To the quick coin distribution: Doesn't GLD coin comply quite well with this feature? And for the low tx-es: I think Freicoin will naturally be the winner here among all currently existing coins (5% indirect subsidy of tx-fees, but this should be able to be altered to a direct subsidy)

But the neurotics are more numerous. at least in this subforum as of lately. Definition from wikipedia: ...anxiety, sadness or depression, anger, irritability, mental confusion, low sense of self-worth, etc., behavioral symptoms such as phobic avoidance, vigilance, impulsive and compulsive acts, lethargy, etc., cognitive problems such as unpleasant or disturbing thoughts, repetition of thoughts and obsession, habitual fantasizing, negativity and cynicism, etc. Interpersonally, neurosis involves dependency, aggressiveness, perfectionism, schizoid isolation, socio-culturally inappropriate behaviors, etc.[7]

NeurosisCoin would be better; More hashing power if you can harness the calories spent on neurotic ramblings - just look around in this forum.

I have tried to get the attention of the more competent coders in the alt-coin forum to my suggestion of an address-free blockchain of Zero-coins, but it is hard to get anyones attention around there as the whole forum has been cluttered by get-rich clone coin schemes. Here it is, I would appreciate any comment to my suggestion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=202664.msg2135254#msg2135254

OP: You are correct, this is called a bell-shaped distribution, and if you hit the timing correct with peak interest this will be a far superior way of distribution than that of bitcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110708.msg1207805#msg1207805

If this is true then initial distribution of cryptocoins by mining is about to give way to something else, probably a centralized solution.

There is talk of using the demurrage residue in Freicoin to make a proof-of-stake variant. Then someone who just keeps the a balance will have the same stake as the equivalent average amount in a high-turnover accounts.

Not to hijack your thread, but...

What I would like to know is the viability of a pure OT like blockchain, without any addresses at all. If the ZeroCoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=202664.0) is possible, then I can't see any fundamental problem with it. Every single coin (or fraction thereof) just hanging around in the blockchain, waiting fore some stranger to pick it up.

What is the function for the decreased payout, most importantly for anything below the target time of 5 minutes?

You don't need to involve an exponential function. Let´s say you have a flat x Coin tax per year for every valid address, and  percentage demurrage on top of that. If you can make a lottery of redistribution of the demurrage, even just a draw between all active accounts, you will be able to statistically redistribute from the wealthy few to the many poor (the extreme example is only one winner who gets the whole yearly demurrage). This will imply a loss of anonymity as the standard tx-es function today, which has to be countered in some way to make the coin practicable (maybe with ZeroCoin, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=202664.0 )

Define 'die'

But I am not suggesting for it to be exchanged for money, but rather just pairing it with another blinded coin made from thin air, comitted by the receiver of the transaction, together with the proof. So we will not have any addresses ever, just pairing of committed secret serial numbers with the proofs in between. Let's say we have miner generated coins Mc1-Mc3 in the first 3 blocks. Then miner 3 wants to transact his coin over to user 1 (non miner). User 1 makes a coin Uc1, just like the miners, and sends it to miner 3. Miner 3 then pairs this with his own proof Mp3 and publishes it to be taken from some random other (here miner 1). Then you have the following after block 4 (who is registering the transaction):

Mc1-(Mp3-Uc1)
Mc2
Mc3
Mc4

Miner 3 can´t re-use his proof, so he has not got his coin anymore. The other 3 miners have yet to publish their proofs, beside User 1. So still only 4 coins in circulation.

Hmm, I can´t see how it can be relevant to anonymity if a miner commits something out of thin air (generates coins) rather than having it pegged to some backing coin coming from an address. Let's say the miner commits a coin he himself generates, in the example of the paper. Why should he not do it all himself rather than first generate it and then wait to blind it in a transaction for the next miner to include in her block?

Why does ZeroCoin need a backing currency? What is the obstacle for having this as a blockchain version of OT, where the miners is granted the right to commit a certain number of un-backed Zerocoins for each mined block as coin-generation (bitcoin style)?

Let's just hope smoothie doesn't realize this is his last chance ever to make Bics FRC stash rot noticeably faster (spoiler: by pointing his mining-rig at Freicoin before the update block... )

True, but not if you do it in a initial distribution and then let it live it's life from then only supported by tx-fees (like bitcoin eventually will). Or if you manage to get some kind of voting system up and running in the blockchain for which future donated computing power projects are to be granted a part of generated CureCoins.

You raise a very interesting and possible crucial point, deserving serious consideration.

But the examples referred to, monetary incitements for book-reading and recruiting for social networks, are not directly applicable. The main difference is a cross-fertilization between the use of CureCoin as a currency and its intended mode of distribution. That is: A third party, the common non-mining (or folding..) user is more inclined to use CureCoin specifically due to it being distributed through donated computer power for medial research, than e.g. Bitcoin and all its current mining-distributed spin-offs.

I can't see any such effect with the examples referred to; there is not an obvious aspect of the incentive scheme itself being a positive, lasting feature. So not only are CureCoin folders getting rich knowing they do charitable work with their GPU's, they can even feel better about the process of parting with their mined CureCoin as this positive aspect should also be in effect indirectly for any 3. party user.

CryptoCoins can in the respect of mode of distribution be considered having different smells. This comparison is absolutely in the favor of CureCoin - is smells of Roses, where 100% blockchain mined Bitcoin/Litecoin/etc. smells of nerd BO (overheated mining rigs) in damp  basement dwellings (now I'm harsh...)

The two coins announced today are easy:

Yacoin

The Yak oxe, obviously


Franko (Why not name it Franco?)

A bit too politically contentious, maybe:

Very impressive! Someone should give you a bounty for that one... Better as mascot than the bitcoin lama(e)

So btc-e is also to be an exchange for for large, rare bovines?