Ah okay! Yes, we plan on having 100% transparency of operations/payouts so that there will be no question of whether the payouts are being manipulated or not.
But will there be
a proof? Meaning, will we be able to do something like pull some signed archive of the posts themselves and allocations associated to them and re-run the math to verify the ledger? Or do we have to trust that server or servers' claim of history even if the referenced posts disappear, etc? Is there something that (in a way that will remain perpetually verifiable) connects the tx records on the chain back to some record of the actual contributions (forum post or whatnot) that were made?
And as far the way we plan on implementing mining, the idea is that we will add PoW coins to the CoinProz mining pool, and monitor the activity so that completed mining hours are what get counted towards the score, and not the "hashing power" of the miner.
So if you PoW mine "Dogecoin" through the Coin Proz pool, you will get your regular PoW payout in Doge, but in addition you will get a PoA payout in ProzCoin for "participation" in PoW mining. This way we can bring people into the mining pools, not force them to mine a specific coin, and then reward their activity ProzCoin, which could really be seen as a "bonus".
Same question! Will this pool, itself, operate in a p2pool fashion "on chain" or are you asking us to trust your particular centralized pool to account fairly/correctly and, most importantly, without compromise? If you can do this without being just another "coin married to a multi-pool" setup you would be on to something huge, here.
Our model is about trying to get the alternative currency communities to work in the same direction. PoA allows individual communities to thrive, then CoinProz also gives an unbiased home for information distribution, forum particpation, mining, and an all inclusive reward system for involvement.
This will only work well if that direction is the direction that those communities go in. It will work particularly well if that relationship is systematically baked in, step by step.
You need to make sure you are being involved in the right things. A plan of two centralized servers for your coin distribution accounting is not the right stuff, so I'm really hoping you will tell me that is not totally the plan!
As far as "centralized" trust goes, our aim is that by being inclusive of all the crypto communities, having transparent systems, and eventually having community appointed moderators, we will have a great balance of an autonomous hub that simultaneously promotes the individual communities as legitimate in their own right. In essence, we want Coin Proz to be a large hub for all things Crypto, but we want the market to influence its evolution, and make community participation the main driving force.
The concern of "too much centralization" is a very valid one, and one that we have tried to be cognizant of during our entire planning process. Your input is very much appreciated!
I COMPLETELY see where you are coming from with this, and in fact that is kind of the reasoning behind
PoA. Beyond Cryptocurrency, the internet is full of scam artists, fakers, and bots. We are trying to create a system that encourages REAL people to participate and contribute quality content/action/participation for a reward of ProzCoin. In a sense we are "gamifying" participation so that activity which can easily be monitored such as post count/upvotes, etc... can be tracked, monitored, and quantified for a "score". All of the points of calculation will be on public ledgers, and as I said before there are internal limits so that "attempted exploitation" will continually reduce your score the more you try to exploit it, ultimately making people who exploit the system get no real "benefit" from exploitation, and in fact they reduce their payouts.
Keep in mind that I have no problem with the notion of entrusting some group of
people involved to judge participation fairly, presuming they can be held to account to some subjectively acceptable degree. My concern is about purely systematic implementation detail. I worry that such a "balance" can not exist unless very explicitly enforced within those details. I worry even more that assuming perpetual sanity of any given centralized server(s) on which that balance depends might inherently make such a system flawed to the point of some inevitable failure.
Also, an aside. It is one that will likely be fully expected from any reader who knows my posts:
the internet is full of scam artists, fakers, and bots. We are trying to create a system that encourages REAL people to participate and contribute quality content/action/participation for a reward of ProzCoin. In a sense we are "gamifying" participation
As a consequence, you are also directly creating incentive for those scam artists, fakers, and particularly
bots to more efficiently (and more cleverly/subtly, under your model) "participate" in their way(s). While I have hopes that initiatives along these lines will inevitably lead to great strides being made in areas of AI, and that in short order we will be sharing our discourse on these forums with the machines actually operating the forums, some care must be taken. When you combine these three behaviors in a single agent within your system (A scam artist faker using bots) and at the same time give the world incentive to make more capable chatter bots on forums, you arguably might be inadvertently doing an awesomely great but also simultaneously downright "dangerous" sort of thing. Persona management, social false flagging, cognitive infiltration, group-think takeover. If you think these practices aren't rapidly advancing you must not be watching this forum, or your "competition" coins, at all, hehe. (EDIT: I'll not even mention the basilisk.)
I wish you nothing but luck, and look forward to seeing the release of your systems. I truly hope that they don't implode under the load of their own success.
