Topic: Community Miner Design Discussion - page 5. (Read 34221 times)

Well, I'm back and sorry about so-called 'improper sentence structures' . I will take care about it but you know ... not being a native English writer makes it inevitable, my apologies

I checked you and other guys responses to my proposal about stacking up a semi-smart contract protocol on top of the existing Blockchain and using it to establish a semi-autonomous distributed organisation, a SADO,  to finance projects like your 'community miner' .

First of all I have to mention without money, supplied and managed in a proper fashion, there is and there will be no community miner. Actually when you or anybody comes to a forum and starts a topic like this he is talking about the resources needed to do the job, obvious ... I don't feel we are out of rail and contrariwise I feel we are actually talking about the 'community miner' project, for the first time ever.

And about the Bitcoin Blockchain being specialized for money and cryptocurrency and the possibility of running a generalized version of the protocol  for supporting a semi-smart contract stuff ... oh! some points missed here

1- Obviously your 'community miner' project is about this blockchain, isn't it? It is strictly of this blockchain's interest and its community and if there is one semi-smart contract being a use case to be implemented on the Bitcoin Blockchain it is the project under consideration.


2- And a far more important point that the majority of advocates and writers fail to notice  and understand is the ultimate role of money:
Money is the destination of everything, most of the real world use cases of contracts are about money and are aimed and will be ended to transfer money. Money is an infrastructure for the majority of our social behaviors including economy, politics, art, media, ... It isn't just a use case among others it is the critical infrastructure of our civilization and is going to remain so for near predictable future.

3- From my point of view, a semi-smart contract is a regulatory mechanism about a semi-automatic transfer of money, a mechanism in which the sender has obligations to 'sign' the transfer according to the law , the code (definitively not a Turing complete stupid code supporting loops and recursions ) ...

What if she didn't sign? simple! she will loose her other stakes.

What if she had no money to pay? simple! she will be bailed out by the SADO and will sign a contract to pay back and compensate as long as she is a respected member.


My proposal is about considering a practical protocol development project to implement a SADO on the Bitcoin Blockchain with 'community miner' as its first project to finance.

A community called Get Hashing is doing what I think aliashraf is describing. It's done by using colored coins through a Coinprsim wallet.

Here's their forum: https://forum.gethashing.com/

A person can set up an account here to buy, sell and track assets here: https://cloud.gethashing.com/

Here's an example of the ledger for payouts on an Asset called BTCB: https://ledger.gethashing.com/?search=371975a8e4b8f1a9f9abad75582bb954c7433328ed90f6c07e3e9c1abacc19ab#

They're called "smart assets" and use a "Proof of Everthing" concept. Not sure how it works but it uses the BTC blockchain.

Last I was really looking at call it 'general purpose' blockchains was in 2014 so some of this may be dis-remembered or has changed...

To start with, a block can contain any data that fits it's size limit. So, can be financial records, links to e-sig contracts/records, street light ID's and locations, anything.

1 - is there a reward?
Not per se. All income is derived solely from tx fees associated with that block -- which btw is intended eventually for BTC as block rewards drop. If it is Public chain then I'd assume the tx fees are collected/distributed by whatever Entity is in charge of it and the Nodes. For Finland, is probably handled by their gov with the normal fees collected for say, registering a Deed, now partly going into the TX payout pool and partly to whatever private or public entity is contracted to run the 'pool' C&C servers.

2- Difficulty. I suppose it depends on if the general Public is allowed to join the race for blocks or if it is a dedicated and private operation (who of course just charge whatever the market will bear). Think PayPal now forming direct access to the banking system and entering the closed club of credit card companies.

They now get to keep the tx fees they used to have to pay VISA/Mastercard/ et al to transfer funds through them to access the banks. Of course the Banks still take their % that VISA/MC/ et al pays for the privilege of them allowing you to join *their* little private club. It's just that PayPal cut out the middle man.

3- Would TX processing/recording become a free service? Guess it depends on what country you live in and how Socialist/Nanny State they are.

4- A handful of distribute machines would do it, wouldn't it? For many things, ja. Again, BitFury's container farms come to mind. Just plant a few of them around the country. If a later through State bidding a different contractor wins the contract to run the nodes, should be seamless transition as along as the basic code is standardized.

Und on that note, methinks it's time to move this train of discussion elsewhere...

Point.

Every good idea has to start somewhere, these forums are one of those places.
If or when the idea develops, then it can mature into its own space.
The occasional link can keep said ideas in the public eye.

Actually I should probably delete my previous comment. It's really not in keeping with the point of this thread and forum. I would say that goes as well for some of the previous comments (IMHO).

I am not generally one to pretend to be a "Forum Moderator" type guy, this discussion seems to be very close to leaving the rails, if it hasn't already done so.

Just a thought.

Assuming you want to make a "non-currency blockchain" it would seems that several of the existing Bitcoin mechanisms don't make much sense or have a lot of utility. For example:

1) Would there be a block reward? For what purpose?

2) Is there reason to have a difficulty adjustment mechanism?

3) Would the "Transaction Processing" (aka mining) essentially become a public or "free" service?

4) It wouldn't seem that there needs to be a massive mining infrastructure as has developed around BTC. A handful of distribute machines would do it, wouldn't it?

 

Already being done. I believe Finland already is setting up all civil contracts to be stored and verified in a blockchain and Germany is looking hard at the idea as well. Was also a group called the Bitcoin Brothers (google it) who started pushing for the same idea of storing/verifing business and civil contracts a couple years ago. Truth be told I'm rather sure that BitFury's containerized farms were built with that application in mind.

That's kinda how I see it. A blockchain as a means of reliably transferring and storing data in general isn't a bad idea. I just have never liked the idea of using one that already exists specifically set up to transfer currency data for other things.

Cycling the same rhetoric with the same jargon (left undefined or mostly unexplained) doesn't really do much good to convince me otherwise, and improper sentence structures difficult to parse accurately make it even worse. I hope he comes back with a well-thought-out, well-reasoned and informative response.

Hey, I have this great idea.  Stop mailing letters to people.  Instead, write all mail on cash bills and then spend those cash bills, sort of, at a place run by whoever you are sending a letter to.  Great idea, right?

Wrong.

Well that works. 12 hours from now I'll be asleep and you can talk as much as you want.

I have to apologize sidehack dude,
It is getting too late in my timezone, will be with you some 12 hours later, my apologies again

I appreciate your concern about how to take money or not but look at you, years of honestly supporting the community miners and with a great potential to solve a very canonical point of crisis, preventing a dramatic failure of one of the most important innovations and most promising technologies to make people's life better, far better I mean ... look at you dude you have done your part now people should contribute in a disciplined fair and transparent way but they have to.

There is just ONE way: institution!
And there is just one institute appropriate and capable of taking the responsibility in this community in this very moment: a Semi-Autonomus Distributed Organisation. To be or not to be? It is the question!


You are simply wrong

First of all Blockchain being exhausted is something to be fixed with or without stacking more use cases and debate about block size increase and/or Segwit and side chains will be settled in some compromise soon, it has to be.

Secondly, I see the Blockchain both as a technology and an installed base, too large to neglect and being betrayed.

Finally, If one may decide to make a hard fork and initiate a new chain, she should be able and have to publish a new currency as I mentioned earlier, a currency is a sub-category , an instance of a general class of concepts: contracts. It is not my way of doing things, I love fixing and improving rather than throwing things away and denying other people's work, I prefer to improve. And I love bitcoiners never, ever considering betrayal

My record so far has been refusing to take in money for a product which does not exist. If someone wants to help fund development, with the full knowledge and understand that the product may never materialize and your money could be completely wasted, that's a bit different (and also something I've avoided thus far). But I have never, and likely will never, take in money pre-selling a product which I have not designed and successfully prototyped. If I've ever taken in money it's either been as a loan with repayment terms, or to buy materials to manufacture a batch of something already designed and tested and the investment was repaid in units of that thing once manufactured, according to the original terms of the sale.

And yes I understand that makes it hard for a broke guy to get anything done, but it also protects a customer base remarkably willing to put itself at risk of getting screwed by speculators from being screwed by me, accidentally or otherwise.

Also, the idea of using a blockchain for other things than the transfer of currency is not fundamentally bad. But I think leveraging an existing blockchain already filled to capacity with legitimate transactions, and designed specifically for processing legitimate transactions, for something other than processing legitimate transactions, is foolish. Repackaging something inherently not a bitcoin transfer to look like a bitcoin transfer so you can use the bitcoin blockchain for it seems kinda dumb. If you want to do something that isn't transferring bitcoins from one address to another, get your own blockchain.

No we can't. I mean we can but donation will not suffice and will not utilize and lead and motivate. As a donor you are not part of the movement you are just a fan, a supporter. I  have more incentives and I am more ambitious than a donor, aren't you?

Well, Bitcoin and Blockchain are far more than just a money transfer and publishing technology, you may or may not like it but people are trying to expand the use case, to generalize it and there is no choice other than these two:

1- you can initiate a new chain, modified and generalized probably for smart contracts. In this scenario you have the possibility to compete with the Bitcoin Blockchain and simulate its service simply because cryptocurrency is a sub-concept an instance of the more general concept of a social contract.

It is the way Ethereum people have decided to choose and I hate this for many reasons but first of all because I see it a kind of betrayal, honestly speaking, but I have more reasons, very strong reasons and this days with DAO failure, I have a strong evidence supporting my opposition to this approach.

2- You can make it simply as a high level protocol stacked on the existing Blockchain.

Analogically speaking, TCP/IP is one of the greatest inventions ever but you needed http and HTML to build WWW.

And I think there is no #3 way, say , doing nothing at all.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Colored_Coins
I think 'a class of methods' is a protocol anyway.

And about you being an outlaw freelancer , no objections, there exist thousand ways to cooperate.

Our hypothetical organization will negotiate and resolves issues, no worry  

Can we not donate (cash) via www.patreon.com to fund the miner? Each individual's donation would be seen as a prepayment for a miner which would be deducted from the sale price with a fixed portion (a sum to be decided) going to you sidehack for your time and effort to make the miners.

Okay, let me be more explicit. I am fundamentally opposed to overlaying projects on top of the Bitcoin blockchain that have nothing to do with the transfer of currency from one entity to another in exchange for goods or services. I would not desire to be an officer in an organization, nor would I desire to support an organization, seeking to usurp Bitcoin resources for other purposes. I don't know what DAO is and I don't care about smart contracts or whatever Ethereum is doing and this is literally the first time I've ever seen the phrase "colored coins protocol".

But you're welcome to provide details about just what the heck you're talking about, if you want to try and convince me otherwise.

glad to have your attention

I mean the real Bitcoin Blockchain and right now we have colored coins protocol built on top of Bitcoin and handles things other than money transfer and it happens to be my most relevant sample of the approach needed to establish an 'institute' I am thinking to name it as SADO (Semi-Autonumous Distributed Organisation) and I'm serious. Let's introduce SADO:

1- It is not DAO. It does not have any interest in Turing complete machines being in charge of everything.

2- It is not an idealistic trust-less 'mathematical provable' alternative of the way human beings cooperate and decide.

3- It is about promises people make based on their reputation and respect.

not an appropriate topic for my proposal and I'm not ready (theoretically) for this job at the moment but the main point is obvious and clear: Ethereum guys made an attempt to achieve something and failed, two things is to be fixed: 1- The target 2- The approach.

For the target: We do not need to play DAO game at all, in real life a hypothetical game mathematically defined to overcome chaotic nature of human society is mostly a useless teenager hobby more than any thing else (hello Vitalik). We should just try to make it more fair and transparent it is the way adults have to deal with the limitations and make a difference. Organisations and companies can not  be redefined so radical to eliminate people and their weaknesses and chaotic nature and it was pointless if it was even possible, it is not a use case at all!

For the approach: Forget about Turing complete autonomous pieces of code, keep it practical, some logical operators plus some data acquisition protocols suffices to manage almost 99% of the real world smart contracts (being redefined and interpreted in a humble way as semi-smart contracts now)

SADO is going to be a semi-smart contract being developed on top of the Bitcoin Blockchain to form a semi-autonomus distributed otganisation composed of people who try to use and enhance their existing level of trust in each other (their social capital) in a more disciplined and transparent way.

Colored Coins are the key to the details.

I'm sorry, but you lost me. Somewhere between "Blockchain is about connecting people. money transfer transactions is just  sample" and "We can implement a cooperative DAO like protocol on top of Blockchain". I always thought the Bitcoin blockchain was about money transfer transactions alone, and trying to shoehorn something else on top of it (like 21's microtransaction-based services stuff they were touting last year) is a waste of time, space and energy. Or are you suggesting to start over with a new blockchain-based thing that ends up in some sort of competition with Bitcoin?