https://rocket.chat/

I would suggest focusing on building disruption tolerant networks (DTNs). These networks are more resilient and useful for mobile applications. So for example in theory a drone, a self driving truck, or dropped in a specific location where people can walk up to it such as an ATM like vending machine.

Of course these networks would not get very much in SLR but in my opinion SLR could benefit.

If you want to have an indication of where SLR can go just have a look at Peercoin. Peercoin was similar in that it was novel, had a similar market cap, similar demographic. Peercoin reached $7 in 2014.

https://www.cryptocoincharts.info/pair/ppc/usd/btc-e/alltime

And there is a lot more money, attention and awareness than there was in 2014. Solarcoin is better than Peercoin in every way and is the only coin which properly appeals to the sustainability culture.

You should publish that podcast on Steemit. Be one of the first. Put it under the Solarcoin tag.
https://steemit.com/

Each device would have to have a cryptographic identifier and you can secure these devices from emulation to a certain extent but the question is at what cost? Even now people can find ways to leech free electricity if they are willing to go through extraordinary effort. What matters is how much fraud is there and is it beyond acceptable levels? At what point is it worth the cost to do something about it?

This is a bit like the botnet problem in Proof of Work mining.

Still not on OpenLedger?

If I know more about the attack vectors maybe I can help more or maybe if there is a list of attack vectors for the community to research that would work. But my guess is the concerns are hardware and software vulnerabilities. Software you can solve by formal verification and correct by construction to make it bug free. Hardware it really depends on what you can afford and how determined the adversary is. Economic incentives can also be put into play to improve security. Incentive centered design can take care of that part using smart contracts: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/hotsec06/tech/full_papers/wash/wash.pdf

Maybe I can give some suggestions.
Be very careful in the selection of hardware. Be mindful and wise in the programming language you choose. If you have the resources go with a correct-by-construction approach to your software development or smart contracts (which is similar to the approach taken by NASA). If your software portion is verified then you know with 100% certainty that it is mathematically correct as a proof, and when you implement it take the most correct approach. Langsec formal proof will result in perfect bug free code.

If you go with C then use well known highly trusted standard libraries, if you're going with Ethereum then formally verify and test your code if you have the human resources and expertise to accomplish this. Do not rely on human error. Finally if you're dealing with hardware while this is the hardest part to secure it's likely for an MVP or prototype you really only have to get the software really secure. The hardware is something else entirely.

For more:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CorrectByConstruction
https://intelligence.org/2014/03/02/bob-constable/
http://www.nuprl.org/

When the coins are $1 then just hold onto them and let people claim them for higher than $1.

You have to build a community or SLR will have no utility. Who is going to accept SLR? Who is going to give discounts to people who use SLR and why? People aren't going to do that just because but they will do it if they believe in renewable energy being good for the future of their children. People will support SLR for the sake of their kids futures.

And also people who believe there is an energy crisis or climate change is a problem need to know that Solarcoin exists. These people have the money but do not know about Solarcoin. These people should be the people who claim the Solarcoins but also the people who accept it, work for it, etc.

Will SLR get to $1? Easily, but only if a case is made why it's different from Bitcoin or ETH politically. Apolitical speculators will just dump it at $1 and they wont invest it into the renewable energy or solar industry. As far as getting people to claim SLR it requires marketing because these are mainstream people not crypto people.

SLR is not ETH. SLR is purely for people who believe in renewable energy. Many speculators don't give a damn about renewable energy and just want to make a quick buck. So why would you want them to hold onto the SLRs? They don't understand the potential.

Sure SLR could get pumped and dumped but if you want to see Solar be promoted then you should buy SLR from Bittrex and hold it before the speculators with big money and no interest in SLR get a hold of it.

Again, do not promote SLR to speculators. Promote SLR to activists who don't trade and who want to get cheaper energy. People who see the big picture know that cheap renewable energy is wealth. Solar is more important than fiat.

If you all want to see Solarcoin reach at least $1 there is a simple way to do it. It requires you actually believe in the goal of the Solarcoin project and it requires you to not care about anything other than to promote and support the $1 price.

Here is all supporters have to do, buy as many Solarcoins as you can and then make a pact with other supporters to never sell it for less than $1. It's that simple.  Also encourage speculators to dump so the SLRs end up in the right hands.  If a few big holders simply refuse to sell SLRs then you solve the problem. The other solution is don't put SLR on the centralized exchanges like Poloniex. These exchanges will acquire a lot of SLR from trading activities and then continuously dump SLR to suppress the price.

Approach decentralized exchanges or very serious secure wallet companies like Coinbase. You do not want margin traders you want people who actually buy SLR to spend it on products which give a discount to SLR. Treat the SLR holder like royalty.

Watching...

It's a P2P exchange which goes through Bitshares 2.0. Bitshares 2.0 is not like Bitshares 1.0.

I guess their marketing isn't very good or is non-existent which is why no one knows it's even a decentralized exchange.

You can do direct exchanges through Metaexchange which is based on Bitshares 2.0 also. Try Metaexchange and see for yourself.

https://metaexchange.info/markets/ETH/BTC
https://metaexchange.info/markets/NXT/BTC

As for centralization, depending on the asset it can be completely decentralized or not but the way it works is you have IOU assets like OpenBTC, TradeBTC, etc, which represent Bitcoin on the Bitshares Blockchain. This allows Open Ledger and Metaexchange to both trade real Bitcoin on their exchanges. The risk is in the fact that you're dealing with IOUs but this is currently how centralized exchanges or Ripple does things, it's always with IOUS.

The Gateways redeem the IOUs for the actual tokens when people cash out. It's decentralized based on the fact that there is multisig control of the IOUs like OpenBTC, TradeBTC, etc. It's not centralized, so there is no website you can take down to take all the IOUs out of the system. If Metaexchange goes down you'd still be able to trade on Open Ledger or anything else.

It's about as decentralized at this time and still maintain the functions of an exchange. You can directly trade BTC for DVC on Bitcointalk but you can't do it from an exchange interface and you'd have to trust that person. On Bitshares you're indirectly doing it because you're exchanging OpenBTC, TradeBTC, etc, in exchange for OpenDVC, TradeDVC, etc, which are IOUs which all get redeemed at withdraw. Your risk is that the multisig accounts which control the pool of BTC and DVC can be compromised but ownership is decentralized. Even ownership of Metaexchange and Open Ledger is decentralized by Meta fee shares and oBits.

I contacted someone here. What you should do is contact Open Ledger so that DVC can be traded on a decentralized exchange. It's win win because Open Ledger needs the liquidity and DVC needs an exchange which is resilient. There is also Metaexchange to contact.

https://www.openledger.info/
https://metaexchange.info/

Forking Bitshares is an option but it's also an option to build on top of Tauchain or Ethereum. It depends on your time frame.

Devshares would be a not bad idea but then it's not mined. Tauchain would allow for mining. Ethereum would also allow for mining.

Maybe Solarcoin should consider switching to Graphene if PoST isn't good enough?

Also someone mentioned that it is necessary to trust humans in a foundation? Is that going to be automated out? I would think Ethereum smart contracts could minimize trust quite a bit.

I understand PoST was in theory supposed to be easier to implement than the other choices but from the looks of it the community seems to not know what they want.

If there is some sort of rounding or parameter error then it's not a flaw in PoST. If there is a cap on 10% interest or not then is it going to make a difference in the long term? The only way Solarcoin will have value is if people accept it or work to earn it. Of course people who have solar panels can claim it and that can give it value too but it's not going to have real value unless there are some exclusive things people can buy with only Solarcoins, and enough of a community willing to work for Solarcoins.

Why not take full advantage of the technology and tactics like smart contracts, sharedrops and other mechanisms to bring value to Solarcoin holders so that people want to hold Solarcoins? Otherwise it's going to be a long time before Solarcoin gains value and the speculation on the price of Solarcoins in 2015 isn't going to matter if in the end it has to be upward to $20 each. I would be surprised if it even could get to 25 cents in the next few years unless there is a plan.

https://bitshares.org/technology/
https://www.ethereum.org/

Bitshares DPoS is based on a design which resembles in many ways the Raft protocol which has been through peer review in academic papers.

The Bitshares team arrived at a similar design because great minds think alike and because Bitshares developers discovered that you can do consensus through delegation of authority. Analyze and compare the Raft protocol to DPoS.

Additionally if you want to go further you can analyze LMAX architecture. When you do that you'll see that Bitshares wasn't thrown together by amateurs and that it has a rigorously academically tested (as well as tested in practice) architecture. No one has hacked DPoS 1.0, and while DPoS 2.0 is still in testing, there is no reason to believe DPoS 1.0 was ever insecure. It's security is based on the fact that in order to break consensus you have to get a critical threshold of delegates to collude without being discovered that they are colluding by the voting token holders.

Many people like to claim that Delegated Proof of Stake or Proof of Stake in general is vulnerable to theoretical black swan attacks. Bitcoin is also vulnerable to theoretical black swan attacks. The focus of our attention should be on practical attacks which have either happened in the past frequently, and which would have catastrophic consequences if pulled off. In the case of Bitshares which has been audited and which has existed for over a year, there isn't an attack which could occur frequently and which has catastrophic consequences.
 
Example1:


Example 2:

The threat level on a risk matrix is measured by the frequency of the occurrence and the amount of damage the community would suffer if it occurs. For example if a bug is found to allow hackers to remotely empty everyone's wallet this would be an example of catastrophic damage, but how often has that occurred in Proof of Stake? Double spending also would cause catastrophic damage but how often has that occurred? If it is a real treat in practice then you'll be able to provide some example cases to show that these theoretical attacks have happened.

We know in practice that centralized exchanges are extremely high risk as measured on a risk matrix. This is because these attack frequency is high, and the level of damage of the attacks are high. The risk of using centralized exchanges outweighs the risk of using Bitshares and trusting DPoS 1.0. DPoS 2.0 will be tested and audited, but DPoS 1.0 has never been successfully hacked.

Bitshares when it was first announced with through the same skepticism: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279771.0
None of which played out.

https://raft.github.io/
http://martinfowler.com/articles/lmax.html

It's neither a decentralized coin or a gym membership. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYpmy6guxqQ

It's not top down, it's bottom up, and it's not technically a corporation. The law dictates certain things and in order to not have legal risk it is styled as a membership based organization. This is because membership based organizations can offer discounts and other benefits with minimal legal risks.

I'm not a lawyer so please don't consider me an expert but this is just what I remember from the discussions. You are free to think of Bitshares as a decentralized semi-autonomous membership cooperative instead of a corporation. Compared to Bitcoin it's not really top down because you can elect your leaders, hiring and firing, based on shareholder voting.

It is for these reasons that I thing Bitshares and in particular Bitshares 2.0 (DPoS 2.0) fits into a niche.