Topic: [ANN] [UBERCOIN] Working on a new coin. Will update this thread when completed. - page 7. (Read 12292 times)

Morse code. Pseudo-code. Not all codes are intended to be read by a computer. Any way, we are arguing silly semantics. I am merely asking him to show some of his technical work in the form of a technical description of what makes his hash better. I have yet to see what he brings to the table.

P.S. I edited my prior comment to summarize my improvement to Scrypt.

I beg to differ. An algorithm is a solution to a specific problem, by using a set of instructions. They do not have to be code. They could darn well be instructions to a human. Code is instructions for machines.

No I asked for sharing of his algorithm. My quote of Linus was intended to mean "code" can also be "algorithm". Btw an algorithm is form of code. An algorithm is not just an idea, it is a description of how to do something, just like code. Admittedly I did not state my algorithm is pseudo-code steps yet, but anyone who is well versed in Scrypt should understand what I wrote already. Basically what I said was nest an Scrypt inside an Scrypt, so that the locality stays in 32 KB cache, yet the total memory consumed can be very large to make GPUs on par or not work at all.

Looks like we are on the exact same page AnonyMint. Complete anonymity in a cryptocurrency is priority number one in my book, and I think many will soon learn that it should have been in theirs as well.

Ever since the Zerocoin announcement I have been anxiously anticipating the release of a completely anonymous coin. I am ready to convert my entire cryptocurrency stash into it - I have no doubt there are many others thinking the same.

So you ask for code proof, yet won't produce any. Interesting way of thinking... As you said, show me the code. Having ideas is great, coding them is even better.

Could you please elaborate on that a bit?

I'm one of those non-technical users, and to me the idea of useful PoW sounds very appealing, or even necessary. But I'll admit that I know nothing about what it would take to actually make it work. My immediate thought is it should be something generic, hence why I proposed a plugin system, but that could be a silly suggestion. It's possible that someone will find an algorithm that satisfies the PoW system, yet produces nothing of value.

I never liked the fact that all clients automatically install the wallet as "wallet.dat" - makes it an easy target for hackers to find (there is more than one piece of spyware out there that scours the infected computer for "wallet.dat"). I think it would be pretty easy to allow to user to enter whatever filename they want for the wallet during install. Sure, everyone should be encrypted their wallets but this simple little bit of added randomness could save some less technical users a lot of heartbreak.

No code yet at all.   I've been collecting the design points and algorithms. I am very busy trying to do more than one project at the same time. I realize we need the better coin before 2014, when Europe goes to bail-ins and capital controls. That is why I have near 0% patience right now. Sorry for offending anyone.

Tor is not anonymous. Bitcoin is not anonymous. Bitcoin will be taxed as capital gains (Bitcoiners don't realize the mess they have themselves in already since they are already late on paying their capital gains). The G20 is going to track down wealth to fund the socialism (boomers). The politics is not going to allow for a write-down, instead we are going into police state and taxman cometh with M14. There are serious problems with Bitcoin in that regard. And we need a high-latency onion router (i.e. Chaum mix-net, or maybe a dc-net) with N hops not just 3. High-latency is the only way to get true anonymity by defeating timing attacks.

So many problems need to be worked on and pronto!

That is why I have no patience for couch potatos pontificating here.

The fairness of the mining and to continue debasement indefinitely is essential for if the coin is truly anonymous, then the government is surely going to ban conversion of fiat to/from it (anti-money laundering), thus buying a PC and mining will be the way you get coin (or risky meetups or someone paying you in coin). This is another important reason to eliminate GPUs, otherwise the control over the manufacturing of mining equipment is concentrated in too few hands (e.g. GDDR and large wafer fabs).

The 3 - 5% (5% is the average growth rate of nominal GDP since 1790) eternal debasement is necessary for economic reasons too. Gold never stops being debased. An economy can not grow if all money favors savers over risk investors. I explained this in my link upthread.

cool pages.... very nice 

but where's the code? would be interesting to see your solutions to the algos you mentioned? or maybe your github page?

No. Ah he likes Scala, so do I.

This were/are some of my software projects:

http://coolpage.com (dead project, was big back in 2001, http://download.cnet.com/Cool-Page/3000-10247_4-10024827.html)

http://www.coolpagehelp.com/developer.html (my photo)

http://copute.com

http://stackoverflow.com/users/615784/shelby-moore-iii

http://www.atarimagazines.com/st-log/issue29/84_1_REVIEW_WORDUP.php

http://www.corel.com/corel/jump/us/en/prod4030123/78/catalog20038/digital-art-software/corel-painter (i was 3rd or 4th programmer on this)

P.S. I added a suggestion for uniform PoW to the prior comment in bold, which could apply to all fields of science and engineering. Yes we can probably do that! And still merge it into my solution for eliminating GPUs and ASICs.

AnonyMint, Is this you ?  https://github.com/anonymint

Even if you can make the randomization (input entropy) (and difficulty so who ever is wins PoW on the new work doesn't get an advantage or get cheated) of the work independent of what is being computed, who is going to decide what is going to be computed next? Remember all miners have to be doing the same difficulty PoW, else the winner is not a fair probability. Anything that is altered independent of the initial block chain protocol involves a central party or a proof-of-consensus vote. As we discussed in the Decrits thread, Proof-of-consensus either requires centralization to prevent forking attacks at less than 51% or it requires Proof-of-Stake, but the latter rewards idle capital whereas PoW rewards those who find it more useful to apply their active capital (computer) to mining than to their other uses for a computer. And how do you get 51% when you have more than two alternatives proposed for the type of work to plugin next? Forking abound...

Apparently "birdbrain" failed to understand what I wrote upthread which I quote again below...

That is my nickname for him given his "bird" avatar and in the numerous technically stupid posts he has made in my interactions with him. In fact, I can't remember one thing he ever wrote that was correct. It is always a "fail", that is why he is on my Ignore.

Sorry but we have to be impolite to hardheaded idiots who refuse to listen and learn, and clutter discussion with unimportant and utterly false noise. I make a mistake once and a while, yet 80+% of what I write is correct. Even a stopped clock is correct 2X per day. This Dunning–Kruger dolt can't even manage that (at least in my interactions with him).

This is why you can't rely on only feedback from non-technical users, because they will sometimes request things which won't work. If these naive users would bother to ask "can this work?" rather than "+1 yes I think this will happen", then I would have more respect for them. I respect rationality, which means recognizing when you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY INVOLVED.


One kind of uniform work which might be very useful is solving matrices. This applies to solving systems of equations which applies to just about every discipline of science and engineering.

+1

; )

I think something like this will happen .

We may disagree on the debasement (?), so perhaps we do joint development of the source, then create two coins from it, because mine will be 5% per annum debased for eternity (after the initial geometrically diminishing debasement rate a la Bitcoin). The economics is explained at the following link:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2930843

What programming language are you proposing to use? C?

I have edited my prior messages to add more details, including a link to my algorithms.

Sometimes we have to be impolite (actually just being frank, not impolite) when others are far off course to see if they have the ability to be on course or not. It is way of testing whether they are valuable or not.

You can display your lack of arrogance by sharing your algorithm for the hash you propose, so I can see if I should be helping you or if you should be helping me, i.e. who is the leader here?

I found your initial statements about saying you could do everything better (even wanting to obfuscate your code!) with absolutely no evidence in terms of showing one algorithm, as being either naive or arrogant or both. Way too much self-confidence without any evidence and not the decentralized humility that accompanies open source and greatness.

Many people in life should be ignored, because they waste my time. That is why I broadcast my algorithms and if someone has something important to say, I listen. I am trying to decide if you are worth paying attention to. How can I determine that when you've shown nothing at all technical?

"Show me the code" - Linus (creator of Linux and open source revolution)


Identity doesn't matter much (reputation somewhat), but we can see your ability if you show some algorithms and results of the thoughts of your team. So far, I see no technical details whatsoever.


I want to nip this closedsource mentality in the bud, or walk away.


My name and your name could both be proposed and the community could decide, but agreed that isn't important to reveal the names now.

You can pm me if you would like to help, I am not displaying arrogance here as you seem to be implying. I am protecting my identity, and that of others assisting. If you would be so kind as to be polite in the discussion yes I would like to work with you also, but demeaning people for their discussion is kinda silly when were at the drawing board and spitballing here.

Edit: I do not have a lot of free time, but the combined time that we have available is enough to produce what people are asking for here. We do have a good name chosen already, but we dont feel like arguing with someone who goes and releases a coin soon afterward under the same name.

I already did. I also already solved the block chain scaling design.


I doubt it. SolidCoin thought theirs was too. Not.

I describe my algorithms in public. You claim vaporware algorithms. Open source means getting feedback on details as early as possible in the development cycle, not you off by yourself thinking you are correct without any peer review.


Don't disincentivize investment in mining, rather use a hash that doesn't make the $500+ invested in my PC worthless for mining. Force the investors buy copies of PCs, not GPUs and ASICs. Also reduce the electricity consumption per unit of hardware thus reducing the overall electric consumption.


Well I already revealed who I am, and I am a prolific coder also. Also a successful businessman  and entreprenuer. I agree, if I implement it won't be under my name, but an anonymous identity.

Should we talk in PM? I am about to start implementing as well. I have already the great name. I have more of the overall big picture worked out than you do. You may have more free time to code than I do.


So you are not more anonymous than I would be by inventing a new username to have plausible deniability as to being the creator.

That is one of the key deep issues to focus on. Bitcoin can't scale.


+1. Another crucial area to improve.


First time I heard that. Will need to study.

The name is crucial. It should not have the words "coin", "cash", "money", "cloud", "bit", etc in it.

It should be brandable away from all those zillions of permutations, e.g. GOOGLE (verb to goggle)

You don't win by making open source less maintainable. You become THE COIN by having the best design and being first in the market place with that design.

Indeed Bitcoin has deep flaws, but you are wasting time on aspects that are not central to the issues that can overthrow Bitcoin.



Defocused. This is not the concern of the core of the coin development team. The market determines this.

You also propose many features which should be done by 3rd parties, not by the core coin development team.

Focus, focus, focus on what really matters.