Topic: [ANN] - 'paracoin' - paracoin.org (Read 7256 times)

The idea of paracoin to me is interesting in the physical performance gap that buyers/sellers must risk in light of the many variables at play in a international business environment. 

Having some sort of order of justice to backstrap delivery or performance of smart contracts, in which risks excluding systemic ones, are as various including, misinterpretation , quality control, and corruption/fraud. 

How or what this will entail depends on the legal culture gaps of international law etc.  Although in summary a polite democratic capitalisation of indemnification vehicles in the physical world versus the virtual one.   

IMHO

Not exactly...at least in my current hazy visualization.

Only 'bitcoins' (actually addresses) that meet a criteria would be 'paracoins'.  Generating slightly special ones with vanity-gen would be an easy way to do this.  The rational would be to keep the circulation reasonable since the entire goal of the project is to focus on being light-weight and thus conducive to extreme decentralization.


I'm negative about the 'advanced features' being developed within Bitcoin (but warming to some of them.)

Remember there would be two distinct phases.  'parasitic' and (maybe) 'stand-alone'.  In 'parasitic', the Bitcoin blockchain is the source of truth.  Addresses which were both certified (e.g., '1para1...') and also legally assigned value within the 'paracoin blockchain' would take that value reading from the Bitcoin blockchain.

In 'parasitic' mode, the 'paracoin miners' would mostly be analyzing the Bitcoin blockchain and rolling with whatever punches the Bitcoin system threw it's way.  'paracoin miners' would be mining in a formal sense as well, but only just for practice and development reasons so they would be ready to switch to 'stand-alone' mode if need be.

I think that sha256 mining is conceptually broken for a true distributed system.  A big goal of the project would be as a platform to explore other forms of mining which are more conducive to decentralization.


No progress.  I've not done jack shit on it.  From the start I mostly I just wanted to throw the idea out there.

Since I cooked up the idea, I've become increasingly paranoid about the trustworthiness of hardware.  I think that a logical first step for a robust solution is to build a foundation on true open-source hardware.  All the way down to the silicon level ideally.

My current interests are hardware related, and not even necessarily driven by crypto-currencies.  My main interest in Bitcoin is in planning a significant exit to be honest.

this is an interesting idea...

as i see it, any miners working on this new system would not use any advanced features, making them still valid bitcoin blocks, just without any special transfers included in the block.
optionally, all bitcoins before block X will be valid paracoins, but after that any block that used advanced signatures is invalid.

the problem is that even if bitcoin blocks that used advanced features were allowed to exist in a chain, any new transfers that used advanced features would basically be in purgatory until a normal bitcoin miner manages to find a block.
if blocks with multi-sig transfers and whatnot aren't allowed, that would probably cut the blockchain down a whole lot, meaning the new chain wouldn't be accepted at all because it's so short, but that might be made up for by lower memory requirements and lower block sizes, which should increase hash power just from the fact that you don't have to look at as much data to start hashing.


has any progress actually been made? as far as i can see, all it would take is an older version of the client; it wouldn't know what the new transactions meant and would ignore them, and as long as it's a version new enough to have valid blocks they'll be accepted if the chain gets long enough.

I added the following near the top of the front page to help put people in the 'frame of mind' to understand the concept.

One more slightly more targeted response.  Sorry for the duplicate.


Who knows?  I wish to put it back though.  Back into Bitcoin itself (as it vanishes.)

I did a slight mention of the 'dense mesh' idea recently which is actually at the heart of things.  I value 'anonymity' personally, but it is not actually the thing that really 'gets me off' as it were.  None-the-less, the 'dense mesh' architecture helps with a lot of things, and could increase anonymity within the Bitcoin network at any time.  Or at least at any time after the system is functional and has some certain number of users.

As the diagrams are drawn, the type of client illustrated does not have a Bitcoin blockchain so it must either perform an SPV (or similar) transaction, or it needs to proxy.  With a 'dense mesh', it would be straightforward to do a pretty secure multi-hop proxy and thus significantly ad to the complexity of de-anonomizing traffic.  Particularly if the analysis were using listening stations and via backbone network taps.

Anyway, it's things like the proxy foundational work which would be much easier to implement on a system which was 'semi-live'.  My chief interest is actually in exploring multiple data transmission channel options.  But countless things along these would be much easier to develop in 'parasitic' mode when the Bitcoin network is standing by to catch any dropped balls and even potentially allow full system 're-boots' if you will.

It's worth pointing out again that a lot of users would have nothing to lose and very little risk to 'use' paracoin.  The main danger would be that for some reason Bitcoin would actively attack the solution in code, but it would be disruptive and there would be almost no reason to do it.  It would be much smarter to actively embrace it.

I'm not giving up without a fight, but I'm telling you I think it's a lost cause.  People simply don't value anonymity and attempts to leverage that argument will be met with a blank stare.  Eventually it probably will become clear that freedom and anonymity are joined at the hip, and why, but it may be a while. 

In the mean time, it is not the case that Satoshi and company have done everything perfectly right.  Every project of any significance is going to be subject to priority constraints.  Further, a lot of things are just a lot more obvious with some hindsight.  As I am sure you are aware, working on a 'live system' is pretty challenging and we see (or at least I see) Bitcoin's progress brought down to a level where it will be struggling mightily to keep up with demand.

Bitcoin has already addressed a lot of the challenging problems and demonstrated convincingly some awesome proofs of concept.  Certain cleanup would not hurt, and there is plenty of room for development of certain of the more ancillary systems.  Working in an environment free of legacy constraints could lead to much more robust solutions much faster.


That is exactly what 'paracoin' does.  Just within the space offered by Bitcoin.  And it lets users move seamlessly between which lessens the risk.

If/when Bitcoin fails, it will be an easy matter to say "so long, and thanks for all the fishes."

I think this is the wrong approach.

Bitcoin already has all the technical features required by a reserve currency. The problem is some members of the community are trying to change Bitcoin, so fight that. And remember, the issue isn't really if Bitcoin is or isn't a reserve currency, the real issue is why do those members of the community want to change Bitcoin in ways that will remove your ability to run a Bitcoin node anonymously?

Don't give them excuses like "well, just start your own 1MB blockchain" - an excuse I've already heard.

Stake * Multiplicity distributed over a network implies the more abstract notion of intent.

I'd consider this more of an 'Indication of Intent' than a 'Proof of Stake'.

It has to be realistic for any interested party to be involved (in my conception of things) so the proof cannot be a very high barrier.  Also it's just a Bitcoin address (and fully usable in Bitcoin-land) and the 'stake' (aka 'value') of most of these is zero.

Congratulations you created Proof of Stake at a network level.

Let me also add that the difficulty of obtaining a '1para1...' address is about 15 billion.  This puts it within the realistic reach of anyone but makes it not completely trivial to get a giant number of them quickly for DOS attacks of one sort or another.  I kind of envision the method of initial loading, and recovery in case of a 'para-illegal' operation, being use of a new vanity 'para-addy'.

It is unlikely to run across a 'para-addy' which was not deliberately generated (though not so unlikely that it should be assumed when coding...)

Like I mentioned, this is just an idea which popped into my head yesterday.  I've not thought through almost anything fully at this point.

It's just a tag which losly indicates that a participant at least attempts to have a presence in the paracoin blockchain.  Miners might leverage it in 'parasitic mode' when they are primarily mining the Bitcoin blockchain itself.

It might fuck up bloom filtering.  If so it could probably be moved to the end.  Or be dispensed with completely.

I don't really get the solution. Can somebody explain it to me? How does vanitygen fit in?

From the site:


Count me in!

+1

I APPROVE OF THIS COIN!!!

Hmm interesting idea indeed.

Here's an idea that hit me this afternoon.  Tapped out some notes for the fun of it:  paracoin.org