Proposal for multigenerational token architecture

[NASDAQEnema]

I have had this idea banging in my head for a while.

But first...
It's kind of odd for me with my Anon tendencies (I create technologies and memes that explode in your ears) looking at the nasty whitehat destruction that Luke-Jr pulled. I say it's odd because I wouldn't be in any community that didn't have people willing to attack it from within. I can only wonder at Luke's reasoning, but I witnessed Anons attack their own several times though not in a destructive way, rather simply to cause temporary hesitation. But that was too far.

THAR CAN BE ONLEE WAN! - Luke Dash Jar Jar

A 6 hr protest at most and then move on. Blackhats disrupt. Whitehats destroy. Nation building space crusader. Christ Almighty.

/rant

I've been thinking a while about a mined token architecture involving multiple token bases.

1. Suppose you have a given difficulty for generating a Bitcoin and by some luck you generate a coin that would qualify at a larger difficulty. We can call that birthpoint.

2. The new token base would need a birthkey to make payments between one token base and the other impossible. The birthkey would be generated and converted into an address which would then be the token type identifier. Then the birthkey is thrown away. The birthchain is recorded.

3. Quantities are signed with that address / token type identifier.

4. The initial difficulty for a new token base would then be as follows:
w = birth threshold
x = difficulty of the motherbase
y = difficulty of the birthpoint
z =  collective age of a wallet relative to a motherbase
   = sum of (children * lineage of children * amount of each child base) for each lineage in a wallet
bitcoin would be generation 0

a = y / x = relative difficulty ratio
b = a / w = how difficult the birth was
c = x / b = the reference difficulty
difficulty = (c + zb) = xw/a + za/w = x^2w/y + zy/w = (x^2w^2 + zy^2)/yw

The value of a wallet then would be the Euclidean length of all currencies sharing one eldest motherbase.

A^2 + B^2 + C^2 ... = V^2

5. This should satisfy both the necessity for diversity to prevent abuse of power which Luke Jr demonstrated and also Luke Jr's concerns (I can only guess) that perhaps arbitrary low difficulty beginnings are bad.

6. Also it allows you to intentionally create new token bases that are of higher initial difficulty. "Hoarders" and early adopters might like a token base with higher difficulty which would result in a more stable price and would be glad to let go of those bitcoins they are sitting on to acquire it.

Crypto-currency alchemy. /bows

[1714003303]

1714003303

[1714003303]

1714003303

[1714003303]

1714003303

[NASDAQEnema]

For the sake of argument:

Can anyone summarize what ArtForz did to solid coin versus what Luke did to CoiledCoin?

[gmaxwell]

The value of a wallet then would be the Euclidean length of all currencies sharing one eldest motherbase.

Interesting, but how do you plan on reconciling the hyperspatial hash-cascades, especially in the face of multiphasic avalanche? I would expect the Kullback-Leibler divergence in any such system would tend to infinity. The result would indubitably carry a non-trivial risk of oedipal collision with the motherbase-prime and, accordingly, an attacker employing Pollard's less popular kangaroo vis-à-vis your euclidean multi-metric could identify vari-wallet Nash-distinguishers against the lineage in constant time (assuming a tradeoff with a very modest log n quantum pre-computation step and n-th Ackermann order storage), certainly no one here needs any explanation as to why this would be a terrible outcome.

I recently read of a system described in an IEEE journal which could potentially be profitably incorporated into a mining system for such a multigenerational token architecture as you describe which might address some of these challenges, or alternatively, applied by an attacker in order to achieve negative time compromises. If combined with a retroencabulator, the potential for cross-chain synergy would be unprecedented.

Perhaps you should consider it.

[rethaw]

I have looked into using telechronic techniques for selecting nonces. At the moment synchronizing the clocks amongst the various stators brings the system into retrograde transmission. I have attached my attempt to minimize the slew rate without the aid of an embarrassingly parallel algorithm.

Run	Temporal indifference	Periodicity	Control rippling (n-order)
Heat constrained	3.2482e4 mPa	~9.3us	6
Bus limited	5.24e2 Pa	~12.1ps	3
Minimized routing	6.8e9 kPa	~2.94us	14

Further developments and sources:

• It may be possible with better cooling techniques to arrive at a yoctosecond order solution (i.e. TEC graphene): http://www.mendeley.com/research/controlled-ripple-texturing-of-suspended-graphene-and-ultrathin-graphite-membranes/
• Quasicrystals open up a new frequency space: http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/95/3/36004;jsessionid=3E6E6C18671A84D008F7CFFB69F1D7A2.c3
• Modeling neural networks, evolution, or black-boxes tease at solutions in log(n) time. A large population with controlled adaptive stimulus measurements would be a must (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/mon/77/13/1/).
  

edit: strike out measurement of Temporal indifference for Minimized routing case, was trying to fit a Poisson with a Gaussian and wasn't in the mood to do the convolution.

[NASDAQEnema]

A few Frenchmen in gay attire fainted at the pace of this thread.

That's as good a result as any.

Having said that, once I finish meme, I will actually do this.

[NASDAQEnema]

Wow. Impressed and disgusted at the same time. I have reservations about SolidCoin which may cloud my reaction, but I hate whitehat crusaders more. I guess I find Luke Jr to be a worse offender.

At least ArtForz exploited the fee structure, so I guess he didn't cripple the system. So anyways, could this multiple natural fork idea work?

[ArtForz]

<offended>Who the hell is calling me a whitehat?</offended>
On a more serious note, if you're going to put a hat on me, it'd be some shade of grey, but sure as fuck not white.

Broke GG1 (orphaning other miners + timewarp to drive difficulty to minimum) and "broke" SC1 (53 or so oversized tx bloating the chain and slowing things down, inadvertently triggered a bug/lack-of-optimization inherited from bitcoin that crashed a few nodes by consuming ~4GB of diskspace).
While were at it, also found a node-crashing bug in bitcoins script interpreter in late '10 and crashed all testnet nodes.

As for the accusations of me attacking I0C ... no clue where those come from.
I0C broke because the joker who originally modified the retargeting fucked it up, and it flat out stopped working after 2 weeks.
Then a patch from me fixed it (well... "fixed"... just ripped out the broken mess and replaced it with a modified SC1 retargeting).
Long after it got relaunched and everyone lost interest in it again, bitparking i0c exchange got hit with a doublespend, but that wasn't me.
I don't think anyone clearly admitted to that, iirc BEX hinted at having something to do with it... wouldn't be too sure, he also bragged about several other things I know are not true.

So in case you haven't noticed yet, I tend to break things for fun, not profit

[NASDAQEnema]

<offended>Who the hell is calling me a whitehat?</offended>
On a more serious note, if you're going to put a hat on me, it'd be some shade of grey, but sure as fuck not white.

Like I said, you are accused of merely disrupting the system. Not breaking it. Unlike Luke.

And even if neither of you did anything, the stink of zealous Dudley Do Rights, with the coordination of Dudley Moore playing a drunk, is way over the limit. The people wanting justice are ignoring the cardinal rule of activism: the troll is more humble than the knight wearing heavy shiny clothing.

Incidentally, what do you think of this natural forking model plus maybe the use of non linear difficulty as both a surge buster and a quickfix for sudden drops?