If you look back at the earliest posts in this thread, you'll see that TacoTime spoke about a method involving encrypting the release and waiting a few weeks so that it is well distributed before giving out the password. That way everyone would start mining at the same time. One of the more recent posts in this thread by coblee details the methodology Litecoin pursued as another novel way to ensure the fairness of a coin's release. Having a mining "syndicate" prior to release that is somehow officially embedded in the project basically ends up excluding people from the fairness of the early vision.
If people get turned off by the ideas posted here, don't be concerned by what you read. I haven't known TacoTime for very long, but from what he has said in this thread I believe he is trustworthy and he has pledged his intent very early on to make the release of Netcoin as fair as humanly possible.
Topic: MC2: A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system - page 32. (Read 195184 times)
This is going so far away from the simplicity of crypto that I'm wondering why not completely ditch the coin and just trade shares of watchagonnacallit. I mean, what's the point anymore if you keep it closed source, private and centralized like that.
i know I’m not the most popular dude around here bitdwarf, but i kind of said that way back..
each part of a entity must know where it goes, if everyone is a coder, and there is no management - things can descend into inefficiency.
i have to say Crypto is what it is because of the freedom , anything closed is DOA .
I know as a coder how much you must hate that, but you have to give the love away to get it back.
I didn't take any nibble for the nibble design , in the end i just handed it over.
hey you might not like it , but lot of people do.
**
I didn't take any nibble for the nibble design , in the end i just handed it over. < mission is to use that sentance in a conversation this week preferably with a girl or someone over 60.
This is going so far away from the simplicity of crypto that I'm wondering why not completely ditch the coin and just trade shares of watchagonnacallit. I mean, what's the point anymore if you keep it closed source, private and centralized like that.
I too would like some early shares of this new Federal Reserve! I mean Netcoin Inflation Institute? Erm... What's it going to be called?
Seriously I'm just suggesting you take a step back and look at what is being said.
For Netcoin to succeed and have an intrinsic value, it has to be spread around before it hits exchanges. A single, central institution, even as a seed, is the worst thing that could happen (never mind the fact that 'Syndicate' certainly doesn't have much of a goodwill sound to it
... Google's "Don't be evil" motto is fine till they grow big enough to doublespeak and redefine 'evil'...
I haven't read the whole thread so I could very well be rehashing old topics, but can't a much simpler solution be found, i.e.:
1)Create a 'Launch council' of miners and organizations interested and ready to devote some hashing power to the coin.
2) Create a (temporarily) private pool, to be opened to all upon launch.
3) Have people mine up to a predefined, fixed target (or close enough). I would prefer the same target for everyone, that has a precomputed power cost, development cost or marketing cost. This assigns a real-world value to the coin where people can't accuse Netcoins of being premined pump-and-dump because we have put a real value in it. Also because all get the same starter amount, no one gets an unfair advantage and we don't have to create a separate entity and IPO for 'afterwards'. Just dissolve the council once the launch succeeds and let Netcoins fly on their own. (Note, a goodwill/charity/business entity COULD be made a member of the council, but not BE the council)
All this information/coins owned to be made public. This of it as a manual proof-of-stake.
4) Once everyone has their share, launch the coin/open up the pool/open for trade on exhanges
5) Profit, or not. There is no try.
Sorry if it all seems obvious/rehashed. Just something I would LIKE to see before I invest time/money/power in Netcoins. Please don't hate, coffee just isn't working this morning.
The main point is, this Council doesn't have to be a company. It just has to live as a coop till launch.
(edited, forgot to make openness obvious)
Seriously I'm just suggesting you take a step back and look at what is being said.
For Netcoin to succeed and have an intrinsic value, it has to be spread around before it hits exchanges. A single, central institution, even as a seed, is the worst thing that could happen (never mind the fact that 'Syndicate' certainly doesn't have much of a goodwill sound to it
... Google's "Don't be evil" motto is fine till they grow big enough to doublespeak and redefine 'evil'...I haven't read the whole thread so I could very well be rehashing old topics, but can't a much simpler solution be found, i.e.:
1)Create a 'Launch council' of miners and organizations interested and ready to devote some hashing power to the coin.
2) Create a (temporarily) private pool, to be opened to all upon launch.
3) Have people mine up to a predefined, fixed target (or close enough). I would prefer the same target for everyone, that has a precomputed power cost, development cost or marketing cost. This assigns a real-world value to the coin where people can't accuse Netcoins of being premined pump-and-dump because we have put a real value in it. Also because all get the same starter amount, no one gets an unfair advantage and we don't have to create a separate entity and IPO for 'afterwards'. Just dissolve the council once the launch succeeds and let Netcoins fly on their own. (Note, a goodwill/charity/business entity COULD be made a member of the council, but not BE the council)
All this information/coins owned to be made public. This of it as a manual proof-of-stake.
4) Once everyone has their share, launch the coin/open up the pool/open for trade on exhanges
5) Profit, or not. There is no try.
Sorry if it all seems obvious/rehashed. Just something I would LIKE to see before I invest time/money/power in Netcoins. Please don't hate, coffee just isn't working this morning.
The main point is, this Council doesn't have to be a company. It just has to live as a coop till launch.
(edited, forgot to make openness obvious)
I am not a fan of alt-coins but i 'm watching this.
....well, i've been watching for awhile now, just needs to be released, lol.
I think we'll be lucky if it gets released in 2013.
I am not a fan of alt-coins but i 'm watching this.
i'm a fan of pump and dump coins, and i'll be watching this too.....well, i've been watching for awhile now, just needs to be released, lol.
cool concept and optimistic future,
but the name just sucks to be honest...
why dont you think outside the box for once and come up with an original name, not just whatever "pseudo-prefix" is leftover.
it doesnt have to be a "something-coin".
but the name just sucks to be honest...
why dont you think outside the box for once and come up with an original name, not just whatever "pseudo-prefix" is leftover.
it doesnt have to be a "something-coin".
Its already been discussed in this thread and other forums.
cool concept and optimistic future,
but the name just sucks to be honest...
why dont you think outside the box for once and come up with an original name, not just whatever "pseudo-prefix" is leftover.
it doesnt have to be a "something-coin".
but the name just sucks to be honest...
why dont you think outside the box for once and come up with an original name, not just whatever "pseudo-prefix" is leftover.
it doesnt have to be a "something-coin".
For what it's worth, I'm working with xweb (the guy who's hosting all of our stuff) to set up an account specifically for Netcoin. We'll have a proper site, Wiki, forum, etc. soon. Thought I'd mention it here in case people go out and duplicate stuff that's already being worked on in the background. I'll report back when we have something.
1) I agree that its necessary for distributing coins according to community norms. However, I think that after 2 years or less, PoW distribution will be controlled by big companies no matter what. Thus, it doesn't make sense to spread PoW distribution across more than a few years to me. Whatever though, I'm not going to make a stink over it.
I disagree with you here. If we form a syndicate now then we can determine through the syndicate how the coins are distributed via PoW. What I'm saying is it does not have to be a traditional company. It can be a 501(c) for instance or my preferred choices for the a Netcoin syndicate which would be either an L3C, a benefit corporation, or a cooperative, in that order.
Various legal organizational options for a Netcoin syndicate -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_Purpose_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3C
Let's look at the L3C (low profit corporation)
Quote
The L3C is designed to make it easier for socially oriented businesses to attract investments from foundations and additional money from private investors. [6] Unlike the traditional LLC, the L3C’s articles of organization are required by law to mirror the federal tax standards for program-related investing. [7] A program-related investment (PRI) is one way in which foundations can satisfy their obligation under the Tax Reform Act of 1969 to distribute at least 5% of their assets every year for charitable purposes.[5] While foundations usually meet this requirement through grants, investments in L3Cs and charities that qualify as PRIs can also fulfill the requirement while allowing the foundations to receive a return.[8]
This can have benefits for a syndicate. The charities can actually be charities which benefit the Bitcoin community as a whole or which benefit Internet freedom in general.
It also provides the corporation with a social purpose.
The point I'm making with this is you're right, it's only a matter of time before big corporations come in with their mining farms. That is why a syndicate of L3C's or cooperatives should form from the start and arrange to sell shares in the mining farm to the community. These shares just as with ASICMiner shares should probably start out cheap at first, and as mining ramps up they should pay for itself in the form of dividends. The reason to choose LC3 instead of a typical corporate structure is because the goal of the syndicate (at least this top level) should be more about social welfare of the Netcoin and cryptocurrency communities. It also means the syndicate could be supported by investment from charities, so that donations to it would reduce the tax burden. I want to say I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, it just seems like a clever idea to consider.
The other idea is to form a decentralized Netcoin global miners cooperative. Let investors buy shares in the cooperative similar to what Hashrack does. Basically what I'm saying is it's beneficial to let people from the community form a syndicate to distribute the hashing power. This would make it so that large corporations cannot just come in and steal the hashing power from the community. The community would simply have to set up their corporations as LC3, CIC or something the syndicate certifies as acceptable so that while their mining corporation is allowed to profit, that the profitability isn't the only consideration and that the profitability of any individual mining corporation is limited so that it remains decentralized.
I am not a fan of alt-coins but i 'm watching this.
I think you need a wiki to discuss design issues. The white paper discusses several independent ideas.
It would be better to make designs more modular. This allows for modular contributions from people with specific expertise.
Make a wiki containing a wish list of features and linking to independent articles describing the design of each feature.
In my opinion, altcoins only have competitive potential to the extent that they can absorb new ideas from outsiders. Bitcoin is too far advanced to allow this. Many altcoins don't facilitate this either, out of both (a) get-rich quick greed and (b) egoism.
It would be better to make designs more modular. This allows for modular contributions from people with specific expertise.
Make a wiki containing a wish list of features and linking to independent articles describing the design of each feature.
In my opinion, altcoins only have competitive potential to the extent that they can absorb new ideas from outsiders. Bitcoin is too far advanced to allow this. Many altcoins don't facilitate this either, out of both (a) get-rich quick greed and (b) egoism.
I love the idea.
What is the best free wiki platform?
I'm thinking "Cryptocurrency Design" as the name of the wiki.
Like http://www.reddit.com/r/cryptocurrency to keep it neutral, but strictly limited to theoretical design issues.
The forums are a mess. Everything is discovered, forgotten, and rediscovered often in bastardized form.
Cryptocurrency Design is great. I have a better idea though. We should have design contests and reward the winner. Similar to the X-prize. The design has to be peer reviewed but if it wins the contest then it should win the bounty. The contest and bounty system should only be for really difficult problems.
Consider a Private Mining Pool support structure composed of investors (essentially a hardware investment) that kicks in after a few weeks of the public mining. I would be up for "donating" hardware to this kind of support in-turn for investment shares/tickets/stake, whatever.
Perhaps this is an interesting way to keep the network-hash up despite whatever happens in the early days?
Perhaps this is an interesting way to keep the network-hash up despite whatever happens in the early days?
For what its worth, I'm working on a GPU mining farm. We've been selling bonds in LTC for it via Litecoin Global.
We will have a few new issuances for our bond before Netcoin is released. I am a huge fan of Netcoin, and believe in it strongly. I plan on supporting it with some of our own rigs to keep the network afloat.
However, if anyone wanted a few shares bonded exclusively to Netcoin, I would be far more than happy to do that. Of course, if Taco has a better idea, feel free to post. I'm up for helping out however I can.
That is why I propose the idea of a Netcoin investment/mining syndicate. Even before this coin is developed we can form the syndicate, build alliances, and create tactical or strategic protections for investors and miners. But first we will need a way to determine who the investors are so that the shares can be locked in to certain wallets and digital signatures etc.
What if for example you start offering shares in your GPU mining farm prior to the release of Netcoin and charge? This would allow people to get in very early. At the same time all of this has to be coordinated under a syndicate, meaning the different pool and GPU farm operators who support Netcoin have to be in communication with each other on a mailing list.
The idea of a design wiki is perfect. Someone should set that up ASAP and put all of our best ideas into it. Then we can simply revise these ideas as we get closer to the launch.
The ideas I proposed are
1. Following the IPO process and offering shares to early investors to attract them to Netcoin (these ideas are detailed in this thread).
2. Keep the coin scarce either by capping the total number to half of what Bitcoin will be or by keeping the inflation rate/generation rate so low that it has the same effect in that it's always more scarce than Bitcoin (Tacotime says after 30 years let the democratic process take over and vote on the rate of inflation).
3. Create a Netcoin syndicate prior to the launch composed of early investors and miners. Anyone who buys shares in the IPO process would be part of this syndicate, and anyone who sets up a mining pool GPU farm would become part of this syndicate, which basically would be built around a mailing list and perhaps a Facebook group etc. (more about this idea is on other threads but I think it's essential to form it early on so that Netcoin isn't cloned, and so that Netcoin can fend for itself politically as well as protect the interest of shareholders/members/contributors etc).
So the first step is we need a media wiki. Who wants to create it? The next step is we need to input all the best ideas from the forum onto the wiki. We may need to set up a poll for certain controversial ideas, and in other cases tacotime should just decide one way or the other.
Consider a Private Mining Pool support structure composed of investors (essentially a hardware investment) that kicks in after a few weeks of the public mining. I would be up for "donating" hardware to this kind of support in-turn for investment shares/tickets/stake, whatever.
Perhaps this is an interesting way to keep the network-hash up despite whatever happens in the early days?
Perhaps this is an interesting way to keep the network-hash up despite whatever happens in the early days?
For what its worth, I'm working on a GPU mining farm. We've been selling bonds in LTC for it via Litecoin Global.
We will have a few new issuances for our bond before Netcoin is released. I am a huge fan of Netcoin, and believe in it strongly. I plan on supporting it with some of our own rigs to keep the network afloat.
However, if anyone wanted a few shares bonded exclusively to Netcoin, I would be far more than happy to do that. Of course, if Taco has a better idea, feel free to post. I'm up for helping out however I can.
Consider a Private Mining Pool support structure composed of investors (essentially a hardware investment) that kicks in after a few weeks of the public mining. I would be up for "donating" hardware to this kind of support in-turn for investment shares/tickets/stake, whatever.
Perhaps this is an interesting way to keep the network-hash up despite whatever happens in the early days?
Perhaps this is an interesting way to keep the network-hash up despite whatever happens in the early days?
I am a huge fan of this project. The concept of a "netcoin" will be far easier to grasp to the general population than even a Bitcoin.
I do want to suggest creating paper wallets as an inherent feature from the beginning, because I feel paper wallets liberate virtual currencies and give them much more intrinsic value to anyone that otherwise has no concept of them.
Anyone that successfully implements a paper wallet for Netcoin please also help the Bitbar project in doing the same...I have some of those, so I'd love to see it succeed too. Really, I think paper wallets should be part of the source code from day 1 for all cryptos, and make it easy to redeem them. That will make crypto currency better all around.
I do want to suggest creating paper wallets as an inherent feature from the beginning, because I feel paper wallets liberate virtual currencies and give them much more intrinsic value to anyone that otherwise has no concept of them.
Anyone that successfully implements a paper wallet for Netcoin please also help the Bitbar project in doing the same...I have some of those, so I'd love to see it succeed too. Really, I think paper wallets should be part of the source code from day 1 for all cryptos, and make it easy to redeem them. That will make crypto currency better all around.
+1
I totaly agree!!!!
I am a huge fan of this project. The concept of a "netcoin" will be far easier to grasp to the general population than even a Bitcoin.
I do want to suggest creating paper wallets as an inherent feature from the beginning, because I feel paper wallets liberate virtual currencies and give them much more intrinsic value to anyone that otherwise has no concept of them.
Anyone that successfully implements a paper wallet for Netcoin please also help the Bitbar project in doing the same...I have some of those, so I'd love to see it succeed too. Really, I think paper wallets should be part of the source code from day 1 for all cryptos, and make it easy to redeem them. That will make crypto currency better all around.
I do want to suggest creating paper wallets as an inherent feature from the beginning, because I feel paper wallets liberate virtual currencies and give them much more intrinsic value to anyone that otherwise has no concept of them.
Anyone that successfully implements a paper wallet for Netcoin please also help the Bitbar project in doing the same...I have some of those, so I'd love to see it succeed too. Really, I think paper wallets should be part of the source code from day 1 for all cryptos, and make it easy to redeem them. That will make crypto currency better all around.
Amen!
take your time on this one, I'd hate to see this end up like 90% of cryptos, even If we have to wait till the end of the summer I'm sure most people following this thread would like this coin to succeed.
edit:
There is another problem I think, which is recursive invalidation of the blockchain if you invalidate the previous block. It is what it sounds like; once you invalidate a block previous in a string of valid blocks, all the blocks before it become invalidated because that block confirms all of these blocks reverse sequentially. There needs to be a way to keep the PoS transactions free from the manipulative harm of the PoW chain in some way.
I need to think about this some more, can't think of an easy solution off the top of my head.
There is another problem I think, which is recursive invalidation of the blockchain if you invalidate the previous block. It is what it sounds like; once you invalidate a block previous in a string of valid blocks, all the blocks before it become invalidated because that block confirms all of these blocks reverse sequentially. There needs to be a way to keep the PoS transactions free from the manipulative harm of the PoW chain in some way.
I need to think about this some more, can't think of an easy solution off the top of my head.
Stop relying on PoW for any part of network security.
Eh. It's okay for security, but I really like it in there for 1) distribution of new coins and 2) keeping consistent network timing for blocks.
Real life is hitting me in the face, so sorry if I don't respond to the longer point today. On this short point I want to agree with you.
1) I agree that its necessary for distributing coins according to community norms. However, I think that after 2 years or less, PoW distribution will be controlled by big companies no matter what. Thus, it doesn't make sense to spread PoW distribution across more than a few years to me. Whatever though, I'm not going to make a stink over it.
2) I agree. Timing, in my view, is why we would need small, but not negligible PoW rewards. Predictable timing using a secure, decentralized pure PoS system seems very hard to me. The only way I've figured out to do pure PoS safely implies a very large variance in block times. If combined with secure 0-conf txns, maybe timing variance is okay. Still, it's complicated and the design's too difficult for me to explain (that means I don't understand it well). Nothing good comes of biting off more than you can chew. Pure PoS should be shelved right now.
[tl;dr] Taco's plan of 1% inflation or a little more with rewards about evenly divided between PoS and PoW is good enough. I just would prefer we move to 1% inflation in a few years rather than a few decades.
Jump to: