[ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development

[sairon]

I was thinking about either letting only the top 100 or so addresses vote (as they hold the most YAC they should have the right to decide - here only a signed message would suffice instead of coins (but that kinda ruins their anonymity as they would have to post it somewhere on the forums)), or let everyone vote (without any restrictions, as they can be very easily circumvented).

So the biggest 10 wallests split up in order to make up most of those 100 adresses. Although this would favor my vote, I think it is a bad way to let the rich decide what the people want.

OK, so IMHO the only remaining feasible option is to simply set up two addresses and which one gets the most YAC before voting deadline wins.

[1713272976]

1713272976

[1713272976]

1713272976

[1713272976]

1713272976

[1713272976]

1713272976

[1713272976]

1713272976

[St.Bit]

I was thinking about either letting only the top 100 or so addresses vote (as they hold the most YAC they should have the right to decide - here only a signed message would suffice instead of coins (but that kinda ruins their anonymity as they would have to post it somewhere on the forums)), or let everyone vote (without any restrictions, as they can be very easily circumvented).

So the biggest 10 wallests split up in order to make up most of those 100 adresses. Although this would favor my vote, I think it is a bad way to let the rich decide what the people want.

OK, so IMHO the only remaining feasible option is to simply set up two addresses and which one gets the most YAC before voting deadline wins.

Reed my previous post(#972). A giveaway voting thread.

[sairon]

I was thinking about either letting only the top 100 or so addresses vote (as they hold the most YAC they should have the right to decide - here only a signed message would suffice instead of coins (but that kinda ruins their anonymity as they would have to post it somewhere on the forums)), or let everyone vote (without any restrictions, as they can be very easily circumvented).

So the biggest 10 wallests split up in order to make up most of those 100 adresses. Although this would favor my vote, I think it is a bad way to let the rich decide what the people want.

OK, so IMHO the only remaining feasible option is to simply set up two addresses and which one gets the most YAC before voting deadline wins.

Reed my previous post(#972). A giveaway voting thread.

So everyone would have to use Coin Control...
Also, imagine I was doing the voting coin giveaway. What if I decided I don't like you or your address? You simply would not get any voting coins.
I don't like centralization.

[St.Bit]

So everyone would have to use Coin Control...
Also, imagine I was doing the voting coin giveaway. What if I decided I don't like you or your address? You simply would not get any voting coins.

I don't like centralization.

You would have no chance to fake something.

This has to be on an non moderated thread and if there is one legit adress without an transaction from you we would nullify your whole thread. After a while you would have to publish priv.keys and we go thru the tread. Everyone that didn't get a coin would scream andit's trivial to check if there are more outgoing than adresses in the thread.

BTW: CC is esential for any kind of voting via adresses and not donations.

EDIT: After publishing privkeys new txt are of course non valid for voting.

[sairon]

Anyway, anyone interested in Electrum implementation for YaCoin? You know, the lightweigh wallet: http://electrum.org/. This would certainly help resolve the slow wallet start-up times (as the server will start once and run "forever").

[St.Bit]

Anyway, anyone interested in Electrum implementation for YaCoin? You know, the lightweigh wallet: http://electrum.org/. This would certainly help resolve the slow wallet start-up times (as the server will start once and run "forever").

It would kinda kill the security benefits from PoS if everyone uses a centralized datasource for their clients. On the other hand is YAC so small that there wouldn't be many people using it.

[sairon]

Anyway, anyone interested in Electrum implementation for YaCoin? You know, the lightweigh wallet: http://electrum.org/. This would certainly help resolve the slow wallet start-up times (as the server will start once and run "forever").

It would kinda kill the security benefits from PoS if everyone uses a centralized datasource for their clients. On the other hand is YAC so small that there wouldn't be many people using it.

Well, I had an Android wallet in mind, so it would complement your main wallet which is PoS mining. Also a fast client for the desktop when you don't have the time to wait for you main wallet to start (or if you want separate your non-PoS coins, instead of reservebalance in yacoin.conf). There are some use-cases.

I think I've already managed to modify electrum server for YAC, however, the client will be a greater challenge.

[St.Bit]

Well, I had an Android wallet in mind, so it would complement your main wallet which is PoS mining.

That's a cool idea, actually I haven't thought of using my mobile for YAC as an addition at all. As long as it isn't used for PoS it's ok, but when it does there has to be some measures to prevent somone adding PoS blocks to his shorter chain.


Besides the obvious uses I think this could be used for some kind of 2factor autentification. I'm thinking of the following:

There are already multisig wallets so I use 2 signatures on my wallet. I sign it with yacoin-qt the first time and send the transaction to your server. I could even give you a copy of the 2nd privkey so you can sign the 2nd time and broadcast it when I log in. It's unlikely someone hacks my PC AND mobile without even knowing that they are related to each other.

A small bounty adress with some spare would be left aviable for a thief so your servers check it regulary and delete the 2nd key once the bait got stolen. Afaik  there would be no way for the thief to know that the privkeys on my PC had been used to sign other adresses, right?

I love the possibilities with this.


EDIT: Does multisig actually work with PoS?

[sairon]

Well, I had an Android wallet in mind, so it would complement your main wallet which is PoS mining.

That's a cool idea, actually I haven't thought of using my mobile for YAC as an addition at all. As long as it isn't used for PoS it's ok, but when it does there has to be some measures to prevent somone adding PoS blocks to his shorter chain.


Besides the obvious uses I think this could be used for some kind of 2factor autentification. I'm thinking of the following:

There are already multisig wallets so I use 2 signatures on my wallet. I sign it with yacoin-qt the first time and send the transaction to your server. I could even give you a copy of the 2nd privkey so you can sign the 2nd time and broadcast it when I log in. It's unlikely someone hacks my PC AND mobile without even knowing that they are related to each other.

A small bounty adress with some spare would be left aviable for a thief so your servers check it regulary and delete the 2nd key once the bait got stolen. Afaik  there would be no way for the thief to know that the privkeys on my PC had been used to sign other adresses, right?

I love the possibilities with this.


EDIT: Does multisig actually work with PoS?

Nah, this wouldn't be feasible. PoS mine only with your own full client. Electrum server should never see any of your private keys. It acts only as a data source and a broadcast node.

[St.Bit]

Nah, this wouldn't be feasible. PoS mine only with your own full client. Electrum server should never see any of your private keys. It acts only as a data source and a broadcast node.

I don't see why this shouldn't be feasible.

I wouldn't use the 2nd privkey to store anything besides change and this really improves the security of my funds massively. Nobody can force me to decrypt my wallet or steal it. The funds of the 2nd privkey could be even seen as donation to electrum if you don't want to handle user funds.

[St.Bit]

Nevertheless we lack of a good way to decide about things such as this. AFIK there hasn't been any real changes to Yacoin yet, but even such trivial things like a logo can't be decidet yet. We have to stick to the old one.As long as nobody changes anything viral this is ok, but if we ever want to be able to decide about controversial things we need to find a good way to do it. Polls in a forum are rigged, letting the dictator Joe rule the world or a scream battle in a threat aren't good ways to do it.
What do you think?

A good way to decide about logo is to let people who are graphic designers do it. In a same way that Joe certainly knows what code would
work better than me, in that same way people who are into graphic design know what logo would work better than the rest of you people.
There is no need to go mad because of that. Everyone opinions on everything matter but still, project where everyone decide on everything
with same vote weight is either doomed to fail or eternal struggle.

Put simply, do what you do the best and don't mess with others' business (it is counterproductive and waste of time / energy for both sides).

This was never solely about logos... This kind of arnachy isn't working.

We don't have a way to decide stuff on YAC, so we can't decide anything of importance. That is a problem, since the current anarchy style only works for small groups as now, but if this grows this would bring stagnation. There are like 100 possible voting mechanisms and if don't agree on one soon we won't be able to agree on one later when we face hard decisions when noone accepts a mecanism that isn't favouring his interrests then.

Without the ability to agree on changes we won't be able to innovate and be replaced by the next better YAC fork. We don't have the starter bonus like BTC, the developers of novacoin or the community like FTC, so we have to be innovative to survive.

Everyone opinions on everything matter but still, project where everyone decide on everything
with same vote weight is either doomed to fail or eternal struggle.

It doesn't matter how this will be done decided as long as it is accepted by the community. I wouldn't like equal weight either, but I rather have that than nothing. If we face a decision like f.e. reducing PoS or bigger PoS minimum we won't be able to agree on a way to vote on this, so we have to decide on the voting mechanism bevor we face such decisions. Not beeing able to decide would be the worst, and even Joe doesn't have the right to decide on such things alone either.

[St.Bit]

I think the best advice I can give to everyone here is to leave YACoin wallet alone and move to projects that will help coin itself be useful.

That's stupid and misses my point completely. My point is about agreeing on a voting system.

You talk about adding some innovation later, but that's impossible without a consenus. You seen to think we don't need to change anyting now,ok I agree with that, but you say we shouldn't have the possibility to change anything controversial.*

Once we have that market you talk about we won't be able to find a consenus ever again. Everyone would have a strong oppinion about changes that effect his personal wealth. You said you also wouldn't agree on a system that weights everyone equal, but everyone witout tenthousands YAC wouldn't agree on a few wealthy people deciding what's going on either. This would make it impossible to change anything that isn't supported by everyone so nothing can change.

A lot of people aren't satisfied with the name/logo/etc, but there is currently no way to vote on such. I belive voting on the name f.e. would result in most of the people sticking to the old one, but no matter of the result it would end the discussion once and for all.


*)I belive most here agree that PoW+PoS is better than PoW alone, but the bitcoin community wouldn't be able to make changes like this even when most of them agree without risking a breakup. If YAC gets bigger one day there will be PoF and we won't be able to adapt either. Some group is always against innovation.

[Joe_Bauers]

If we're talking about a clear marketing message, then whatever is done with the logo, should probably match what is at yacoin.org. It doesn't make sense for the "official" website and the "official" client to use different logos. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not a fan of the one that is currently used, but if it is the one that is voted for (if we can figure out a way to do it), then that's what I'm going to merge to the client.

As for a vote, my vote... is to do it in a  thread on this forum, and maybe yacointalk as well. Not as a poll, but 1 choice and post per user (who has been registered for at least a month) after a week we can tally it up and that will be the official logo. In order for this to fully work, we need the folks at yacoin.org to agree to change their logo if a new one is selected. So, if anyone can get in touch with them, or let me know how to, then I believe that should suffice for the logo. Then we can move on to some other outstanding issues.  

[ivanlabrie]

I think the survey idea at yacointalk and here should work for now, but eventually it might get obsolete.
I'm all for innovation and differentiation, since as St Bit said it, YAC doesn't get the first PoS or PoW or most well known coin bonus btc,ltc,ppc has.

The two wallets thing might work, but also, guys with more coins will have more voting power. I only have 700 yac so I won't have much say.

[St.Bit]

I think the survey idea at yacointalk and here should work for now, but eventually it might get obsolete.
I'm all for innovation and differentiation, since as St Bit said it, YAC doesn't get the first PoS or PoW or most well known coin bonus btc,ltc,ppc has.

The two wallets thing might work, but also, guys with more coins will have more voting power. I only have 700 yac so I won't have much say.

The two wallet thing means that just the rich decide what's happening. Once the CC is into the off. client I'm going to pay a 5k bounty I gave just for fun, so 700YAC on a decision I'm actually interrested in means nothing to me. That isn't me having more power, that is you having no power at all.

Don't get me wrong. I don't belive that there should be equal vote for everyone, but people outside an moneyelite sould be able to vote. YAC doesn't survives because of a few people having a lot of them, it's because the people that supported it.

My idea is the following:
n/3 of votes will be controlled by the people actually owning YAC. Send a coin to the voting adress and it get's weighted by the balance of the adress sending.

(3-n)/3 of votes will be counted on a one vote/adress basis. To prevent someone to send 1000votes not every adress can vote. We start a new topic and everyone that posts his adress gets a coin from a special adress. Only adresses that resived a txt from it will be counted.The person with the special adress can't cheat, if he fucks up we start another thread.

For now I would say everyone that has ever posted something on the dev. threads (Original+WM) should get a vote, for the future I would raise the requirements. My idea would be n=2.

Remember:
This isn't about those damm logos or the name, we will have to face controversial decisions in the future. We can't fork a new altcoin everytime we see a good innovation.

[sairon]

We can't fork a new altcoin everytime we see a good innovation.

Hell, why not?

[Joe_Bauers]

I think the survey idea at yacointalk and here should work for now, but eventually it might get obsolete.
I'm all for innovation and differentiation, since as St Bit said it, YAC doesn't get the first PoS or PoW or most well known coin bonus btc,ltc,ppc has.

The two wallets thing might work, but also, guys with more coins will have more voting power. I only have 700 yac so I won't have much say.

The two wallet thing means that just the rich decide what's happening. Once the CC is into the off. client I'm going to pay a 5k bounty I gave just for fun, so 700YAC on a decision I'm actually interrested in means nothing to me. That isn't me having more power, that is you having no power at all.

Don't get me wrong. I don't belive that there should be equal vote for everyone, but people outside an moneyelite sould be able to vote. YAC doesn't survives because of a few people having a lot of them, it's because the people that supported it.

My idea is the following:
n/3 of votes will be controlled by the people actually owning YAC. Send a coin to the voting adress and it get's weighted by the balance of the adress sending.

(3-n)/3 of votes will be counted on a one vote/adress basis. To prevent someone to send 1000votes not every adress can vote. We start a new topic and everyone that posts his adress gets a coin from a special adress. Only adresses that resived a txt from it will be counted.The person with the special adress can't cheat, if he fucks up we start another thread.

For now I would say everyone that has ever posted something on the dev. threads (Original+WM) should get a vote, for the future I would raise the requirements. My idea would be n=2.

Remember:
This isn't about those damm logos or the name, we will have to face controversial decisions in the future. We can't fork a new altcoin everytime we see a good innovation.

I have a better idea - whoever sends me the most YAC's gets their logo merged     

Seriously though, I like this idea. As you mention it's really not about the logos, it's about finding the best way to get things done.

[ilostcoins]

I think the survey idea at yacointalk and here should work for now, but eventually it might get obsolete.
I'm all for innovation and differentiation, since as St Bit said it, YAC doesn't get the first PoS or PoW or most well known coin bonus btc,ltc,ppc has.

The two wallets thing might work, but also, guys with more coins will have more voting power. I only have 700 yac so I won't have much say.

The two wallet thing means that just the rich decide what's happening. Once the CC is into the off. client I'm going to pay a 5k bounty I gave just for fun, so 700YAC on a decision I'm actually interrested in means nothing to me. That isn't me having more power, that is you having no power at all.

Don't get me wrong. I don't belive that there should be equal vote for everyone, but people outside an moneyelite sould be able to vote. YAC doesn't survives because of a few people having a lot of them, it's because the people that supported it.

My idea is the following:
n/3 of votes will be controlled by the people actually owning YAC. Send a coin to the voting adress and it get's weighted by the balance of the adress sending.

(3-n)/3 of votes will be counted on a one vote/adress basis. To prevent someone to send 1000votes not every adress can vote. We start a new topic and everyone that posts his adress gets a coin from a special adress. Only adresses that resived a txt from it will be counted.The person with the special adress can't cheat, if he fucks up we start another thread.

For now I would say everyone that has ever posted something on the dev. threads (Original+WM) should get a vote, for the future I would raise the requirements. My idea would be n=2.

Remember:
This isn't about those damm logos or the name, we will have to face controversial decisions in the future. We can't fork a new altcoin everytime we see a good innovation.

I agree with something along these lines. I also agree it's easier to settle on a convention when not many people are involved.

Meanwhile, should we have a voting thread for the logo?

[Joe_Bauers]

Meanwhile, should we have a voting thread for the logo?

Yes - do you want to create it?

[St.Bit]

You are complicating extremely simple issues, just like Freicoin people, who still haven't decided on foundation, grants and whatnot.  

And you are very supportive to keep Yacoin the same way.

Did you even think thru your ideas? The only way that could work if you become our dictator so you can decide to whom you might want to listen and how to value their vote. Idiots won't shut up, and intelligent people have the same egoism when it comes to their money.

My idea is complicated, but could it be done simpler without being a hoax? I simply wouldn't accept that my vote is euqualy weighted like someone with a few hundred Yacs. Hell, I've given more away than that. On the other hand I belive it's unfair to let 5 wealthy people actually decide and the rest just has to follow. The reason I don't accept thread votes for something important is that they can be faked so easily that it doesn't matter what the result is. If this were about a serious topic I'd have my socketpuppets ready long time ago.

Without an consenus bevor we have a bigger crowd it will be a few rich people ruling and everyone else following, or do you think Joe would have any legitimcy to overule even a small minority? If enough money is involved I can hire a better programmer, no one isn't replaceable.