Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN][MOTO] Motocoin - page 6. (Read 178253 times)

sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
October 13, 2015, 03:44:33 PM
Ok. What if we make it so that the human blocks are treated like hashing power (relates to difficulty). So the reward of finding a block as a human is determined by the average of the last 10 human mined blocks. So if an average of 2 people found blocks from the last 10 blocks (getting a 5 coin reward each), and then suddenly 10 people mined a block, they would each get 5 coins. But then the next block finders would get 2.8 motocoins (average of the last 10 blocks) regardless of how many people found blocks. (if my math is correct)

I don't follow what you're getting at here...  In any case, it doesn't explain why the miners wouldn't simply *only* include their own transactions, and ignore anyone else's.

Quote
Quote
Would that work? Maybe the real bot miners could get a percentage of the human's reward as incentive to include the transaction.

I really like this idea, as it gives humans a real chance whilst also allowing bots to battle it out.
HunterMinerCrafter, would this be okay to implement?

The bot miner would need to get a larger reward than if they simply provided a solution themselves, otherwise there is no incentive to take someone else's solutions...  In other words, the reward for the "human" solution would need to be a net negative in order for the bot to see incentive to include it in a block instead of their own solution.

sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
October 13, 2015, 03:37:27 PM
You keep saying very strange things.

I'm not sure what you would see as strange. I think I've explained my rationale quite clearly.  From conversation with others in the community, I don't think that my reasoning is unique.

Quote
You ask me in every message to give you my current bot for testing to verify that it is really only 20 times better than public bot.

You misunderstand my intent.  I am far less interested in the details of your bot as in quantifying the necessary resource contribution to overcome it.  You make one claim that 20 instances of "the public bot" would do, but we have no reason to believe this.  Further, this does not align well with statistics collected at the peak of the anti-warp application, which would indicate that it would take 3 to 4 orders of magnitude more instances of the public bot to overcome the peak performance of the dominant bot.

When GPU's hit bitcoin mining it was readily quantifiable what the difference in peak performance was, and how many CPUs it would take to overcome a GPU.  Similarly through the progressin of GPU, FPGA, ASIC.

The peak performance of the dominant bot is not readily quantifiable.  We have the number you've thrown out, and some estimates based on the anti-warp test, but these indicate some *very* different quantities.

Quote
Will you ask every future bot miner to verify their bots capabilities? Will you ask every other public bot miner to give you his PC to verify that they are not 10X better than other's? Why couldn't I give you less productive bot for verification?

No, I would only ask this of a miner who carries out a sustained 51% attack and then tells me to just go ahead and mine against him.  Of course I would not begin applying resource at a loss unless I could quantify how much loss would need to be endured before any hope of a return, in order to in turn quantify the length of time before I would be back into the black.  Without being able to make such a projection no-one rationally is going to mine.


Quote
You tell me that we just can not distribute the hash rate until I release my current bot.

I've said no such thing, though I have said is that releasing your current bot is *one* solution.  I've also said that it is the "easiest."

What I have said is that we just can not distribute the hash rate until there is capability for miners to mine competitively.  This is simply a truism.

Quote
And simultaneosly you tell me that public bot "is nowhere near as capable" as YOUR bot which I presume you had all this time.

Had?  Yes.  Ran?  Not in nearly a year, now.

Quote
Why didn't you give YOUR bot to everybody. Wouldn't it help to distribute hash rate? Instead you have disappeared for almost a year without any notice.

I didn't give my bot to everybody because at the time there was no *need* to distribute the hash-rate, as mining was competitive.  Multiple bot operators shared hash-rate.

No, my bot will not help to distribute the hash-rate, because it is not competitive.  Because it may require thousands of instances for it to be effective against you, no-one will be the first to use it against you.  Nobody wants to be the one who will lose money while waiting around for the other thousands of people to come lose money with them so that everyone collectively *might* have a hope to make some money....

Quote
All this is complete nonsense. My bot is ONLY 20X better than public. 20 mining people could overproduce me.

Nothing here is nonsense, much the opposite.  "Don't willingly choose to lose an indefinite amount of money, on purpose" is pretty well common sense, I'd think.

We have only your word that your bot is "20X."  (Further, this is counter to evidence.)
In fact, we have only your word that the bot is actually "yours" at all.  (This is also counter to evidence.  I've additionally asked you several times now to prove your claimed domain over the dominant bot, but you have yet to offer up even a small shred of indication.)

Quote
Normal coins have thousands of miners. They wouldn't even notice my 20X more powerful bot.

Hrmm, first this is not really true.  The largest few coins may have this many miners, but the average alt network has less than 10!

Second, they would notice your "20x more powerful bot" if it represented >50% of the hashing strength, I'm sure.

So I'm not even really sure what you are trying to argue at this point...

Quote
Anyone who wants to try public bot can sell their MOTO immidiately if they affraid that network is insecure.

This is more flawed reasoning.  Miners know that the network is insecure, and "selling their MOTO immediately" is no help when at any moment you might just decide to stop their coinbase transactions from even existing, prevent their transfers into the exchange, etc.  The security problem here begins long before the miners' coins are even "in hand" to be sold.

Quote
And decide for their own is this profitable or not. In fact we have some amount of public bot miners (Can they write something?) We just need more of them.

How many more?  You claim 20 will do it, but we have no way to know.  The evidence that we have would seem to indicate that it could potentially require much much more.

You won't get 1, let alone 20, let alone enough to overcome the bot, unless you can demonstrate that it is feasible at all.

Quote
Is there anyone who tried mining with public bot and decided that it is unprofitable?

I've mined with both public bots, as well as several incarnations of my own, and decided that it is unprofitable.  It may seem nearly profitable at (short) times, but the dominant bot never let it sustain beyond difficulty correction.

Quote
I keep telling you that if I release my bot right now it would be far more dangerous. If people so inactively mine with public bot, we can expect that there will be very few miners mining with my bot too. And the risk that one of them will try to perform 51% attack will be much higher. Someone have already tried to perform 51% manually when there was no bots in september.

As I said in PM, this argument is like asking us to "just trust you exclusively, 100%" instead of trusting say 4 guys each with 25% or 100 guys each with 1%.... because those other guys are of course going to be untrustworthy.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd trust the 4 guys each with 25% before the 1 guy with 100% any day.  I don't care who the 5 people in question are, but it holds *especially* true when the 1 guy is saying "no really, just trust me..."

This makes no sense at all.  This claim makes me wonder if you even understand what a 51% attack really is. The whole premise of the blockchain is that it works as long as we don't trust *ANY* one person alone.

Quote
If you think that moto itself is OK now all you need is to increase public bot miners count. You tell me that they do not mine because it is unprofitable?

I tell you they do not mine because it is un-competitive.  Profitability is secondary to this.  The first problem must be overcome to have any hope of ending the 51% attack without your simply deciding to end it, but BOTH problems must be overcome to stabilize the coin and assure a future for it.

Quote
I want to hear anyone who tried to mine with public bot and came to conclusion that it is unprofitable. Besides, are you sure that it is profitable for me?

More irrationality abounds!  What reasoning would one have to sustain a 51% attack but altruistically select transactions, at a loss?!??! Now who is saying very strange things?

Quote
And maybe people could start to mine even if it is unprofitable now (which I believe is not true) just to distribute hash rate and help moto become profitable?

The problem is that no-one would rationally do this unless they had some way to know that their resource contribution does have some chance at all to "help moto become profitable."  Currently (as I've tried to say repeatedly) we have no way to quantify this.

I'd think that if you were really interested in the survival of this coin, you would try to find some way to give people such an assurance, and to establish this quantification for them, in some way more verifiable than "no rly guys it's 20X or something."  Your *total* refusal to do anything toward this is a big part of why I am (increasingly) suspecting that you are not who you claim to be....

Would you like to offer up some evidence that you do actually control the bot, so that we might have some reason to believe that you're not just some random shill, so that we subsequently might have any reason at all to think that your "20x" might not be just some entirely made up number?

The ball is still in your court, here....


legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001
Crypto since 2014
October 13, 2015, 03:03:06 PM
This is also why our current "solution" of simply letting the dominant bot miner remain dominant is not actually any "solution" at all.  It only works so long as our benevolent dominant bot remains altruistic in transaction selection.  It has been OK so far, it seems, but who can say how long this will remain true?  This is not actually ever a safe assumption to be making.  Wink

Ok. What if we make it so that the human blocks are treated like hashing power (relates to difficulty). So the reward of finding a block as a human is determined by the average of the last 10 human mined blocks. So if an average of 2 people found blocks from the last 10 blocks (getting a 5 coin reward each), and then suddenly 10 people mined a block, they would each get 5 coins. But then the next block finders would get 2.8 motocoins (average of the last 10 blocks) regardless of how many people found blocks. (if my math is correct)

Would that work? Maybe the real bot miners could get a percentage of the human's reward as incentive to include the transaction.

I really like this idea, as it gives humans a real chance whilst also allowing bots to battle it out.
HunterMinerCrafter, would this be okay to implement?
newbie
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
October 13, 2015, 02:16:45 AM
You keep saying very strange things.

You ask me in every message to give you my current bot for testing to verify that it is really only 20 times better than public bot.

Will you ask every future bot miner to verify their bots capabilities? Will you ask every other public bot miner to give you his PC to verify that they are not 10X better than other's? Why couldn't I give you less productive bot for verification?

You tell me that we just can not distribute the hash rate until I release my current bot.


And simultaneosly you tell me that public bot "is nowhere near as capable" as YOUR bot which I presume you had all this time.

Why didn't you give YOUR bot to everybody. Wouldn't it help to distribute hash rate? Instead you have disappeared for almost a year without any notice.


All this is complete nonsense. My bot is ONLY 20X better than public. 20 mining people could overproduce me. Normal coins have thousands of miners. They wouldn't even notice my 20X more powerful bot.

Anyone who wants to try public bot can sell their MOTO immidiately if they affraid that network is insecure. And decide for their own is this profitable or not. In fact we have some amount of public bot miners (Can they write something?) We just need more of them.


Is there anyone who tried mining with public bot and decided that it is unprofitable?


I keep telling you that if I release my bot right now it would be far more dangerous. If people so inactively mine with public bot, we can expect that there will be very few miners mining with my bot too. And the risk that one of them will try to perform 51% attack will be much higher. Someone have already tried to perform 51% manually when there was no bots in september.


If you think that moto itself is OK now all you need is to increase public bot miners count. You tell me that they do not mine because it is unprofitable?

I want to hear anyone who tried to mine with public bot and came to conclusion that it is unprofitable. Besides, are you sure that it is profitable for me? And maybe people could start to mine even if it is unprofitable now (which I believe is not true) just to distribute hash rate and help moto become profitable?


Quote
At the time of this post there are approximately 400kMOTO for sale on c-cex.  This is significantly less than what has been collected by the bot (assumed nearly 10 million) now. (Just some fun facts)

I have been mining from january and mine around 60-90% depending on competing public bot count. This gives 5832000, more than 4,5 million I  have already sold (I told you that I sell). Even if we imagine that I mined 100% moto in that period and didn't sell anything where is 8 million moto that was mined from may to december? Why are they not on c-cex?
400k MOTO is even less than 450k developers premine + first human mined 800k moto. (Just some fun facts).
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001
Crypto since 2014
October 13, 2015, 12:08:20 AM
This is also why our current "solution" of simply letting the dominant bot miner remain dominant is not actually any "solution" at all.  It only works so long as our benevolent dominant bot remains altruistic in transaction selection.  It has been OK so far, it seems, but who can say how long this will remain true?  This is not actually ever a safe assumption to be making.  Wink

Ok. What if we make it so that the human blocks are treated like hashing power (relates to difficulty). So the reward of finding a block as a human is determined by the average of the last 10 human mined blocks. So if an average of 2 people found blocks from the last 10 blocks (getting a 5 coin reward each), and then suddenly 10 people mined a block, they would each get 5 coins. But then the next block finders would get 2.8 motocoins (average of the last 10 blocks) regardless of how many people found blocks. (if my math is correct)

Would that work? Maybe the real bot miners could get a percentage of the human's reward as incentive to include the transaction.

I really like this idea, as it gives humans a real chance whilst also allowing bots to battle it out.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
October 12, 2015, 11:50:41 PM
Ah that is a bad idea.

We can't rely on the miners to select transactions that will reduce their profitability.  We're supposed to do the opposite, assume that they will behave in any way possible to increase their profits, which is why transaction fees are a thing.

This fact will significantly complicate pretty much any "solution" proposal which relies on miners behaving altruistically with their transaction selection.  They "just won't" when they can instead opt to keep more reward for themselves, of course.

This is also why our current "solution" of simply letting the dominant bot miner remain dominant is not actually any "solution" at all.  It only works so long as our benevolent dominant bot remains altruistic in transaction selection.  It has been OK so far, it seems, but who can say how long this will remain true?  This is not actually ever a safe assumption to be making.  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001
Crypto since 2014
October 12, 2015, 11:13:11 PM
What I was thinking the bot operator was meaning by the split reward was this:

10 moto for the normal reward mined by bots.

The human levels will also always be 60 seconds.
10 Moto gets divided up and sent to the humans that complete their own levels in the same block that traditional levels to be completed. This discourages bots from completing these levels because if 10 humans complete their own block they each get 2 motocoins. Bots would be losing profits if they stop working on the 10 coin blocks and work on the ones with (in the future probably) 0.1 Moto reward.

The "real" miners are the ones doing the transaction selection, though.  Why would they ever include someone else's solution transaction into a block when it dilutes the reward for their own solution transaction?

As ElvenArcher proposed the transaction could carry a fee but this fee to include the tx would have to be larger than the reward for not including the tx, on average, meaning the humans would have to pay to play in the long run.  I don't think that this is desirable.
So what your saying is, the miner could pre mine a bunch of human blocks, then when they start mining bot blocks and find one, they could only accept one of their own pre mined human blocks and get the full 20 coins?

Ah that is a bad idea.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
October 12, 2015, 10:38:47 PM
What I was thinking the bot operator was meaning by the split reward was this:

10 moto for the normal reward mined by bots.

The human levels will also always be 60 seconds.
10 Moto gets divided up and sent to the humans that complete their own levels in the same block that traditional levels to be completed. This discourages bots from completing these levels because if 10 humans complete their own block they each get 2 motocoins. Bots would be losing profits if they stop working on the 10 coin blocks and work on the ones with (in the future probably) 0.1 Moto reward.

The "real" miners are the ones doing the transaction selection, though.  Why would they ever include someone else's solution transaction into a block when it dilutes the reward for their own solution transaction?

As ElvenArcher proposed the transaction could carry a fee but this fee to include the tx would have to be larger than the reward for not including the tx, on average, meaning the humans would have to pay to play in the long run.  I don't think that this is desirable.
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001
Crypto since 2014
October 12, 2015, 09:41:58 PM
What I was thinking the bot operator was meaning by the split reward was this:

10 moto for the normal reward mined by bots.

The human levels will also always be 60 seconds.
10 Moto gets divided up and sent to the humans that complete their own levels in the same block that traditional levels to be completed. This discourages bots from completing these levels because if 10 humans complete their own block they each get 2 motocoins. Bots would be losing profits if they stop working on the 10 coin blocks and work on the ones with (in the future probably) 0.1 Moto reward.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
October 12, 2015, 09:20:01 PM
I am a bot operator. :-|

Let me tell you how I would "play" in your game...

We should take your word for it?

Again, download the public bot, launch it and you will get 1-2% of moto supply. Then convince 50 other people to do the same and you all together will have more than 50%. (You will probably outperform me and all current public bot miners). All we need is just more miners.

You are not wrong.

Assuming your bot is actually "20x" this other also unknown algorithm bot... which we'll just have to take your word for, for now.  (Would you be open to running your bot on a testnet as well, so that we can do some controlled comparisons?)

By this argument one could also say that "all" we need is to "suddenly" have a whole lot of human miners working 24/7 to re-secure the chain....

The problem is something of a "we can't get there from here" situation, as I mentioned also in PM.

One miner has >51% of the network.  As such the coin is centralized.  In order to resolve this compromise, more miners must appear. Miners not only know that they cannot mine at a profit in the best case (if their mining costs virtually "anything at all", so I'm even including human miners' time, here) but also that their mining subsidy is entirely subject to your whim, on average.

If your mining ignores their mining, they will get nothing at all.  You have to *let* them have blocks, until the network strength is redistributed.  They have no reason to assume that you would ever do so, so rationally they might have to assume a 0 return on their burn during this time.

They also currently have no way to know how much resource will need to be applied to redistribute the hash rate.

Further, they have no idea how much "moto time warp" debt you can put onto the network during this time, and no way to know that you will not leave them, once your 51% attack is over, to repay all of it.

Given this, the only rational conclusion is currently not to mine except for personal enjoyment of the game. (Which is ofc only "enjoyable at times, when you're lucky, in the meantime" which is the "marketing" problem here.)

As a bot operator, I'm *certainly* not going to be mining, when I could put that expensive electricity toward something with a hope of a return.

I've been asked to clarify this point.  In his original statement, he was referring to the combined holdings of himself and an investor.  He did not elaborate on what the ratio of holdings was.  This combined amount is greater than what has been claimed by the bot, but my statement that this person holds more than this themselves was assumptive.

My apologies for unintentionally misrepresenting the claim.

I will clarify this even more. There Possibly was a Group of whales who bought big part of moto. I speaked with one of them and he asked me if I want to cooperate with them and try to popularize moto and continue developing. I'm not even sure that he really got that moto. And my amout of moto is not too big. I could definitely just buy it on c-cex.

At the time of this post there are approximately 400kMOTO for sale on c-cex.  This is significantly less than what has been collected by the bot (assumed nearly 10 million) now. (Just some fun facts)
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001
Crypto since 2014
October 12, 2015, 07:26:15 PM
http://www.qmole.uk
Would it be possible to compile Motocoin for iOS on the Qmole app?

Quote
PROGRAMMING LANGUES

Common Lisp (ECL)
C, C++ (gcc, g++, clang, clang++)
Java (JamVM)
Clojure
Lua
Scheme (Gambit)
OCaml
Python
Perl
A+ APL

legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001
Crypto since 2014
October 12, 2015, 07:23:31 PM
If it helps, last time I played to mine as a human (2 months ago) I could still get blocks.
If nothing has changed then motocoin is still human mineable.
I'll try to record a video this afternoon of me getting a block.
newbie
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
October 12, 2015, 06:41:52 PM
We should take your word for it?

Again, download the public bot, launch it and you will get 1-2% of moto supply. Then convince 50 other people to do the same and you all together will have more than 50%. (You will probably outperform me and all current public bot miners). All we need is just more miners.

BTW Can anyone who mine with public bot give us some numbers how much do you mine per month and so on?

I've been asked to clarify this point.  In his original statement, he was referring to the combined holdings of himself and an investor.  He did not elaborate on what the ratio of holdings was.  This combined amount is greater than what has been claimed by the bot, but my statement that this person holds more than this themselves was assumptive.

My apologies for unintentionally misrepresenting the claim.

I will clarify this even more. There Possibly was a Group of whales who bought big part of moto. I speaked with one of them and he asked me if I want to cooperate with them and try to popularize moto and continue developing. I'm not even sure that he really got that moto. And my amout of moto is not too big. I could definitely just buy it on c-cex.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
October 12, 2015, 05:19:04 PM
Hi guys.

I'm so called "bot operator".

Welcome to the community.

They also claim to hold the vast majority of the coins, more than the sum of what has been claimed by the dominant bot to date.

is not correct. I asked HunterMinerCrafter to confirm that I didn't tell him that.

Post above yours, I revised.

Quote
My proposal to HMC was this:

We can keep proof-of-play algorithm for securing the blockchain, but allow everybody to add special transactions with any level solution into blocks (lets call them "free levels").

This will completely eliminate annoying level restarts. Players will be able to play one level for hours (target time will still be low, but it will be much more interesting).

Why would bots not also play these "free levels?"  The rational thing for a bot operator to do would be to ignore these special transactions from the pool, and to include two of their OWN solutions in every block in order to claim both rewards.

Quote
Target time for blockchain and for free levels would be calculated separately. Target time for special transactions would obviosly be lower than for blockchain levels, so bots will always switch to the next level (bots do not need time to explore the level, they do it in fraction of seconds, so there is no sense for bots to try to solve outdated level with decreased target time).

But human players will be able to continue solving one level for unlimited amount of time (only target time will be altered eventually during playing). Humans need time to study the level and unlimited time will actually make humans and bots equal.

This implies that the level generation would not be dependent upon the block header.  This being the case, how do you propose that we prevent work stealing?  (Note: I do have a (not so great) solution to this particular problematic aspect, but I am curious to hear what you come up with...)

Quote
So, bots will secure the blockchain and people will have fun without level restarts. And there will be equal reward for block solution and for free level solution and target time for free level solutions will be calculated to allow only one free solution per block on average.

What prevents the bot from mining both and driving target time on the "free levels" to minimum again?

Quote
This is really great and I do not understand why HunterMinerCrafter do not admit this. And there is almost no security loss. But much more fun.

Half of the rewards being given out for free implies that half of the work that is being done is not put toward securing the chain, which implies that with the same total work effort applied the security added to the chain is exactly half.  This is a factor of two security loss!  This is hardly "almost no security loss" - or rather would be if the network had, so far, any security to lose in the first place.  I guess it is easy to call this "no security loss" when you are the only one offering any illusion of security in the first place.  Wink

It does not make sense for the network to give away half of the subsidy to workers who are not working toward securing the chain.  I would not call such a proposal "really great."

Quote
I want to ask your opinion about this. If more people find this solution attractive, I think HMC will make it.

I would sooner implement my N-heads proposal with N=2.  This creates (in the worst case) the same exactly-half security loss, but in a way that would not require any complex operations.  It doesn't prevent level restarts entirely, but doubles the amount of time between restarts.

In either case, I don't understand why we wouldn't assume that the bots will simply compete in both competitions?  Under your model, the bots dominating both the "securing" and "free" levels would leave just as much lack of human mining as we have now.  People would get to spend more time playing the game, but still would not be able to actually compete against the bots for the reward.  (In the case of your solution, at the cost of significant complexity and increased block sizes!  In the case of my solution at the cost of double the confirms required for the same level of trust in a transaction history!  These both seem to be costs that aren't worth it for the "possibly perceived,  but not actual" gains.... else we would've just implemented the N-heads approach long ago.)

Quote
And yes, I really think that we should promote moto, move to other exchanges and so on. I made a good bot and didn't get any profit from it yet (unlike previous bot owners). And the only thing HMC wants to do is to fine-tune his precious work function and write huge chuck of text about theoretical aspects of hashes and so on (no offense)

We should not promote a coin that is insecure.  All that could serve to do is to bring you more potential victims.  Your history of altruistic mining is no reason to believe that you would necessarily continue to behave in the best interest of those services.

I don't want to fine-tune anything.  As I've said repeatedly in our PMs, to date I have been brought NO evidence that there is an actual insecurity in the protocol.  Until such is demonstrable, nothing needs to be "fine tuned."

I do want to write huge "chucks" of text about theoretical aspects of hashes and so on.  I want to do this because such discussion is how we can hope to make things secure!  Without such open discussion we can have no hope of progress.  Your *lack* of interest in discussion of these "theoretical aspects" like 51% attacks is quite strange to me, indeed.  As I stated in my earlier posts, this is not the perspective that I would've expected from "our bot operator."

Quote
I proposed real solution to make moto more popular and I think HMC will not refuse to make it if we ask him.

You proposed an incomplete change that may or may not make MOTO more popular.  Until you can elaborate on the details I can't even really say if I would expect it to make MOTO more popular or less popular.

The problem is not lack of popularity anyway, but lack of security.  MOTO cannot become popular if/while it is insecure.  There's no two ways about it.

newbie
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
October 12, 2015, 04:38:41 PM
Hi guys.

I'm so called "bot operator".

My bot is only 20X better than current public bot.

This:

They also claim to hold the vast majority of the coins, more than the sum of what has been claimed by the dominant bot to date.

is not correct. I asked HunterMinerCrafter to confirm that I didn't tell him that.


My proposal to HMC was this:

We can keep proof-of-play algorithm for securing the blockchain, but allow everybody to add special transactions with any level solution into blocks (lets call them "free levels").

This will completely eliminate annoying level restarts. Players will be able to play one level for hours (target time will still be low, but it will be much more interesting).

Target time for blockchain and for free levels would be calculated separately. Target time for special transactions would obviosly be lower than for blockchain levels, so bots will always switch to the next level (bots do not need time to explore the level, they do it in fraction of seconds, so there is no sense for bots to try to solve outdated level with decreased target time).

But human players will be able to continue solving one level for unlimited amount of time (only target time will be altered eventually during playing). Humans need time to study the level and unlimited time will actually make humans and bots equal.


So, bots will secure the blockchain and people will have fun without level restarts. And there will be equal reward for block solution and for free level solution and target time for free level solutions will be calculated to allow only one free solution per block on average.

This is really great and I do not understand why HunterMinerCrafter do not admit this. And there is almost no security loss. But much more fun.


I want to ask your opinion about this. If more people find this solution attractive, I think HMC will make it.


And yes, I really think that we should promote moto, move to other exchanges and so on. I made a good bot and didn't get any profit from it yet (unlike previous bot owners). And the only thing HMC wants to do is to fine-tune his precious work function and write huge chuck of text about theoretical aspects of hashes and so on (no offense)


I proposed real solution to make moto more popular and I think HMC will not refuse to make it if we ask him.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
October 12, 2015, 04:13:49 PM
I've been in contact with (someone claiming to be) our dominant bot operator.  (They have not yet done anything to confirm their identity as such.) They also claim to hold the vast majority of the coins, more than the sum of what has been claimed by the dominant bot to date.

I've been asked to clarify this point.  In his original statement, he was referring to the combined holdings of himself and an investor.  He did not elaborate on what the ratio of holdings was.  This combined amount is greater than what has been claimed by the bot, but my statement that this person holds more than this themselves was assumptive.

My apologies for unintentionally misrepresenting the claim.
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001
Crypto since 2014
October 12, 2015, 03:21:26 PM
Anything new?
At this point, I am not sure if I should even continue the discussion without at least requiring them to confirm their identity as the operator of the bot.

Thoughts?
Interesting. It does seem that this so called "bot operator" sounds to be fake. I would ask for a confirmation to find out if he is lying. Especially if he claims to have more coins than what would sound to be possible.

What about the bot operator that released their bot? Have they said anything?
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
October 12, 2015, 02:24:28 PM
Anything new?

I've been in contact with (someone claiming to be) our dominant bot operator.  (They have not yet done anything to confirm their identity as such.) They also claim to hold the vast majority of the coins, more than the sum of what has been claimed by the dominant bot to date.

They've expressed interest in seeing the coin succeed. 

However, we have yet to come to any agreement as to how would be best to go about this.

They first proposed a move to a traditional PoW, securing blocks by hashing as in huntercoin.  As I see it, this would amount to trading one unique form of mining centralization for another more commonplace one.  I don't see this as an improvement.  Further, as I don't see any inherent insecurity in the current work function I don't see any strict need to ditch the current work function.

Then they proposed something of a hybrid, allowing players to play levels for coins without wall-clock time limits, but not using that play to secure the block.  They proposed a 50/50 split between "chain-securing" level rewards and "untimed" level rewards, allowing one "untimed" solution per secured block.  However, all that this would seem to accomplish is making half of the reward given out for "free" to people who are not actually working toward securing the network.  This is not how blockchain incentive should work, and there is no reason to believe that the bots wouldn't simply also claim these free rewards.  Further, this would be highly complex to do in a way that does not allow for a miner to simply claim the solution found by someone else for the "untimed" reward.  (It is possible, but would require some nontrivial protocol changes and would likely almost double average block sizes, contributing to db bloat.)  I don't see this solution as being better than my previous "N-heads" proposal, and even done correctly it would still reduce the security of the network by half.  Doing it correctly would also be significantly more complex than just implementing a "two heads" mechanism, with roughly the same security tradeoff *at best*.

I've tried to express to them that the solution is not a change in protocol, but an increase in mining strength on the network.

I've tried to encourage them to release the dominant bot's design publicly, to restore competition and end the implicit 51% attack.  They claim that their bot is "pretty dumb" and that they could easily make one 10X or 100X more capable.  This just confuses me, because if it were true then the obvious thing to do would be to give out their current bot and then start running the 10x stronger one.

I've tried to encourage them to consider long term viability of the network and distribution of mining strength ahead of their own profit motive.

I've tried to encourage them to treat security as necessarily more critical in the immediate term than popularity and spot price.

They've tried to encourage me to change the coin to traditional PoW, to "promote it" before securing it, to use my BTC to "restore price and generate volumes," to "try to get maximum profit from it," to "try to add moto to all major exchanges" and to "make moto more popular."  None of these are concerns ahead of the security of the network.  These also don't seem to align with what I would expect the concerns of the bot operator to actually be, so these things were a little surprising to me.  I would think that someone capable of writing such a bot would also be capable of understanding why popularity of the coin is entirely irrelevant so long as the network continues to be implicitly insecure and at their whim.

At this point, I am not sure if I should even continue the discussion without at least requiring them to confirm their identity as the operator of the bot.



Thoughts?
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001
Crypto since 2014
October 12, 2015, 10:50:23 AM
Anything new?
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1001
Crypto since 2014
October 02, 2015, 03:07:50 PM
OK, well I just bought a nice load of coins. Maybe Motocoin will be a success in the future.

Thanks for coming back HunterMinerCrafter.
Pages:
Jump to: