Best way of initial coin distribution

[Come-from-Beyond]

I'd like to get your suggestions about the best way of initial coin distribution of a 100% Proof-of-Stake coin.

NB: Actually it's for a network-bound proof-of-work coin but from formal point of view it's the same problem. Network-bound PoW system requires a lot of explanations, let's make appearance that we are talking about PoS now, the majority is more familiar with PoS than with network-bound PoW.

[1715149896]

1715149896

[1715149896]

1715149896

[cakir]

Well, Let's say you've %100 premined 1 mil coin. I would distribute this coin like that;

10% of this coin: IPO
10% of this coin: ICO (x2 price of ip price)
10% of this coin: signature campaign
10% of this coin: twitter/fb shares, followers etc.
10% of this coin: 7 day mining
...

Something like that: which covers all of the methods to distribute coins. For instance: I want to mine then I'll mine it pow mining. I don't power to mine so I'll join sig campaign. I don't want to do anything bu want coins then I'll buy with ipo/ico etc.

Everyone can collect coins how they like.

[Crestington]

I'd like to get your suggestions about the best way of initial coin distribution of a 100% Proof-of-Stake coin.

NB: Actually it's for a network-bound proof-of-work coin but from formal point of view it's the same problem. Network-bound PoW system requires a lot of explanations, let's make appearance that we are talking about PoS now, the majority is more familiar with PoS than with network-bound PoW.

Just premine the whole thing except a small portion for mining and sell/give-away at good prices for what you need for expenses.

or

You could have no premine but a longer POW period (1-3 months)

Would all depend on execution though because you want investors to make profits.

[pozmu]

I have an idea, start a free casino!
Make it hard enough so having multiple accounts won't really help.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Well, Let's say you've %100 premined 1 mil coin. I would distribute this coin like that;

10% of this coin: IPO
10% of this coin: ICO (x2 price of ip price)
10% of this coin: signature campaign
10% of this coin: twitter/fb shares, followers etc.
10% of this coin: 7 day mining
...

Something like that: which covers all of the methods to distribute coins. For instance: I want to mine then I'll mine it pow mining. I don't power to mine so I'll join sig campaign. I don't want to do anything bu want coins then I'll buy with ipo/ico etc.

Everyone can collect coins how they like.

What are differences between IPO and ICO?

PS: We can't use mining, there is no infrastructure for that, all the coins must be distributed before the genesis block.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Would all depend on execution though because you want investors to make profits.

Profit is not required, we can do it a-la Nxt (collect very little amount just to know how to distribute the coins).

[jones_]

I'd like to get your suggestions about the best way of initial coin distribution of a 100% Proof-of-Stake coin.

NB: Actually it's for a network-bound proof-of-work coin but from formal point of view it's the same problem. Network-bound PoW system requires a lot of explanations, let's make appearance that we are talking about PoS now, the majority is more familiar with PoS than with network-bound PoW.

So the is work prolonged by network latency? Like having to communicate with a bunch of computers all over the place to get enough data to solve the puzzle where the difficulty is how long the connections take to complete? interesting..

It seems that the BCNext way will give you lots of strife from the current bitcoin community (as we've seen) So I suggest either a BCNext style one with a wider reach, or allowing people to redeem packs of coins on the new system by posting a token of an nxt account with a balance higher than X at a certain point.

[cakir]

Well, Let's say you've %100 premined 1 mil coin. I would distribute this coin like that;

10% of this coin: IPO
10% of this coin: ICO (x2 price of ip price)
10% of this coin: signature campaign
10% of this coin: twitter/fb shares, followers etc.
10% of this coin: 7 day mining
...

Something like that: which covers all of the methods to distribute coins. For instance: I want to mine then I'll mine it pow mining. I don't power to mine so I'll join sig campaign. I don't want to do anything bu want coins then I'll buy with ipo/ico etc.

Everyone can collect coins how they like.

What are differences between IPO and ICO?

PS: We can't use mining, there is no infrastructure for that, all the coins must be distributed before the genesis block.

Well, basic difference is price.
On ipo: you designate a time let's say it's a week.
You collect funds for a week, let's say it's around 12 BTC for 100k coins.
What's ipo price? 0.00012 btc for each coin.

On ico; you designate the price of the coin. You can say ICO price is 0.00024 btc for 100k coins. Then you can collect 24 BTC for it.


Basically prices are different.

[URSAY]

I'd like to get your suggestions about the best way of initial coin distribution of a 100% Proof-of-Stake coin.

NB: Actually it's for a network-bound proof-of-work coin but from formal point of view it's the same problem. Network-bound PoW system requires a lot of explanations, let's make appearance that we are talking about PoS now, the majority is more familiar with PoS than with network-bound PoW.

So the is work prolonged by network latency? Like having to communicate with a bunch of computers all over the place to get enough data to solve the puzzle where the difficulty is how long the connections take to complete? interesting..

It seems that the BCNext way will give you lots of strife from the current bitcoin community (as we've seen) So I suggest either a BCNext style one with a wider reach, or allowing people to redeem packs of coins on the new system by posting a token of an nxt account with a balance higher than X at a certain point.

CLAM distro is worth looking at.

[Come-from-Beyond]

CLAM distro is worth looking at.

Then exchanges will get big share for free while the original owners will get nothing.

[El Emperador]

I'd distribute them mainly to promote the coin itself: twitter/facebook giveaways, bounties, faucets, sig campaigns...

[MadAlpha]

50% in IPO/ICO (whatever the difference is), after you have promoted it enough to get as much investors as Ethereum did. Then the other 50% as forging rewards released over the next 10 years.

[Crestington]

CLAM distro is worth looking at.

Then exchanges will get big share for free while the original owners will get nothing.

Wouldn't have to do all of it with exchanges first, you could use timelocks even. If you know what the exchange addresses are, you could even exclude them in the first round and make sure all the holders get their Coins first.

The Clams effect also means that the holders of the original Coin also keep their original keys so they aren't losing anything by participating.

[Sebastien256]

What about burn coin of an ipo/ico? You are then sure issuer do not self invest. In Nxt, that would mean send coin to genesis.

[Crestington]

What about burn coin of an ipo/ico? You are then sure issuer do not self invest. In Nxt, that would mean send coin to genesis.

The burn only really works if you could do it where it actually reduces the float rather than sending it to an unspendable address.

[Sebastien256]

What about burn coin of an ipo/ico? You are then sure issuer do not self invest. In Nxt, that would mean send coin to genesis.

The burn only really works if you could do it where it actually reduces the float rather than sending it to an unspendable address.

Why? i do not understand. thank for more explanation.

edit, genesis in nxt destroy the nxt coin, if it is that that you mean to reduce float.

[readysalted89]

CLAM distro is worth looking at.

Then exchanges will get big share for free while the original owners will get nothing.

Wouldn't have to do all of it with exchanges first, you could use timelocks even. If you know what the exchange addresses are, you could even exclude them in the first round and make sure all the holders get their Coins first.

The Clams effect also means that the holders of the original Coin also keep their original keys so they aren't losing anything by participating.

Lottoshares coin used the same type of distribution as Clams, but attempted to compensate sharecoin holders who lost out when the sharexcoin exchange was hacked.

The quote gives the exact distribution model, but the difference to the Clams model was most of the coins randomly became spendable over a period starting 2 months from launch, finishing 14 months after launch. After importing a key your wallet would show you had coins that needed tens of thousands of confirmations before they could be spent.

...

Distribution

(These coins are available to be played immediately)
20% Bitcoin - Each of the top 1,000,000 Bitcoin addresses received 20 LTS in the genesis block. (Block 302,000)
20% Dogecoin - Each of the top 250,000 Dogecoin addresses received 80 LTS in the genesis block. (Block 232,000)

(These coins are vested, and mature over a period starting 2 months from launch, finishing 14months after launch)
10% distributed to MemoryCoin (MMC) holders (Block #39,983)
10% distributed to ProtoShares (PTS) holders (Block #65,959)
10% distributed to AngelShares (AGS) holders (End of May 2014)
8.0% Devs for ongoing development and maintenance
6.6% FootballCoin - 7080 coins to each of the users on the distribution list (80 coins available for use immediately)
10.9% ShareCoin - 7080 coins to each of the users in the inital distribution (80 coins available for use immediately)
4.5% gifted to btctalk users, exchanges, crypto projects, bloggers (80 coins available for use immediately)

Any coin not moved from the genesis block become invalid after 2 years

...

[Come-from-Beyond]

I would say a premine of less than 0.5% is a decent way. This way, the value depends on what you make of the coin, and doesn't have to be a pump and dump

We have to distribute 100% of the coins in the beginning.

[TaunSew]

Proof of Beluga Caviar.  

[lucky88888]

The best way is IPO with full fund buy back @ ipo prices! This way the price can only go up and can not go down as long as you don't end up running away.

That's the way it worked best so far, except they all end up being scams so far.

[Anotheranonlol]

I would say a premine of less than 0.5% is a decent way. This way, the value depends on what you make of the coin, and doesn't have to be a pump and dump

We have to distribute 100% of the coins in the beginning.

just a few ideas

1)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxZjpOK0pR0wMEZ2cVo0XzM0T3c/view?pli=1
https://github.com/Buskcoin/The-Chain-Gang

2) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140711.0

3) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Zero_Knowledge_Contingent_Payment

H() could be a program that verifies possession of a valid machine readable travel document issued to a particular person. In this case, you would be able to define a payment to someone based on some arbitrary attributes about them, such as their name + date of birth, or perhaps by providing a photo of their face that's then matched against the travel document using the Eigenfaces algorithm. There would be no need to obtain a public key from them ahead of time meaning that, for example, you could send money to someone who was only just born and doesn't yet have a wallet.

(or a simplified version where user data is verified via a centralised db like https://www.trulioo.com/ or http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/intl/en/instant-id-international.aspx)

the last 2 examples focus more on establishing some sort of ID to limit distribution of coins to real entities

I can't really think of any ideal method to widely distribute a coin fairly amongst a group without sacrificing user-privacy.  Ripple, Stellar and NEM were ok to get coins in the hands of those that hadn't already acquired hashing farms - they required very light verification at most but all of them were gamed. Whether it's twitter, facebook, or bitcointalk accounts they'd be brought in bulk as theres people with tons of socks .Even if it was something harder to obtain like passports or whatever being checked on a third party api (via a provable smart contract) identities would still be purchased off dark markets

I think perhaps the simplest method is a straight proof-of-burn. The more money any entity pours into the initial proof-of-burn (including the developers themselves) the more you might expect them to work for their investment- cause nobody is getting those funds back otherwise. (granted the biggest contributors might carry some passive whales on their shoulders without financial support afforded by an ICO) However at least It eliminates concerns of developers buying their own supply & massively dumping on market and theres no fixed IPO cap

[MadCow]

100% IPO, all funds raised go to charities. IPO method is fair, no sockpuppets, and does something good. Could even be an educational non-profit that focused on crypto currencies.

edit: my preference for charity would be ones focused on alleviating extreme hunger

[DecentralizeEconomics]

allowing people to redeem packs of coins on the new system by posting a token of an nxt account with a balance higher than X at a certain point.

Imo, this is the best way.  You could even spread out the distribution over several months before you launched the genesis block.  For instance, the percentage of NXT you own on April 1st, May 1st and June 1st determines your allotment in the genesis block and each month would distribute 33% of the currency.

[patmast3r]

That depends on what you want to achieve with your distribution.

Is it supposed to be as easy as possible i.e. not much administration ?
Do you want to reach as many people as possible or is the generated funding more important ?
Would socks be a problem ?

What is the best always depends on the desired outcome.

[Come-from-Beyond]

That depends on what you want to achieve with your distribution.

Is it supposed to be as easy as possible i.e. not much administration ?
Do you want to reach as many people as possible or is the generated funding more important ?
Would socks be a problem ?

What is the best always depends on the desired outcome.

Much administration is not that bad. As many people as possible without socks because there is no need to promote the coin.

[Come-from-Beyond]

After reading the suggestions I came to such a method:

1. Create a mintable Nxt subcurrency and let people mint as many coins as they can within 24 hours.
2. Create a special Bitcoin address and let those who took part in the previous step send several satoshis to back every minted coin.

These two simple steps solve sockpuppet issue (because resource testing is used), greatly reduce number of script kiddies (or school network admins) with botnets (because minted coins must be backed by bitcoins) and reduce advantage of being a Bitcoin early adopter (because minting requires a lot of GPUs and ASICs can't be used for that).

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

After reading the suggestions I came to such a method:

1. Create a mintable Nxt subcurrency and let people mint as many coins as they can within 24 hours.
2. Create a special Bitcoin address and let those who took part in the previous step send several satoshis to back every minted coin.

These two simple steps solve sockpuppet issue (because resource testing is used), greatly reduce number of script kiddies (or school network admins) with botnets (because minted coins must be backed by bitcoins) and reduce advantage of being a Bitcoin early adopter (because minting requires a lot of GPUs and ASICs can't be used for that).

Does this mean that if you dont have a gpu miner for step 1 you are SOL?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Does this mean that if you dont have a gpu or asic miner for step 1 you are SOL?

With CPU you'll mint much slower.

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

So how can i game the system then? Lol

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

Maybe , as an earlier poster mentioned, do it over the course of a few months. Ie minting period 1 in march, period 2 in april, period three in may, etc.

That way more people have time to participate.

[Come-from-Beyond]

...as you would have had to been a modern day Nostradamus...

...or UtopianFuture.

[pizza77]

Giving a stake to each bitcointalk member who applies is a possibility. Its been done before. Some devs gave everyone who applied the same amount, some based the amount on bitcointalk activity rating, and some restricted the giveaway to members above a certain rank.

[dsly]

Whats the problem of taking the addresses and directly distributing it after the genesis block ?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Whats the problem of taking the addresses and directly distributing it after the genesis block ?

What addresses?

[doc12]

I think its not so important how you distriubute the coins , but to have a very long distribution time, lets say a year or somthing like that. 

[DecentralizeEconomics]

...as you would have had to been a modern day Nostradamus...

...or UtopianFuture.

Hahaha  Good one.

theres no way he could have known about the second, far more throughout and technical round of sock removal. so even if he knew how to get through the first round, the second would have caught him.

Go tell that to some sucker who will believe it.

[spartacusrex]

I was thinking that what you really want is as LARGE an initial user base as possible. You need some way of reaching AS MANY users as possible.

You can't give them away for free as that is too easy to game.

Mining / NXT asset / BitcoinTalk IPO etc etc seem too limited to 'Crypto Scene'

How do you get ordinary 'Joe Blogs' involved..

Sooo..

I would do an android/iOS app.

Sell them in the app, with in-app purchase. Say $0.69 a coin (The minimum in-app amount - it doesn't matter how many coins you get). YES - you would make some money, but there is no way round that. So would Apple and Google by the way.

Then at the end of a specified period of time(a Month ?), allocate based on how many coins sold in total. (That's why it doesn't matter how many actual coins you get, you get a percent of the total. As you did in that now infamous original NXT thread with BCNext.. I was there.. ;-)

This way, hopefully, many 10's of thousands of users can buy some of this initial stock.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I was thinking that what you really want is as LARGE an initial user base as possible.

I don't need too many users. 1000 is max.

[mthcl]

You can also distribute among facebook accounts (of those who apply) created before certain date. And also among bitcointalk/nxtforum users: e.g., senior and hero members get a stake for free, full members pay smth, junior members pay more.

[d5000]

I like the "proof-of-location" method a lot. You would have to prove that you were at a specific location via GPS and other methods (IP ping latency?), like in an augmented reality game. So the community all around the world has the approximately the same chance.

The problem is that I don't know if it is possible to avoid cheating. So for now, I would only distribute very few coins per address and only during a limited amount of time (< few days, so cheaters first must find out how to cheat), but that would enable it to be an alternative to an IPO

[Cryddit]

I don't think there really is a reasonable way to have a 100% proof-of-stake coin that's that way from the very beginning.

I've been considering it recently, actually; I think the best I can do is to make a coin with a fixed proof-of-work award that never changes, and then inflation in the form of "interest" awarded for destroyed coin-blocks (coin-days times actual blocks-per-day) in transactions.

So, I'd start off awarding 10 coins per block, or whatever, and keep doing that indefinitely (you might prefer to stop after a couple of years) - and whenever somebody makes a transaction, the miner gets a month's worth of interest and they get the rest for proof-of-stake. 

And the "longest chain" is the longest chain by proof-of-stake and proof-of-work in the same ratio that POS:POW coins have been awarded, so there'd be a very gradual transition to being more and more centered on proof-of-stake as time goes on.

The interest rate would depend on the block rate, of course - but for 10-minute blocks, it would be an "approximately fair" rate of interest to multiply the input by about (1+10^-6)^coin-blocks. 

[Bobsurplus]

Well, Let's say you've %100 premined 1 mil coin. I would distribute this coin like that;

10% of this coin: IPO
10% of this coin: ICO (x2 price of ip price)
10% of this coin: signature campaign
10% of this coin: twitter/fb shares, followers etc.
10% of this coin: 7 day mining
...

Something like that: which covers all of the methods to distribute coins. For instance: I want to mine then I'll mine it pow mining. I don't power to mine so I'll join sig campaign. I don't want to do anything bu want coins then I'll buy with ipo/ico etc.

Everyone can collect coins how they like.

What are differences between IPO and ICO?

PS: We can't use mining, there is no infrastructure for that, all the coins must be distributed before the genesis block.

Well, basic difference is price.
On ipo: you designate a time let's say it's a week.
You collect funds for a week, let's say it's around 12 BTC for 100k coins.
What's ipo price? 0.00012 btc for each coin.

On ico; you designate the price of the coin. You can say ICO price is 0.00024 btc for 100k coins. Then you can collect 24 BTC for it.


Basically prices are different.

There is no difference.. Its just a different name.

Initial public offering
Initial coin offering.

[Crestington]

I don't think there really is a reasonable way to have a 100% proof-of-stake coin that's that way from the very beginning.

I've been considering it recently, actually; I think the best I can do is to make a coin with a fixed proof-of-work award that never changes, and then inflation in the form of "interest" awarded for destroyed coin-blocks (coin-days times actual blocks-per-day) in transactions.

So, I'd start off awarding 10 coins per block, or whatever, and keep doing that indefinitely (you might prefer to stop after a couple of years) - and whenever somebody makes a transaction, the miner gets a month's worth of interest and they get the rest for proof-of-stake.  

And the "longest chain" is the longest chain by proof-of-stake and proof-of-work in the same ratio that POS:POW coins have been awarded, so there'd be a very gradual transition to being more and more centered on proof-of-stake as time goes on.

The interest rate would depend on the block rate, of course - but for 10-minute blocks, it would be an "approximately fair" rate of interest to multiply the input by about (1+10^-6)^coin-blocks.  

Ok, well I made ColossusCoin2 as POW/POS with fast distribution

2 minute Block time
7 day min age
28 day max age
19.1 Billion mined over the first 10 Blocks
1000 POW Coins a Block for 10,000 Blocks (works out to about 7 million POW Coins)
20 Coin minimum fee paid to miners (POW and POS)
POS reward is 5000 Coins per Block, every Block regardless of Coins Staking

Total amount of new Coins would be about 6% per year

Share of the 6% plus fees of trades would depend on Block sizes, coinage and staking activity (The float may grow at 6% but you might get 30-40% on your Coins). IMO the CLAMS distribution is the best way because you don't even need to take any Coins, you still keep your old Coins but get the new Coins as well.

I am doing an upgrade for ColossusCoin at a 20:1 ratio with 25% of the Coins reserved for the Development Fund and am looking for someone that has some more experience with the CLAMS distribution method through redeemscripts. I have been talking to the CamorraCoin developers but the dev has been absent for 4-5 days so need to find someone else that can help me with it.

You can see the thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941433.0

CV2 is already in the POS only stage and trading on the alcurex exchange.

[Cryddit]

See, I'm of the opinion that the "fast distribution" thing is lame, and ultimately leads to the collapse of the cryptocurrencies that do it.

If the creation of coins in the beginning is more per block than, say, one and a half times what it is a year into the issue, you're doing it too fast.  In fact the economics would make more sense if the distribution per block a year out was slightly *more* than the distribution in the first few blocks, giving a very mild constant but permanent rate of currency supply inflation.

I think a lot of these altcoins fail because the distribution is way too fast and way too front-loaded. The resulting economic model whether for use as an investment or a currency is just plain broken. 

The only sensible way to interpret a coin where the early miners/early investors get way more than anybody else is as a ponzi game where the early investors are looking to make money on fools who come along later or hold on for longer.  The point is that Ponzis always collapse, and any sensible person can see that it's going to collapse (even if most of them can't figure out exactly when) so keeping it as an investment is just plain dumb and using it for spending money is a continual search for the greater fool who will accept it believing that the collapse is just a little further out than you believe it is.

If you want to be making a cryptocurrency that makes any kind of economic sense as a currency, the rate of currency creation a year out ought to be about the same, give or take  up to 20% depending on what kind of economic model you're looking for, as the rate of currency creation on the first day.  Let the rate at which new coins enter the economy remain fairly constant as you make the shift from PoW to PoS, and make that shift gradually and carefully. 

[Come-from-Beyond]

I don't think there really is a reasonable way to have a 100% proof-of-stake coin that's that way from the very beginning.

Actually, this is not about a coin, it was just an analogy.

[The Chainmaker]

After reading the suggestions I came to such a method:

1. Create a mintable Nxt subcurrency and let people mint as many coins as they can within 24 hours.
2. Create a special Bitcoin address and let those who took part in the previous step send several satoshis to back every minted coin.

These two simple steps solve sockpuppet issue (because resource testing is used), greatly reduce number of script kiddies (or school network admins) with botnets (because minted coins must be backed by bitcoins) and reduce advantage of being a Bitcoin early adopter (because minting requires a lot of GPUs and ASICs can't be used for that).

So, this whole thread was just a pump for MS on NXT?  Go fishing by asking people what is the best way to distribute and then tell them.... "I found the answer, it is NXT!"  Bull $&!#. 

I was thinking that what you really want is as LARGE an initial user base as possible.

I don't need too many users. 1000 is max.

If you want 1000 people that aren't socks, then get a script and start sending out invites to all BTT members with the most posts.  Person with the most posts get the first invite, person with the second most gets the second invite.  Do batches of 50 or 100 every so often.  When 1,000 people have responded to you, stop spamming. 

This proof of comments and is much harder to game than other systems.  Somebody simply can't have a lot of sock puppets each with thousands of posts. 

[Come-from-Beyond]

So, this whole thread was just a pump for MS on NXT?

No.

This proof of comments and is much harder to game than other systems.  Somebody simply can't have a lot of sock puppets each with thousands of posts. 

You are wrong. BTT is known for its market of Hero Member accounts.

[The Chainmaker]

This proof of comments and is much harder to game than other systems.  Somebody simply can't have a lot of sock puppets each with thousands of posts.  

You are wrong. BTT is known for its market of Hero Member accounts.

No, I am right.

Sure there will be a few sock puppets, but there won't be any cases of 1 person is getting 5%.  

To buy a BTT sock puppet isn't cheap.  A person would be much better off just waiting for the inevitable dump after launch.  We are talking about hundreds of people getting free coins for just responding to an email.  There will be a big dump and anybody that is tricky enough to buy a hero account would be smart enough to know it would be much cheaper to just buy coins at launch.

To make a system where people can mine coins with CPU's is much easier gamed.  I have 5 cpu's of i3 or higher at my disposal right now with 0% extra effort, but if I wanted to obtain 5 hero accounts just to get some of your free coins, that would be quite a task and an expensive one.  

Proof of comments are are proof of work.  

[Come-from-Beyond]

No, I am right.

Ok. But I need a cryptographic proof. Distribution based on records of a website that can change its internal records can't be proved.

[The Chainmaker]

When NEM launched Utopian Future said if anybody goes through the trouble of creating a sock puppet deserves the extra coin.  That was bull $&!#.   But anybody that makes 3000 comments or spends $1000 to get a hero account does deserve the extra coin.  

Computer hardware is not a resource that is hard to come by for techies on BTT.   But hero accounts are a resource that is hard to come by especially if people know that they are worth extra coin of your next project.  The moment you start sending out those emails is the moment that the price of a hero account just went up.  

[The Chainmaker]

No, I am right.

Ok. But I need a cryptographic proof. Distribution based on records of a website that can change its internal records can't be proved.

You can snapshot BTT right now and used the snapshot, not some future changed version.

[Come-from-Beyond]

You can snapshot BTT right now and used the snapshot, not some future changed version.

How to prove that the snapshot is real? What if one of the chosen ones deletes all his posts on BTT after the distribution?

[The Chainmaker]

You can snapshot BTT right now and used the snapshot, not some future changed version.

How to prove that the snapshot is real? What if one of the chosen ones deletes all his posts on BTT after the distribution?

Snapshot it. Hash it. And put the hash in your chain. 

[Come-from-Beyond]

Snapshot it. Hash it. And put the hash in your chain. 

Something must confirm that the hash is valid.

[The Chainmaker]

Snapshot it. Hash it. And put the hash in your chain. 

Something must confirm that the hash is valid.

Sure, put the file on Mega and anybody that wants to confirm can download the file and make sure that the hash checks. 

[Come-from-Beyond]

Sure, put the file on Mega and anybody that wants to confirm can download the file and make sure that the hash checks.  

I'm talking about a cryptographic proof. Your suggestion doesn't correspond to the definition of "cryptographic proof".

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

I was thinking that what you really want is as LARGE an initial user base as possible.

I don't need too many users. 1000 is max.

can you elaborate on why 1000 is max?  if all you need is 1000 users then maybe a lotto is the best

[Come-from-Beyond]

can you elaborate on why 1000 is max?  if all you need is 1000 users then maybe a lotto is the best

I like round numbers.

[Anotheranonlol]

No, I am right.

Ok. But I need a cryptographic proof. Distribution based on records of a website that can change its internal records can't be proved.

http://virtual-notary.org/dispatch/webpage/input/

[Come-from-Beyond]

http://virtual-notary.org/dispatch/webpage/input/

It requires to trust the site.

[Anotheranonlol]

http://virtual-notary.org/dispatch/webpage/input/

It requires to trust the site.

https://tlsnotary.org/

[Come-from-Beyond]

https://tlsnotary.org/

This is interesting!

[Come-from-Beyond]

https://tlsnotary.org/

This is interesting!

Well, it requires trust too. I need something else.

[Anotheranonlol]

https://tlsnotary.org/

This is interesting!

Well, it requires trust too. I need something else.

Wheres the trust weakness with that for the application you require?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Wheres the trust weakness with that for the application you require?

I'm building a trust-free system.

[MisO69]

Step 1:
    

Code:

Launch a proof of stake altcoin. For example bitcoindark clone or something

Step 2:
  

Code:

 People mine that altcoin until the proof of work period is ended

Step 3:
    

Code:

People send their coins to a burn address

Step 4:
  

Code:

You send the new 100% pos coin to the addresses they send to the burn address with proportional to their coins.
    For example i send 18324 coins to the burn address using my address i get sent back same amount i burned to the same address on the new chain

Step 5:
    

Code:

People import their addresses to the new chains wallet and rescan

Step 6:
    

Code:

You have achieved your goal

Source: This is how the Stakecoin distribution was and i got my coins and was worked good i am like it because it was like magic and stuff.

This approach works better if the coin being mined is multi-algo. 4 Algos would make it very fair, scrypt, sha256, x11(or a different GPU algo), and a CPU algo that no one has a GPU miner for.

PoW period should not end as a snapshot can be taken at any point and the new coin allocated based on those numbers. The coins don't need to be burned either.

[The Chainmaker]

Sure, put the file on Mega and anybody that wants to confirm can download the file and make sure that the hash checks.  

I'm talking about a cryptographic proof. Your suggestion doesn't correspond to the definition of "cryptographic proof".

Look, having cryptographic proof that there were 1000 accounts doesn't mean anything if you can't prove that those 1000 different accounts weren't sock puppets. 

If you go and open your next play project for anybody and everybody, you will still get accused of only having 20 real people, each with 5-100 socks each.  Why?  Because cryptographic proof doesn't solve the sock puppet problem at all.   

You are about to make the exact same mistake. 

Cryptographic proof is really nice in combination with some other method of verification on sock-puppet identity.  At least NEM finger-printed computers that registered tokens and weeded out lots of suck puppets.  Your not doing anything even close to that. 

You could go to a big Bitcoin conference.  You could have little business cards and each one has instructions on how to set up a NXT account and an account on MS, and each card has a unique token or ID on it.  You can pass out these cards to real people at the conference.  For each card you hand out, you accept one business card from the other person, on the back of the business card they gave you, you write the corresponding NXT MS instruction card ID number.   Now you have cryptographic proof combined with proof of business card. 

There are of course other ways.  You could create a facebook page called JINN, you could accept likes and they must become your friend, you would make your friends list open to the public and you would try to look at each Facebook profile to see if it was a sockpuppet.  There are varying different ways to do this.  For instance if you have 500 out of your 1000 are accounts from Nigeria, then you can know they are sock puppets.  There are much more complex methods of sock-puppet removal too via Facebook.  You could set the requirements quite high for Facebook activity.  Because again, that proved that people made those worked to make those accounts, and furthermore you can profile each account. 

You could use the BTT method I suggested. 

The point is cryptographic proof doesn't solve the real problem.  The real reason you want a wide distribution is to say it was "fair" and not gamed by 20 or fewer whales.  Just giving cryptographic proof via MS doesn't do much for you there.  You open up your MS to the world to mine JINN and you will have 20 people with 90%.  You might as well just ask people to send you a bitcoin for a share of the new project. 


(Yes, of course this isn't for "JINN" but that was just an example)

[The Chainmaker]

Step 1:
    

Code:

Launch a proof of stake altcoin. For example bitcoindark clone or something

Step 2:
  

Code:

 People mine that altcoin until the proof of work period is ended

Step 3:
    

Code:

People send their coins to a burn address

Step 4:
  

Code:

You send the new 100% pos coin to the addresses they send to the burn address with proportional to their coins.
    For example i send 18324 coins to the burn address using my address i get sent back same amount i burned to the same address on the new chain

Step 5:
    

Code:

People import their addresses to the new chains wallet and rescan

Step 6:
    

Code:

You have achieved your goal

Source: This is how the Stakecoin distribution was and i got my coins and was worked good i am like it because it was like magic and stuff.

This approach works better if the coin being mined is multi-algo. 4 Algos would make it very fair, scrypt, sha256, x11(or a different GPU algo), and a CPU algo that no one has a GPU miner for.

PoW period should not end as a snapshot can be taken at any point and the new coin allocated based on those numbers. The coins don't need to be burned either.

Mining isn't really a fair way of distributing anything.  CfB's method of mining via MS is a bit better because there is only so much damage that unfair mining advantages can do on the NXT system in 24 hours over 1000 coins.  But even mining on MS as long as it is open to anyone will still get gamed. 

It makes me wonder what is going on at NXT, that it came up with such a great answer to POW but implemented it so poorly and now has brought POW back into NXT.  One right step forward and two wrong steps back. 

[stopsigningbitch]

Step 1:
    

Code:

Launch a proof of stake altcoin. For example bitcoindark clone or something

Step 2:
  

Code:

 People mine that altcoin until the proof of work period is ended

Step 3:
    

Code:

People send their coins to a burn address

Step 4:
  

Code:

You send the new 100% pos coin to the addresses they send to the burn address with proportional to their coins.
    For example i send 18324 coins to the burn address using my address i get sent back same amount i burned to the same address on the new chain

Step 5:
    

Code:

People import their addresses to the new chains wallet and rescan

Step 6:
    

Code:

You have achieved your goal

Source: This is how the Stakecoin distribution was and i got my coins and was worked good i am like it because it was like magic and stuff.

This approach works better if the coin being mined is multi-algo. 4 Algos would make it very fair, scrypt, sha256, x11(or a different GPU algo), and a CPU algo that no one has a GPU miner for.

PoW period should not end as a snapshot can be taken at any point and the new coin allocated based on those numbers. The coins don't need to be burned either.

Mining isn't really a fair way of distributing anything.  CfB's method of mining via MS is a bit better because there is only so much damage that unfair mining advantages can do on the NXT system in 24 hours over 1000 coins.  But even mining on MS as long as it is open to anyone will still get gamed.  

It makes me wonder what is going on at NXT, that it came up with such a great answer to POW but implemented it so poorly and now has brought POW back into NXT.  One right step forward and two wrong steps back.  

Hey buddy, don't be stupid. Mining is much more Utopian way of distributing coins that Staking. PoS truly is what some people refer to as "Piece of Shit" because of it's lack of secuity vs PoW and it's idiotic method of distributing coins.

[Cryddit]

Man, they never listen. 

It ain't about PoW vs PoS.  It's about allocating all the darn coins so close to the beginning that it makes no economic sense.

[The Chainmaker]

Man, they never listen. 

It ain't about PoW vs PoS.  It's about allocating all the darn coins so close to the beginning that it makes no economic sense.

Wow! One sentence.  Straight to the point.  I wish I had your skills.   

[stopsigningbitch]

Man, they never listen. 

It ain't about PoW vs PoS.  It's about allocating all the darn coins so close to the beginning that it makes no economic sense.

Wow! One sentence.  Straight to the point.  I wish I had your skills.   

You do realize chain that what cry said is against PoS right? PoS distributes coins at the very beginning to shareholders...

[Crestington]

I am still looking for help with distribution through the CLAMS method through a snapshot.

I was working with the developer of CamorraCoin but he has been absent for more than a week and need someone else with knowledge in the field.

Please pm me if interested or know someone who is willing to help

[Cryddit]

You do realize chain that what cry said is against PoS right? PoS distributes coins at the very beginning to shareholders...

Hey, I got nothing against Proof-of-stake.  In fact it's got a lot going for it and I think I know a better way to secure a PoS chain that I'll probably try to do.  But because I'd want a fair distribution, I'll start with proof-of-work or something like it, then transition gradually to proof-of-stake over the course of years, while continuing to distribute coins steadily -- making a very slowly-increasing fraction of the distributed coins be PoS as opposed to PoW until the PoW awards are insignificant compared to the rest.

[The Chainmaker]

Man, they never listen. 

It ain't about PoW vs PoS.  It's about allocating all the darn coins so close to the beginning that it makes no economic sense.

Wow! One sentence.  Straight to the point.  I wish I had your skills.   

You do realize chain that what cry said is against PoS right? PoS distributes coins at the very beginning to shareholders...

I just focused on the wrong part of the sentence then.  The part where it said it isn't about PoS vs PoW, but it is about finding a way that makes in impossible to economically game a system.  

Whether it takes 1 day or 100 years to distribute coins, it doesn't matter.  What matters is that it is done very widely, and in a way that the coins are still very valued.  How a person reaches the end goal doesn't matter.  There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems.  Not going to hash out the old debate here of PoW vs PoS.  People are already stubborn and hard headed in their beliefs.

Back to the point. How can CfB distribute his coins for his new project in a way that people won't accuse him of only having 20 stake holders?  

[Cryddit]

I cannot think of a single way to reach a fair distribution without having a permissionless-entry stage.

I mean, when he INVENTED coinage Croesus of Lydia went entirely the other direction:  He said, "Here are tokens I give out to people who do me favors.  Now all of you have to give me one every year, so you all get to figure out what favors you can do for the people who do me favors in order to get them to give you one... every year."

In one swell foop the guy invented currency, government corruption, and taxation.  And, oh yeah, capitalism.  But he didn't see that last one coming.

The point is, not only was it "Permissionless" entry, it was COMPULSORY entry into the market, fostered by everybody working under an unavoidable debt.

CfB doesn't have the power to compel people to use his tokens, so permissionless is really the best he can do.

[The Chainmaker]

I cannot think of a single way to reach a fair distribution without having a permissionless-entry stage.

I mean, when he INVENTED coinage Croesus of Lydia went entirely the other direction:  He said, "Here are tokens I give out to people who do me favors.  Now all of you have to give me one every year, so you all get to figure out what favors you can do for the people who do me favors in order to get them to give you one... every year."

In one swell foop the guy invented currency, government corruption, and taxation.  And, oh yeah, capitalism.  But he didn't see that last one coming.

The point is, not only was it "Permissionless" entry, it was COMPULSORY entry into the market, fostered by everybody working under an unavoidable debt.

CfB doesn't have the power to compel people to use his tokens, so permissionless is really the best he can do.

He has already set a permission level at 1000.

In a perfect world where all people start off on a starting line at the same time with the same tools in hand, then yes, a permissionless system is the way to go.  But that isn't the case, on this system all kinds of gate keeping policies will be set with this.  Only people in the crypto world will know, and then among those only those that can mine, and then among those only those that have good methods of mining will end up with the lion share of his tokens.  When he sets up a system of mining on his MS, he is basically only given permission to BTT people with good abilities to mine to participate. 

That of course is not a hard permission, but it is a soft permission and the system has been rigged from the start to be so. 

And again, he is going to cap it at "around 1000".  He doesn't want 10,000,000 participating.  It is clearly not an open system.

So once you have a system set up that is rigged due to the nature of contest that only some people can enter because only that select group are qualified, then all others don't have permission, whether it is a hard rule or a soft rule, it is a fact. 

Now that he has a system of permissions, the best way to go about it is to set up the system in a way that insures the most widespread distribution avoiding sock puppets and concentrations of coins into the hands of 20 people.  Just accepting donations from anybody via an IPO style launch or PoW alone simply won't do it. 

The world needs proof, real proof, not some easily faked proof that there were 1000 participants. 

CfB is talented enough and has more than enough money to make 1000 fake sock puppets via amazon and have them mine on MS and then have cryptographic proof that there were 1000 accounts, but that doesn't mean anything.  It could still just all be his 999 sock puppets. 

So any system that just requires one day of mining by any computer any where without restrictions is a system that I call bull shit on.  And I will just be the first of many. 

[DecentralizeEconomics]

There are of course other ways.  You could create a facebook page called JINN, you could accept likes and they must become your friend, you would make your friends list open to the public and you would try to look at each Facebook profile to see if it was a sockpuppet.  There are varying different ways to do this.  For instance if you have 500 out of your 1000 are accounts from Nigeria, then you can know they are sock puppets.  There are much more complex methods of sock-puppet removal too via Facebook.  You could set the requirements quite high for Facebook activity.  Because again, that proved that people made those worked to make those accounts, and furthermore you can profile each account. 

Facebook?  Really?  What is that Proof-of-NSA?  lol

A lot of people don't have social media accounts for a variety of reason.  Some people would get their non-tech savvy friends to participate in the distribution and then buy their stake from them for $20.  You are just giving the illusion of removing "sockpuppets".

You could use the BTT method I suggested. 

The point is cryptographic proof doesn't solve the real problem.  The real reason you want a wide distribution is to say it was "fair" and not gamed by 20 or fewer whales.  Just giving cryptographic proof via MS doesn't do much for you there.  You open up your MS to the world to mine JINN and you will have 20 people with 90%.  You might as well just ask people to send you a bitcoin for a share of the new project. 

You will never get a system that provides you with verifiable "equal distribution", which is what you really mean when you say "fair distribution".  Any system that initially provides "equal distribution" will quickly turn into an unequal system.  That is life.  There is a hierarchy to nature called survival of the fittest and nobody can escape it.  I agree that everything should be "fair" but it is impossible to make everything "equal" because people are not "equal".  It seems these false arguments always come up around CfB and NXT's initial distribution because people feel like they missed out.  I think a very good argument can be made that NXT's initial distribution was extremely fair.  It lasted around two months and it did not require users to outlay a substantial amount of BTC to participate, meaning it did not discriminate against the poor.  A lot of people didn't donate because they weren't interested or didn't see the potential.  That was their choice.  Everyone in life makes calculated choices based on their abilities and rational deduction skills and we all must live with our decisions.

[Come-from-Beyond]

If you go and open your next play project for anybody and everybody, you will still get accused of only having 20 real people, each with 5-100 socks each.  Why?  Because cryptographic proof doesn't solve the sock puppet problem at all.   

There are such cryptoproofs that do solve sockpuppet problem.

[Come-from-Beyond]

It makes me wonder what is going on at NXT, that it came up with such a great answer to POW but implemented it so poorly and now has brought POW back into NXT.  One right step forward and two wrong steps back. 

I added PoW minting just for fun, people (including me) like that warm and fuzzy feeling of finding a PoW solution.

[Come-from-Beyond]

But because I'd want a fair distribution...

Define "fair distribution", please.

[Snail2]

I'd like to get your suggestions about the best way of initial coin distribution of a 100% Proof-of-Stake coin.

NB: Actually it's for a network-bound proof-of-work coin but from formal point of view it's the same problem. Network-bound PoW system requires a lot of explanations, let's make appearance that we are talking about PoS now, the majority is more familiar with PoS than with network-bound PoW.

Take a look at the distribution method used by GCoin. GCoin itself is a crap but the distribution by slots is a great idea. With this method luck, effort and determination are all important factors and nobody can complain because of unfair distribution .

Edit: Unlike in POW with slots small time "miners" will have the same chance as the owners of big farms.

More edit: If it would be a smartphone application then the sockpuppet issue is more or less sorted.

[The Chainmaker]

If you go and open your next play project for anybody and everybody, you will still get accused of only having 20 real people, each with 5-100 socks each.  Why?  Because cryptographic proof doesn't solve the sock puppet problem at all.   

There are such cryptoproofs that do solve sockpuppet problem.

interesting, can you explain more to me?  I'd like to hear your idea.

[Come-from-Beyond]

interesting, can you explain more to me?  I'd like to hear your idea.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.2617.pdf

[Black Arrow]

interesting, can you explain more to me?  I'd like to hear your idea.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.2617.pdf

Although it's an overstatement to say that this solves the sock-puppet problem, it's a great summary of useful techniques for mitigating it. Thanks for the reference.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Although it's an overstatement to say that this solves the sock-puppet problem...

Right, there is no a 100% solution.

[Q7]

Whenever I hear the word "premine" it sends that type of negative message. For me, no premine and I would like to see mining effort being given the fair chance to everybody. Something like a cpu mine concept whereby a person will have a fair chance even if you have another person that own 100 cpu, in general, it will still give the same level ofvplaying field. Also, do Announce a release date at least 3 months ahead

[Snail2]

interesting, can you explain more to me?  I'd like to hear your idea.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.2617.pdf

Unfortunately there are no really good preemptive measures against such attacks without compromising anonymity and/or decentralized approach. Involving mobile phones in the registration process however could make large scale attacks costly and less sustainable. If you tie the registration and application to IMEI or the serial of the mobile or maybe to both two then the attacker must have several phones and lots of active SIMs to be successfull. After that if you can make a low sell wall on one exchange for a few weeks or for a month as a second distribution phase (IPO, ICO, ITO, whatever) that will make the attacker's efforts much less profitable.

[biggus dickus]

I say take a snapshots of a variety of shitcoin's blockchains after they have been dumped and are almost dead. Any whales holding a premine will have dumped long ago, leaving the bagholders stuck with it after buying. The bagholders are the kind of people you want in a distribution because they are less likely to immediately dump. The miners mentality is to mine like crazy, then dump onto bagholdrs. The IPO dev's mentality is to immediately dump the premine onto some bagholders. If you distribute to a large number of existing bagholders there are bound to be plenty with the holding mentality.

[Zer0Sum]

I say take a snapshots of a variety of shitcoin's blockchains after they have been dumped and are almost dead. Any whales holding a premine will have dumped long ago, leaving the bagholders stuck with it after buying. The bagholders are the kind of people you want in a distribution because they are less likely to immediately dump. The miners mentality is to mine like crazy, then dump onto bagholdrs. The IPO dev's mentality is to immediately dump the premine onto some bagholders. If you distribute to a large number of existing bagholders there are bound to be plenty with the holding mentality.

A quality coin wants sophisticated, active owners...
People that can't sell a shit coin in a Death Spiral should not own crypto.

Take a snapshot of Nxt accounts by size and # of tx... plus maybe small holders of quality Nxt assets:



Write a little more code to eliminate accounts that are obviously linked or test accounts...
And you will have 1,000 small, active NXT users and an instant, quality community for your coin.

Or give away 50% to screened Nxt accounts...
And the other 50% to similar BTS or SJCX or NSR accounts and promote Nxt in the "enemy" forum.

The CLAM approach (random coin blockchain) doesn't work that well because 99% of your winners will never know/care.

[Crestington]

I say take a snapshots of a variety of shitcoin's blockchains after they have been dumped and are almost dead. Any whales holding a premine will have dumped long ago, leaving the bagholders stuck with it after buying. The bagholders are the kind of people you want in a distribution because they are less likely to immediately dump. The miners mentality is to mine like crazy, then dump onto bagholdrs. The IPO dev's mentality is to immediately dump the premine onto some bagholders. If you distribute to a large number of existing bagholders there are bound to be plenty with the holding mentality.

I'm still looking for some insight from people here in order to do this exact thing.

I have created a new Coin for ColossusCoin and a Proof of Stake only Coin and want to create a snapshot in order to distribute it to ColossusCoin holders, whatever is left after 3 months becomes part of the Development Fund.

The CV2 Blockchain runs perfectly as a pure POS only Coin and has a POS difficulty of more than 50! while also very efficient and rewarding.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941433.0

It's also already listed on an exchange and has it's own Block explorer.

Again, if anyone has any experience in working with snapshots and wants to help with an actual distribution in this method either for Coins, or BTC then please pm me.

[Cryddit]

Well for starters total bitcoin days destroyed is something whose supply isn't limited in a very useful way. 

<clip>

Ultimately, the only 'finite resource' for PoS that I've come up with so far that is finite in the way we want it to be, is the TxOuts that exist at the fork point.  Whichever chain has had more of those coins spent in it is the chain created by the majority of the stake that existed at that time. 

<clip>

Well, my point is that if we're serious about proof-of-stake, "doing the work" means doing transactions that prove your stake supported a particular chain.  In a Proof-of-stake universe that, and not hashing, is what keeps the chain secure.  And by paying 'interest' on coins transacted in a chain, we would be paying exactly the people who did the work to secure the chain.   

Are you increasing security in one area by decreasing it in another? Could SPV clients could work with either technique?  Does some alt-coin already do something like this?

"Decreasing security in some other way" seems quite likely, unfortunately.   While I'm reasonably confident in the above as a general measure  of chain goodness that isn't vulnerable to the nothing-at-stake issue, I don't know if it can really function as the *only* measure of chain goodness.  I haven't provided for any real control over who gets to build the next block and when.  And if the attacker can find any way to control that - building N blocks in a row at a time of his own choosing - he is quite likely to find a new way to mount an attack. 

In all, no, this measure of chain goodness isn't a solution to the whole problem.  As I said at the outset it's still awfully sensitive to large transactions. It's an important part of a solution but it isn't a solution of itself.

<clip>

When I finish working out its kinks it'll probably be one of my 'Cryptocurrency 101' blog posts.  But I don't consider it to be quite unkinked just yet.   

Okay, I unkinked it.  I finally know the RIGHT way to do a PoW/PoS hybrid coin.  I haven't made the blog post yet, but my thoughts drifted back to it in the context of another discussion and I thought about how to get the people who provide security paid in proportion to the security they provide, and I sat down and did math and eventually came up with something that will definitely work.  The coin remains a PoW/PoS hybrid forever - but proof-of-stake becomes more important (because the coin supply is increasing) so proof-of-work becomes proportionally less important as time goes on.

First of all, there's a mining subsidy for hashing.  It could decline over time - that's up to whoever sets the coin parameters - but it need not.  For purposes of the example, I'm going to say the miner gets one 'dirt' every time he mines a block, forever, but this becomes less important as time goes on because the stake portion of the system starts dominating security - and eventually provides the bulk of the awards generated by the coin. 

When a transaction is made, it has to be 'staked' - that is, it has to commit to a past block and can be included only in block chains generated from that block.  This means that if an attacker is mining a chain that he has not revealed, transactions made by other people cannot be included in his attack chain.  Transactions once staked, have become a finite resource that can be counted in support of one side of a fork and CANNOT be used to support the other.  So the only txIns that can count for both chains are the ones that are explicitly double spent by their owners.  If you stake your transaction on the losing side of a block chain fork, the transaction 'Never Happened' and cannot be replayed into the new block chain.

The owner of each txIn gets "Head Stake" (calculating as compounding interest) for the interval between the generation of the txOut and the block where it gets staked as a txIn.  The miner gets "Tail Stake" - the same rate of interest, but for the interval between the block the transaction is staked and the block the miner puts the transaction in. 

Where "Split Stake Awards" is defined as the amount of stake interest awarded for a single block for all txouts created before the fork and used as txIns in transactions staked after the fork, and the Mining Subsidy is the subsidy for a single block, the priority of any chain as compared to another is calculated as

(Hashes since fork) X (Split Stake Awards + Mining Subsidy)

Which is to say, the miners and the stakers are counted as amplifying the security of the total hashes by exactly the same proportion in which they get paid on a single block when they commit resources that can be used only once to one chain and not the other.

This starts out as straight proof-of-work, because there is NO split stake award for the first block, but after a while, depending on the staking interest rate, split stake awards get bigger than mining subsidies.  By the time we're talking about a block chain that carries a significant transaction volume, split stake awards would be the main reason why one fork is accepted over the other given remotely comparable amounts of hashing.  The odds of forking the chain with a block chain that you've prepared in secret would rapidly approach nil unless you have more than half of the (dirt X hashing power), and the importance of the dirt would far exceed the importance of hashing power.

Mining remains permissionless, and even if somebody with more wealth might be able to produce a higher-priority block because they stake their own coins, it won't matter if their block comes out more than a few seconds after yours.

Cryddit