Pages:
Author

Topic: FreiCoin (FRC) Fork WITHOUT 80% Of Coins Given To FreiCoin Foundation - page 2. (Read 20786 times)

sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
After thing about this issue a bit, the problem is the foundation ALREADY has 8 million Freicoins. We need to create a new coin, but I suggest something different.

Currently, all cryptocurrencies are based off Satoshi's bitcoin, with same or slightly modified protocols, and only some modifications (eg demurrage in Freicoin, block timings and distributions with other coins, proof of stake with PPCoin). But look at all the failed cryptocurrencies - we are essentially making a new Linux distro instead of actually making something new.

I propose making a new cryptocurrency from scratch and discussing and testing different ways to do it. Blockchain, hashcash-style mining, addresses, they're all one way to do things. There's bound to be better ways, and for a cryptocurrency to succeed we need to do it differently. Not blindly do things differently, but look at it and see which way is BETTER other than just creating a fork and modifying a bit of code from bitcoind.

I have a few ideas. For example, addresses. Instead of a clunky to remember, hard to type address, why not use something like this?

someguyswebsite.com/wallet
dicegame.com/lessthan512
192.168.0.12/lanpartydonations
wc6sbavw7fcotfgm.onion/order1274621
mywallet.bit/someusername

To verify those addresses, we could use a similar system to randomart. There's of course the attack where say you're on dicegame.com is compromised and the attacker changes the randomart displayed on the site for verification, but that's similar for bitcoin too. The coin obviously won't actually use http, it'll use it's own protocol, but will find addresses via DNS, tor, other darknets, etc etc.

Again, this is just one of the ideas I have about addresses. I'm sure if people think about it, experiment with some test code, we'd come across different ways, maybe better.

Another important thing is that the core development needs to be just that - core. Make the protocol extensible. Have headers, like HTTP requests. Over time, the community will enhance this currency by itself. For example, say a header called 'RETURN_ADDRESS: freewallet.org/ponies', say if you're betting on a gambling game and send an amount greater than the max bet, and you want returns in a DIFFERENT address (eg if you're withdrawing from an exchange) It's a nice thing to have, but it might not need to be in the core development. People will be able to add this feature, peers and nodes would implement and support it.

Take a look at websockets. Take a look at new IRC features and additions. If we make the protocol robust and extensible, the currency will involve by itself, and with the community and the users to make it last. There obviously would be a core set of guidelines - max cap of X coins, but if we discover a BETTER address system, maybe if someone wants to make it work with emails, they can code a module or extension, tell people and nodes to install and use it, and supported clients will use it automatically. Not supported? "Command not found. This command is part of coinemail, sudo cpm install coinemail".

Just some ideas. Can we do a system where transactions have a verifiable sending time? Use the hashcash mining system. A new "timecode" every 20 seconds (as it is not a block, it is not coupled with transactions, each timecode would just be a few bytes). Transactions would include the latest timecode as proof of when it was sent. First sent coins triumph in double spend attacks. 3 confirms in 1 minute on average. Still vulnerable to 51% attacks, but again this is just one idea.

Please stop.
vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
After thing about this issue a bit, the problem is the foundation ALREADY has 8 million Freicoins. We need to create a new coin, but I suggest something different.

Currently, all cryptocurrencies are based off Satoshi's bitcoin, with same or slightly modified protocols, and only some modifications (eg demurrage in Freicoin, block timings and distributions with other coins, proof of stake with PPCoin). But look at all the failed cryptocurrencies - we are essentially making a new Linux distro instead of actually making something new.

I propose making a new cryptocurrency from scratch and discussing and testing different ways to do it. Blockchain, hashcash-style mining, addresses, they're all one way to do things. There's bound to be better ways, and for a cryptocurrency to succeed we need to do it differently. Not blindly do things differently, but look at it and see which way is BETTER other than just creating a fork and modifying a bit of code from bitcoind.

I have a few ideas. For example, addresses. Instead of a clunky to remember, hard to type address, why not use something like this?

someguyswebsite.com/wallet
dicegame.com/lessthan512
192.168.0.12/lanpartydonations
wc6sbavw7fcotfgm.onion/order1274621
mywallet.bit/someusername

To verify those addresses, we could use a similar system to randomart. There's of course the attack where say you're on dicegame.com is compromised and the attacker changes the randomart displayed on the site for verification, but that's similar for bitcoin too. The coin obviously won't actually use http, it'll use it's own protocol, but will find addresses via DNS, tor, other darknets, etc etc.

Again, this is just one of the ideas I have about addresses. I'm sure if people think about it, experiment with some test code, we'd come across different ways, maybe better.

Another important thing is that the core development needs to be just that - core. Make the protocol extensible. Have headers, like HTTP requests. Over time, the community will enhance this currency by itself. For example, say a header called 'RETURN_ADDRESS: freewallet.org/ponies', say if you're betting on a gambling game and send an amount greater than the max bet, and you want returns in a DIFFERENT address (eg if you're withdrawing from an exchange) It's a nice thing to have, but it might not need to be in the core development. People will be able to add this feature, peers and nodes would implement and support it.

Take a look at websockets. Take a look at new IRC features and additions. If we make the protocol robust and extensible, the currency will involve by itself, and with the community and the users to make it last. There obviously would be a core set of guidelines - max cap of X coins, but if we discover a BETTER address system, maybe if someone wants to make it work with emails, they can code a module or extension, tell people and nodes to install and use it, and supported clients will use it automatically. Not supported? "Command not found. This command is part of coinemail, sudo cpm install coinemail".

Just some ideas. Can we do a system where transactions have a verifiable sending time? Use the hashcash mining system. A new "timecode" every 20 seconds (as it is not a block, it is not coupled with transactions, each timecode would just be a few bytes). Transactions would include the latest timecode as proof of when it was sent. First sent coins triumph in double spend attacks. Still vulnerable to 51% attacks, but again this is just one idea.
sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
jancsika:  You should put these idea on our forums ware we are discussing the structure and bylaws of the foundation.  http://www.freicoin.org/freicoin-foundation-f15.html is our new sub-forum for such discussions.
legendary
Activity: 1118
Merit: 1002
Good job TF, i support too, but we need win & linux bins, so we can use it. Not everybody is an expert Wink


this^ where is it?
member
Activity: 80
Merit: 10
Thank you for some constructive input jancsika, that's exactly what we have been hoping for.

You hit the nail on the head for why bootstrapping is so much harder now then it was in early Bitcoin days, mining is so industrial now the solo miner using a normal computer is immediately pushed out.  Proof of work is just not a viable distribution medium in our opinion, we have said that the distribution of the new money should be as democratic as possible and the ideal would be to simultaneously give everyone on earth an equal quantity, that's just not logistically possible so were going to need to come up with the closest equivalent.

Mandating a time frame to complete the distribution would be a good idea, this is typical in many foundations (Bill and Malinda Gates for example) to prevent the funds from being 'sat on' forever.  I'd say something like 5 to 10 years as a maximum period for the foundation to be distributing all the funds, if they aren't distributed by then then they could all be 'destroyed' aka sent to an inaccessible address, demurrage will gradually recycle them of course.

I think your right that we are to a degree over our heads, that making a foundation is harder then writing code.  But we did it because we felt it was necessary for crypto-currency to grow to a wider community.  But that's why people should be HELPING us form that foundation and setting it on a Legal footing that will show how such a thing can be done, or should we fail at least how not to do it.  Many of the abuses that people are accusing us of planning to do would indeed be terrible, so tell us specifically how the bylaws of the foundation should be written to prevent abuse.

There's simply no way to do that, and regardless you really don't want people to have to invest long-term trust to the body tasked with distributing the coins when the whole point of the network and community that uses it is to do an end-run around trust.  It doesn't matter how careful you are about devising bylaws and choosing people with seemingly bulletproof reputations to head up the foundation, because for as long as the foundation is in control of the bulk of those coins they will be a) a centralized point of authority and power and b) a centralized point of failure.  Regarding a: you are up against a community that exists solely to invent technical ways to eat away at centralized power.  Regarding b: reread the previous sentence.

The _only_ way to develop trust in the body tasked with distributing the coins is for the body to distribute the coins, ASAP, in a way that gives as widespread access as possible to the coins while at the same time eating away at its own authority to distribute coins.  There are three parts of this process that must be addressed.  In increasing order of difficulty:

1) The Foundation must prove that the coins are leaving its specific coffers, triggered by requests made through some publicly accessible front end.
2) The Foundation must give evidence that the coins end up in wallets which they don't control.
3) The Foundation must give evidence that coins get sent based on the criteria available to the public on the front end, and not by some mechanism on the back end to which the public does not have access.

1 is trivial. 2 is doable but requires work.  3 is extremely difficult and is what the "Generate Coins" button tried to solve.

Example: David Chaum looks at the website and says, "Neat, I'd like some coins."  He digitally signs a request for coins and posts it on his homepage.  The Foundation sends him some Freicoin.  That satisfies 1 and 2 but not 3.

If you ask me, I think you're being extremely uncreative given the power that multi-sig transactions provide, and I suppose this is partly because there is no simple interface for it yet.

Example:  Throw together some novel mechanism for distribution.  Make a "tentative" release where only 1 party of a required n parties does all the sending of coins.  Block out x amount of time afterward for requests for comments.  If the process didn't work, start over.

For kicks, do it with the entire amount the Foundation controls.  That will get you way more attention than any amount of marketing, and if it works you just created a wider potential userbase than any altcoin has ever had.

Companies doing captcha technology to fight Sybil attacks should be fairly sophisticated nowadays, so put one of them to the test.  If they can get you one million unique recipients you'll give their company half the coins.

These are just off the top of my head, but the point is you have a _lot_ of options here to try something that's never been done before.  IMO forming a slow-moving, centralized bureaucracy isn't the best route, but worse, I doubt your altcoin siblings will walk past that big, centralized pile of cheese much longer before someone decides to "fix the glitch".
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
Unlimited Free Crypto
Just let me know when the coin crashes to being worthless  so I can buy free games with all the free coins I get

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134273.20
sr. member
Activity: 574
Merit: 250
Just let me know when the coin crashes to being worthless  so I can buy free games with all the free coins I get
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
Just let me know when the coin crashes tp being worthless  so I can buy free games with all the free coins I get

lol
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME
What does this
"Foundation"
Do with the 80% tax they receive anyway?

Give all of it away in grants. We're currently forming a review board to select proposals to fund, and coming up with bylaws and selection criteria. You can take part in this process:

http://www.freicoin.org/freicoin-foundation-development-thread-t81.html

Yeah but come on, who is "we"? What determines who is on the review board? Who oversee's the review board? Who oversee's them?
member
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
So was this a successful fork or just a epic fail?  I have noticed the network hash rate is half of what it was.

PS
sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
Thank you for some constructive input jancsika, that's exactly what we have been hoping for.

You hit the nail on the head for why bootstrapping is so much harder now then it was in early Bitcoin days, mining is so industrial now the solo miner using a normal computer is immediately pushed out.  Proof of work is just not a viable distribution medium in our opinion, we have said that the distribution of the new money should be as democratic as possible and the ideal would be to simultaneously give everyone on earth an equal quantity, that's just not logistically possible so were going to need to come up with the closest equivalent.

Mandating a time frame to complete the distribution would be a good idea, this is typical in many foundations (Bill and Malinda Gates for example) to prevent the funds from being 'sat on' forever.  I'd say something like 5 to 10 years as a maximum period for the foundation to be distributing all the funds, if they aren't distributed by then then they could all be 'destroyed' aka sent to an inaccessible address, demurrage will gradually recycle them of course.

I think your right that we are to a degree over our heads, that making a foundation is harder then writing code.  But we did it because we felt it was necessary for crypto-currency to grow to a wider community.  But that's why people should be HELPING us form that foundation and setting it on a Legal footing that will show how such a thing can be done, or should we fail at least how not to do it.  Many of the abuses that people are accusing us of planning to do would indeed be terrible, so tell us specifically how the bylaws of the foundation should be written to prevent abuse.
member
Activity: 80
Merit: 10
Maybe when bitcoin started it was democratic (before GPU mining, before ASICs), but it certainly isn't anymore.

You're lucky that the person trying to create a hard fork was incompetent this time around.  I suspect you'll continue to get competing demurrage altcoins until your foundation begins the actual process of bootstrapping that is supposed to be separate from (and more effective than) the bootstrapping that comes from mining.

It's worth noting that Satoshi would have preferred the "democratic" non-GPU mining to get a healthier spread of the coins initially-- that is, a functional "Generate Coins" button lasting, say, a year longer than it actually did would have created a more vibrant economy than the smaller number of specialized GPU miners getting the bulk of the initial coins.  But you have the opposite problem-- where he had a concrete, built-in bootstrapping mechanism that worked from day one but ended too early, you have an abstract, out-of-band bootstrapping mechanism that has yet to be implemented, for which none of the who/what/when/where/how questions have been answered.  Even worse for you, Bitcoin has already created plenty of sophisticated mining rigs that can work for nearly any altcoin, so your technical options for bootstrapping (or I guess the options of any potential grant recipient) are severely limited since any bootstrapping design targeting non-technical users cannot be based off proof-of-work.  (Otherwise it'd just get dominated by the "elite" miners and you would have been better off without the foundation.)

Furthermore, you're going to be subject to endless accusations of social engineering, since the Foundation ostensibly has more goals than just getting coins in the hands of the public.  My only advice is to make the actions of the Foundation specific to bootstrapping the currency and only that, as well as limiting it only to projects that subvert its own authority.  The fewer coins you have sitting in its coffers, the quicker all these problems go away.  But of course you have to spend them in a way that obviously creates a more vibrant economy than just giving it to miners (or at least as effective).  You've set up quite a challenge for this coin, and I doubt you or anyone else associated with the coin have the same level of experience and expertise as you do coding up a complex p2p protocol, since I don't see any concrete details about how any of this would work.  I see no easy way out of these problems, and unfortunately the longer you put them off the worse they will get.

Btw-- when I say bootstrapping, I'm talking about getting the coins out to the general public, as opposed to a more insular circle of users who are a priori interested in topics like cryptography, p2p networks, economics, etc.
legendary
Activity: 2128
Merit: 1073
Give all of it away in grants. We're currently forming a review board to select proposals to fund, and coming up with bylaws and selection criteria.
I have the following proposal: give away certain small fixed fraction of foundation coins to the same addresses that were used by original miners of the original blocks. This would test the technical skills (programming and system administration) of the miners. The grants that would not get redeemed will signify an abandonware miner.

This grant should automatically cease once the technical skill required to redeem this grant becomes nearly universal.
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
What does this
"Foundation"
Do with the 80% tax they receive anyway?

Give all of it away in grants. We're currently forming a review board to select proposals to fund, and coming up with bylaws and selection criteria. You can take part in this process:

http://www.freicoin.org/freicoin-foundation-development-thread-t81.html
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
What does this
"Foundation"
Do with the 80% tax they receive anyway?
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
I'm 'bitching' because there's a serious concern for user's security. Someone transacting on the hard-fork chain could be tricked into revealing signatures allowing their coins to be stolen on the main chain. If you transact with this client, be aware that there are security issues, and you risk losing your balance.

That is pure nonsense.  Either a) you are clueless about how transaction signing works or b) willing to blatantly lie to see your agenda carried out.

Which is it?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/introducing-treazant-bitcoin-without-reward-halving-128370

It was ultimately killed by its creator when one of the bitcoin core devs (either Hearn or gmaxwell, I think) pointed out the double-spend possibility on #bitcoin-dev.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
EDIT: another reason that i support this is that original devs bitch about it

I'm 'bitching' because there's a serious concern for user's security. Someone transacting on the hard-fork chain could be tricked into revealing signatures allowing their coins to be stolen on the main chain. If you transact with this client, be aware that there are security issues, and you risk losing your balance.

That is pure nonsense.  Either a) you are clueless about how transaction signing works or b) willing to blatantly lie to see your agenda carried out.

Which is it?
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
another reason that i support this is that original devs bitch about it

Actually, quite the contrary.

If TradeFortress is serious about this and wants to make a fully functional Freicoin fork, without the Foundation, he can come by our IRC channel on Freenode #freicoin.


We will try to help him any way we can.
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
EDIT: another reason that i support this is that original devs bitch about it

I'm 'bitching' because there's a serious concern for user's security. Someone transacting on the hard-fork chain could be tricked into revealing signatures allowing their coins to be stolen on the main chain. If you transact with this client, be aware that there are security issues, and you risk losing your balance.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME
Do you have any way to tell how much hashing power your fork is getting?

By the way if this succeeds I expect you will ruin FRC for all.

It's getting 0 hash power. I doubt a compiled binary of this exists anywhere. It's not even a fork yet. It just removes one check from the code.

I've compiled it just for fun Smiley

Post?
Pages:
Jump to: