Topic: [ANN][Datacoin] Datacoin blockchain start announcement (Minor code upd + logo) - page 50. (Read 171873 times)

Simbo:

Thank you very much.

I always wanted a coin that can send messages and store data.  I believe that Datacoin is "The One" and that groups of developers will gather around to make it so.

I am trying to send messages in the balance using base58 encoding.  And perhaps help to add a little proof of stake to attract some late adopters and encourage people to keep their wallets open to provide the data services.

The developer is working on personal chains for the nodes to take the data off the main chain.  That will limit chain bloat and allow much greater storage.


Junk1:


This will be addressed by the private chains of the nodes.  Junk, if you like coding, set up your own branch of Datacoin on Github and add these ideas.

Siriuscoin

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annssc-siriuscoin-sha3-launch-01012014-30-sec-block-2-min-retarget-394146

What is your coin?

I already have my own coin, if the dev find it interesting, he can always port it over to datacoin.

Simbo, why don't you fork the Datacoin repository on Github and implement these concepts in your branch?  If the lead dev finds it interesting he can accept your pull requests.

I have done that and started to play around with the code, because that is how Bitcoin advanced.

Yes. But not for "temporary" storage(if I ever implement it), temporary storage is never reliable nor secure. Same as datacoin, my coin also have no intention to implement temporary storage function.

Guys, I've seen several concepts for overwriting\deleting 'old' or 'unnecessary' files. But it breaks the whole concept of Datacoin. Look: someone uploaded some kind of Wikileaks archive to Datacoin, then hackers who work for government accessed his computer got his keys and deleted this info. It will be practically the same as Dropbox\GDrive storage: if someone gets your credentials, he can delete any info he wants, it breaks the whole concept.
And I've talked many times about 'proof-of-storage', just now there are no ways to avoid cheating like creating bunch of VPS that are linked to one blockchain - 'I have 1000 machines with Datacoin', and actually it will be 1 copy of blockchain and many virtual machines linked to it.

Talking about colored chain - will it be secure and reliable?

I'm not arguing with you, it is just my point of view. I'm not head developer, maybe he will read our threads and see some features to implement. But just now I have opinion as described above.

Nothing stops you from uploading a torrent to the blockchain.

2 blockchains Maybe you need to check with DTC developer.

Btw, to remove/change a data in any chain, you have to destroy the chain, not just change the block. Changing a block in a chain will changed the whole chain & in turn, split the chain.

Your suggestion is a bit different from my colored chains structure. Not sure about DTC's "personal chain" as not much news about it have been released.

For my "colored chains", there is a base chain where everyone operate on & the other "colored chains" are linked to the individual features. There will be a storage chain where the data is stored, & referenced to in the base chain transaction. To achieve "temporary storage" we will need to create sub colored chain which will be destroy when there is a removal/change of the data.

Here is how i propose it will work:
A block has 6 segments
0. Block ID (sequential #)
1. Data
2. Public key
3. Address hash
4. Transactions (just like BTC or LTC)
5. Append

Two block chains exist, a full chain, which has the data block and a lite chain, which has no data block. A given node has full lite chain and as many blocks of full chain as user specified space allows.

Network will accept a request to "change block segments 1 through 3" only from the node that has address which is the result of hashing the published hash using the published key. (think RSA asymmetric keys here)


When ownership of the block is being transferred:

1. Owner, who currently has the private key generates such a hash that when encrypted with public key results in the address of the buyer. (basically owner has to decrypt new address using his 2 private primes)
2. Owner submits the block to the network for update.
3. Miners find such an "append" string that the contents of the parts 1 through 5 match a standard hash.
4. When append is found the block is now accepted by the network.
5. At this point the buyer can request the network to update the block again, but this time the new owner will provide new public key and new hash for his own address, which match his private keys. Owner can also provide new contents for the "Data" segment.

What yall think?

Datacoin seems like a great idea for secure distributed storage. However i see couple design flaws with it and I think if these flaws are fixed we could have a really, really, really interesting coin to work with.

Current flaws:
Data is stored permanently. The problem with this is that the use of this chain for "secure temporary storage" is not applicable. I think it would be better if the "data contributor" had the option of overwriting the data, this way the chain would be useful for a much longer period of time.
The miner reward makes sense, but the final model for reward should be based on local storage and internet throughput of each client. Otherwise everyone will just use lite wallets and no one will store the data.
Data should be redundant, but each client should be able to specify the size of the chain he is going to store. This way if i choose to store 5,000TB of data chances are i will get more requests to serve that data to network, while someone who stores 100KB of data will have very few requests hence lower earnings.

Serving a block to the network "creates" a small amount of coin (100X) for the user.
Requesting a block from the network costs a smaller amount of coin (1X) to the user.
Requesting to overwrite a block with new data costs more coin (10,000X) to the requester. Only the block owner (data contributor) can request to overwrite the block.
Block owner can sell the block to a new owner via transaction like bitcoin etc.
When a new block is added to the network the miner who found the block gets a reward, say 100,000X. Then a user from "block purchase que" takes ownership of that block. This costs the new user 100,000X coins. This way new data storage can be bought via a purchase queue or existing blocks can be bought from current owners.

Part of the block stores transactions, just like bitcoin or litecoin; and another part of the block stores user supplied data. User supplied data portion can be overwritten by owner, but transactions are stored permanently.
Updating existing block is done at difficulty level much lower than current difficulty level; this way blocks can be updated with new information relatively fast, but addition of new blocks to the chain is done just like BTC or LTC.

I don't have all the answers and clearly defined protocols; rather I'd like to start a discussion on this topic to see if we, as a community, can come-up with something worthwhile...

What do yall think?

Mayby I don't understend something here... It seems for me to be clerarly written on tutorial page:
Poolshare=6, instead of default 7, so miner sends 6-chains too that is. Xolominer accept three more parameters (default values):
-sievesize=1000000
-sieveextensions=9
-sievepercentage=10
I know that these affect mining process itself.

i havent got a reply when i asked about that. I suppose it is okay to be left as is.

hi

I minig on http://dtc.gpool.net/
Prompt optimal settings for my CPU I7-3770?
What poolshare size I need set?

I suppose yes. Some of them in my wallet were.

Were the coins mined on gpool ?

btw again i sent 0.5DTC somewhere and it had a fee of 0.074633 DTC. i wonder why...