Topic: Nexus - Pure SHA3 + CPU/GPU + nPoS + 15 Active Innovations + More to Come - page 380. (Read 785514 times)

I like the concept (mainly because I'm a dev for an innovative coin) but something like this could go very wrong in many ways, mainly because it could and probably will be used as a blackmailing tool. Another scenario devs should be very carefull about is attacking scam/gimmick copy cat coins with big communities behind them because those coins will easily manipulate the voting results through sheer numbers ... just saying.

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, it is the number of altcoins that have chosen each algo. The data is collated from extensive cross-referencing of various lists that have been published over the last couple of years.

My motivation for posting is to provide discussants with some hard-ish figures. My motivation for collating the dataset stems from a pursuit of transparency. The full dataset will be published under an Open Data licence but you'll have to hold your horses for a few days while the work is completed.


I was nearly severely wrong-footed by failing to detect the (rather large) degree of difference between yer bog-standard altcoin fork and the huge amount of work that you have put into Reicoin. fwiw, I'm very impressed with your migration to Bitcoin Core 0.9; that's a stand-out piece of work and an inspired tactical move.

Cheers,

Graham

(sorry for the delay in responding, intertubes here got bunged up for a few hours)

Good catch, that's a useful observation.


Hahaha. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I think you're absolutely spot-on about the superfluity of 512 bits in respect of enhanced security, how hilarious.

There's a teensy bit of wriggle room available to whoever was the first to use a 512bit implementation for altcoin PoW ...

IIRC, a few of the SHA3-Zoo denizens claim better performance of their 512-bit implementation over their 256-bit implementation. It's quite possible that all of the NIST candidates were anticipating a general move to 512 (especially if primed to do so by NIST, I'll have to check on that) and directed their optimization efforts accordingly.

Your observation attests to your familiarity with working in a strongly-typed language. I must admit that I had registered the discrepancy but failed to draw the obvious conclusion. Instead, I recall thinking to myself: “Nah, that'd be too big a hole for everyone to miss. Must have the wrong end of the stick.” Had I more familiarity with the practicalities of programming in strongly-typed languages, I might saved myself from that error.

Ah well, I shall just have to junk my hyper-secure, extra-strength, extreme hard-core Skein 1024-bit implementation and return to the drafting table Not  a wasted effort though, it allows me to appreciate fully the implications of your observation. I gotta find out whether there's unimpeachable support for this obvious conclusion or whether there's some subtle haha-its-crypto gotcha that muddies what's otherwise an apparently clear view.

Cheers,

Graham

It looks like the best way to kill the coin is just to buy it into mintpal, greatest coin killer of them all...   

You should do the exact opposite, buy every new coin, except blatant scam !

You would have lost money 1000 times (at worst) but you would have automatically earned more than 100X on 100 coins. At least 2000X on NxT, 300X on DRK...
It is the most effective and timeless strategy (no need to read OP, just buy, no day-trading).
Do your math !!

Sorry, I snipped the legend to save space, wasn't thinking.

The graph shows, in essence, algo popularity and is generated from a database of altcoin metadata, going back to 2009, covering 1260-odd altcoins, post-processed to ensure coverage of a few key attributes.

The compilation was guided by inherently informal concerns and inclusions were only very loosely constrained. If there's a bitcointalk thread, a logo and an algo then it's probably been included unless it was a purely hypothetical concept. The data is not 100% accurate but then again, neither are [ANN] details and sometimes that's all there is; garbage in, garbage out - unavoidable.

As a tour d'horizon, it's not intended to be a precise tool and there's some other stuff to go with it that partly makes up for that:

http://github.com/DOACC

Description of a Cryptocurrency (DOACC) is an OWL ontology for cryptocurrency, following the FOSS communities' lead with DOAP.

Collaborators welcome.

Cheers,

Graham

Quote from Videlicet about this very topic:

If Coinshield succeeds (and becomes a standard, )security seal or something like that, probably the new shitcoins will never have any value, or really low value to be rescued. So won't worth the work to create/market a shitcoin. But it could lead to more elaborated scams...

I think this is a great idea, but will only work if more people get in and support.

I'm thinking devs would create shitcoins just to get rescued, something like insurance fraud...
still, a very interesting idea

i am waiting

nice chart! could you please tell us the source of your data? is it number of altcoins you are comparing?
glad to see prime constellations is at least mentioned

Can you explain a little more what we're looking at?

Graham,

You are correct [I did not catch this, as I have had my head in my code, working it around with my own logic]. I guess I reinvented the wheel for porting this class [uint512], but also, saw other locations it needed implementation [that other coins failed to address].

1. CBigNum class: needed extra implementation to work with [uint512]
2. CBlockHeader class: to store hashblock/hashprevblock as [uint512], not [uint256] to make actual use of a 512 bit hash

With other coins that use 512 bit hashing, you'll notice in their Hash template, it is always returned as [uint256] from the examples I have seen. This in my logic, makes use of 512 bit hashing superfluous [if only 256 bits can be stored].

~Videlicet

Unless there's something special about your uint512 implementation that you haven't described above, you could have saved some effort by merely using the existing implementation adopted by many altcoins.

Selecting a couple at random from dozens of potential examples:

https://github.com/qubitcoin/QubitCoin/blob/master/src/uint256.h#L647

https://github.com/dmcoin/diamondcoin/blob/master/src/uint256.h#L647

I've not checked all the denizens of the SHA-3 Zoo but I'm reasonably confident that all of the NIST candidates offer 512 bit functions because that was part of the competition spec.

I'll hazard a guess that all of the chained-hashalgo altcoins use 512-bit hash algos. QubitCoin uses 512bit hashes in its 5-link chain and the same is true of both Chaincoin's C11 and Darkcoin's x11 11-link chains. All of the x* chained algo series use 512bit hash functions. For those looking to the future with trepidation, we can get to about x20 before really starting to scrape the barrel)

I see a very healthy diversity of pow algo usage:



(note, log2 scale for presentation purposes)

Cheers,

Graham

To [The People],

Due to all the wonderful suggestions on this thread, I have decided to put the extra effort in to develop our own CPU/GPU algorithms. As I have been searching through all the possibilities, I am leaning towards a hybrid hash/scientific pow to maintain security. This has led me to larger numbers [256 bits just didn't satisfy my curiosity], so I wrote a class [uint512] to support 512 bit hashes [ported from Satoshi's uint256 class].

This will increase network security [512 bit hashing is more secure], and also allow us as a network to do calculations on numbers [that will fill half a page], which is more viable to me as scientific POW [I formulated this conclusion from my own desire to study the patterns we will discover].

Now, here is the other [part]. I am human, and as such require more time to complete this task [unfortunately have not transcended this limitation as of yet]. This would bring me to state that [Coinshield Launch will be Extended to 7/8/2014 at 12:00 PDT]. This does mean however, that any pool operators, or anyone interested in [helping], will be able to use a testnet I setup before launch [to report to me any issues]. This hopefully will help strike more community involvement in the development of Coinshield, so that we can adhere [as close as possible] to the community's desires.

Respectfully,
~Videlicet

Your either a Troll, didn't bother to read how they plan to "destroy" or devalue the coin, or your just stupid.

The fact that you reference Republicans as being uneducated is laughable. I hate both republicans and democrats but neither are uneducated. Calling Bush or Obama dumb makes you look dumb. They know exactly what they are doing, helping themselves not America.

Now go back to your troll cave or better yet take two minutes and actually bother to read everything about the coin before posting FUD.

In our OP we state: Destroying a coin in the following context means to reduce the coins value to a minimum, and keep it there.

As for creating scarcity and increasing the value of that coin you are correct. If coins were remove from circulation that is exactly what would happen. This is why Coinshield does not do that. As mentioned a few posts above this is how the system works:

This process will prevent the shitcoin from ever gaining value.

This community can be so depressing at times.

This entire scheme is inherently flawed and anyone who actually took the time to read the concept and understand it would see that.

Should I really dissect your whole plan? I don't want to spend all that time so I'll just point out one major flaw.

You can't "kill" a coin, you can only let it die on its own. If you take action against a shitcoin, you will only end up inadvertently helping it.

Case in point:

More so, many shitcoins are PoW. Even if you destroyed 100% of the available market supply, there are more coins coming out every day. By reducing the market supply, all you are doing is making them more valuable. This in turn has the opposite effect of killing them, in fact it makes them even more sought after.

The only thing you can do to truly kill shitcoins is to educate the people, something not so easily done as can be seen by America's senate, republicans, theists and America in general.


This plan was not properly thought out.
As you are continually adding more coins to your own market supply the only shitcoin decreasing in value will be your own.

I am all for taking down shit coins as you call them, I just hope no one figure out your algo's or your screwed.

As mentioned above:
Far from a copy and paste coin.

 
Edit: As for our shitcoin system, its purpose is to kill shitcoins. Mastiff's coin recycle system is an anonymous transaction mechanism, which allows you to convert any coin to MAST from your wallet or on the website. This has nothing to do with absorbing economies, or protecting certain (depending on how the community votes) coins source code (see Coinshield Verification in OP for more info).