Topic: [ANN][ZANO] New Sources|1st ProgPowZ|PoW/PoS Hybrid|Scalable|Private|Contracting - page 22. (Read 36573 times)

You can use the word zano for restaurant etc depend on what class you have registered
My friend already reg the word zano for this 4 class IC 009, IC 035, IC 036, and IC 042
He also reg the domain name since 2000.




Sorry about that. nothing I could do. and btw why you need to use ZANO? It sound like NANO .
0% uniqueness.

He's just trying to shill the Zano domain his "supposed" friend owns and trying to maybe cut a deal in. Zano's been used on everything from drones to restaurants, lightning, and architecture. Maybe he should go tell them how "repetitive" those are too as the sole overlord of "Zano" name

hundred k? not even sure what you wanted to say by this

---

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Since our team is working on different projects(like pools, block explorers and so on) we renamed github account name from “zano-project” to “hyle-team”(hyle.io is company name), so you have to update all your local repositories links. Sorry for the inconvenience!

"WE don't need another repetitive coin" Yet "I own so many coin onion, eth, blocknet, btc , ltc, vert, nano, iota, neo, neblio like 20-30 different coin not just onion since 2013."

Good luck buddy....

This is not just “another coin” this has been in development for 4+ years by developers that are highly talented and with a track record of creating successful, innovative projects.

I suppose only time will tell which becomes the next “PayPal” and which becomes the next “pets.com.”

We are intimately familiar with the history. I suggest you dig deeper. you might really like what you find.

You speak in the name of your friend and in the name of the people... personaly, I can't recall hiring you as my advocate. I want other coins. I want Zano. I don't give a rats a... if useses the name of 10.000 other stuff. 😜
"The first known currency was created by King Alyattes in Lydia, now part of Turkey, in 600BC."
So why the hack do we have $, €, £,¥, and the other thousand different coins invented by the humankind?
Why the hack did we created ETH, LTC and the other thousand crypto projects if we already had the almighty Bitcoin? Isn't something that you missed? Or all people are so dumb and create repetitive stuff?

You dont understand, it just like i buy PayPal.org , and create financial related - blockchain project.
What do you think PayPal reaction gonna be like?

I own so many coin onion, eth, blocknet, btc , ltc, vert, nano, iota, neo, neblio like 20-30 different coin not just onion since 2013.
Believe me, people are not desperate and needs for another coin. There are already thousands of coin out there.

I have emailed with him several times over the recent months. He is very aware, and you can let him know that my offer stands.

And what about GRIN?   It's a tech company as well.  This argument apply to so many projects, ive been hearing that for years.

As for DeepOnion i tend to disagree, but this is personal opinions, so i'm ok with you believing its very good and me believing it aint.  As for creative devs, i would look closer to this team background if i was you, you cant really find more creative than these guys.  I would really recommend you dig deeper several years back in crypto (like 2013-2014).

DeepOnion is a great project.
Unique feature, and creative developer/community.

I din't expect it gonna be top 100.

I joined it, put avatar and signature because I get free airdrop coin. Free money though.

---

You can create a restaurant company and called it uber, no problem with that as uber trademark only cover in "mobile, transport" area.
Just an example.

It's similar to zano. the trademark only cover in financial, mobile app, software, website, i.t related area.
So you can use that name for restaurant, food and beverage with no issue.

Hope you say the same thing about DeepOnion

Its another coin/blockchain project with different flavor.

Sorry, but I dont think people really desperate/need for another coin.
There are already thousands of coins.
https://coinmarketcap.com/all/views/all/

Zano is a short catchy name, like many in crypto, its not unusual to clash with real world names, a quick search will tell you that.

   Here zano is used by a kickstarted project for drones: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/torquing/zano-autonomous-intelligent-swarming-nano-drone
   And here you can find a trademark registered for a food company: https://trademarks.justia.com/856/42/zano-85642647.html

As for being repetitive this aint just a plain fork from a github repo like most coins.   I wouldn't call MimbleWimble a repetitive coin project just like i would call zano one either, they wrote most of the code in both case.

Heres one for GRIN: https://trademarks.justia.com/776/37/grin-77637877.html

https://www.grin.com/

You get the point i guess!

"How many repetitive coin project that we need?" What, how is this a repetitive coin?

How many repetitive coin project that we need?

Btw, my friend own zano.com domain name.

He hold this domain name for 1 big fintech project.

He and his group even reg trademark the "zano"  name.

Hope it not gonna get conflict with this project.

Since you're both share similar name.

They already spend hundred of k to develop 1 fintech mobile application that they were ready to launch at any time.

I will show him this thread.

jwinterm recommended I take a look, but I only glanced at the white paper.  Instead of changing chain work to motivate alternating, why not change the difficulty?  It seems like this would reduce the number of orphans. Another idea for combining POS and POW is to let block wins be proportional to (% network HR) * (% network stake) but give a reward that's only proportional to the HR.  

I'm more interested in new types of PoS (Casper, Dfinity) where the stake is at risk if there is a double spend.  The ideal POW is to require all your miners to purchase equipment that is only useful for mining your coin and no other equipment can compete with it. It would also not use any electricity and it would not depreciate.  This way the staked equipment / non-staked equipment ratio is a max.  But instead of them actually possessing the equipment, you use a POS system that simulates the existence of the equipment.  To do it correctly, the virtual equipment stake must be at risk as real equipment would be devalued if you attacked a coin too much and force devs to switch POW.  Although I have not thought through the problem of old stakers giving away keys to old block wins.

Yes, LWMA with N=60 will vary +/- 20% many times a day as the link below shows for the coins I follow

http://wordsgalore.com/diff/

N=144 will give it more stability.  I have historically been biased towards faster response because response time is a function of N while stability is a function of SQRT(N), so you get more bang for your buck in a sense by keeping N low.  But N=144 would certainly look more friendly and I think it will have enough speed in the vast majority of coins.

Edit: or LWMA with N=720.  It would probably look good bit like your last simulation, as jwinterm said.

arto in the link above is using a 24 hour LWMA.  It looks too smooth.

BTG is using N=45 and it looks just as stable as N=60, but it does have a lot higher hashrate than the others.

Wownero is going to use N=144 (1/2 day at their T=300

To clarify, I assume your POS block come in very regularly, otherwise I don't know how it has a difficulty algorithm like the POW blocks.  Assuming that's the case, by "changing difficulty instead of chain work" I mean to drastically raise and lower difficulty for the POW block by a similar rule and leave POS as is.  Your cumulative difficulty would then flow automatically from the difficulty.

Have the same opinion about "echnically solvable".
zawy, thanks for your notes and examples, I've reviewed it and as you mentioned I have similar ideas in my mind. My concern about making shorter window and faster adjustment response by prioritizing very last blocks is that this can cause fluctuations of difficulty. I'll make next simulations experimenting with this and I think the final version will be some trade-off between fast adjustment and smooth difficulty line.

And talking about PoW/PoS hybrids, what you think about Zano implementation? 

---

Re-ran simulation with this formula:

D = (D720(historical_data) + D200(historical_data) + D40(historical_data))/3

Where:
 - D720 - function which calculates difficulty based on 720 blocks window with 60 / 60 cuts
 - D200 - function which calculates difficulty based on 200 blocks window with 5 / 5 cuts
 - D40 - function which calculates difficulty based on 40 blocks window with 1 / 1 cuts



Adjustment is faster now, but fluctuations now more noticeable, but not so bad

No, it's not technically solvable. You have the right idea, but you're touching upon the deep problem of forming a consensus which is the core of keeping cryptocurrencies out of central control.  POW achieves this goal only if you're the largest coin for the type of equipment being used for the coin, so that miners are forced to not attack the coin so that their equipment remains profitable and worth something. Hashrate is automatically stable because they don't have something else to mine.  In effect, the miner's equipment investment becomes their stake in the coin. If they attack, their stake loses value.  Keeping the staked equipment / non-staked equipment ratio above 50% is the source of POW security which is how good POS systems works.  There's no way to stop 51% of the miners from colluding to take value from the other 49%.  So POS and POW work by making the miners put up a stake and have that stake at risk if they hurt the coin, so it does not matter if they collude because it does them no good.  I'm working on a coin design to use this and other ideas.  Most POW+POS are centralized instead of putting the stake at risk.

For example, a miner with 50% hashrate mines only half of the expected mining reward. A miner with 90% of the total hashrate would mine only a tenth part of the normal expected mining reward. I believe it would dezentralize and stabilize the hashrate, but I cannot say, if it is technically solvable.

This is essentially what the zawy LWMA algo described several posts above yours does. LWMA = linearly weighted moving average.