automatically, but you have to wait 5+ seconds everytime you want to click to listen to a new song you have not yet paid for. Or similarly when using microtransactions instead of a CAPTCHA. Even 1 second might be too slow! Vcash's Zerotime can't even get close to being fast enough. Probably Lightning Networks won't be fast enough either, not to mention it doesn't scale well.

5. DPOS (delegated proof-of-stake) is still POS with all its flaws. My desire is to attain Satoshi's security model, but with 100% decentralization, massive scaling, 1 second confirmed transactions, and no economic trend towards centralization!


Edit: Steemit is pioneering combining PoW and DPOS in another way, and do take note that this doesn't seem to fix the issues I enumerated above although it mitigates somewhat issue #2 except doesn't solve the economics of centralization of PoW issue:

Consensus in Steem

...

With Steem, block production is done in rounds. Each round 21 witnesses are selected to
create and sign blocks of transactions. Nineteen (19) of these witnesses are selected by
approval voting, one is selected by a computational proof-of-work, and one is timeshared
by every witness that didn’t make it into the top 19 proportional to their total votes. The 21
active witnesses are shuffled every round to prevent any one witness from constantly
ignoring blocks produced by the same witness placed before.

This process is designed to provide the best reliability while ensuring that everyone has the
potential to participate in block production regardless of whether they are popular enough
to get voted to the top. People have three options to overcome censorship by the top 19
elected witnesses: patiently wait in line with everyone else not in the top 19, purchase
enough computational power to solve a proof of work faster than others, or purchase more
SP to improve voting power. Generally speaking, applying censorship is a good way for
elected witnesses to lose their job and therefore, it is unlikely to be a real problem on the
Steem network.

Because the active witnesses are known in advance, Steem is able to schedule witnesses to
produce blocks every 3 seconds. Witnesses synchronize their block production via the NTP
protocol. A variation of this algorithm has been in use by the BitShares network for over a
year where it has been proven to be reliable.

Mining in Steem

Traditional proof of work blockchains combine block production with the solving of a proof
of work. Because the process of solving a proof of work takes an unpredictable amount of
time, the result is unpredictable block production times. Steem aims to have consistent and
reliable block production every 3 seconds with almost no potential for forks.
To achieve this Steem separates block production from solving of proof of work. When a
miner solves a proof of work for Steem, they broadcast a transaction containing the work.
The next scheduled witness includes the transaction into the blockchain. When the
transaction is included the miner is added to the queue of miners scheduled to produce

blocks. Each round one miner is popped from the queue and included in the active set of
witnesses. The miner gets paid when they produce a block at the time they are scheduled.
The difficulty of the proof of work doubles every time the queue length grows by 4. Because
one miner is popped from the queue every round, and each round takes 21 * 3 = 63 seconds,
the difficulty automatically halves if no proof of work is found in no more than 21 * 3 * 4 =
252 seconds.

[iamnotback]

All that you need to do is admit that you are pumping vaporware, and then I will leave you alone.

Again it is impossible to pump up the price of a token or ICO that does not exist.

I have a right to make a thread and discuss the IDEALS I am shooting for. It doesn't give you the green-light to filibuster (drown and bury) this thread with off-topic drivel about my posts in other threads. Go to those other threads and post your rebuttals.

1. He condemns pumpers whilst pumping vaporware himself.

I've made a post just for you in my Reputation thread, which samples many of my recent posts wherein I make it very clear that I am no longer on a crusade to identify which coins are scams. I have stated very clearly that we should allow speculators to have their free will. I wish you would also do the same. I will offer my analysis and ask tough questions¹ from time-to-time, but I won't harp on other coins and try to filibuster to dictate public opinion (as your trolling here is attempting to do).

Please post your further rebuttals to the aforementioned Reputation thread.

1	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526614.msg15363691#msg15363691 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1437428.msg15389393#msg15389393

[MarketMagic]

shelby knows his stuff even even when he is trolling.

Maybe you can live in fantasy land with Shelby? I hear it has the worlds-best-super-duper everything.

no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible ... Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals.

Sounds great

[twunkle]

Thank you for digging that up
Can you not shard miners unpredictably and do lightweight difficulty pow, one transaction at a time (also being the elector) or just have my own node offer solution directly after finding it. But I guess I could find that

[axismundi]

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

There is a way to power a blockchain without proof of work or proof of stake, and we're doing it on the Carboncoin

It's not the perfect solution, because as the op is well aware, a perfect solution does not exist

We have demonstrated our ethos and trustworthiness by operating without security breach for over 2 year. This becomes more valuable the longer it goes on.

Anyone can hash on the network but they wont be rewarded with enough coins to make it worthwhile to do that in anything other than the most effective way.

I have my "ideal" structure for a coin, which will be implemented on the carboncoin project at some stage in the future but in the meantime we have been able to add approximately 500 non crypto users since we started (who have bought coins coming from the market), and that is without any significant fundraising or resources for marketing or development.

The funding is now happening, so we will see where it goes. I would very much like to engage this community and find fellow innovators to work with on the ideal currency application of the blockchain - Carboncoin continues to be my best effort

[axismundi]

The best initial distribution of an alt is to take the snapshot of bitcoin blockchain at a particular point of time and enable holders of these bitcoins to receive this altcoins, in proportion to their bitcoin holdings.
No ICO is good, but what is the initial distribution proposed?

What about manually distributing from a market with total holdings limited to prevent oligarchy - we've grown a new network of 500 non bitcoin users this way with no marketing spend

[axismundi]

Although you posted a disclaimer that your topic should not be about a single cryptocurrency, I'ld have to point out NEM is the one which fulfills all your criteria and it is currently in the top 5 of currencies on coinmarketcap. 

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/

Sounds like OP either wants to launch his own crypto, which most failure, or is theorizing when his dream coin is real and out there.


1. NEM was a wide distribution to 1000s of stakeholders and only around 65 BTC was collected.  When R0ach and Spoetnik call ICOs scams, they're almost always referring to stuff which collects millions of dollars and is distributed to a few.
2. NEM is Proof-Of-Importance
3. Proof-Of-Importance
4. NEM does not have a voting system.  At one time NEM considered it, but there were a lot of disasters then with other people's implementation and even now.  Bitshares' issue was it was very hard to kick out apathetic / inactive delegates.  DAO, before the hack, was only able to get around 20% participation.
5. Proof-Of-Importance.  



These are threads I have seen a lot on Bitcointalk.  People saying we need a fair distribution or an alternative to PoW/PoS.  NEM already had you all beat since 2014 and now it's a top 5 currency.  NEM is still cheap so the time to buy is now.

Ok granted I'm plugging my currency too, but what is proof of importance in 2 sentences?

[axismundi]

The best initial distribution of an alt is to take the snapshot of bitcoin blockchain at a particular point of time and enable holders of these bitcoins to receive this altcoins, in proportion to their bitcoin holdings.

That is Proof-of-Burn (PoB) or Proof-of-Sign.

Neither raise any funds for development of the ecosystem.

Proof-of-sign duplicates Bitcoin's corrupt distribution controlled by mining farms who mine at perhaps $50 cost (some of us even think they get free subsidized electricity in China paid for by the State) while we pay $600 cost.

For those who want to duplicate Bitcoin's distribution, they may prefer this. I should not judge for them what they want. I am just explaining why it wouldn't fit my ideal.

There is a real world analogue in the conventional financial system for raising funds while growing the ecosystem - can you guess which coin's been using it all along?

[axismundi]

I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.

I have such technology under development.

so you wanna be funded?
you may wanna just join a team instead and with their existing coin if possible, you wouldn't need more funds but just an update to the coin. and you still have the legacy still.

Help wanted

[MarketMagic]

You could take over some coin that is already trading on a good exchange that needs a developer and has a way of funding development as the price rises.I know of one that has been community ran from day one without 1 cent raised for development yet has traded on poloniex for over 2 years and continues to be developed by the community.They also have a fund that stakes coins that autonomously allows the coin to pay for its own development and it switches from pos to pow if nescessary.It is also ran over tor and has messaging in the wallet and are looking to develop a mobile version but they cant get anyone who is able to do the messaging etc on android.Any developer would have a free reign to experiment and the coin already has a good ticker and name.Just an idea of course.