What is your opinion on the effect that a strong Swiss Franc has had on the economy of Switzerland? Don't you think that the same thing could happen to Bitcoin's economy?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51668.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51659.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51526.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51646.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50037.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51625.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51403.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48752.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51544.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50587.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50227.0

This is just on the first page. Shouldn't this kind of threads go in the Marketplace or maybe on a new Businesses subforum?

The rise of the System D economy and trading between anonymous parties will promote a shift towards a reputation-based economy to facilitate commerce, so I think it's important to create a reliable web of trust system to support it. We already have the bitcoin-otc web of trust, which works perfectly fine now but has the problem of being centralized, and so it can be manipulated. Just like with currencies and dns, a decentralized web of trust would be preferable.

So basically the idea is to just embed a WoT system into a blockchain (with bitcoin-otc rules or similar) using a special transaction that says "address X gives a rating of +1 to address Y". Also it should be possible to transfer ones rating from one address to another to be able to launder it in case that the identity of the owner is compromised.

I'm seeing very low hash rates reported when using scrypt so I would assume that if I tried to mine with Javascript the algorithm itself would be the bottleneck rather than the JS miner, right?

It would be pretty exciting if true as it becomes very viable for site owners to profit from embedded JS miners instead of fees/ads/subscriptions.

There's some discussion about whether Solidcoin is actually a cryptocurrency and that it should be banned from the altcoin subforum if it's not, so I was wondering if the Bitcointalk staff have any criteria for determining if a currency is indeed a cryptocurrency.

By now it's clear that the majority of people reject the idea that wealth is proportional to the trustworthiness of a node, so how about this: instead of directly giving supernode status to wealthiest people we vote for supernodes (which may not necessarily be wealthy) with our money, in the ratio of 1 coin = 1 vote. This way poorer people can band together and surpass the voting power of the rich ones to elect a supernode of their choosing. It also allows the rich to relinquish their supernode power and give it to a more trusted member of the network. Voting would be done with a special transaction which basically says that any money held by the sending address is a vote for node X.  

Would this work better?

For reference, here is the original system: http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-most-secure-currency.php

You can now mine Bitcoin and Namecoin simultaneously without needing to split your hashing power between the two.

Pools with MM enabled:

- MasterPool
- Simplecoin
- Nmcbit

So you jump on hasty conclusions without knowing the facts and then you try to lecture us on jumping on hasty conclusions without knowing the facts?

What's proof-of-stake and BTCDD?

Profit? They can cheat with tiny amounts so that nobody finds out. It doesn't even have to be an organization-wide plot, a single rogue sysadmin could compromise the currency. Or it could be a hacker with root access. Or maybe some g-men will make them cheat.

I must say I find trading security for popularity to be a very poor choice, but I'm curious to see how this will play out. I wish you luck with your fork.

But how will work be proven to the rest of the network? What if the F@H people say one miner has performed x amount work when in fact he has only done x - 1?

I assume global moderators don't frequent this subforum often so how about some local mods? Here's a few examples of trash threads that don't belong there:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46656.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46649.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46243.0

Details? I don't see how such a thing could be possible without adding centralization.

Moving coins between wallets would influence inflation rate very briefly but becomes irrelevant in the long term. Moving 10 coins with 50 confirmations to a new address and then using the 10 coins with 40 confirmations to purchase something would have the same effect of leaving the coins in the original address and then buying the thing when the coins have 90 confirmations.


The solution for that is to use ( # of coins sent)*(# of confirmations on sent coins at the time that they are sent) in the equation instead of plain sent amount. This makes it a waste of time to send yourself money every block instead of waiting to make a legitimate transaction.


What manipulation are you talking about and how do transaction fees solve it?


There's no fixed long term expansion curve, that's the whole premise. It's supposed to adapt to the economy on the go.


I guess but it would be a one time only, once the coins are spent that power is gone. One way to mitigate this attack would be to use longer timespans when calculating the velocity rate changes (i.e. looking at year over year changes instead of month over month) so that the higher number of transactions included "drown" the volume of this attack. Not a perfect solution though as this would make the system react more slowly to sudden changes in the economy. Also, since a sharp increase in velocity would sharply decrease the block reward, it is within the realm of possibility that miners refuse to include that transaction in any block.

Because in cryptocurrencies we are able to tell exactly how much money has been issued and how much has been transacted in a given period, we are also able to determine the velocity of money. The velocity of money is the average frequency with which a unit of money is spent in a specific period of time.



In this chart we can see that the velocity of money (green line) increases in inflationary booms and decreases in deflationary recessions (gray bars), which is logical; when there is inflation people want to spend their money and when there's deflation they want to save it. We can take advantage of this to figure out how much money we should be issuing. If one year the velocity is 100 and the next year it's 102 we can assume that the currency has devalued so we cut the reward to get rid of the excess liquidity. If the next year it goes down to 98 we assume that the currency has appreciated because the demand for it exceeded the supply, so we pump up the block reward to bring the velocity back to 0%.

Of course, people could just send themselves money every block to fake the velocity and create hyperinflation. The solution for that is to use ( # of coins sent)*(# of confirmations on sent coins at the time that they are sent) in the equation instead of plain sent amount. This makes it a waste of time to send yourself money every block instead of waiting to make a legitimate transaction. Also, since the block reward depends on transaction volume and there can't be a transaction volume if there are no coins to spend, we would need an initial period of guaranteed reward to kickstart the economy before the transaction-based reward takes over. Let's say 2 years worth of blocks with 50 coins every block.

Yay or nay?

I've been waiting all my life for the perfect decentralized currency that will become mainstream and destroy the institutions that I hate. Can't hurt to wait some more.

@Red: Yeah, I guess you are right that whether or not Charlie monopolizes mining is irrelevant in your sytem. Anyway, assuming your system is completely sound and doesn't have any holes for gaming it, there's still the problem that this sytem relies completely on being able to generate blocks securely by consensus instead of proof-of-work. I haven't followed your conversation with Etlase so no idea how much this concept has been developed. Personally I can't even grasp how such a thing would be possible, but it would be pretty exciting to see such a paradigm shift being materialized.

EDIT: New reward algorithm is nSubsidy = log2(difficulty)

This method of money creation to achieve a stable monetary policy has been suggested before but has been shot down quickly on the assumption that it would create hyperinflation. I agree that, because of technological progress, increasing difficulty by X amount will be cheaper in the future than it is now, but I propose that the relative effort of increasing difficulty by X% should have little variance over time. In other words, going from 1,000,000 difficulty to 2,000,000 at some point in the future will be as cheap as going from 1,000 to 2,000 right now. Thus the block reward could be a function of the difficulty growth rate to maintain stability.

Hmm I'm still confused about how difficulty scales in your system. Why can Charlie win at most 10 times in a row? And what do you mean by doubling his "personal" difficulty?

In your proposal it says that difficulty retargets to current+1 if a proof-of-work+1 transaction wins and goes down to current-1 if no proof-of-work is submitted, so wouldn't it be better for Charlie to pump up difficulty to monopolize and then just mine proof-of-work+1 one block then stop the following block to bring difficulty down, rinse and repeat?

The Austrian School says the root cause is excess credit expansion, at least according to Wikipedia. According to you, excess credit expansion is not required, the only requirement is humans being humans (that is, stupid). That is in sharp contradiction with the Austrian School which believes the business cycle is preventable with good monetary policy.