1
Marketplace / Re: 50 PTS for sale -@ 0.011 Btc
« on: November 24, 2013, 11:27:31 am »
updated.
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.
2
Marketplace / 50 PTS for sale -@ 0.011 Btc
« on: November 22, 2013, 02:00:08 pm »
Pm or post here -
3
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 09:51:35 am »Having a very random block award with background mining might suffer a limitation that people would switch over to mining a more instantly profitable coin. One idea might be to add random pauses to the default mining rewards - just even for a few hours at a time every day (and variably so). This would make it very much more expensive for VPS instances which are often on hourly rates. Changing the algorithm randomly so that server hardware initially selected becomes much less efficient (eg by adding a transient GPU element) might add another obstacle for VPS. I'd be careful about immediately making the mining rewards far less frequent as it would be less likely for the coin to gain wider acceptance.
I posted a new Alternative DAC proposal for a PowerBall, DAC which is designed to test the theory that a large mining reward with disproportional odds to reward would cause many miners to 'solo mine' rather than pool-mine. It is an entire DAC dedicated to the idea and I suspect it would be an interesting experiment.
http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=915.msg9251#msg9251
Actually ages ago it was thrown around the bitcointalk about what to do with fees , we were saying wouldnt it be good if some fees were added up and completely randomly given to some random address , in a block .
Of course there lots of paramaters , but that was the idea .
4
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 09:48:16 am »I agree, an integrated pool is fine and Invictus will spend significant time to make sure BitShares comes with a highly reliable pool at launch with an open protocol to allow other pools to compete.
So a default miner that does mining in the background unless the user chooses to kick it up a to a higher setting and the default client that always does at least 50% solo mining to prevent against centralization. Professionals can use stand alone miners that are 100% pool based, but of course would have to find a pool willing to finance their mining for 6 months.
Overall this gives a mix of steady income, random bonus, easy to use, and automatic security.
I was going to mention this as it was my next thought after loggin off before .
Of course it wouldnt be long before there would appear a "keyotee" pool it would probably be driven by people wanting to hit the " mine button" and see something no matter how small, in return .
5
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 04:17:55 am »You assume that the attacker wants to earn money directly via PTS/BitShares. What if botnets from a different altcoin team up to attack your coin in hope that it will make their altcoin look better? There are some people on this planet that control gigantic amounts of resources nearly for free. Check Feathercoin for example, it was attacked multiple times successfully even though at the time it was very popular and there were many legitimate people mining it.What about 51% attacks? With the 6 month rule the overall hashing power will go down quite a lot compared to now. This makes it a lot easier for a single individual to pull off a successful attack.
It actually makes it harder because they could not finance the attack with the block rewards. For example, suppose someone wanted to do a 51% attack today. They could spend 100K / day on Amazon, but wouldn't be able to maintain the attack unless they had access to 100K * 180 days worth of capital.
I am not saying that this is very likely to happen, but it is definitively a possibility that has to be considered.
Use checkpoints ?
No one cares about them that whole fake " centralization" narrative was pushed by the people that hate them because they protect the blockchain .
Number one confidence killers are issues in relation to issuance .
Id rather mine a checkpointed cryptocurrency than not .
6
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 04:11:51 am »Ok im clear on that now , but if the mining client is just a modified version of a miner set to follow these rules, thats fine , I understand the attempt to distribute , and its novel.
But lets say ok a base of users take this up, now we have a% of distributed mining power .
I will calculate that this be a " passive" free matket % on top of the then dedicated miners .
Which will recompile and release , with the adjusted time settings .
This passive mining power could help against attack but .
7
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 02:57:54 am »
As I just braised this topic , so im clear
The only change to the PoW mechanisim will be in this " timing" factor ?
Effectivly of course there would be much recompiling of the miners and individuals running multiple instances , but where im not clear is around this idea of a " background run " client .
Perhaps I will read the topic ha ha .
The only change to the PoW mechanisim will be in this " timing" factor ?
Effectivly of course there would be much recompiling of the miners and individuals running multiple instances , but where im not clear is around this idea of a " background run " client .
Perhaps I will read the topic ha ha .
8
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 02:51:35 am »
If i had to rate this as policy , its pretty good , especially if the user has the option to incrementally cash out with a penalty .
9
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 02:48:46 am »
In any system , if a managing entity has to or consensus intends to provide direction , it is always best from a policy setting to do this though phased incentives .
On the " phased incentive" rule book , you could look at banning something as a failure .
So you start at a failure if you are proposing to ban anything from a policy point of view .
Then you phase incentives , and the better and more phased , the better and more effective your policy .
On the " phased incentive" rule book , you could look at banning something as a failure .
So you start at a failure if you are proposing to ban anything from a policy point of view .
Then you phase incentives , and the better and more phased , the better and more effective your policy .
10
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 02:42:05 am »I realize what you are trying to achieve with the 6 month maturity, but that really feels like a long time. Being able to make transactions in 90 days vs. 180 days seems more realistic. I just think people will lose interest if they are not able to utilize the fruits of their mining labor in a more timely manner. I do want to reduce the dependency of pools and initially was drawn to PTS when I heard about it on the podcast, a system with reputation and DACs, I was hooked. Felt like finding BTC back in 2011 all over again. When I mined for 3 days solo, it was very disappointing to receive zero (I know QQ right?) and then it immediately evolved into pools, or having to be a member of one to see any rewards. So yeah, that needs to be fixed if you are trying to not have the gaming of the system, botnets, etc. Maybe there could be a vesting period vs. maturity? If you need to spend earlier you take the penalty, but after X amount of time and you're 100%. I just feel quarterly would work better then bi-annually. Keep up the great work, I have a good feeling about this.
Yet another great idea! If the Share Bond has a face value of 60 BTS but matures in 6 months in a linear manner, then in 1 month you could get 10 BTS (the other 50 BTS are paid as dividends) and in 3 months you would have 30 BTS... at the 6 month mark you get your full 60 BTS. This keeps the shares liquid and makes holding them very valuable, but gives users the opportunity to cash out early for a penalty.
So I think we can combine them all. Random maturity date, linear early-redemption penalty.
An idea like that is so good it could have been mine. Lol
11
General Discussion / Re: Decentralizing Mining - The future of BitShares Mining
« on: November 20, 2013, 02:39:47 am »
In economic old speak you want to raise the cost if pools and use that " energy" to subsidize individual miners .
Interesting .
What about the technicals , and how do you propose to enforce this in a open source environment .
On the Bitshare side I understand the hard coded 6 month system , but , oh wait , I think I understand .
Interesting .
What about the technicals , and how do you propose to enforce this in a open source environment .
On the Bitshare side I understand the hard coded 6 month system , but , oh wait , I think I understand .
12
BitShares PTS / Re: PTS Hacked ( and i've never been hacked before ).
« on: November 19, 2013, 09:53:29 am »literally impossible to say what happened.
invictus server *could* be compromised. we have no way to check the pre-compiled wallets, for some reason they think it's not necessary to sign their releases.
What ?!
And yes in that case always complie .
13
BitShares PTS / Re: What is ProtoShares?
« on: November 18, 2013, 11:10:55 am »
Remember robots need retarded humans to function as well , unfortunately the issue isnt going away any time soon .
14
BitShares PTS / Re: What is ProtoShares?
« on: November 18, 2013, 10:57:35 am »
Well one can make Robot resistance , but probably not Robot invulnerability, however , being that PTS is of a critical number , if I were the PTS ceo this issue would be high on my agenda .
What im saying is if gigawatt had any useful implementation its probably of critial importance to fork the design and try to take positve action , if the implementation uses more memory or memory in a "more effective " way this can be of use as the target zombie machine will likely not function......
However if it is scaleable then its of no use .
What im saying is if gigawatt had any useful implementation its probably of critial importance to fork the design and try to take positve action , if the implementation uses more memory or memory in a "more effective " way this can be of use as the target zombie machine will likely not function......
However if it is scaleable then its of no use .
15
Marketplace / Re: [Sell] 100 PTS @ 0.018
« on: November 18, 2013, 06:57:10 am »
Smooth transaction by bytemaster , I believe this design has a future . We will hold our rest , cheers .
