Link to the draft version of the whitepaper:
DownloadNotable things about this chain:
- Uses a new approach to secure hashing algorithms for the hash tree of a given block that should increase FPGA/ASIC resistance
- After 27 coin years it employs a democratic system of voting to manipulate the interest rate of the block chain (users act as the central bank and regulate the rate of inflation)
- Difficulty is based on the linear weighted average of the block times for the past 18 days for PoW blocks
- New block reward adjustment algorithm is given that yields an 8% decrease in block reward per year
- Simple PoS design (tried to strip it of as many complexities as possible)
- PoW and PoS systems are designed to happily coexist, with favour slightly given to the PoW system
- PoS system also intended to prevent 51% attacks
Feel free to peer-review/tear it apart. I will be the first to say that I'm pretty terrible at math, so please correct any mistakes I've made. I'd love to hear why you think it's a great/terrible idea, though. Obviously I anticipate there are a lot of problems with it that I couldn't foresee, so please help me out!
Figure 2 also doesn't want to display with the Y-axis title correct, not sure why that is/too tired to fix this (been working on this/thinking about it for almost 11 hours now).
DONATIONS (will be refunded to the address from which they were sent if this doesn't pan out):
BTC:
12HWFAsv1ojTuw5FzoP9T3SnyjZew5hFDLLTC:
Lb8ESE4NW6kcQVb8uqYS3oRumWSj1gGuzaLead developerTacotime
Potential developer list:
TheBigYak
RauBan
CryptoJunky
If you're working with Python then list me as someone who may occasionally contribute code. What languages are you working with?
I have two questions, how many coins will there be? If it's 11 million total for instance then I think this would be ideal. If it's more than it wont ever be as valuable as Bitcoin and so how will you get early adopters to support this?
I asked the same question to SunnyKing about PPcoin. But yes I'm definitely interested in contributing to the project whether with code or in other ways depending on what you decide to do. Right now I'm familiarizing myself with the Bitcoin code but it's fairly straightforward from what I've seen of the Python implementations.
There are a number of things I like about this project so far.
You've made an honest attempt at making it GPU/CPU friendly. I'm actually very nervous about the direction of Bitcoin given the growing hashing power availability, and I'd like to see some way to keep the network power distributed. There will always be favorable hardware. Rotating Hashes is clever, and I like it. Finding a way to make the algorithm deterministic while non-predictable is no small task. There may be yet better ways, but this is a good start.
You've brought in the Proof of Stake concept from another coin, and integrated it in a new way. Including current innovations just makes me happy in general. I thought the major benefit of PoS was Transactions without Mining. Either that
The difficulty adjustment system is non-standard, and should provide an extremely stable and predictable difficulty path. Given the recent issues with TRC, I can't say I blame you.
You've given thought to all the common faults of current coins, and tried to address them. That sounds more like prudence than anything else, but it's been overlooked a lot lately.
The democracy thing seems left field. It seems to be an attempt to allow community feedback into the algorithm, to adjust for errors or changes in the economy. That shows some remarkable foresight, although I'm not sold on the timeline or mechanism yet. The idea of damped, non-automated feedback is valuable though.
The fixed block reward reduction feels flawed to me, but that's a gut reaction; I don't have any facts to back it up. I agree that rewards need to change dynamically. This is as good a place to start as any.
Overall this is the most thoughtful new coin I've seen in a while, but a lot of your suggestions are solutions to problems I was contemplating, so I may be biased a bit.
I'm mostly an embedded developer, but I'd be willing to help out with development where I can.
The democracy factor is interesting but how to implement? Digital signatures built into wallets which have a certain amount of coins in order to vote? I have no idea how to go about implementing it but it's certainly a good idea to have democratic elements.
The other thing I'm thinking about (unrelated to this) are artificial intelligence elements. AI and cryptocurrencies go well together and would be symbiotic but I'm not knowledgeable enough yet on AI or on cryptocurrencies to code it myself. An AI expert who understands the Bitcoin code could give some insight here and then anyone can code based around those insights but I'm not that expert.
Count me in.
Have you considered starting a project on a crowd funding site like kickstarter ? With all the news around BTC at the moment I think you could get a large amount of funding rather easily.
You're absolutely right. This should be on Kickstarter. Why not?
I do think however that he should not rush through the design process / white paper peer review. It looks good, but if there are any ideas which can improve it then now is the time to do that since the coin doesn't yet have a name.
He seems to be taking the best innovations of each coin and combining them then adding
Any solution to the byzantine consensus problem with a hybrid PoW-PoW stake system that further introduces fault-tolerance and enhances network security with no real net increase in computation power should be a better solution, not a worse one (main tradeoff is chain bloat, but I'm sure people find this acceptable).
I can understand the need for compromise but where in your paper is this tradeoff made explicit and it's security/efficiency improvement analyzed ? You simply assert that proof of stake is Good, and build from there. The same for the PPC paper, it's all hand-waving spiced with low level implementation details. Don't view it as an attack on you or your objectives, I am a fan of getting rid of wasteful hashing; however this is a very hard computer science problem (Byzantine consensus vs. the Sybil attack) and I expect a hairy analytical paper with all sort of funny symbols and equations, not implementation details.
It seems to me the cryptocurrency community needs more thinkers than doers. Not enough analysis goes into these bitcoin forks, and the results up to now are half baked and flaky.
Yes, I'm adding more hash algorithms -- but there is no simple way to implement them all together with an ASIC or FPGA without using a massive number of logic units. You're looking at maybe 35k gates with a scrypt ASIC while this would easily require 100k+ to hit all encryption algorithms.
So what ? A modern FPGA can include over ten million gates (virtex 7). A large 22nm ASIC can contain hundreds of millions of simple gates. Indeed it's a bit more work to get the first device done (a fixed cost), but once you have the mask the marginal cost to multiply it is the same as a simple Bitcoin mask which uses a single type of hash. What you should be targeting for is that each chip cannot be much more efficient than a CPU, and scrypt, a
password derivation technique, is NOT a proper primitive for this task, the same for you multi-hash scheme.
This is a post I agree with but what books or academic papers do you suggest must be required reading so that we can build a knowledge basis to conduct this level of contemplation and analysis?
We should probably put it on Lesswrong or a similar Wikisite and let people learn the required theoretical knowledge, have the discussions which need to be discussed, worth out the mathematics and equations like you say, and then do a proper peer review. I think you're absolutely right the peer review process is important but if all the people with deep understanding aren't willing to explain that esoteric knowledge or write a book on the subject then nothing can change.
an innovation of his own.
