Quote from: BeeCee1 on April 07, 2013, 08:32:08 PM

I like the idea, but have a couple of comments

whitepaper: "BLAKE512, SKEIN512, SHA3-512 (KECCAK512), and SHA2-512 are incorporated with both Salsa20 and Chacha20 stream ciphers."

I like how this makes fpga's and asics harder, but it also means that if there is a flaw in any one of these hashes or stream ciphers then the coin fails. Is there any other way to achieve this goal?

The worst thing that can happen with a secure hash algorithm is that any given input's output hash can be predicted more easily than actually hashing it. In the event this happens, we only lose 1/4 of the security of the chain (1/4 of the blocks can be solved more quickly than the others) because we are still using all the other secure hash algorithms, whereas with bitcoin if SHA2 fails the entire chain will trainwreck. If there is a collision attack or something of this nature for one of the hash algorithms, we can just replace it in an update -- the effect on the currency overall is minimal.

Quote

whitepaper: "Transactions will largely stay the same as in BTC; coin age will be calculated from the the timestamp of the block in which it appears."

Why calculate from the timestamp and not the block height? timestamps can be incorrect, the block height can't be. They both give estimates since the block height to time calculation is based on the target block time that isn't always met, but it is good to base as much as possible on truths inherent to the blockchain.

This is a (good) possibility too -- we can use PoW block height as a consistent metric for network time. I will think about this some more and may use it.