196
MemoryCoin / Re: MemoryCoin on reddit
« on: April 15, 2014, 04:42:50 pm »Yeah I need to find out who owns it.Pretty sure it's Freetrade
[/quote]
Oh - I thought it was you! Not me.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
[/quote]
Oh - I thought it was you! Not me.
197
MemoryCoin / Re: What's the latest version of MemoryCoin wallet?
« on: April 15, 2014, 04:41:14 pm »I would prefer that freetrade agree to keep maintaining the client and be part of the community. It is up to him. Invitation sent and waiting for reply......
I don't see it as a particularly pressing issue. Really quite a small attack area and MC not a big target for an attack. The client should be updated though . . . i'm interested to see if our elected officers can organize it.
198
BitShares AGS / Re: Bitshares AGS and new DACs
« on: April 15, 2014, 04:36:48 pm »
AGS and PTS are like having two children.
I can't imagine favoring one over another.
But remember, each represents a constituency that DAC developers will wish to court.
One gained their stake by mining or purchasing. The other by funding real infrastructure.
Will developers wish to attract the support of one group more than the other?
We'll see what the market decides!
What's the expectation about third party DAC's distributing to AGS holders? I'd understood that a TPDAC needed to distribute 10% to PTS holders to enjoy 3I support - but is there some expectation wrt AGS now too?
I'm looking at this graphic - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325261.msg6165896#msg6165896
199
General Discussion / Re: Airdrop Ideas
« on: April 12, 2014, 02:31:28 pm »- I think you had it right in another post that market is coming round to developers getting a fairer share for their work. A developer who got 5% pre-mine would be seen much better in the eyes of the community than developers who organised a big airdrop in such a way that it left them with a 5% stake because of unclaimed shares.
Agree - also recommend a vesting period for a dev premine200
General Discussion / Re: Airdrop poll?
« on: April 12, 2014, 02:24:53 pm »vesting period might weed out the impatient opportunists
Random vesting periods for each address might help to stanch the flow of dumping too.
201
General Discussion / Re: Airdrop poll?
« on: April 12, 2014, 02:21:55 pm »How do we create a "natural selection" process which
selects for people who will save and support and
selects against those who will grab and dump.
One way might be to have small amounts distributed to a wide range of addresses (a small fixed amount, not in proportion to the size of the address's holding on another blockchain). If the amount is small enough, most users will ignore it as it won't be worth the effort to claim and dump it . . . . by the time it is worth it, it will have a history of price increase so you'll have a better chance of users holding onto it.
202
General Discussion / Re: Airdrop poll?
« on: April 12, 2014, 10:37:02 am »I didnt claim either, but, as i understand it MMC are always there to be claimed if the value were to rise.
That's right. There was only a 1% distribution with MMC so I don't think it affected supply that much . . . . but if a large amount 50%+ was going into a general airdrop, you'd have a constant large downward price pressure as more and more users figured out how to bring their coins online and (likely) sell them.
I'm arguing for a minimal registration action on another thread, but the half-life idea works too although more code required to implement.
203
General Discussion / Re: Airdrop Ideas
« on: April 12, 2014, 10:30:30 am »
I suggest requiring a minimal action for holders in other chains to be eligible for the airdrop - maybe sending 1 satoshi to a registration address.
This would give you an audience of interested, capable and engaged users, rather than passive holders, or exchanges, or lost coins.
Simply distributing to all holders will create large downward price pressure . . . most won't bother to look into it at the outset, but every time the price goes up, it becomes worthwhile to sell, creating a new wave of sellers.
Also I suggest skipping BTC and LTC too - you'll find the more adventurous and open investors with larger positions in other coins.
Another suggestion is to cut off the top and bottom of the distribution, so not distributing for very small holdings, and maybe putting a cap on for very large holdings.
Also distributing to specific active individuals - coin devs, marketing, service owners etc could be a good idea - but with a long vesting period . . maybe two years . . . sure they could sell their private keys, but that's a risky purchase.
This would give you an audience of interested, capable and engaged users, rather than passive holders, or exchanges, or lost coins.
Simply distributing to all holders will create large downward price pressure . . . most won't bother to look into it at the outset, but every time the price goes up, it becomes worthwhile to sell, creating a new wave of sellers.
Also I suggest skipping BTC and LTC too - you'll find the more adventurous and open investors with larger positions in other coins.
Another suggestion is to cut off the top and bottom of the distribution, so not distributing for very small holdings, and maybe putting a cap on for very large holdings.
Also distributing to specific active individuals - coin devs, marketing, service owners etc could be a good idea - but with a long vesting period . . maybe two years . . . sure they could sell their private keys, but that's a risky purchase.
204
MemoryCoin / Re: [CHA] Collecting suggestions
« on: April 09, 2014, 08:32:49 am »Does MVTEchao4RjkTTyjMcYf8dnpQ7BqJdNVhr go directly to peacegeeks.org ?
Yes it does, but they haven't worked out how to import their private key yet. At current value, it's probably not worth it to them just yet.
205
DAC PLAY / Re: Bitshares Lotto FAQ
« on: April 06, 2014, 09:36:21 am »Yes, agree, I think I missed the bright ideas from bytemaster.
How about the ticket transactions vote for some from BOD, and not too many so could easy be collected.
Yes, I think while finding a trustworthy entity to make the draw might be workable, a problem it introduces is that the entity might be leant on (by government or criminals). So some decentralized way to choose a trusted agent would be important if going this way.
206
DAC PLAY / Re: Players vs Shareholders
« on: April 06, 2014, 09:10:37 am »
Lotto/Keno DAC/currency has some advantages too -
1 potentially better returns (conceivably 99% returned to players),
2 faster (potentially draw every block)
3 you earn money on your investment while not playing
I think a small play on the lottery is a perfect rational action given the excitement it provides. Only when an individual is overspending does it become a 'tax on stupidity'
1 potentially better returns (conceivably 99% returned to players),
2 faster (potentially draw every block)
3 you earn money on your investment while not playing
I think a small play on the lottery is a perfect rational action given the excitement it provides. Only when an individual is overspending does it become a 'tax on stupidity'
207
DAC PLAY / Re: Use bitcoin block hash as source of random number
« on: April 05, 2014, 07:58:24 am »
I think using bitcoin chain is enough for a start DAC, but I guess we could never achieve the goal of beyond bitcoin after lotto growing large.
It would be an improvement - but an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary one. Current cost to throw away a Bitcoin block is about $12K I think, so you'd need to have a big bet to make this a worthwhile attack.
Say a pool operator had a 10K bet on red . . . it might be worthwhile suppressing a block that came up black, waiting for a new block to arrive that was red, and still with the ability to release the suppressed block if another red block is found by someone else with a 50/50 chance to get it into the block chain.
It's a pretty fanciful scenario, with a very limited number of people able to pull it off - but I think removing even the possibility of this kind of attack lends credibility to a gaming DAC.
208
DAC PLAY / Re: Lotto POS alt-coin idea
« on: April 05, 2014, 07:46:13 am »
It's a fine idea - it has a precedent in the real world - something called 'Prize Bonds' -
http://www.prizebonds.ie/
Essentially interest is paid on cash investment - but the interest is not awarded uniformally, but rather each bond has a chance of winning some of the prizes - so potentially you might have a very small investment, but win a very large prize.
You might implement it in a DAC so that each player has a small chance of winning, but a small chance of losing too - or a small percentage reduction of balances each drawing. You might also have two classes of coin in the system - one that plays for prizes, one that doesn't - that would address BM's important point.
Overall, it would be easier to implement than the lottery, but the lottery would generate more excitement and interest.
http://www.prizebonds.ie/
Essentially interest is paid on cash investment - but the interest is not awarded uniformally, but rather each bond has a chance of winning some of the prizes - so potentially you might have a very small investment, but win a very large prize.
You might implement it in a DAC so that each player has a small chance of winning, but a small chance of losing too - or a small percentage reduction of balances each drawing. You might also have two classes of coin in the system - one that plays for prizes, one that doesn't - that would address BM's important point.
Overall, it would be easier to implement than the lottery, but the lottery would generate more excitement and interest.
209
DAC PLAY / Re: Bitshares Lotto FAQ
« on: April 04, 2014, 08:25:12 am »This means I would probably stick with letting the BOD do the drawing because they have a 99% uptime guarantee and are generally trusted. As long as a single one is honest you are ok.
Think this is probably the best approach put forward so far, but still feels like there might be a better trustless solution.
210
DAC PLAY / Re: Bitshares Lotto FAQ
« on: April 02, 2014, 11:16:53 am »With something like mining with heavy hash power applied you are more likely to profit by submitting the block than holding out hoping to win the lottery. After all, what are the chances that you could find 2 blocks before the rest of the network finds 1 relative to your chances of winning with the block you found?
So from my perspective a mining based approach creates a decentralized random factor that is probably good enough.
Let's say we have a pool operator with 30% of the hash power, betting heavily on a 50/50 event . . . discarding some blocks could be very profitable - this is the case I wanted to guard against with a generalized solution for provable fairness in decentralized games of chance.
Without mining I could see something along the lines of each member of the BOD generating a secret random number in advance, revealing the hash of the network. Then after the designated drawing block all members of the BOD reveal their secret key. The secrets are all hashed together along with the hash of one block header of the drawing block.
With this particular structure the BOD would be committing to their secrete numbers long before the hash of the drawing block could be known. The only way to rig the drawing is for the BOD members to collude. If even one member is honest and keeps their information secret then the others are SOL.
I agree - this would be better than a single benevolent entity. In addition, the block hash could be used, so that colluding members would also need mining power for an attack. I wonder how we'd proceed if one of the required trusted members stopped co-operating. Also it still leaves open a potential attack route . . . . better if there was none, but perhaps that is a technically impossible requirement.
