Topic: ◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 134. (Read 284527 times)

Yes older BNs will cease to receive payments. While it is bothersome to split it into 5 (assuming you wish to maximise your profits ) it is essential for the new business and security models we are introducing over the next few updates.

Thanks crouton! Will older BNs suddenly stop working at block 145000? E.g. If someone has a 250K BN using an older version, say 301607, will that stop working? Alternately, if someone has a 250K BN, but using the latest from Github as of today, will that continue to work?

Apologies if this has been covered in the thread - I read over the last few pages, and wasn't able to figure out exactly what this transition will look like.

You can at block 145000, we're now at 142200-ish. Another few days.

Proposed changes to bankstats page:



I didn't think any of this was wired up, you just have to push the button and wait 5-10 secs. We need to get all this stuff working properly. Reported market cap is a bit optimistic right now.  

I currently run one 250K Banknode. If I update from Github today, can I run 5 BNs for 50K each?

They get paid for being full nodes on fast connections, posting collateral and participating in the consensus mechanism.    Anyway, above my pay grade.

Proposed change to block browser page:



One result batch at a time, looks a bit neater IMO...?

but why are we paying those nodes? what activity have they done that helps the network?

Lets see if I can make this a little easier... It would not matter how many blocks in a row someone hashes if all blocks pay all nodes, not all wallets, but all nodes... with each node having a required deposit that can be verified... in this simple way a single machine hashing a block a min could easily keep the entire network secure.... this drops all incentive to try to steal blocks, in any way!!!

By Wednesday i will give an example of the node classes

I think removing hashing is way too much in one go for now, i want to keep compatibility with btc based chains and avoid making changes whose consequences i can't even try to imagine... but it's definitely in line for the chopping block.

I will look at spr code tonight and see what they had. Whatever election method we decide to use must be robust and secure, if that Mr Spread guy were around i bet we could make a ton of progress working together.

I don't understand why there needs to be any hashing at all. If the txes in the block are judged valid by consensus - and any conflicting double-spend attempts etc are rejected - then once that quorum is reached can the block not be simply added to the permanent chain? This should be a pretty quick process, set to run every x seconds.

I'll get around to understanding this stuff better eventually...

WRT your propositions though, if BNs were elected to do what was needed in strict succession, ie. with 100 BNs each one would process each 100th (101st, whatever)  block - would that help/solve the issue? Right now BNs get paid more or less at random it seems and it evens out over time; SPR had what seemed like a very reliable blockchain based voting system for BN payments, could something like that be employed?

Ok i'm online for the next few hours

You added me on Skype, but I haven't seen you online yet. Still waiting for you to show up, so we can have a chat.

Could not have said it better myself.

Meanwhile......i have an small untested idea i want to pitch so i'm just going to throw this cat in the fray

In typical mining, we struggle to find a hash smaller than the target...as a result as we get more competitive this target gets smaller ie more difficult. I would like us to consider the technical implications of a system that replaces difficulty with signatures. This means that forever, the blockchain has a static difficulty, and instead relies on signatures in the block. If difficulty is always low, then blocks will always fly by faster with no "dry spells" of blocks. At a well chosen target , a tx could get confirmed in under ten seconds.

In order to block active attacks that try to centralize mining by throwing overwhelming power, we could utilize one of two methods

1) Limit the number of consecutive blocks a node can produce, this simply just says that miners cannot produce too many consecutive blocks, the point of failure i see in it is that it could result in a couple of high power miners running the show still.

2) Create a system similar to BN winning process that ensures that all miners generally produce blocks , with additional limits using elements from  (1).

What bitcreditscc said, and blockchain security via SmartSig: only BN's (or various collateralised node classes) will be validating transactions and baking them into the chain for distribution to all, in a non competitive manner. The more nodes we have doing this, the more resilient our blockchain. And having a collateral cost associated with running such a node provides an additional financial barrier to attempted chain vandalism. And for their service, nodes get paid.

Conventional PoW, as well as being monumentally wasteful, doesn't even provide very good security, as all PoW currencies funnel their hash through a very limited number of pools, thus short circuiting the whole point of a supposedly distributed system.

There is not a single PoW currency that 'relies' on pooled mining that I could not fuck up beyond all recognition with control of at most 3 pool servers. That's not security, it's a liability.

Try explaining to Jo Public why your PoW currency has any value with, "Because I spent a shitload of money on electricity producing these 1's and 0's!" ... then try again with, "Because it's backed directly by the money you spent buying it, and you can see all these assets that you now own a part of right in the wallet."

With every token minted, all other cryptocurrencies undergo inflation - the value declines. With BCR, every coin minted and purchased makes everyone's BCR worth more.

Yes, once we hammer out the last remaining issues, we will put up a mailing list and send a slightly redacted copy of the Memorandum to all interested users.

Darksend is still very immature. With regards to regulation, we are still consulting a lawyer , but essentially, if those running financial services work under our banner as a "branch", it may be feasible...more on this when i have the full recommendation. The main problem is that this is global, as such with differing laws in each country...we'll need to do some legal acrobatics

We want to minimize the risk to users as much as possible so we are really trying to get as iron clad as possible, also because of widespread scamming we are trying very hard to create a robust system that will hopefully ensure that no-one absconds with people's funds.

We are moving away from the typical thought process that has plagued similar projects and honing our product for global use, this means we really have to structure things in a way that makes sense from a user and service provider perspective.

PoW is a wasteful, unsustainable and economically unsound model of distribution. Competitive mining leads to arms races that suck away investment from the technologies, infrastructure and businesses instead pouring into the coffers of hardware companies and power companies. So we are moving to completely remove that aspect and instead encourage that investment to go directly into acquiring credits without leaking obscene percentages to the various middlemen.

One of the effects of competitive mining is that most miners live hand to mouth, essentially, they mine and immediately sell to try to cover cost and make a profit. This means that there is a permanent sell pressure without a countering buy pressure, as if that is not bad enough, new investment has to go through 3 translations before it becomes buy pressure. Thirdly i'll point out how illiquid BCR is so long as we are reliant on BTC, competitive mining and other middle man like AWS. These issues and others discourage usage and adoption, we need to decrease the barriers of entry and exit, we need to increase utility and accessibility as well as beef up infrastructure if we want to raise visibility and grow into a dominant force.

Dismal practices that make no real sense are being removed. 2nd tier nodes (Bank nodes as they are currently known) allow us to add additional utility for users who wish to conduct business on the blockchain and also for service providers. It makes no sense for us to just pay them for existing, they must perform some secondary functions beyond what an ordinary node can do, as a result we are separating the nodes and creating sub-classes of nodes within the second tier. A basic "lazy" node that does nothing but exist and small business nodes shall make up class V nodes, class IV shall be made up of passive service nodes such a "dumb" bridge that only facilitates inter blockchain communication.
Class III nodes will be active nodes such as IBTP nodes, storage, message and other relays. Class II will comprise of nodes that require heavy backing , from alt-coins, stocks and bonds to Banks, Insurance and Reserves. Class I will be for now, unassigned as i am still re-classifying.

Any user likes choice, by providing varying options, we make it such that users can now carry out business in a comfortable , flexible manner. Huge concerns can look at our ecosystem and find a place for themselves much like any individual user can. For now we will be focused on developing the server/desktop versions and once we roll this out, we will start to see mobile development.

It depends how this project will evolve, lending money should be registered operation as far as I know and now without darksend working, this coin is not anonymous, how operator could feel safe ?
You said there are plans to register working company that would be interesting.

what purpose do you want to use your node for? If you intend to run a business off your BN then it would make no difference either way, in fact for those with business plans that are less grander than having a bank are relieved because set up costs are lower.

I can't see someone who wants to set up a bridge node agreeing to front the same amount as a Bank.

So what's the point of making new smaller 5x 50k banknodes from so far existing 250k, just for some time and then again remade them to 250k.  Now 250k - after 145000 block, 5x50k - and after some time again 250k.

I know that there will be new functionality in actual bigger banknodes but if I don't want to use it, just hold a bigger 250k banknode which is easier to operate than 5 smaller 50k banknodes then it should be allowed.

Sorry to say but it's illogical for me, maybe I don't get a bigger picture but it will not encourage any investors.

@ thelonecrouton

New wallet with light theme is at last useful and looks gorgeous, new functions looks promising, great work.

Actual Bank will be 250K, the next few weeks will see some new ideas and further expansion of existing ones put into reality.