◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈

[hack_]

How about we replace the proof-of-work with a signature verification for a public/private key pair?

Average blocks per day are 700-800. So that would be 40000 BCR divided among all donors a day? Using the AGS syste on a blockchain would be super!!! Though it has it's quirks.... say on a day when there are no donations where do the coins go?

i assume this funding will be for development and price floatation?

what guarantees would we have on control over development spending and base supported price?

Do you intend to do this polling in client or using additional software ?

More details!!!!
 

[thelonecrouton]

Signature PoW

This is pretty radical and I'd need some time to think about it, but I like the idea of 1339 transaction blocks per day and 1 minting block. Remember there doesn't need to be any 'hashing' at all by the BNs, they just need to arrive at signed consensus, so waste would be almost zero - how much CPU power does it actually take to process a few (or a few thousand) numbers in a distributed db or RAMpool? - Very little, by modern standards. The lowest end smartphone is overpowered for the job.

However with such a relatively small number of BNs it wouldn't offer much security? Mind you, at any given time, for most PoW currencies, control of a maximum of 3 pools (just 3 machines, run by 3 people, running on publicly known IPs somewhere in the world) are needed to gain >50% of the total hash and create havoc and mayhem... that's the (appallingly low) security target we have to beat.

I have suggested in the past with DRK that only MNs 'mine' - this would work with 2500+ MNs, as a different random subset of them could be used each block for consensus and provide great blockchain security, but with so few Banknodes, not so much. Since BNs and regular wallets are exactly the same from a software perspective, why exclude regular users from the consensus process? This would provide a greater pool of nodes to subset from and would be completely transapernt to users, they aren't going to even notice a few extra CPU cycles now and again.

The idea that the (fixed number of?) minted coins are distributed each day in proportion to whoever has 'bid' for them is intriguing... it would make it a kind of tender/lottery system. How would this interact with the existing market/exchange price discovery system? Might change the price pressure - either up (demand) or down (miner instadumping) - in interesting ways... I still think it would be easier to just dish out the mintage to the selected consensus-subset each block.

I had a similar idea for how BNs could provide perfectly anonymous transactions without any need for slow, complex DS mixing, but I need to work out some details...

[hack_]

Signature PoW

This is pretty radical and I'd need some time to think about it, but I like the idea of 1339 transaction blocks per day and 1 minting block. Remember there doesn't need to be any 'hashing' at all by the BNs, they just need to arrive at signed consensus, so waste would be almost zero - how much CPU power does it actually take to process a few (or a few thousand) numbers in a distributed db or RAMpool? - Very little, by modern standards. The lowest end smartphone is overpowered for the job.

However with such a relatively small number of BNs it wouldn't offer much security? Mind you, at any given time, for most PoW currencies, control of a maximum of 3 pools (just 3 machines, run by 3 people, running on publicly known IPs somewhere in the world) are needed to gain >50% of the total hash and create havoc and mayhem... that's the (appallingly low) security target we have to beat.

I have suggested in the past with DRK that only MNs 'mine' - this would work with 2500+ MNs, as a different random subset of them could be used each block for consensus and provide great blockchain security, but with so few Banknodes, not so much. Since BNs and regular wallets are exactly the same from a software perspective, why exclude regular users from the consensus process? This would provide a greater pool of nodes to subset from and would be completely transapernt to users, they aren't going to even notice a few extra CPU cycles now and again.

The idea that the (fixed number of?) minted coins are distributed each day in proportion to whoever has 'bid' for them is intriguing... it would make it a kind of tender/lottery system. How would this interact with the existing market/exchange price discovery system? Might change the price pressure - either up (demand) or down (miner instadumping) - in interesting ways... I still think it would be easier to just dish out the mintage to the selected consensus-subset each block.

I had a similar idea for how BNs could provide perfectly anonymous transactions without any need for complex DS mixing, but I need to work out some details...

I agree, it sounds very light resource wise, as for the number of BNs...we already have a solution , hint hint.

VISA handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second, can you see the shape BCR is headed for? 1440 transactions per second in a decentralized system, which can be scaled up even higher!!!

I think that BNs would be better suited for mining, most are run on pretty good hardware and we use them for more robust reasons than DRK.

As for fixed number of coins everyday, i think it's actually good. Think on it, it's not far different from the actual market in that there are hig and low days. But the one significance is that whoever is getting the coins at the end of the day is actual contributing to development of the ecosystem.

I thought the dev would disappear after a month or two, especially at the highs but he's stayed and he's actively working. In the past year, how many projects still have their original dev, or any dev at all?

Most coins have stalled in development and just wait for pumps , this guy keeps going, i'm sure if he got the support he needs he could push this to the front.

btw..anonymity already exists on the blockchain, these extended versions are gimmicks and truthfully have no commercial application. I'm all for privacy and freedom, but most basic users want to an ABC 123 kind of environment, i introduced my eldest uncle to Bitcoin and BCR last week, do you know what he called the most handy item? The Block Explorer, he siad he had read about BTC but never really understood why someone would want to use money that can't easily be accounted for and proven.

Commercial application is where the real money is, the privacy of just and address that can be changed anytime should be enough for anyone who is not doing nefarious things

[bitcreditscc]

not enough people participating in these discussions.

1) BNs are too few, we'd need to alter this a little. Also we have to have a system that is secure , no creating loopholes. 

2) i am all for altering some specs to speed up the chain, though this will have to be an update in and of its own.

3) Overall changes to PoW would have to come before any of the other changes if we agree

4) Enacting the changes currently being discussed, would result in us needing to find a way to dispose of the pre-existing 6 million, likely we'll distribute it similarly

[catotune]

not enough people participating in these discussions.

1) BNs are too few, we'd need to alter this a little. Also we have to have a system that is secure , no creating loopholes. 

2) i am all for altering some specs to speed up the chain, though this will have to be an update in and of its own.

3) Overall changes to PoW would have to come before any of the other changes if we agree

4) Enacting the changes currently being discussed, would result in us needing to find a way to dispose of the pre-existing 6 million, likely we'll distribute it similarly

Well I am mostly a lurker, but I did my part to address #1. Just got a new BN, and I'm enjoying the 18.75 BCR rewards 

Also I've been CPU mining this coin, and it's been pretty rewarding (lots of small rewards). I wonder why more people aren't mining, since it's an established coin with a masternode-type system, and you can get decent rewards with any CPU.

[bitcreditscc]

not enough people participating in these discussions.

1) BNs are too few, we'd need to alter this a little. Also we have to have a system that is secure , no creating loopholes. 

2) i am all for altering some specs to speed up the chain, though this will have to be an update in and of its own.

3) Overall changes to PoW would have to come before any of the other changes if we agree

4) Enacting the changes currently being discussed, would result in us needing to find a way to dispose of the pre-existing 6 million, likely we'll distribute it similarly

Well I am mostly a lurker, but I did my part to address #1. Just got a new BN, and I'm enjoying the 18.75 BCR rewards 

Also I've been CPU mining this coin, and it's been pretty rewarding (lots of small rewards). I wonder why more people aren't mining, since it's an established coin with a masternode-type system, and you can get decent rewards with any CPU.

all relevant participation is welcome 

people aren't mining because the perception of overwhelmingly profitable mining is not advertised and is highly subject to price fluctuation.

a subset of 20 seems small , but maybe we should poll total online wallets, i would not be surprised if there are less than 50

[thelonecrouton]

a subset of 20 seems small , but maybe we should poll total online wallets, i would not be surprised if there are less than 50

Currently small numbers, sure, but if 'mining' BCR involved nothing more than having a wallet online (at a unique IP, or some other method of stopping people running a thousand wallets at a time, like a min 1000 BCR balance) and sparing the occasional CPU cycle to provide service, a lot more people might do it?

[hack_]

well if people aren't going to participate, then these heavy decisions are going to be made by a small group and it ceases to make any sense to discuss them publicly. One thing i would totally reject is an opinion offered after the fact.

[hack_]

a subset of 20 seems small , but maybe we should poll total online wallets, i would not be surprised if there are less than 50

Currently small numbers, sure, but if 'mining' BCR involved nothing more than having a wallet online (at a unique IP, or some other method of stopping people running a thousand wallets at a time, like a min 1000 BCR balance) and sparing the occasional CPU cycle to provide service, a lot more people might do it?

bitcreditscc am i right in assuming that your choice of active BNs comes off the fact that they are almost always online ? Local wallets of users are unreliable and the numbers swing about widely, BNs are online at low and at high prices there by creating a known set whose properties we can easily manipulate.

[Bagdar13]

not enough people participating in these discussions.

1) BNs are too few, we'd need to alter this a little. Also we have to have a system that is secure , no creating loopholes. 

2) i am all for altering some specs to speed up the chain, though this will have to be an update in and of its own.

3) Overall changes to PoW would have to come before any of the other changes if we agree

4) Enacting the changes currently being discussed, would result in us needing to find a way to dispose of the pre-existing 6 million, likely we'll distribute it similarly

Well I am mostly a lurker, but I did my part to address #1. Just got a new BN, and I'm enjoying the 18.75 BCR rewards 

Also I've been CPU mining this coin, and it's been pretty rewarding (lots of small rewards). I wonder why more people aren't mining, since it's an established coin with a masternode-type system, and you can get decent rewards with any CPU.

Right now mining this coin has a bad feel to it because there is no solo miner that has the same capability as the pool miner.  So if you want to solo mine with GPU you can either have less capability (I think its a 40-60% hit depending on the core of your GPU).  Also, from a miners perspective it is known that someone has a solo miner that has the full capability as the pool miner (NaN-PTS) so he and anyone he passes the miner to would have an unfair advantage against you.  If you mine the pool per block 18.75 goes to the BN (as is the plan) and +5 goes to 5qoFUCqPUE4pyjus6U6jD6ba4oHR6NZ7c7 and +5 goes to 6133GZGV2XRnS53DkLSWrK661TsQMqnewL.  So that means of the 31.75 you the miner only have access to 21.75 with is like a 33% hit to your rate.  If you are using a CPU to mine your watts to hash-rate vs a GPU is not in your favor.  Likely one or a combination of these factors drives off miners, which is unfortunate as this is a really really cool project, which I have been mining since day 1.

 

[hack_]

not enough people participating in these discussions.

1) BNs are too few, we'd need to alter this a little. Also we have to have a system that is secure , no creating loopholes. 

2) i am all for altering some specs to speed up the chain, though this will have to be an update in and of its own.

3) Overall changes to PoW would have to come before any of the other changes if we agree

4) Enacting the changes currently being discussed, would result in us needing to find a way to dispose of the pre-existing 6 million, likely we'll distribute it similarly

Well I am mostly a lurker, but I did my part to address #1. Just got a new BN, and I'm enjoying the 18.75 BCR rewards 

Also I've been CPU mining this coin, and it's been pretty rewarding (lots of small rewards). I wonder why more people aren't mining, since it's an established coin with a masternode-type system, and you can get decent rewards with any CPU.

Right now mining this coin has a bad feel to it because there is no solo miner that has the same capability as the pool miner.  So if you want to solo mine with GPU you can either have less capability (I think its a 40-60% hit depending on the core of your GPU).  Also, from a miners perspective it is known that someone has a solo miner that has the full capability as the pool miner (NaN-PTS) so he and anyone he passes the miner to would have an unfair advantage against you.  If you mine the pool per block 18.75 goes to the BN (as is the plan) and +5 goes to 5qoFUCqPUE4pyjus6U6jD6ba4oHR6NZ7c7 and +5 goes to 6133GZGV2XRnS53DkLSWrK661TsQMqnewL.  So that means of the 31.75 you the miner only have access to 21.75 with is like a 33% hit to your rate.  If you are using a CPU to mine your watts to hash-rate vs a GPU is not in your favor.  Likely one or a combination of these factors drives off miners, which is unfortunate as this is a really really cool project, which I have been mining since day 1.

 

if we can agree on a way forward that will all be history. I was thinking more on the 40K per day distribution via bidding , it's actually pretty great all across the board, everyone will know the exact cost of the coins they have and will not sell at a loss, right now most miners are selling at a loss and this is what is driving most away with the remaining driving the price down in an effort to cover their costs.

I think we should compile this into a single proposal and see what we come up with.

let me start it off, then just quote and adjust what you think

10 second block-time, best speed 6 confirms one minute (not sure about forking at these rates)
Blocks are now mined/signed by bank nodes reward is lowered to 5 coins
once every six hours a block is created paying out to bidders
Base BN collateral lowered to 50K BCR
Maybe have a rule that limits the number of consecutive blocks that a BN can sign ?
Removal of bank and reserve stuff
6 million BCR to be distibuted using same bidding model


If anyone has changes, ideas to add, please feel free.

[thelonecrouton]

Would bidding be blind, or would the wallet report the current bids to all? The latter would be better IMO.

It doesn't need to be ebay-complex, just a simple Time Left counter, a Current Bids list, a Bid Amount field (estimated from current price) and an Enter Bid button. Oh and a Set Repeat Bid checkbox, regular 'miners' don't want to be doing this manually all the time. Name your price and it'll keep buying for you until you're out of ammo.

Before this can happen though BCR would need cross chain/coloured coin/other currency/fiat? capability - bidding in BCR for BCR doesn't make sense.

And what happens if nobody bids?
No mintage - prolongs emission schedule and should in theory reduce sell pressure, quasi-deflationary...
Mintage burned - keeps emission schedule, definitely deflationary...

I'm still not sure about the ramifications of all this, but if it can be made more secure than PoW (shouldn't be too hard) and gets rid of pissing money away on electricity (the leeches who get 'free' electricity will be annoyed, but somebody is paying for that wasted wattage) then it's an improvement. Aren't KnC building their own hydroelectric dam to power their acres of ASICs? Pretty sure that wasn't a part of Satoshi's original vision of a decentralised currency.

Plus, vastly better tx throughput.

edit: I think someone mentioned it before, but basically this would mean that the money miners spend currently on running costs would be going to... the great BCR Banknode Reserve... bitcreditscc's (DA)C... some communally owned asset held on the blockchain?

"Miners - support BCR, not AMD/Nvidia and the power company!"

[thelonecrouton]

Taking BTC and other currencies in exchange for newly minted BCR also provides liquidity/reserves in those other currencies for the BNs to provide the holy crypto grail: a decentralised exchange...  

This is brilliant.   

[bitcreditscc]

I think we should compile this into a single proposal and see what we come up with.

let me start it off, then just quote and adjust what you think

10 second block-time, best speed 6 confirms one minute (not sure about forking at these rates)
Blocks are now mined/signed by bank nodes reward is lowered to 5 coins
once every six hours a block is created paying out to bidders
Base BN collateral lowered to 50K BCR
Maybe have a rule that limits the number of consecutive blocks that a BN can sign ?
Removal of bank and reserve stuff
6 million BCR to be distibuted using same bidding model

I'd like to say let's work with 20 second or 30 second blocks, ten seconds while faster, opens up other issues. I was actually thinking that block reward would be 18.75, that way we do not inconvenience existing BN holders since they are the ones with the most online nodes and showing active support for the project. As of this moment, blocks for miners are paying low because there is an additional 10 removed. So under the new scheme, we would remove that and have normal blocks payout the BN amount only. this means that the remaining 32.25 per block will be paid out exclusively to bidders. now this will result in a overall of 25800 for bidding, to make this more lucrative, we shall add the 6 million and divide it into 365 days and this brings the total to 40K per day for bidding until block reward halving time.

I'd like the payout to be once every 12 or 24 hours to keep cpu loads light. As for base collateral, i'll leave it to you and TLC to negotiate if we reduce and by how much we reduce. All other BN holders are free to join this discussion and participate. I agree, we need a mechanism to avoid network block monopoly. Also, as a side thought p2pool can still be used in this format, basically, the p2pool address for the 0 output will be a BN, meaning if you want to run a compatible p2pool, you need a BN.

Would bidding be blind, or would the wallet report the current bids to all? The latter would be better IMO.

It doesn't need to be ebay-complex, just a simple Time Left counter, a Current Bids list, a Bid Amount field (estimated from current price) and an Enter Bid button. Oh and a Set Repeat Bid checkbox, regular 'miners' don't want to be doing this manually all the time. Name your price and it'll keep buying for you until you're out of ammo.

Before this can happen though BCR would need cross chain/coloured coin/other currency/fiat? capability - bidding in BCR for BCR doesn't make sense.

And what happens if nobody bids?
No mintage - prolongs emission schedule and should in theory reduce sell pressure, quasi-deflationary...
Mintage burned - keeps emission schedule, definitely deflationary...

I'm still not sure about the ramifications of all this, but if it can be made more secure than PoW (shouldn't be too hard) and gets rid of pissing money away on electricity (the leeches who get 'free' electricity will be annoyed, but somebody is paying for that wasted wattage) then it's an improvement. Aren't KnC building their own hydroelectric dam to power their acres of ASICs? Pretty sure that wasn't a part of Satoshi's original vision of a decentralised currency.

Plus, vastly better tx throughput.

edit: I think someone mentioned it before, but basically this would mean that the money miners spend currently on running costs would be going to... the great BCR Banknode Reserve... bitcreditscc's (DA)C... some communally owned asset held on the blockchain?

"Miners - support BCR, not AMD/Nvidia and the power company!"

Within the BCR wallet you will be able to see how many bids have been made and how much each 0.1 BTC worth of all accepted coins will get you. We don't really need to complete the current phases of work for this to become a reality. If noone bids , we can either roll over or destroy the coins. I'll leave that to you two as well to decide.

Upon further study i think there is no way we can avoid a bit of hashing , but the key is to make it such that it's "green" and is only for tx processing, by removing the incentive to competitively mine and redirect those resources we have reduced our leakage by over 90%, the key now is to ensure that mining by the BNs for tx processing does not end up competitive either.

I think this is where hacks' argument will become strongest, because if the BNs are too costly , investors will mine blocks aggressively to quickly balance their books. Again i leave that to you guys. 

By supporting BCR in this way miners will also be supporting themselves. Your coins will gain value through the redirected funding going into development. We will be able to do a far more professional job and will attract large investment. This time is very critical to get things right because the finance world is waking up to the potential of this kind of instrument. Eventually when there is enough float, we can even support a base price for BCR which we can derive from watching the trend and adoption rate over time.

When i get tired of debugging , i will create a new branch of the master with some of these changes and notes for you guys to look at and discuss.

[dragos_bdi]

Just my thoughts ...

I do not agree with lowering the time for a block.
1. For those who have been for a while, there was problems at the beginning  with forks being made because the network sync. So at that time was rewritten the algo for block diff, increasing the time to avoid this problems.
2. The low sum of mined blocks reside from a bug in p2pool code not handled:

Code:

2015-06-07 09:57:42.017555 > No bitcoind connection when block submittal attempted! https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/block.dws?00005c05c51a4ca28dc96c1c20655f41c636c708ae741c330c1ab8d00115a67a
2015-06-07 09:57:42.019610
2015-06-07 09:57:42.019666 GOT BLOCK FROM MINER! Passing to bitcoind! https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/block.dws?00005c05c51a4ca28dc96c1c20655f41c636c708ae741c330c1ab8d00115a67a
2015-06-07 09:57:42.019708
2015-06-07 09:57:42.021963 GOT SHARE! 5qN3ZasN345N5UoEVg2iZ4DtwA8YjyjJic 0115a67a prev 591524bf age 23.02s
2015-06-07 09:57:42.025549 > No bitcoind connection when block submittal attempted! https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/block.dws?00005c05c51a4ca28dc96c1c20655f41c636c708ae741c330c1ab8d00115a67a
2015-06-07 09:57:42.033706
2015-06-07 09:57:42.033798 GOT BLOCK FROM PEER! Passing to bitcoind! 0115a67a bitcoin: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/block.dws?00005c05c51a4ca28dc96c1c20655f41c636c708ae741c330c1ab8d00115a67a
2015-06-07 09:57:42.058658 > Block submittal result: False (u'inconclusive') Expected: True
2015-06-07 09:57:42.195297 no type for 'reject'
2015-06-07 09:57:42.456350 no type for 'reject'

Even that p2pool report as block found, the submittal result is "False"-"inconclusive". And here get stuck, until another p2pool find the block. 2 days ago, both mine and the main pools got stuck until I cleaned the logs and started again.

I like the idea of "Services On Blockchain" and here could be any type of services, setting a minimum amount plus any other amount for any type of Service. And here, I think that the author must gather all type of Services and put on an whitepaper to be discussed.

But all of this discussions are zero. Why? We are very few people involved.
So first, we must spread the coin to many more adopters, easing the mining, having more options to mine the coin, solo/pool, provide a good return of the investment time in mining. Having a stable network, less bugs in wallet, having something that work 100%.
I use the 6 mil in publicity, hiring good developers to do "a work", not thinking if that is good for community/coin or not, but doing what they are told, listing the coin on cryptsy/poloniex and trying even to have his own market (eg XMR) ... and so on. SPREAD THE COIN, MASS ADOPTION !!!
After, releasing the various services, thinking of business ...

[bitcreditscc]

Just my thoughts ...

I do not agree with lowering the time for a block.
1. For those who have been for a while, there was problems at the beginning  with forks being made because the network sync. So at that time was rewritten the algo for block diff, increasing the time to avoid this problems.
2. The low sum of mined blocks reside from a bug in p2pool code not handled:

Code:

2015-06-07 09:57:42.017555 > No bitcoind connection when block submittal attempted! https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/block.dws?00005c05c51a4ca28dc96c1c20655f41c636c708ae741c330c1ab8d00115a67a
2015-06-07 09:57:42.019610
2015-06-07 09:57:42.019666 GOT BLOCK FROM MINER! Passing to bitcoind! https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/block.dws?00005c05c51a4ca28dc96c1c20655f41c636c708ae741c330c1ab8d00115a67a
2015-06-07 09:57:42.019708
2015-06-07 09:57:42.021963 GOT SHARE! 5qN3ZasN345N5UoEVg2iZ4DtwA8YjyjJic 0115a67a prev 591524bf age 23.02s
2015-06-07 09:57:42.025549 > No bitcoind connection when block submittal attempted! https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/block.dws?00005c05c51a4ca28dc96c1c20655f41c636c708ae741c330c1ab8d00115a67a
2015-06-07 09:57:42.033706
2015-06-07 09:57:42.033798 GOT BLOCK FROM PEER! Passing to bitcoind! 0115a67a bitcoin: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/block.dws?00005c05c51a4ca28dc96c1c20655f41c636c708ae741c330c1ab8d00115a67a
2015-06-07 09:57:42.058658 > Block submittal result: False (u'inconclusive') Expected: True
2015-06-07 09:57:42.195297 no type for 'reject'
2015-06-07 09:57:42.456350 no type for 'reject'

Even that p2pool report as block found, the submittal result is "False"-"inconclusive". And here get stuck, until another p2pool find the block. 2 days ago, both mine and the main pools got stuck until I cleaned the logs and started again.

I like the idea of "Services On Blockchain" and here could be any type of services, setting a minimum amount plus any other amount for any type of Service. And here, I think that the author must gather all type of Services and put on an whitepaper to be discussed.

But all of this discussions are zero. Why? We are very few people involved.
So first, we must spread the coin to many more adopters, easing the mining, having more options to mine the coin, solo/pool, provide a good return of the investment time in mining. Having a stable network, less bugs in wallet, having something that work 100%.
I use the 6 mil in publicity, hiring good developers to do "a work", not thinking if that is good for community/coin or not, but doing what they are told, listing the coin on cryptsy/poloniex and trying even to have his own market (eg XMR) ... and so on. SPREAD THE COIN, MASS ADOPTION !!!
After, releasing the various services, thinking of business ...

For the moment payment in BCR is not attractive to most people not associated with the project. We are altering the entire system because we wish to resolve these and other problems as well as become a more commercially viable candidate for people who want blockchain based technology.

The block problem is a direct result of miners competing over blocks as you know there are the normal single block forks and the bad 2+ forks,  by focusing miners resources in a green environment that funnels all of the funding into BCR we , 1) eliminate wasteful mining, 2) decrease confirm time 3) increase liquidity

the bidding method is actually a very good way of spreading the coin, any user can bid any amount and get coins without the hassle of mining , they can get lucks and get a ton of coins for very little .

Instead of money going into electricity and hardware cost, it is going into BCR directly.

[thelonecrouton]

Reducing the collateral requirement would only superficially (at first) increase security, because let's face it we'd all just be running 3/4/5 BNs on the same machine(s) instead of 1. We'd have ~100 BN's immediately with a 50k collateral each but no real world improvement. It would however make it easier for new players to get on board going forward.

eg. 50k BCR @ 1000 sats is 0.5BTC - hardly a huge investment, so might attract more people. Those of us who are prepared to invest a bit more will in time be better off as we'll also have BN capital for p2p loans, backed asset issuance etc. It isn't a deal breaker for me either way, maybe it's worth lowering to 50k just to try and ignite more interest. There is still going to be inflationary pressure from new mintage, making BNs more affordable is a good counter to that, but blockchain security should be the paramount consideration.

Just 200 BN's within a month or two, reasonably distributed, would probably give us much better actual security than any pool-mined PoW currency even without per-block subsetting. Subsetting 10% of them would be even better, 160 compromised nodes out of 200 would only give an attacker a 1.1% chance with 20 random nodes needed for consensus. And it just gets better from there.


The block time thing isn't a big issue for me. Faster is better, 30 secs would be fine if lower than that would cause issues. Maybe the new scheme would avoid or mitigate the problem dragos mentioned with p2pool, I'm happy to let those better qualified decide what's technically appropriate.

So first, we must spread the coin to many more adopters, easing the mining, having more options to mine the coin, solo/pool, provide a good return of the investment time in mining. Having a stable network, less bugs in wallet, having something that work 100%.
I use the 6 mil in publicity, hiring good developers to do "a work", not thinking if that is good for community/coin or not, but doing what they are told, listing the coin on cryptsy/poloniex and trying even to have his own market (eg XMR) ... and so on. SPREAD THE COIN, MASS ADOPTION !!!
After, releasing the various services, thinking of business ...

Very much agreed here on sensibly spending the 6 million, it's no use sat there doing nothing. There's a lot of competition in this space and time is of the essence. And at some point we should set up a BCR testnet.

Speaking of adoption, that will happen as BCR grows into a viable and capable platform, but I frankly don't care very much about 'adoption' by bitcointalk users.    Business to business automated escrow, reserve-backed assets, p2p lending once the credit scoring system is worked out, etc. ... things like this matter more to me.

I know a lot of people don't take the risks associated with pooled PoW mining seriously, or even concede their existence, but there's a reason big money is shy of BTC - ask yourself if you had $millions++, would you trust it to a system that could be taken down and wrecked by compromising just 3 publicly known or easily identifiable machines? That's not security, and just because nobody has bothered to break BTC yet doesn't mean it will never happen, because for any serious adversary it's a cheap trivial op. Having an actually secure blockchain is important.

What's been talked about here recently can
a) Give us actual blockchain security, not just security theatre
b) Fund faster and better development

It's been a very good few pages. 

[antonio8]

JMHO

You are killing the coin by keep decreasing the amount to block finders.

18.75 is way too low considering the amount going everywhere else. For me you are no incentive to continue mining as I see a majority of the block going to non miners.

This coin is slowly becoming a way for those who have more to keep getting a bigger part of the pie.

And please don't say if I want a BN I should invest BTC to get one. There are some of us that still like to mine and build up what we earn but unfortunately it looks to be going the other way now.

[thelonecrouton]

JMHO

You are killing the coin by keep decreasing the amount to block finders.

18.75 is way too low considering the amount going everywhere else. For me you are no incentive to continue mining as I see a majority of the block going to non miners.

This coin is slowly becoming a way for those who have more to keep getting a bigger part of the pie.

And please don't say if I want a BN I should invest BTC to get one. There are some of us that still like to mine and build up what we earn but unfortunately it looks to be going the other way now.

Eh? The block reward may decrease per block but there will be more frequent blocks, plus the current 5 + 5 BCR each block will go, so bidders will actually get more compared to what miners get now.

And since bidding is likely to work out cheaper than mining (for those who don't get free electricity) anyone who wants to can acquire more, more cheaply, more easily. What's being discussed will improve distribution accessibility, not limit it.

It's PoW that's limiting and exclusionary to the 99.9999999999% of the world's population that can't afford the hardware and the running costs of PoW, and don't have and never will have the know how anyway.

[antonio8]

JMHO

You are killing the coin by keep decreasing the amount to block finders.

18.75 is way too low considering the amount going everywhere else. For me you are no incentive to continue mining as I see a majority of the block going to non miners.

This coin is slowly becoming a way for those who have more to keep getting a bigger part of the pie.

And please don't say if I want a BN I should invest BTC to get one. There are some of us that still like to mine and build up what we earn but unfortunately it looks to be going the other way now.

Eh? The block reward may decrease per block but there will be more frequent blocks, plus the current 5 + 5 BCR each block will go, so bidders will actually get more compared to what miners get now.

And since bidding is likely to work out cheaper than mining (for those who don't get free electricity) anyone who wants to can acquire more, more cheaply, more easily. What's being discussed will improve distribution accessibility, not limit it.

It's PoW that's limiting and exclusionary to the 99.9999999999% of the world's population that can't afford the hardware and the running costs of PoW, and don't have and never will have the know how anyway.

But again. You are taking the miners out of the equation. Sorry limiting us.

Free electricity or not (and I am not free).