Pages:
Author

Topic: MC2: A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system - page 28. (Read 195188 times)

legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1018
Buzz App - Spin wheel, farm rewards
one day when i have the time i'm going to read this whole topic -

that and finish Riven , that was a great game man.

actually the whole myst series was great !

Wow, Riven.. ! Smiley I think you are a bit behind on your gaming duties digitalindustry.
sr. member
Activity: 391
Merit: 250
I read through since I posted it, but has there been any discussion on my idea of colored coins as a way to make the coin more understandable in its division, or if this is how Taco wanted to approach it?

I think its very important that such a convention is implemented so that people can easily numerate between fractions of the currency, in the event that it becomes very large. That way, we're not dealing with the issue of there being "Just X million coins", as the interface will readily show that there are in fact "X quadrillion coins of the basic color/naming convention"
hero member
Activity: 511
Merit: 500
Hempire Loading...
Kickstarter?  Sweet...I'd buy in on that.  You giving out T-shirts...while that started as a joke...maybe it would be a good thing...especially at a bitcoin conference.
newbie
Activity: 35
Merit: 0
What's the best way to get involved if you have no technical experience? Would that be with a donation?
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Same here! Please don't announce it yet! PLEASEEEE
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
I'm searching and digging for any criticism of Bitcoin in attempt to identify the flaws so that we are aware of the limitations and can make attempts to address them. Here are my findings:

Quote
The biggest real threat is technical. The protocol isn't quite robust enough to handle large scale (ie: $1 trillion dollar equivalency) and above transaction rates.
That technical challenge WILL be addressed somehow and it probably WON'T be addressed directly with Bitcoin. The risks to fragmenting Bitcoin would be too great and consensus can't be reached on some of the technical issues.

The result is that Bitcoin will probably end up being useful only for larger, less frequent transactions and something else will be built on top of it or alongside it to handle the pooling of those larger, less frequent transactions.

It can't be killed except by hard forking repeatedly with in-fighting. One or two instances of that will likely lead most people to adopt a "just leave it alone" attitude which will save it, but lead to it being useful for only larger, less frequent transactions.
BTW, most people haven't considered that no action at all would have been just fine during the last bug related hard-fork situation. More and more of those situations will lead people to realize that "leaving it alone" is the default and best option.


I think you are onto something here. This should be given a priority as an area for Netcoin to improve on Bitcoin. You've identified a potential competitive advantage.



Scaling. The Bitcoin protocol requires that every node in the network download a copy of every Bitcoin transaction that has ever occurred. As Bitcoin has grown more popular, running the “full” Bitcoin client has become more and more resource-intensive. The last time I started up my Bitcoin client, it took several hours to download all the transactions that had occurred in the few weeks since the last time I ran it.

To prevent things from becoming completely unwieldy, the Bitcoin protocol limits the size of each “block,” the basic unit of Bitcoin’s shared transaction register, to one megabyte. Since one block is created every 10 minutes, on average, this places a hard limit on the number of transactions the network can process each hour.

Right now, the network is operating well below the limit. But it’s not that far below the limit. If the Bitcoin economy continues to grow rapidly, we’re likely to hit it in the next few years.

Reaching the limit wouldn’t be catastrophic; the Bitcoin protocol has an elegant system of transaction fees to process the most urgent transactions first. But it does place some limits on Bitcoin’s long-term future. For example, it’s hard to imagine Bitcoin ever becoming a replacement for conventional credit cards. There are far too many credit card transactions for the Bitcoin network to accomodate.


Let me ask this, why can't there be supernodes which are specialized to process Bitcoin transactions and which have the capacity to do it? Is it because of the fear of centralization? The Internet relies on a backbone because latency would be too high if it didn't.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
I'm searching and digging for any criticism of Bitcoin in attempt to identify the flaws so that we are aware of the limitations and can make attempts to address them. Here are my findings:

Quote
The biggest real threat is technical. The protocol isn't quite robust enough to handle large scale (ie: $1 trillion dollar equivalency) and above transaction rates.
That technical challenge WILL be addressed somehow and it probably WON'T be addressed directly with Bitcoin. The risks to fragmenting Bitcoin would be too great and consensus can't be reached on some of the technical issues.

The result is that Bitcoin will probably end up being useful only for larger, less frequent transactions and something else will be built on top of it or alongside it to handle the pooling of those larger, less frequent transactions.

It can't be killed except by hard forking repeatedly with in-fighting. One or two instances of that will likely lead most people to adopt a "just leave it alone" attitude which will save it, but lead to it being useful for only larger, less frequent transactions.
BTW, most people haven't considered that no action at all would have been just fine during the last bug related hard-fork situation. More and more of those situations will lead people to realize that "leaving it alone" is the default and best option.


I think you are onto something here. This should be given a priority as an area for Netcoin to improve on Bitcoin. You've identified a potential competitive advantage.


Quote
As we know, centralization allows us to receive Fiat money for whatever work we would like to do. That is one of the Pros of government. Our raw work converts into "money". With Bitcoin however, the only way for us to earn it is via Mining. While Mining in itself is great with keeping a solid inflation rate, it doesnt allow for public adoption. The main issue with Bitcoin is acquiring it. Difficulties surrounding converting fiat to Bitcoin (fiat has been described as having an umbilical cord to Bitcoin) are deemed to increase and grow. Unfortunately, changing this is very difficult.

However, another old coin unknown to most has semi-fixed this issue. Anyone heard of Devcoin? It's about as old as Bitcoin somewhat, and allows people to be paid via their "open-source work" and also by mining. Devcoin allows miners to make 10% of each block, while 90% of mining goes to people who actually work for it. The main "product" that people earn Devcoin for is writing, however other projects are available.

Unfortunately, Devcoin has two issues also, or to be more correctly defined, two imperfections. Only "open-source work" is paid, which essentially means that you cannot sell your work. Everyone has your work's core fundamentals. Under deeper inspection, this isn't a really big issue. You just can't continually make money off of one product. Also, you could have a very large project that you have finished, but the payment you can receive is essentially variable. Devcoin's second imperfection is that the payment system IS centralized. Devtome is what handles the payment system, and while payment for writing is automated, payment for projects is not.

You receive payment via a share system. Payments go out every "round" (essentially every 3000-5000 blocks). For writing, every 1,000 words equates to one share. The total amount of shares then allow proportional payment of each round to go out. Each round is roughly 180 million devcoins if my memory serves me right. However, with projects that don't involve words, SOMEBODY needs to determine and assign the number of shares that THEY believe is fair for the project. Due to the way Devtome is built, it can become decentralized. The whole issue is built upon how we go about creating a script that judges how many shares something is worth, or if we need a script at all (Democratic voting).

Something like this needs to be attempted to be added to Bitcoin. Yes, this would require a fork, so around 60% of the network would have to agree with the changes for it to be implemented correctly (theoretically 51% is the requirement, but there is the probability factor with block solving as well). If a system was implemented that would allow us to not only be paid using the share system for "open-source work", one that also allows us to be paid directly in Bitcoin by proof of sales of products would be nice as well. However, such a payment system without government is completely hinged off trust. That is why I have written this thread. We need to brainstorm a way for such a system to work. Essentially, the central question is: "How can someone be paid fairly for sold products without relying on trust and the word of the merchant?" Once such a solution is figured out, and if the network accepted such a change, Bitcoin would be set to go mainstream instantly. Mining alone cannot be the way Bitcoin works. Mining alone ties acquiring Bitcoin directly to Fiat money, which is what I believe personally to be the worst thing Bitcoin is facing right now.


Perhaps this problem can be solved without a fork. Human beings can with the help of AI can be paid to rate digital content and assign value to it. There should be a minimum value but no maximum, and I think this can be accomplished by allowing a limited amount of bonuses but an unlimited amount of tips. So if I like an article I read on Devtome I should be able to vote to give it a bonus provided there is some way to lock my vote in as part of my digital identity. This is possible through digital signatures tied to the wallet itself. So yes I think a web of trust is technically possible and a rating ot voting system is technically possible.

The problem is fraud is also possible, but really it's no different from the fraud that already goes on with sites like Amazon which relies on ratings, or Itunes, or movies. I think a combination of micro payments and bonuses will allow for community consensus to shape the pay structure while also keeping minimums so that even a crappy writer can make the minimum amount of money a crappy writer can make. I also think the solution if found will involve artificial intelligence, if anyone has the expertise in that area then they could solve it as there would certainly be enough processing power through the network to handle it.

I will have to think about this more and maybe see what Ethicoin comes up with but I agree with you, the most critical feature of a currency is the ability to work for it. Just being able to spend it isn't good enough and is the main reason Bitcoins aren't getting big as fast as they could be. This is an area for where a competitive advantage is possible.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
‘Try to be nice’
one day when i have the time i'm going to read this whole topic -

that and finish Riven , that was a great game man.

actually the whole myst series was great !
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
I'm searching and digging for any criticism of Bitcoin in attempt to identify the flaws so that we are aware of the limitations and can make attempts to address them. Here are my findings:

Quote
The biggest real threat is technical. The protocol isn't quite robust enough to handle large scale (ie: $1 trillion dollar equivalency) and above transaction rates.
That technical challenge WILL be addressed somehow and it probably WON'T be addressed directly with Bitcoin. The risks to fragmenting Bitcoin would be too great and consensus can't be reached on some of the technical issues.

The result is that Bitcoin will probably end up being useful only for larger, less frequent transactions and something else will be built on top of it or alongside it to handle the pooling of those larger, less frequent transactions.

It can't be killed except by hard forking repeatedly with in-fighting. One or two instances of that will likely lead most people to adopt a "just leave it alone" attitude which will save it, but lead to it being useful for only larger, less frequent transactions.
BTW, most people haven't considered that no action at all would have been just fine during the last bug related hard-fork situation. More and more of those situations will lead people to realize that "leaving it alone" is the default and best option.



Quote
As we know, centralization allows us to receive Fiat money for whatever work we would like to do. That is one of the Pros of government. Our raw work converts into "money". With Bitcoin however, the only way for us to earn it is via Mining. While Mining in itself is great with keeping a solid inflation rate, it doesnt allow for public adoption. The main issue with Bitcoin is acquiring it. Difficulties surrounding converting fiat to Bitcoin (fiat has been described as having an umbilical cord to Bitcoin) are deemed to increase and grow. Unfortunately, changing this is very difficult.

However, another old coin unknown to most has semi-fixed this issue. Anyone heard of Devcoin? It's about as old as Bitcoin somewhat, and allows people to be paid via their "open-source work" and also by mining. Devcoin allows miners to make 10% of each block, while 90% of mining goes to people who actually work for it. The main "product" that people earn Devcoin for is writing, however other projects are available.

Unfortunately, Devcoin has two issues also, or to be more correctly defined, two imperfections. Only "open-source work" is paid, which essentially means that you cannot sell your work. Everyone has your work's core fundamentals. Under deeper inspection, this isn't a really big issue. You just can't continually make money off of one product. Also, you could have a very large project that you have finished, but the payment you can receive is essentially variable. Devcoin's second imperfection is that the payment system IS centralized. Devtome is what handles the payment system, and while payment for writing is automated, payment for projects is not.

You receive payment via a share system. Payments go out every "round" (essentially every 3000-5000 blocks). For writing, every 1,000 words equates to one share. The total amount of shares then allow proportional payment of each round to go out. Each round is roughly 180 million devcoins if my memory serves me right. However, with projects that don't involve words, SOMEBODY needs to determine and assign the number of shares that THEY believe is fair for the project. Due to the way Devtome is built, it can become decentralized. The whole issue is built upon how we go about creating a script that judges how many shares something is worth, or if we need a script at all (Democratic voting).

Something like this needs to be attempted to be added to Bitcoin. Yes, this would require a fork, so around 60% of the network would have to agree with the changes for it to be implemented correctly (theoretically 51% is the requirement, but there is the probability factor with block solving as well). If a system was implemented that would allow us to not only be paid using the share system for "open-source work", one that also allows us to be paid directly in Bitcoin by proof of sales of products would be nice as well. However, such a payment system without government is completely hinged off trust. That is why I have written this thread. We need to brainstorm a way for such a system to work. Essentially, the central question is: "How can someone be paid fairly for sold products without relying on trust and the word of the merchant?" Once such a solution is figured out, and if the network accepted such a change, Bitcoin would be set to go mainstream instantly. Mining alone cannot be the way Bitcoin works. Mining alone ties acquiring Bitcoin directly to Fiat money, which is what I believe personally to be the worst thing Bitcoin is facing right now.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Some other food for thought

Digitalmagnus said it nicely in a previous post. We must be able to make this currency suitable for day to day transactions with minimal compromise on the security

Quote
1) Transaction times - Starbucks, gas station and grocery lineups (something many of us deal with daily) are long enough as it is, can you imagine the patience of people in a lineup to wait for your 10 minute cryptocoin transaction to go through?! Or imagine on black Friday, you need to purchase that $1,000 flatscreen and BestBuy makes you wait for 6 confirmations (~1hour) before approving the transaction. We BADLY need transaction times to be 30 seconds or less, ideally on par or better than credit cards. This IMO is the #1 hurdle to mass adoption. Who the heck wants to wait around to pay for something? And which business owner wants less customers because they are too frustrated waiting around to buy something?

I think in these examples you wouldn't need to wait for 6 confirmations. You're in the store, they have your real name and identity on record, all you have to do is sign here and one confirmation should be enough. Maybe I'm wrong?

hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
Digitalmagnus said it nicely in a previous post. We must be able to make this currency suitable for day to day transactions with minimal compromise on the security

Quote
1) Transaction times - Starbucks, gas station and grocery lineups (something many of us deal with daily) are long enough as it is, can you imagine the patience of people in a lineup to wait for your 10 minute cryptocoin transaction to go through?! Or imagine on black Friday, you need to purchase that $1,000 flatscreen and BestBuy makes you wait for 6 confirmations (~1hour) before approving the transaction. We BADLY need transaction times to be 30 seconds or less, ideally on par or better than credit cards. This IMO is the #1 hurdle to mass adoption. Who the heck wants to wait around to pay for something? And which business owner wants less customers because they are too frustrated waiting around to buy something?

I think in these examples you wouldn't need to wait for 6 confirmations. You're in the store, they have your real name and identity on record, all you have to do is sign here and one confirmation should be enough. Maybe I'm wrong?
sr. member
Activity: 359
Merit: 250
Do we have an estimate for the release of this coin yet?
We don't even have estimate for start of implementation date  Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 452
Merit: 251
Do we have an estimate for the release of this coin yet?
TacoTime said earlier that he wants to make a few changes to the paper and get it finalised, after which he'll start assembling the dev team.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Do we have an estimate for the release of this coin yet?
sr. member
Activity: 359
Merit: 250
Digitalmagnus said it nicely in a previous post. We must be able to make this currency suitable for day to day transactions with minimal compromise on the security

Quote
1) Transaction times - Starbucks, gas station and grocery lineups (something many of us deal with daily) are long enough as it is, can you imagine the patience of people in a lineup to wait for your 10 minute cryptocoin transaction to go through?! Or imagine on black Friday, you need to purchase that $1,000 flatscreen and BestBuy makes you wait for 6 confirmations (~1hour) before approving the transaction. We BADLY need transaction times to be 30 seconds or less, ideally on par or better than credit cards. This IMO is the #1 hurdle to mass adoption. Who the heck wants to wait around to pay for something? And which business owner wants less customers because they are too frustrated waiting around to buy something?
I did some progress on this. Basically I believe you can make small 0-confirm payments for small amounts in account ledger system. By small amounts I mean small in relation to your full balance. If you have 100 coins in account you could make 0-conf tx for let's say maximum 10 coins. I think it would be enough for most real world uses. It could came at cost of slightly longer confirmation of big transfers but I think such transfers have far less requirements on speed. I guess that if you would use some online wallet service you could have almost all tx instantaneous because "smallness" would be counted from total balance of wallet owner which should be huge. What do you think?
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
Yeah, these ideas should be catalogued.

Also, did Taco mention anything about solving the instantaneous day-to-day transaction problem that Bitcoin has? If this can be solved, then there will be huge potential for NTC

Elaborate on the details of the problem, let our thread put our minds to solving it and see what we can come up with. The problems and solutions must be catalogued for this reason.
legendary
Activity: 1536
Merit: 1000
electronic [r]evolution
The person who invented this should receive compensation and credit.
Address is in my signature. Let the compensation flow in. Grin

Honestly though you can help by donating to the project donation address.
sr. member
Activity: 452
Merit: 251
These ideas are all really good and interesting. I would recommend that people write up their ideas in a structured form that others can easily understand, find, and compare against other ideas. Develop them into proper models. If you believe in your idea, write it up in a form that is suitable for peer-review. Judging by the first post, I think the idea was to get feedback on the coin itself, mostly technical to establish whether it is a valid proposition. Most of what has been posted here is auxiliary to that (services, conglomerates, etc.), and really warrant a different platform altogether. It's getting really confusing finding the technical discussion about the coin amidst all of this! So I think compact it into something people can digest and put it in the Netcoin Wiki in an organised way under an appropriate section. That would be my suggestion anyway!
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
I argued against that. I'm saying the social network makes the currency popular and the investment and mining syndicate make the currency profitable and that if the syndicate does not protect the social network which protects the currency then nothing protects the currency and no amount of technical feature can change that. Ultimately Netcoin will be protected by the Netcoin community and organizing to do this early on makes sense if it's supposed to last and be competitive because the Bitcoin community by that time will be elite and will not help other cryptocurrencies as you're seeing with the venture capital flowing into Bitcoin specific companies and Bitcoin specific technology leaving Litecoin and PPcoin to reinvent the wheel all over again for the benefit of those who own a lot of Bitcoins. That is the free market, but those who own a lot of Netcoins might want to have the same businesses, wallets and infrastructure in their community and it's not necessarily going to be a good idea or even possible to rely on Bitcoin businesses to support the Netcoin community because they might not own any Netcoins and could easily decide against it and then what? No online wallets? No debit cards? No exchanges? None of the essential sites that make market cap go up?

Hey Lucky,

I really appreciate the valuable insight that you offer here. The points that you suggest are excellent and I feel that we do definitely need to develop a social network. Do you have any thoughts or plans as to how to develop this aspect?



My opinion or idea is to launch a social network along with the coin and tie it into the IPO somehow. So let's say the IPO takes place and early investors pledge money to get early coins or whatever tacotime decides? Well my idea is to either encourage or require they join the social network as part of the process of receiving the return on their investment.

At first I was thinking a newsletter of mailing list but then I thought why not take it all the way? An entire social network should be formed. The coin is also called Netcoin so it just seems to make sense that Netcoin should be the first coin to come with a social network as part of the package. The only way to join the social network would be to have Netcoins.

Each member of the network would need a Netcoin address and would have to deposit a certain amount into the social network. The social network could be the public face of the Netcoin syndicate. On the social network site individuals will be able to buy software and products. On the backend would be an SQL or superior database, with search capabilities, the capabilities of analysis. On the business end there would be the ability of individuals on the social network to buy shares in various Netcoin businesses, form a web of trust based on friendships and personal relations, etc. At the same time it would be a good idea to not just have a Netcoin specific social network but also bring it onto Facebook somehow.

At some point it's going to be essential that social networks become part of the equation. Forums are not the place to do business, or to set up businesses. Social networking sites are much better for these purposes. If for instance a bunch of investors all members of the syndicate decide to form a group on the social network site then investors in that group can focus just on that specific problem. Build the exchanges into the social network as well where if the user has an account with the social network then they can use that account on different exchanges.

But this is not exactly something I'm in a position to implement. I'm an idea guy but I do not have the funds to implement this, it would be something I think would have to be implemented prior to the launch though so that near the launch the social network site can go live. Immediately after the launch when individuals have Netcoins then just charge a membership fee in Netcoins and that will fund the social network until there are enough businesses and users for advertising to fund it.


Very interesting concept and much needed. Have you spoken to Taco about this at all? We can have a directory of business that accept NTC in the social network and maybe implement a Fiverr-like script where people can do gigs for NTC as well? Does that sound reasonable?

It does sound reasonable. Basically why can't we just upload a resume or something similar to the social network similar to how linkedin works and then the employer can review it and hire people with Netcoins? Like I need artwork for my website, and I have 500 Netcoins, so now I browse the Netcoin social network by searching for artists in the employment section or freelance section and suddenly there are profiles of many talented artists to choose from with porfolios of their work.

Oh, I really like the linked in style approach. We definitely need to incorporate something like this into the launch to ensure that there is mass adoption of this coin in addition to mining. Having something like this takes the strengths of Devcoin and improves upon it greatly. The flaw with Devcoin is that from my understanding is that the projects that are paid for are all licensed as open source. Sure, they are offering Devcoins for writing articles right now, but there is no purpose of these articles at all. People just write random articles on any topic and they get coins for it. Many people need freelancers to their own private content and this is the market that we should focus upon

However, if we go after the freelancer scene...such as Elance, or even the Warriors for Hire section at Warriorforum and use Netcoin as a payment form, this can be definitely something that is huge.

Other possible sites include:

Odesk
Freelancer
Guru
Demand Studios
iFreelance
People Per Hour
Freelance Switch Jobs
Journalism Jobs
Freelance Writing Gigs
Problogger Job Board
Freelance Writing Jobs
Rent A Coder
99Designs
Get A Coder
Smashing Jobs



We could allocate some funds for this as part of the IPO as I think that this is crucial to the success of Netcoin.

I think that the model behind those sites work fine. As far as content the only problem I have with Devcoin is it's only for programmers and writers, what about everyone else? I support the creative commons and I don't mind people writing about random subjects if it's eventually made into a wikipedia type site because it will become valuable over time just so long as it's organized. The point is people need to be driven to do legitimate activities other than black market stuff but make the same kind of money. So Devcoin gets it right that freelance writing has to pay $50-500 per share. They also get it right with the creative commons. I don't think Netcoin should force the creative commons but on any Netcoin endorsed wiki it should definitely be creative commons.

I mean Netcoin should have a wiki site perhaps focused on a very broad topic and then pay people to fill it in. How about an idea space wiki where people can write 1000 word essays and whitepapers on their ideas and get paid hundreds or thousands of dollars in Netcoin for each one? How about letting the viewers vote on them so that the top ideas, essays and white papers get bigger and bigger bonuses so that people can make tens of thousands of dollar off a whitepaper or well constructed idea?

I would title this the research and design wiki or r&d wiki or perhaps the Netcoin open scientific journal where anyone can research any topic and publish it then get paid for conducting the research. Particularly quality research would pay high amounts so that if the next Satoshi appears and shows up with a whitepaper or we get another brilliant colored coin type idea, the person who came up with the idea can get paid for their research thus encouraging them to research the next idea for the community. There should be the badge system which I talked about before and the medal system implemented as well so that individuals can earn prestige and not just coins.

We should also pay people to do more intense research such as network/node simulations, marketing research, psychological research, sociological research, and anything else.

This is better than Devtome where there are essays and poems but the scientific method is not encouraged and research isn't encouraged. I'm talking about an academic journal style publication funded by Netcoin investment for the benefit of the cryptocurrency community. Do this and Netcoin will secure itself and it's status early on because this is something which will attract all the brightest minds to Netcoin whether to read the wiki/journal or to make money conducting research to publish in it. Honestly I think this would be something which would make Aaron Swartz proud.
Pages:
Jump to: