Topic: [LTCD] LitecoinDark.com ★ Scrypt ★ Difficulty Shield ★ Multipool ★ Fast - page 67. (Read 368563 times)

There will be new page coming, once the video contest ends. There will be a bit of translation to do. I've tried to help with proofreading, according to my abilities, as English is not my first language neither.

I don't think there will be that much to translate on the website but devs may need your help to occasionally proofread opp and news.

You would need to ask the devs about it.
I could donate you 10k LTCD once your proofread all new website. I will transfer 10k to dev's donation address, if you agree.
It has to be confirmed with devs first.

I'm tempted to do that, although due to work I may not be able to do it everyday.

I'm tempted to do that, although due to work I may not be able to do it everyday.

Would you be interested in proofreading the contents?

I will donate you 10k LTCD

Not to downplay the hard work done by the devs and all involved here, but I'm noticing grammar errors still on the official website and on twitter which really affects peoples reactions to the coin in my opinion.

It was mentioned some weeks ago that someone could grammar check all notices and make things look more professional, but still the pigeon English continues.

I'm sorry for those who don't have English as their first language but if the coin is to break forward I think its an issue to address.

So here's a little can of worms regarding PoS.  Any discussion of "PoS" really needs to take into account a number of things before any talk about percentages can take place:

- The final anon feature of the coin
- Transaction fees
- Final mining reward
- PoS vs Forging

The coins whitepaper says that the final anon feature will be Darksend, which I assume is a "copy" of the Darkcoin tech. By design, that necessitate the use of Master Nodes which then necessitates the implementation of transaction fees. So not only does the cost required to run a Masternode need to be determined, but then the transaction fees as well since, unless I'm oblivious, the coin does not currently have.

As things stand today, the mining reward was significantly reduced which will lead to the coin being mined out "very" quickly. It's my understanding though that there will be a final "minimum" reward and I've assumed that it will be implemented when the PoS version is rolled out.

So the coin would have to have transaction fees implemented at some point as well.  Now, I don't know much about actual mining, but don't miners also typically get transaction fees when a coin has that? So would the people running Masternodes compete for those transaction fees?  Or would there be a different set of fees related to the anon transactions that the Masternodes would be paid?

My original thoughts about PoS were that "forging" would be a better idea.  The forgers would get transaction fees while miners continue to add to the supply over time which would take care of lost coins etc and thus PoS isn't really required in order to solve that particular issue.  But with forging, we'd now have another group competing for transaction fees right?

Am I completely off base with some of this? The whitepaper really doesn't discuss any of these sorts of things in depth.

As far as "pure PoS" goes, my feeling is 2%-5% is adequate.  But in this case, the coin isn't pure POS due to ongoing mining and the running of Nodes.

On a personal note, I'm really not fond of anon tech that relies on trusting other people with running nodes. If you don't have enough people running the nodes you open up attack vectors and getting enough people that are willing to invest enough to run them can be difficult.  Not to mention that a couple people with deep pockets could "own" the majority of nodes and then do what they wish.  I prefer blockchain type anon (CN coins for example) for those reasons.  Now some people say that blockchain anon isn't as secure as "eventually" someone will hack it. IMO if someone was able to eventually hack blockchain anon, we'd have much bigger problems for cryptocurrencies in general.

I'd much prefer the coin to implement something like the zerocoin/zerocash tech which no one has done as of yet.  One coin was supposed to have implemented zerocoin within the next week or so but they just came out and said it won't happen for awhile. I don't know of anyone that's trying implement zerocash yet (there is a fundamental issue with it but I believe there can be a solution for it).  It should be noted that zerocoin was talked about many times as potentially being added to bitcoin but from reading a bunch of threads it seems like they're sort of waiting for an alt coin to do it in order to prove it out.  Zerocoin is fundamentally just a "mixer" whereas Zerocash is actually for anon transactions.

So from my perspective, there's a whole lot of intertwined things that really need to be nailed down first and then the actual values for things like fees, PoS percentages etc worked out so that they are all well balanced.  Not an easy task but it needs to get done ASAP and spelled out clearly in the coins whitepaper. Without knowing all these things ahead of time, we could end up with a coin that has very high inflation on top of the high supply which would be a bad thing.

I'd also like to know what the PoS design would be.  Whether it would just be the "old" peercoin coin age type thing, one of the newer PoS V2 (some other coin is building on V2 and calling it V3 but can't remember which), PoSV or something "new".