Now you know why ... They were ... And ...
Insults are not welcome in this thread, without an evidence I treat your words as insulting.
Topic: IOTA - page 746. (Read 1471689 times)
If you have an idea how to add 2% inflation, share it, please.
Simple. Just allow special coinbase txs that additionally need to reference the previous coinbase tx and need so much PoW that they can only happen on average every 10 mins:)
Remember that the "longest path algo" is not what's written in the whitepaper 
Anyhow, let's finish our private discussion in slack and only then make the results public.
Anyhow, let's finish our private discussion in slack and only then make the results public.It's still worth discussing my algo publicly even if we don't adopt it.
Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
"Longest-path-as-the-score" differs from what is proposed in the whitepaper. We were talking about another algo. Just wait a bit until we finish our internal discussion... Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':
Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)
This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).
Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...
Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)
This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).
Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...
Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy.
Now you know why Ethereum's sale was so large yet they ran out of money so fast. They were buying their own coins recycling the same money over and over. And suckering investors into thinking they needed to rush before the priced moved higher on the next pre-timed price increment.
Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
"Longest-path-as-the-score" differs from what is proposed in the whitepaper. We were talking about another algo. He would have to attach it "below" the merchant's tx, but yes, you're right, it's a possible attack vector. Anyhow, the referencing algorithm is not yet finished, so we are discussing it with CfB right now.
Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
Anyhow, let's finish our private discussion in slack and only then make the results public. The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.
That is more difficult if you can't pay with crypto and have to pay with a fiat account. And if the maximum amount per buyer is say $500. Not saying they should do that. We all hate the fiat world right? (I paid my rent today with BTC)
For paying that may be true (the earlier attempts at "per person" distribution were mostly free). But then that raises other legal, institutional, and logistical costs and obstacles, as you have previously reported with respect to your social media experiments.
Agreed it could. Paypal often withholds funds, especially if there is a sudden surge of payment volume. Selling via BTC is much easier.
But it is possible to verify an account with Paypal (or Amazon payments) without taking payment via Paypal (or only take a small payment), then take the rest from that person via BTC. So then you don't care what Paypal does.
But the cumulative weight of that tx is not so big, so why the merchant should accept it?
NP, the merchant waits of course for normal amount of confirmations.He would have to attach it "below" the merchant's tx, but yes, you're right, it's a possible attack vector. Anyhow, the referencing algorithm is not yet finished, so we are discussing it with CfB right now.
Possible? I don't see how it's possible to draw a picture to have longest-path-as-the-score rule to be broken by an adversary.
As for complying with laws, my current thinking is to sell the software with some tokens for use at set prices to end users (not investors)
It is not at all clear there are "end users" for something like this for years to come. It will take a significant period of time to build a market with supporting devices, services, and a large enough population of users, all interacting with each other using the token as a tool to accomplish something else. So I doubt that anyone buying it now could be viewed as anything but a speculator (including long term investor).
That might be different for some other kind of token such as one backing assets in a game or even maybe decentralized storage. Something with actual ready-to-go uses. But that seems a bit off topic on this thread.
Developers are an example of early adopter users who need access to a real world system in order to build out the ecosystem. Yes the number of users and people who want to play with such a system is small at the start. That is why if you sell to end users and not speculative investors, don't expect to raise $10 million at the ICO. You might raise $50,000 perhaps ($500 x 100).
If only raise 50k, it would be reasonable to allow certain amount premine for the devs, but everything would be clear from the start.
don't expect to raise $10 million at the ICO. You might raise $50,000 perhaps ($500 x 100).
I would guess that $50 000 would not be sufficient to develop hardware to support IOTA, but I could be wrong.
Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':
Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)
This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).
Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...
Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)
This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).
Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...
The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.
That is more difficult if you can't pay with crypto and have to pay with a fiat account. And if the maximum amount per buyer is say $500. Not saying they should do that. We all hate the fiat world right? (I paid my rent today with BTC)
For paying that may be true (the earlier attempts at "per person" distribution were mostly free). But then that raises other legal, institutional, and logistical costs and obstacles, as you have previously reported with respect to your social media experiments.
As for complying with laws, my current thinking is to sell the software with some tokens for use at set prices to end users (not investors)
It is not at all clear there are "end users" for something like this for years to come. It will take a significant period of time to build a market with supporting devices, services, and a large enough population of users, all interacting with each other using the token as a tool to accomplish something else. So I doubt that anyone buying it now could be viewed as anything but a speculator (including long term investor).
That might be different for some other kind of token such as one backing assets in a game or even maybe decentralized storage. Something with actual ready-to-go uses. But that seems a bit off topic on this thread.
Developers are an example of early adopter users who need access to a real world system in order to build out the ecosystem. Yes the number of users and people who want to play/experiment with such a system is small at the start. That is why if you sell to end users and not speculative investors, don't expect to raise $10 million at the ICO. You might raise $50,000 perhaps ($500 x 100).
But the cumulative weight of that tx is not so big, so why the merchant should accept it?
NP, the merchant waits of course for normal amount of confirmations.The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.
That is more difficult if you can't pay with crypto and have to pay with a fiat account. And if the maximum amount per buyer is say $500. Not saying they should do that. We all hate the fiat world right? (I paid my rent today with BTC)
In short: yes we could take up loans by people to buy up IOTA token. There are plenty of these opportunities if one wants to and this would not change if we had premine either, it would just give us even more IOTA.
As for verification process: there is no way to beat sybil, there would be numerous ways to fool this third party too. We could just pay some random people to buy coins via their IDs and then send them to us.
We wont cheat the system, it would be a detriment to IOTA and thus a larger detriment to ourselves than the profit we could get out of manipulating the ICO. This boils down to how inclined you are to believe in conspiracy theories. Fortunately participating in ICO is 100% voluntary.
As for verification process: there is no way to beat sybil, there would be numerous ways to fool this third party too. We could just pay some random people to buy coins via their IDs and then send them to us.
We wont cheat the system, it would be a detriment to IOTA and thus a larger detriment to ourselves than the profit we could get out of manipulating the ICO. This boils down to how inclined you are to believe in conspiracy theories. Fortunately participating in ICO is 100% voluntary.
I understand you can fool to some extent the verification process, but requiring a limit buy-in per user complicated the fooling process a lot.
The track record in trying to do that is pretty bad. Limit per buy-in just raises the stakes to create/recruit/impersonate more straw buyers. See Stellar and probably some others.
As for verification process: there is no way to beat sybil, there would be numerous ways to fool this third party too. We could just pay some random people to buy coins via their IDs and then send them to us.
If the maximum amount that can be purchased by name & fiat account is small, then you'd need to have many, many people involved in your Sybil attack, which would put you at much greater risk of being caught. Thus I think it radically lowers the risk of cheating.
Versus a promise (not to buy your own coins) which unverifiable.
But I am not telling you what to do. I am just stating the options that are available. You are choosing one of the options I stated, which is to admit you could buy as many of your own coins as you want to, but promising not to do so. It is not my role to judge that option. Your investors must judge that. At least you've been honest about which option you are planning to choose.
Can someone link me to that and/or the relevant page of the white paper? Seems to be mining could be used to generate check points. That was one of tweaks I had in mind.
There is no about that in the whitepaper. There is no a formal proof that coin generation is impossible, intensive search for a coin generation technique was done to have 2% annual inflation (because it's a near-optimal number) and none of the ideas let to keep the security of the system at an acceptable level. This is a well-known problem of proof asymmetry, it's hard to prove that unicorns don't exist while it's trivial to prove the opposite if you have such a unicorn. If you have an idea how to add 2% inflation, share it, please.
Jump to: