[ANN] BitBean | Innovative PoS | Scalability | No IPO | No premine

[powersup]

Glad to see a new crypto follow the CLAM way
Proof-of-Working-Stake certainly does align the incentives of the network and stakers more appropriately.
Not sure if it qualifies for "innovative", considering we implemented it months and months ago, but it is certainly wise.
Well done!
Cheers  

Welcome SuperClam
I took the idea of static blocks for staking from Cinni's old pre-ann i found on a bitcointalk archive site. so its possible both of us are not "innovative" but that is not important as the method itself is innovative.  
Humanity needs to improve on each other to succeed.   Do you agree?

We all 'stand on the shoulders of giants', as they say.  
Indeed.
If someone doesn't believe in the open source way; they are in the wrong community.
A bit concerned about how you've hardened the network against attacks....?
20 * 60 * 24 * ?
The math gets very big, very quickly, my friend.

If you are talking about an attack where someone holds coins for a long time to get more coin age and find alot of blocks with a little amount of coins, getting alot of pos blocks and making a double spend. I made the max age 6 hours. so someone with a few coins can't gather enough coin age to get alot of blocks with few coins.

No, I was referencing the block size limit and target block time.

20 MB @ 1 block per minute = 20 * 60 * 24 = 28800 MB max per day.

This assumes ever block has 20mb worth of transactions every minute.  Compare this to bitcoin 20mb fork and its equivalent to 200mb worth of transactions per block.  this is extremely high considering most blocks in bitcoin are under 300kb at the current transaction frequency.  As far as bitbean is concerned your looking at a problem that probably is never going to fruition in our lifetime.

[powersup]

Glad to see a new crypto follow the CLAM way
Proof-of-Working-Stake certainly does align the incentives of the network and stakers more appropriately.
Not sure if it qualifies for "innovative", considering we implemented it months and months ago, but it is certainly wise.
Well done!
Cheers  

Welcome SuperClam
I took the idea of static blocks for staking from Cinni's old pre-ann i found on a bitcointalk archive site. so its possible both of us are not "innovative" but that is not important as the method itself is innovative.  
Humanity needs to improve on each other to succeed.   Do you agree?

We all 'stand on the shoulders of giants', as they say.  
Indeed.
If someone doesn't believe in the open source way; they are in the wrong community.
A bit concerned about how you've hardened the network against attacks....?
20 * 60 * 24 * ?
The math gets very big, very quickly, my friend.

If you are talking about an attack where someone holds coins for a long time to get more coin age and find alot of blocks with a little amount of coins, getting alot of pos blocks and making a double spend. I made the max age 6 hours. so someone with a few coins can't gather enough coin age to get alot of blocks with few coins.

No, I was referencing the block size limit and target block time.

20 MB @ 1 block per minute = 20 * 60 * 24 = 28800 MB max per day.

Are you saying the max block size is too large?
Well to prevent a ddos attack I can raise the transaction fee to 1 coin.
Block chain pruning and similar things will help make this not a problem for the actual use (non-ddos/attack) and attacks alike.
I have thought about this and have quite a few things planned.
Also Scalability and Anonymity are important for a payment network and finding ways for them is something to strive for. I have thought of ways for off chain transactions to work and further the scalability and also provide anonymous transactions by using multisig addresses and trustless payment gateways. With this we wouldn't even need the 20 mb max block size. But both together would be excellent.
I am really excited to work on this coin and Thank you for coming and sharing your thoughts and feedback. I appreciate it.

you could make the fee proportional (or even exponential)to the transaction size to prevent an attacker from putting useless data into the transaction and bloating the block.

[Cointinuous]

Sure gotta get me some beans 

[nokat]

you could make the fee proportional (or even exponential)to the transaction size to prevent an attacker from putting useless data into the transaction and bloating the block.

Already in bitcoin if the transaction is over 10 kb the sending pays a higher fee. Also over 10 kb per transaction happens often for PoS coins if you have many inputs(for example from staking).
Making that fee higher would probably be a good idea that is smart. But exponential would cause normal people who just have alot of inputs to lose alot of coins in transaction fee unless its set over a certain very high threshold.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Sure gotta get me some beans 

Not sure about that, Newbie. This thing is obviously in some powerful hands. Careful you don't spend all your butts in one place

[kcanup]

Dev I sent you a PM, please check and reply. Thanks!

[coin43.com]

BitBean Faucet

http://faucet.coin43.com/bitbean/

10-15 BITB per 30 min

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

BitBean Faucet

http://faucet.coin43.com/bitbean/

Sell pressure! Everybody panic! Spill all the Beans!!!1

[SuperClam]

you could make the fee proportional (or even exponential)to the transaction size to prevent an attacker from putting useless data into the transaction and bloating the block.

Already in bitcoin if the transaction is over 10 kb the sending pays a higher fee. Also over 10 kb per transaction happens often for PoS coins if you have many inputs(for example from staking).
Making that fee higher would probably be a good idea that is smart. But exponential would cause normal people who just have alot of inputs to lose alot of coins in transaction fee unless its set over a certain very high threshold.

More concerned about the short-term.

Certainly in the long-term there is plenty of room to implement any number of ideas that have been bandied about by the community.

In the short-term, for a relatively small expense in tx fees and the effort of a simple bash script, an attacker could bloat the BitBean chain to surpass the size of the BTC chain in a couple days.

The only solution I can imagine would be to add consensus rules to mandate a tx fee large enough to make such an attack infeasible.
Hard to say how large that would need to be.

I would personally implement such a fix sooner, rather than later.
No choice but to re-launch the chain if we wait and it takes place.

[nokat]

you could make the fee proportional (or even exponential)to the transaction size to prevent an attacker from putting useless data into the transaction and bloating the block.

Already in bitcoin if the transaction is over 10 kb the sending pays a higher fee. Also over 10 kb per transaction happens often for PoS coins if you have many inputs(for example from staking).
Making that fee higher would probably be a good idea that is smart. But exponential would cause normal people who just have alot of inputs to lose alot of coins in transaction fee unless its set over a certain very high threshold.

More concerned about the short-term.

Certainly in the long-term there is plenty of room to implement any number of ideas that have been bandied about by the community.

In the short-term, for a relatively small expense in tx fees and the effort of a simple bash script, an attacker could bloat the BitBean chain to surpass the size of the BTC chain in a couple days.

The only solution I can imagine would be to add consensus rules to mandate a tx fee large enough to make such an attack infeasible.
Hard to say how large that would need to be.

I would personally implement such a fix sooner, rather than later.
No choice but to re-launch the chain if we wait and it takes place.

Hey
Alright I'll get on it.
 

[coin43.com]

BitBean Faucet

http://faucet.coin43.com/bitbean/

Sell pressure! Everybody panic! Spill all the Beans!!!1

somebody donated 100,000 BITB. Good job

[anticlimax]

Looking great so far!
Excited to see what the future holds.
Love how active the dev/community has become.

[bitcoinreviews]

Looking great so far!
Excited to see what the future holds.
Love how active the dev/community has become.

Agreed! Always wondered why devs aren't half as active. Great job dev(s), keep it up!
Cheers,
JB

[powersup]

Looking great so far!
Excited to see what the future holds.
Love how active the dev/community has become.

forum needs a "like" button.

Its might be the beans i just ate, but I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside 

[anticlimax]

Looking great so far!
Excited to see what the future holds.
Love how active the dev/community has become.

forum needs a "like" button.

Its might be the beans i just ate, but I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside  

Amen brother, warm and fuzzy hits the nail on the head.
Wish i hadnt been locked out of my wallets when this launched, all i could muster was whatever was on bittrex.
I should send teamviewer some anthrax in the mail.

[chisefu]

Hey nokat, if you implemented that multisig anon system you casually mentioned, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but would it require masternodes?

[nokat]

Hey nokat, if you implemented that multisig anon system you casually mentioned, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but would it require masternodes?

Yeah it would need something like payment gateways.

[harry_weener]

Hey nokat, if you implemented that multisig anon system you casually mentioned, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but would it require masternodes?

supercoin multisig anon system does not require masternodes
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=875651
the code is open source now   

just sayin 

[anticlimax]

Hey nokat, if you implemented that multisig anon system you casually mentioned, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but would it require masternodes?

supercoin multisig anon system does not require masternodes
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=875651
the code is open source now   

just sayin 

then we can "borrow" it.

[harry_weener]

Hey nokat, if you implemented that multisig anon system you casually mentioned, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but would it require masternodes?

supercoin multisig anon system does not require masternodes
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=875651
the code is open source now   

just sayin 

then we can "borrow" it.

  thats what i was thinking - borrow it 
supersend multisig works great too btw
and no nodes so its 100% decentralized and trustless
check it out dev