Topic: Proposal for multigenerational token architecture (Read 2087 times)

Interesting, but how do you plan on reconciling the hyperspatial hash-cascades, especially in the face of multiphasic avalanche? I would expect the Kullback-Leibler divergence in any such system would tend to infinity. The result would indubitably carry a non-trivial risk of oedipal collision with the motherbase-prime and, accordingly, an attacker employing Pollard's less popular kangaroo vis-à-vis your euclidean multi-metric could identify vari-wallet Nash-distinguishers against the lineage in constant time (assuming a tradeoff with a very modest log n quantum pre-computation step and n-th Ackermann order storage), certainly no one here needs any explanation as to why this would be a terrible outcome.

I recently read of a system described in an IEEE journal which could potentially be profitably incorporated into a mining system for such a multigenerational token architecture as you describe which might address some of these challenges, or alternatively, applied by an attacker in order to achieve negative time compromises. If combined with a retroencabulator, the potential for cross-chain synergy would be unprecedented.

Perhaps you should consider it.

For the sake of argument:

Can anyone summarize what ArtForz did to solid coin versus what Luke did to CoiledCoin?

I have had this idea banging in my head for a while.

But first...
It's kind of odd for me with my Anon tendencies (I create technologies and memes that explode in your ears) looking at the nasty whitehat destruction that Luke-Jr pulled. I say it's odd because I wouldn't be in any community that didn't have people willing to attack it from within. I can only wonder at Luke's reasoning, but I witnessed Anons attack their own several times though not in a destructive way, rather simply to cause temporary hesitation. But that was too far.

THAR CAN BE ONLEE WAN! - Luke Dash Jar Jar

A 6 hr protest at most and then move on. Blackhats disrupt. Whitehats destroy. Nation building space crusader. Christ Almighty.

/rant

I've been thinking a while about a mined token architecture involving multiple token bases.

1. Suppose you have a given difficulty for generating a Bitcoin and by some luck you generate a coin that would qualify at a larger difficulty. We can call that birthpoint.

2. The new token base would need a birthkey to make payments between one token base and the other impossible. The birthkey would be generated and converted into an address which would then be the token type identifier. Then the birthkey is thrown away. The birthchain is recorded.

3. Quantities are signed with that address / token type identifier.

4. The initial difficulty for a new token base would then be as follows:
w = birth threshold
x = difficulty of the motherbase
y = difficulty of the birthpoint
z =  collective age of a wallet relative to a motherbase
   = sum of (children * lineage of children * amount of each child base) for each lineage in a wallet
bitcoin would be generation 0

a = y / x = relative difficulty ratio
b = a / w = how difficult the birth was
c = x / b = the reference difficulty
difficulty = (c + zb) = xw/a + za/w = x^2w/y + zy/w = (x^2w^2 + zy^2)/yw

The value of a wallet then would be the Euclidean length of all currencies sharing one eldest motherbase.

A^2 + B^2 + C^2 ... = V^2

5. This should satisfy both the necessity for diversity to prevent abuse of power which Luke Jr demonstrated and also Luke Jr's concerns (I can only guess) that perhaps arbitrary low difficulty beginnings are bad.

6. Also it allows you to intentionally create new token bases that are of higher initial difficulty. "Hoarders" and early adopters might like a token base with higher difficulty which would result in a more stable price and would be glad to let go of those bitcoins they are sitting on to acquire it.

Crypto-currency alchemy. /bows