MC2: A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system

[psybits]

+1 for NetCoin

++1

[1715675801]

1715675801

[hod928]

gonna be following this very closely, i also vote for netcoin

[wizzardTim]

netcoin it is..

[HumpNRun]

netcoin it is..

Is the domain taken?

[aaaxn]

Few ideas to consider:
1) Drop democratic part of new coin. Decentralized currency is democratic by design. Majority of users can ALWAYS change how protocol work (eg. change interes rate) by just realeasing and installing modified source. There is no need for built in mechanism to do it.
2) Drop initial mining and make distribution of all coins in genesis block. It can be nicely done using bitcoin blockchain. I can post details of my idea if you are interested.
3) If you adopt 2) you don't have problems with initial stages of money distribution so you can focus on making most efficient PoS system. Efficient transaction confirmation is most important part of new coin. Bitcoin don't have problem with 51% attacks it has problem with extremely expensive mining.
4) You said you want to make PoS as simple as it can be. You use 2 different kind of blocks. Why don't simply make system similiar to bitcoin with one modification: person with twice as many coins need to make half of work to validate a block?
5) Make something with ever growing blockchain. I like the idea of making a balance sheet every N blocks. See this thread

[FreeBit]

+1 for NetCoin

++1+1

[ictin]

I was thinking that instead of people casting a real vote, they will vote with their wallets, and having a dynamic generation. And let me explain, what i think it may be a good idea, but i am not sure about the technical difficulties involved (i need to check the source code of the current crypto coins when i will have some time).


1. A block is generated every 10 seconds for fast approval of transactions
2. At first every block will give 10 or 50 or whatever value.
3. After some time (let's say 1 million of coin have been generated or after 6 months), the value generated by a new block is proportional with the transactions made since the last block have been found. Let's say, as an example, that when a new block is found 1% of the coins used since the last block is generated. So if 100 coins have changed hands since the last block, the new block will generate 1 new coin. This will generate new coins only based on the usage of the coin, and i think it will be a good thing, also considering that the transaction will be approved faster and so one of the problem of the current crypto coins will be solved.

[Fifth_ID]

+1 for making a coin as 50.01% resistant as possible. The main reason that I'm mining PPC is that it is a 50.01% resistant coin.

As long as confirmations don't take more than 15 minutes for the first one, I'd be happy since I wouldn't use cryptos when an immediate transaction has to take place. Thinking in the long run, I'd use crypto to store a decade's worth of funds and exchange it for fiat every time I need a week to a month's worth of currency (I could store long term value with gold but gold's cost of extraction is less than 500 usd an ounce instead of today's speculation driven prices of 1,500 usd.)

I'd prefer a coin where 1 cent can be worth 100 coins than 1 cent be worth 0.00001 coins. Early adopters may get 1 million coins per block but at the end of the day, it's what the coins are worth than the amount of coins. A nickname for 1,000 Satoshis (K Satoshi) would be easier to remember and mentally calculate than saying something along the lines of Mini-bitcoins. I personally don't notice the mini and micro signs in front of the options for transactions in litecoin and actually would prefer the micro option being the default option (it's safer to accidentally send 10 micro-litecoins than 10 litecoins.)

[Cheshyr]

I was digging through hash algorithms today from the SHA-3 contest, and I saw a couple that were disqualified... not due to insecurity, but due to "performance issues".  One in particular stood out:

"FSB is slower than traditional hash functions and uses quite a lot of memory, which makes it impractical on memory constrained environments. Furthermore, the compression function used in FSB needs a large output size to guarantee security."

Sounds like potential to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Syndrome_Based_Hash
https://www.rocq.inria.fr/secret/CBCrypto/index.php?pg=fsb

As for the name... I still have an aversion to *coin names, but if we're stuck with it, netCoin is generic and simple enough to encourage adoption from the mundanes.

[Joerii]

As for the name... I still have an aversion to *coin names, but if we're stuck with it, netCoin is generic and simple enough to encourage adoption from the mundanes.

I hear you. 'coin is cheesy. But from a marketing perspective it makes total sense to use it. I think the name has a big impact on the potential popularity of a cryptocurrency. PPC is a good example of that. It's a great concept, but for some reason it's not a coin the community talks a lot about. Could that be because of the name...Peepee-see ?

[Cheshyr]

As for the name... I still have an aversion to *coin names, but if we're stuck with it, netCoin is generic and simple enough to encourage adoption from the mundanes.

I hear you. 'coin is cheesy. But from a marketing perspective it makes total sense to use it. I think the name has a big impact on the potential popularity of a cryptocurrency. PPC is a good example of that. It's a great concept, but for some reason it's not a coin the community talks a lot about. Could that be because of the name...Peepee-see ?

I was explaining the different coins to my girlfriend.  She still randomly mutters "PeePee Coin" and giggles sometimes.  Gotta be careful with this stuff.  :-p

[Stampbit]

This whitepaper needs a whitepaper. Really, 6 pages of dense engineering stuff that doesnt belong in a whitepaper and maybe 3 sentences of explanation to go by. Maybe in nice bulletpoints you can write what you intend to change about bitcoin in this, why you want to change it, and in so many words how you intend on doing it.

[termhn]

This whitepaper needs a whitepaper. Really, 6 pages of dense engineering stuff that doesnt belong in a whitepaper and maybe 3 sentences of explanation to go by. Maybe in nice bulletpoints you can write what you intend to change about bitcoin in this, why you want to change it, and in so many words how you intend on doing it.

yeah I'd like something like this too.

[chriswen]

As long as confirmations don't take more than 15 minutes for the first one, I'd be happy since I wouldn't use cryptos when an immediate transaction has to take place. Thinking in the long run, I'd use crypto to store a decade's worth of funds and exchange it for fiat every time I need a week to a month's worth of currency (I could store long term value with gold but gold's cost of extraction is less than 500 usd an ounce instead of today's speculation driven prices of 1,500 usd.)

Proposed block time is 2 minutes.

[rezurect]

A separate thread for proposed names,please. If Tacotime doesn't name the coin Taco's.
Sifting through posts about names for to find proposed improvements or alternatives.

Hope the ever increasing blockchain size can be solved with Merkle root approach or Balance sheet approach. Hope enough peers look into it, would be a shame if that ended up a weakness/vulnerability prone to manipulation.

[Cheshyr]

A separate thread for proposed names,please. If Tacotime doesn't name the coin Taco's.
Sifting through posts about names for to find proposed improvements or alternatives.

Hope the ever increasing blockchain size can be solved with Merkle root approach or Balance sheet approach. Hope enough peers look into it, would be a shame if that ended up a weakness/vulnerability prone to manipulation.

Agreed.  Blockchain size is a critical problem that needs solving.

[termhn]

A separate thread for proposed names,please. If Tacotime doesn't name the coin Taco's.
Sifting through posts about names for to find proposed improvements or alternatives.

Hope the ever increasing blockchain size can be solved with Merkle root approach or Balance sheet approach. Hope enough peers look into it, would be a shame if that ended up a weakness/vulnerability prone to manipulation.

Agreed.  Blockchain size is a critical problem that needs solving.

+1
...
Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough about this stuff to propose any sort of solution

[Joerii]

A separate thread for proposed names,please. If Tacotime doesn't name the coin Taco's.
Sifting through posts about names for to find proposed improvements or alternatives.

Hope the ever increasing blockchain size can be solved with Merkle root approach or Balance sheet approach. Hope enough peers look into it, would be a shame if that ended up a weakness/vulnerability prone to manipulation.

The good things about "spammy" posts about names is that it bumps the thread up to the front page where more technical minded people will run into it So just bear with us and use your scroll wheel, brother !

[Robre]

What's a spammy post?

[Joerii]

What's a spammy post?

That is