[ANN][Datacoin] Datacoin blockchain start announcement (Minor code upd + logo)

[kaja]

I like the idea behind this coin but I still haven't seen any satisfactory answers to the child pornography question. I know that there has been links to child porn found embedded in the Bitcoin blockchain, but with data coin it is different. Actual child pornography could be stored on there. What's more, with the current low price of datacoin, large amounts of child pornography could easily be uploaded. Upon detection, this will surely drive a lot of people away from storing copies of the chain which will further decrease the value of the coin and make it even cheaper to continue to attack.

This 'child porn attack' would be far cheaper to accomplish than potential attacks on other coins.

I really hope I'm wrong here so does anyone have any insights?

[1713999021]

1713999021

[1713999021]

1713999021

[Supercomputing]

Yes, that must be a pool payout. If you use your pool resources to process the payouts, you can set the transaction fees to zero.

But here is another one that does not add up:
http://www.chainbrowser.com/datacoin/block/3d9d28c5fbd189e8311512596dedbd2588c76ae12d3764018c9d8f90ddabd41a/

sorry, maybe I cannot notice something, but what's wrong with this block?

Difficulty:9.81400681
Coinbase Transaction :10.37 DTC
Transaction Fees:3.42846212 DTC

Block Reward:11.12 DTC <- Does not add up

Now I'm trying to understand if there are issues in parsing transaction listed here:
http://www.chainbrowser.com/datacoin/tx/6a24eec6c55499d1487ca0d5705ed0b7a971b9bda73a2850f5d542460de40716/
seems that real fee was not 3.42 DTC (for 9 DTC transaction), there is no data attached

I am going to write my own chain browser this week; I also suspect that the transactions are not being parsed correctly.

[Supercomputing]

I like the idea behind this coin but I still haven't seen any satisfactory answers to the child pornography question. I know that there has been links to child porn found embedded in the Bitcoin blockchain, but with data coin it is different. Actual child pornography could be stored on there. What's more, with the current low price of datacoin, large amounts of child pornography could easily be uploaded. Upon detection, this will surely drive a lot of people away from storing copies of the chain which will further decrease the value of the coin and make it even cheaper to continue to attack.

This 'child porn attack' would be far cheaper to accomplish than potential attacks on other coins.

I really hope I'm wrong here so does anyone have any insights?

I do not think that you can prevent someone from uploading illegal content to the block chain, so this is a real concern. Person A can upload illegal content and then tell Person B how to retrieve it.

However, Datacoin has some bigger issues right now that needs to be addressed:
1). I can easily bloat the block chain with worthless data because I am a miner with tremendous mining power.
2). Datacoin needs a competing exchange to BTER, BTER is responsible for the sinking exchange rates. They messed up their general leger (confirmed).

[maxsolnc]

1. It's good that Datacoin now doesn't go to 'strange' persons who want to hurt Datacoin with such 'attack'. When Datacoin big promotions start, its price should rise, and it will be really very stupid to waste money in such a way. But it is another side of 'uncensored' storage: can you offer any mechanism to avoid that and be sure that nobody from governments or corporations cannot censor information? I don't see such alternative just now.
2. We know. Cryptsy's last answer was 'we're considering about big blockchain', 2 weeks passed - still no info from them.

And btw, there is very good answer for CP on reddit

pigtrotsky:
The process of getting the data into the blockchain is effectively steganography, the hiding of one piece of data within another. The data is neither catalogued nor readily accessible - it goes through base64 encoding and needs to be addressed using a key, and is sandwiched inbetween a bunch of other blockchain data. The fact nobody really knows the full content of most blockchains in entirety owes to the complex and vast nature of the data, and this would be no different.
First question for me is why would someone bother. Not only would it cost them real money either in the mining of coin using resources and electricity or buying the coins, but now you have a picture/document/whatever embedded in a huge block chain with an effectively anonymous hash which needs to be converted back to its original format. People who currently distribute illegal material very probably already have a cheaper and more convenient mechanism available.
Arguably many people had illegal content on their hard drives when they downloaded the wikileaks insurance files for example. But without encryption keys it's just 0 and 1 data. Sure it might contain illegal content but authorities would not only have to prove it were there but that it were accessible to the user.
There has long been legal precedent in most countries that someone who handles data in a way that is "pass through" and not actual accessible content, and someone who does not make an effort to access or make that information available, is simply a carrier. People do WAY more risky stuff every day for no gain such as running tor exit nodes.
If you don't want to handle the blockchain you shouldn't have to. In terms of datacoin my interpretation of the concept of the blockchain is that those who work to compile the information in get rewarded. I know there's talk about future proof of stake but I believe that's irrelevant. Someone who wants to continue to hold the information will get rewards in the future just for adding to the blockchain through processing blocks, and given the self contained nature of the blockchain I can't see why the rest (transactions, etc) couldn't be done without holding it locally.
In fact it's an idea I am working on now - encrypt the wallet and put it into the blockchain protected by passphrase, no need for any central point of trust. I see the potential issue (one compromise and the address is forever compromised) but smarter people than I will surely find a way of beefing up the security even more, and it's still better than having my wallet sitting on someone else's server potentially unprotected as with current online wallet services.
Final final point on this - consider the motives of someone distributing illegal data. To encode illegal images for example would be incredibly stupid. Firstly, they're not anonymous - if the police were to get their private key / wallet they could absolutely and unequivocally tie that person to the distribution given the cryptographic mechanism - ie you would have just paid money to essentially have thousands of people worldwide spend CPU hours PROVING it was you who sent it. Secondly, it's now effectively immutable. You have now sent it in a way that you can't possibly delete the evidence, and therefore pretty much sealed your fate.
Anyone who does this on purpose would be incredibly stupid in my eyes.

[Supercomputing]

That is a very good answer. Now, how do I help in promoting Datacoin?

[GreekBitcoin]

It seems there was some activity with Datacoin local HTTP server

[maxsolnc]

It seems there was some activity with Datacoin local HTTP server

Yep, I also noticed this on git. Hopefully we'll have realization of 'big data' functionality together with full HTTP Datacoin server.

Supercomputing, check your PM

[GreekBitcoin]

It seems there was some activity with Datacoin local HTTP server

Yep, I also noticed this on git. Hopefully we'll have realization of 'big data' functionality together with full HTTP Datacoin server.

Supercomputing, check your PM

btw again i sent 0.5DTC somewhere and it had a fee of 0.074633 DTC. i wonder why...

[cryptrol]

It seems there was some activity with Datacoin local HTTP server

Yep, I also noticed this on git. Hopefully we'll have realization of 'big data' functionality together with full HTTP Datacoin server.

Supercomputing, check your PM

btw again i sent 0.5DTC somewhere and it had a fee of 0.074633 DTC. i wonder why...

Were the coins mined on gpool ?

[GreekBitcoin]

It seems there was some activity with Datacoin local HTTP server

Yep, I also noticed this on git. Hopefully we'll have realization of 'big data' functionality together with full HTTP Datacoin server.

Supercomputing, check your PM

btw again i sent 0.5DTC somewhere and it had a fee of 0.074633 DTC. i wonder why...

Were the coins mined on gpool ?

I suppose yes. Some of them in my wallet were.

[Little_boo]

hi

I minig on http://dtc.gpool.net/
Prompt optimal settings for my CPU I7-3770?
What poolshare size I need set?

[GreekBitcoin]

hi

I minig on http://dtc.gpool.net/
Prompt optimal settings for my CPU I7-3770?
What poolshare size I need set?

i havent got a reply when i asked about that. I suppose it is okay to be left as is.

[4019]

hi

I minig on http://dtc.gpool.net/
Prompt optimal settings for my CPU I7-3770?
What poolshare size I need set?

i havent got a reply when i asked about that. I suppose it is okay to be left as is.

Mayby I don't understend something here... It seems for me to be clerarly written on tutorial page:

Code:

Usage: primeminer -pooluser=USERNAME -poolpassword=0 -poolip=162.243.41.59 -poolport=8336 -poolshare=6 -genproclimit=#PROC

Poolshare=6, instead of default 7, so miner sends 6-chains too that is. Xolominer accept three more parameters (default values):
-sievesize=1000000
-sieveextensions=9
-sievepercentage=10
I know that these affect mining process itself.

[junk1]

Datacoin seems like a great idea for secure distributed storage. However i see couple design flaws with it and I think if these flaws are fixed we could have a really, really, really interesting coin to work with.

Current flaws:
Data is stored permanently. The problem with this is that the use of this chain for "secure temporary storage" is not applicable. I think it would be better if the "data contributor" had the option of overwriting the data, this way the chain would be useful for a much longer period of time.
The miner reward makes sense, but the final model for reward should be based on local storage and internet throughput of each client. Otherwise everyone will just use lite wallets and no one will store the data.
Data should be redundant, but each client should be able to specify the size of the chain he is going to store. This way if i choose to store 5,000TB of data chances are i will get more requests to serve that data to network, while someone who stores 100KB of data will have very few requests hence lower earnings.

Serving a block to the network "creates" a small amount of coin (100X) for the user.
Requesting a block from the network costs a smaller amount of coin (1X) to the user.
Requesting to overwrite a block with new data costs more coin (10,000X) to the requester. Only the block owner (data contributor) can request to overwrite the block.
Block owner can sell the block to a new owner via transaction like bitcoin etc.
When a new block is added to the network the miner who found the block gets a reward, say 100,000X. Then a user from "block purchase que" takes ownership of that block. This costs the new user 100,000X coins. This way new data storage can be bought via a purchase queue or existing blocks can be bought from current owners.

Part of the block stores transactions, just like bitcoin or litecoin; and another part of the block stores user supplied data. User supplied data portion can be overwritten by owner, but transactions are stored permanently.
Updating existing block is done at difficulty level much lower than current difficulty level; this way blocks can be updated with new information relatively fast, but addition of new blocks to the chain is done just like BTC or LTC.

I don't have all the answers and clearly defined protocols; rather I'd like to start a discussion on this topic to see if we, as a community, can come-up with something worthwhile...

What do yall think?

[rayvellest]

Datacoin seems like a great idea for secure distributed storage. However i see couple design flaws with it and I think if these flaws are fixed we could have a really, really, really interesting coin to work with.

Current flaws:
Data is stored permanently. The problem with this is that the use of this chain for "secure temporary storage" is not applicable. I think it would be better if the "data contributor" had the option of overwriting the data, this way the chain would be useful for a much longer period of time.
The miner reward makes sense, but the final model for reward should be based on local storage and internet throughput of each client. Otherwise everyone will just use lite wallets and no one will store the data.
Data should be redundant, but each client should be able to specify the size of the chain he is going to store. This way if i choose to store 5,000TB of data chances are i will get more requests to serve that data to network, while someone who stores 100KB of data will have very few requests hence lower earnings.

Serving a block to the network "creates" a small amount of coin (100X) for the user.
Requesting a block from the network costs a smaller amount of coin (1X) to the user.
Requesting to overwrite a block with new data costs more coin (10,000X) to the requester. Only the block owner (data contributor) can request to overwrite the block.
Block owner can sell the block to a new owner via transaction like bitcoin etc.
When a new block is added to the network the miner who found the block gets a reward, say 100,000X. Then a user from "block purchase que" takes ownership of that block. This costs the new user 100,000X coins. This way new data storage can be bought via a purchase queue or existing blocks can be bought from current owners.

Part of the block stores transactions, just like bitcoin or litecoin; and another part of the block stores user supplied data. User supplied data portion can be overwritten by owner, but transactions are stored permanently.
Updating existing block is done at difficulty level much lower than current difficulty level; this way blocks can be updated with new information relatively fast, but addition of new blocks to the chain is done just like BTC or LTC.

I don't have all the answers and clearly defined protocols; rather I'd like to start a discussion on this topic to see if we, as a community, can come-up with something worthwhile...

What do yall think?

I agree with some of the improvements you are suggesting, specially the bit about being able to overwrite the files, I think that is a much elegant solution than simply storing all files permanently. First thing that came to my mind was: —What if I save the wrong file? That would annoy me forever!

When I first came across DTC, I actually thought we would be able to use it as some sort of reference directory, which people could use to upload torrent files. For a moment, I got insanely excited about DTC because that would make DTC the most popular coin amongst the whole crypto-currency community. THAT would be really, really, really interesting!

[junk1]

Datacoin seems like a great idea for secure distributed storage. However i see couple design flaws with it and I think if these flaws are fixed we could have a really, really, really interesting coin to work with.

Current flaws:
Data is stored permanently. The problem with this is that the use of this chain for "secure temporary storage" is not applicable. I think it would be better if the "data contributor" had the option of overwriting the data, this way the chain would be useful for a much longer period of time.
The miner reward makes sense, but the final model for reward should be based on local storage and internet throughput of each client. Otherwise everyone will just use lite wallets and no one will store the data.
Data should be redundant, but each client should be able to specify the size of the chain he is going to store. This way if i choose to store 5,000TB of data chances are i will get more requests to serve that data to network, while someone who stores 100KB of data will have very few requests hence lower earnings.

Serving a block to the network "creates" a small amount of coin (100X) for the user.
Requesting a block from the network costs a smaller amount of coin (1X) to the user.
Requesting to overwrite a block with new data costs more coin (10,000X) to the requester. Only the block owner (data contributor) can request to overwrite the block.
Block owner can sell the block to a new owner via transaction like bitcoin etc.
When a new block is added to the network the miner who found the block gets a reward, say 100,000X. Then a user from "block purchase que" takes ownership of that block. This costs the new user 100,000X coins. This way new data storage can be bought via a purchase queue or existing blocks can be bought from current owners.

Part of the block stores transactions, just like bitcoin or litecoin; and another part of the block stores user supplied data. User supplied data portion can be overwritten by owner, but transactions are stored permanently.
Updating existing block is done at difficulty level much lower than current difficulty level; this way blocks can be updated with new information relatively fast, but addition of new blocks to the chain is done just like BTC or LTC.

I don't have all the answers and clearly defined protocols; rather I'd like to start a discussion on this topic to see if we, as a community, can come-up with something worthwhile...

What do yall think?

I agree with some of the improvements you are suggesting, specially the bit about being able to overwrite the files, I think that is a much elegant solution than simply storing all files permanently. First thing that came to my mind was: —What if I save the wrong file? That would annoy me forever!

When I first came across DTC, I actually thought we would be able to use it as some sort of reference directory, which people could use to upload torrent files. For a moment, I got insanely excited about DTC because that would make DTC the most popular coin amongst the whole crypto-currency community. THAT would be really, really, really interesting!

Plus if you really wanted to store something permanently all you have to do would be to delete the wallet file which you stored data with. 

[simbo]

Datacoin seems like a great idea for secure distributed storage. However i see couple design flaws with it and I think if these flaws are fixed we could have a really, really, really interesting coin to work with.

Current flaws:
Data is stored permanently. The problem with this is that the use of this chain for "secure temporary storage" is not applicable. I think it would be better if the "data contributor" had the option of overwriting the data, this way the chain would be useful for a much longer period of time.
The miner reward makes sense, but the final model for reward should be based on local storage and internet throughput of each client. Otherwise everyone will just use lite wallets and no one will store the data.
Data should be redundant, but each client should be able to specify the size of the chain he is going to store. This way if i choose to store 5,000TB of data chances are i will get more requests to serve that data to network, while someone who stores 100KB of data will have very few requests hence lower earnings.

Serving a block to the network "creates" a small amount of coin (100X) for the user.
Requesting a block from the network costs a smaller amount of coin (1X) to the user.
Requesting to overwrite a block with new data costs more coin (10,000X) to the requester. Only the block owner (data contributor) can request to overwrite the block.
Block owner can sell the block to a new owner via transaction like bitcoin etc.
When a new block is added to the network the miner who found the block gets a reward, say 100,000X. Then a user from "block purchase que" takes ownership of that block. This costs the new user 100,000X coins. This way new data storage can be bought via a purchase queue or existing blocks can be bought from current owners.

Part of the block stores transactions, just like bitcoin or litecoin; and another part of the block stores user supplied data. User supplied data portion can be overwritten by owner, but transactions are stored permanently.
Updating existing block is done at difficulty level much lower than current difficulty level; this way blocks can be updated with new information relatively fast, but addition of new blocks to the chain is done just like BTC or LTC.

I don't have all the answers and clearly defined protocols; rather I'd like to start a discussion on this topic to see if we, as a community, can come-up with something worthwhile...

What do yall think?

I agree with some of the improvements you are suggesting, specially the bit about being able to overwrite the files, I think that is a much elegant solution than simply storing all files permanently. First thing that came to my mind was: —What if I save the wrong file? That would annoy me forever!

When I first came across DTC, I actually thought we would be able to use it as some sort of reference directory, which people could use to upload torrent files. For a moment, I got insanely excited about DTC because that would make DTC the most popular coin amongst the whole crypto-currency community. THAT would be really, really, really interesting!

I know what you mean, I have the same thinking some time back, but due to the structure of blockchain, temporary storage is not possible as this will break the chain.

To achieve what you suggested, the data will need to be stored at a third party location & transaction submitted into the blockchain, but that is like you buy storage space from an online storage vendor with DTC. Or there is a secondary chain that store the data, but even that, to achieve what you suggested, there will need to have a blockchain for every data storage. As far as I know 'personal chain' is work in progress, maybe that can shed some light into this.

[junk1]

Here is how i propose it will work:
A block has 6 segments
0. Block ID (sequential #)
1. Data
2. Public key
3. Address hash
4. Transactions (just like BTC or LTC)
5. Append

Two block chains exist, a full chain, which has the data block and a lite chain, which has no data block. A given node has full lite chain and as many blocks of full chain as user specified space allows.

Network will accept a request to "change block segments 1 through 3" only from the node that has address which is the result of hashing the published hash using the published key. (think RSA asymmetric keys here)


When ownership of the block is being transferred:

1. Owner, who currently has the private key generates such a hash that when encrypted with public key results in the address of the buyer. (basically owner has to decrypt new address using his 2 private primes)
2. Owner submits the block to the network for update.
3. Miners find such an "append" string that the contents of the parts 1 through 5 match a standard hash.
4. When append is found the block is now accepted by the network.
5. At this point the buyer can request the network to update the block again, but this time the new owner will provide new public key and new hash for his own address, which match his private keys. Owner can also provide new contents for the "Data" segment.

What yall think?

[simbo]

Here is how i propose it will work:
A block has 6 segments
0. Block ID (sequential #)
1. Data
2. Public key
3. Address hash
4. Transactions (just like BTC or LTC)
5. Append

Two block chains exist, a full chain, which has the data block and a lite chain, which has no data block. A given node has full lite chain and as many blocks of full chain as user specified space allows.

Network will accept a request to "change block segments 1 through 3" only from the node that has address which is the result of hashing the published hash using the published key. (think RSA asymmetric keys here)


When ownership of the block is being transferred:

1. Owner, who currently has the private key generates such a hash that when encrypted with public key results in the address of the buyer. (basically owner has to decrypt new address using his 2 private primes)
2. Owner submits the block to the network for update.
3. Miners find such an "append" string that the contents of the parts 1 through 5 match a standard hash.
4. When append is found the block is now accepted by the network.
5. At this point the buyer can request the network to update the block again, but this time the new owner will provide new public key and new hash for his own address, which match his private keys. Owner can also provide new contents for the "Data" segment.

What yall think?

2 blockchains Maybe you need to check with DTC developer.

Btw, to remove/change a data in any chain, you have to destroy the chain, not just change the block. Changing a block in a chain will changed the whole chain & in turn, split the chain.

Your suggestion is a bit different from my colored chains structure. Not sure about DTC's "personal chain" as not much news about it have been released.

For my "colored chains", there is a base chain where everyone operate on & the other "colored chains" are linked to the individual features. There will be a storage chain where the data is stored, & referenced to in the base chain transaction. To achieve "temporary storage" we will need to create sub colored chain which will be destroy when there is a removal/change of the data.

[cryptrol]

When I first came across DTC, I actually thought we would be able to use it as some sort of reference directory, which people could use to upload torrent files. For a moment, I got insanely excited about DTC because that would make DTC the most popular coin amongst the whole crypto-currency community. THAT would be really, really, really interesting!

Nothing stops you from uploading a torrent to the blockchain.