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

[bigreddmachine]

I see a very healthy diversity of pow algo usage:

leaving picture out for less noise in board

Cheers,

Graham

Can you explain a little more what we're looking at?

[gatra]

I see a very healthy diversity of pow algo usage:

[img edited]

(note, log2 scale for presentation purposes)

nice chart! could you please tell us the source of your data? is it number of altcoins you are comparing?
glad to see prime constellations is at least mentioned

[frankkkkkkk]

i am waiting

[gatra]

Fortunately, there's an exit, a re-framing of the process to invert the control, allow coins to petition to be rescued. The petitioners are making the categorisation and if the CoinShield process works as expected, investors will press for petitions to be opened, there will be competition to get a petition accepted, arguments will be more focused and effective, voting will become a popular contributive activity. And when CoinShield later subtly repositions itself to become the first to offer insurance to altcoin operators, no-one will be in the least bit surprised.

I'm thinking devs would create shitcoins just to get rescued, something like insurance fraud...
still, a very interesting idea

[snakegi]

Fortunately, there's an exit, a re-framing of the process to invert the control, allow coins to petition to be rescued. The petitioners are making the categorisation and if the CoinShield process works as expected, investors will press for petitions to be opened, there will be competition to get a petition accepted, arguments will be more focused and effective, voting will become a popular contributive activity. And when CoinShield later subtly repositions itself to become the first to offer insurance to altcoin operators, no-one will be in the least bit surprised.

I'm thinking devs would create shitcoins just to get rescued, something like insurance fraud...
still, a very interesting idea

If Coinshield succeeds (and becomes a standard, )security seal or something like that, probably the new shitcoins will never have any value, or really low value to be rescued. So won't worth the work to create/market a shitcoin. But it could lead to more elaborated scams...

I think this is a great idea, but will only work if more people get in and support.

[KryptoKash]

Fortunately, there's an exit, a re-framing of the process to invert the control, allow coins to petition to be rescued. The petitioners are making the categorisation and if the CoinShield process works as expected, investors will press for petitions to be opened, there will be competition to get a petition accepted, arguments will be more focused and effective, voting will become a popular contributive activity. And when CoinShield later subtly repositions itself to become the first to offer insurance to altcoin operators, no-one will be in the least bit surprised.

I'm thinking devs would create shitcoins just to get rescued, something like insurance fraud...
still, a very interesting idea

If Coinshield succeeds (and becomes a standard, )security seal or something like that, probably the new shitcoins will never have any value, or really low value to be rescued. So won't worth the work to create/market a shitcoin. But it could lead to more elaborated scams...

I think this is a great idea, but will only work if more people get in and support.

Quote from Videlicet about this very topic:

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

[gjhiggins]

Can you explain a little more what we're looking at?

Sorry, I snipped the legend to save space, wasn't thinking.

The graph shows, in essence, algo popularity and is generated from a database of altcoin metadata, going back to 2009, covering 1260-odd altcoins, post-processed to ensure coverage of a few key attributes.

The compilation was guided by inherently informal concerns and inclusions were only very loosely constrained. If there's a bitcointalk thread, a logo and an algo then it's probably been included unless it was a purely hypothetical concept. The data is not 100% accurate but then again, neither are [ANN] details and sometimes that's all there is; garbage in, garbage out - unavoidable.

As a tour d'horizon, it's not intended to be a precise tool and there's some other stuff to go with it that partly makes up for that:

http://github.com/DOACC

Description of a Cryptocurrency (DOACC) is an OWL ontology for cryptocurrency, following the FOSS communities' lead with DOAP.

Collaborators welcome.

Cheers,

Graham

[Spratan]

You should do the exact opposite, buy every new coin, except blatant scam !

You would have lost money 1000 times (at worst) but you would have automatically earned more than 100X on 100 coins. At least 2000X on NxT, 300X on DRK...
It is the most effective and timeless strategy (no need to read OP, just buy, no day-trading).
Do your math !!

[SnjafSnjaf]

It looks like the best way to kill the coin is just to buy it into mintpal, greatest coin killer of them all...   

[gjhiggins]

You are correct [I did not catch this, as I have had my head in my code, working it around with my own logic]. I guess I reinvented the wheel for porting this class [uint512], but also, saw other locations it needed implementation [that other coins failed to address].

1. CBigNum class: needed extra implementation to work with [uint512]
2. CBlockHeader class: to store hashblock/hashprevblock as [uint512], not [uint256] to make actual use of a 512 bit hash

Good catch, that's a useful observation.

With other coins that use 512 bit hashing, you'll notice in their Hash template, it is always returned as [uint256] from the examples I have seen. This in my logic, makes use of 512 bit hashing superfluous [if only 256 bits can be stored].

Hahaha. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I think you're absolutely spot-on about the superfluity of 512 bits in respect of enhanced security, how hilarious.

There's a teensy bit of wriggle room available to whoever was the first to use a 512bit implementation for altcoin PoW ...

IIRC, a few of the SHA3-Zoo denizens claim better performance of their 512-bit implementation over their 256-bit implementation. It's quite possible that all of the NIST candidates were anticipating a general move to 512 (especially if primed to do so by NIST, I'll have to check on that) and directed their optimization efforts accordingly.

Your observation attests to your familiarity with working in a strongly-typed language. I must admit that I had registered the discrepancy but failed to draw the obvious conclusion. Instead, I recall thinking to myself: “Nah, that'd be too big a hole for everyone to miss. Must have the wrong end of the stick.” Had I more familiarity with the practicalities of programming in strongly-typed languages, I might saved myself from that error.

Ah well, I shall just have to junk my hyper-secure, extra-strength, extreme hard-core Skein 1024-bit implementation and return to the drafting table Not  a wasted effort though, it allows me to appreciate fully the implications of your observation. I gotta find out whether there's unimpeachable support for this obvious conclusion or whether there's some subtle haha-its-crypto gotcha that muddies what's otherwise an apparently clear view.

Cheers,

Graham

[gjhiggins]

nice chart! could you please tell us the source of your data? is it number of altcoins you are comparing?

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, it is the number of altcoins that have chosen each algo. The data is collated from extensive cross-referencing of various lists that have been published over the last couple of years.

My motivation for posting is to provide discussants with some hard-ish figures. My motivation for collating the dataset stems from a pursuit of transparency. The full dataset will be published under an Open Data licence but you'll have to hold your horses for a few days while the work is completed.

glad to see prime constellations is at least mentioned

I was nearly severely wrong-footed by failing to detect the (rather large) degree of difference between yer bog-standard altcoin fork and the huge amount of work that you have put into Reicoin. fwiw, I'm very impressed with your migration to Bitcoin Core 0.9; that's a stand-out piece of work and an inspired tactical move.

Cheers,

Graham

(sorry for the delay in responding, intertubes here got bunged up for a few hours)

[foodies123]

I like the concept (mainly because I'm a dev for an innovative coin) but something like this could go very wrong in many ways, mainly because it could and probably will be used as a blackmailing tool. Another scenario devs should be very carefull about is attacking scam/gimmick copy cat coins with big communities behind them because those coins will easily manipulate the voting results through sheer numbers ... just saying.

[KryptoKash]

I like the concept (mainly because I'm a dev for an innovative coin) but something like this could go very wrong in many ways, mainly because it could and probably will be used as a blackmailing tool. Another scenario devs should be very carefull about is attacking scam/gimmick copy cat coins with big communities behind them because those coins will easily manipulate the voting results through sheer numbers ... just saying.

All innovative coins can receive Coinshield Verification. Once verification is given the coin is immune from destruction, and through that it is protected against forgery; this will prevent Coinshield Verified coins from any risk of being blackmailed. By the way Coinshield will work, any future coins that clone a Coinshield Verified coin will have a trade channel opened upon verification of forgery. It will be difficult for anybody attempting that stragegy to have any sort of gains.

[IMJim]

nice chart! could you please tell us the source of your data? is it number of altcoins you are comparing?

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, it is the number of altcoins that have chosen each algo. The data is collated from extensive cross-referencing of various lists that have been published over the last couple of years.

My motivation for posting is to provide discussants with some hard-ish figures. My motivation for collating the dataset stems from a pursuit of transparency. The full dataset will be published under an Open Data licence but you'll have to hold your horses for a few days while the work is completed.

glad to see prime constellations is at least mentioned

I was nearly severely wrong-footed by failing to detect the (rather large) degree of difference between yer bog-standard altcoin fork and the huge amount of work that you have put into Reicoin. fwiw, I'm very impressed with your migration to Bitcoin Core 0.9; that's a stand-out piece of work and an inspired tactical move.

Cheers,

Graham

(sorry for the delay in responding, intertubes here got bunged up for a few hours)

Dude......you turned half of this page into complete gibberish to me.....I mean that in a good way btw:-)  I don't think I have seen a thread yet that I understood so little!  Really cool though to have a member of the community that can talk and understand this lingo with a dev who shares so much about the technical side of what he/she is working on!  I don't understand SHIT of what you guys are saying.........but yet, still cool to see and read!

I need to go rest my head now, for some reason it hurts a little

[Videlicet]

Graham,

The 512 bits for enhanced security only enhances when [512 bits] are stored in block [every other coin dev didn't take the time to restructure the code to make this possible]. I have spent a good part of today reprogramming the core of Coinshield to allow 512 bit hashing, and success [so far]!

a Coinshield merkle root:
2cc53ea5ff1712c11fb75127e39f975cf9fab950a4a804223f888ac496a1b6d3c65a4ca97c9b527 6f5d7c96be0407e58266f53d9c9c8be99d9a8467696b5a686

I implemented this in the merkle trees, block headers, cscripts, serialization templates, node signatures, block signing, pos checksum [well in fewer words, in all parts].

I think it is about time to phase out 256 bit hashing, I couldn't even write a reasonable miner with 256 bits [couldn't target numbers large enough]. I have implemented [uint1024] and [uint2048] for my own prime conjectures [to test new CPU algorithm], and am *thinking* on whether I should work on 1024 hashing algorithms [you said you have been working on one?]

~Videlicet

[gjhiggins]

The 512 bits for enhanced security only enhances when [512 bits] are stored in block [every other coin dev didn't take the time to restructure the code to make this possible]. I have spent a good part of today reprogramming the core of Coinshield to allow 512 bit hashing, and success [so far]!

I tip my hat to your thorough approach.

am *thinking* on whether I should work on 1024 hashing algorithms [you said you have been working on one?]

As far as I know, only the Skein family runs to 1024 bits, all the rest top out at 512. Probably not worth a special effort.

Cheers

Graham

[Coinler]

whatever u do. dont use coinshield on my coin. it will hurt your investors   

[Videlicet]

The 512 bits for enhanced security only enhances when [512 bits] are stored in block [every other coin dev didn't take the time to restructure the code to make this possible]. I have spent a good part of today reprogramming the core of Coinshield to allow 512 bit hashing, and success [so far]!

I tip my hat to your thorough approach.

am *thinking* on whether I should work on 1024 hashing algorithms [you said you have been working on one?]

As far as I know, only the Skein family runs to 1024 bits, all the rest top out at 512. Probably not worth a special effort.

Cheers

Graham

Thank You, Graham [I'll stick to 512 for now]

whatever u do. dont use coinshield on my coin. it will hurt your investors  

This is not up to us [it is the community that decides what coin is to be destroyed or protected].

~Videlicet

[coinsolidation]

some observations.

• by dumping the coin you create new bagholders, so new people have the coin and will need to either dump it, or make it rise again
• people can already manually do this with any coin simply by selling it and using the proceeds to buy another coin
• anybody could create a new coin and create a shitcoin/newcoin, newcoin/btc exchange
• this is open to massive manipulation, if an entity wanted to acquire a huge amount of x-coin they could deem it shit, acquire it all at the lowest price, then make the coin unshit and execute a social 51% attack
• any really shit coin already has zero value and zero orders, so it can't be dumped and turned in to coin shield
• the model is centralized and trust based, trust you with most of the btc from each shitcoin
• the idea of a well known service which immediately classifies new coins as clone or innovative would serve the purpose better, and prevent people from investing in new scams, rather than forcing them to commit to a loss and creating new bag holders
• the countdown, the promise that early traders will make the most profit, the focus on acquiring btc, has all the hall marks of every shit coins produced, and does you no favours
• the coin has no value of itself, no long term incentive, and will be deemed to be a shitcoin itself, with early adopters having guaranteed btc orders to dump in to once they reached their target profit margins
• needlessly complex for such a simple proposition, these complexities don't add value, they detract

The thing you are trying to achieve is fairly decent but creates the problem, old bag holders swap to new bag holders, and it's open to exploit, as is your own coin.

If you could codify this in a different way, without it being a coin, perhaps just a well known coin index and voting system, you'd achieve more with more benefit to the community.

I admire your efforts, but worry as above.

[KryptoKash]

Thank you for taking the time to outline your observations. Most of them have been addressed throughout this thread. If you have any specific questions please ask and I will be happy to answer them.

~KryptoKash