Topic: Nexus - Pure SHA3 + CPU/GPU + nPoS + 15 Active Innovations + More to Come - page 383. (Read 785514 times)

deletecoin 2.0? not exactly new, but ok

i want to see it in action, the last time it didn't work at all

Sounds interesting...

Exchange shit coin with CoinShield.. Then will you sell the shit coin on the market?

scrypt jane sucks  (need a lot of ram - high power usage)

Groestl algo seems to be a good choice for me or Qubit for example

Now is the time to suggest anything you feel we need to change. The next update on the OP (which will be in the next few days) will show you what we improved!   

This is a very good suggestion, Thank You!

I will be releasing in next few days what I've chosen for GPU channel based on community's input. [This will be for assessment if anyone has any more suggestions  ].

~Videlicet

I really like the idea of this coin! Hopefully it will take off.


Have you considered using Scrypt-Jane for GPU mining?

It has an adaptive N-Factor like Scrypt-N but can use up to 7 different hashing algorithms compared to Scrypt-N which only uses 1.

Coinshield has now been added to the Coin Calendar! Good luck with the launch, we've linked through to your website and kept information in relation to your coin LINK

Hailstone series is when number is even, divide by 2. When number is odd, multiply by 3 and add 1 [ex. 6, 3, 10, 5, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1]. This series will go on until it eventually reaches 1... the unproven part of it, is that it has not been proven that infinite Hailstone series exist. This was just a starting point to get a good idea of how hard it would be to implement new CPU POW, and it is actually easier than I expected.

I have been leaning towards Goldbach's Conjecture, which states that any integer greater than two is the sum of two primes, and that any integer greater than five is the sum of three primes. This leads me to question as to the existence of four primes/so on [this could open more doorways in the future]. The reason I am leaning towards this Conjecture, is it is the core of RSA encryption, and if proven either way will impact Cryptography significantly.

As for starting point, that is a better idea to use block hash [my plan was over complicated, of course]. I am also thinking of having a secondary requirement where miner has to submit X digits of transcendental number (Phi, Pi, or E) along with the block POW. This could add some depth to the network, as the block chain could store all digits of said number [very useful to number theorists].

EDIT: Difficulty is regulated by logarithm of root, added to the difficulty value [longer series become more common as digits increase]

What do you think?
~Videlicet

I like the idea and sounds very interesting (though I'm not a mathematician). Can you give us more details on the Hailstone Sequence miner? The difficulty would be the length (steps) of the sequence? The starting number will be based on the block hash?

Great idea, I like this.

Good luck guys!

So, I require the [opinion] of the community.

Wrote a Hailstone Sequence Miner, [to calculate Collatz numbers in Series], it works, difficulty too.

A] Does anyone have any other ideas of a mathematical series that can be used?
B] Should we stay with Reicoin [or maybe implement Hailstone] for the CPU channel?

I would love some [input]
So I can produce more [output]  

~Videlicet

EDIT: reorganized slightly

I re-wrote the OP. I tried to explain the entire process as best as I could. Sorry guys, Videlicet tends to get lost in the details sometimes. This should clear up any confusion.

Ah yes, I understand you now. You are welcome to direct suggestions to KryptoKash on definition of terms, and we can modify the OP to reflect just that [as you are currently the only public opinion concerning this matter].

~Videlicet

Ah, sorry, I should have been more explicit.

I intended the meaning to be "develop your own understanding of the consequences of failing to define your terms" and that's what I should have written.

Cheers,

Graham

Or by being able to accurately interpret the communities understanding, as we are only a reflection of public opinion.

Thank You [Graham],
~Videlicet

Yes, you're right, time to get back to work. I had hoped to persuade you of the folly of failing to define your terms; on reflection I realise you'll undoubtedly gain more all-round benefit by developing your own understanding.

Good luck with it all.

Cheers,

Graham

I hate being taken away from my wonderful world of code, but this question needed an appropriate answer [I like your thinking Graham].

I appreciate an intelligible conversation, but for cannibalizing this is not. We are giving the community the choices of a better option for an investment. The way Coin Shield is designed is to be a "return" to cover your losses if you have gotten taken into a bad investment, remember "Protecting Quality in Crypto Currencies". I have been tirelessly working on the code for about 8 weeks now, to fully understand how it works, and develop my own modifications that I feel would be an asset to a currency. Coin Shield does not need to destroy a coin to go anywhere, that is just an [option] people now have to use if they feel it is necessary - this is why I say it is all up to the community.

I am not one to determine what coins should stay or go, I only realize that at this moment in time, it is the wild west out here, and I hope we can all join together through a cause to bring some order in this chaos. I believe personally this will create a new breeding ground of quality, and that in the future, speculators would not turn their heads because they see things called "TomatoCoin". To me, personally, this is an insult to Satoshi, he did the heavy lifting for Bitcoin, and now everyone is ripping him off. You even speak with such a skepticism because everyone on the forum is going rampid trolling, spamming, etc [the reason I have received such scrutiny].

For me personally, I am lifting heavy things by spending 16-20 hours daily programming for the past 8 weeks, because I am following in the footsteps of Satoshi. This is our vision, to protect Satoshi's; and if anyone still cares about that, we can work together to protect it.

Think Clearly, not Deeply
~Videlicet

EDIT: The business model here is community opinion, which does not deem any coin has to be destroyed. It is entirely up to the public [people like you], to decide [if any] what coins are to be destroyed.

As the project lead, you're in a better position than I to assess the relative risks.


I think we're at cross-purposes, I'll present a more abstract view:

The entire business model for this altcoin is predicated on the continuous cannibalisation of other altcoins, declared to be "shitcoin". The context thus capriciously forces a choice where otherwise none would exist - see previous threads for several "let's kick shitcoin butt" coins, none of which were able to develop a widely-accepted target acquisition method.

Here, this is overcome by the creation of a restrictive contest frame that artificially forces the acquisition of a target. It's an ugly contest in which the first prize is extinction. Responsibility for the consequences is abrogated to a group of forum subscribers, apparently as proxy for "the community".

We could just cut to the chase, renaming it CannibalisingCoin to more accurately reflect reality; it's an altcoin that can only survive by feeding off other altcoins declared to be "shitcoin". Hence my keen interest in the definition of foodcoin shitcoin.

Could you give an idea of how many altcoins are intended to be consumed over a period of say, the first year? Or is that something I should be deriving for myself from the arithmetic provided?

Cheers,

Graham

Would you care to give a more detailed explanation on what adjustments should be made?

EDIT: I would like to point out, that it will be the community deciding the definition of [shit]coin, and the definition of what is acceptable. This will require them to state their best argument and support it with any and all facts in the petition/appeal. The purpose of us as the developers is to accurately reflect the community's voice through the software I develop, and the community that will grow on coinshieldtalk.org.

~Videlicet

I infer the above to be an ad hoc response. I appreciate we're conversing across a language barrier here and that you are doing far more work than I am but I don't think you mean “proof”, do you? You mean "argument", i.e. subjective rather than objective, opinion rather than fact.

You evidently have the arithmetic down cold but your declared project goals are, in practice, abandoned to the whim of the coinshield forum subscribers. I choose the more precise label because holders of coins disapproved of (for arbitrary reasons) by the coinshield subscribers also warrant recognition as a community. You apparently wish to tar the coin holders with the same broad brush you use to tar the coin devisers/operators.

You are making the mistake of treating shitcoin holders as shit coinholders. They're not the same thing at all.

This is a direct consequence of you omitting to define the term SHITCOIN, even though you use it freely as central plank of your story (support for your claims is noticeably absent from your post). You will likely discover the magnitude of this error the first time you openly and deliberately attempt organised manipulation of trading at an exchange in order to drive down the price and thus the worth of people's investments. (That is, more or less, your stated intention is it not?)

I recommend you adjust your budget to accommodate the consequences of collateral damage.


Cheers

Graham