Topic: MC2: A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system - page 4. (Read 195198 times)

Some further questions:

Couldn't someone just creates a whole lot of addresses and then submit with every address the needed amount, so he can win the lottery safely?

I can't see any incentitive for runnig full nodes, which is a problem as you might see at bitcoin. How about the idea only full nodes receive tx_fees(running a wallet with full blockchain) and miners not?

Where is the incentitive to submit tickets? When there are no "fresh issues", you will probably earn as much, as you submit, but ypu can't use a part of your coins. This will end in nobody submitting tickets.

Or maybe, i didn't undertsand it correctly and everybody gets their money afterwards back and the lottery winner gets a reward for the block he submitted. Which one is right?

As far as I understand, even people, who didn't win in the lottery, can use their tickets, to sign a block. Otherwise it would be really insecure

Well, it seems like an (almost) perfect coin

Some questions though:
1. I thought, he can spent his ticket freely to vote for a block? I think I missunderstood their sth.

2. So a signature also contains the amount of coins a stakeholder has to do this or is this a value based on the amount the stakeholder has?

In addition to you could implent, that in every transaction the hash of the most recent block has to be included and the block chain enforces the rule that the transaction can only be included in block chains that build off of that block then no one will be able to build secret block chains. This would add an additional security layer  -Source

Time to break out the shoulder high boots to wade through the piles of shit from CPU only coin propagandists.  

If I want to mine at home, I can buy only 4-10 GPUs and compete relatively well since even *most* large miners will only have something like 100 on the outlier examples.

If I want to compete on a CPU coin, spend similar or more money for 10 CPU packages, now I have to compete against a bunch of giant botnets of 50,000 CPUs.

Do you need to break out the calculator to figure out which ratio is better?  10:100 or 10:50,000

Some further questions:

Couldn't someone just creates a whole lot of addresses and then submit with every address the needed amount, so he can win the lottery safely?

I can't see any incentitive for runnig full nodes, which is a problem as you might see at bitcoin. How about the idea only full nodes receive tx_fees(running a wallet with full blockchain) and miners not?

Where is the incentitive to submit tickets? When there are no "fresh issues", you will probably earn as much, as you submit, but ypu can't use a part of your coins. This will end in nobody submitting tickets.
Or maybe, i didn't undertsand it correctly and everybody gets their money afterwards back and the lottery winner gets a reward for the block he submitted. Which one is right?

As far as I understand, even people, who didn't win in the lottery, can use their tickets, to sign a block. Otherwise it would be really insecure

These tickets are spent by the stakeholder when the lottery winner selected by the current PoW block is the same as the ticket number.

At least with a GPU mineable coin the distribution will be skewed towards users who are at least partially vested in cryptos versus botnet operators who have nefarious intentions at best and are most likely dumpers.

The mining algo is not really the issue, greed is.  I think a better way for an organic coin distribution is to have MC2 off of any exchange that deals in fiat or BTC.  I am not saying that will happen (never will) but that would be one way to minimize the greed factor in the coin distribution.  Being un-exchangeable does nothing for the usefulness of the coin though so you have to balance this with the less altruistic users so the coin has a chance at success.

These tickets are spent by the stakeholder when the lottery
winner selected by the current PoW block is the same as the
ticket number.

2. the attacker has 51% of the stake of the coin, and

the stakeholder difficulty

the attacker must withhold use of their stake transactions in addition to mining PoW blocks in secret.

Cpu coin are cr*p. Don't try to decentralized currency me when they are botnets raping every cpu coin.

I live in a very small flat. Even one graphic card makes a lot of noise which prevents me from sleeping.

Time to break out the shoulder high boots to wade through the piles of shit from CPU only coin propagandists.  

If I want to mine at home, I can buy only 4-10 GPUs and compete relatively well since even *most* large miners will only have something like 100 on the outlier examples.

If I want to compete on a CPU coin, spend similar or more money for 10 CPU packages, now I have to compete against a bunch of giant botnets of 50,000 CPUs.

Do you need to break out the calculator to figure out which ratio is better?  10:100 or 10:50,000

I find it a big concern that a coin requires an expensive graphic card to be mined. Sorry, but "democracy" and "you need to have expensive hardware" don't mix well together.

For me, everything that requires more than 25 dollars of hardware cannot be democratic. 25 dollars is the price of an Arduino, by the way.

How the BitCoin network becomes centralized?

Google translate original russian post from Sasha PortMan : http://mmgp.ru/showpost.php?p=6543233&postcount=2136

The first stage - it was possible mining at home on videocards.
The second stage - it was possible mining at home on farms from ten videocards.
The third stage - mining it is possible was at home on tens farms from hundred videocards.
The fourth stage - the whole industrial pavilions, from hundred ASIC of mayner.
The fifth stage - tens mega constructions from thousands of ASIC of mayner.
The sixth stage - mega the corporations which are engaged in a mining which will have huge territories on the areas which will be specially adapted under a mining.

And the seventh stage, final - the strongest corporations from corporations will survive. They will be then not only to control the prices, but also to carry out all transactions. If the price of a coin is low, the network and any transaction will simply stop won't be carried out while the price doesn't become favorable to a mining. But it will be already in the most final phase when all mining one or two mega will control corporations on the mining, under control certainly to the government. Because probably you know if someone starts controlling that not in power was to control before to the governments within the corporation, the governments shortly will start controlling the one who controls the uncontrollable.

In general, I consider a mining - an error of decentralization. All computing capacities once will appear in hands of one mega corporations that conducts to centralization and control from the governments. Satoshi when I created it, I he think knew and guessed to what at the end everything leads it. Freedom is given only in the beginning when everyone can мaйнить at home on videocards, thereby forming the decentralized network. But here its complexity grows and grows that finally leads to centralization and to total control, up to even before network destruction if supervisory authorities of it want. And most likely they will want because yet time will find as someone sold for BitCoins drugs or sponsored terrorism, and so on. BitCoin for them at present as a splinter which just like that can't be pulled out. But Satoshi created it everything temporary, as a result a ball one will govern mega corporation and sure to appear over it will rule the governments. It will be the beginning of the end of a network BitCoin.

Isn't this like phs?

Tacotime, now that you are big on cryptnote, why not using Cryptonote instead of bitcoin as a base? If you plan to take the best of all altcoin, cryptonote would fit in particularly well, don't you think?