Update: creating a snapshot of p2pkh transactions and claiming from it with signed messages appears to work.
TODO:
* support for other transaction types
* multisig
* p2sh
* miscellaneous scripts
* support for specifying block height to take snapshot at
* fork bitcoin core to wire in snapshot-taking code (I've done this locally, but building it is a pain... I've hand-edited makefiles)
After those are done, I'm going to test it on the live blockchain, and also create a snapshot from the same block that Bill White did, so I can do a comparison of our snapshots.
After that, I'm going to create a proof-of-concept spinoff of another cryptocurrency, which of course is the real goal.
Optimistically, I'll be done in a month. Pessimistically, I'll be done by the end of the year.
Topic: Spin-offs: bootstrap an altcoin with a btc-blockchain-based initial distribution - page 3. (Read 53561 times)
October 13, 2015, 06:47:44 PM
October 05, 2015, 01:15:41 PM
The thread started with the example of Ethereum being copied to Æthereum except with Bitcoin's distribution. If such a thing were to happen, would Æthereum be a "spin-off" of Bitcoin or a "spin-off" of Ethereum? It was clear to me that it would be a spin-off of Bitcoin, not Ethereum. However, I think YarkoL may have meant "the original" to refer to Ethereum in this example.
We haven't established the nomenclature yet, so
your interpretation is as good as mine.
However, the point remains that the original vision is to render
the production of genuinely innovative alternative blockchains
economically unsound because they can be spun off easily.
Now if that vision were to become reality, developers would
have incentive to base the initial distribution of their coin
on Bitcoin right from the start. But in that world, would we call them spin-offs
any longer? Wouldn't they just be "new coins" or something?...
I agree that the nomenclature isn't fixed yet. Incidentally, I got involved in this thread because I am developing a Bitcoin spin-off (Qeditas), and I certainly intend to call it a spin-off. People on this thread convinced me that I needed to include p2sh addresses for it to qualify as a spin-off. This was somewhat painful since it required me to implement the Bitcoin script language, but I did it.
There's a separate pre-announcement thread about Qeditas with more details. It hasn't launched yet.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pre-ann-qeditas-a-formal-library-as-a-bitcoin-spin-off-998559
October 05, 2015, 12:12:36 PM
The thread started with the example of Ethereum being copied to Æthereum except with Bitcoin's distribution. If such a thing were to happen, would Æthereum be a "spin-off" of Bitcoin or a "spin-off" of Ethereum? It was clear to me that it would be a spin-off of Bitcoin, not Ethereum. However, I think YarkoL may have meant "the original" to refer to Ethereum in this example.
We haven't established the nomenclature yet, so
your interpretation is as good as mine.
However, the point remains that the original vision is to render
the production of genuinely innovative alternative blockchains
economically unsound because they can be spun off easily.
Now if that vision were to become reality, developers would
have incentive to base the initial distribution of their coin
on Bitcoin right from the start. But in that world, would we call them spin-offs
any longer? Wouldn't they just be "new coins" or something?...
October 05, 2015, 09:37:47 AM
Very interesting. How did the aethereum thing go? I never heard anything about it tbh.
Has not been launched. There was someone a few posts back who was working on some code that can be used for æthereum or other spinoffs.
October 05, 2015, 09:35:56 AM
Very interesting. How did the aethereum thing go? I never heard anything about it tbh.
October 05, 2015, 09:22:55 AM
In my understanding, a spinoff should work exactly the same
as the original, so altering the difficulty adjustment would
just make it an "independent" altcoin.
as the original, so altering the difficulty adjustment would
just make it an "independent" altcoin.
The idea expressed by Peter R in the original post of this thread only talks about making the initial distribution in proportion to a snapshot of the Bitcoin block chain:
Since the market has already encoded its best estimate of the “most efficient distribution” into the unforgeable global ledger known as the blockchain, why not use this? Since all bitcoin users can cryptographically prove ownership of their share of bitcoins, the code-base of any alt-coin can be modified in a trivial way to allow bitcoin users to claim a share of any pre-mine in direct proportion to the percentage of bitcoin’s market cap they control. This method (a) bootstraps alt-coins with a very large potential user base, (b) places all alt-coins on equal footings thereby allowing them to compete on their own merits, (c) automatically piggybacks bitcoin investors in any financial gains that may result due to community innovation, (d) fairly rewards innovative alt-coin developers as they can scoop up spin-offs dumped cheaply on the open market, (e) makes it difficult to “pump and dump.”
Later in the thread someone referred to alt-coins that do this as "spin-offs."
I have not read anyone suggest other requirements than the initial distribution for an alt-coin to qualify as a "spin-off."
What other requirements? Can you give an example?
Yes. There is no requirement that the difficulty adjustment algorithm be the same as Bitcoin's. I was responding to the quoted post of YarkoL in which he suggested that if a coin altered the difficulty adjustment, then it should not be considered a "spin-off." In response I asserted that there are no such requirements for "spin-offs".
YarkoL said that the spin-off "should work exactly the same as the original." Now that I read this again I think I misunderstood to what "the original" was intended to refer. It's also possible some of us are using the term "spin-off" differently in this thread.
The thread started with the example of Ethereum being copied to Æthereum except with Bitcoin's distribution. If such a thing were to happen, would Æthereum be a "spin-off" of Bitcoin or a "spin-off" of Ethereum? It was clear to me that it would be a spin-off of Bitcoin, not Ethereum. However, I think YarkoL may have meant "the original" to refer to Ethereum in this example.
If someone were to develop Æthereum and make it very different from Ethereum, but started it with an initial distribution determined by the Bitcoin block chain, I would still consider Æthereum to be a spin-off of Bitcoin. It would simply have a confusing name.
October 04, 2015, 06:17:48 PM
It wasn't so much a statement of requirements (yes, if it is spins off then it is a spin-off) as much as observing that if you want to do the experiment to test the hypothesis that a coin spinning off from the Bitcoin wealth distribution would be stronger than one that doesn't, you should change as little else as possible.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
October 04, 2015, 06:12:23 PM
In my understanding, a spinoff should work exactly the same
as the original, so altering the difficulty adjustment would
just make it an "independent" altcoin.
as the original, so altering the difficulty adjustment would
just make it an "independent" altcoin.
The idea expressed by Peter R in the original post of this thread only talks about making the initial distribution in proportion to a snapshot of the Bitcoin block chain:
Since the market has already encoded its best estimate of the “most efficient distribution” into the unforgeable global ledger known as the blockchain, why not use this? Since all bitcoin users can cryptographically prove ownership of their share of bitcoins, the code-base of any alt-coin can be modified in a trivial way to allow bitcoin users to claim a share of any pre-mine in direct proportion to the percentage of bitcoin’s market cap they control. This method (a) bootstraps alt-coins with a very large potential user base, (b) places all alt-coins on equal footings thereby allowing them to compete on their own merits, (c) automatically piggybacks bitcoin investors in any financial gains that may result due to community innovation, (d) fairly rewards innovative alt-coin developers as they can scoop up spin-offs dumped cheaply on the open market, (e) makes it difficult to “pump and dump.”
Later in the thread someone referred to alt-coins that do this as "spin-offs."
I have not read anyone suggest other requirements than the initial distribution for an alt-coin to qualify as a "spin-off."
What other requirements? Can you give an example?
October 03, 2015, 01:50:53 PM
In my understanding, a spinoff should work exactly the same
as the original, so altering the difficulty adjustment would
just make it an "independent" altcoin.
as the original, so altering the difficulty adjustment would
just make it an "independent" altcoin.
The idea expressed by Peter R in the original post of this thread only talks about making the initial distribution in proportion to a snapshot of the Bitcoin block chain:
Since the market has already encoded its best estimate of the “most efficient distribution” into the unforgeable global ledger known as the blockchain, why not use this? Since all bitcoin users can cryptographically prove ownership of their share of bitcoins, the code-base of any alt-coin can be modified in a trivial way to allow bitcoin users to claim a share of any pre-mine in direct proportion to the percentage of bitcoin’s market cap they control. This method (a) bootstraps alt-coins with a very large potential user base, (b) places all alt-coins on equal footings thereby allowing them to compete on their own merits, (c) automatically piggybacks bitcoin investors in any financial gains that may result due to community innovation, (d) fairly rewards innovative alt-coin developers as they can scoop up spin-offs dumped cheaply on the open market, (e) makes it difficult to “pump and dump.”
Later in the thread someone referred to alt-coins that do this as "spin-offs."
I have not read anyone suggest other requirements than the initial distribution for an alt-coin to qualify as a "spin-off."
October 02, 2015, 05:02:32 PM
In my understanding, a spinoff should work exactly the same
as the original, so altering the difficulty adjustment would
just make it an "independent" altcoin.
as the original, so altering the difficulty adjustment would
just make it an "independent" altcoin.
October 02, 2015, 01:52:33 PM
I have posted code online for the MIDAS difficulty adjustment algorithm.
Please use it.
You know the way altcoins get rushed by miners and then left with a difficulty too high for anyone to get a block?
Or the way time warps work when someone finds a way to make the blocks come faster and faster while they have the majority of hashing power?
That's the kind of crap MIDAS is designed to prevent.
here.
http://dillingers.com/blog/2015/04/21/altcoin-difficulty-adjustment-with-midas/
Please use it.
You know the way altcoins get rushed by miners and then left with a difficulty too high for anyone to get a block?
Or the way time warps work when someone finds a way to make the blocks come faster and faster while they have the majority of hashing power?
That's the kind of crap MIDAS is designed to prevent.
here.
http://dillingers.com/blog/2015/04/21/altcoin-difficulty-adjustment-with-midas/
October 02, 2015, 11:08:33 AM
What happened? Did this idea die?
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
Fantastic! Watching.
I have a few simple lines you can add to the "ConnectBlock" function. End result is a full list of all addresses and balances.
You can also rummage in my code to see how i can convert any key from any chain to match the ones on my chain.
October 02, 2015, 07:20:30 AM
What happened? Did this idea die?
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
I'm glad you wrote in your blog
Quote
We already have a blockchain indicating interest in cryptocurrency, and it's called bitcoin.
So many get it the wrong way around (swap "blockchain" with "cryptocurrency")
I had a conversation with Mullick and a few others about creating a snapshot. Supposedly the way it is done is to use a Blockchain parser and create a dump file of all the balances (https://github.com/znort987/blockparser has been recommended to me multiple times). Then you can create a new Coin with the same base58 key and then send Coins to the same addresses which can be redeemed with the same private keys.
October 01, 2015, 12:46:36 PM
What happened? Did this idea die?
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
I'm glad you wrote in your blog
Quote
We already have a blockchain indicating interest in cryptocurrency, and it's called bitcoin.
So many get it the wrong way around (swap "blockchain" with "cryptocurrency")
October 01, 2015, 12:21:50 PM
There is currncy CLAMS that dd this already
October 01, 2015, 12:18:01 PM
What happened? Did this idea die?
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
By the way, if you're willing to modify the C++ code for bitcoin core, the following thread might provide some helpful insights:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=647198.0;all
In particular there's this post from the thread:
FWIW, the gettxoutsetinfo rpc iterates over the utxo set, in the past when I've wanted this data I've just added some instrumentation in that function to dump it out. Even if you're not very experienced with C++ it shouldn't be to hard to emulate the rest of the code and print it out... this might be easier (and also more reliable across versions) than trying to read the data.
It's not the path I followed, but maybe I should have.
October 01, 2015, 04:26:37 AM
was at a couple of Ethereum meetups in London recently which just gave me the impression that despite their great ideas they as a team are disorganized and indecisive (eg they keep on moving their IPO goalposts).
That actually has more to do with us trying to have a solid business structure that makes multiple categories of stakeholders happy, spend more time building the product so ether purchasers have actual working code (eg. my recent pyethereum/serpent upgrades and Gav's POC4) to see what they're getting into, and actually being regulatory-compliant. The pre-sale is the only thing that's getting pushed back; everything else is humming along quite nicely with many contracts already running on the testnet.
And $15,000,000 later...
Those bolded statements are still not true.
wow just wow September 29, 2015, 11:34:04 PM
What happened? Did this idea die?
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
Fantastic! Watching.
September 29, 2015, 11:32:45 PM
What happened? Did this idea die?
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
Well, I just quit my job and I'm going to make this work. https://github.com/sfultong/bitcoin-spinoff-toolkit
No one ever published code to actually generate the snapshot file, did they? I'm thinking I'll have to fork bitcoin core for that, and make creating a snapshot file a command in bitcoin-cli.
May 17, 2015, 03:38:07 PM
Augur to go with Ethereum? If you can't figure out how to do a sidecoin/spin-off for Augur, someone else will. Hitching your wagon to anything other than the economic majority, as cumbersome as it may seem, does such a powerful idea a disservice in my opinion. Thinking Ethereum "isn't about being money" is dangerously close to the fallacious mainstream "Forget the currency, it's all about the blockchain technology" meme.
Money makes the blocks go 'round. Ethereum will fail unless it understands that, or someone will create Aetherium, or even launch it as a sidechain. The point is that the economic majority, meaning Bitcoin holders, is where the action is. Not fixing Augur's coin distribution to Bitcoin will be needlessly hampering it in the extreme.
Money makes the blocks go 'round. Ethereum will fail unless it understands that, or someone will create Aetherium, or even launch it as a sidechain. The point is that the economic majority, meaning Bitcoin holders, is where the action is. Not fixing Augur's coin distribution to Bitcoin will be needlessly hampering it in the extreme.
Saw this a long time ago & forgot to reply ---
Not doing a spin-off any longer, gong with sidechains to Ethereum.
Ethereum != only ether, & it's entirely possible to implement a Bitcoin sidechain to ethereum (so people can use Bitcoin on Augur
). In fact, I'm going to work on doing just that starting in a couple weeks.So not a pegged sidechain but something else?
Jump to: