[C3] Coin Brainstorming / Ideas / Proposals thread - page 2.

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: sangaman on April 04, 2013, 12:27:26 PM

However, I think it's possible to reduce dust and unspendable outputs without reducing divisibility. I think you could still have divisibility to 8 digits (or thereabouts) but then enforce a rule that a transaction can't have outputs smaller than .0001 (or thereabouts).

This rule has no performance or storage benefit, and will case a hard fork in case we want to allow spending less than 0.0001 in the future.

Perhaps 4 digits is too small - maybe 5 or 6?

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: ?? on ??

Just throwing 0.02 worth of thoughts in as its already over my head:

Merged mining gives access to the worlds most powerful security system and it seems foolish not to use it. (voted)

Not sure if multiple hashing methods could work but it would allow seamless switching to different systems should a problem show up with ASIC's.

Bitcoin is a commodity in its own right and it would make sense to use it as backing for alt curencies, ie. putting 1 BTC into the alt currency creates 1000 alt coins to be used with that system and they can be turned back into BTC at any time (removing them from the alt currency).

Speed is vital, point of sale transactions are the missing link atm.

Merged mining: Could only work if we use SHA256. Also, we can use pure PoS for security with PoW for coin generation (but not block generation).

Bitcoin <-> altcoin: Would not work with centralization.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: strunberg on April 04, 2013, 12:22:55 PM

Should we make it impossible to mine with CPU's?

I don't like the idea of mining for the sake of mining.
1. It CPU wastes energy as they're immediately outdated with alt coins when they're released..
2.It also make's it harder to mine,for those who want to mine with a single modest GPU,without investing thousands on quickly outdated hardware.

Within a year or so, ASICs will be released.
After a short while it will be cheaper to invest and mine with a modest ASIC than a modest GPU.

How can we make it impossible to mine with CPUs?

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: DarkHyudrA on April 04, 2013, 09:25:57 AM

Make it have limited number of coins, but make it a high number, even higher compared of Litecoin's limit, this way transaction fees wouldn't cost much in theory.
Bitcoin's deflation is a kind of problem to be world accepted, Bitcoin is getting more a store of value and less useful for small transactions.

That is silly, there are electricity costs. Look at LTC's TX fees vs btc.

jubalix

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1023

Quote from: sangaman on April 04, 2013, 12:27:26 PM

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on April 03, 2013, 07:13:48 PM

Personally, I want to focus on more lightweight - allow everyone to download the blockchain. Less dust and unspendable outputs.

Such as:
Reduce the divisibility to 0.0001 units instead of 0.00000001. This reduces the size of transactions by a small amount, as it is stored as an integer in each transaction, but also makes creating dust and unspendable outputs impossible

Trimming prevBlockHash and merkleRootHash to the first 192 bits. This should still provide adequate security, while reducing the size of block headers.

Full ECC public key-recovery, and Ed25519.

Should we keep the base58 encoding system? Addresses are hardly said out loud. I think we should still remove characters which look the same or similar (eg I and l), but perhaps symbols like !, #, &, *, <, >, . , . can be added.

How fast should blocks be, while balancing storage space with less variance?

I like these ideas, dust and microtransactions are unnecessary and burdensome I think.

YES WEIGHTED MIN TRANSACTION TO STOP DUST ALSO READ

http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1755.0.html

for a different take...a high value chain platinum to BTC gold...would also get rid of dust!!!! and be light

sangaman

sr. member

Activity: 342

Merit: 250

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on April 03, 2013, 07:13:48 PM

Personally, I want to focus on more lightweight - allow everyone to download the blockchain. Less dust and unspendable outputs.

Such as:
Reduce the divisibility to 0.0001 units instead of 0.00000001. This reduces the size of transactions by a small amount, as it is stored as an integer in each transaction, but also makes creating dust and unspendable outputs impossible

Trimming prevBlockHash and merkleRootHash to the first 192 bits. This should still provide adequate security, while reducing the size of block headers.

Full ECC public key-recovery, and Ed25519.

Should we keep the base58 encoding system? Addresses are hardly said out loud. I think we should still remove characters which look the same or similar (eg I and l), but perhaps symbols like !, #, &, *, <, >, . , . can be added.

How fast should blocks be, while balancing storage space with less variance?

I like these ideas, dust and microtransactions are unnecessary and burdensome I think.

However, I think it's possible to reduce dust and unspendable outputs without reducing divisibility. I think you could still have divisibility to 8 digits (or thereabouts) but then enforce a rule that a transaction can't have outputs smaller than .0001 (or thereabouts).

strunberg

sr. member

Activity: 1344

Merit: 335

#SWGT PRE-SALE IS LIVE

Should we make it impossible to mine with CPU's?

I don't like the idea of mining for the sake of mining.
1. It CPU wastes energy as they're immediately outdated with alt coins when they're released..
2.It also make's it harder to mine,for those who want to mine with a single modest GPU,without investing thousands on quickly outdated hardware.

Within a year or so, ASICs will be released.
After a short while it will be cheaper to invest and mine with a modest ASIC than a modest GPU.

jubalix

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1023

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on April 03, 2013, 07:13:48 PM

Personally, I want to focus on more lightweight - allow everyone to download the blockchain. Less dust and unspendable outputs.

Such as:
Reduce the divisibility to 0.0001 units instead of 0.00000001. This reduces the size of transactions by a small amount, as it is stored as an integer in each transaction, but also makes creating dust and unspendable outputs impossible

Trimming prevBlockHash and merkleRootHash to the first 192 bits. This should still provide adequate security, while reducing the size of block headers.

Full ECC public key-recovery, and Ed25519.

Should we keep the base58 encoding system? Addresses are hardly said out loud. I think we should still remove characters which look the same or similar (eg I and l), but perhaps symbols like !, #, &, *, <, >, . , . can be added.

How fast should blocks be, while balancing storage space with less variance?

no the less divisible is not so good

from day one you wnat built in

nBit (nanobit)
uBit (micro bit)
mBit (millibit)
Bit (whole bit)

this give a clear road map and terms of where you see things going

and people still feel like they have a whole thing when the buy a mBit

jubalix

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1023

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on April 03, 2013, 07:11:47 PM

This thread is for open discussion of the Community Cryptocurrency Foundation's coin.

Ideas and proposals that are improvements or localized changes can be more easily implemented and tested, versus complete overhauls. Please keep this in mind when suggesting & discussing changes.

Everyone is welcome, this coin would be decided upon by community consensus.

Links
Foundation topic

Fast really fast

many low value block pay out

scrypt mine

low lotal number

catchy name

jubalix

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1023

I have set your mind on fire TF

Limie

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

All ideas welcome eh? Let me know what you think of this concept: I have been thinking about this for a while now and it seems I have found the place to bring it up...I have been thinking about about a coin that is created for the non-computer programer/developer because lets face it if the cryprocurrencies are going to work and fix this current shit job of economy then they have to be understandable to the common Joe-plummer if you will. So I will post here that CPU mining is by far the easiest way to mine IMHO, so if you want your coin to be mainstream and appeal to mass the the cpu mining is the way to go. However I was pondering a way to create coins based on Real life events to spark interest on more of a mass scale. Historians, Librarians, teachers. A way to encourage people to bring factual information to the internet. In this way we could change the face of mass media and create a currency based in Real Life, not that bitcoin is not real by any means! It is just difficult for the non-programer/developer to understand. We could correlate events to algorithms to authenticate events...AuthentiCoin!

chriswen

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Yes, a PoS of 2% would be manageable. And i helps to process tx.

DarkHyudrA

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1000

English <-> Portuguese translations

Make it have limited number of coins, but make it a high number, even higher compared of Litecoin's limit, this way transaction fees wouldn't cost much in theory.
Bitcoin's deflation is a kind of problem to be world accepted, Bitcoin is getting more a store of value and less useful for small transactions.

FuzzyBear

legendary

Activity: 1420

Merit: 1010

just adding my thoughts from another post in what I want to see done with a new coin / blockchain that i posted on another thread

Now if a coin was launched which was NOT designed to be a currency, but rather allowed you to upload files to the blockchain with a cap on the size of file to stop blockchain bloating and the cap was set that people would only upload .torrent files to it so there was a public network record of all the torrents available across all networks and you could destroy the coins in the process in uploading a torrent to the chain then I would be very interested in pointing my hashing power at this

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

And I like going with less amount of total coins versus bitcoin too. There's the psychological effect of something being worth more than a dollar (like bitcoin has seen), or an exchange rate of 0.01 versus 0.001 even through there's 10x as many coins.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Idea: Initial coin release is done through the equivalent of set difficulty mining - generate processing intensive hashes, if the first X bits are all zeroes AND that coin isn't already made then you just created a coin.

Example:

de345cf32de1ab9: no coin
96f7410e7925cc5: no coin
000000ac9531cee: coin
0000001ab98f9dac: coin
[...]
000000ac9531cee: no coin (already made)

Can just use TX hash for that. If TX hash starts with X 0 bits, AND it has no inputs, AND it has only one 1 coin output, AND first x bits of the TX hash is unique, then it passes the successful create coin check.

Those "create coin" TXes would be broadcasted and would be confirmed after being included in the blockchain. The blockchain is purely generated by Proof of Stake. Proof of Stake mining just earns transaction fees (which are required to send transactions, so the create coin TXes would have to include a fee that the PoS finds acceptable)

Initially the network would be seeded via a genesis block that gives the seed PoS node 0.5% of the total monetary supply.

Advantages:

* No mining pools needed! Each PoS block is expected to hold multiple create coin TXes with PoW.
* Rate of new blocks not tied to hashpower vs difficulty.
* Can't be 51% attacked unless you own more than 51% of all coins in existence
* No "mass block time" at the start of the coin's life, difficulty goes from 1 to 4 to 16 to 64 because that's the max jump..
* Energy efficient after all the monetary supply would have being created
* Scales with more hashpowers which can be somewhat linked to new users
* Limit on max amount of coins.

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: strunberg on April 03, 2013, 07:37:00 PM

The Minimal
1.Transactions must be atleast fast as Lite coin.

Faster please.

2.It must be limited in how many coins there are created.

Definitely. And it should be a low number- I prefer less then Bitcoin.

3.It needs to have power saving capabilities of PPC for long term growth.

Why exactly? Bitcoin has done pretty long term growth without saving power.

4. It must be ASIC proof.
Being ASIC proof means being Never Secure. Asics are a good thing. Even Litecoin Asics will eventually be built if it's successful enough. There is no such thing as ASIC proof. That said- without ASICS, the bad guys can always buy more GPU's then the good guys. Especially at the start. ASIC's make this much, much, more difficult.

The Priority/ies
1.It takes forever for new users to sync with the network when it comes to bit coin. How can we resolve that?

Better peering options? This has never been a real issue for me.

pipe dream/s
1. We need non government organizations to be able to some how tap the computing power of the coin's community.
200 TH/S is fucking crazy, how can we allow organizations who use super computers to cure cancer to tap that power?

Unfortunately no- you can't do this. The whole point of the massive computing power is that they are computing things for which no one knows the answer to. If you tapped this power for something like curing cancer, someone will eventually feed the machine with a problem to which someone either already knows the answer to- or who can guess the answer to it. It's seems like a waste of computational energy, I know, but it has to be like that.

2. Some one suggested the idea of a PRIME coin.
Perhaps we can use the computation power of the C3 network to improve the encryption or the security of the coin,as the coin's computing power increases ?
Therefore the coin becomes harder to hack as the popularity increases. Eventually Bit coin will have a network power of 1 PH/S
Huh

??

FortPotato

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on April 04, 2013, 01:33:43 AM

Re: Automated checkpoints would make it centralized. We definitely will have checkpoints with each update through.

Also, what are your thoughts on "quicker blocks versus less storage for blockchain"? I don't think we need to continue the "litecoin is silver to gold" - I like a monetary base of around 20 million or even less.

With the quicker blocks vs storage, maybe make it so that each new wallet would have the option to go back maybe 2 checkpoints instead of to the beginning of the blockchain,with the possibility of deleting data earlier than 2 checkpoints ago when new checkpoints are reached. In addition to that, have a second option to include ALL blockchain history. With the first option, the client would take up significantly less space over time, but users could still keep a complete history if they wanted to by choosing the second option.

I agree that 20 mil is probably a better base. Making it the copper or platinum equivalent would make it easier for some to understand, but it's not necessary at all.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Re: Automated checkpoints would make it centralized. We definitely will have checkpoints with each update through.

Also, what are your thoughts on "quicker blocks versus less storage for blockchain"? I don't think we need to continue the "litecoin is silver to gold" - I like a monetary base of around 20 million or even less.

FortPotato

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

Here are my brainstorming ideas I've had over the past few days. I had the old foundation thread open since this morning, posted in it, and THEN I saw this thread. I just went and deleted my other post and decided to bring it here.

Quote

I remember reading something about protecting a coin from a 51% attack by bookmarking the blockchain before the attack started. What if this new chain had automatic, even hourly, bookmarks/checkpoints. Should someone start up a 51% attack, just wait until it's over and revert to before the attack started.

One of the things that has made Litecoin so popular is the quick transaction confirmations. I think a new coin should be able to match or even beat LTC. (Maybe 2 minute intervals instead of LTC's 2.5?)

I think it should definitely be a more CPU-friendly coin. A lot of computers come with nicer dedicated graphics now, but higher end cards still blow these out of the water. If a GPU friendly coin was launched, it could easily be taken over by current BTC miners or ASICs. CPU-friendly coins more or less level the playing field, but, as mentioned, are vulnerable to botnet attacks. This is where the checkpoint system comes into play.

I don't know if a checkpoint system is the definitive answer to 51% attack protection, but there should be some sort of way to protect from 51% attacks. The coin I was thinking about looking into developing I wanted to call APC, or ArmoredCoin, or something along those lines, signifying it's strength and protection.

As for the amount issued, maybe follow this example: BTC is gold, LTC is silver, this new coin could be the copper equivalent. Issue 10x total amount relative to Bitcoins, and then make these coins worth 1/10th of a BTC once they become established.

I had a few other ideas, but this is all that comes to mind at the moment.

Topic: [C3] Coin Brainstorming / Ideas / Proposals thread - page 2. (Read 3336 times)