Also I will add my tuppence: Data storage is a REALLY bad idea, unless you have a method of removing it through some kind of voting mechanism, or it's personal and securely encrypted. To allow unencrypted data in the blockchain is incredibly spammy - the BTC blockchain is already 18GB. Imagine that if there'd been data compressed in it. Perhaps if you ran a second distributed data store or something, and THAT was encrypted, with an opt-out on storing it for people with legal concerns... Although that has its own problems.
The legal ramifications if some sicko spams your blockchain with images of child porn could be huge....
tl;dr: I think storing data in the blockchain is a bad idea.
1. Unfortunately miners can place any sorts of data into the block chain. Satoshi added "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks." Many following blocks have non-blockchain specific data in the merkle root tree. http://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.htmlThe legal ramifications if some sicko spams your blockchain with images of child porn could be huge....
tl;dr: I think storing data in the blockchain is a bad idea.
2. Ideally in a future version, miners can reject blocks manually. The long average mining time should be sufficient time for people to react without an excess of wasted blocks. Also known as discouraged blocks.
Quote
And I like the honesty - "heat death of the universe" :-P I feel like some projects are gonna take that long myself sometimes.
I'll be honest, I have no idea, and it'll take me a while to familiarize myself with the code in order for me to even begin modifying it.And I doubt there are any programmers interested in cryptocoin development that isn't a pump and dump scheme. If they were truly interested in cryptocoin adoption, then they'd figure out a way to reduce hoarding and induce price stability. Most people aren't young enough to appreciate the possibility of losing half or more of your savings (well, I'm not that old either, but you get my point).
How do you suggest that miners agree to reject blocks based on their non-chain-specific content? This would require the manual intervention of "the majority" of miners wouldn't it?
If you need a dev to start looking at it with you I may be able to provide *some* hours. Can't guarantee a huge number as the number of projects I'm working on gets longer every day, but I'm intrigued by the intellectual concept. I'm also interested to explore the idea of developing a coin that ISN'T centred around pumping/dumping. I'm utterly sick of all the liteclones. Almost none of them has innovated anything, and I'm fairly certain the level of saturation is seriously damaging the entire community. I've even heard tell that the saturation may be deliberate in order to damage the market, although I take that with a pinch of tinfoil.
For these reasons, I'm backing Darkcoin as a technological leader, and Cypherfunk as a personal interest project as they both bring something new and interesting to their target demographic, and have both very quickly gained a great following, both of which communities are active, strong and very long-term focussed. If you can achieve the majority of what you've set out in the brief above I can see this coin gaining serious traction.
Problem with Darkcoin is with encrypted block chain... how can you trust it? What if there was a bug, and you can't see someone printing billions of coins? Such an issue happened in the early days of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is founded on the absolute minimum of trust. Minimum of trust of miners, minimum of trust of programmers, etc.
What these liteclones fail to realize is that if you don't use a new method of mining, people with established GPU infrastructure will quickly kill it. You need to change the hashing method to something new to restrict it to CPU mining for the first few weeks.
I welcome any assistance.
Minor note: I'm changing the name of this coin from Unnamed Coin to Nome Coin.
Quote
All the best of luck to topic starter, looks like he isn't a dev but needs one.
