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

[Videlicet]

you can make it multi-algo too, like myriadcoin or saffroncoin

combined with POS, it would be a first 

Already doing! There will be a CPU channel [with scientific validity], a GPU channel [custom algorithm being decided by community], and POS channel.

Good Thinking 

~Videlicet

[1713949501]

1713949501

[1713949501]

1713949501

[1713949501]

1713949501

[1713949501]

1713949501

[1713949501]

1713949501

[bigreddmachine]

I've been a bitcointalk lurker for month and months, and this announcement actually made me register an account because I have so many issues with this idea.

If you all are actually serious about this, and not just scammers, you'll do the following before launching...

1) Announce this coin on every major crypto community online

2) Push your launch date back at least a month so that more and better input can come

3) Get multiple major exchanges on board with the idea

4) Make all of your code open source with at least 2 weeks to go before launch so that the community can review what you are working on


It is troubling that two random, anonymous guys with no history on these forums are announcing a coin that they promise is 100% for the good of the crypto community.  It is even more troubling that the so-called lead developer has supposedly had to spend so much time looking at the code to understand what is going on in whatever code you are trying to fork.  And yet ever more troubling is the fact that you've so far acted almost as if you really don't know very much about any of the alternative mining algorithms out there, about possibilities of FPGA development, and about what it would take to develop your own mining algorithm.

I'm sorry, but the only way a project like this should ever gain any community support is if guys like Gavin Andresen, Charlie Lee, and even the pseudonymous Sunny King were to come on board as a collective of developers interested in contributing.

Not to mention the fact that your entire premise is pretty foul... "Have you been taken by a dev of a bad coin?  Let's stick it to all the people that still hold and believe in that coin as fair retribution!  If we get enough people, we can take over the altcoin world one coin at a time!"  This whole thing sounds like a half-baked scheme of militants looking to take over regions in the TV show Revolution.  Quite frankly, the bottom line with cryptocurrency is that you should never invest what you can't afford to lose, and no one forced you to ever participate in a bad coin.  If you really want to avoid "scam" coins, then don't invest in them.  Do some research before you get involved in something, and properly assess the risks you are taking by jumping on a coin.

By the way, your sign off "Think clearly, not deeply" is the biggest joke I've ever seen.  If you're not thinking deeply, you shouldn't be involved in developing a new currency.

[Videlicet]

I've been a bitcointalk lurker for month and months, and this announcement actually made me register an account because I have so many issues with this idea.

If you all are actually serious about this, and not just scammers, you'll do the following before launching...

1) Announce this coin on every major crypto community online

2) Push your launch date back at least a month so that more and better input can come

3) Get multiple major exchanges on board with the idea

4) Make all of your code open source with at least 2 weeks to go before launch so that the community can review what you are working on


It is troubling that two random, anonymous guys with no history on these forums are announcing a coin that they promise is 100% for the good of the crypto community.  It is even more troubling that the so-called lead developer has supposedly had to spend so much time looking at the code to understand what is going on in whatever code you are trying to fork.  And yet ever more troubling is the fact that you've so far acted almost as if you really don't know very much about any of the alternative mining algorithms out there, about possibilities of FPGA development, and about what it would take to develop your own mining algorithm.

I'm sorry, but the only way a project like this should ever gain any community support is if guys like Gavin Andresen, Charlie Lee, and even the pseudonymous Sunny King were to come on board as a collective of developers interested in contributing.

Not to mention the fact that your entire premise is pretty foul... "Have you been taken by a dev of a bad coin?  Let's stick it to all the people that still hold and believe in that coin as fair retribution!  If we get enough people, we can take over the altcoin world one coin at a time!"  This whole thing sounds like a half-baked scheme of militants looking to take over regions in the TV show Revolution.  Quite frankly, the bottom line with cryptocurrency is that you should never invest what you can't afford to lose, and no one forced you to ever participate in a bad coin.  If you really want to avoid "scam" coins, then don't invest in them.  Do some research before you get involved in something, and properly assess the risks you are taking by jumping on a coin.

By the way, your sign off "Think clearly, not deeply" is the biggest joke I've ever seen.  If you're not thinking deeply, you shouldn't be involved in developing a new currency.

Every place needs a starting point [just as you have found, with your registering an account here]. This is balanced with my exact circumstances.

The first point of Coinshield is to be a useful coin, with innovative features that the community as a whole can take part in. Some of these innovations include [custom CPU POW channel, custom GPU POW channel (not for FPGA use), Custom Difficulty, Time Based Distribution]. The second aspect of Coinshield is the [option] of speaking up about anything in the industry that needs to be [cleaned] or [protected].

Think Clearly, Not Deeply ~ Nikola Tesla [might wan't to check out a quote before you flame someone who invented the modern world  ]

~Videlicet

[phzi]

Certainly an interesting idea.  I look forward to seeing the algorithm choice - please use something memory hard.

[bigreddmachine]

Every place needs a starting point [just as you have found, with your registering an account here]. This is balanced with my exact circumstances.

The first point of Coinshield is to be a useful coin, with innovative features that the community as a whole can take part in. Some of these innovations include [custom CPU POW channel, custom GPU POW channel (not for FPGA use), Custom Difficulty, Time Based Distribution]. The second aspect of Coinshield is the [option] of speaking up about anything in the industry that needs to be [cleaned] or [protected].

Think Clearly, Not Deeply ~ Nikola Tesla [might wan't to check out a quote before you flame someone who invented the modern world  ]

~Videlicet

Thank you for replying to none of my concerns.  I appreciate that you are trying to introduce new innovations via this coin, but your middle paragraph only serves to avoid answering any of the points I raised.  This further causes me great angst as to the motives of this coin.

As for your Tesla quote, you might want to check your own quote before you flame someone who raised legitimate concerns that you chose to ignore.  Nicola Tesla said "The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."  This is a far cry from "Think clearly, not deeply."  Tesla said that scientists wrongly assume that thinking deeply is an acceptable alternative to thinking clearly, and that in doing so they are likely to lead themselves astray.  He does not say that one should think clearly and not deeply.  While a sane person thinks clearly, a sane person who wants to make major contributions to society does both... he/she thinks both clearly and deeply.

Now, again, I would like to raise my concerns a second time, and would appreciate an actual response:

I've been a bitcointalk lurker for month and months, and this announcement actually made me register an account because I have so many issues with this idea.

If you all are actually serious about this, and not just scammers, you'll do the following before launching...

1) Announce this coin on every major crypto community online

2) Push your launch date back at least a month so that more and better input can come

3) Get multiple major exchanges on board with the idea

4) Make all of your code open source with at least 2 weeks to go before launch so that the community can review what you are working on


It is troubling that two random, anonymous guys with no history on these forums are announcing a coin that they promise is 100% for the good of the crypto community.  It is even more troubling that the so-called lead developer has supposedly had to spend so much time looking at the code to understand what is going on in whatever code you are trying to fork.  And yet ever more troubling is the fact that you've so far acted almost as if you really don't know very much about any of the alternative mining algorithms out there, about possibilities of FPGA development, and about what it would take to develop your own mining algorithm.

I'm sorry, but the only way a project like this should ever gain any community support is if guys like Gavin Andresen, Charlie Lee, and even the pseudonymous Sunny King were to come on board as a collective of developers interested in contributing.

Not to mention the fact that your entire premise is pretty foul... "Have you been taken by a dev of a bad coin?  Let's stick it to all the people that still hold and believe in that coin as fair retribution!  If we get enough people, we can take over the altcoin world one coin at a time!"  This whole thing sounds like a half-baked scheme of militants looking to take over regions in the TV show Revolution.  Quite frankly, the bottom line with cryptocurrency is that you should never invest what you can't afford to lose, and no one forced you to ever participate in a bad coin.  If you really want to avoid "scam" coins, then don't invest in them.  Do some research before you get involved in something, and properly assess the risks you are taking by jumping on a coin.

By the way, your sign off "Think clearly, not deeply" is the biggest joke I've ever seen.  If you're not thinking deeply, you shouldn't be involved in developing a new currency.

[Videlicet]

Every place needs a starting point [just as you have found, with your registering an account here]. This is balanced with my exact circumstances.

The first point of Coinshield is to be a useful coin, with innovative features that the community as a whole can take part in. Some of these innovations include [custom CPU POW channel, custom GPU POW channel (not for FPGA use), Custom Difficulty, Time Based Distribution]. The second aspect of Coinshield is the [option] of speaking up about anything in the industry that needs to be [cleaned] or [protected].

Think Clearly, Not Deeply ~ Nikola Tesla [might wan't to check out a quote before you flame someone who invented the modern world  ]

~Videlicet

Thank you for replying to none of my concerns.  I appreciate that you are trying to introduce new innovations via this coin, but your middle paragraph only serves to avoid answering any of the points I raised.  This further causes me great angst as to the motives of this coin.

As for your Tesla quote, you might want to check your own quote before you flame someone who raised legitimate concerns that you chose to ignore.  Nicola Tesla said "The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."  This is a far cry from "Think clearly, not deeply."  Tesla said that scientists wrongly assume that thinking deeply is an acceptable alternative to thinking clearly, and that in doing so they are likely to lead themselves astray.  He does not say that one should think clearly and not deeply.  While a sane person thinks clearly, a sane person who wants to make major contributions to society does both... he/she thinks both clearly and deeply.

Now, again, I would like to raise my concerns a second time, and would appreciate an actual response:

I've been a bitcointalk lurker for month and months, and this announcement actually made me register an account because I have so many issues with this idea.

If you all are actually serious about this, and not just scammers, you'll do the following before launching...

1) Announce this coin on every major crypto community online

2) Push your launch date back at least a month so that more and better input can come

3) Get multiple major exchanges on board with the idea

4) Make all of your code open source with at least 2 weeks to go before launch so that the community can review what you are working on


It is troubling that two random, anonymous guys with no history on these forums are announcing a coin that they promise is 100% for the good of the crypto community.  It is even more troubling that the so-called lead developer has supposedly had to spend so much time looking at the code to understand what is going on in whatever code you are trying to fork.  And yet ever more troubling is the fact that you've so far acted almost as if you really don't know very much about any of the alternative mining algorithms out there, about possibilities of FPGA development, and about what it would take to develop your own mining algorithm.

I'm sorry, but the only way a project like this should ever gain any community support is if guys like Gavin Andresen, Charlie Lee, and even the pseudonymous Sunny King were to come on board as a collective of developers interested in contributing.

Not to mention the fact that your entire premise is pretty foul... "Have you been taken by a dev of a bad coin?  Let's stick it to all the people that still hold and believe in that coin as fair retribution!  If we get enough people, we can take over the altcoin world one coin at a time!"  This whole thing sounds like a half-baked scheme of militants looking to take over regions in the TV show Revolution.  Quite frankly, the bottom line with cryptocurrency is that you should never invest what you can't afford to lose, and no one forced you to ever participate in a bad coin.  If you really want to avoid "scam" coins, then don't invest in them.  Do some research before you get involved in something, and properly assess the risks you are taking by jumping on a coin.

By the way, your sign off "Think clearly, not deeply" is the biggest joke I've ever seen.  If you're not thinking deeply, you shouldn't be involved in developing a new currency.

Thank you for raising these concerns [they are being taken into account]. As for a debate of semantics, I simply do not have the time.

EDIT: I decided to take some time to explain your points, so please let us have some decency:
1) Announce this coin on every major crypto community online - The purpose of Coinshield is not to be based on hype, but based on clarity and attention. Hype is the general fuel of [shit]coins.
2) Push your launch date back at least a month so that more and better input can come - Possible yes, but up to community. The launch date can always be extended.
3) Get multiple major exchanges on board with the idea - This is a classic tactic of any [shit]coin, innovative coins get picked up by exchanges naturally.
4) Make all of your code open source with at least 2 weeks to go before launch so that the community can review what you are working on - This would allow anyone to steal code before launch. We will release source code at the launch time, though are willing to cooperate with other developers interested in helping on this project [before or after launch].

I will say, that this a good point

a sane person who wants to make major contributions to society does both... he/she thinks both clearly and deeply.

+1

edit: slight rewording to point 4, updated edit header

Certainly an interesting idea.  I look forward to seeing the algorithm choice - please use something memory hard.

To clarify your usage of terminology, you say memory hard as requiring a lot of memory? Is this in reference to the CPU channel, or the GPU channel?

~Videlicet

[BitSlapper]

scrypt jane sucks  (need a lot of ram - high power usage)

Groestl algo seems to be a good choice for me or Qubit for example

Well it was a suggestion for the GPU mining algorithm not the CPU. Seemed like they already had an algorithm setup for the CPU.

Also ...more memory intensive is more ASIC resistant.

Groestl is really better for CPU miners to feel like they can compete with GPU miners and Qubit is really just more for CPU miners.

If you have more suggestions or reasons than just "it sucks" then please respond with them. 

[gjhiggins]

The purpose of Coinshield is not to be based on hype, but based on clarity and attention. Hype is the general fuel of [shit]coins.

The two sentences above are semantically vacuous. The phrase "based on clarity and attention" is meaningless. If that interpretation puzzles you, try: "farm fresh" and "investor assured", all three are classic examples of "hype", deceptive statements that to the casual glance appear coherent but which on deeper analysis reveal no commonly-understood semantics for that particular juxtaposition.

The fleshing out of the details of the target acquisition system reveals your use of the term [shit]coin to be unsupportable. There are no restrictions on the subject of the petitions, nor can there be without you risking unanswerable accusations of interference. You have no means of ascertaining in advance which coins will be targeted nor is the selection under your control, so your use of [shit]coin is unsupported. The most accurate term available to you is "successfully petitioned", the next most accurate term is "possibly [shit]coin". We remain crucially unenlightened about your interpretation of the meaning of the term [shit]coin, a gloom that merely deepens in the presence of "based on clarity and attention".

It's not going to improve your communication if you continue using the term [shit]coin when you're unable to allow the reader an opportunity to check their understanding against yours.

Given your statement "Hype is the general fuel of [shit]coins" and your use of the phrase "based on clarity and attention", a clear match with other phrases categorized as "hype", would you conclude that CoinShield meets your definition of a [shit]coin and if not, why not?

My directness is pursuant to brevity, I'm under too much time pressure to ensure a moderate tone throughout, no offence meant, not personal.

Cheers

Graham

[Nxtblg]

A very intriguing concept!

Just one flaw I can think of: if CoinShield takes off, the usual suspects will change their 'business model' to deliberately creating crapcoins to dump on Coinshield. Back in the days of J.D. Rockefeller, old J.D. had the idea of monopolizing the refinery sector by buying out Standard competitors at a premium. One joker saw that he could build refineries and make a quick profit by selling into Standard's open offer. Reportedly he built three before J.P found out.

Videlicet and I have discussed this very scenario and came up with a way to prevent this from happening. The systems trade algorithm will prevent shitcoins from purposely dumping on us. I'll have Videlicet explain the details behind his code when he takes a breather from his coding session.
Thank you
~KryptoKash

This could work - but the only way to "prevent" is not by eliminating possibility, but by making the profits of such a scheme minimized. The way this can be done, would be through the channels. Let us say that coin X is verified by Coinshield Community, and coin Y clones it. Coin Y will have an exchange channel opened, because coin X community noticed the forgery. Coin Y having been newly launched will not have much value in the Coinshield Channels [because it is a case of forgery, and has no longevity as a coin]. This will deter such acts, for in order for anyone to make any sort of money with such a scheme, they would need to make an innovative coin [in order to survive forgery scrutiny, build a value, then destroy with profits]. This is the expense for profits, for why would anyone spend time to innovate just to petition their own destruction? [let alone be able to convince the community that this innovation needs to die].

As a community we can work together to create an environment of decency, respect, and quality.

EDIT: slight restructuring / rewording after last proofread

~Videlicet

Of course, J.D. Rockefeller's "algorithm" was much simpler: pay a premium, because otherwise the competitors he wanted to buy from wouldn't sell their refineries. And of course, that algo (if you will) had the fatal flaw of encouraging jokers to build refineries solely for the sake of selling them. That's why he gave up, called his premiums "blackmail," and went back to keeping Standard's margins low in the hopes that cost saving would do for Standard what his masterly plan totally flopped at.

Speaking of low margins, antitrust back in tha day actually made big companies culpable for charging too low a price. Alcoa was nailed for doing precisely that in the 1940s. I'm quite serious.

That model of antitrust sort-of reached the joke phase in the late 1970s because of something the Johnson Administration's Justice Department did on the last day of Lyndon Johnson's Presidency. They sued IBM for monopolizing the computer industry...

...Fast forward ten years, or 1979 when the Apple II was the iPhone of the time, when the case was still pending:

Fanboi #1: "Did you know that IBM is being sued by the Justice department?"
Fanboi #2 - interested: "Oh yeah? For what?"
Fanboi #1, with big fanboi grin: "For monopolizing the computer market!"
Fanboi #2: "Fuuck! No wonder things are so fucked up there!"

Yep, that was the early computer geeks' exact introduction to the wonderful world of antitrust law - before the reforms undertook by the Reagan Administration.

No wonder the old socialist Leonard Silk called capitalism "the moving target"

But that said, people you look down on are often smarter than you think. I might suggest running your plans by a good economist or two.

[BitSlapper]

The purpose of Coinshield is not to be based on hype, but based on clarity and attention. Hype is the general fuel of [shit]coins.

The two sentences above are semantically vacuous. The phrase "based on clarity and attention" is meaningless. If that interpretation puzzles you, try: "farm fresh" and "investor assured", all three are classic examples of "hype", deceptive statements that to the casual glance appear coherent but which on deeper analysis reveal no commonly-understood semantics for that particular juxtaposition.

The fleshing out of the details of the target acquisition system reveals your use of the term [shit]coin to be unsupportable. There are no restrictions on the subject of the petitions, nor can there be without you risking unanswerable accusations of interference. You have no means of ascertaining in advance which coins will be targeted nor is the selection under your control, so your use of [shit]coin is unsupported. The most accurate term available to you is "successfully petitioned", the next most accurate term is "possibly [shit]coin". We remain crucially unenlightened about your interpretation of the meaning of the term [shit]coin, a gloom that merely deepens in the presence of "based on clarity and attention".

It's not going to improve your communication if you continue using the term [shit]coin when you're unable to allow the reader an opportunity to check their understanding against yours.

Given your statement "Hype is the general fuel of [shit]coins" and your use of the phrase "based on clarity and attention", a clear match with other phrases categorized as "hype", would you conclude that CoinShield meets your definition of a [shit]coin and if not, why not?

My directness is pursuant to brevity, I'm under too much time pressure to ensure a moderate tone throughout, no offence meant, not personal.

Cheers

Graham

Someone used their thesaurus today , jk.


Graham makes a great point.

I like the idea of the community voting as to which coin is actually targeted. However, without predetermined parameters as to what a [shit]coin actually is then anyone with a grudge against a certain coin can just submit a petition based on nothing but personal opinion. If they in turn get enough friends/followers to help promote their petition then you have a potential for a perfectly valid coin being labeled as a [shit]coin.

A great compromise to the issue is to let the community put together suggestions as to what a [shit]coin actually is before Coin Shield is launched. The suggestions that are agreed upon most by all users are then the base for determining what a [shit]coin is from that point, so there can be some protection from abusing the system.

Some suggestions might be:

1. A coin is an exact copy of another, besides name.
2. The coin changed only simple things such as block reward count and block time.

After the parameters are defined and agreed upon then a Thread on the Coin Shield forums can be setup as guidelines for submitting a valid petition.

[KryptoKash]

Give us more suggestions on what you define a shitcoin to be. So far we have 2 suggestions from BitSlapper:

1. A coin is an exact copy of another, besides name.
2. The coin changed only simple things such as block reward count and block time.

Anyone else care to share?  After reviewing them, we will add them to the petition guidelines.

[stormia]

How will abuse of the petition and voting system be prevented (how are bots/sockpuppets prevented from voting for example)?

[KryptoKash]

How will abuse of the petition and voting system be prevented (how are bots/sockpuppets prevented from voting for example)?

Good question. We decided on the following spam filters to prevent abuse (we are modeling it after Mintpal):
We will require a login, Signup requires email confirmation.
Only 6 votes per hour.
We will be implementing certain bot detection checkpoints.I can't  list them, I wouldn't want anyone to find them and attempt to bypass them.
In addition to all this we are considering checking the users latest forum activity. If no posts were made within the last X days the system would not allow that user to vote. -Do you agree with this check? If so what should the X be?

These are not set in stone yet, let us know if you agree with them or what we should change.

EDIT: The above was for the voting system as for the petition system we are asking the community to define what is a shitcoin. We will add some of the answers to the guidelines for submitting a petition to our system. I am also considering only users with X posts can comment, vote and see the petition section, however I am not sure. What do you think?

[Cashmenwa]

Good idea men
We need more like this coin
Not other shit coin
keep eye on it

[blackhatzw]

What's the usage of this coin? Any innovation of this coin?

[KryptoKash]

What's the usage of this coin? Any innovation of this coin?

The usage of this coin is outlined in the OP. A great deal of discussion about this coin and its functionality can be found within the first few pages of this thread. If you have any specific questions or suggestions please don't hesitate to let us know. 
Thank you

~KryptoKash

[IMJim]

This is something I have been pondering since this coin was announced.  Is this really going to help the crypto community?  I mean, how is one to be the deciding factor of what coins out there are destroyed?  This talks about killing communities and work that others have done, essentially crushing businesses that other developers and their communities have built.

I get there is a lot of garbage out there that needs to die off, but who should decide that?!  Somebody has to lose for this coin and it's community to gain.  I'll admit the theory behind all of this is quite intriguing, but I guess it almost seems like a god like thing to be able to judge who lives and who dies.

[KryptoKash]

This is something I have been pondering since this coin was announced.  Is this really going to help the crypto community?  I mean, how is one to be the deciding factor of what coins out there are destroyed?  This talks about killing communities and work that others have done, essentially crushing businesses that other developers and their communities have built.

I get there is a lot of garbage out there that needs to die off, but who should decide that?!  Somebody has to lose for this coin and it's community to gain.  I'll admit the theory behind all of this is quite intriguing, but I guess it almost seems like a god like thing to be able to judge who lives and who dies.

We are creating Coinshield (just the coin itself) to have many features not found elsewhere. Our coin is not simply a copy and paste coin. In the next few days we list all the features in the OP. No one has to  lose for this coin to gain.

We included the option for the community to destroy coins using us as a platform(if they choose to). Coinshield could essentially never kill a coin (if no one petitions and votes). Also, we are protecting the hard work and communities of multiple coins via our Coinshield Verification program (see op for more on this). Most shitcoins are copy and paste coins, or the coin dev. changed only simple things such as block reward count and block time. In both cases no hard work was put into them. Now as for our system, it is set up in a way so no one person is the deciding factor. We require petitions to gain support, and even then the coin needs to win the majority of the community vote in order to begin the process.

[gjhiggins]

The dev's simply hit copy, paste, and renamed it.

Incorrect as stated, as I hope you must know. Obviously-gratuitous hyperbole serves only to diminish the cogency of your argument and in this case, given that you have invited people to state their opinion, sails dangerously close to being insulting to those who made the effort to do so.

Cheers,

Graham

[KryptoKash]

I was using one of the suggestion that was given:
"1. A coin is an exact copy of another, besides name."
I will edit the above post to include both suggestions.

EDIT:
If anyone else wants to define what a shitcoin is please post.