TAUCoin “Proof of Transaction” - features debate and bounty for 12 months

[genie854]

There certain stuff for Taucoin mobile mining to avoid problem such as Apple's censorship.

The taucoin mobile app that will be used for mining should be:

1. The app developers of the product are inside the company or organization. Must be part of the team.

2. Mobile mining via the device is still prohibited maybe if the mine activity could work out of the device, can taucoin team managed this?

3. Apps can help users make pay, trade, or receive cryptocurrency on an approved exchange, but the apps must be from the exchanges themselves.

4. The apps that will be interact by the mobile app should be legit for trading, or buying and selling. Must be govern by the Law.

5. The app shouldn't be used to offer users to earn virtual coin for completing task such as downloading some file or other app.


If all those mentioned provisions, can be made by Taucoin team, then we can  avoid such censorship upon launching a mobile mining app for taucoin. But you need to make a product first that consistent on their guidance and also sync on the objective of Taucoin project. If only android can be used for mobile mining then the chance to increase users for taucoin mining isnt that effective.

Im thinking as well how the system can transfer node and blocks from a mobile  which not rapidly drain battery when conducting mining. Still you will use power even you don't use proof of Pow.

Thanks for the suggestions. These actually are quite similar to Electroneum's mobile "mining" APP, except that theirs only offers simulation of mining. Another big problem is that Apple and Google currently ban mining APPs in their APP store.

[1713582247]

1713582247

[1713582247]

1713582247

[1713582247]

1713582247

[genie854]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/23/2018

What are the pros and cons for UTXO (BTC) and account based (ETH) systems?

 UTXO

1. Higher degree of privacy: if a user uses a new address for each transaction that they receive then it can be difficult to link accounts to each other. Although some wallets (JAXX eth) can have multiple addresses, this has not benen brought up yet with Eth official wallet. Once a transaction is done, though it is recorded there, one cannot do anything about it.
2. Potential scalability paradigms: UTXOs are more theoretically compatible with certain kinds of scalability paradigms in such that it uses only one proof of owner ship in the Merkle tree.
 
ETH accounts

1.Large space savings: because every transaction need only make one reference and one signature and produces one output unlike UTXO's that could probably have 2 more reference for output.
2. Greater fungibility: because there is no blockchain-level concept of the source of a specific set of coins, it becomes less practical to institute a redlist/blacklisting scheme. I believe freedom is one of the concept of Etheruem and creating a restriction on coins of where they come from is not invluded in their function.
3. Simplicity: it seems easier to code and understand, especially once more complex scripts become involved. Unlike UTXO, it doesn't require proof from the Merkle tree.
4. Constant light client reference: light clients can at any point access all data related to an account by scanning down the state tree in a specific direction. In UTXO paradigm, every transaction leads to another reference therefore crating a system with more privacy than ease of tracking.

So any ideas on which way TAU should go?

[ValeryO]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/23/2018

What are the pros and cons for UTXO (BTC) and account based (ETH) systems?

As we know there are two broad groups with respect to the style of cryptocurrencies transactions UTXO (BTC) and account based (ETH).

In the UTXO transactions, each coin contains essentially two different pieces of data: ownership data, and the amount it represents. Transactions inductively spend outputs generated by previous transactions and create new unspent outputs, and there is no intrinsic notion of an account associated with an address.

In the account based transactions, the currency is spread among the multiple accounts of the system, each of which has a specific balance. Each address is seen as an account with a balance, and transactions are transfers of value from one account to another. Every transaction also contains a unique nonce to protect against replay attacks.

Pros for UTXO:
First, it allows transactions to be processed in parallel for different UTXOs and transactions can be processed in any order. These parallelizability and invariance property lead to scalability benefits.
Second, it is difficult to link accounts to each other because the user uses a new address for each transaction that they receive. It leads to a little higher degree of privacy.

Cons for UTXO:
The main one it is its complexity. Second UTXO basically suited only to asset issuance and transfer applications. It’s more difficult to successfully run smart contracts on it.

Pros for account based are simplicity and efficiency before UTXO.
Simplicity means that it opted for a more intuitive model for the benefit of developers of complex smart contracts.
Efficiency means that each transaction only needs to validate that the sending account has enough balance to pay for the transaction.

Cons for account based main one is a double spending attack. Every transaction must have a "nonce" and the account must keep track of the nonces used.

Some word about TAU. In my opinion TAU devs, team and rising up community should find own decision. Maybe it will combine UTXO and account based. Or it will something innovative brand-new like a Proof of Transaction consensus mechanism. Copies are always worse an original.

References
https://medium.com/@ConsenSys/thoughts-on-utxo-by-vitalik-buterin-2bb782c67e53
https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/513.pdf
https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/262.pdf

[genie854]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/23/2018

What are the pros and cons for UTXO (BTC) and account based (ETH) systems?

As we know there are two broad groups with respect to the style of cryptocurrencies transactions UTXO (BTC) and account based (ETH).

In the UTXO transactions, each coin contains essentially two different pieces of data: ownership data, and the amount it represents. Transactions inductively spend outputs generated by previous transactions and create new unspent outputs, and there is no intrinsic notion of an account associated with an address.

In the account based transactions, the currency is spread among the multiple accounts of the system, each of which has a specific balance. Each address is seen as an account with a balance, and transactions are transfers of value from one account to another. Every transaction also contains a unique nonce to protect against replay attacks.

Pros for UTXO:
First, it allows transactions to be processed in parallel for different UTXOs and transactions can be processed in any order. These parallelizability and invariance property lead to scalability benefits.
Second, it is difficult to link accounts to each other because the user uses a new address for each transaction that they receive. It leads to a little higher degree of privacy.

Cons for UTXO:
The main one it is its complexity. Second UTXO basically suited only to asset issuance and transfer applications. It’s more difficult to successfully run smart contracts on it.

Pros for account based are simplicity and efficiency before UTXO.
Simplicity means that it opted for a more intuitive model for the benefit of developers of complex smart contracts.
Efficiency means that each transaction only needs to validate that the sending account has enough balance to pay for the transaction.

Cons for account based main one is a double spending attack. Every transaction must have a "nonce" and the account must keep track of the nonces used.

Some word about TAU. In my opinion TAU devs, team and rising up community should find own decision. Maybe it will combine UTXO and account based. Or it will something innovative brand-new like a Proof of Transaction consensus mechanism. Copies are always worse an original.

References
https://medium.com/@ConsenSys/thoughts-on-utxo-by-vitalik-buterin-2bb782c67e53
https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/513.pdf
https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/262.pdf

Nice summary.

Actually we are considering a mixed approach with UTXO and account.

[genie854]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/24/2018

What do you think of reward clipping in POT? For example, mining reward of every address is bounded by its total historical transaction fee paid. The goal is to discourage users from making transactions for future profit (mining reward).

[zityx23]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/23/2018

What are the pros and cons for UTXO (BTC) and account based (ETH) systems?

 UTXO

1. Higher degree of privacy: if a user uses a new address for each transaction that they receive then it can be difficult to link accounts to each other. Although some wallets (JAXX eth) can have multiple addresses, this has not benen brought up yet with Eth official wallet. Once a transaction is done, though it is recorded there, one cannot do anything about it.
2. Potential scalability paradigms: UTXOs are more theoretically compatible with certain kinds of scalability paradigms in such that it uses only one proof of owner ship in the Merkle tree.
 
ETH accounts

1.Large space savings: because every transaction need only make one reference and one signature and produces one output unlike UTXO's that could probably have 2 more reference for output.
2. Greater fungibility: because there is no blockchain-level concept of the source of a specific set of coins, it becomes less practical to institute a redlist/blacklisting scheme. I believe freedom is one of the concept of Etheruem and creating a restriction on coins of where they come from is not invluded in their function.
3. Simplicity: it seems easier to code and understand, especially once more complex scripts become involved. Unlike UTXO, it doesn't require proof from the Merkle tree.
4. Constant light client reference: light clients can at any point access all data related to an account by scanning down the state tree in a specific direction. In UTXO paradigm, every transaction leads to another reference therefore crating a system with more privacy than ease of tracking.

So any ideas on which way TAU should go?

TAU is very unique therefore in choosing an accounting system, the team should consider some unique properties of it as well so that copying another's transaction system will not benefit or introduce its uniqueness. I am suggesting a NEW model that could help the system. but first, here are a few points that we should take note carefully.

1. Will it promote a higher and better degree of privacy than bitcoin/etheruem?
2. Will it be able to handle massive transactions in the future?
3. Will it promote foundational platforms/programs/apps?
4. Will it promote fungibility?
5. Will it take too much space for storage and consumption?
6. Will it be user friendly? Simple yet complete?

While the invention/foundation/development of TaU is based on POT as consensus mechanism, its accounting model should be solely based on it as well. And here's what I suggest. (Anyway I'm not a developer or something related so I might sound superficial with my suggestion)

a. TAU needs a totally different blockchain explorer.

b. It needs to have an "expiration" on TAU hodlers. A cheque model to be exact wherein a cheque is only valid for up to six months. After that,
    the cheque is invalid. (Since a cheque is only a representation of the real value in a bank account, the unspent cheque will not affect the
    total amount and value of money in the owners bank account). In such a case, a transaction will also have an expiration once it was verified
    and the given timeframe arrives therefore acknowledging that the previous transaction is already verified by the system.

c. Since this is a POT mechanism, hoarding and hodling should not be encouraged while promoting/advocating transaction consumption. This
    could be done by another mechanism called "automatic transfer" into an owners account. Every after an "expiration", the system will
    automatically transfer the balance to another account that should be linked to the first one. Two or more accounts  for each owner is
    inevitable for this scenario as this system will promote a higher security and privacy as well and promote transactions even for inactive
    users without the fear of losing each one's coins

d. Tau's window size should be modified for this system. A faster "expiration" leads to a faster "automatic transfer" and it leads to a higher
    security as stated above. Anything that has to do with a one-year period of time in TAU's white-paper should be modified as well for this
    purposes.

e. Any complete transaction and expired non-transaction will eventually must be deleted from the system and the blockchain (or nodes) must
    have a consensus to ensure that a transaction is complete or a non-transaction is expired. This will promote data-saving properties as it will
    not consume large amounts of data to hold information.

f. With this system in TAUs blockchain, it will be easier to  produce or generate an app/program/alternative coin in so that it's simplicity over
    other existing cryptocurrency will be highly valued.

g. Applications/program and other products and services to be used on top of TAUs blockchain should consider its uniquenees in order to fully
    utilized its function. In case of a gaming app, suggestions above should be considered (e.g. having an internal and external wallet for
   automatic transfer, in case of stagnant activity) so that panic will not be in any occasion.

h. During a complete transaction where the sender sends all or a part of his balance onto the receivers wallet, both wallets will serve as a
    fresh base for the countdown of an "expiration".

I still have more to know about this NEW suggestion that I just gave but in case my statements above made no sense at all, the team should AT LEAST try to accommodate a combination of the two commonly used models for accounting and have in mind the BEST scenario for that purpose. Ranking TAUs priorities should be evaluated in order to choose in which accounting model to use. If, for example security and privacy is of higher priority that its simplicity and mass usage, go for UTXO as base models but not completely ignoring ETH accounts strenghts.

[ValeryO]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/24/2018

What do you think of reward clipping in POT? For example, mining reward of every address is bounded by its total historical transaction fee paid. The goal is to discourage users from making transactions for future profit (mining reward).

My opinion should establish a dynamic dependence of the transaction value on their number for a certain period of time (day, month, year). For example, the cost of a standard transaction is X tau. If the number of transactions, for example, is more than 100 per day, then 101, 102 and further transactions will cost 10X, more than 1000 -  1001, 1002… - 100X, etc.

[genie854]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/24/2018

What do you think of reward clipping in POT? For example, mining reward of every address is bounded by its total historical transaction fee paid. The goal is to discourage users from making transactions for future profit (mining reward).

My opinion should establish a dynamic dependence of the transaction value on their number for a certain period of time (day, month, year). For example, the cost of a standard transaction is X tau. If the number of transactions, for example, is more than 100 per day, then 101, 102 and further transactions will cost 10X, more than 1000 -  1001, 1002… - 100X, etc.

That is an interesting suggestion, dynamic transaction fee based on volume. But it may bring unfairness to some users, or create bias by block generator.

[zityx23]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/24/2018

What do you think of reward clipping in POT? For example, mining reward of every address is bounded by its total historical transaction fee paid. The goal is to discourage users from making transactions for future profit (mining reward).

Is there already a threshold for reward clipping? And what method are they using as basis? Should there be a ratio of tx fee to # of transactions?
Is it possible in the future to have a tx fee higher than the amount being transferred? if so, will it not go back to the miner as part of the block reward?

I suggest that a fix percentage of whatever value (e.g. 10% of tx fee) of the reward clipping cap should be established while the remaining balance be distributed throughout the mining cub members (90%)

[ValeryO]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/24/2018

What do you think of reward clipping in POT? For example, mining reward of every address is bounded by its total historical transaction fee paid. The goal is to discourage users from making transactions for future profit (mining reward).

My opinion should establish a dynamic dependence of the transaction value on their number for a certain period of time (day, month, year). For example, the cost of a standard transaction is X tau. If the number of transactions, for example, is more than 100 per day, then 101, 102 and further transactions will cost 10X, more than 1000 -  1001, 1002… - 100X, etc.

That is an interesting suggestion, dynamic transaction fee based on volume. But it may bring unfairness to some users, or create bias by block generator.

I wrote above about fake transactions that will make only for future profit. To avoid unfairness and bias devs or mods should manually allow a few accounts make a transaction at standard fees in X tau. Anyone can write to mods and make a request for the planned exceeding number of allowed transactions per day due to the nature of his business on the tau platform.

[monsterman]

i dont understand why am not given the coins despite doing my tasks? this is the spreadsheet image
https://ibb.co/fVBv1L, i asked that to telegram admin but he does not have an answer yet

i will check thanks

no its okay i resign from doing further tasks here , i stay with my sign up bonus
thanks bye

[genie854]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/24/2018

What do you think of reward clipping in POT? For example, mining reward of every address is bounded by its total historical transaction fee paid. The goal is to discourage users from making transactions for future profit (mining reward).

Is there already a threshold for reward clipping? And what method are they using as basis? Should there be a ratio of tx fee to # of transactions?
Is it possible in the future to have a tx fee higher than the amount being transferred? if so, will it not go back to the miner as part of the block reward?

I suggest that a fix percentage of whatever value (e.g. 10% of tx fee) of the reward clipping cap should be established while the remaining balance be distributed throughout the mining cub members (90%)

A suggested reward clipping model has been put into white paper v0.4. Please read. The key idea is that any address cannot own more reward than it paid.

[genie854]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/25/2018

Continuation of reward clipping discussion. Do you think it is fair for a user to gain profit from making transactions? For example, without reward clipping, one can send transactions between his own addresses to increase mining power. This could be profitable if future transaction volume is greater than current.

[zityx23]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/25/2018

Continuation of reward clipping discussion. Do you think it is fair for a user to gain profit from making transactions? For example, without reward clipping, one can send transactions between his own addresses to increase mining power. This could be profitable if future transaction volume is greater than current.

We are using POT so why should we not give benefit for those who made transactions themselves? besides transaction fee has doubled in time when I first joined TAU community. I believe it is everybody's right to gain benefit from their transactions. If there should be a reward clipping mechanism, remaining balance out of the cap must be distributed fairly to everyone or by lottery or mining groups

[ValeryO]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/25/2018

Continuation of reward clipping discussion. Do you think it is fair for a user to gain profit from making transactions? For example, without reward clipping, one can send transactions between his own addresses to increase mining power. This could be profitable if future transaction volume is greater than current.

50/50 or win/win. All fake transaction should be limited in any way. From the other hand transactions that make startups on tau platform or transaction that allow growing up the tau community etc., should be awarded for example in lower fees.

[genie854]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/25/2018

Continuation of reward clipping discussion. Do you think it is fair for a user to gain profit from making transactions? For example, without reward clipping, one can send transactions between his own addresses to increase mining power. This could be profitable if future transaction volume is greater than current.

No it isn't. Imagine if there is no limitation such as reward clipping, many users will abuse it cause they know that the more transactions increase the more mining power. I think the transaction should be in place such as peer to peer or more to say in a natural way not by doing this. 

This is the first school of thinking, and what I prefer. Making transactions solely for the purpose of profit should be stopped.

[genie854]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/25/2018

Continuation of reward clipping discussion. Do you think it is fair for a user to gain profit from making transactions? For example, without reward clipping, one can send transactions between his own addresses to increase mining power. This could be profitable if future transaction volume is greater than current.

We are using POT so why should we not give benefit for those who made transactions themselves? besides transaction fee has doubled in time when I first joined TAU community. I believe it is everybody's right to gain benefit from their transactions. If there should be a reward clipping mechanism, remaining balance out of the cap must be distributed fairly to everyone or by lottery or mining groups

This is the second school of thinking, although I don't like this idea (I might be wrong). Bitcoin's white paper only points out that mining power based on hash computation can prevent sybil attack. Nakamoto didn't say anything about evolution of mining power from CPU, GPU, FPGA to ASIC. We can choose to do nothing about for-profit transactions and see what happens under POT.

[genie854]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/25/2018

Continuation of reward clipping discussion. Do you think it is fair for a user to gain profit from making transactions? For example, without reward clipping, one can send transactions between his own addresses to increase mining power. This could be profitable if future transaction volume is greater than current.

50/50 or win/win. All fake transaction should be limited in any way. From the other hand transactions that make startups on tau platform or transaction that allow growing up the tau community etc., should be awarded for example in lower fees.

TAU is a permission-less public chain, so it might be difficult to tell which transactions are "fake" and which are "start-up".

[ValeryO]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/25/2018

Continuation of reward clipping discussion. Do you think it is fair for a user to gain profit from making transactions? For example, without reward clipping, one can send transactions between his own addresses to increase mining power. This could be profitable if future transaction volume is greater than current.

50/50 or win/win. All fake transaction should be limited in any way. From the other hand transactions that make startups on tau platform or transaction that allow growing up the tau community etc., should be awarded for example in lower fees.

TAU is a permission-less public chain, so it might be difficult to tell which transactions are "fake" and which are "start-up".

"Fake" is a transaction which overfed determined limit (day, month, year).
Startup makes a request to mods. Mods accepted startup account (accounts) and all transactions from it account is "start-up".

[zityx23]

TAUcoin debate daily topic 10/25/2018

Continuation of reward clipping discussion. Do you think it is fair for a user to gain profit from making transactions? For example, without reward clipping, one can send transactions between his own addresses to increase mining power. This could be profitable if future transaction volume is greater than current.

50/50 or win/win. All fake transaction should be limited in any way. From the other hand transactions that make startups on tau platform or transaction that allow growing up the tau community etc., should be awarded for example in lower fees.

TAU is a permission-less public chain, so it might be difficult to tell which transactions are "fake" and which are "start-up".

Maybe the blockchain can check if transactions are only from the same addresses mostly and therefore rewards from them could be limited. A transaction fee of 0.00250000 TAU can produce at least 40 transactions before fully burning 1TAU as tx fee so it will really be abused in the future. How about putting a limit to a transaction to be made between 2-4 addresses.?