Topic: Honest Coin Initiative -- fighting the shitcoin insurgency (Read 1991 times)

Because there's no point for me in working on a coin I can't mine. 

True, why not improve/revive some existing coins?
or
Do something with BTC?

Hm..  I stand corrected.  Frankly I'm amazed any one pool is that big. 

Just out of curiosity, what's the biggest BTC pool?

What? There are several scrypt multipools over 30GH. Clevermining has 39GHs right now, and is big enough to 51% DOGE by itself.

New honest coin:
1. Has to have a legitimate exchange/bank where coins can be purchased with fiat and held safely. The exchange/bank has posted some sort of bond or something so everyone doesn't get fucked.  This exchange should be run by the coin creators. (Maybe later on the bank buys property or something with coins to replace the original bond)
2a. Is premined to whatever extent would make this possible  
        - premined coins are in a fund, coins are locked in fund that is controlled by designer/s, maybe shareholders, voted in trusted forum members, someone..
        - these coins are used as compensation for the (we will call them owners) owners to pay themselves or others to get vendors to accept the coin (get a vendor to accept, you get a commission off how many coins the vendor gets in the first year, give the person a set number of coins based on vendor size, something)  This can be done through the 9 millions forms of advertising, seminars, connections, physically going to vendors to promote the coin, etc.  
2b. A percentage of all coins mined goes into a fund, controlled by someone in 2a, for the purposes of 2a. (alternative method or maybe combine the two)
3a. Uses some new algorithm that is already maxed out to its full potential?  I'm not a programmer so I don't really grasp the fundamentals behind the asics evolution process, but this way there will never be miners that much better than the original one.  There is no need to give all the coins to the bitcoin farms
3b. Use a new algorithm that is asic resistant (alternative to a), preferably target a specific card, cpu, whatever so we can all buy stock in that company , or do the opposite and target something that is broad enough to prevent price gouging
4. The coin has to have that sort of untraceable quality.  People may say taxation is better, but at the end of the day there is not a business out there that doesn't cook their books.  It is just reality.  I'm not saying the owners won't report income tax, i'm saying they don't want to get audited to the last penny.
5. Lobbyist, lawyers, tax specialist, already in place to defend the coin and what not.  (while that contradicts 4, there is always a grey area where a coin can fit in, as crypto currency is grey to begin with)
6. Must get amazon, we know overtsock will go since they are awesome.  
7. Must create an ebay site, so noone is subject to the bullshit paypal nonsense.
8. Must create an online liquor store or get a bar in my area to accept the coin.    

Obviously this cost a lot of money, so I don't see it happening until someone realizes that they could make absurd amounts of money, actually do what bitcoin promised us, and they will go down in history to top it off.

Frankly, I still don't understand why people with thousands of btc aren't out doing some of these things.  I'd be promoting bitcoin like crazy and increasing the usefulness and the value of my holdings if I had a lot.
Instead they'd rather manipulate the market...  

And actually I created another address for this, gonna send some funds in it and look it 5 years later: 1Ca2WtnevxutAecW2chgvo7V8krnTtqScR

I have posted the first Honest Coin Initiative proposal: ReactiveCoin.  Please read and let me know what you think:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557428.new#new

This, then provides the drive towards centralized mining with specialized hardware.

However it is a law of nature, that if there is profit to be made with older hardware (like GPUs), then there will be people profiting from it.
People like memes, they like forming communities, they like to feel like "early adopter"... hence there will be market for altcoins, whether we like it or not.

If it became more expedient to build altcoins on top of Bitcoin chain as "smart contracts" without problems then that might put shitcoin wars to end...

i agree. i'm looking forward to the coin
good luck

good luck , you are going to need it, 

you speak of too many coins and want to launch an entire line of them ........

oh my

Remember that mining should not be profitable for most businesses/people.

It is intended to tend toward no profit. Even toward lower and lower wages for the labourers employed to install and maintain the machines, lower and lower prices for the machines themselves and so on.

It needs to be distributed, yes. That means ideally we should try to ensure every nation has some form of cheap electricity so that mining can feasibly include that nation in its distributedness. Maybe that will even lead to better ways of generating electricity cheaply. Some geographical areas though just might not have practical ways of generating electricity cheaply, so might have to resort to renting or buying space or land elsewhere to conduct mining operations.

-MarkM-

Your idea is very good, I agree with the idea, a coin has affected the market price, go down for a long time that we can't accept, will destroy this market.

Block eruptors are dirt cheap, heck I would not be surprised if some folk are giving them away, yet they can still merged mine both CoiLedCoin and GeistGeld quite effectively so long as the short-sighted pools continue to fail to include those coins in their merge.

Little USB plug in miners in general are probably much more affordable for normal folk than GPUs are.

The problem though with distributing mining power to normal folk is that botnets are based on normal folk's computers, so whatever normal folk have on hand botnets have vast amounts of.

-MarkM-

Yes, the scenario was that of a new coin gaining security by merged mining with an established coin. Although this has the unpleasant consequence of being quite dependent of the parent network..

To me it looks like -  I'm still new and learning - that the drive towards centralization is almost like it's inbuilt into PoW cryptocurrency.  Still I wonder if a coin could be designed to somehow incentivize solo mining?

That's largely true, but may not be the case forever.  The important thing is to have wide distribution of hashing power, so that no entity can feasibly obtain 51% of the network.  With Bitcoin the issue is that, even though there is a large amount of hashing power on the network, most of it is concentrated in the hands of a small few.  DOGE is, in many ways, more secure than Bitcoin because no entity has even 1% of the total network hashrate. 

New coins are very vulnerable.  There's no getting around it.  But ensuring a more widely distributed hashrate is just as important, if not moreso, than simply adding more hashing power.

For a scrypt or any POW coin, I think the above holds true.

Which isn't actually true so his point is irellevant.

So I think the right way to do this is to create a coin proposal and let the community scrutinize it.  When it appears satisfactory, I'll code it up and release it.  For the first coin I'm not going to try to do anything too revolutionary, but I'm thinking a modified NFactor schedule scrypt-jane PoW and a smooth release should at least be enough to get the name out and maybe get others involved.  I know coins should be more revolutionary than this but we'll need to build up a reputation for being honest, and a couple good clean coin launches will do that.

Well, if the coin is based on Scrypt or SHA-256 and implements merge mining, I don't see a problem. As markm has been tirelessly pointing out, large hashing power gives the maximal security for a coin. Of course that coin would then have to be very innovative to not get ignored (or even attacked) by pools.

If I read you correctly, you have in mind a coin that can be mined by everybody. I like those coins too, but IMO the concept of "honest coin" need not exclude mining with ASICs.


Good point. If the coin presents itself allied to some organization, without an official endorsement it would be rather absurd situation.  However, with the recent "nation coins" the situation is little more complex. There is always a chance that the coin will catch on with some portion of populace without appeal to authority. Still, it would have been better if Auroracoin for example had asked and gained support of some citizen's organization before the launch.


Let's keep the discussion going on.. It might be a good idea to start similar thread at cryptocointalk.com.

Proof of bandwidth is certainly an interesting idea..  Not sure I want to bring the ire of the FBI and RIAA by tying it to file sharing, but maybe provide it for operating tor servers?  The problem there is how to do it in such a way that it protects the tor op's identity... 

Generally speaking I don't see a good reason to use scrypt, mainly because it only benefits ASIC miners (who, in turn, only benefit ASIC manufacturers).  It would be less of an issue for a pure POS coin, but I still see no reason to do it.

As for innovation..  I have no problem with a social innovation, but I think any social innovation needs to meet a high degree of scrutiny.  For instance, a charity coin would need an endorsement from the tax-registered charity they plan to endorse, with information about the coin available directly from the charity itself to prove that both the coin dev and the charity are working in collaboration.

Ultimately the list of qualities I wrote are just a draft proposal, and as with all aspects of this initiative, the mission statement is subject to community review.