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

[Videlicet]

Thank You, this is good information: To strengthen the code by community involvement. I'll do some thinking on this, now that I have a broader perspective to work with. In the meantime more suggestions towards the weight of my decision are always welcome from anyone who decides to take the time to suggest.

Viz.

[1715344784]

1715344784

[1715344784]

1715344784

[1715344784]

1715344784

[1715344784]

1715344784

[1715344784]

1715344784

[1715344784]

1715344784

[bigreddmachine]

I'm really happy with how this project has evolved, not only in the code, but the community beginning to grow around it.

Remember it is people such as yourself that will make this successful: by believing in it, using it, and bringing other people in on the vision of a brighter future that we can all create together.

Viz.

I probably missed this on the thread somewhere, but what are your plans for a community central hub?  Is there a coinshieldtalk.org in the plans, or a subreddit?  Sorry if I am missing something obvious here.

Also, what plans do you have for bringing more people onboard the development team?  I don't know that one primary coder is that sustainable for a project this size.

Do you plan to have a public review period of all the code you have developed?

So far, it is just me. I have been working hard, and will not take anyone on the development team that will not continue that trend. One primary coder is perfectly sustainable, but eventually I want to become more of an overseer, helping others learn the code, improve it, ensuring quality, etc.. My only requirement to help develop is willingness to learn [your integrity will set your position of responsibility over time]. I will not make any sacrifices of the Vision of Coinshield for less personal work... That being said, it is me for now, but I'm sure that many great developers will join in time to continue to improve Coinshield... but we should always remember: better is the mortal enemy of good enough. Determining this point can have its difficulties.

The public review is tricky, maybe you wouldn't mind sharing your opinion. I have been contemplating, should we release the source code when the Coinshield Channels begin to function to Protect Coinshield from Forgery, or would you rather it be at launch. I already have been documenting the code for a DOxygen interface which is currently in development. This will allow you to review the streamlined structures in the code, but not be able to steal any of it.

I am thinking this will be the best solution [especially from private testing results, which really came down to 2 people out of 15] would be after the Exchange Channels are active, so that Coinshield will be protected. Certain layers of protection have to administered in the condition of the marketplace currently, but then again this is just my opinion.

What do you think?
Viz.

I'm always a fan of being as open-source as possible, but I understand what you are saying.  My usual support goes to coins that provide innovation and also allow folks to see the entire history of their codebase, though I threw some support behind a few closed-source coins such as vertcoin because I thought their product was notable.  If you don't open the source, I think finding a few reputable developers to check through the source for potential errors would be good.  It is always better to have multiple eyes on the project.

[KryptoKash]

Want to be part of our shitcoin prevention/Coinshield verification process? Sign up and reserve your username: http://coinshieldtalk.org  A launch date will be announced soon.  

[gjhiggins]

Want to be part of our shitcoin prevention/Coinshield verification process?

I look forward to the day when you can afford to be less gratuitously provocative. To help you approach the community with a more balanced view, can I ask you to please provide clarification of the following instruction:

“If another coin clones your coin they will be sent directly into the voting system, no petition needed.”

Please define the term “to clone” as it used in this context. You clearly don't mean “git clone <altcoinrepos>” because the result of such an action is merely another valid wallet for the coin.

The only other meaning that I can reasonably ascribe to the term is an analogy with cloning in genetics but that's an analogy and of course, that's simply unusable as a criterion.

This is software engineering, please give us an operational definition of what criteria you intend to apply to decide whether a given altcoin is a “clone” in your terms.


Cheers

Graham

[Videlicet]

Graham,

Thank you for a good question. As you have brilliantly pointed out in the past, the best way to create definitions with this system is an ostensive definition.

The first step would be to read as a programmer the source code of accused "clone coin". If someone did not put much effort towards the development of that coin, there will still be a lot of similarities [besides sharing the same codebase]. The most notable would be remnants of old hard forks [cloned but not removed], lack of understanding of CLIENT_VERSION in version.h and how to change that version down to 0.1.0.0 [one must remove outdated wallet upgrades], PROTOCOL_VERSION similarities, etc.

This will of course have to be very "loose", but just the first net with large holes to grab the big fish. The more cunning fish will of course do a "little" extra work to get through the initial checks, then forcing that coin's destruction to be determined by the community. This small level of automation is designed to reduce the load on petitions for obvious cases of Forgery.

Let us know if you have any more questions,
Viz.

[gjhiggins]

the best way to create definitions with this system is an ostensive definition

I clearly didn't do as good a job as you credit me with. I seem to have completely failed to communicate the profound import of a crucial aspect of an ostensive definition that's not stressed in the wikipedia entry: each of us creates our own unique, idiosyncratic definitional set of members.

As an aid to my thinking in this area, I mentally replace the question “is this coin a valid target?” with “is this oil painting Art?” Imagine trying to get a roomful of people to agree on whether a given painting is “Art”. You'll get a different answer each time, that's the nature of the beast. My interpretation of “art” is not the same as yours, indeed it would be weirdly unnatural if it were. The unavoidable conclusion is that consistency in target selection is infeasible.

The more cunning fish will of course do a "little" extra work to get through the initial checks

You appear to be setting yourselves up as the altcoin police, riding into action on a hunter-killer altcoin, responding to imagined public disquiet. Have you lined up some snappy uniforms?

For our part (see sig), we'll be working to help altcoin developers meet the higher technical standards claimed by CoinShield(tm) to represent the opinion of CoinShield(tm)'s customers and to which the entire altcoin community is apparently to be held, whether they agree or not, on pain of deliberate destruction of the coin and the dev's reputation.

In pursuit of this objective of raising standards, we'll be publishing full details of best practices in software engineering that are specifically applicable to forking and creating a new altcoin, concentrating on those elements which are held by CoinShield(tm)'s customers to be particularly objectionable if incorrectly implemented.

We'll be looking to you for a complete list of the operational specifications of your requirements, we feel that would be the most constructive and sensible approach.


Cheers

Graham

[Videlicet]

Graham,

Let me clarify: This component is a level of automation for "coinshield verified" coins, this means that the community interpretation is already complete. It has no "say" or "definition" other than a relative stance to a Coinshield Verified Coin, to protect that coin from Forgery. The reason for this is for exactly as you say, that everyone interprets differently, and balancing these interpretations takes time... This will ideally speed up the forgery cases, which will increase the "cost of forgery" hopefully reducing the number of people finding profit in it.

Our goal is not to be police, but a representative of public opinion. This being said, what is your definition of a "clone coin"? I believe that the definitions for such things should be based off of many different perspectives to attempt to achieve the most balanced definition.

edit: I would like to also add [in more words] that each "Coinshield Verified Coin" set by the community will be an "object of reference" in which the standard will be set. The first coin to be Coinshield Verified will begin the standard, the rest will continue to evolve this standard standing as "examples" for the definition of "the quality standard". This will be voiced by the community through action in the process of Coinshield Verification.

Thank You
Viz.

[gjhiggins]

Our goal is not to be police, but a representative of public opinion our customers.

ftfy

Asserting it repeatedly doesn't make it a fact, yet this unsupportable claim is baldly repeated as though it did. We're invited to subscribe to a naive fiction that because CoinSheld(tm) customers are members of the general public, CoinShield(tm) therefore represents public opinion. This is starting to not ring true for me, I can't match up this childlike fiction with the deep analytic skills required of a top-flight coder. There's a trope that STEMheads typically suck at social science  ... but this is so bad it's verging on the improbable.

Because we've already been through this loop. There's nothing about the CoinShield(tm) operation that places it in the public sphere. It is a facility that CoinShield(tm), a commercial entity, chooses to offer at CoinShield(tm)'s convenience, to whomsoever CoinShield(tm) chooses or not, to do with as CoinShield(tm) sees fit and CoinShield(tm) is free to withdraw this facility at any point, without reason, notice or penalty to CoinShield(tm) and CoinShield(tm) also profits by this activity. That's not “public” by any recognisable definition, that's “ commercial” and trivial to demonstrate. Obdurately restating a demonstrably untrue claim simply serves to raise suspicions of dissembling.

Cheers

Graham

[cisahasa]

Block Reward [Miners]:50 * e^(-0.0000011 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 1
Block Reward [Channels - Coin Trade in]:10 * e^(-0.00000055 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 1
Block Reward [Developers]:1 * e^(-0.00000059 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 0.04

do the math, nice try

[KryptoKash]

Block Reward [Miners]:50 * e^(-0.0000011 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 1
Block Reward [Channels - Coin Trade in]:10 * e^(-0.00000055 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 1
Block Reward [Developers]:1 * e^(-0.00000059 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 0.04

do the math, nice try

The math has been done, on page 5 I believe:

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

[cisahasa]

Block Reward [Miners]:50 * e^(-0.0000011 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 1
Block Reward [Channels - Coin Trade in]:10 * e^(-0.00000055 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 1
Block Reward [Developers]:1 * e^(-0.00000059 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 0.04

do the math, nice try

The math has been done, on page 5 I believe:

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

lost my interest about this

[Videlicet]

Because we've already been through this loop.

You're right, circles are superfluous. Thank you for your feedback.

Viz.

[Hix]

Any news about launch date?

[cisahasa]

Any news about launch date?

cancelled scam?

[KryptoKash]

Any news about launch date?

Videlicet will release a launch date soon.

cancelled scam?

Videlicet is currently in the final stages of coding. I'll ask him to post an update shortly.

A launch date will be released very very soon.  

[SnjafSnjaf]

Any news about launch date?

Videlicet will release a launch date soon.

cancelled scam?

Videlicet is currently in the final stages of coding. I'll ask him to post an update shortly.

A launch date will be released very very soon.  

I really hope that you guys will deliver and make us happy for waiting so long

[Videlicet]

It seems I am overdue for an [Update]:

I. Organization: Rebuilt Coinshield Core from Source, organized code into Namespaces [Core, Net, Wallet], restructured filesystems, relinked headers. Made the build more "hardy" giving more precise "instruction"; this speeds up productivity and from my results slightly increases runtime execution.

II. Qt Development: Fixed issues in Qt. Added styling to dress it up in presentation. TODO [Post Launch] Add theme options to set your color themes / eventually add skins to the Qt for more personalization.

III. Unified Time: Working on lower level network protocol for Unified Time. This will allow more precision and greater tuning with connection latency, etc. Updated the UNIFIED_TIME_OFFSET to not be created from connected peers/seeds, but to be a consistent growing average in the TimeDB. This will strengthen your UNIFIED_TIME, eventually getting everyone synchronized as close as I can get it. I want to bring down the UNIFIED_ALLOWED_DRIFT to < 5 seconds to reduce impact from Time Warp attacks. This average will also cause any Bad Time Seed to have little influence on your overall Unified Time.

IV. Decentralized Checkpointing: I do not like the code for Checkpointing in Peercoin, because it is based off of a "Master" node broadcasting the Checkpoints. I would like to keep the Network as decentralized as possible, so this has led me to design a Decentralized Checkpointing Feature. Here is a basic rundown of how it will work.

After 60 minutes, the next block produced will be flagged by all nodes as a "pending checkpoint". After 30 minutes, all nodes will broadcast this checkpoint. In order for your node to change its pending checkpoint, it will have to receive a checkpoint different than yours, and from the majority of your peers. This will make the checkpointing based on a majority consensus by the nodes, reducing an attackers impact on the Main Chain. This is because it puts the effort of an attack in mining power and the sheer number of nodes agreeing on that chain.

Finally after 30 minutes of the "pending checkpoint" broadcast, that checkpoint will become hardened, and a new pending checkpoint will be flagged. The time between checkpoints, and corresponding block number will also be a fingerprint, because for the checkpoint to be accepted by other nodes as valid, it will require that block to be produced within the proper beginning of minute 60 and also hold a majority acceptance by the network.


V. Automatic Updating: Not sure if I will get to this pre-launch or post-launch. It will give you a message box on startup alerting you that there is a new update for Coinshield Core, and what is included in the new update. Upon acceptance, the update will be downloaded only from a trusted source [seed nodes], and it must contain a trusted signature [signed by private keys I will hold]. This will expedite the process of network updates, and ease the process for the everyday user. This would also prompt me to remove the Alerts Broadcasting System [local alerts will remain] as it would not be needed anymore. Final option will be for "automaticupdates=1" in coinshield.conf to automatically download and install verified updates.


I will keep everyone posted on the progress of these last two components [III && IV], and will always accept suggestions for further optimization as I approach completion.

Thank You to Everyone for your continued patience... we are almost there!
Viz.

edit: slight rewording

[bigreddmachine]

I will keep everyone posted on the progress of these last two components [III && IV], and will always accept suggestions for further optimization as I approach completion.

IV and V?

[Videlicet]

IV and V?

V. Automatic Updating: Not sure if I will get to this pre-launch or post-launch.

I'm concentrating mainly on III and IV at the moment. We'll see about V when those are complete.

Viz.

[bigreddmachine]

IV and V?

V. Automatic Updating: Not sure if I will get to this pre-launch or post-launch.

I'm concentrating mainly on III and IV at the moment. We'll see about V when those are complete.

Viz.

Thanks for clarifying.  I was confused because you said "last two" but then "III && IV".