Topic: A Coin Made Especially for Miners. - page 2. (Read 3610 times)

I say keep it simple.  Don't do the 10% distribution.  It will more then likely be tampered with to only help the big guys/shady people.  The small miner will be left with even less then if you hadn't touched anything at all.

Yes, I'm going with sahakziula although he's the most expensive.

I asked him about poS vs PoW cause I wanted to do both and he said since I'm doing scrypt PoS has Pow built in.

Looks like Nuggets it is. 

I don't think we can do the 10% idea csuse there no way to code for it or prevent abuse.

If you guys want a 10% distribution back to you the miners speak up now and I'll out the coin in escrow and you guys decode later on how to distribute.  I'll make sure there's oversight of some kind so I don't get accused of stealing them.

It's up to you guys but let me know soon, very soon.  I'm happy with the 1% I'm gonna get.  No premine or instamine.

Holla back of you guys want a different name, special features (like is PPcoin a good feature and is it easy to implement on a Scrypt coin).

I'm waiting to hear back on the VGB protocol from Shakezula, I hope he likes it and can code it for a decent price.  C4n10 adds features for only .02 BTC per feature.  Man, what a deal, too bad he's been asleep for 3 days now and Hazard too. 

And the nugget I named the coin after was a mining term like a gold nugget.  Not sure why everyone automatically related it to Chicken nuggets, or now drugs  lol. 

Lol, I just noticed you asked if we wanted the coin to be a straight PoS coin.  Ummm NO.  lol.  Here I will explain it to you.

You will want a coin that has Proof of Work, which I explained to you the other day.  The security of the coin comes from hopefully not allowing an attacker to get 51% of the network power (or more).  Actually it can be down with less as well, but it's a lot more difficult to pull it off.  

PoS works on top of that.  And looks at the number of coin days a person has in their wallet, when it is taking the vote on which Blockchain is the correct one.  For instance say I have 100 nuggets sitting in my wallet, and they have sat there for 50 days.  I have 5000 coin days as part of my voting share.  If some guy wants to attack the coin, not only do they need to take over the 51% of the network power, they also need to take over the coin days.  So if they were attacking that day, and had no nuggets in their account.  They would need to buy 5050 Nuggets to have 51% of the Coindays as well, just to override my share.  This works better once there are hundreds of thousands of nuggets floating around in the network.  Say the total Nugget days for your network was 5 million.  The attacker would need to override the network hashrate as well as own/buy over 5 million nuggets  (or 1 million and let them sit for 5 days , ect).  Attacking PoS coins after they are semi established is economic suicide, as when an attacker kills your coin with just PoW, they have all their mining equipemt no matter what happens.  If they kill your coin with a PoS part to it, well they just flushed their 5 million coins down the drain along side everyone elses.  That's why it's a lot more secure to have both.

An added benefit.  Since PoS is mined as well, the coins that are sitting in your wallet not being used are actually gaining "interest".  But usually the PoS is only around 1% - 1.5% interest, so that shouldn't cause people to not want to spend any coins.  Just adds a small bonus for those that are sitting on their coindays securing the network.

Lol, going with my name huh.  Lol, I better get 2% of all coins mined  LMAO.  I developed the name of the coin.  Oh well, just don't disappoint me.

Since your not a programmer, and this coin really isn't going to have much security in forms of stopping a 51% attack, since I am pretty sure you wouldn't know about it until 10 days after when you were informed on here that your coin was destroyed.  So here are a bunch of features and removal of features that should help you out, since it sounds like a go.

BTW are you going with Shakezula?  If so your in good hands. 

Make sure the coin is a PoW/PoS coin.  Ask him to maybe use the bottlecaps code, but don't forget you need to make some changes.  And possibly have the interest from PoS stakes around 2% a year.  Get rid of the Developer 1% payout.  That will hurt you.  What you do instead.  While he is programming your coin, ask him to create you a pool as well.  This does 2 things.  Makes it easy to get people to jump onboard and mine for you.  Nothing worse then waiting for a pool to be created, and pools can get away with a 2% fee for their services.  So you are still bringing in revenue while not doing anything, but at least the public will accept it.  Next create a website, with it's own forum.  Very easy to do, you can even find ready made ones for free, and you pay a month fee of about $5-10 to get rid of the ads.  Create a Development Donation fund.  This will help you raise the additional funds for any things you may want to pay a programmer to add for your coin later.  And make a Nugget Fun Fund (Where people can donate for things like giveaways/raffles or for rewards for getting things developed.)  Last but not least, build a store.  They are fairly easy to purchase ready made ones for you.  Sell a few things like Steam codes, or gift card codes that you can pick up at a store near you (iTunes card ect).  Maybe even some small electronics or computer parts.  This will boost the value of your coin/economy a lot more then the 99%.  After that you can wait and see if more stores ect pick up your coins (Talk to the sextoy store, they always seem to be ready to accept new currency), and if cryptsy will pick you up.

After that, your not done.  But now you have to start e-mailing/speaking to businesses in hopes that a few will accept your currency.  (My best bet idea is to see if any Free to play games will pick your coin up as a means to buy stuff ingame.  They usually accept 15-20 different ways of payment.  What's one more? 

Guys, I think I found a reputable programmer.  He's gonna cost more than C4n10 but I think he can actually program.

Last chance to give me some much wanted features.

What about PoS vs PoW or both?  Remember this will be Scrypt since that what you guys wanted.  So which way is better or should I employ both.

Any other features, besides the VGB protocol I want to employ - hopefully most of you will like that.  I think even the big miners will like it.

And finally the Name:  if I don't hear back ASAP I'm going with Nuggets (NUG).  Lol, sounds like food and weed, the munches coin.  Great, now we're marginalized. Lol.

Yeah but since the reward is flat across the board, by setting up 2 computers or splitting your network in 10 so it looks like 10 computers they'd get 10 10% rewards or basically double their mining output.

It would only equal out if everyone did this but they won't so this is more ripe for abuse and difficult to pay out fairly than the democratic board of directors idea I had. 

Not sure of this idea can be implemented without causing corruption, confusion and angry miners that didn't get paid.  Who would handle so many complaints cause for 1% of nearly nothing there's no way I could do all that and still help develop the coin.

Are we still with nuggets?

They'd effectively be creating more work for themselves and cutting the over all benefit by reducing the maximum amount of coins. A 10 x 1MB hash won't be able to compete with a 10MB hash, simply because the 10MB is much faster... it's like trying to compare a ferrari to 5 ford transit vans. So if you reduce the maximum range then everyone simply gets a smaller chunk. The key here is, everyone gets a chunk it doesn't matter the size and this means that everyone can take part so long as they have contributed to the mining process.

Mathematically (theoretically at least from my back-of-envelope sums) those who are mining at full pelt 'should' feel better off by mining as much as they can, than they would by splitting into more parts and consuming more energy in order to do so. The bigger the range the better the reward for everyone, so it's in everyone's interest to mine as hard as they can and not just the largest trying to price everyone out by getting the biggest machine because it defeats the entire point of why they're doing it in the first place.

I don't doubt that there will be some who split their computers down into different identities, this will slow down their speed of processing and enable smaller miners to have a better chance as well especially later on. So it's kind of self defeating.

Now...there is another aspect that needs to be answered because mining will eventually become too difficult (I'm hoping a long way in the future) and that's how the transactions are handled/crunched through and the reward mechanism tied into that.

Edit.

After re-reading your statement. If they set up 2 computers of both 10MB hash rates...then yes, they would technically gain a larger portion. However my calculation is shared between the number of users, so the more users the more the decrease in the kickback. With that said, if they're doing more mining why shouldn't they be rewarded? They'd find more reward  in the 89% mining reward rather than the 10% kickback.

I don't understand. The sum of the hashing power of each of their identities would equal the hashing power of one big identity, PLUS they'd get a larger portion of the kickback.

It wouldn't really help them, they'd actually be better off putting their efforts into mining more. If everyone just creates small identities, then they're going to get small rewards and those those that wish to mine will (should) pull ahead anyway. It's a bit defeatist to just create multiple identities because it isn't as though this money is spawned out of nowhere.

That said...I'm also interested in how this would be managed if at all.

How do you prevent miners from creating multiple "identities" so they can grab a larger share of the kickback?

Y'know if this is going to be all democratic like. Maybe it would be an idea to start up a forum or such like so that topics or proposals can be debated and or voted upon.

Yeah, a ledger is complicated.  But at random times, every say 2 hours, BAM, you're mining then you're connected and here's your 10%.  But then there's had to be a function which determines the % cut cause the number will change constantly and I don't know if that can be coded, to recognize the number of miners and then do the math.  I need to talk to a real programmer soon.

Good night, bro.  Thanks for all your help.

I see your point. There's also the problem of months not being equal, so it would have to be fixed at every 30 days rather than a month.

With that said you have a point, unless there's some kind of registration for each miner, where they effectively submit ledgers which are verified against the block chain...then if its verified the blockchain pays out. Of course the mining application could probably record its own information and then submit it so a registration itself isn't exactly needed more the acknowledgment of a miner existing.

I agree monthly is better but when it comes to coding this thing that complicates things.  Like how does the block chain keep track of everyone and what about people who mined 3 weeks and some 2 weeks and some are not online when the payout goes out.  At which point do you eliminate people?

That's why I was thinking like hourly or every 120 minute cause then the coding is easy, basically anyone connected to the node gets a fixed amount of the 10%. And if you set it at random times during that 2 hour timeframe then nobody knows when it's coming so they'll stay mining the whole time.

If the monthly reward can be programmed pretty easily then I would like that better cause its a mover bigger payout.

Not weekly, monthly. The reason I say this is because weekly is too short and doesn't really indicate any long term support for the coin from the miners behalf. A month would be better because then people are likely to stick around (at least in my opinion). The idea here is longterm longevity not short term profit. I know that it seems like a long time but the kick back would be far more worth it after a month. Of course this depends flat out on people continuing to mine and even just getting more involved.

This doesn't have to be random at all. If people mine for a certain period of time, then they'd be eligible for the reward. I can think of one or two obstacles however.

I think we're sticking with Nuggets =D

I'm so excited to lauch this coin now, where are those 2 programmers to take my money?

Man, bad service. 

But we still need a decent name.  Or are we gong with nuggets?  Lol, that name cracks me up but for some reason I like it.

See, this is what I was looking for and I think we found it.  A good way to give the small guy an edge without hurting the big miners.

This combined with the VGB should really give a relative uplift to the smaller miners. It's all % wise, like you said, relative to what you're used to making and that's better than anything else out there where you're flatlining all day long.

The rewards aren't even linear, just one huge flatline.  Dead mining, no fun whatsoever.

Hey, that's a good idea.  So a flat reward system where all miners get like a weekly kickback automatically.  10% split evenly accross all miners.  Or maybe at random times during every hour to prevent people from jumping in, mining 5 minutes, and getting that reward.

That would work, same idea as mine but no middle men.  I like it and I think it's fair as big miners are not cut out which is what I wanted - win -win for everyone. 

Now again, the question is how hard is it to code this feature into a new coin, how much work and how much will it cost?  Cause it doesn't sound all that simple cause you have to make the reward at random times to keep people from abusing the reward but it has to be often enough so people who mined say all hour long then stopped get their reward.  So it has to be a preset time but at the same time, random enough to keep the crooks out.

Most new coins can't be merge-mined. I don't see that changing.