Topic: Hypothetical New Cryptocurrency version 0.1 (Read 3982 times)

Ah, this is a great post!

I hand't seen, it got lost under other posts before I noticed it.

I'll respond appropriately when I have some time!

Thanks

OP

Give us full details.  If people like it and start it for you, then it will happen.

Isn't one of the primary goals of bitcoin to provide a refuge for those who disagree with government sponsored inflation?

The cost of living is increasing because of all those extra USD being issued by Ben Bernanke. What you are suggesting, essentially, is to inflate the currency in line with the inflation of fiat currencies, so that it's value gets debased also.

That goes against everything that bitcoin was set up to achieve.

I wonder if there's some way to make a currency that always has the same value.  Not just equivalent to today's EU or US currency, but adjusts according to cost of living over the years.  So if you buy one at $1 today, it's still worth whatever that $1 + inflation would be in the future.  It couldn't be limited like BTC, because if it were limited it's value might increase.

Ok, I misinterpreted the scope to which your comments applied.

Well, I didn't ponder much how difficult issuance is, because I don't think it is ultimately consequential, at least for a currency like Bitcoin. Once every coin passed hands hundreds of times, facilitating trade each time, will it really matter to whom it was originally issued?

Well your "proof-of-stake" doesn't have anything to do with issuance.  You are assuming coins have already been issued, and then just suggesting using digital signatures by current holders as a way of maintaining the transaction ledger.

Indeed that's reasonable, and also pretty straightforward.  I didn't read your thread carefully but there is more to it than just using signatures; you need to atomically commit transactions to ensure all honest participants agree on the current ledger state.  The basic primitives in distributed systems to do that is a distributed consensus procedure (aka "Byzantine agreement") and state machine replication.

Szabo wrote up a sketch of such a system long ago; it explains the correct way to do what you want.
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/securetitle.html


The problems I was referring to don't come up in maintaining the ledger for transfers, but rather in the mechanism for issuance of new coins/property.  Once you already have a notion of a "participant", "voter", or "owner", maintaining the ledger is just a straightforward application of distributed consensus.  The problems arise when you want to add new participants/voters/owners.

But I bet you already understand this.  In fact, I'd guess you came up with proof-of-stake and then realized "hey wait, proof-of-stake makes transfers much simpler".   Equivalently, what you actually realized is "hey wait, that means issuance is a much, much harder problem than transfers".

I'm going a bit off-topic, but as long as we're here... Can you briefly describe where in this taxonomy fall proof of stake ideas of myself et al (eg this comment)? The general idea is to make sure that those with the ability to game the system are those with the least incentive to do so. The motivation is to enable high transaction security for those willing to wait long enough, with only a small amount of wasteful proof-of-work.

The mere fact that you mention some sort of "cake", some sort of advantage you'd lose by fully exposing your concept puts this whole thread in my TL;DR stash.

To be frank, it is extremely unlikely that someone who does not know core CS (e.g. what "Byzantine Agreement" or "Sybil Attack" mean) would have a correct solution.  There is simply no way one could simultaneously have the ability to architect distributed systems and not be able to write it out precisely as code.

My suggestion is you simply describe your scheme so the CS folks here can explain to you why it is broken, and you can learn from it.  You should understand that preventing sybil attacks is basically the core open problem in p2p network security research, and no one has any idea how to do it without either a centralized identity issuer, or via extremely wasteful constant resource-tests (as in bitcoin).

So there are 3 options:
1) Your scheme falls into one of two above: central identity issuer, or waste of resources.
2) Your scheme falls outside them and is totally broken.
3) Your scheme falls outside them and is correct.  Congratulations, you should write it up, publish it in IPTPS, and collect the best paper award.  Perhaps a PhD too.

In particular, we have known since the very beginning[1] that central identity issue or waste of resources are all one can do in particular natural models.  You would need an entirely new model.  

You might also find this useful, a scheme I described that makes the coin generation set by vote.  My scheme falls into (1), as it is still wasting resources: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/price-stability-difficulty-changes-fairness-infnite-coins-is-not-inflation-24929

[1]  http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=2275703DE2E08EC0E7CEF3321E53506A?doi=10.1.1.17.1073&rep=rep1&type=pdf

EDIT: This is the first time I've written a post in this kind of condescending tone.  Mostly it's because of the fact that on the one hand, you  recognize 99% of people on this forum are get-rich-quick retards, and on the other, in this thread you are basically behaving in the same way.  You have an irrational faith in something that you are not an expert in,  have not had vetted by anyone, and refuse to even discuss/describe so that others may attempt to reason with you.  You have basically come here and announced that you've struck gold and are going to make it big, but just need someone to code it up (reminds me of the million "I have an idea for an iphone app" crap from MBAs).  Anyway, I'd encourage you to look through my posts and recognize I (and the other CS folks here) could probably offer quite a bit of help to you if you're willing to be rational and explain your system in a complete and coherent manner.  But until you do that, your posts of "why isn't anyone interested?" are laughable.  Noone has anything to say because you've provided absolutely no information to respond to.

Really.  Go back and read your "I'm so clever I have a scheme for a perfect crypto-currency;l but I just need a coder" posts earlier in this thread.  Then go to the main discussion and read some of the "We are all going to be rich when bitcoins are $1M each because we got in early; but we just need to get more new buyers".  Then realize the logic in both cases is identical.

Synaptic, it's clear that you have some great ideas but as you have admitted yourself, you lack the technical knowledge to implement them. Given this, I find it rather annoying that you still want to keep your ideas suppressed, rather than sharing them with the very people who you need to help you get your project off the ground.

You fear that disclosing your 'secret sauce' would lead to someone else taking the idea, and leaving out crucial parts that make the system work (for their own benefit). Well, if this happens... wouldn't the community be aware of it? And wouldn't this lead to loss of credibility in favor of any future full-implementation of the system you described? So, let the n00bies set up their shit-forks.

Heck and even if someone else did take the idea and implement it fully themselves, wouldn't it at least feel good to know that it only exists because of you? And like you said, they won't profit from the idea anyway. Don't you plan to make money from services derived from the currency and not from the currency itself? If so, then what does it matter who the one to compile it is?

The way I see it is that what you need in order to see your ideas into fruition is a group of people with a varied skill-set willing to work together to make it become a reality. Now, where I wonder could you find that? Oh wait...

It is obvious that you would have to relinquish ownership of your ideas for this to happen, but isn't this is the whole point of the open-source movement? Individually we are insignificant, together we can change the world! Yada yada..

I like your ideas, but I don't get your attitude. You have a fierce passion that is obvious in your posts, and are clearly intelligent with a lot to offer the p2p currency movement. But you also harbor a lot of enmity, evident from your insulting rants, and your egotistic attitude will only serve to segregate yourself from the very people who share you're beliefs and ideals and can help you implement your ideas.

So basically, what I'm saying, is either spit it out or shut the fuck up!

Also, can you stop with the self-praise and talking about how ingenious your ideas are? Like other's have said, we'll be the judge of that. I really hope you actually do spit it out, because, if there is anything to it you can count me in for one.  I'm sure, with a small attitude adjustment, you will be able to gather up enough minions to help you turn this vaporware into awesomeware.

But not if you keep acting like a proverbial crypto-hitler!

I don't think you're going to get many technical people onboard with all this hand-waving and a complete lack of any details.

By who? The idea of a peer-to-peer anything is that you need a community of peers to actually use it. I could create bitplanecoin where the founder gets ten million coins a day and the only way to get one is by sucking his dick, but I'd be the only node on the network.

Why not gather people who believe the same things as you, debate the rules for a system you think is fair then create a community around this plan? Referring to your secret sauce as "very clever" (we'll be the judge of that) and wanting nobody else to use it makes you sound like an ego who wants to rule over everyone, not someone looking for a peer group.

Obviously.

Encryption is for security.

Why do you like mining?

Why should a 100% digital currency need people to have computers computing cryptographic hashes when those hashes aren't needed?

In my system, coins are awarded in a very clever fashion, only when necessary.

I think Satoshi read The Diamond Age and wanted a good chargeback proof currency.

I like mining, but I think it needs to stop being based on who can afford the most expensive computers.  The puzzles need to be made to be solved by humans far easier than computers so miners will be people spending all day at computers working 8 hours a day like a job.

No.

Mining is an outmoded concept.

I find it hilarious that cryptocurrency is supposed to be the next revolutionary thing in this world, yet still adheres to bullshit meat-space concepts like "mining."

Why the FUCK should there be some analogue to retrieving a physical asset and proffering it for exchange in a wholly digital medium?

Because I ASSURE you that there are people as intelligent or more intelligent that realize just as I do that were BETTER than having these shit-headed meat-space analogues driving a "revolutionary" new digital currency.

I also assure you that the Satoshi entity was in all likely-hood completely aware of the pump-and-dump fundamentals of Bitcoin, and designed it thusly. That, or he's an idiot-savant who is just really clever at crypto and completely fucking retarded in all other Bitcoin regards.

I like the idea of mining for a profit, but the problem with bitcoin mining is profits are made by the rich.  That is whoever can afford the best hardware.  Rich people with already fast computers will mine lots of coins.  Poor people with crap computers can never mine jack.  Back when bitcoins were new my computer was 10 years old and I never mined a single coin with it despite trying.

Mining might be better with something like a CAPTCHA, but not those irritating CAPTCHAs that cause blindness due to eyestrain that computers can solve far easier than humans.

Basically what I think it should be is whoever can process an encrypt a transaction fastest gets transaction fees.  But who gets new coins is who can solve some puzzle a computer cannot.  And computers just process numbers and can't understand concepts so something on that nature.

Interesting.  He touches on some of my design features, but is still lacking the most critical components protecting the chain.

I think it's because handwaving and claims of secret sauces aren't enough to convince anyone you have a workable idea - and even if it is workable, your desire not to share your ideas fully goes somewhat against the grain of the open-source philosophy which most here would probably agree is ideal for a digital currency.

Look at the way the SolidCoin dev behaved - we don't need big egos who think they know how to do everything alone.
There's every chance that only a small portion of your ideas are useful, that others have similar ideas anyway, and that a pooling of ideas would come up with a better solution than one you attempt to tightly control.

I suspect that an interesting challenger to Bitcoin could come from a mining-less system along the lines of that proposed by Ben Laurie in his July 2011 paper
"An Efficient Distributed Currency"  http://www.links.org/files/distributed-currency.pdf

I expect this would be just as subject to speculation and hording though.

So, why hasn't there been more interest or debate about this idea?