Topic: Nexus - Pure SHA3 + CPU/GPU + nPoS + 15 Active Innovations + More to Come - page 370. (Read 785514 times)

Block Reward [Miners]:50 * e^(-0.0000011 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 1
Block Reward [Channels - Coin Trade in]:10 * e^(-0.00000055 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 1
Block Reward [Developers]:1 * e^(-0.00000059 * nHeight * [Chain Time Modular]) + 0.04

do the math, nice try

ftfy

Asserting it repeatedly doesn't make it a fact, yet this unsupportable claim is baldly repeated as though it did. We're invited to subscribe to a naive fiction that because CoinSheld(tm) customers are members of the general public, CoinShield(tm) therefore represents public opinion. This is starting to not ring true for me, I can't match up this childlike fiction with the deep analytic skills required of a top-flight coder. There's a trope that STEMheads typically suck at social science  ... but this is so bad it's verging on the improbable.

Because we've already been through this loop. There's nothing about the CoinShield(tm) operation that places it in the public sphere. It is a facility that CoinShield(tm), a commercial entity, chooses to offer at CoinShield(tm)'s convenience, to whomsoever CoinShield(tm) chooses or not, to do with as CoinShield(tm) sees fit and CoinShield(tm) is free to withdraw this facility at any point, without reason, notice or penalty to CoinShield(tm) and CoinShield(tm) also profits by this activity. That's not “public” by any recognisable definition, that's “ commercial” and trivial to demonstrate. Obdurately restating a demonstrably untrue claim simply serves to raise suspicions of dissembling.

Cheers

Graham

Graham,

Let me clarify: This component is a level of automation for "coinshield verified" coins, this means that the community interpretation is already complete. It has no "say" or "definition" other than a relative stance to a Coinshield Verified Coin, to protect that coin from Forgery. The reason for this is for exactly as you say, that everyone interprets differently, and balancing these interpretations takes time... This will ideally speed up the forgery cases, which will increase the "cost of forgery" hopefully reducing the number of people finding profit in it.

Our goal is not to be police, but a representative of public opinion. This being said, what is your definition of a "clone coin"? I believe that the definitions for such things should be based off of many different perspectives to attempt to achieve the most balanced definition.

edit: I would like to also add [in more words] that each "Coinshield Verified Coin" set by the community will be an "object of reference" in which the standard will be set. The first coin to be Coinshield Verified will begin the standard, the rest will continue to evolve this standard standing as "examples" for the definition of "the quality standard". This will be voiced by the community through action in the process of Coinshield Verification.

Thank You
Viz.

I clearly didn't do as good a job as you credit me with. I seem to have completely failed to communicate the profound import of a crucial aspect of an ostensive definition that's not stressed in the wikipedia entry: each of us creates our own unique, idiosyncratic definitional set of members.

As an aid to my thinking in this area, I mentally replace the question “is this coin a valid target?” with “is this oil painting Art?” Imagine trying to get a roomful of people to agree on whether a given painting is “Art”. You'll get a different answer each time, that's the nature of the beast. My interpretation of “art” is not the same as yours, indeed it would be weirdly unnatural if it were. The unavoidable conclusion is that consistency in target selection is infeasible.

You appear to be setting yourselves up as the altcoin police, riding into action on a hunter-killer altcoin, responding to imagined public disquiet. Have you lined up some snappy uniforms?

For our part (see sig), we'll be working to help altcoin developers meet the higher technical standards claimed by CoinShield(tm) to represent the opinion of CoinShield(tm)'s customers and to which the entire altcoin community is apparently to be held, whether they agree or not, on pain of deliberate destruction of the coin and the dev's reputation.

In pursuit of this objective of raising standards, we'll be publishing full details of best practices in software engineering that are specifically applicable to forking and creating a new altcoin, concentrating on those elements which are held by CoinShield(tm)'s customers to be particularly objectionable if incorrectly implemented.

We'll be looking to you for a complete list of the operational specifications of your requirements, we feel that would be the most constructive and sensible approach.


Cheers

Graham

Graham,

Thank you for a good question. As you have brilliantly pointed out in the past, the best way to create definitions with this system is an ostensive definition.

The first step would be to read as a programmer the source code of accused "clone coin". If someone did not put much effort towards the development of that coin, there will still be a lot of similarities [besides sharing the same codebase]. The most notable would be remnants of old hard forks [cloned but not removed], lack of understanding of CLIENT_VERSION in version.h and how to change that version down to 0.1.0.0 [one must remove outdated wallet upgrades], PROTOCOL_VERSION similarities, etc.

This will of course have to be very "loose", but just the first net with large holes to grab the big fish. The more cunning fish will of course do a "little" extra work to get through the initial checks, then forcing that coin's destruction to be determined by the community. This small level of automation is designed to reduce the load on petitions for obvious cases of Forgery.

Let us know if you have any more questions,
Viz.

I look forward to the day when you can afford to be less gratuitously provocative. To help you approach the community with a more balanced view, can I ask you to please provide clarification of the following instruction:

“If another coin clones your coin they will be sent directly into the voting system, no petition needed.”

Please define the term “to clone” as it used in this context. You clearly don't mean “git clone ” because the result of such an action is merely another valid wallet for the coin.

The only other meaning that I can reasonably ascribe to the term is an analogy with cloning in genetics but that's an analogy and of course, that's simply unusable as a criterion.

This is software engineering, please give us an operational definition of what criteria you intend to apply to decide whether a given altcoin is a “clone” in your terms.


Cheers

Graham

Want to be part of our shitcoin prevention/Coinshield verification process? Sign up and reserve your username: http://coinshieldtalk.org  A launch date will be announced soon.  

I'm always a fan of being as open-source as possible, but I understand what you are saying.  My usual support goes to coins that provide innovation and also allow folks to see the entire history of their codebase, though I threw some support behind a few closed-source coins such as vertcoin because I thought their product was notable.  If you don't open the source, I think finding a few reputable developers to check through the source for potential errors would be good.  It is always better to have multiple eyes on the project.

Thank You, this is good information: To strengthen the code by community involvement. I'll do some thinking on this, now that I have a broader perspective to work with. In the meantime more suggestions towards the weight of my decision are always welcome from anyone who decides to take the time to suggest.

Viz.

There are a TON of answers to that question but I am only going to give you one. If you are doing all the coding/dev work yourself yout would be very smart to allow others to look at your code for when shit hits the fan and you need help fixing something. There are many talented folks on these forums and with a project like yours I'm sure you will be getting their attention.

Thank you for this. If I may ask [to understand you better], why do you feel it is vital for the source code to be released upon launch?

Viz.

I think it is vital to release source code along with the binaries at launch.

I did take a look at the test client, but most of the changes are quite internal and are hard to debug or understand without source code.

It's the only way this can get done and survive. Success is directly proportional to effort applied [at least in an Ideal World], but in this world, perseverance is what will be the bridge towards an Ideal World. In that, we are at least making forward progress [and this is about the most I can ever expect].

Thank You,
Viz.

I crie all da tiem.

Love the dedication.

Doubt precedes change, time will always tell.

Viz.

This is an interesting concept but I highly doubt it will work.

It needs tons of support and since the start, there hasn't been much development and awareness.

I wish you luck but I don't think this will survive.

So far, it is just me. I have been working hard, and will not take anyone on the development team that will not continue that trend. One primary coder is perfectly sustainable, but eventually I want to become more of an overseer, helping others learn the code, improve it, ensuring quality, etc.. My only requirement to help develop is willingness to learn [your integrity will set your position of responsibility over time]. I will not make any sacrifices of the Vision of Coinshield for less personal work... That being said, it is me for now, but I'm sure that many great developers will join in time to continue to improve Coinshield... but we should always remember: better is the mortal enemy of good enough. Determining this point can have its difficulties.

The public review is tricky, maybe you wouldn't mind sharing your opinion. I have been contemplating, should we release the source code when the Coinshield Channels begin to function to Protect Coinshield from Forgery, or would you rather it be at launch. I already have been documenting the code for a DOxygen interface which is currently in development. This will allow you to review the streamlined structures in the code, but not be able to steal any of it.

I am thinking this will be the best solution [especially from private testing results, which really came down to 2 people out of 15] would be after the Exchange Channels are active, so that Coinshield will be protected. Certain layers of protection have to administered in the condition of the marketplace currently, but then again this is just my opinion.

What do you think?
Viz.

Coinshieldtalk.org is set up and ready to go (you can register your username on there now).

One coin has already submitted a petition to become Coinshield verified: http://coinshieldtalk.org/forum/coin/petition-to-become-coin-shield-verfied-appeals-to-remove-verification/103-negotium-ntm-coin   

We simply have not launched yet but anyone is welcome to comment/post/submit as of now.

Videlicet  will reply to your other questions,

Thanks
~KryptoKash