Topic: How to design a CoinChoose-resistant coin? (Read 1612 times)

ridiculous eh, coin is resistant to pump dump waves so no one wants to mine it.

sad state of affairs.

as for QTC retargging every  block average 8 block sliding window, how would they not have TRC pumpdump yoyo?

+ 1

I think that QTC (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-restart-of-quantumcoin-successfully-released-226918) is really fair and resistant to CC. The block value depends on the difficulty and the retarget interval and timespan depends on the network hash rate of the last 8 blocks. This results in a fair reward, regardless if you have 1000Kh/s or 10Mh/s. The problem simply is that nobody wants to mine the coin, because there are no periods of a very low difficulty and a higher price on the exchanges.

no, the problem is people buying shitcoins, competition is never bad

the diff changes every 30m ( 60 blocks )  even if the diff jumps up 50x or the hashrate drops 50x  the diff would corect itself in less than 24h
there is very little other than that you can do

zack
 

that is a very specific purpose. Making a coin that is erase-from-internet-resistant has a use to all of us once the DoHS gets thru with people being clever with computers about philosophical notions of fiat symbolics (ie, money.) It's really heady stuff to get angry at people at blowing smoke in the air theorizing about the meaning of a few symbols. Free speech is dead, yo.

Back to (h)altcoins, aka "ALT".


Right, so removing speculation would show a coin's true value. I don't see why that's not what we should all be striving for at all times.


AS pointed out earlier by NOMEANSwhat, Frei is useless low value, and TRC is experiencing a continued 'attack' that is now more a 'characteristic' of the coin, the yoyo difficulty. Very curious effect, continuing for 6 months+!


Merged coins are worth nothing cuz they're mined for free. If they had a function to them, like DECREDITS or CREDIT or whatever the idea is (bad name!) (private message coin), then that'd be great to merge them like NMC. But they'd have no real value.


I dont think most coin creators have the resources to make such a coin. Tho i've been involved with startups and know the people to talk to, quitting my job to take on a risky launch of yet another alt coin by pouring serious cash into a real coin that people would use is not happening. And being so official about it tends to getyou labelled a 'terrorist' and arrested in the US or Peru. So this piddling around as a hobby seems ok to me, but putting serious cash into an official business doing this is left to the KIM DOTCOM random-jurisdiction-claims-DoHS/FBI-baiters of the world. Im just not that interested in all this stuff to be my freedom on it, or even my job.

Guess im failtown. But ill still fuck around with coin ideas.

sal, I think it would be very useful to have a column in CC showing the total volume (expressed in BTC or dollars) across all exchanges combined for each coin in the list. It doesn't do much against the automining issue (unless that tool is enhanced to factor it in), but if you are just blindly mining whateven coin at the top, you could find yourself in a situation where you have a bunch of coins to unload but no market depth to unload it in, thus leading to a price crash situation if you were to just go ahead with it (as many miners would do).

Market depth is so very crucial in my choice about what coin to mine, personally.

really, you think it unfair to design a coin that wont support and overavaluation notion of running thru 100BTC of hashes generated, based on the value of a 0.5BTC-deep buy market.

That's entirely unfair to users, yes?

Ridiculous.

Proper valuation to all users of a coin that doesnt allow gaming through the artificial side effects of a gaming a coin with an unattented client miner that measures ONLY THE NEXT BLOCK of a coin based on ONLY THE FIRST 0.5BTC DEPTH OF A BID MARKET is unfair.

Please explain harder, cuz im really not convinced. Sal002 is counting on you.

I like some of your ideas, but I'm failing to see which part of it would mitigate the coinchoose effect?

take a look at my idea https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-crd-credits-a-new-crypto-with-real-innovation-226582

Doubly agreed, value fluctuations are bad for a currency because it impairs service to its users, who would like to be able to have some confidence that what's worth N one day is not worth 1/2 N the next. A lot of people say the cyprus event was the cause of the uptick in value in BTC. I say it was more the halving of the block reward. BTC started its incline fairly before cyprus.


You can't really have novacoin on that list unless you have yacoin too. Yacoin also has proof of stake and uses a totally different(unlike novacoin's scrypt) hashing algorithm.


I'm not convinced either. A cryptocoin is a service. Who are the customers? Those are the people that need to be served and should be considered. Miners serve the cryptocoin and are paid in block reward.


For the most part, I think you're right. However, highly fluctuating hash rates affect quality of service for the users in terms of block times and security. This is a major reason for the concern. If you can manage fluctuating hash rates without affecting service then it is not a problem.  IMO this is a good reason for having proof of stake, it helps service and security(in a way?) although I'm not really totally sure on how proof of stake secures the block chain. You'd think a large balance with lots of coin days could easily be spoofed. You can't do that so easily with hashing...

Also, rather than buy I'd say use. I mean, it's fine if people want to invest/make money on currency and exchange. There shouldn't be lots of room for it in a good currency though.

Maybe if coins attracted users by their inherent value instead of attracting speculation large hashrate swings wouldn't matter so much as the price would rise by itself and drive mining instead of relying on pure speculation.

Most coins are simple clones of Bitcoin with only simple changes that bring only superficial advantages and often large disadvantages (switching to more botnet friendly hash algorithms that make attacks more affordable or reducing interval to a point where orphans are the norm).

Let's face it, the problem isn't that existing alt-coins aren't resistant to hashrate fluctuations caused by profitability changes, the problem is that most of them don't have any advantage unless you want to profit from speculation. Once the speculation dies down the coin dies with it.

The only coins resisting are the ones which brought new features on release :

• Litecoin with scrypt and shorter intervals
• PPCoin with proof-of-stake
• Novacoin with proof-of-stake and scrypt
• Freicoin with demurrage
• Terracoin with fast retargeting

I'm not even convinced Freicoin and Terracoin will make it. Terracoin is just a dream come true for coin-hopping: it only addresses the hashrate fluctuation (making a coin merge-minable would probably have the same result long-term if the coin was worth it). Unless you are the foundation (which gets most of the mined coins) Freicoin mining isn't worth it most of the time and really who wants to get coins that slowly disappear (I understand wanting to spend it, but being paid with it?).

All the others I know of only have short times of profitability with large periods where most miners leave. This is when they didn't simply fail on release...

I coin-hopp as I consider mining to be a business (I'll certainly pay taxes this year on my mining income so you bet I don't consider it an hobby anymore) but don't rely on coinchoose (my setup predates it by more than a year and is far more robust to the various profitability mirages: it didn't mine Feathercoin for long the last 24h for example).
For me mining, making a coin viable should not rely on the behavior of the miners but on the behavior of users. Resisting hashrate fluctuations - although a desirable property - should not be their primary concern: they should design their coins so that people want to buy them, not mine them.

There is nothing wrong with proof of stake, it just doesn't supply coins fast enough for growing adoption(at least not at 1% and probably not at 3%)

I still think you need proof of work, and not just because it supplies coins faster. There is also the added security from hashing. However, hashrate needs to stay up and preferably should steadily increase.

+1 

Topic should be renamed to "How to design a user-resistant coin?".

i concur.
Having the network hash jump 500x increase diff substantially while definitely the owners of those hash rate will dump those coins. leaving the network with high diff and low price coin which pretty much kill the coin.

Hilariously you may have succeeded in your ironic goal: to raze the field of toxic ALT polluting our pure BTC/LTC/??? harvests. Lol.

'eventually' taking over unfortunately is the only thing PoS _CAN_ do, you have to wait til there's enough stake evolved. And you cant rush these things, or its too easy to get a high stake, then there's nothing seperating it from regular early mine win which destroys ALT.

At least all ALT now have an increasing reward release with block #. A side effect of ELAcoing ill have it take credit for, partially.

At any rate, consider the 1-block retarg idea... yah?

I don't think that's what anyone's saying. A coin that manages to solve this problem certainly brings something new to the table, and PPCoin's proof-of-stake system, if it takes over from proof-of-work eventually as planned, probably gets there.

I am glad that this conversation is happening, however, as instigating it was part of my goal of releasing CryptoSwitcher rather than keeping it for personal use.

Whats your reasoning behind that sal002?

YACcoin is a great thing tho, and Subtrata was 100% right about it. It encourages botnet mining, so that means when every other coin is arrested and jailed off the face of the earth, YACoin will still be around.

to a previous replier regarding "resisting market tools to assist trading":

As for market valuations, there's no reason to value a coin on what the profit of the NEXT BLOCK is. I dont see how that's intelligent either. Anyway people can do what they want, but i think you'll see that the value supposedly created by CC's predictions has NOT materialized at all. As I say, do some calculations. See the hashpower waves that come in from CC, calculate how many BTC in value that cost in hashpower, and see if the market has paid that back out (modulo people holding it). I think you'll find that the value is being 'held' by 90% because its just not materializing. Soon as any flash mined coins are dumped the value plummets because it was never actually there in the first place.

Also, we can do whatever we'd like, and I dont see how a coin that doesnt manage to allow itself to be gamed by huge hashpower waves is a detriment to the community. Explain how that works out.

My idea is this for a CCresistant coin:

- scrypt
- 1 min nominal blocktime.
- retarg every block
- sliding window of 2 blocks avg diff calc
- reward = difficulty
- slow value decay of *T/(1+t) or gentler of value to combat inflation for scryptASIC release in future (t = time to date avg of last 200 blocks (avoid timestamp manip), T = constant Time factor)
- max incr/decr 16x or /16
- if x16, then block time drops to 1/4 of normal (15 seconds). value 1/4'd. still high enough to avoid too many orphans from goodluck series of <1s blocks.
- if /16 then block time drops to 1/4 of normal (15 seconds). value is 1/4'd.
- similar scaling for x8 or /8, then blocktime 1/2 etc
- 1/4 do blocktime 2/3rd or something. (ideally 1/sqrt of increase but i dont want too much floatmath in the code, who knows what kinda IEEE implimentations various hardware has)

The 1/4 blocktime is a good idea to allow a recalc on difficulty faster after a large change. Additionally, it makes blocks so fast, it makes it hard for hoppers to come in and out of the coin exactly on time to cause a reinforcing frequency wave like TRC has (which is over many minutes or hours for difficulty manipulation).

The 1/4 time thing effectively seperates luck from actual hashpower. Could even go 1/8th perhaps (if peopel put up with fastcoin's 7s, then for the purpose of a retarg its worth the cost of luck intefering abit).

The 2 block average really hurts luck's chances of causing two x16 increases in a row randomly.

One caveat of course is that the average time of any number of blocks isnt static (tho, check BTC< it isnt either! blocks in last interval were <10minutes by a large margin, moving from 12.2 to 15.6 difficulty!)

I still need a rundown on what the frequency of lucky blocks are producing 1/n or lower block time of normal (ie <=1/4 of normal time, how often?). My stats arent strong enough here. Lilhelp?