good job ...dear sir....all the best luck sir...
Topic: [TAU]COIN: a BTC/NXT/NEM Upgrade (Read 531 times)
You can still have tokens and not require the amount you own to be part of consensus. Proof-of-work works exactly like this.
The introduction of Proof-Of-Stake was important as an evolution and I feel like we've held on to the staking component like a vestigial organ in POI
The introduction of Proof-Of-Stake was important as an evolution and I feel like we've held on to the staking component like a vestigial organ in POI
how and where do i do this?
2. post your Telegram Username and TAU wallet address on our thread for authentication
3. get the URL of your post by clicking the # button at the top right of your post
regards mabus
2. post your Telegram Username and TAU wallet address on our thread for authentication
3. get the URL of your post by clicking the # button at the top right of your post
regards mabus
I was wrong -- its currently 3 external miners
There is a bonus for the first 11 miners - "Ocean's 11"
The mining thread discusses more
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5029267.new#new
There is a bonus for the first 11 miners - "Ocean's 11"
The mining thread discusses more
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5029267.new#new
Mining has begun -- about 4 external miners now I think. The bounty programs have been insanely popular
Pls visit TAUcoin.io for all information.
If you want to be a miner, pls join dev telegram. We will help there.
https://t.me/joinchat/ID4hShB8tUxBMpzRwGZuYg
If you want to be a miner, pls join dev telegram. We will help there.
https://t.me/joinchat/ID4hShB8tUxBMpzRwGZuYg
How to setup mining club? cause mining club is full node am i right?
i want to know about this project...how is it work and what will the price ?
I love discussions about new algorithms, no problem 
And I understand the intention of the approach.
The problem with the PoT approach is that I expect that the "poorest group" of the regular users (those that use it as a currency and not primarily to get rewards) of your currency will operate at a loss. They will transact, but their transaction count won't be enough to ensure them a really significant profit from block rewards - even if they joined a "PoT pool". So their transaction fees can't really be seen as an "investment".
The question is, then, if their loss is bigger or smaller than in PoS, where the loss can be calculated with the formula "transaction fees + value depreciation due to inflation". I believe, that as the expected transaction fees are conceptually higher, the loss will also be higher as in coin-age PoS algorithms where "the rich" have less advantages with respect to "the poor" than in fixed-reward/transaction-fee-reward (e.g. NXT) based PoS systems. So the rich-get-richer effect would be less drastic than in NXT/NEM or in DPoS-based systems, but worse than in Peercoin.
But as I said in the first post in this thread, I think for a small currency a transaction-based block reward is positive because it rewards cryptocurrency businesses to operate with it and offer services, and so strengthens the ecosystem. For me, however, it would be better to change to a normal PoS algorithm once the coin grew up, because once blocks are full, the "additional blockchain bloat effect" of PoT makes the coin more expensive to operate. A PoT/PoS system where PoT (or PoI) reward is higher in low-transaction periods, while in high transaction periods PoS rewards become dominant, would be ideal from my point of view.
We recently found if we use accumulated transaction fee as weight vs transaction number. This will reduce the incentive for speculators to issue massive transaction numbers, Sybil attack. If someone still wants to spam network by spending transaction fee, it will be economically punishment because of fees will be distribute to all club members. And I understand the intention of the approach.The problem with the PoT approach is that I expect that the "poorest group" of the regular users (those that use it as a currency and not primarily to get rewards) of your currency will operate at a loss. They will transact, but their transaction count won't be enough to ensure them a really significant profit from block rewards - even if they joined a "PoT pool". So their transaction fees can't really be seen as an "investment".
The question is, then, if their loss is bigger or smaller than in PoS, where the loss can be calculated with the formula "transaction fees + value depreciation due to inflation". I believe, that as the expected transaction fees are conceptually higher, the loss will also be higher as in coin-age PoS algorithms where "the rich" have less advantages with respect to "the poor" than in fixed-reward/transaction-fee-reward (e.g. NXT) based PoS systems. So the rich-get-richer effect would be less drastic than in NXT/NEM or in DPoS-based systems, but worse than in Peercoin.
But as I said in the first post in this thread, I think for a small currency a transaction-based block reward is positive because it rewards cryptocurrency businesses to operate with it and offer services, and so strengthens the ecosystem. For me, however, it would be better to change to a normal PoS algorithm once the coin grew up, because once blocks are full, the "additional blockchain bloat effect" of PoT makes the coin more expensive to operate. A PoT/PoS system where PoT (or PoI) reward is higher in low-transaction periods, while in high transaction periods PoS rewards become dominant, would be ideal from my point of view.
Our new whitepaper will cover this part to keep meaningless transaction attack in bay.
-iMorpheus
Yesterday I had 2100 TAU balance, today 0.000.
What happened ?
Petar Petrov
What happened ?
Petar Petrov
LOOKING FOR AN EXCHANGE LISTING FOR YOUR TOKEN?? ARE YOU WILLING TO COMPLETE AN AIRDROP THROUGH THE EXCHANGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH YOUR LISTING?
🔥 🔥 🔥 We offer you the opportunity to make an AirDrop to 50,000 (and growing) of our Exchange customers, and also add your token to our trading system (listing on Ecex.Exchange) 🔥 🔥 🔥
Listing with an Airdrop only requires one single deposit of the token to Ecex by the listing team.
Currently offering support for ERC20 tokens. Stellar integration coming soon!!! Contact us for details!
Tell us if you found us on bitcointalk!
ECEX EXCHANGE WEBSITE:
🔥 🔥https://Ecex.Exchange 🚀🔥
CONTACT ECEX BY EMAIL:
[email protected]
ECEX TWITTER PAGE:
https://twitter.com/PlanetZiggurat/
🔥 🔥 🔥 We offer you the opportunity to make an AirDrop to 50,000 (and growing) of our Exchange customers, and also add your token to our trading system (listing on Ecex.Exchange) 🔥 🔥 🔥
Listing with an Airdrop only requires one single deposit of the token to Ecex by the listing team.
Currently offering support for ERC20 tokens. Stellar integration coming soon!!! Contact us for details!
Tell us if you found us on bitcointalk!
ECEX EXCHANGE WEBSITE:
🔥 🔥https://Ecex.Exchange 🚀🔥
CONTACT ECEX BY EMAIL:
[email protected]
ECEX TWITTER PAGE:
https://twitter.com/PlanetZiggurat/
I love discussions about new algorithms, no problem And I understand the intention of the approach.
The problem with the PoT approach is that I expect that the "poorest group" of the regular users (those that use it as a currency and not primarily to get rewards) of your currency will operate at a loss. They will transact, but their transaction count won't be enough to ensure them a really significant profit from block rewards - even if they joined a "PoT pool". So their transaction fees can't really be seen as an "investment".
The question is, then, if their loss is bigger or smaller than in PoS, where the loss can be calculated with the formula "transaction fees + value depreciation due to inflation". I believe, that as the expected transaction fees are conceptually higher, the loss will also be higher as in coin-age PoS algorithms where "the rich" have less advantages with respect to "the poor" than in fixed-reward/transaction-fee-reward (e.g. NXT) based PoS systems. So the rich-get-richer effect would be less drastic than in NXT/NEM or in DPoS-based systems, but worse than in Peercoin.
But as I said in the first post in this thread, I think for a small currency a transaction-based block reward is positive because it rewards cryptocurrency businesses to operate with it and offer services, and so strengthens the ecosystem. For me, however, it would be better to change to a normal PoS algorithm once the coin grew up, because once blocks are full, the "additional blockchain bloat effect" of PoT makes the coin more expensive to operate. A PoT/PoS system where PoT (or PoI) reward is higher in low-transaction periods, while in high transaction periods PoS rewards become dominant, would be ideal from my point of view.
And I understand the intention of the approach.The problem with the PoT approach is that I expect that the "poorest group" of the regular users (those that use it as a currency and not primarily to get rewards) of your currency will operate at a loss. They will transact, but their transaction count won't be enough to ensure them a really significant profit from block rewards - even if they joined a "PoT pool". So their transaction fees can't really be seen as an "investment".
The question is, then, if their loss is bigger or smaller than in PoS, where the loss can be calculated with the formula "transaction fees + value depreciation due to inflation". I believe, that as the expected transaction fees are conceptually higher, the loss will also be higher as in coin-age PoS algorithms where "the rich" have less advantages with respect to "the poor" than in fixed-reward/transaction-fee-reward (e.g. NXT) based PoS systems. So the rich-get-richer effect would be less drastic than in NXT/NEM or in DPoS-based systems, but worse than in Peercoin.
But as I said in the first post in this thread, I think for a small currency a transaction-based block reward is positive because it rewards cryptocurrency businesses to operate with it and offer services, and so strengthens the ecosystem. For me, however, it would be better to change to a normal PoS algorithm once the coin grew up, because once blocks are full, the "additional blockchain bloat effect" of PoT makes the coin more expensive to operate. A PoT/PoS system where PoT (or PoI) reward is higher in low-transaction periods, while in high transaction periods PoS rewards become dominant, would be ideal from my point of view.
TAU's (still on-going) white paper is now online. Looking forward to hearing more feedback.
I love discussions about new algorithms, no problem And I understand the intention of the approach.
The problem with the PoT approach is that I expect that the "poorest group" of the regular users (those that use it as a currency and not primarily to get rewards) of your currency will operate at a loss. They will transact, but their transaction count won't be enough to ensure them a really significant profit from block rewards - even if they joined a "PoT pool". So their transaction fees can't really be seen as an "investment".
The question is, then, if their loss is bigger or smaller than in PoS, where the loss can be calculated with the formula "transaction fees + value depreciation due to inflation". I believe, that as the expected transaction fees are conceptually higher, the loss will also be higher as in coin-age PoS algorithms where "the rich" have less advantages with respect to "the poor" than in fixed-reward/transaction-fee-reward (e.g. NXT) based PoS systems. So the rich-get-richer effect would be less drastic than in NXT/NEM or in DPoS-based systems, but worse than in Peercoin.
But as I said in the first post in this thread, I think for a small currency a transaction-based block reward is positive because it rewards cryptocurrency businesses to operate with it and offer services, and so strengthens the ecosystem. For me, however, it would be better to change to a normal PoS algorithm once the coin grew up, because once blocks are full, the "additional blockchain bloat effect" of PoT makes the coin more expensive to operate. A PoT/PoS system where PoT (or PoI) reward is higher in low-transaction periods, while in high transaction periods PoS rewards become dominant, would be ideal from my point of view.
And I understand the intention of the approach.The problem with the PoT approach is that I expect that the "poorest group" of the regular users (those that use it as a currency and not primarily to get rewards) of your currency will operate at a loss. They will transact, but their transaction count won't be enough to ensure them a really significant profit from block rewards - even if they joined a "PoT pool". So their transaction fees can't really be seen as an "investment".
The question is, then, if their loss is bigger or smaller than in PoS, where the loss can be calculated with the formula "transaction fees + value depreciation due to inflation". I believe, that as the expected transaction fees are conceptually higher, the loss will also be higher as in coin-age PoS algorithms where "the rich" have less advantages with respect to "the poor" than in fixed-reward/transaction-fee-reward (e.g. NXT) based PoS systems. So the rich-get-richer effect would be less drastic than in NXT/NEM or in DPoS-based systems, but worse than in Peercoin.
But as I said in the first post in this thread, I think for a small currency a transaction-based block reward is positive because it rewards cryptocurrency businesses to operate with it and offer services, and so strengthens the ecosystem. For me, however, it would be better to change to a normal PoS algorithm once the coin grew up, because once blocks are full, the "additional blockchain bloat effect" of PoT makes the coin more expensive to operate. A PoT/PoS system where PoT (or PoI) reward is higher in low-transaction periods, while in high transaction periods PoS rewards become dominant, would be ideal from my point of view.
Appreciate for your deep dive. I agree “proof of transaction” might not be the best solution to achieve egalitarian. It is our experimental step to reward circulation in poorer group.
I would love to discuss the transaction speculation and cost deeper.
Through research, we discovered that POT transaction fee is not only the cost to pay for validation but also an “investment” to secure future network income. TAU harvest club will pay back fee for a one year according to your shares of history transactions. POT transaction fee has investment nature built-in. Your transaction will make your money. In contrast, POW fee goes to cost of electricity. POS fee could be viewed as interests to token holders. Both cost and interests are sunk without future cash flow. For same block size, POT transaction fee will be higher than “cost and interests” to justify its investment nature. Speculative transactions will take place in blocks to fulfill its function of fee discovery. These could be viewed as hedging investment, which is bulding block of modern financial system.
TAU is experimenting autoblock size to ride on growth of network speed to allow more transactions to flow to offset the space taken by speculative transactions. Each node can decide block size based their own network environment and risk apitite.
We are about to publish ANN in a few days to give detail in POT, harvest club and auto size.
iMorpheus, taucoin.io
I would love to discuss the transaction speculation and cost deeper.
Through research, we discovered that POT transaction fee is not only the cost to pay for validation but also an “investment” to secure future network income. TAU harvest club will pay back fee for a one year according to your shares of history transactions. POT transaction fee has investment nature built-in. Your transaction will make your money. In contrast, POW fee goes to cost of electricity. POS fee could be viewed as interests to token holders. Both cost and interests are sunk without future cash flow. For same block size, POT transaction fee will be higher than “cost and interests” to justify its investment nature. Speculative transactions will take place in blocks to fulfill its function of fee discovery. These could be viewed as hedging investment, which is bulding block of modern financial system.
TAU is experimenting autoblock size to ride on growth of network speed to allow more transactions to flow to offset the space taken by speculative transactions. Each node can decide block size based their own network environment and risk apitite.
We are about to publish ANN in a few days to give detail in POT, harvest club and auto size.
iMorpheus, taucoin.io
In our plan, the “scarce" resource is time.
The proof is on-chain historical accumulated transactions in a “harvest club”, the reward method is block transaction fees distributed back to all addresses in the club. The “time” will trace back 365 days (our current time frame selection). This shall make speculating costly and unpredictable. This pervasive, long time horizon distribution makes speculators wait one year to complete their return cycle.
I like long-term-engagement rewarding algorithms, so this looks positive for me. But I continue to have doubts about this model, see below. Can you link me to the explanation of a "harvest club"?The proof is on-chain historical accumulated transactions in a “harvest club”, the reward method is block transaction fees distributed back to all addresses in the club. The “time” will trace back 365 days (our current time frame selection). This shall make speculating costly and unpredictable. This pervasive, long time horizon distribution makes speculators wait one year to complete their return cycle.
Quote
On the flip side, there is a positive externality from speculative transactions. This will stabilize the transaction fee, just like derivatives make futures prices logical. If speculative trx exceeds 25%, they will be punished in ROI mathematically.
So basically your plan is that if users transacted only to increase their probability to find blocks, they would rise transaction costs. I fear however that the algorithm will give incentives for a kind of boom-bust cycle: when transaction fees are low, then there will be a race for cheap transactions, filling up the blocks until a certain price is reached; then the speculative harvesters will lower their activity temporarily - they have time for a year to increase their score, if I understand well. Still we have the problem that speculative transactions will lower the space available for "real transactions" - even a 25% decrease of the available space would increase the total costs of the system. Transaction fees would be, at average, higher than with PoS or PoW coins.Quote
Regarding egalitarian, the core assumption is: the wealthy (as a group) make less transactions than the poor. The wealthy spend more per transaction then the poor, but collectively as a group, the poor make more transactions. The reward set will tend to go to a group with more transactions. [...] Regarding exchange attacks, most POS models are vulnerable to this, however our novel on-chain transaction counting methods give less advantage to “hoarders”. Most exchanges work off-chain, so those will not be counted in our transactions count.
Quote
In POS, the wealthy receive a linear reward, however, in POT, collectively poor club members are much more pervasive than rich. Most exchanges will pursue the lowest possible on-chain transaction fees to retain their own commissions.
As a conclusion, my problem with this algorithm is this:
- there will be a certain amount of speculative transactions even if it's "only" 25%;
- these speculative transactions permanently pressure transaction fees to the upside, fees will be higher than in comparable PoS or PoW currencies
- the algorithm is also not egalitarian, because a sub-group of "the rich" (crypto businesses) will get most transaction fees.
I don't know if the problems are solvable, but I fear it will be difficult. And as much I would like a more "egalitarian" consensus model, I think taking transaction count as a base is not the right way.
This model has held the interest of the people in the cryptocurrency market mainly because they don't own any token. Here the issue of POW and POS arises. Since it deals with POS, the revolutionized one, it managed to look unique and interesting.
Glad you think this is worth discussing. We are now out of our stealth mode and we are actively sharing details of the project that is based on this debate. Please feel free to see more details here and stay tuned for the whitepaper and ANN in the next few days
https://medium.com/tau-foundation/bitcoin-made-digital-money-now-tau-makes-smart-money-f9648f2530da
This model has held the interest of the people in the cryptocurrency market mainly because they don't own any token. Here the issue of POW and POS arises. Since it deals with POS, the revolutionized one, it managed to look unique and interesting.
You need a "scarce" resource as a replacement where it's not too easy to game the algorithm. If "activity" is the transaction rate, then I think your concept is flawed. While it may make sense to restrict transaction rate (like Bitcoin does with its [post-segwit] 4MB blocks and other coins with a transaction limitation) and make transactions "scarce", the problem is that the "currency validators" and the users are competing for block space. Thus, the coin will run into scalability problems much earlier than Bitcoin.
It also isn't egalitarian at all, because the nodes that will benefit most are big exchange nodes with lots of transactions. That can be positive for a small altcoin where it's essential to get some services (exchanges, wallets etc.) on board, but in the case of a bigger cryptocurrency it makes an exchange hack very, very dangerous.
It also isn't egalitarian at all, because the nodes that will benefit most are big exchange nodes with lots of transactions. That can be positive for a small altcoin where it's essential to get some services (exchanges, wallets etc.) on board, but in the case of a bigger cryptocurrency it makes an exchange hack very, very dangerous.
In our plan, the “scarce" resource is time.
The proof is on-chain historical accumulated transactions in a “harvest club”, the reward method is block transaction fees distributed back to all addresses in the club. The “time” will trace back 365 days (our current time frame selection). This shall make speculating costly and unpredictable. This pervasive, long time horizon distribution makes speculators wait one year to complete their return cycle. On the flip side, there is a positive externality from speculative transactions. This will stabilize the transaction fee, just like derivatives make futures prices logical. If speculative trx exceeds 25%, they will be punished in ROI mathematically. In our ecosystem, we accept behaviors from logical rich, logical poor and speculators. For speculators group, it is a zero sum game and contained in 25%.
A new block size, that is not fixed, is in our current roadmap, but its not ready for prime-time.
Regarding egalitarian, the core assumption is: the wealthy (as a group) make less transactions than the poor. The wealthy spend more per transaction then the poor, but collectively as a group, the poor make more transactions. The reward set will tend to go to a group with more transactions.
Regarding exchange attacks, most POS models are vulnerable to this, however our novel on-chain transaction counting methods give less advantage to “hoarders”. Most exchanges work off-chain, so those will not be counted in our transactions count. In POS, the wealthy receive a linear reward, however, in POT, collectively poor club members are much more pervasive than rich. Most exchanges will pursue the lowest possible on-chain transaction fees to retain their own commissions.
Jump to: