Topic: [ANN][SLR] SolarCoin | PoW to PoS v. 2.0 | Solar Proof of Generation (§1 = 1MWh) - page 236. (Read 466822 times)

Good News. The SolarCoin Foundation has contracted developers from Vericoin to transition from POW to POS and work has started. http://www.vericoin.info/
The VeriCoin team has successfully transitioned ARCHcoin to POS 2.0.
The VeriCoin team asked the SolarCoin Foundation to consider POS Time (POST) as a potential alternative to POSV.
POST was developed by the VeriCoin team. Below are the whitepaper links to POSV and POST and a summary of the key message of each. We would like to encourage community participation. Therefore, please review each whitepaper and reply with your thoughts.


POSV  https://www.reddcoin.com/papers/PoSV.pdf

 - PoSV is designed to encourage both ownership (Stake) and activity (Velocity), the two main criteria of being a social currency.
 - The form of the coin-aging function is of ultimate importance. It not only decides the growth rate of coin age as a resource over time via its first derivative, but also decides the utility function of stakeholders.
 - The main limitations of PoS, too much incentive for hoarding and too little incentive for staying online, result from the fact that the form of its coin-aging function is linear. The linear form leads to a constant coin age growth rate and a utility function that disobeys the law of diminishing returns.
 - Changing the form of coin-aging function has profound impact. For example, let’s assume coin-aging function in PoSV is an exponential decay function. The coin age growth rate gradually decreases with time. This exponential decay function dramatically changes stakeholders’ incentives. New coin accumulates coin age at much higher rate than stale ones. Stakeholders are also encouraged to stay online and contribute to verifying transactions on the PoSV network. The asymptotic limit of coin age due to exponential decay function provides extra security for the network. The maximum amount of coin age a stakeholder can earn now equals coin amount times twice the half-life. This significantly increases the difficulty for 51% attacks.
 - The coin-aging function can take on other forms. Linear and exponential decay functions are both monotonic. What about trigonometric functions which are non-monotonic and periodic? Non-monotonicity produces positive and negative growth rate of coin age at different points in time which along with periodicity translate into rewarding and penalizing holding with a seasonal pattern.  This can be used to fine-tune the seasonality in money velocity. The bottom line is that PoSV is designed to accommodate different forms of coin-aging functions in order to implement the necessary monetary policies.

 

POST http://www.vericoin.info/downloads/VeriCoinPoSTWhitePaper10May2015.pdf

- POST substitutes a Stake-Time function for the coin aging function
- Stake time is a nonlinear proof function that defines a fraction of time active and idle, at a given block. Idle-time is defined as the fraction of age that no longer supports the distribution of consensus and instead begins to degrade it. This quantified idle-time is unique to each stake, as it decreases the probability to meet the proof and impacts the fraction of earnable matured interest via consensus.
- The fraction of accepted age (f) is equal to the squared cosine of the product of π and that transactions' consensus power (p), defined as the fraction coin-age (g) of the average network wide stake-time weight (n) over 60 blocks(1hour). If the consensus power (p) is greater than 0.45 all age is lost and the time-active fraction is equal to the minimum stake time(m) of 8 hours.  Consensus-power (p):  p=g / n   ;  Time-active fraction (f): f=cos^2 (πp) {if (p> .45),  f =m}          
 - As the contribution of coinage approaches a majority of the network weight, a greater fraction of age is deemed as idle time and is not accepted by the network. The resulting effect of this function is that it requires a network activity level that is proportional to the number of coins held and relative to the network strength. In this method, actively staking is incentivized to maximize both the likelihood to sign a block, and to earn all of the matured interest in reward. The Stake-Time function is used both in the proof and in the quantification of reward.          
- Stake-Time is defined as the product of the total coins(C) and the fraction (f) of acceptable age (a). S=C*(af)
- Like coin-age, the network accepted Stake-Time is a trust score for coins and depth on the main chain, but also for activity in the network. Unlike Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake, the likelihood to participate in consensus can decrease over time.
- Maintaining a minimal idle-time inherently increases the probability to stake while reducing the probability of a successful attack. This results in a moving window that is exponentially more difficult to target for attack, enhancing security of the system from the core structure of a nonlinear consensus. The trust score diminishes with increased idle-time towards a minimum trust score which is equal to the number of coins.  


In addition, the link below is a comparison of POS vs POSV:
http://agroff.github.io/posv/

For those who want to use the SLR template : https://www.facebook.com/groups/solarcoin/

Yeah it's risky all the way around, and that is the same reason why I am staying away from SLR. It is just another blockchain out there wanting my money in exchange for an already bought and paid for MWH. It doesn't make me want to buy Solar Panels to generate a claim since it has looming claims of 98 Billion which will reduce any PoS I can create to worthless pennies. Why would I invest in something that could be trounced on sell offs from claimers just selling out?

It's risky to issue a token entirely within somebody else's blockchain, whether it be Opal, Counterparty, Ripple, or whatever else. The risk is that you're tying your coin to the company that runs that blockchain. If for whatever reason that company doesn't succeed, or has technical problems, or is involved in a legal scandal, or whatever, then your coin will be affected by that.

I guess you would have to weigh the costs, risks, and benefits of either approach. If you do end up deciding to issue your token on an external blockchain, I suggest Ripple because they have a trading platform that enables trading for fiat.

The Feathercoin developers are pretty straight forward. It's a great community. They might be a good bet on getting the ball really rolling on the SLR fork.

https://www.feathercoin.com/

Good news. The deposit funds from the Cannacoin developer have been returned. The SolarCoin Foundation is diligently screening other developers for POSV conversion.

Thanks freebird!

I'm the dev of a new coin as you know, but I'm not an expert. What I learned from figuring out how to modify a codebase and create a blockchain is that it's harder than it seems at first. When I first studied the code, I thought I could get it done in a couple days. That ended up turning into weeks, because of various unanticipated issues in the code. If I had just done a copy-paste without significant modifications to the codebase I was cloning from, it would have been quicker and easier.

Switching a coin from PoW to PoS is a complex business, because you're making major modifications to the code. I don't claim to know anything about this for sure, because I've never done this specific task. But, from what I think I know, I guess you could either replace the codebase entirely -- like you did in the first SLR hardfork where the Cannacoin devs used their codebase as the replacement -- or you could put in the PoS stuff piecemeal into the existing SLR code, which I'm guessing might actually be harder, because the SLR code was not built for PoS in the first place and a lot of things in various files would probably have to be modified.

A good software developer makes $75,000+ per year, in many cases over $100,000. If it takes a week of full-time work for a talented and experienced developer to get this job done, you're talking a price of $1,000 to $2,000. That would be my guess of what something like this is going to cost.

Your best bet would be to find somebody who is willing to take at least partial payment in SLR. Or maybe do a crowdfund on Bittrex to raise some money by selling a small percentage of the Genesis Pool. Grantcoin just raised $1,000 last night in a crowdfund, and many coins do that, so it's a strategy that can work and a lot of people are willing to accept it if there are clear plans for how the money will be used to advance the project.

Hope my input is of some help. Good luck finding your dev!

happy to have a Bounty race.  Any suggestions from real devs what a bounty should be for this?

I hope this is not a hit and run, we really need this coin to go POSv either way so I vote we find another dev now no matter what so one dev alone cannot slow down SLR... in the future we should always have 2 independent devs where possible IMO since that would ensure we can move forward in a consistent manner.

We could have dev's race to a rather large reward maybe?

Nick thanks for the updates there is a lot of trustworthy people on litecointalk you might want to ask around there. I just started this thread for you I Hope its ok with you.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=25461.new#new

The other parts of the update including the 50k userbase seems very exciting!!!

SLR could use Opal Coin Colored coins concepts to back SLR. This wouldn't be POSv but you are basing your inflation on future claims plus POSv on top now to protect a coin that is only a flight mile type scenario, there is no need for POSv.

Claiming in would release coins that can be bought.

Example= Claimant for 25 MWH of Colored Coins, Proceeds from the sale go to buy Solar Panels that should equal the Market Cap of the 25MWH current pricing for panels to produce that amount. These Panels could be setup in a Farm and the power Produced would go to buy coin and burn the value of the token after sale. If no one sells the coin then it doesn't burn boosting the market cap. It is smart property so it is trustless but could be used at vendors. So your eventual claim output sustains the worth of the actual Tokens and the claims. So if trading takes place while market cap is boosted due to production of electricity through the bought solar panels it would perpetuate the actual price. This would entice merchants who would need stability to sell to recoup their costs of products.

Or you just make it so that there is no need for any of this and make the actual Merchant who sells the Solar Panel grant a claim to the buyer and this would allow a Merchant to be unique to the Solar Market and build the coin from current purchases to equal the claims. This would be driving future claims based on sales and not allow previous buyers of solar panels to depreciate the market. They already have their ROI anyways so this fits very good to drive demand for Solar since that is demand now not from early adopters.

Rethink in terms of Smart Property based on Opal Coin and assets built on Bitcoin 2.0 technology. I think you could make a bigger splash and momentum for sales in this manner.

Update on POSv and other things.

Here is the status, the founders board has paid 50% of a development fee to the team behind Cannacoin for the POSv project.  The amount was paid and accepted in BTC.  To date we haven't had a status update for 3 weeks. So we ask the following from the community.

1. If you know how to reach the cannacoin lead devs, please ask them about the status of the Solarcoin POSv dev project or funds. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-cannacoin-ccn-pow-posv-no-premine-no-ipo-740903  The cannacoin site seems to have gotten quiet, this might be due to other projects they are involved with.

2. If you know a trustworthy developer who can get SolarCoin to POSv please introduce them to me. This provides us with a rapid plan B.  The project involves the following

1. migrating the current coin code base to POSv
2. maintaining the transaction messaging TX message capability.
3. Do this using the current SLR blockchain. We mistakenly went down a rabbit hole with a migrate to a new block-chain solution, which is too risky.
4. Deliver a compiled MacOS, Win and Linux compilable code as well as leave the source up in the repository https://github.com/solarcoin/solarcoin

On other fronts the foundation has engaged a marketing specialist who focuses on growing communities to identifying the cost and methodology for getting to 50k users.

The individual has built campaigns at the regional and national level working with govts, banks and brands over 30 years.

the target of 50k SLR users creating just half the economic utility of BTC (market cap/# of BTC users) is likely to be interesting.

A very high level security specialist with 20 yrs experience is working on a budget and timeline for the following projects:
 
1. securing the generator/ genesis pool,
2. building a website backend that can enable a skinnable wallet: think easy mobile and web affiliates.
3. toolset and architecture for general affiliate security model

so that is what is going on.

Nick

Its also important to remember that in the staked coin, transaction fees will be destroyed. So there is a deflationary component from transaction fees.

great.  looking forward to seeing the presentation.

this coin has a pretty interesting concept, I am watching.  

Made a presentation this evening to the BTC Community here in BCN this evening, was interesting to hear that they consider "immediately" SLR as a miles/shopping points. Idea of SLR is out there now.

I will make the presentation available on the SLR FB Forum.

Yeah but this is not a stock and you can't control it. This is just another way to make the POW coin profitable while hardly anyone claims their SLR. But this shouldn't really matter if the coin is strong and has buy support. You take the PoS and dip the percentile that it generates and you have your adjusted coin price. So now you may have a double whammy though since most claimers will sell off while PoS sells off and plummets since no one really needs to buy so they can chase the sells downward. And why would you care if claimants get a good sell price???

It is a daunting task ahead for sure...

Agreed to the above-mentioned by Corather. Wallets, with say more than x thousand SLR should be kept in cold storage ; much as a lockup period would lock shareholders in a company from selling off (too soon) their stock. This will help keep a healthy price for SLR and claimants.