I have many ideas related to a DAC that may offer a completely decentralized market to humans, based on p2p and Keyhotee.

The market would be something similar to eBay/Bitmit/Amazon, and would allow:

• The creation of virtual stores, associated with Keyhotee IDs
• The posibility to sell without stores for non-profesional (still a Keyhotee ID is required).
• Sellers can publish with or without fee. By paying a fee he/she obtains certain attractive benefits.
• Comisions and revenew would go directly to the shareholders of the DAC
• In my original idea, there are no real miners as we understand today, but there will be "servers". One person can dedicate part of their internet conection, or contract a VPS, and he would obtain shares of the Market DAC, proportional to how much he served, which then can return to him/her in the form of dividends, or by selling their share.
• A reputation system for sellers/buyers based on Keyhotee
• Escrow services. Anyone can register as an escrow entity and win the commissions related to their assigned escrow services. Of course escrowers will have their associated reputation too.
• Open API with main interface in Javascript, so anyone can use the system directly from their browsers.
• Of course a QT application would be feasible too, with advanced capabilities, specially for big sellers.

Please contact me if you are interested, we could start to program intermediately after the first alpha of bitshares is released, or even start to settle down the ideas right now, design the system, etc. The opportunities are big!

What would happen is some miner with ambitions to grab the entire market would pay Amazon's Mechanical Turk to have all of the private keys revealed and cached for when they are required.    It would be a lot of work, but once done would grant them all of the blocks.   Amazon would probably pay $0.05 per solution which means for $1 million dollars you would be able to 'own' $10 million dollars worth of blocks.     Perhaps you could scale it to billions of items...

Well, that means that person has to have $1 million dollars first. And then decide to invest on this. A very unlikely thing.
Putting the captchas is a better solution than just letting mine alone, because he can invest just $100,000 and have 70% of all the mining power.
(Note that with $100,000 you can rent 10,000  32 core computers in amazon for 10 hours, giving each of them around 700c/m, enough to obtain most of the bitshares.)

There is no point in debating the human-interrupt designs because they are all based upon secrets (the digital value represented by the turing test) and a DAC cannot keep secrets.   This system can only work with a central authority keeping the secrets and signing validation receipts which are then included in block headers.

Conclusion, human in the loop systems are fundamentally centralized and would also be farmed out to Amazon's Mechanical Turk.

Just thinking about this:

Imagine you put an enormous database of captchas, something like 20 million ones in a public database accesible via p2p, and not tied to any particular server.
Every captcha has a public key, and a private key, but the private key is in the drawing.
So for every region that is going to be mined, a mathematical formula drives the miner to the captcha corresponding to the public key derived from the region signature. Then the miner must manually introduce the private key drawn in the captcha before he can proceed to mine.
The only way to automate the introduction of the private key in the captcha is by manually have a team of humans that spend a lot of time in manually introducing the captchas they are going to mine.
You can optimize the requirement of the introduction of the captcha to be something like once every hour for the average computer. This algo would mean that mining is actually a process in which a human must be involved, so only people really interested would mine.

Quote from: liberman on November 22, 2013, 10:46:58 am

Quote from: Sy on November 22, 2013, 09:13:43 am

Don't be so concerned about botnets and ec2, botnets were and will always be out there, just accept it, if you got the criminal energy to control a 100k+ botnet you can mine whatever you like no matter what you do - this is starting to become a DRM vs warez analogy which always ended bad for the important part, the user / customer. And ec2 is always only a viable option at the beginning, it is not cost effective pretty soon unless you front a serious amount of cash which in turn could have bought rigs aswell - same same but different

EC2 is all right, as you have to pay for it. The only inconvenience is that at the end the money goes to Amazon.
But botnets... how can we accept those? Do we want criminals to be part of our organization?
I don't like the idea of sharing my parts with such people. And the more shares they STEAL, the less we decent people have.

Unless you come up with an idea how to prevent a botcontrolled pc from mining but a normal one not without crippling everything and making the whole process a pain in the ass, thats the way it is and you are just whining because you think something is unfair - welcome to the real world.

I had an idea that I put in the other thread. I just repeat it here:

Why don't you use signed mining?
I mean: to be a miner, you must be aproved by Invictus and recive a key to be able to mine, and any client which tries to mine without being signed cannot find a block. You can also impose limits on the amount one miner can mine.
Then, after the 6 months period, you just release a new version which removes the signing requirement.
You can even sell a license to mine, but please make it cheap.

I don't exactly know how this could be implemented, but I'm sure you can think ways.

And another answer from BitMinerN8:

I also had this idea on my way driving to work this morning. It's great to have so many people thinking about it. I don't have it fully fleshed out either, but I think we can all agree that we don't want it centralized. There needs to be some method of Mining Contracts or Mining DAC's that utilize Keyhotee ID's. Something that tied mining availability, the right to work, to a reward system. This along with difficulty keeps it from spinning out of control.

Quote from: liberman on November 21, 2013, 04:42:56 pm

Ey! This gave me a better idea! 

Why don't you use signed mining?
I mean: to be a miner, you must be aproved by Invictus and recive a key to be able to mine, and any client which tries to mine without being signed cannot find a block. You can also impose limits on the amount one miner can mine.
Then, after the 6 months period, you just release a new version which removes the signing requirement.
You can even sell a license to mine, but please make it cheap.

I don't exactly know how this could be implemented, but I'm sure you can think ways.

I also had this idea on my way driving to work this morning. It's great to have so many people thinking about it. I don't have it fully fleshed out either, but I think we can all agree that we don't want it centralized. There needs to be some method of Mining Contracts or Mining DAC's that utilize Keyhotee ID's. Something that tied mining availability, the right to work, to a reward system. This along with difficulty keeps it from spinning out of control. I'll post more as I think of it, just brainstorming for now.

Yeah very nice. Please keep us informed of your thinkings.
But it should be bytemaster the one who oversight this.

Quote from: bytemaster on November 17, 2013, 07:38:02 pm

Several other people have been reporting this compile error and yet I have never seen it on any OS (Linux, Mac or Windows).    What version of gcc are you using?  I compile using gcc-4.8 on OS X and 4.7 on Linux.

gcc 4.8.2 and boost 1.55 as you can see (it doesn't even start to compile with boost libraries included in my distro Arch).

It seems to be a problem with boost. Version 1.54 doesn't compile with newer versions of glibc, and 1.55 has the above problem. The problem with arch is that it usually has the newest version of everything so this things may happen very often.

Ey! This gave me a better idea! 

Why don't you use signed mining?
I mean: to be a miner, you must be aproved by Invictus and recive a key to be able to mine, and any client which tries to mine without being signed cannot find a block. You can also impose limits on the amount one miner can mine.
Then, after the 6 months period, you just release a new version which removes the signing requirement.
You can even sell a license to mine, but please make it cheap.

I don't exactly know how this could be implemented, but I'm sure you can think ways.

While some people may not like the effects of cloud mining, at least it was equal opportunity for anyone who can follow the instructions laid out in the forums.  Unfortunately there is another class of attack, the botnet.  Botnet operators steal computing power and electricity from other people so they can mine and as a result they can bring thousands of computers to mine for the network.   Botnet operators are generally looking to make a profit and therefore have little incentive to see a currency destroyed, but they still manage to make it more difficult for honest individuals to 'fairly' mine shares.  There are opportunity costs associated with running a botnet and so botnet operators generally dump the mined shares immediately. 

Still there could be botnets interested even if the reward is going to happen 6 months later.

For avoiding this, I have an idea that you can consider:
Most botnets are Windows infected machines. So release your miners only for Linux, and make sure that porting to Windows is difficult. Of course, the clients are available for Windows too, but with no mining capability. For those using Windows machines, they could install easily an Ubuntu virtual machine in their Virtual Box.
This alone should stop botnets for some time, and would reduce the number of them in the long term, but also will encourage that supporters of your project are technically knowing what they are doing, so at the end this would stop both botnets and noobs who come only for the money.