[ANN][MOTO] Motocoin

[ElvenArcher]

Hi guys.

I'm so called "bot operator".

My bot is only 20X better than current public bot.

This:

They also claim to hold the vast majority of the coins, more than the sum of what has been claimed by the dominant bot to date.

is not correct. I asked HunterMinerCrafter to confirm that I didn't tell him that.


My proposal to HMC was this:

We can keep proof-of-play algorithm for securing the blockchain, but allow everybody to add special transactions with any level solution into blocks (lets call them "free levels").

This will completely eliminate annoying level restarts. Players will be able to play one level for hours (target time will still be low, but it will be much more interesting).

Target time for blockchain and for free levels would be calculated separately. Target time for special transactions would obviosly be lower than for blockchain levels, so bots will always switch to the next level (bots do not need time to explore the level, they do it in fraction of seconds, so there is no sense for bots to try to solve outdated level with decreased target time).

But human players will be able to continue solving one level for unlimited amount of time (only target time will be altered eventually during playing). Humans need time to study the level and unlimited time will actually make humans and bots equal.


So, bots will secure the blockchain and people will have fun without level restarts. And there will be equal reward for block solution and for free level solution and target time for free level solutions will be calculated to allow only one free solution per block on average.

This is really great and I do not understand why HunterMinerCrafter do not admit this. And there is almost no security loss. But much more fun.


I want to ask your opinion about this. If more people find this solution attractive, I think HMC will make it.


And yes, I really think that we should promote moto, move to other exchanges and so on. I made a good bot and didn't get any profit from it yet (unlike previous bot owners). And the only thing HMC wants to do is to fine-tune his precious work function and write huge chuck of text about theoretical aspects of hashes and so on (no offense)


I proposed real solution to make moto more popular and I think HMC will not refuse to make it if we ask him.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

Hi guys.

I'm so called "bot operator".

Welcome to the community.

My bot is only 20X better than current public bot.

We should take your word for it?

This:

They also claim to hold the vast majority of the coins, more than the sum of what has been claimed by the dominant bot to date.

is not correct. I asked HunterMinerCrafter to confirm that I didn't tell him that.

Post above yours, I revised.

My proposal to HMC was this:

We can keep proof-of-play algorithm for securing the blockchain, but allow everybody to add special transactions with any level solution into blocks (lets call them "free levels").

This will completely eliminate annoying level restarts. Players will be able to play one level for hours (target time will still be low, but it will be much more interesting).

Why would bots not also play these "free levels?"  The rational thing for a bot operator to do would be to ignore these special transactions from the pool, and to include two of their OWN solutions in every block in order to claim both rewards.

Target time for blockchain and for free levels would be calculated separately. Target time for special transactions would obviosly be lower than for blockchain levels, so bots will always switch to the next level (bots do not need time to explore the level, they do it in fraction of seconds, so there is no sense for bots to try to solve outdated level with decreased target time).

But human players will be able to continue solving one level for unlimited amount of time (only target time will be altered eventually during playing). Humans need time to study the level and unlimited time will actually make humans and bots equal.

This implies that the level generation would not be dependent upon the block header.  This being the case, how do you propose that we prevent work stealing?  (Note: I do have a (not so great) solution to this particular problematic aspect, but I am curious to hear what you come up with...)

So, bots will secure the blockchain and people will have fun without level restarts. And there will be equal reward for block solution and for free level solution and target time for free level solutions will be calculated to allow only one free solution per block on average.

What prevents the bot from mining both and driving target time on the "free levels" to minimum again?

This is really great and I do not understand why HunterMinerCrafter do not admit this. And there is almost no security loss. But much more fun.

Half of the rewards being given out for free implies that half of the work that is being done is not put toward securing the chain, which implies that with the same total work effort applied the security added to the chain is exactly half.  This is a factor of two security loss!  This is hardly "almost no security loss" - or rather would be if the network had, so far, any security to lose in the first place.  I guess it is easy to call this "no security loss" when you are the only one offering any illusion of security in the first place.  

It does not make sense for the network to give away half of the subsidy to workers who are not working toward securing the chain.  I would not call such a proposal "really great."

I want to ask your opinion about this. If more people find this solution attractive, I think HMC will make it.

I would sooner implement my N-heads proposal with N=2.  This creates (in the worst case) the same exactly-half security loss, but in a way that would not require any complex operations.  It doesn't prevent level restarts entirely, but doubles the amount of time between restarts.

In either case, I don't understand why we wouldn't assume that the bots will simply compete in both competitions?  Under your model, the bots dominating both the "securing" and "free" levels would leave just as much lack of human mining as we have now.  People would get to spend more time playing the game, but still would not be able to actually compete against the bots for the reward.  (In the case of your solution, at the cost of significant complexity and increased block sizes!  In the case of my solution at the cost of double the confirms required for the same level of trust in a transaction history!  These both seem to be costs that aren't worth it for the "possibly perceived,  but not actual" gains.... else we would've just implemented the N-heads approach long ago.)

And yes, I really think that we should promote moto, move to other exchanges and so on. I made a good bot and didn't get any profit from it yet (unlike previous bot owners). And the only thing HMC wants to do is to fine-tune his precious work function and write huge chuck of text about theoretical aspects of hashes and so on (no offense)

We should not promote a coin that is insecure.  All that could serve to do is to bring you more potential victims.  Your history of altruistic mining is no reason to believe that you would necessarily continue to behave in the best interest of those services.

I don't want to fine-tune anything.  As I've said repeatedly in our PMs, to date I have been brought NO evidence that there is an actual insecurity in the protocol.  Until such is demonstrable, nothing needs to be "fine tuned."

I do want to write huge "chucks" of text about theoretical aspects of hashes and so on.  I want to do this because such discussion is how we can hope to make things secure!  Without such open discussion we can have no hope of progress.  Your *lack* of interest in discussion of these "theoretical aspects" like 51% attacks is quite strange to me, indeed.  As I stated in my earlier posts, this is not the perspective that I would've expected from "our bot operator."

I proposed real solution to make moto more popular and I think HMC will not refuse to make it if we ask him.

You proposed an incomplete change that may or may not make MOTO more popular.  Until you can elaborate on the details I can't even really say if I would expect it to make MOTO more popular or less popular.

The problem is not lack of popularity anyway, but lack of security.  MOTO cannot become popular if/while it is insecure.  There's no two ways about it.

[ElvenArcher]

We should take your word for it?

Again, download the public bot, launch it and you will get 1-2% of moto supply. Then convince 50 other people to do the same and you all together will have more than 50%. (You will probably outperform me and all current public bot miners). All we need is just more miners.

BTW Can anyone who mine with public bot give us some numbers how much do you mine per month and so on?

Why would bots not also play these "free levels?"  The rational thing for a bot operator to do would be to ignore these special transactions from the pool, and to include two of their OWN solutions in every block in order to claim both rewards.

Why would they do that if they can find "real" levels more easily (target time for real levels will obviously be higher). Bots do not need time to study level, they will switch to the next level immediately. If there is no free level to include, bot will just make block without free level (and will not get small fee which we can offer for including it)

This implies that the level generation would not be dependent upon the block header.  This being the case, how do you propose that we prevent work stealing?  (Note: I do have a (not so great) solution to this particular problematic aspect, but I am curious to hear what you come up with...)

What do you mean? Level will be generated for specific receiving address. How can you steal it?

What prevents the bot from mining both and driving target time on the "free levels" to minimum again?

Why would it mine "free" level if it is easier to switch to "real" level immidiatelly? On "free" level bot would have to compete both bots and humans, and when mining "real" level only other bots (I believe humans can not solve 15 sec target time level in less than a minute). Bots enumerate hundreds of levels per minute with some probability of solving any of them. Humans needs time to actually solve the level so they are not competitive in solving "real" levels and bots will have less competition when solving real levels.

Half of the rewards being given out for free implies that half of the work that is being done is not put toward securing the chain, which implies that with the same total work effort applied the security added to the chain is exactly half.  This is a factor of two security loss!  This is hardly "almost no security loss" - or rather would be if the network had, so far, any security to lose in the first place.  I guess it is easy to call this "no security loss" when you are the only one offering any illusion of security in the first place. 

It does not make sense for the network to give away half of the subsidy to workers who are not working toward securing the chain.  I would not call such a proposal "really great."

Half of the reward will be given to secure the chain and other half to make moto human mineable and therefore much more popular.

I would sooner implement my N-heads proposal with N=2.  This creates (in the worst case) the same exactly-half security loss, but in a way that would not require any complex operations.  It doesn't prevent level restarts entirely, but doubles the amount of time between restarts.

That is absolutely not enough. Did you ever try to play? Do you really think that one extra minute will change something? With my scheme humans can play half of an hour, explore the level, study it and then finally complete it and get their reward (and it is 100% guaranteed).

I've been asked to clarify this point.  In his original statement, he was referring to the combined holdings of himself and an investor.  He did not elaborate on what the ratio of holdings was.  This combined amount is greater than what has been claimed by the bot, but my statement that this person holds more than this themselves was assumptive.

My apologies for unintentionally misrepresenting the claim.

I will clarify this even more. There Possibly was a Group of whales who bought big part of moto. I speaked with one of them and he asked me if I want to cooperate with them and try to popularize moto and continue developing. I'm not even sure that he really got that moto. And my amout of moto is not too big. I could definitely just buy it on c-cex.

[e1ghtSpace]

If it helps, last time I played to mine as a human (2 months ago) I could still get blocks.
If nothing has changed then motocoin is still human mineable.
I'll try to record a video this afternoon of me getting a block.

[e1ghtSpace]

http://www.qmole.uk
Would it be possible to compile Motocoin for iOS on the Qmole app?

PROGRAMMING LANGUES

Common Lisp (ECL)
C, C++ (gcc, g++, clang, clang++)
Java (JamVM)
Clojure
Lua
Scheme (Gambit)
OCaml
Python
Perl
A+ APL

[HunterMinerCrafter]

I am a bot operator. :-|

Let me tell you how I would "play" in your game...

We should take your word for it?

Again, download the public bot, launch it and you will get 1-2% of moto supply. Then convince 50 other people to do the same and you all together will have more than 50%. (You will probably outperform me and all current public bot miners). All we need is just more miners.

You are not wrong.

Assuming your bot is actually "20x" this other also unknown algorithm bot... which we'll just have to take your word for, for now.  (Would you be open to running your bot on a testnet as well, so that we can do some controlled comparisons?)

By this argument one could also say that "all" we need is to "suddenly" have a whole lot of human miners working 24/7 to re-secure the chain....

The problem is something of a "we can't get there from here" situation, as I mentioned also in PM.

One miner has >51% of the network.  As such the coin is centralized.  In order to resolve this compromise, more miners must appear. Miners not only know that they cannot mine at a profit in the best case (if their mining costs virtually "anything at all", so I'm even including human miners' time, here) but also that their mining subsidy is entirely subject to your whim, on average.

If your mining ignores their mining, they will get nothing at all.  You have to *let* them have blocks, until the network strength is redistributed.  They have no reason to assume that you would ever do so, so rationally they might have to assume a 0 return on their burn during this time.

They also currently have no way to know how much resource will need to be applied to redistribute the hash rate.

Further, they have no idea how much "moto time warp" debt you can put onto the network during this time, and no way to know that you will not leave them, once your 51% attack is over, to repay all of it.

Given this, the only rational conclusion is currently not to mine except for personal enjoyment of the game. (Which is ofc only "enjoyable at times, when you're lucky, in the meantime" which is the "marketing" problem here.)

As a bot operator, I'm *certainly* not going to be mining, when I could put that expensive electricity toward something with a hope of a return.

BTW Can anyone who mine with public bot give us some numbers how much do you mine per month and so on?

I'd be interested in this as well, but we would really need a direct comparison to be able to say much.

Why would bots not also play these "free levels?"  The rational thing for a bot operator to do would be to ignore these special transactions from the pool, and to include two of their OWN solutions in every block in order to claim both rewards.

Why would they do that if they can find "real" levels more easily (target time for real levels will obviously be higher). Bots do not need time to study level, they will switch to the next level immediately. If there is no free level to include, bot will just make block without free level (and will not get small fee which we can offer for including it)

I mean why would the bots not mine both the "real" and "free" levels themselves.  As you point out, bots can grind levels quite quickly, so why would they only grind one type of level and not the other?

As a bot operator, I would certainly include my own "free" levels as well, to get double the reward for only double the work! 

This implies that the level generation would not be dependent upon the block header.  This being the case, how do you propose that we prevent work stealing?  (Note: I do have a (not so great) solution to this particular problematic aspect, but I am curious to hear what you come up with...)

What do you mean? Level will be generated for specific receiving address. How can you steal it?

Ok, so that works and only costs a bit more block space.  Now surely we can't make these blocks dependent on address alone, as we know that this allows for "trivial" time warp.  What is the criteria for transaction validity, here?  How is difficulty tracked and managed, exactly?

Can you do this in less than a 1.5x increase to average block size?  (How?)

Can you do this in a way that bock validity processing still remains linear in the number of transactions?  (How?  If every prior block needs to be rechecked for a duplication, isn't there also an additional linear growth by block depth?  How much does this slow down processing over, say, a 5 to 10 year curve?  Would the network survive it?)

What prevents the bot from mining both and driving target time on the "free levels" to minimum again?

Why would it mine "free" level if it is easier to switch to "real" level immidiatelly? On "free" level bot would have to compete both bots and humans, and when mining "real" level only other bots (I believe humans can not solve 15 sec target time level in less than a minute). Bots enumerate hundreds of levels per minute with some probability of solving any of them. Humans needs time to actually solve the level so they are not competitive in solving "real" levels and bots will have less competition when solving real levels.

As a bot operator, I would mine "free" levels because it is not inherently any more or less easy to mine a "free" level then it is to mine a "real" level.

Why would the bots not push the "free" levels to a ridiculous target time as well?  It can switch levels in either case, why would it not spend half of it's effort on "real" levels and half on "free" levels.  (Or some ratio relative to the returns available from each given the current difficulty and competition...)

As a bot operator, I would not make my bot care about which it solved.  I would make it generate levels of both kinds, and work on the easy cases from both sets.  Why would I leave either set to be claimed by others when I can just as easily work toward claiming from both?

Half of the rewards being given out for free implies that half of the work that is being done is not put toward securing the chain, which implies that with the same total work effort applied the security added to the chain is exactly half.  This is a factor of two security loss!  This is hardly "almost no security loss" - or rather would be if the network had, so far, any security to lose in the first place.  I guess it is easy to call this "no security loss" when you are the only one offering any illusion of security in the first place. 

It does not make sense for the network to give away half of the subsidy to workers who are not working toward securing the chain.  I would not call such a proposal "really great."

Half of the reward will be given to secure the chain and other half to make moto human mineable and therefore much more popular.

No, the other half is being given away only for playing the game, not promoting it.  The network has no way to see if the user is doing anything to make the network more popular.  You are assuming that giving "free" levels will, itself, make moto more popular but I don't see any reason to believe that this is necessarily the case, even if it were able to "work."  All we can say is that the network would be giving away half of the subsidy, and *not* getting security on the chain in return for it.  We can't infer more than this.

I would sooner implement my N-heads proposal with N=2.  This creates (in the worst case) the same exactly-half security loss, but in a way that would not require any complex operations.  It doesn't prevent level restarts entirely, but doubles the amount of time between restarts.

That is absolutely not enough. Did you ever try to play? Do you really think that one extra minute will change something? With my scheme humans can play half of an hour, explore the level, study it and then finally complete it and get their reward (and it is 100% guaranteed).

Nothing is ever 100% guaranteed.

As a bot operator, I would not collect and mine over anyone else's "free" levels, only the ones mined by my own bot.  Why would I?  Assuming that most bot operators chose to maximize their profits in such a way, the human miner's transaction would likely never make it into any block and so they would never receive any reward at all.

You really need to explain what would motivate a bot operator to not only "ignore" the free level rewards made available to them, but to even go so far as to "give them away" to others.  You really have to assume that miners will do whatever maximizes their return.

(You are correct, btw, that N=2 is probably "not enough."  I think we'd actually desire something like N=5 or maybe even greater (again, I have no way to know the actual capacity of your bot...) but then we'd be talking about a much more significant loss of security...)

I've been asked to clarify this point.  In his original statement, he was referring to the combined holdings of himself and an investor.  He did not elaborate on what the ratio of holdings was.  This combined amount is greater than what has been claimed by the bot, but my statement that this person holds more than this themselves was assumptive.

My apologies for unintentionally misrepresenting the claim.

I will clarify this even more. There Possibly was a Group of whales who bought big part of moto. I speaked with one of them and he asked me if I want to cooperate with them and try to popularize moto and continue developing. I'm not even sure that he really got that moto. And my amout of moto is not too big. I could definitely just buy it on c-cex.

At the time of this post there are approximately 400kMOTO for sale on c-cex.  This is significantly less than what has been collected by the bot (assumed nearly 10 million) now. (Just some fun facts)

[e1ghtSpace]

What I was thinking the bot operator was meaning by the split reward was this:

10 moto for the normal reward mined by bots.

The human levels will also always be 60 seconds.
10 Moto gets divided up and sent to the humans that complete their own levels in the same block that traditional levels to be completed. This discourages bots from completing these levels because if 10 humans complete their own block they each get 2 motocoins. Bots would be losing profits if they stop working on the 10 coin blocks and work on the ones with (in the future probably) 0.1 Moto reward.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

What I was thinking the bot operator was meaning by the split reward was this:

10 moto for the normal reward mined by bots.

The human levels will also always be 60 seconds.
10 Moto gets divided up and sent to the humans that complete their own levels in the same block that traditional levels to be completed. This discourages bots from completing these levels because if 10 humans complete their own block they each get 2 motocoins. Bots would be losing profits if they stop working on the 10 coin blocks and work on the ones with (in the future probably) 0.1 Moto reward.

The "real" miners are the ones doing the transaction selection, though.  Why would they ever include someone else's solution transaction into a block when it dilutes the reward for their own solution transaction?

As ElvenArcher proposed the transaction could carry a fee but this fee to include the tx would have to be larger than the reward for not including the tx, on average, meaning the humans would have to pay to play in the long run.  I don't think that this is desirable.

[e1ghtSpace]

What I was thinking the bot operator was meaning by the split reward was this:

10 moto for the normal reward mined by bots.

The human levels will also always be 60 seconds.
10 Moto gets divided up and sent to the humans that complete their own levels in the same block that traditional levels to be completed. This discourages bots from completing these levels because if 10 humans complete their own block they each get 2 motocoins. Bots would be losing profits if they stop working on the 10 coin blocks and work on the ones with (in the future probably) 0.1 Moto reward.

The "real" miners are the ones doing the transaction selection, though.  Why would they ever include someone else's solution transaction into a block when it dilutes the reward for their own solution transaction?

As ElvenArcher proposed the transaction could carry a fee but this fee to include the tx would have to be larger than the reward for not including the tx, on average, meaning the humans would have to pay to play in the long run.  I don't think that this is desirable.

So what your saying is, the miner could pre mine a bunch of human blocks, then when they start mining bot blocks and find one, they could only accept one of their own pre mined human blocks and get the full 20 coins?

Ah that is a bad idea.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

Ah that is a bad idea.

We can't rely on the miners to select transactions that will reduce their profitability.  We're supposed to do the opposite, assume that they will behave in any way possible to increase their profits, which is why transaction fees are a thing.

This fact will significantly complicate pretty much any "solution" proposal which relies on miners behaving altruistically with their transaction selection.  They "just won't" when they can instead opt to keep more reward for themselves, of course.

This is also why our current "solution" of simply letting the dominant bot miner remain dominant is not actually any "solution" at all.  It only works so long as our benevolent dominant bot remains altruistic in transaction selection.  It has been OK so far, it seems, but who can say how long this will remain true?  This is not actually ever a safe assumption to be making. 

[e1ghtSpace]

This is also why our current "solution" of simply letting the dominant bot miner remain dominant is not actually any "solution" at all.  It only works so long as our benevolent dominant bot remains altruistic in transaction selection.  It has been OK so far, it seems, but who can say how long this will remain true?  This is not actually ever a safe assumption to be making.  

Ok. What if we make it so that the human blocks are treated like hashing power (relates to difficulty). So the reward of finding a block as a human is determined by the average of the last 10 human mined blocks. So if an average of 2 people found blocks from the last 10 blocks (getting a 5 coin reward each), and then suddenly 10 people mined a block, they would each get 5 coins. But then the next block finders would get 2.8 motocoins (average of the last 10 blocks) regardless of how many people found blocks. (if my math is correct)

Would that work? Maybe the real bot miners could get a percentage of the human's reward as incentive to include the transaction.

I really like this idea, as it gives humans a real chance whilst also allowing bots to battle it out.

[ElvenArcher]

You keep saying very strange things.

You ask me in every message to give you my current bot for testing to verify that it is really only 20 times better than public bot.

Will you ask every future bot miner to verify their bots capabilities? Will you ask every other public bot miner to give you his PC to verify that they are not 10X better than other's? Why couldn't I give you less productive bot for verification?

You tell me that we just can not distribute the hash rate until I release my current bot.


And simultaneosly you tell me that public bot "is nowhere near as capable" as YOUR bot which I presume you had all this time.

Why didn't you give YOUR bot to everybody. Wouldn't it help to distribute hash rate? Instead you have disappeared for almost a year without any notice.


All this is complete nonsense. My bot is ONLY 20X better than public. 20 mining people could overproduce me. Normal coins have thousands of miners. They wouldn't even notice my 20X more powerful bot.

Anyone who wants to try public bot can sell their MOTO immidiately if they affraid that network is insecure. And decide for their own is this profitable or not. In fact we have some amount of public bot miners (Can they write something?) We just need more of them.


Is there anyone who tried mining with public bot and decided that it is unprofitable?


I keep telling you that if I release my bot right now it would be far more dangerous. If people so inactively mine with public bot, we can expect that there will be very few miners mining with my bot too. And the risk that one of them will try to perform 51% attack will be much higher. Someone have already tried to perform 51% manually when there was no bots in september.


If you think that moto itself is OK now all you need is to increase public bot miners count. You tell me that they do not mine because it is unprofitable?

I want to hear anyone who tried to mine with public bot and came to conclusion that it is unprofitable. Besides, are you sure that it is profitable for me? And maybe people could start to mine even if it is unprofitable now (which I believe is not true) just to distribute hash rate and help moto become profitable?

At the time of this post there are approximately 400kMOTO for sale on c-cex.  This is significantly less than what has been collected by the bot (assumed nearly 10 million) now. (Just some fun facts)

I have been mining from january and mine around 60-90% depending on competing public bot count. This gives 5832000, more than 4,5 million I  have already sold (I told you that I sell). Even if we imagine that I mined 100% moto in that period and didn't sell anything where is 8 million moto that was mined from may to december? Why are they not on c-cex?
400k MOTO is even less than 450k developers premine + first human mined 800k moto. (Just some fun facts).

[e1ghtSpace]

This is also why our current "solution" of simply letting the dominant bot miner remain dominant is not actually any "solution" at all.  It only works so long as our benevolent dominant bot remains altruistic in transaction selection.  It has been OK so far, it seems, but who can say how long this will remain true?  This is not actually ever a safe assumption to be making.  

Ok. What if we make it so that the human blocks are treated like hashing power (relates to difficulty). So the reward of finding a block as a human is determined by the average of the last 10 human mined blocks. So if an average of 2 people found blocks from the last 10 blocks (getting a 5 coin reward each), and then suddenly 10 people mined a block, they would each get 5 coins. But then the next block finders would get 2.8 motocoins (average of the last 10 blocks) regardless of how many people found blocks. (if my math is correct)

Would that work? Maybe the real bot miners could get a percentage of the human's reward as incentive to include the transaction.

I really like this idea, as it gives humans a real chance whilst also allowing bots to battle it out.

HunterMinerCrafter, would this be okay to implement?

[HunterMinerCrafter]

You keep saying very strange things.

I'm not sure what you would see as strange. I think I've explained my rationale quite clearly.  From conversation with others in the community, I don't think that my reasoning is unique.

You ask me in every message to give you my current bot for testing to verify that it is really only 20 times better than public bot.

You misunderstand my intent.  I am far less interested in the details of your bot as in quantifying the necessary resource contribution to overcome it.  You make one claim that 20 instances of "the public bot" would do, but we have no reason to believe this.  Further, this does not align well with statistics collected at the peak of the anti-warp application, which would indicate that it would take 3 to 4 orders of magnitude more instances of the public bot to overcome the peak performance of the dominant bot.

When GPU's hit bitcoin mining it was readily quantifiable what the difference in peak performance was, and how many CPUs it would take to overcome a GPU.  Similarly through the progressin of GPU, FPGA, ASIC.

The peak performance of the dominant bot is not readily quantifiable.  We have the number you've thrown out, and some estimates based on the anti-warp test, but these indicate some *very* different quantities.

Will you ask every future bot miner to verify their bots capabilities? Will you ask every other public bot miner to give you his PC to verify that they are not 10X better than other's? Why couldn't I give you less productive bot for verification?

No, I would only ask this of a miner who carries out a sustained 51% attack and then tells me to just go ahead and mine against him.  Of course I would not begin applying resource at a loss unless I could quantify how much loss would need to be endured before any hope of a return, in order to in turn quantify the length of time before I would be back into the black.  Without being able to make such a projection no-one rationally is going to mine.

You tell me that we just can not distribute the hash rate until I release my current bot.

I've said no such thing, though I have said is that releasing your current bot is *one* solution.  I've also said that it is the "easiest."

What I have said is that we just can not distribute the hash rate until there is capability for miners to mine competitively.  This is simply a truism.

And simultaneosly you tell me that public bot "is nowhere near as capable" as YOUR bot which I presume you had all this time.

Had?  Yes.  Ran?  Not in nearly a year, now.

Why didn't you give YOUR bot to everybody. Wouldn't it help to distribute hash rate? Instead you have disappeared for almost a year without any notice.

I didn't give my bot to everybody because at the time there was no *need* to distribute the hash-rate, as mining was competitive.  Multiple bot operators shared hash-rate.

No, my bot will not help to distribute the hash-rate, because it is not competitive.  Because it may require thousands of instances for it to be effective against you, no-one will be the first to use it against you.  Nobody wants to be the one who will lose money while waiting around for the other thousands of people to come lose money with them so that everyone collectively *might* have a hope to make some money....

All this is complete nonsense. My bot is ONLY 20X better than public. 20 mining people could overproduce me.

Nothing here is nonsense, much the opposite.  "Don't willingly choose to lose an indefinite amount of money, on purpose" is pretty well common sense, I'd think.

We have only your word that your bot is "20X."  (Further, this is counter to evidence.)
In fact, we have only your word that the bot is actually "yours" at all.  (This is also counter to evidence.  I've additionally asked you several times now to prove your claimed domain over the dominant bot, but you have yet to offer up even a small shred of indication.)

Normal coins have thousands of miners. They wouldn't even notice my 20X more powerful bot.

Hrmm, first this is not really true.  The largest few coins may have this many miners, but the average alt network has less than 10!

Second, they would notice your "20x more powerful bot" if it represented >50% of the hashing strength, I'm sure.

So I'm not even really sure what you are trying to argue at this point...

Anyone who wants to try public bot can sell their MOTO immidiately if they affraid that network is insecure.

This is more flawed reasoning.  Miners know that the network is insecure, and "selling their MOTO immediately" is no help when at any moment you might just decide to stop their coinbase transactions from even existing, prevent their transfers into the exchange, etc.  The security problem here begins long before the miners' coins are even "in hand" to be sold.

And decide for their own is this profitable or not. In fact we have some amount of public bot miners (Can they write something?) We just need more of them.

How many more?  You claim 20 will do it, but we have no way to know.  The evidence that we have would seem to indicate that it could potentially require much much more.

You won't get 1, let alone 20, let alone enough to overcome the bot, unless you can demonstrate that it is feasible at all.

Is there anyone who tried mining with public bot and decided that it is unprofitable?

I've mined with both public bots, as well as several incarnations of my own, and decided that it is unprofitable.  It may seem nearly profitable at (short) times, but the dominant bot never let it sustain beyond difficulty correction.

I keep telling you that if I release my bot right now it would be far more dangerous. If people so inactively mine with public bot, we can expect that there will be very few miners mining with my bot too. And the risk that one of them will try to perform 51% attack will be much higher. Someone have already tried to perform 51% manually when there was no bots in september.

As I said in PM, this argument is like asking us to "just trust you exclusively, 100%" instead of trusting say 4 guys each with 25% or 100 guys each with 1%.... because those other guys are of course going to be untrustworthy.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd trust the 4 guys each with 25% before the 1 guy with 100% any day.  I don't care who the 5 people in question are, but it holds *especially* true when the 1 guy is saying "no really, just trust me..."

This makes no sense at all.  This claim makes me wonder if you even understand what a 51% attack really is. The whole premise of the blockchain is that it works as long as we don't trust *ANY* one person alone.

If you think that moto itself is OK now all you need is to increase public bot miners count. You tell me that they do not mine because it is unprofitable?

I tell you they do not mine because it is un-competitive.  Profitability is secondary to this.  The first problem must be overcome to have any hope of ending the 51% attack without your simply deciding to end it, but BOTH problems must be overcome to stabilize the coin and assure a future for it.

I want to hear anyone who tried to mine with public bot and came to conclusion that it is unprofitable. Besides, are you sure that it is profitable for me?

More irrationality abounds!  What reasoning would one have to sustain a 51% attack but altruistically select transactions, at a loss?!??! Now who is saying very strange things?

And maybe people could start to mine even if it is unprofitable now (which I believe is not true) just to distribute hash rate and help moto become profitable?

The problem is that no-one would rationally do this unless they had some way to know that their resource contribution does have some chance at all to "help moto become profitable."  Currently (as I've tried to say repeatedly) we have no way to quantify this.

I'd think that if you were really interested in the survival of this coin, you would try to find some way to give people such an assurance, and to establish this quantification for them, in some way more verifiable than "no rly guys it's 20X or something."  Your *total* refusal to do anything toward this is a big part of why I am (increasingly) suspecting that you are not who you claim to be....

Would you like to offer up some evidence that you do actually control the bot, so that we might have some reason to believe that you're not just some random shill, so that we subsequently might have any reason at all to think that your "20x" might not be just some entirely made up number?

The ball is still in your court, here....

[HunterMinerCrafter]

Ok. What if we make it so that the human blocks are treated like hashing power (relates to difficulty). So the reward of finding a block as a human is determined by the average of the last 10 human mined blocks. So if an average of 2 people found blocks from the last 10 blocks (getting a 5 coin reward each), and then suddenly 10 people mined a block, they would each get 5 coins. But then the next block finders would get 2.8 motocoins (average of the last 10 blocks) regardless of how many people found blocks. (if my math is correct)

I don't follow what you're getting at here...  In any case, it doesn't explain why the miners wouldn't simply *only* include their own transactions, and ignore anyone else's.

Would that work? Maybe the real bot miners could get a percentage of the human's reward as incentive to include the transaction.

I really like this idea, as it gives humans a real chance whilst also allowing bots to battle it out.

HunterMinerCrafter, would this be okay to implement?

The bot miner would need to get a larger reward than if they simply provided a solution themselves, otherwise there is no incentive to take someone else's solutions...  In other words, the reward for the "human" solution would need to be a net negative in order for the bot to see incentive to include it in a block instead of their own solution.

[e1ghtSpace]

I don't follow what you're getting at here...  In any case, it doesn't explain why the miners wouldn't simply *only* include their own transactions, and ignore anyone else's.

The bot miner would need to get a larger reward than if they simply provided a solution themselves, otherwise there is no incentive to take someone else's solutions...  In other words, the reward for the "human" solution would need to be a net negative in order for the bot to see incentive to include it in a block instead of their own solution.

What I'm saying is, if the bot were to only allow their own solution into the block they would be losing motocoins. This is because the reward for humans miners is based off the average human solves in the last 10 blocks (regardless of how many humans play in the current round) not just the current block (and the bot gets 10% of each human's reward). So if 10 humans solve a block, and the bot will get 10% of their rewards, then if the bot chooses not to allow human solves then they won't get the human's 10% reward. This gives them an incentive to include the human's reward.

If they only accept their own solution, and an average of 10 humans mined the last 10 blocks, then they will only get:

10 coins (from the bot's block) + 10 coins / 10 (average human players of the last 10 blocks) * 1 (number of human solutions in block)

But if they accepted, say 10 humans rewards, then their payout would look like this:

10 coins + 10 /10 *10     /  10 (10% of the human's reward)

So in total the bot would get 11 coins by accepting human solutions.
If they also accepted their own solution with the human solutions they would get 12 coins.

This means on average the bots will get 1 extra Motocoin if they accept all human solutions.

I don't know if I explained that right but I don't really have much time to check.

Human solutions should be n=10 to stop "premining" from the bot or someone else because then it could stop them from suddenly releasing 100 solutions in one block to get lots of coins but penalise real human miners.

Edit: Can you also answer this please?

http://www.qmole.uk
Would it be possible to compile Motocoin for iOS on the Qmole app?

PROGRAMMING LANGUES

Common Lisp (ECL)
C, C++ (gcc, g++, clang, clang++)
Java (JamVM)
Clojure
Lua
Scheme (Gambit)
OCaml
Python
Perl
A+ APL

Edit 2: Wow, syncing is taking forever, 3+ hours and its only synced 100,000 blocks. Will we ever get on of those blockchain torrents (i've forgotten the name) where you put it in your %appdata%/Motocoin folder and the wallet imports the blocks? Maybe its bottlenecked by my CPU... Its an i5-4670K @ 3.40 GHz

[BTCat]

Put on a botscanner and make the reward for bots 20 times less 

[ElvenArcher]

Ok, I will just refine this scheme slightly:

If there are any free solutions, miner can include them and get small fixed fee from each level along with his half of total reward for solving the block. The second half of the block reward will always be divided among all free solutions in last 20 blocks (If there is no free solutions in previous 20 blocks, miner could be required to add at least one in his new block).

In some cases (if previous blocks contain several free levels maked by this bot) he can decide to not include anything. But in general, previous 20 block will not contain any of his free levels, so he will just loose fees.

Now about why bots will not mine free levels (they actually will of course).

There are multiple cases, if we allow to use outdated real solutions as free solutions we will get some complicated system. I think it will work, but it's somewhat hard to analyze.

If we completely separate real and free levels, then bots will simply distribute their hash power between real and free levels to maximize the reward.

The equilibrium will be achieved (maybe I'm wrong) when bots real levels hash power will be equal to the sum of bots free levels hash power and humans free levels hash power (if we assume that humans can't mine real blocks and that target time will be adjusted to maintain one free level per block).

If accidentially human hash power will become greater than total bot hash power, there will be no reason for bots to mine free levels at all (but I will be surprised if this happens).

Of course bot can precompute tons of free levels and hold them but what's the point? He would get more reward if he just use that power to compute real levels. Moreover, target time can change and his levels can become useless. And they also can not be used to perform an attack.

I didn't think too much about all of this but I don't see any serious flaw that we cannot overcome somehow (at first sight).

Of course, it's just a draft and needs to be checked and corrected but I still think that we must give humans unlimited time somehow.

You misunderstand my intent.  I am far less interested in the details of your bot as in quantifying the necessary resource contribution to overcome it.

Ok, I don't want to give you my current bot (and if I would how could you be sure that I gave you really the best one I have?). I can help you to measure anything you want by varying my production. Tell me what you want me to do.

But anyway what's the point? I possibly can run it on 1 or 2 or 20 PCs. Or maybe I don't need to pay for electricity or have access to a huge supercomputer for free. How can you be sure that someone doesn't have 100X better bot right now and just waiting for convenient moment to start it.

So I can help you to measure what you want but you will never be sure that this measurements is correct.

The only measurement that can be relatively trusted is if there would be 100 more miners and they would grab 90% of moto and I would not be able to do anything for weeks. It that case you could possibly assume something about my bot power.

but the average alt network has less than 10!

So one of them can easily rent 10X more hash power and get 51% at least for a short period of time?

As I said in PM, this argument is like asking us to "just trust you exclusively, 100%" instead of trusting say 4 guys each with 25% or 100 guys each with 1%.... because those other guys are of course going to be untrustworthy.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd trust the 4 guys each with 25% before the 1 guy with 100% any day.  I don't care who the 5 people in question are, but it holds *especially* true when the 1 guy is saying "no really, just trust me..."

This makes no sense at all.  This claim makes me wonder if you even understand what a 51% attack really is. The whole premise of the blockchain is that it works as long as we don't trust *ANY* one person alone.

I can explain. I spent a lot of time making this bot, then spent time and electricity to mine moto, I also have greate amount of moto right now. What is the reason for me to do anything bad to moto now? Of course if there would be a chance to get 1000000$ by performing something like that I would understand your concern.

On the other hand we would have 4 guys that didn't invest any resources into making bot, they didn't do anything except clicking the button to download it. They have nothing to loose. Any of them can just ask 3 friends or just use some additional PCs and make doublespend just for fun.

If there was 100 miners, one of them would have to find 100-200 PCs to run the bot. This would be much more problematic for him of course.

The problem is that no-one would rationally do this unless they had some way to know that their resource contribution does have some chance at all to "help moto become profitable."

It's just some kind of black-and-white thinking.

Just answer this simple question:

Do you really believe that all guys who accidentially discovered this coin and decided to try to mine moto (I don't talk about you), so do you believe that they then made full research about how many miners there are, how many moto each miner get (they would have to put huge efforts to get this information from the blockchain), how exactly moto works and so on.

Do you believe that they really do all of this, and exactly the result of this research is the TRUE reason why they refuse to mine.

I can understand your concerns about distribution and so on, but I don't think that this is the reason that we have too few miners.

Maybe now, after you wrote about it on this forum it became a reason, but why they didn't mine before?

And I can tell you what I think the reason is:

The lack of good website where they can read information about moto, lack of the block explorer, lack of mining calculator, instructions and direct link to the bot. And, of course, low price and only one exchange.

Also, I think that everybody who tries to use moto, try to mine it by hand first, and those everlasting restarts prevent them from having fun. If they could mine without restarts, maybe then they would try to mine with bot, or just tell their friends about this cool game and they would start to mine too (manually first, and then with bot).

So, let's not overthink too much.

I can try to help you make those "measurements" somehow but don't forget about other ways to cure moto. I'm talking about good website with docs and instructions etc. And of course about eliminating level restarts.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

I didn't think too much about all of this but I don't see any serious flaw that we cannot overcome somehow (at first sight).

This is certainly an improved refinement, but I still see a lot of problems.

How can we assert that a "free" level is not duplicated without checking all prior blocks?  The complexity of checking a block should grow linearly with the number of transactions in the block, and nothing else.  If the time to check a block grows linearly by block depth then this creates a gradual slowdown of the network over time, which is not acceptable.  The only operation that should be linear in block depth is resync!

Of course, it's just a draft and needs to be checked and corrected but I still think that we must give humans unlimited time somehow.

I don't disagree that it would be wonderful to be able to give humans such a gameplay mode.  However, I just don't see how it can be possible without effectively breaking the protocol, meaning making a change that causes it to no longer function soundly in the long term.

Any such solution will need to be done without significant db bloat, without affecting the time-space complexity constraints of the blockchain, and without a significant reduction in security.  So far, this line of reasoning is a "maybe" on the first criteria, and a "no go" on the second.  It is a debate-ably acceptable loss of security. (Half, as proposed.)  The only solution to the block validity complexity problem that I can see so far ends up with a "no go" on the first criteria.  

You misunderstand my intent.  I am far less interested in the details of your bot as in quantifying the necessary resource contribution to overcome it.

Ok, I don't want to give you my current bot (and if I would how could you be sure that I gave you really the best one I have?). I can help you to measure anything you want by varying my production. Tell me what you want me to do.

Let's start with something simple, verifying your domain over the bot.  This could be done in a number of ways... signing a message or sending coins, including some predefined token message into the blockchain, etc.  Your call.

But anyway what's the point? I possibly can run it on 1 or 2 or 20 PCs. Or maybe I don't need to pay for electricity or have access to a huge supercomputer for free. How can you be sure that someone doesn't have 100X better bot right now and just waiting for convenient moment to start it.

We have to assume that all actors are rational.  If someone had a 100x bot it would be irrational for them not to be running it already, so it is safe to assume that there is no such bot.

How many nodes you run it on or what your electricity costs are not relevant.  All that needs to be determined is the actual efficiency of the bot, itself, which needs to be overcome.  We can assume that however many nodes you have or however cheap your electricity is that there will be someone else with comparable resource to apply.  All we really seek to know is how much ("1:1") resource does need to be applied!

So I can help you to measure what you want but you will never be sure that this measurements is correct.

Yes, the only way to fully quantify the efficiency of the bot would be a direct comparison of algorithms.  As you obviously have no interest in sharing such details, the best we can hope for is an approximation.  This would still be better than the nothing that we have now!

The only measurement that can be relatively trusted is if there would be 100 more miners and they would grab 90% of moto and I would not be able to do anything for weeks. It that case you could possibly assume something about my bot power.

Yes, but this is just a restatement of the "we can't get there from here" catch-22.

but the average alt network has less than 10!

So one of them can easily rent 10X more hash power and get 51% at least for a short period of time?

HEH, you must not follow the alts much.  Such shenanigans are not uncommon.

I can explain. I spent a lot of time making this bot, then spent time and electricity to mine moto, I also have greate amount of moto right now. What is the reason for me to do anything bad to moto now? Of course if there would be a chance to get 1000000$ by performing something like that I would understand your concern.

On the other hand we would have 4 guys that didn't invest any resources into making bot, they didn't do anything except clicking the button to download it. They have nothing to loose. Any of them can just ask 3 friends or just use some additional PCs and make doublespend just for fun.

If there was 100 miners, one of them would have to find 100-200 PCs to run the bot. This would be much more problematic for him of course.

I've heard the "I'm heavily invested, so I won't attack" argument many times before.  Usually it was from people who were about to destroy a market, in one way or another...

It is a nice story, but it offers no actual assurances.

The problem is that no-one would rationally do this unless they had some way to know that their resource contribution does have some chance at all to "help moto become profitable."

It's just some kind of black-and-white thinking.

In reasoning there is no other kind of thinking.

Just answer this simple question:

Do you really believe that all guys who accidentially discovered this coin and decided to try to mine moto (I don't talk about you), so do you believe that they then made full research about how many miners there are, how many moto each miner get (they would have to put huge efforts to get this information from the blockchain), how exactly moto works and so on.

Huge efforts?  It is trivial to see how many nodes are submitting blocks, and what the hashrate distribution is.  Any miner who knows the first thing about mining will pay attention to these statistics.

Do you believe that they really do all of this, and exactly the result of this research is the TRUE reason why they refuse to mine.

I can understand your concerns about distribution and so on, but I don't think that this is the reason that we have too few miners.

My concerns are about security of the chain, not about distribution.  (Well, I have separate concerns about distribution, specifically the lack of an end to subsidy, but this is an unrelated open question...)

Maybe now, after you wrote about it on this forum it became a reason, but why they didn't mine before?

It's not like my recent posts about the state of affairs are "news" to anyone.  Just read back over the thread, everyone has been well aware of the 51% attack for quite some time.

And I can tell you what I think the reason is:

The lack of good website where they can read information about moto, lack of the block explorer, lack of mining calculator, instructions and direct link to the bot. And, of course, low price and only one exchange.

Again, all of these concerns are secondary to the security of the network.  Your last point, low price on only one exchange, is a problem directly predicated on the security problem.  It cannot change until the security problem is resolved.

Also, I think that everybody who tries to use moto, try to mine it by hand first, and those everlasting restarts prevent them from having fun. If they could mine without restarts, maybe then they would try to mine with bot, or just tell their friends about this cool game and they would start to mine too (manually first, and then with bot).

"Maybe," but again we have no reason to infer this.

So, let's not overthink too much.

Yes, the last thing that we would want to do is to think too hard... if we did that we might realize something true.  Can't have that.... </sarcasm>

I can try to help you make those "measurements" somehow but don't forget about other ways to cure moto. I'm talking about good website with docs and instructions etc. And of course about eliminating level restarts.

Again I must point out that even if your assumption is correct and we do find a stable way to eliminate level restarts, and this does draw in more people, this is a *BAD* thing, not a good thing, so long as your 51% attack persists.   We cannot bring popularity before security, all that would accomplish is to create more potential victims for your potential attack.  The network must be made secure before it can be made popular or else likely all we are doing is leading sheep to their slaughter.

Again, I must say: I'll not sell snake oil.  I will not promote a coin that is insecure.  I'll not tell people that they should put their money at risk by choice.

Nothing else matters before the security of the chain.

If the network becomes secure again, I'll gladly do these sort of promotions, but not before.  (I'm also highly suspect of anyone who would.)

EDIT: fixed typos

[ElvenArcher]

How can we assert that a "free" level is not duplicated without checking all prior blocks?  The complexity of checking a block should grow linearly with the number of transactions in the block, and nothing else.  If the time to check a block grows linearly by block depth then this creates a gradual slowdown of the network over time, which is not acceptable.  The only operation that should be linear in block depth is resync!

What is the problem? Simple hash table is not enough for this? If you affraid that it will not fit in RAM you can contruct it in some file.

Let's start with something simple, verifying your domain over the bot.  This could be done in a number of ways... signing a message or sending coins, including some predefined token message into the blockchain, etc.  Your call.

LOL So increased or switched-off production will not convince you?