Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 10:27:33 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] - 'paracoin' - paracoin.org  (Read 7085 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 05:30:28 AM
 #1


Here's an idea that hit me this afternoon.  Tapped out some notes for the fun of it:  paracoin.org


1511260053
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511260053

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511260053
Reply with quote  #2

1511260053
Report to moderator
1511260053
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511260053

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511260053
Reply with quote  #2

1511260053
Report to moderator
1511260053
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511260053

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511260053
Reply with quote  #2

1511260053
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511260053
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511260053

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511260053
Reply with quote  #2

1511260053
Report to moderator
1511260053
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511260053

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511260053
Reply with quote  #2

1511260053
Report to moderator
termhn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 05:40:04 AM
 #2

Hmm interesting idea indeed.
2Kool4Skewl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


Suretified Jeanius


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 06:37:15 AM
 #3

+1

I APPROVE OF THIS COIN!!!

Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764

Newbie


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 07:33:44 AM
 #4

From the site:

Quote
From Ancient Greek παρά (para, “beside; next to, near, from; against, contrary to”). From Sanskrit word par meaning beyond.

Count me in!
qxzn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 603



View Profile
May 01, 2013, 04:34:56 PM
 #5

I don't really get the solution. Can somebody explain it to me? How does vanitygen fit in?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 04:41:15 PM
 #6

I don't really get the solution. Can somebody explain it to me? How does vanitygen fit in?

It's just a tag which losly indicates that a participant at least attempts to have a presence in the paracoin blockchain.  Miners might leverage it in 'parasitic mode' when they are primarily mining the Bitcoin blockchain itself.

It might fuck up bloom filtering.  If so it could probably be moved to the end.  Or be dispensed with completely.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 06:17:31 PM
 #7

... How does vanitygen fit in?

It's just a tag which losly indicates that a participant at least attempts to have a presence in the paracoin blockchain.  Miners might leverage it in 'parasitic mode' when they are primarily mining the Bitcoin blockchain itself.

It might fuck up bloom filtering.  If so it could probably be moved to the end.  Or be dispensed with completely.


Let me also add that the difficulty of obtaining a '1para1...' address is about 15 billion.  This puts it within the realistic reach of anyone but makes it not completely trivial to get a giant number of them quickly for DOS attacks of one sort or another.  I kind of envision the method of initial loading, and recovery in case of a 'para-illegal' operation, being use of a new vanity 'para-addy'.

It is unlikely to run across a 'para-addy' which was not deliberately generated (though not so unlikely that it should be assumed when coding...)

Like I mentioned, this is just an idea which popped into my head yesterday.  I've not thought through almost anything fully at this point.


zerodrama
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 06:32:18 PM
 #8

I don't really get the solution. Can somebody explain it to me? How does vanitygen fit in?

It's just a tag which losly indicates that a participant at least attempts to have a presence in the paracoin blockchain.  Miners might leverage it in 'parasitic mode' when they are primarily mining the Bitcoin blockchain itself.

It might fuck up bloom filtering.  If so it could probably be moved to the end.  Or be dispensed with completely.



Congratulations you created Proof of Stake at a network level.

EASY CALCULATION FOR TRADES: 1 Million is 1x10e6. 1 Satoshi is 1x10e-8. 1 M sat is 1x10e-2. 100 M sat is 1.
1 M herpcoin @ 001 derpcoin sat = 0.01 derpcoin
1 M herpcoin @ 100 derpcoin sat = 1.00 derpcoin
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 07:03:24 PM
 #9

... How does vanitygen fit in?

It's just a tag which losly indicates that a participant at least attempts to have a presence in the paracoin blockchain.  Miners might leverage it in 'parasitic mode' when they are primarily mining the Bitcoin blockchain itself.

It might fuck up bloom filtering.  If so it could probably be moved to the end.  Or be dispensed with completely.


Congratulations you created Proof of Stake at a network level.

I'd consider this more of an 'Indication of Intent' than a 'Proof of Stake'.

It has to be realistic for any interested party to be involved (in my conception of things) so the proof cannot be a very high barrier.  Also it's just a Bitcoin address (and fully usable in Bitcoin-land) and the 'stake' (aka 'value') of most of these is zero.


zerodrama
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 07:19:06 PM
 #10

Stake * Multiplicity distributed over a network implies the more abstract notion of intent.

EASY CALCULATION FOR TRADES: 1 Million is 1x10e6. 1 Satoshi is 1x10e-8. 1 M sat is 1x10e-2. 100 M sat is 1.
1 M herpcoin @ 001 derpcoin sat = 0.01 derpcoin
1 M herpcoin @ 100 derpcoin sat = 1.00 derpcoin
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 08:08:13 PM
 #11

I think this is the wrong approach.

Bitcoin already has all the technical features required by a reserve currency. The problem is some members of the community are trying to change Bitcoin, so fight that. And remember, the issue isn't really if Bitcoin is or isn't a reserve currency, the real issue is why do those members of the community want to change Bitcoin in ways that will remove your ability to run a Bitcoin node anonymously?

Don't give them excuses like "well, just start your own 1MB blockchain" - an excuse I've already heard.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 01, 2013, 10:19:04 PM
 #12

I think this is the wrong approach.

Bitcoin already has all the technical features required by a reserve currency. The problem is some members of the community are trying to change Bitcoin, so fight that. And remember, the issue isn't really if Bitcoin is or isn't a reserve currency, the real issue is why do those members of the community want to change Bitcoin in ways that will remove your ability to run a Bitcoin node anonymously?

I'm not giving up without a fight, but I'm telling you I think it's a lost cause.  People simply don't value anonymity and attempts to leverage that argument will be met with a blank stare.  Eventually it probably will become clear that freedom and anonymity are joined at the hip, and why, but it may be a while. 

In the mean time, it is not the case that Satoshi and company have done everything perfectly right.  Every project of any significance is going to be subject to priority constraints.  Further, a lot of things are just a lot more obvious with some hindsight.  As I am sure you are aware, working on a 'live system' is pretty challenging and we see (or at least I see) Bitcoin's progress brought down to a level where it will be struggling mightily to keep up with demand.

Bitcoin has already addressed a lot of the challenging problems and demonstrated convincingly some awesome proofs of concept.  Certain cleanup would not hurt, and there is plenty of room for development of certain of the more ancillary systems.  Working in an environment free of legacy constraints could lead to much more robust solutions much faster.

Don't give them excuses like "well, just start your own 1MB blockchain" - an excuse I've already heard.

That is exactly what 'paracoin' does.  Just within the space offered by Bitcoin.  And it lets users move seamlessly between which lessens the risk.

If/when Bitcoin fails, it will be an easy matter to say "so long, and thanks for all the fishes."


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 02, 2013, 04:53:47 AM
 #13


One more slightly more targeted response.  Sorry for the duplicate.

...
the real issue is why do those members of the community want to change Bitcoin in ways that will remove your ability to run a Bitcoin node anonymously?
...

Who knows?  I wish to put it back though.  Back into Bitcoin itself (as it vanishes.)

I did a slight mention of the 'dense mesh' idea recently which is actually at the heart of things.  I value 'anonymity' personally, but it is not actually the thing that really 'gets me off' as it were.  None-the-less, the 'dense mesh' architecture helps with a lot of things, and could increase anonymity within the Bitcoin network at any time.  Or at least at any time after the system is functional and has some certain number of users.

As the diagrams are drawn, the type of client illustrated does not have a Bitcoin blockchain so it must either perform an SPV (or similar) transaction, or it needs to proxy.  With a 'dense mesh', it would be straightforward to do a pretty secure multi-hop proxy and thus significantly ad to the complexity of de-anonomizing traffic.  Particularly if the analysis were using listening stations and via backbone network taps.

Anyway, it's things like the proxy foundational work which would be much easier to implement on a system which was 'semi-live'.  My chief interest is actually in exploring multiple data transmission channel options.  But countless things along these would be much easier to develop in 'parasitic' mode when the Bitcoin network is standing by to catch any dropped balls and even potentially allow full system 're-boots' if you will.

It's worth pointing out again that a lot of users would have nothing to lose and very little risk to 'use' paracoin.  The main danger would be that for some reason Bitcoin would actively attack the solution in code, but it would be disruptive and there would be almost no reason to do it.  It would be much smarter to actively embrace it.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 02, 2013, 05:41:24 PM
 #14

I don't really get the solution. Can somebody explain it to me?

I added the following near the top of the front page to help put people in the 'frame of mind' to understand the concept.

Quote
-------------
To Understand:

Note that a 'paracoin' is just a standard 'bitcoin' which also happens to have a representation in an alternate block-chain.

There would be no disadvantages to making one's BTC's into PCN's, particularly if they are used as a 'reserve' store of value.  'paracoins' may fall out of the 'paracoin' system for various reasons, but they are always perfectly valid 'bitcoins'.

The above mentioned means that:
  • it is low risk and cost free for 'bitcoin' users to also be 'paracoin' users.
  • 'paracoins' are backed by the same massive hashing infrastructure as 'bitcoin'.
-------------

evanmcc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10


pass me a drink, bartender


View Profile WWW
December 16, 2013, 08:43:59 AM
 #15

this is an interesting idea...

as i see it, any miners working on this new system would not use any advanced features, making them still valid bitcoin blocks, just without any special transfers included in the block.
optionally, all bitcoins before block X will be valid paracoins, but after that any block that used advanced signatures is invalid.

the problem is that even if bitcoin blocks that used advanced features were allowed to exist in a chain, any new transfers that used advanced features would basically be in purgatory until a normal bitcoin miner manages to find a block.
if blocks with multi-sig transfers and whatnot aren't allowed, that would probably cut the blockchain down a whole lot, meaning the new chain wouldn't be accepted at all because it's so short, but that might be made up for by lower memory requirements and lower block sizes, which should increase hash power just from the fact that you don't have to look at as much data to start hashing.


has any progress actually been made? as far as i can see, all it would take is an older version of the client; it wouldn't know what the new transactions meant and would ignore them, and as long as it's a version new enough to have valid blocks they'll be accepted if the chain gets long enough.

chaotic neuteral - neuteral evil INTJ liberterian
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
December 16, 2013, 09:01:32 PM
 #16


this is an interesting idea...

as i see it, any miners working on this new system would not use any advanced features, making them still valid bitcoin blocks, just without any special transfers included in the block.
optionally, all bitcoins before block X will be valid paracoins, but after that any block that used advanced signatures is invalid.

Not exactly...at least in my current hazy visualization.

Only 'bitcoins' (actually addresses) that meet a criteria would be 'paracoins'.  Generating slightly special ones with vanity-gen would be an easy way to do this.  The rational would be to keep the circulation reasonable since the entire goal of the project is to focus on being light-weight and thus conducive to extreme decentralization.

the problem is that even if bitcoin blocks that used advanced features were allowed to exist in a chain, any new transfers that used advanced features would basically be in purgatory until a normal bitcoin miner manages to find a block.
if blocks with multi-sig transfers and whatnot aren't allowed, that would probably cut the blockchain down a whole lot, meaning the new chain wouldn't be accepted at all because it's so short, but that might be made up for by lower memory requirements and lower block sizes, which should increase hash power just from the fact that you don't have to look at as much data to start hashing.

I'm negative about the 'advanced features' being developed within Bitcoin (but warming to some of them.)

Remember there would be two distinct phases.  'parasitic' and (maybe) 'stand-alone'.  In 'parasitic', the Bitcoin blockchain is the source of truth.  Addresses which were both certified (e.g., '1para1...') and also legally assigned value within the 'paracoin blockchain' would take that value reading from the Bitcoin blockchain.

In 'parasitic' mode, the 'paracoin miners' would mostly be analyzing the Bitcoin blockchain and rolling with whatever punches the Bitcoin system threw it's way.  'paracoin miners' would be mining in a formal sense as well, but only just for practice and development reasons so they would be ready to switch to 'stand-alone' mode if need be.

I think that sha256 mining is conceptually broken for a true distributed system.  A big goal of the project would be as a platform to explore other forms of mining which are more conducive to decentralization.

has any progress actually been made? as far as i can see, all it would take is an older version of the client; it wouldn't know what the new transactions meant and would ignore them, and as long as it's a version new enough to have valid blocks they'll be accepted if the chain gets long enough.

No progress.  I've not done jack shit on it.  From the start I mostly I just wanted to throw the idea out there.

Since I cooked up the idea, I've become increasingly paranoid about the trustworthiness of hardware.  I think that a logical first step for a robust solution is to build a foundation on true open-source hardware.  All the way down to the silicon level ideally.

My current interests are hardware related, and not even necessarily driven by crypto-currencies.  My main interest in Bitcoin is in planning a significant exit to be honest.


vleroybrown
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 510


This is who we are.


View Profile
January 21, 2015, 02:17:17 PM
 #17

The idea of paracoin to me is interesting in the physical performance gap that buyers/sellers must risk in light of the many variables at play in a international business environment. 

Having some sort of order of justice to backstrap delivery or performance of smart contracts, in which risks excluding systemic ones, are as various including, misinterpretation , quality control, and corruption/fraud. 

How or what this will entail depends on the legal culture gaps of international law etc.  Although in summary a polite democratic capitalisation of indemnification vehicles in the physical world versus the virtual one.   

IMHO
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!