Nexus - Pure SHA3 + CPU/GPU + nPoS + 15 Active Innovations + More to Come

[W0rkH0rse]

For this to be anywhere remotely successful you need a lot of people to get on board. Your wanting 10btc buy walls.... that's a lot of exchanging going on.
Also, why should we trust you? Who's to say your not going to skim off the top before creating these buy walls?
Your trying to hold the decency flag that bit coin has but the sole reason bitcoin was invented is so you don't have to trust ANYONE with your money. Yet you want us to trust you. A Newb account. What's your real bitcointalk username? Your 'heavily' involved so what's your usual handle? Why create a new account?
And don't give me that 'I've been a developer for 10 years bull' on bitcointalk everyone should assume guilty before innocent.
Prove me wrong.

You don't wear a ski mask into a bank unless you need to make a clean getaway. And senior forum members crawling out of the woodwork to shower this coin with praise on page 1 is red flag #2.

[1714029721]

1714029721

[1714029721]

1714029721

[1714029721]

1714029721

[1714029721]

1714029721

[1714029721]

1714029721

[Videlicet]

so after one hour:
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.1) + 3 = 52.99
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.5) + 3 = 52.99
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.99) + 3 = 52.99

and after 5 years:
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.1) + 3 = 40.44
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.5) + 3 = 14.78
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.99) + 3 = 6.707

okay.

How does the transition from PoW to PoS work, and over what time/block period?

Block Times: [1 Minute POW, 10 Minute POS] transitioning to [10 Minute POW, 1 Minute POS]

This is how it will transition from POW to POS, to where POS will be doing more of the block work after the 10 year initial distribution.
As to your work, here, let me explain a little more:

so after one hour: with chain time exactly at target [60 blocks]:
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 1) + 3 = 52.996700451033118179646670870886

so after one hour: with chain time too fast [120 blocks]
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 120 * 0.5) + 3 = 52.996700451033118179646670870886 [THIS IS THE SAME AS IF TARGET WERE EXACT]

This will adjust the block reward to be at target of 1 hours distribution, not 2 hours. If the modular was not in place, the distribution equations could be highly inflationary. I have a graphing program I developed that will graph the three block rewards if you would like to get a visual idea of how the graphs interact [created this to determine the equations].

~Videlicet

[coinsolidation]

so after one hour:
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.1) + 3 = 52.99
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.5) + 3 = 52.99
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.99) + 3 = 52.99

and after 5 years:
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.1) + 3 = 40.44
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.5) + 3 = 14.78
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.99) + 3 = 6.707

okay.

How does the transition from PoW to PoS work, and over what time/block period?

Block Times: [1 Minute POW, 10 Minute POS] transitioning to [10 Minute POW, 1 Minute POS]

This is how it will transition from POW to POS, to where POS will be doing more of the block work after the 10 year initial distribution.

Okay, I can graph the PoW blocks now over multiple years.

Over what block numbers will the transition from PoW to PoS take place? 1m PoW at block 1, 10m PoW by block x? (what is x)

[Videlicet]

It follows an exponential decay model, which follows a curve to ease shock to market. It will be minable forever, with minimal inflation of 1-3% after initial distribution which will decay to a minimum in around 10 years. Coinshield was designed to have longevity, and be a stable container for wealth for many years to come.

Isn't that when an atom has too many photons orbiting the nucleus and sheds some to become a different atom?

Yes! You have found it! I based these equations on a radioactive decay model, which is the emission of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma particles which are a Helium Ion of +2 charge, a Stray Electron, and high frequency electromagnetic field. The reason I chose this model using the transcendental number e, is that it is the most natural base for exponential growth/decay which is found in population models, radioactive decay, and so on. Satoshi used the block reward halving which is just a decay model of x/2, but not a very smooth decay I should say  

[optional details] the nucleus of an atom decays because it has too many neutrons per proton [unstable isotope], which is the cause of radiation.


Thank you for a very good question,
~Videlicet

[Videlicet]

so after one hour:
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.1) + 3 = 52.99
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.5) + 3 = 52.99
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 60 * 0.99) + 3 = 52.99

and after 5 years:
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.1) + 3 = 40.44
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.5) + 3 = 14.78
50 * e^(-0.0000011 * 2628000 * 0.99) + 3 = 6.707

okay.

How does the transition from PoW to PoS work, and over what time/block period?

Block Times: [1 Minute POW, 10 Minute POS] transitioning to [10 Minute POW, 1 Minute POS]

This is how it will transition from POW to POS, to where POS will be doing more of the block work after the 10 year initial distribution.

Okay, I can graph the PoW blocks now over multiple years.

Over what block numbers will the transition from PoW to PoS take place? 1m PoW at block 1, 10m PoW by block x? (what is x)

It will start the transition from the beginning of mining, and slowly move towards its target over 10 years. This will have a very smooth transition, over a long period of time to prevent any shock created from too many rapid changes in the mining environment.

EDIT: nHeight would be 60 * 24 * 365.25 * 10 = 5259600
EDIT: The equation to reduce block time would be using ln, where to increase would be e. ln(x) will always be increasing forever, but less and less as x increases. e will reduce to a 0, which can be used to set a minimum as in the distribution equations.

Example for POS e^(decayRate * nHeight * timeMod) + minimum time
Example for POW ln((nHeight*timeMod)^2) / ln((nHeight * timeMod) + CONSTANT)  [CONSTANT REGULATES RATE]

the first ln divided by second allows us to control the rate of increase on ln function

~Videlicet

[coinsolidation]

Let's put in some constants and swap the last variable to 1 since block time won't vary that much on this coin...

Block 120 (2 hours):
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*120)+3 = 52.99
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 120) + 0.1 = 1.09

Block 525600 (1 year):
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*525600)+3 = 31.04
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 525600) + 0.1 = 0.83

Block 2628000 (5 year):
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*2628000)+3 = 5.776
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 2628000) + 0.1 = 0.312

So you start taking roughly 2%, rising to 2.7% after a year, and 5.4% after 5 years.

Unsure what to say, that's a horrible unfair greedy amount to try and take, and to try and mask using relatively complex equations.

[Videlicet]

Let's put in some constants and swap the last variable to 1 since block time won't vary that much on this coin...

Block 120 (2 hours):
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*120)+3 = 52.99
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 120) + 0.1 = 1.09

Block 525600 (1 year):
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*525600)+3 = 31.04
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 525600) + 0.1 = 0.83

Block 2628000 (5 year):
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*2628000)+3 = 5.776
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 2628000) + 0.1 = 0.312

So you start taking roughly 2%, rising to 2.7% after a year, and 5.4% after 5 years.

Unsure what to say, that's a horrible unfair greedy amount to try and take, and to try and mask using relatively complex equations.

You are forgetting the Coinshield Channels, and that value per block does not mean higher value overall in exponential decay:

Block 120 (2 hours): 1.09 / 67.07 = [1.6% per block]
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*120)+3 = 52.99
Channels: 10 * e^(-0.00000055 * 120) + 3 = 12.99
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 120) + 0.1 = 1.09

Block 525600 (1 year): 0.83 / 42.36 = [1.9% per block]
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*525600)+3 = 31.04
Channels: 10 * e^(-0.00000055 * 525600) + 3 = 10.49
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 525600) + 0.1 = 0.83

COIN SUPPLY, 1 YEAR: 28,545,067
Total Mined: 21,801,631 [76% to miners]
Total Channel: 6,231,778 [21% to traders]
Total Dev: 511,658 [1.7% dev]

Block 2628000 (5 year): 0.312 / 11.438 = [2.7% per block]
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*2628000)+3 = 5.776
Channels: 10 * e^(-0.00000055 * 2628000]) + 3 = 5.35
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 2628000) + 0.1 = 0.312

COIN SUPPLY, 5 YEARS: 74,341,701
Total Mined: 50,888,959 [68% to miners]
Total Channel: 21,850,548 [29% to traders]
Total Dev: 1,602,194 [2.1% dev]

Block 5256000 (10 year): 0.145 / 6.845 = [2.1% per block]
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*5256000) + 3 = 3.15
Channels: 10 * e^(-0.00000055 * 5256000]) + 3 = 3.55
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 5256000) + 0.1 = 0.145

COIN SUPPLY 10 YEARS: 96,156,860
Total Mined: 61,077,806 [63% to miners]
Total Channel: 32,935,024 [34% to traders]
Total Dev: 2,144,030 [2.2% dev]



This graph is from the modeling program I used to design the equations.

EDIT: As you will notice, the channels do increase in [%] over time. This gives them more longevity.

~Videlicet

[gjhiggins]

Less coins in the marketplace, and tougher launch requirements are only the beginning of Coinshield.

Is there a consensus that fewer altcoins in the marketplace is a Good Thing? Is reducing the number actually one of the goals of the project and if so, do you have any equations which model it?

Could you say more about the “tougher launch requirements”, perhaps even describe some of them? As you might guess, I'd be interested in what you've come up with in terms of operational definitions.
 

Cheers

Graham


Edit removed stray markup from text

[Videlicet]

Less coins in the marketplace, and tougher launch requirements are only the beginning of Coinshield. [/I][/SIZE]

Is there a consensus that fewer altcoins in the marketplace is a Good Thing? Is reducing the number actually one of the goals of the project and if so, do you have any equations which model it?

Could you say more about the “tougher launch requirements”, perhaps even describe some of them? As you might guess, I'd be interested in what you've come up with in terms of operational definitions.
 

Cheers

Graham

This is entirely up to the community. As this community grows, they will gain a voice to be able to set the standard of quality that they deem fit. This is done through the voting systems.

~Videlicet

[gjhiggins]

This is entirely up to the community. As this community grows, they will gain a voice to be able to set the standard of quality that they deem fit. This is done through the voting systems.

That sort of raises more questions than it answers but perhaps I'm enquiring about an aspect of the project that is yet to be fully detailed.

I don't see any mention of an appeals or grievance procedure, have you considered that aspect yet?

Cheers,

Graham

[Videlicet]

This is entirely up to the community. As this community grows, they will gain a voice to be able to set the standard of quality that they deem fit. This is done through the voting systems.

That sort of raises more questions than it answers but perhaps I'm enquiring about an aspect of the project that is yet to be fully detailed.

I don't see any mention of an appeals or grievance procedure, have you considered that aspect yet?

Cheers,

Graham

That can be done through our forums, there can be a petition to add to voting, or appeals to remove from voting. Each one will require the user who submits it to supply proof as to whether to keep/kill coin. If community agrees through opinions on thread, and finally a voting poll, the coin will be added/removed to the voting system on main site. From there it is up to the community to vote that coin to the top of voting list to be the first one to have an exchange channel opened [once a channel is opened however, there will be no appeals]. From there, the dominoes fall, and everybody can agree that the coin needed to be gone. The limit is really with the people, there are no details because that is for all of you - The People - to decide.

~Videlicet

[KryptoKash]

For the next 10 days Videlicet will be focusing on the code. Any technical/advanced code questions will still be answered by him however there will be a delay in his replies. I will relay any suggestions that are posted to him as they come in. We both appreciate all the recommendations that have been posted thus far. Together I know we will build a better coin.

~KryptoKash

[gjhiggins]

Each one will require the user who submits it to supply proof as to whether to keep/kill coin.

I infer the above to be an ad hoc response. I appreciate we're conversing across a language barrier here and that you are doing far more work than I am but I don't think you mean “proof”, do you? You mean "argument", i.e. subjective rather than objective, opinion rather than fact.

You evidently have the arithmetic down cold but your declared project goals are, in practice, abandoned to the whim of the coinshield forum subscribers. I choose the more precise label because holders of coins disapproved of (for arbitrary reasons) by the coinshield subscribers also warrant recognition as a community. You apparently wish to tar the coin holders with the same broad brush you use to tar the coin devisers/operators.

You are making the mistake of treating shitcoin holders as shit coinholders. They're not the same thing at all.

This is a direct consequence of you omitting to define the term SHITCOIN, even though you use it freely as central plank of your story (support for your claims is noticeably absent from your post). You will likely discover the magnitude of this error the first time you openly and deliberately attempt organised manipulation of trading at an exchange in order to drive down the price and thus the worth of people's investments. (That is, more or less, your stated intention is it not?)

I recommend you adjust your budget to accommodate the consequences of collateral damage.


Cheers

Graham

[Videlicet]

Each one will require the user who submits it to supply proof as to whether to keep/kill coin.

I infer the above to be an ad hoc response. I appreciate we're conversing across a language barrier here and that you are doing far more work than I am but I don't think you mean “proof”, do you? You mean "argument", i.e. subjective rather than objective, opinion rather than fact.

You evidently have the arithmetic down cold but your declared project goals are, in practice, abandoned to the whim of the coinshield forum subscribers. I choose the more precise label because holders of coins disapproved of (for arbitrary reasons) by the coinshield subscribers also warrant recognition as a community. You apparently wish to tar the coin holders with the same broad brush you use to tar the coin devisers/operators.

You are making the mistake of treating shitcoin holders as shit coinholders. They're not the same thing at all.

This is a direct consequence of you omitting to define the term SHITCOIN, even though you use it freely as central plank of your story (support for your claims is noticeably absent from your post). You will likely discover the magnitude of this error the first time you openly and deliberately attempt organised manipulation of trading at an exchange in order to drive down the price and thus the worth of people's investments. (That is, more or less, your stated intention is it not?)

I recommend you adjust your budget to accommodate the consequences of collateral damage.


Cheers

Graham

Would you care to give a more detailed explanation on what adjustments should be made?

EDIT: I would like to point out, that it will be the community deciding the definition of [shit]coin, and the definition of what is acceptable. This will require them to state their best argument and support it with any and all facts in the petition/appeal. The purpose of us as the developers is to accurately reflect the community's voice through the software I develop, and the community that will grow on coinshieldtalk.org.

~Videlicet

[gjhiggins]

Would you care to give a more detailed explanation on what adjustments should be made?

As the project lead, you're in a better position than I to assess the relative risks.

EDIT: I would also like to point out, that it will be the community deciding the definition of [shit]coin, and the definition of what is acceptable.

I think we're at cross-purposes, I'll present a more abstract view:

The entire business model for this altcoin is predicated on the continuous cannibalisation of other altcoins, declared to be "shitcoin". The context thus capriciously forces a choice where otherwise none would exist - see previous threads for several "let's kick shitcoin butt" coins, none of which were able to develop a widely-accepted target acquisition method.

Here, this is overcome by the creation of a restrictive contest frame that artificially forces the acquisition of a target. It's an ugly contest in which the first prize is extinction. Responsibility for the consequences is abrogated to a group of forum subscribers, apparently as proxy for "the community".

We could just cut to the chase, renaming it CannibalisingCoin to more accurately reflect reality; it's an altcoin that can only survive by feeding off other altcoins declared to be "shitcoin". Hence my keen interest in the definition of foodcoin shitcoin.

Could you give an idea of how many altcoins are intended to be consumed over a period of say, the first year? Or is that something I should be deriving for myself from the arithmetic provided?

Cheers,

Graham

[Videlicet]

Would you care to give a more detailed explanation on what adjustments should be made?

As the project lead, you're in a better position than I to assess the relative risks.

EDIT: I would also like to point out, that it will be the community deciding the definition of [shit]coin, and the definition of what is acceptable.

I think we're at cross-purposes, I'll present a more abstract view:

The entire business model for this altcoin is predicated on the continuous cannibalisation of other altcoins, declared to be "shitcoin". The context thus capriciously forces a choice where otherwise none would exist - see previous threads for several "let's kick shitcoin butt" coins, none of which were able to develop a widely-accepted target acquisition method.

Here, this is overcome by the creation of a restrictive contest frame that artificially forces the acquisition of a target. It's an ugly contest in which the first prize is extinction. Responsibility for the consequences is abrogated to a group of forum subscribers, apparently as proxy for "the community".

We could just cut to the chase, renaming it CannibalisingCoin to more accurately reflect reality; it's an altcoin that can only survive by feeding off other altcoins declared to be "shitcoin". Hence my keen interest in the definition of foodcoin shitcoin.

Could you give an idea of how many altcoins are intended to be consumed over a period of say, the first year? Or is that something I should be deriving for myself from the arithmetic provided?

Cheers,

Graham

I hate being taken away from my wonderful world of code, but this question needed an appropriate answer [I like your thinking Graham].

I appreciate an intelligible conversation, but for cannibalizing this is not. We are giving the community the choices of a better option for an investment. The way Coin Shield is designed is to be a "return" to cover your losses if you have gotten taken into a bad investment, remember "Protecting Quality in Crypto Currencies". I have been tirelessly working on the code for about 8 weeks now, to fully understand how it works, and develop my own modifications that I feel would be an asset to a currency. Coin Shield does not need to destroy a coin to go anywhere, that is just an [option] people now have to use if they feel it is necessary - this is why I say it is all up to the community.

I am not one to determine what coins should stay or go, I only realize that at this moment in time, it is the wild west out here, and I hope we can all join together through a cause to bring some order in this chaos. I believe personally this will create a new breeding ground of quality, and that in the future, speculators would not turn their heads because they see things called "TomatoCoin". To me, personally, this is an insult to Satoshi, he did the heavy lifting for Bitcoin, and now everyone is ripping him off. You even speak with such a skepticism because everyone on the forum is going rampid trolling, spamming, etc [the reason I have received such scrutiny].

For me personally, I am lifting heavy things by spending 16-20 hours daily programming for the past 8 weeks, because I am following in the footsteps of Satoshi. This is our vision, to protect Satoshi's; and if anyone still cares about that, we can work together to protect it.

Think Clearly, not Deeply
~Videlicet

EDIT: The business model here is community opinion, which does not deem any coin has to be destroyed. It is entirely up to the public [people like you], to decide [if any] what coins are to be destroyed.

[gjhiggins]

For me personally, I am lifting ...

Yes, you're right, time to get back to work. I had hoped to persuade you of the folly of failing to define your terms; on reflection I realise you'll undoubtedly gain more all-round benefit by developing your own understanding.

Good luck with it all.

Cheers,

Graham

[Videlicet]

For me personally, I am lifting ...

Yes, you're right, time to get back to work. I had hoped to persuade you of the folly of failing to define your terms; on reflection I realise you'll undoubtedly gain more all-round benefit by developing your own understanding.

Good luck with it all.

Cheers,

Graham

Or by being able to accurately interpret the communities understanding, as we are only a reflection of public opinion.

Thank You [Graham],
~Videlicet

[gjhiggins]

Or by being able to accurately interpret the communities understanding

Ah, sorry, I should have been more explicit.

I intended the meaning to be "develop your own understanding of the consequences of failing to define your terms" and that's what I should have written.

Cheers,

Graham

[Videlicet]

Or by being able to accurately interpret the communities understanding

Ah, sorry, I should have been more explicit.

I intended the meaning to be "develop your own understanding of the consequences of failing to define your terms" and that's what I should have written.

Cheers,

Graham

Ah yes, I understand you now. You are welcome to direct suggestions to KryptoKash on definition of terms, and we can modify the OP to reflect just that [as you are currently the only public opinion concerning this matter].

~Videlicet