Feature list for visualizing the benefits of our products

PROTOSHARES	BITSHARES	KEYHOTEE	DACS
1. Get Invested in the Good Ideas from Invictus Innovations	1. Trade and Value Any Asset with the power of a Blockchain	1. Mine your username, completely control your identity	1.

Pls add your ideas/thoughts etc..

amended with my suggestions

Quote from: bytemaster on November 22, 2013, 04:09:36 pm

Fast validation times are a requirement.   It is easy to make a memory hard pow that takes too long to verify. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about launching a slow validation coin, and then create a second currency/genesis bitshare block that maps 1:1 to "SlowCoin" when they are all mined?

That would allow a memory hard pow, right?

This is interesting, and possible because the value of the coin is based almost entirely on the social contract being honored by the backing company.  You could make arbitrary changes like this and it wouldn't be that big a deal so long as the social contract doesn't change to the downside.

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...

Why not make it an insurmountable task by changing it periodically? 

Should we have one?  If we did, I would post a project in it

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.

I would propose that this is a preferable outcome, and much less scalable than EC2 or botnets.  Worst case scenario existing mechanical-turk esque markets are bid up and people working there make a little more along with the market provider.

Unless you make periodic human attention the limiting factor, you make scaling your mining operation about how much money you can bring to bear. 

I think a core question is, do we want mining to be human scalable or capital scalable.

Current coins including protoshares are capital scalable, you can mine as much as you can spend money.   By requiring individual registration, or human-required interrupts like a rotating captcha you make it non-economical to run 3,000 servers if each server has an average 5 interrupts randomly per day.  Doesn't matter if it's a cloud miner, doesn't matter if it's botnet, the human element does not scale like the hardware does.

To a certain extent this makes the guy with 40 computers in his garage the hardest working and best paid, requiring constant attention (5 interrupts x 40 divided by 24 hours in the day means an interrupt every 8.3 minutes).

I actually don't hate the idea of random interrupts, it incentivizes people run it on the computer they are actively working on because otherwise they'll be periodically checking at best or waiting for an email alert.  One imagines a new suite of tools will emerge to try and automate this, and that becomes the arms race improving captchas.

The thing to optimize with this DAC would be the sorting and matching algorithm.  Not all jobs are equal and not all types of job seekers want all types of jobs.  I think a DAC could be successful.

I think Lucky Mining adds a cheap thrill for certain people that helps decentralize mining while vesting requires miners or the people that hire the miners to think long-term and thus reduce the short-term volatility of hash power.

I agree, are people seeking a cheap thrill the type you are trying to reach with an equitable distribution.  Are all bodies and participants equally valuable?  I don't think they are, and just as you're not trying to appeal to your own type personality with this lotto mentality, I don't think it will appeal to the types of people whom you actually want.  You want people who are smart and can evangelize the product without falling back on the "It'll make you rich" argument. 

I liked the long term vesting idea a lot more, and I like the idea of long term predictable payouts being one end of the spectrum and low odds high payout being the other end, but allowing the balance to be selected by the individual.   If you believe in the project and want to work towards a long term development goal with it, you would very much prefer the slow but reliable payout because it means you are guaranteed to have a stake in what you are working towards as opposed to the lotto "Maybe I get a lot, maybe I get nothing" approach.  With that approach you are only invested if you are lucky.  You don't want people maybe being supporters, you want evangelists who know they are invested.