Quote from: RejectKid on December 10, 2013, 10:23:40 am

Couple questions.  Is there any documentation on this? or a seperate wallet? webiste?  those sorts of things?

Also how do you obtain the private key that you're speaking of?

It's a separate altcoin/DAC - separate wallet, website etc. The private key will be derivable from your PTS private key.

How is it derivable? Why is it that we have to import our private key into every separate wallet? That means we have to trust your wallet, and every altcoin that comes up with a wallet in the future?

Keyhotee will have a universal wallet which we can put our private key into. That in my opinion is the smarter way to do it and then let each altcoin be an extension or plugin for Keyhotee. I think I will wait until it is done in that way.

Quote from: bytemaster on December 06, 2013, 06:47:50 pm

Quote from: hasher on December 06, 2013, 04:58:40 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on December 06, 2013, 04:37:09 pm

I suggest you think outside the box you have lived in your whole life and stop assuming a government is needed or that you need to "control a society without rulers and ruled". 

1) Your approach is to create a decentralized solution for funding the ultimate form of centralization.
2) The goal is to decentralize power to end corruption
3) Imagine a world where justice, defense, dispute resolution, medical, retirement, charity can all be provided at the highest quality, lowest cost, with out the need to resort to impose a double standard between the 'ruled' and the 'rulers'?    A double standard that says the two may be held to different moral standards. 

I set out to invent the solutions to these problems rather than simply accept that the only way to have justice for some is to cause an injustice for others.  Create a DAC that causes selfish motives to align with your desired global outcome and does not depend upon force to do so.   

ok, maybe im wrong, i just tried to analyze what will happen if modern government system stop works as it should, and how we going to live in near future 

The modern government system HAS stopped working as its proponents claim it should.   We need to create a system that does work.

im not american, but i think, US system is still the best example democracy in the world, but it have degraded many years ago (maybe in Reigan period) when banksters changed from gold standard to debt standard, and receive unprecedented power and influence over industrial sector,
some people in Russia think it was because USA failed in Vietnam and faced problems with low economy growth, debt growth helped US to overcome stagnation, but now we see Rome in last days of its existance

PS yea i know its high political bullshit, and i hope we will live without it our P2P way 

The US is not the best democracy in the world. In the US you cannot even pass a budget. If the US was alright do you think Bitcoin would be catching on so quickly?

Quote from: bytemaster on December 03, 2013, 02:21:01 am

BitUSD or BitApples solves this problem in a decentralized manner.

Sure, it is good for speculators, but not for real investors.

Imagine that around 70% of all transactions in our decentralized bank happens between Bitcoin and Bitshares. That could be perfectly the case because most people will enter with Bitcoins in order to obtain any other currency, or take loans in BitBTC.

You're making a lot of assumptions.
1. Nothing stops anyone from selling Bitshares directly for USD. There is no rule that people have to trade BTC or that everyone with BTS will want BTC. Some will want to cash out for USD. Some will want LTC or anything else.

2. Bitcoin buying power increases even while supply increases but if supply increases then it's inflationary even if buying power increases relative to the dollar which is much more inflationary. The buying power of the dollar is decreasing faster than the buying power of the

.
It will happen the same that is happening in Wall ST right now. Because around 60% of all transactions in the world are made in dollars, when the dollar goes up and down, it affects secundary currencies that haven't got the strength to trade against anything which is not the dollar. Example: most currencies in South América trade against the dollar for importation/exportation. If the dollar goes down, they go down too.

The political currencies have to deal with that. These new currencies are decentralized and you don't know which one people will want but I highly doubt Bitcoin will remain in top demand. It's not like the dollar which could remain in top demand by force.

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 02, 2013, 04:36:21 am

So let me get this straight - transaction fees will be destroyed, so what is the incentive to process transactions and who is doing that now in this system?

No, transaction fees still exist because there is limited space in the block chain and these fees will 'destroy' the currency.

New blocks are created by all full nodes and anyone with a financial interest in the network will pick the largest value transactions with the highest fees (which are destroyed and thus show up as dividends).

If you do not include transactions in a block then your mining difficulty will be higher (proof-of-stake) so those blocks will never make it into the chain.

These ideas are briliant and have given me something to think about.
It actually makes a lot of sense if the transaction fees result in being destroyed because it solves a lot of potential problems.

Rather than considering the 'unit' of a currency to be individual shares, people should transact in 'Percent of Money Supply' and all balances should be represented as 'Percent of Money Supply'.   As currency is created you see your balance shrinking due to inflation.  When money is destroyed your see your balance increasing due to 'dividends'.   You can shift the decimal on this percentage to create friendly numbers, but ultimately it is still a percentage.   With a simple change to the user interface dividends can be implemented with ease.

This is how I internally think about it anyway. But I never considered it could be implemented as part of the interface. What truly matters for the protoshare owner is the percentage they have of the total money supply. The numbers or units of account are not always as accurate and the term dividend could generate all kinds of confusion so I think this idea you propose might eliminate the confusion while also providing more accurate information.

Looking good.

What kind of authentication are you looking to implement to ensure an account won't get hacked?

Eg:  Google Authentication maybe?

Why not use Yubikey? Anyway I think 2FA is absolutely necessary for Keyhotee. I think you would want to give multiple options, such as Yubikey, Google Auth, SMS msg, Email.

But if it is just a password on the computer then a keylogger is all it would take to retrieve the keys to the castle.

Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining
http://the-iland.net/static/downloads/TransactionsAsProofOfStake.pdf

Quote

The concept behind Proof-of-Stake is that a block chain should be secured by those with a financial interest in the chain.  This paper will introduce a new approach to Proof-of-Stake that utilizes coin-days-destroyed by every transaction as a substitute for the vast majority of the security currently provided by Proof-of-Work.   Unlike prior Proof-of-Stake systems in which only some nodes contribute to the proof-of-stake calculation, we present a new approach to Proof-of-Stake whereby all nodes generating transactions contribute to the security of the network.  The result is that the network immune to known attacks against Bitcoin or Peercoin.

Quote

Every transaction on the network carries with it an implicit Proof-of-Stake in the network. The creator of the transaction wants the network to accept it and the receiver of the transaction is making decisions on whether or not to ship goods based upon whether or not the network has accepted the transaction.    It is clear that those behind the transaction have a stake in the health of the network.  After all, the network is worthless if transactions cannot be executed as expected.   A well functioning network will have thousands of transactions every single block.   This represents thousands of stake holders who could be contributing to the security of the network.

Quote

In order for a 51% attack to be successful in a Proof-of-Work system, the attacker must keep their alternative chain secret.   Once they have locked in the profits from their first spend, they can broadcast the longer secret block chain which will invalidate the original transaction.   Keeping solved blocks secret is also used in the selfish-mining attack which can be effective with much less than 51% of the hashing power.   

In order to prevent this kind of behavior we must make it impractical for miners to maintain secret block chains.  If every transaction that is broadcast contains the hash of  a recent block and the block chain enforces the rule that the transaction can only be included in block chains that build off of that block then no one will be able to build secret block chains that leverage the coin-days-destroyed of transactions in the public chain.

 

Please read my paper for further details, but I believe that I have a Proof-of-Stake system that requires no explicit mining and for which mining is never 'profitable'.   If the security model holds review then this could dramatically change the future of all DACs and crypto-currencies, eliminate mining pools, lucky mining, vesting, ASICs, the 51% attack, selfish-mining, merged-mining, denial of service, etc.   

Please review and give me your feedback.

 

Interesting concept. I think I would add that the purpose of mining isn't just to promote the security of the network in a static technical sense but also promote the health of the network in a dynamic economic sense. To elaborate, if mining is profitable then people must constantly upgrade their computers and the aim would be for these people to upgrade their computers in a decentralized manner. Millions of users buying GPUs, CPUs, RAM, or encrypted hard drives are all good for technological progress and mining indirectly encourages that.

A lot more GPUs were sold because of mining. A lot of CPUs are sold because of mining. Generally mining as an industry produces a lot of beneficial economic activity which I think we should not want to lose.

The other benefit of mining beyond coin distribution is that spare CPU cycles can actually be used in beneficial ways as well. The POW in Bitcoin is functionally useless but in future iterations or new coins there might be a POW which does protein folding, which has some useful supercomputer purposes, so I don't think we ought to give up these possibilities either.

Those are of course the benefits. The costs of POW are that there are cheaters in the system who pump and dump, who use botnets, who get what many people consider to be an unfair amount of coins early on, and they provide none of the economic benefits in the two examples I laid out. In the case of using digital ocean someone had to purchase the hardware so the economic benefit exists and in my opinion that is beneficial. It ultimately is not any different from having bought the coins with the only benefit being that it was bought before the exchange was set up. A botnet contributes hashing power but has a negative economic impact because the person running the botnet truly has no stake because they did not pay any money for the coins, or even really mine them on their own computers, so these individuals have no stake at all in the success of the network.

What are the benefits and costs of transactions as Proof of Stake? What are the benefits and costs of the end of mining? We need a side by side comparison between the current state of things and the new way of doing things so that we can do a side by side analysis of the benefits and costs of each proposal.

For me I want a network where those who secure the network are rewarded, and can make profit in doing so but also have the incentive be set up that they'll take a portion of their profit to upgrade the network as well. Part of the issue I keep hearing with Bitcoin is that the Max_Block_Size is an issue and now we are reaching the limits of the 7 transactions per second. Why can't they raise the Block Size? They claim it's because the majority of people don't have computers fast enough to handle it.

The only solution in my opinion is for mining to be profitable enough for everyone to be able to upgrade their computers to add new functionality to the network as needed. Will the transactions as Proof of Stake be robust enough to scale? Bitcoin currently isn't scaling in my opinion primarily because the profits from mining are too centralized and only people with ASICs (perhaps farms of ASICs) at this point can mine professionally.

Transactions as proof of stake should be tested out. Perhaps it is a good idea to try it on a hybrid chain at first and see. Then if it can work on a hybrid then try it out on it's own chain. At this moment in time it's untested and I'd like to see what it can do in a test setting.

Quote from: luckybit on November 27, 2013, 04:51:26 pm

Quote from: liberman on November 25, 2013, 07:45:50 pm

Interesting, bytemaster.
But I think the problem with your original idea is about the people donating to the network.
This is different, as we are a truly substitute for Youtube. Free for users, but paid by advertisers.

I suggest you use micropayments. Then you don't need advertisers.

Please, elaborate.

Micropayments can be set so that every time we visit the site it extracts 0.0001 Bitcoin per minute. So you can do stuff like charge by the amount of time viewing a video. You can also do pay per view and charge per viewing a fee. I think not everyone wants ads and people need a reason to spend their various coins.

Why have cryptocurrencies if we aren't going to use them for stuff like this? It's divisible so why not exploit the fact that you can do stuff that YouTube cannot do? If you just play into YouTube's strengths you will lose. You will never match the advertisers of YouTube but with micropayments you don't need to. It's like the difference between Cable TV and regular TV.