Topic: Nexus - Pure SHA3 + CPU/GPU + nPoS + 15 Active Innovations + More to Come - page 382. (Read 785514 times)

How will abuse of the petition and voting system be prevented (how are bots/sockpuppets prevented from voting for example)?

Give us more suggestions on what you define a shitcoin to be. So far we have 2 suggestions from BitSlapper:

1. A coin is an exact copy of another, besides name.
2. The coin changed only simple things such as block reward count and block time.

Anyone else care to share?  After reviewing them, we will add them to the petition guidelines.

Someone used their thesaurus today , jk.


Graham makes a great point.

I like the idea of the community voting as to which coin is actually targeted. However, without predetermined parameters as to what a [shit]coin actually is then anyone with a grudge against a certain coin can just submit a petition based on nothing but personal opinion. If they in turn get enough friends/followers to help promote their petition then you have a potential for a perfectly valid coin being labeled as a [shit]coin.

A great compromise to the issue is to let the community put together suggestions as to what a [shit]coin actually is before Coin Shield is launched. The suggestions that are agreed upon most by all users are then the base for determining what a [shit]coin is from that point, so there can be some protection from abusing the system.

Some suggestions might be:

1. A coin is an exact copy of another, besides name.
2. The coin changed only simple things such as block reward count and block time.

After the parameters are defined and agreed upon then a Thread on the Coin Shield forums can be setup as guidelines for submitting a valid petition.

Of course, J.D. Rockefeller's "algorithm" was much simpler: pay a premium, because otherwise the competitors he wanted to buy from wouldn't sell their refineries. And of course, that algo (if you will) had the fatal flaw of encouraging jokers to build refineries solely for the sake of selling them. That's why he gave up, called his premiums "blackmail," and went back to keeping Standard's margins low in the hopes that cost saving would do for Standard what his masterly plan totally flopped at.

Speaking of low margins, antitrust back in tha day actually made big companies culpable for charging too low a price. Alcoa was nailed for doing precisely that in the 1940s. I'm quite serious.

That model of antitrust sort-of reached the joke phase in the late 1970s because of something the Johnson Administration's Justice Department did on the last day of Lyndon Johnson's Presidency. They sued IBM for monopolizing the computer industry...

...Fast forward ten years, or 1979 when the Apple II was the iPhone of the time, when the case was still pending:

Fanboi #1: "Did you know that IBM is being sued by the Justice department?"
Fanboi #2 - interested: "Oh yeah? For what?"
Fanboi #1, with big fanboi grin: "For monopolizing the computer market!"
Fanboi #2: "Fuuck! No wonder things are so fucked up there!"

Yep, that was the early computer geeks' exact introduction to the wonderful world of antitrust law - before the reforms undertook by the Reagan Administration.

No wonder the old socialist Leonard Silk called capitalism "the moving target"

But that said, people you look down on are often smarter than you think. I might suggest running your plans by a good economist or two.

The two sentences above are semantically vacuous. The phrase "based on clarity and attention" is meaningless. If that interpretation puzzles you, try: "farm fresh" and "investor assured", all three are classic examples of "hype", deceptive statements that to the casual glance appear coherent but which on deeper analysis reveal no commonly-understood semantics for that particular juxtaposition.

The fleshing out of the details of the target acquisition system reveals your use of the term [shit]coin to be unsupportable. There are no restrictions on the subject of the petitions, nor can there be without you risking unanswerable accusations of interference. You have no means of ascertaining in advance which coins will be targeted nor is the selection under your control, so your use of [shit]coin is unsupported. The most accurate term available to you is "successfully petitioned", the next most accurate term is "possibly [shit]coin". We remain crucially unenlightened about your interpretation of the meaning of the term [shit]coin, a gloom that merely deepens in the presence of "based on clarity and attention".

It's not going to improve your communication if you continue using the term [shit]coin when you're unable to allow the reader an opportunity to check their understanding against yours.

Given your statement "Hype is the general fuel of [shit]coins" and your use of the phrase "based on clarity and attention", a clear match with other phrases categorized as "hype", would you conclude that CoinShield meets your definition of a [shit]coin and if not, why not?

My directness is pursuant to brevity, I'm under too much time pressure to ensure a moderate tone throughout, no offence meant, not personal.

Cheers

Graham

Well it was a suggestion for the GPU mining algorithm not the CPU. Seemed like they already had an algorithm setup for the CPU.

Also ...more memory intensive is more ASIC resistant.

Groestl is really better for CPU miners to feel like they can compete with GPU miners and Qubit is really just more for CPU miners.

If you have more suggestions or reasons than just "it sucks" then please respond with them. 

Certainly an interesting idea.  I look forward to seeing the algorithm choice - please use something memory hard.

I've been a bitcointalk lurker for month and months, and this announcement actually made me register an account because I have so many issues with this idea.

If you all are actually serious about this, and not just scammers, you'll do the following before launching...

1) Announce this coin on every major crypto community online

2) Push your launch date back at least a month so that more and better input can come

3) Get multiple major exchanges on board with the idea

4) Make all of your code open source with at least 2 weeks to go before launch so that the community can review what you are working on


It is troubling that two random, anonymous guys with no history on these forums are announcing a coin that they promise is 100% for the good of the crypto community.  It is even more troubling that the so-called lead developer has supposedly had to spend so much time looking at the code to understand what is going on in whatever code you are trying to fork.  And yet ever more troubling is the fact that you've so far acted almost as if you really don't know very much about any of the alternative mining algorithms out there, about possibilities of FPGA development, and about what it would take to develop your own mining algorithm.

I'm sorry, but the only way a project like this should ever gain any community support is if guys like Gavin Andresen, Charlie Lee, and even the pseudonymous Sunny King were to come on board as a collective of developers interested in contributing.

Not to mention the fact that your entire premise is pretty foul... "Have you been taken by a dev of a bad coin?  Let's stick it to all the people that still hold and believe in that coin as fair retribution!  If we get enough people, we can take over the altcoin world one coin at a time!"  This whole thing sounds like a half-baked scheme of militants looking to take over regions in the TV show Revolution.  Quite frankly, the bottom line with cryptocurrency is that you should never invest what you can't afford to lose, and no one forced you to ever participate in a bad coin.  If you really want to avoid "scam" coins, then don't invest in them.  Do some research before you get involved in something, and properly assess the risks you are taking by jumping on a coin.

By the way, your sign off "Think clearly, not deeply" is the biggest joke I've ever seen.  If you're not thinking deeply, you shouldn't be involved in developing a new currency.

Already doing! There will be a CPU channel [with scientific validity], a GPU channel [custom algorithm being decided by community], and POS channel.

Good Thinking 

~Videlicet

you can make it multi-algo too, like myriadcoin or saffroncoin

combined with POS, it would be a first 

This seems to be a bit of consensus here, Thank You for your input. What do you suggest be done to deter ASIC/FPGA off the GPU channel other than large memory requirements?


When I wrote miner a day ago, I found the the formula (root^1/3 + difficulty) worked quite well [to get average chain length per root digits]. Difficulty could then be a number (700) for starters. I then had difficulty modulation based on average block time, and time between blocks [set to 15 second target] and it ran all night with a continuous average time of 15 seconds [of course increasing the root over this time]. It seemed to be stable, but was created more as a test to how difficult it would be to implement scientifically valid POW.

The second option is to have hash be at specific target [like normal], but nNonce values to produce hash have to fall into a specific pattern [hailstone, goldbach, etc]. This will keep scientific validity, but retain hashing security. This could even have two layers of difficulty [nNonce requirement, hash target requirement].



This could work - but the only way to "prevent" is not by eliminating possibility, but by making the profits of such a scheme minimized. The way this can be done, would be through the channels. Let us say that coin X is verified by Coinshield Community, and coin Y clones it. Coin Y will have an exchange channel opened, because coin X community noticed the forgery. Coin Y having been newly launched will not have much value in the Coinshield Channels [because it is a case of forgery, and has no longevity as a coin]. This will deter such acts, for in order for anyone to make any sort of money with such a scheme, they would need to make an innovative coin [in order to survive forgery scrutiny, build a value, then destroy with profits]. This is the expense for profits, for why would anyone spend time to innovate just to petition their own destruction? [let alone be able to convince the community that this innovation needs to die].

As a community we can work together to create an environment of decency, respect, and quality.

EDIT: slight restructuring / rewording after last proofread

~Videlicet

I really hope we don't end up with a Flyingtoes Coin now.

great thread I'm probably far too noob to be much use tbh but i'll throw some input in if anything springs up

kinda like the dump shitcoins to build buy walls idea

Videlicet and I have discussed this very scenario and came up with a way to prevent this from happening. The systems trade algorithm will prevent shitcoins from purposely dumping on us. I'll have Videlicet explain the details behind his code when he takes a breather from his coding session.
Thank you
~KryptoKash

Yes, this is a summary of what happens to the shitcoins from the OP:

The Death Of The Shitcoin.... Oh Did I Forget To Mention You Earn Even More Money From This?
You might be asking yourself why does Coinshield want your shitcoins? Well as it turns out we don't. As soon as the system gets them, they are automatically transferred to the nearest exchange! (Okay maybe not the nearest but the one with the highest buy order). Once in that exchange, they are dumped on that buy order. This will not only begin to crash their value, it will also generate Bitcoins! The Coinshield Exchange System will then use these Bitcoins to build buy walls. Coinshield does not just destroy a shitcoin, it also absorbs their economy! Remember those shitcoins you traded to us for Coinshield? Well not only did we use them to kill that coin we also used them to raise the value of the coins we gave you.

A very intriguing concept!

Just one flaw I can think of: if CoinShield takes off, the usual suspects will change their 'business model' to deliberately creating crapcoins to dump on Coinshield. Back in the days of J.D. Rockefeller, old J.D. had the idea of monopolizing the refinery sector by buying out Standard competitors at a premium. One joker saw that he could build refineries and make a quick profit by selling into Standard's open offer. Reportedly he built three before J.P found out.

OP, are you muddafudda?

OK. I'm not sure if I understand how the difficulty will be adjusted.
What I understood from wikipedia the max number of steps in a sequence is related to the size (number of digits) of the starting number, and as you wrote when the digits increase the longer series also more common. What can be problematic is when we are searching for a longer series than it's possible to achieve with the starting number.
Quote from Wiki:
I didn't read the full article yet but it's also important to know the relation between the size of the starting number and the probability to find  a fixed number of steps.
(Again I want to mention here that I'm not a mathematician )