Topic: Ethereum: 2nd gen cryptocurrency with contract programming, "dagger" hashing - page 26. (Read 84312 times)

interesting,keep an eye

Very interesting read, keep the discussion coming will certainly be keeping an eye on this project.

Thanks!

For those interested, I've written a quick how-to on how to install Ethereum and test mining! (on OSX)

http://www.ursium.com/install-ethereum-osx-mining/



Hope you like it!

Nope, freedom of speech.
Just ignore me if you wish, I do not consider I'm spamming.

What people propose doesn't satisfy me.
Therefore I evoke proof of burn which has *many* advantage, and until recently no project used it.
PoB is underused, wherea IPO guy are scam-spamming...

I mention XCP not because I'm a fanboy, but because I'm pretty sure many people are interested in PoB investment but do not know yet any project using it.
Weird to mention PoB without mentioning the only project using it. Partial info is useless.
I would be glad to find this info this way if I didn't knew it.
Invest time is 1 month, that's "short". Information has value. I give awareness.
It's even again my gain. The less people burn, the more % I have. ==> altruism

Not everyone pass as much time as you in these forum...
My little number of post are easily missable, hardly spam.
Just watch the post previous of yours... "Love to see it actually implemented."
He doesn't know it's been implemented very recently, like many.
Without me he could have missed it.

Chill on man.

edit: you edit fast. "proof of burn can never be independent"? WTF? nonsense

You tout your proof of burn and XCP in every post you make in every thread about a software that might be competition for Counterparty.
It's getting extremely annoying. We get it, you are invested in XCP, and honestly its a GREAT idea, but no need to hijack other threads.
Now could you please stay in your thread and never come out? Ethereum is independent, proof of burn can never be independent.

With that said, I am normally against crypto IPOs simply because an ROI is unlikely.

PoW is dead. 51% percent attacks, and so much computational waste, and devaluing the coin.
Some other model will pop up. Proof-of-burn looks pretty interesting. Love to see it actually implemented.

I've seen some other model out there but they seem half-baked at this point.

Well, obviously I would agree the hybrid model is the way to go, and Vitalik was interested in it but thought it was beyond the scope of his project

I guess I'll keep hacking away at MC2

At the start of bitcoin, nobody knew it, very few of those knowing its existence wished to have many.

Situation is different today.

100% premine appear to provide easier repartition at start.

Creation on proof of burn allow this as easily, with emphasis on fairness and trustlessness.
(Of course it's less easy to keep 25% for the dev with this method... they have to burn like everyone else)

Other than the security it gives, I really don't like POW mining.
Over advantage to those with heavy hardware & knowledge or overadvantage to those with knowledge controlling vast botnet.
Both having an unfair taste to me.

Hybrid, like Peercoin, approach is probably the best bet if you don't want to go 100% PoS. Solves issue 1 and 2 that you brought up.
Satoshi himself was aware of the usages of coin-age, but he left the scene before it was actually implemented. Gavin seems to be coming around now, with all the talk about 51% attacks on the Bitcoin network.

Vitalik had trouble solving the "fork" issue, that is, that when two forks arise in a PoS coin, there is no incentive for PoS miners to select one over the other.  That is, they are incentivized to mine both simultaneously at the same time.  He thought he may have solved it today, but didn't seem terribly interested in pure PoS, especially because you need to typically do a 100% premine.

There are other people I know who previously wanted pure PoS chains arguing about them for one reason or another now.  I would guess that Satoshi himself/themselves also considered this (as it seems like the more logical means to construct a cryptocurrency network), but abandoned it for whatever reason.

Bitcoin has a current inflation of about 11%
Ethereum seems to have a initial inflation of 50%, based on the info.

Why not proof-of stake? Fixes the inflation and the 51% attack problem.
Cool project though. Can't wait to get more info at Miami.

Vitalik didn't seem overly upset when I saw him in person today, but as I stated before, if the Ethereum staff has an issue with the thread they're welcome to PM me.  Considering the whitepaper and repository have been public for a while, I don't think it was a huge issue.

That being said, Vitalik is a really bright guy and I think he'll be the first person to successfully implement contracts and DAOs.  He has a ton of neat ideas for things to use contracts for, and a very fast mind.  

My only huge reservation about the alt chain (tree) is that transactions and contracts are kept on the same layer for both security and liability.  I would like to have these things kept separately; I worry that judges/political panels might consider contracts to be an entirely different thing than transactions because they represent actual instructions that may be criminal, and could make their propagation illegal.  This might push the chain/tree over to the dark net; I feel like it'd be safer to potentially have two blocktrees, one for simple Bitcoin like equity transactions, and one for decentralized programming, and to have these two trees interact with and validate one another.  The other thing is that executable code could bring with it some security issues, which also scares me.  But it was just my thoughts on that matter, and it doesn't mean it'll be the case.  I plan to invest some money even he decides this is a silly idea, but I'd feel more comfortable with them split.

I'm going to try my best to be at the Toronto Bitcoin meetup @ Bitcoin Decentral tomorrow night, if anyone wants to catch me there.

I am also wondering about the statement in the paper and the expected fundraising volume.

Original:
"Ether will have a theoretical hard cap of 2^128 units (compare 250.9 in BTC), although not more than 2^100 units will be released in the foreseeable future."

2^100 = 1,26 * 10^30 = 1 260 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.

The issuance rule is like that: 0.0001 BTC for 1 Ether.
If people invest all in all 1000 BTC there will be 10 000 000 Ether from fundraising and 50% of that goes to founders/org + 50% to miners per year. So after 1 year you have 20 mio Ether.
If they get 10k BTC at fundraising -> 200 Mio Ether;
If they get 100k BTC at fundraising (100 mio USD!) -> 2 000 Mio Ether;
If they get 1000k BTC at fundraising (1000 mio USD!) -> 20 000 Mio Ether; But thats very unrealistic (10% of btc market cap)
In that caseFor mining there would be added 10 000 Mio per year, if you count for 100 years thats 1 000 000 Mio = 1*10^12.
So even in a highly unlikely scenario of 1 Mio Btc fundraising there would be only about 10^12 in circulation. So what does "not more than 2^100 units will be released in the foreseeable future" refer to? Or was it just a relict form an older version of a fundraising model or Ether nomination?

I think it will become an issue for a WHILE. Then when users become aware of the electricity expenses and the noise of the computers at night they will be forced to protect their stuff better. At the end I guess it will educate the users to be responsible to protect their hardware. As long as the botnet only send out spam they simply dont care.
So like BTC has and will be a huge incentive to find security leaks, Ethereum can lead to better protected computers as people have to pay a bounty to these botnecks in form of electricity bills (as long as they check at least the bills)....

Another solution could be to use a kind of identity for a miner. See here for more info about that idea: http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/1v78zi/protection_against_51_attack_in_bootstrapping/

This is a concern. What about a funding approach that releases tranches that people can bid on? The release dates would be of equal proportions, well defined (i.e. 1 "unit" of coins released at 0:00 GMT each week). People would submit bids in a sealed-bid (to address cries of "market manipulation") dutch auction, and winners would be allocated shares from highest bid on down.

.0001 is an absolutely insane starting price for a coin that will eventually have 1 trillion in circulation.

Charles, another question, a bit cheeky I know
What language will the reference server be written in?

Cheers.

interesting project but you underestimate the botnet problem here.


there is no difference, both are equal and only depends on profit-margins.
as soon the margin reaches an *interesting* level, theory becomes reality.


don't agree here, first of all you have to consider the hardware development
acceleration. while this could be true atm, latest in a couple of years even
cheapest hardware will have enough memory to handle this if not simple
smartphones, controlled by botnets. moreover, since asisc's are excluded you
have removed the last possible protection shield to discourage botnets invading
ethereum by simply removing these above mentioned margins. this way ethereum
could be *always* a preferred and profitable target for botnets.

if you go PoW (don't understand this, PoS is clearly the path to go for any
new and serious crypto project from my pov) but don't allow miner to choose
special hardware (miners can but botnets not) to protect ethereum, mining
could lead into a constant resource fight against botnets.

i am not sure here who will win on the long run.

Unfortunately not an official post, a pity.
Thanks charleshoskinson for answering questions.



I hope you guys REALLY thinked well about it.
IPO & mining direct create a red flag "we sell our premining at good price, buy buy, give us money".
Looks hardly compatible, and pretty far from a trustable distribution model that will please most people.
People with good specialized hardware is not most people.

I hope all the team of unsystem is aware of the distribution model of XCP.
Trustlessness at it's highest for now with proof of burn (counterparty style).

You don't wanna spoil, then we will wait.
Please don't mess up.

POW Mining works well at securing a network.
But concerning the wealth distribution, many are feed up with this old system.
(I'd love to see alternative solution for network security. PoS is not completely researched yet, 'maybe human will find something even more innovative than 100% POS)

Best of luck to your project.


Wish to add: 60 days looks pretty long. 30 seem better to me, but your choice (obviously).