[ANN] [UBERCOIN] Working on a new coin. Will update this thread when completed.

[AnonyMint]

Morse code. Pseudo-code. Not all codes are intended to be read by a computer. Any way, we are arguing silly semantics. I am merely asking him to show some of his technical work in the form of a technical description of what makes his hash better. I have yet to see what he brings to the table.

P.S. I edited my prior comment to summarize my improvement to Scrypt.

[stbgefltc]

Your Bitcoin stack exchange profile says enough about your way of thinking and your mentality. So yeah I'm not gonna argue with you, besides, you're not the type of person who'll question their own genius work.

[kalgecin]

No code yet at all.  I've been collecting the design points and algorithms. I am very busy trying to do more than one project at the same time. I realize we need the better coin before 2014, when Europe goes to bail-ins and capital controls. That is why I have near 0% patience right now. Sorry for offending anyone.

So you ask for code proof, yet won't produce any. Interesting way of thinking... As you said, show me the code. Having ideas is great, coding them is even better.

No I asked for sharing of his algorithm. My quote of Linus was intended to mean "code" can also be "algorithm". Btw an algorithm is code.

I beg to differ. An algorithm is a solution to a specific problem, by using a set of instructions. They do not have to be code. They could darn well be instructions to a human. Code is instructions for machines.

I beg to agree here. algorith is a step by stem instructions on how to solve a task ANY task. not a requirement for it to be computer related. code however is instructions to the computer how to solve an algorithm. Also, for computers, every algorithm is code, but not all code is algorithm ;-) Algorithm is made up of code..... loads of differences mate

[AnonyMint]

One kind of uniform work which might be very useful is solving matrices. This applies to solving systems of equations which applies to just about every discipline of science and engineering.

Could you please elaborate on that a bit?

I'm one of those non-technical users, and to me the idea of useful PoW sounds very appealing, or even necessary. But I'll admit that I know nothing about what it would take to actually make it work. My immediate thought is it should be something generic, hence why I proposed a plugin system, but that could be a silly suggestion. It's possible that someone will find an algorithm that satisfies the PoW system, yet produces nothing of value.

The key is that the form of computation has to be uniform from the initial block chain. So we can't plugin some new form of computation, i.e. switching from image rendering to computing primes. However, if we choose a form of computation that is generally applicable to many useful work, then that meets the requirements we need for PoW computation.

However, I just realized there is another problem which I think can't be overcome. PoW relies on the fact that no one can start working on the next hash, until the current hash computation is found by a miner, because the next hash relies on the solution to the current one.

The problem with user supplied work (e.g. matrices) is that someone will know in advance the work that needs to be done. And we can't use transactions to salt the entropy of the work, because the miner has control over which transactions to include.

So I was correct in my first comment in this thread, where I said you will never see this (in a coin that can't be successfully attacked), because the input entropy can be gamed.

Sorry to tell you this. Better you know.

[AnonyMint]

Your Bitcoin stack exchange profile says enough about your way of thinking and your mentality. So yeah I'm not gonna argue with you, besides, you're not the type of person who'll question their own genius work.

I first got deep into Bitcoin about that time, even I knew about it since 2010. Go see my main thread and how I corrected myself on for example Proof-of-Hard Disk (now asserting it won't work). I even backed away from "Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme".

I correct myself quite often (there are many examples in my writings in this forum). Do you think I would have had the success I did without doing so. Any way, I don't really care (that is your prerogative). We need code. Politics is for losers.

[AnonyMint]

I beg to agree here. algorith is a step by stem instructions on how to solve a task ANY task. not a requirement for it to be computer related. code however is instructions to the computer how to solve an algorithm. Also, for computers, every algorithm is code, but not all code is algorithm ;-) Algorithm is made up of code..... loads of differences mate

I understand the distinction you are making which is that an algorithm is the (denotational) semantics of what to do, and code is the implementation (i.e. operational semantics) of the (denotational) semantics. But please be aware I have 45 upvotes on declarative vs. imperative definition, so this is not so orthogonal as you appear to be thinking (see the quote below):

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/602444/what-is-functional-declarative-and-imperative-programming/8357604#8357604

Actually I no longer like that answer. I liked the more abstract conceptual one I did after that one:

http://stackoverflow.com/a/15382180/615784

It is oversimplification, technically imprecise, and often ambiguous to define declarative as “what to do” and imperative as “how to do”. An ambiguous case is the “what” is the “how” in a program that outputs a program— a compiler.

Algorithm is set of high-level steps. Code expresses a set of steps which may be lower-level than the algorithm, but in a perfect language they would be a homomorphism (one-to-one). Come on guys I have been a programmer since 1983.

Code is not just for a computer. Humans read the code, may even translate it to some other language or use.

Keeping code at the highest-level semantics (one-to-one with the algorithm semantics) is essential for maximizing reuse. This is what my Copute.com project is all about.

[AnonyMint]

My blog:

http://unheresy.com

[AnonyMint]

Your Bitcoin stack exchange profile says enough about your way of thinking and your mentality. So yeah I'm not gonna argue with you, besides, you're not the type of person who'll question their own genius work.

I first got deep into Bitcoin about that time, even I knew about it since 2010. Go see my main thread and how I corrected myself on for example Proof-of-Hard Disk (now asserting it won't work). I even backed away from "Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme".

I correct myself quite often (there are many examples in my writings in this forum). Do you think I would have had the success I did without doing so. Any way, I don't really care (that is your prerogative). We need code. Politics is for losers.

Btw, one of the main points I made at the Bitcoin SE is that Bitcoin can't scale past 2033 without becoming owned by corporations and big government, because transaction (tx) fees are optional and debasement ends. I stand by that.

I've learned since that time that Satoshi and the core developers already knew that corporations would do the mining in the future.

That doesn't imply a conspiracy, it can just be pragmatism and a lack of creativity after Satoshi's hand-off.

Also the decentralized blockchain can't scale to Visa scale (perhaps not even within an order-of-magnitude of it), so the likely future is it become centralized once it becomes "legitimized".

[klee]

At last people who get it...What do you think AnonyMint about Anoncoin? And what is your opinion about Megacoin integrating 0coin??

[digitalindustry]

I am looking into methods to tie them together and possibly use folding or another real world program. I have a few ideas of how it could be done.

Is there any reason why it has to be anything specific? Couldn't it be a plugin system of sorts? Where someone could come in and write a folding plugin, and then your proof of work is folding, or write an image-rendering plugin, and then your proof of work is rendering, etc.

+1

; )

I think something like this will happen .

Even if you can make the randomization (input entropy) (and difficulty so who ever is wins PoW on the new work doesn't get an advantage or get cheated) of the work independent of what is being computed, who is going to decide what is going to be computed next? Remember all miners have to be doing the same difficulty PoW, else the winner is not a fair probability. Anything that is altered independent of the initial block chain protocol involves a central party or a proof-of-consensus vote. As we discussed in the Decrits thread, Proof-of-consensus either requires centralization to prevent forking attacks at less than 51% or it requires Proof-of-Stake, but the latter rewards idle capital whereas PoW rewards those who find it more useful to apply their active capital (computer) to mining than to their other uses for a computer. And how do you get 51% when you have more than two alternatives proposed for the type of work to plugin next? Forking abound...

Apparently "birdbrain" failed to understand what I wrote upthread which I quote again below...

That is my nickname for him given his "bird" avatar and in the numerous technically stupid posts he has made in my interactions with him. In fact, I can't remember one thing he ever wrote that was correct. It is always a "fail", that is why he is on my Ignore.

Sorry but we have to be impolite to hardheaded idiots who refuse to listen and learn, and clutter discussion with unimportant and utterly false noise. I make a mistake once and a while, yet 80+% of what I write is correct. Even a stopped clock is correct 2X per day. This Dunning–Kruger dolt can't even manage that (at least in my interactions with him).

This is why you can't rely on only feedback from non-technical users, because they will sometimes request things which won't work. If these naive users would bother to ask "can this work?" rather than "+1 yes I think this will happen", then I would have more respect for them. I respect rationality, which means recognizing when you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY INVOLVED.

A real innovative coin would introduce a new PoW, able to create dynamic connectors
for real world computation (e.g. folding etc.) on top of this. A coin with this capacity,
where the miner can choose what project he like to support with his computation power would
get tremendous attention from all directions. Community and media inclusive.
Plugin a working module (MATH/CHEM/BIO/MED/ASTRO) and choose your device type (CPU/GPU/FPGA).
Get your work from a 'babel-pow-broker-instance' and just start the local worker instance.
THIS would be innovative, instead to burn 5^10 kw/h with scrypt based, GPU only burner-coins
just to be safe of ASICs.

Don't take me wrong here, I like alt-coins and announcements like your's but I don't
understand why some talented coder doesn't start to work into this direction instead
wasting zetahashes of computation power just for a useless and boring SHA or scrypt.
Hopefully we will see something like this mentioned above soon.

No you will never see that in a decentralized PoW, because if the algorithm is not uniform, then the entropy can be gamed or you need a trusted party (i.e. centralization). I already had this long debate in the Decrits thread.

That would fall into the real world application category. I have a few ideas, will see how they pan out on simulations.

Waste your time please.

XPM is calculating primes which have already been figured up to a number with 17,425,170 digits. They are not solving new primes. If they were then it would be useful.

Doing one general thing in the hash that happens to be useful can work. But changing it via plugin suffers the gameable entropy attack vector.

One kind of uniform work which might be very useful is solving matrices. This applies to solving systems of equations which applies to just about every discipline of science and engineering.

Poor Anony off on his wandering long lasting speeches again ..

my simple friend (that seems to have both taken the wrong, and the wrong amount of your medication).

i was simply speaking of the attachment of features to a client "humans" (you might learn about them) like to interact with things.

now please continue your blathering , no one is really listening , if you want to code a currency go code the "best currency to save to world" ..

and why don't you leave topic writer alone?

or of course , continue and be arrogant and try to claim that you have discovered the Crypto currency that will protect you from he evil governments that are undoubtedly after you , you the great Anonymint .

for whom every coffee shop , hides a secret , men and woman appear in your life seemingly at random Anony , its not random , its all planned , because they know you know, you know about it all , the economic cycles Anonymint.

[digitalindustry]

Your Bitcoin stack exchange profile says enough about your way of thinking and your mentality. So yeah I'm not gonna argue with you, besides, you're not the type of person who'll question their own genius work.

I first got deep into Bitcoin about that time, even I knew about it since 2010. Go see my main thread and how I corrected myself on for example Proof-of-Hard Disk (now asserting it won't work). I even backed away from "Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme".

I correct myself quite often (there are many examples in my writings in this forum). Do you think I would have had the success I did without doing so. Any way, I don't really care (that is your prerogative). We need code. Politics is for losers.

Btw, one of the main points I made at the Bitcoin SE is that Bitcoin can't scale past 2033 without becoming owned by corporations and big government, because transaction (tx) fees are optional and debasement ends. I stand by that.

I've learned since that time that Satoshi and the core developers already knew that corporations would do the mining in the future.

That doesn't imply a conspiracy, it can just be pragmatism and a lack of creativity after Satoshi's hand-off.

Also the decentralized blockchain can't scale to Visa scale (perhaps not even within an order-of-magnitude of it), so the likely future is it become centralized once it becomes "legitimized".

you know what I think , I think you are no where near as smart as you think you are friend, you probably need to step back because you are missing something that is in plain sight , i expect a close minded person such as yourself will take quite a while with it , so I'll let you stew in your arrogance and talk to yourself a little longer.

[stbgefltc]

Couldn't have put it better digitalcoin. But I guess we are just simpletons lost amidst the stupidity of humanity.

It's useless to contradict the man, he who is creating the next mainstream programming language with not even an alpha or beta version of a parser/compiler available. I'm looking, yet I still can't find much of his code. But because a good quote is always great,

Those who talk, don't implement. A bird in the bush is better than 10 in the sky.

I think you know where that is from, AnonyMint. You talk a lot, but where are your implementations ?

And another one for the fun of it,

We need code. Politics is for losers.

Where is the code ?

But you shouldn't be wasting your precious time and valuable brain cells reading the ramblings of mere human beings such as us. Honestly, I don't think I ever will be able to understand your work, but that's allright by me.

On a side note, you may have one or two popular answers on StackOverflow, but between us, I trust more guys like John Skeet, Marc Gravell, and others, who have prooved themselves in more ways than you ever did.

[Loki8]

I have a method, I have  a solution... I hope this is not a vaporware announcement...

True development, netcoin, emunie and others, takes months, not days. It represents a significant time and financial investment too (time is money).

[AnonyMint]

At last people who get it...What do you think AnonyMint about Anoncoin? And what is your opinion about Megacoin integrating 0coin??

Integrating I2P into the Anoncoin mining (I assume it is) forces all miners on a level-playing field w.r.t. to the extra latency caused by mix-net routing. However, you may only need the high-latency routing (to prevent timing attacks for maximum anonymity confidence) when you are announcing a solution to PoW for a block or sending a transaction. I2P won't offer support for high-latency routing until version 3.0.

Zerocoin is not a panacea because the government can force you to reveal which coins you took out the other side, if they know your identity on either side of the Zerocoin mixer. People think that just because the coinmixer in Zerocoin can't be pressured (no one controls it), that the government is impotent. No way. They can arrest you for failing to provide your password on your laptop, surely they can throw you in contempt of court for 7 years (as they did to Martin Armstrong) if they know you own a coin on either side of mixer and you refuse to provide them the keys on the other side. Saying you "forgot" runs you afoul of the tax requirement to keep records for 5 years, and now the courts have been finding that any such lapses are "willful intent" which means criminal charges and jail.

So the high-latency mix-net (e.g. I2P version 3.0 hopefully) is a critical requirement to obtain anonymity.

And so you think they don't know your identity because you used (when it becomes available) high-latency I2P version 3.0, but then the problem is the merchant you spent to brought into the tax office and forced to reveal your identity. Any weak link in the chain of anonymity dominos back to you, when the threat is a Gestapo. When Berlin wall fell, it was discovered dossiers neighbors were spying on each other, listening devices all over, etc..

Zerocoin does bring the benefit that makes block chain path analysis more unlikely. So assuming the government can't interrogate everyone, it raises the confidence that a path back to you is scrambled. But it isn't enough by itself. And it has a large cost on the blockchain, and I need to actually study that more to see if it going to scale.

In my mind, the high-latency I2P is more critically needed pronto. Tor is limited to 3 hops which is inadequate. Mix-nets provide anonymity if just one peer in the chain isn't owned by the attack. Three hops is not enough to give me confidence. Note also need high-latency to prevent timing analysis, and Tor has no plans to offer high-latency.

I2P supports low-latency too and the traffic is mixed, so that means the network can be popular because most people want low-latency and low anonymity.

You don't use high-latency networks for anything that needs to be interactive, e.g. web browsing and chat. So those will never be very anonymous, unless you accept them being very slow and non-interactive. But for sending a transaction or PoW solution, a few seconds delay in order to get very high confidence of anonymity is a correct tradeoff. Note high-latency allows to mix up the transactions that come into a peer before they are routed back out, and this messes up timing-based statistical analysis that has been shown to break anonymity in mix-nets like Tor (and perhaps I2P).

Anoncoin may have gotten one part of the design correct, but there are other crucial things we need to fix in Bitcoin and the design needs to be holistic, because some things impact each other.

[AnonyMint]

stbgefltc has been added to ignore along with digital industry. These guys are not interested in getting a solution, they just want to play political games and bang on their noise makers.

[stbgefltc]

Great news !   I take it as compliment, but he won't ever know.

[AnonyMint]

emunie

Will either have centralization or can be attacked with less than 51% of the peers. I won't debate it again. Let those noise makers who don't know technology go waste their time on the nonsense coins.

Only PoW will work. Or Proof-of-Stake but I frown on it economically for the reason I wrote upthread. I can say that no other method of mining will be 51% attack resistant, because I understand the mathematical relationship and role entropy plays in cryptography. Those who don't understand, think it is impossible that there couldn't be another form of security against double-spends, such as some consensus voting system (e.g. Emunie, Decrits), etc..

That is why I am asking the OP author to reveal his hash algorithm to see if he is understands.

[kalgecin]

stbgefltc has been added to ignore along with digital industry. These guys are not interested in getting a solution, they just want to play political games and bang on their noise makers.

Actually, you are the one without a solution, or interested in making one. what you are looking for is someone else to give the solution to you. An you are the one with the politics issue. So you are on the ignore list of this thread. Three people ignoring you is more than you ignoring three people

[stbgefltc]

stbgefltc has been added to ignore along with digital industry. These guys are not interested in getting a solution, they just want to play political games and bang on their noise makers.

Actually, you are the one without a solution, or interested in making one. what you are looking for is someone else to give the solution to you. An you are the one with the politics issue. So you are on the ignore list of this thread. Three people ignoring you is more than you ignoring three people

Now now kalgecin... you're gonna get yourself ignored... you're gonna miss out being friends with the greatest genius the earth has ever known.

[AnonyMint]

Three people ignoring you is more than you ignoring three people

Appears you and stbgefltc are the same person. Typical modus operandi of a troll playing politics. You've been added to ignore too.