Best way of initial coin distribution

[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.