Is this the only Dfinity thread on BCT? Can't find an official announcement.

Any kind of bounty campaign that can earn me tokens.   Social media, Blog, Translation, etc.

Are you planning to have a bounty campaign as well? Or do you think you'll sell out without any?

Why on earth would anyone invest if the native token won't accrue value?

Hey for anyone that wants to learn more about DFINITY and engage with its community, feel free to follow our Twitter (http://twitter.com/dfinity), visit our website (http://dfinity.network) join our Slack (http://dfinity.herokuapp.com for self-invite)

I saw rumour about second ICO for Dfinity. Is this for real? I like the whitepaper and see a great potential in this project. Would definitely put some btc in this project if the second ICO is real.

Ok, please be aware that i'm just playing around here; thinking loudly. Tis is not to be taken too seriously and not aimed at a specific usecase now, but could evolve in that direction.

What if the token can also be seen as a negative thing? Holding a token would be an obligation, not an advantage. A possible scenario could be like this:

The tokens are auctioned off as described, but it's a negative auction: users pay fees not to get the token.

For every block or number of blocks, a token is sent to the account which paid the smallest fees.

User Kevin has 20 million tokens. Kevin can nominate his delegate fairly easily. He may even be able to vote in 2 of his own delegates, but rightfully so, he purchased 20 Million tokens. What he can’t do is be guaranteed to nominate more than 8 delegates before his weight is too diluted to maintain his position.

The 51 forging nodes with the highest number of votes are eligible to Forge ARK
blocks. This design eliminates the possibility that any single large ARK holder or
an organization holding large percentages of ARK are able to gain control over
the entire network by voting for all of their nodes into forging positions, thus
effectively taking complete control over that DPoS Blockchain. Votes from ARK
Tokens held by ARK Crew may be used at ARK Crew's discretion.

So, it still has advantages to have multiple accounts, they are just not as prominent as in other schemes.

It basically works like Lisks/Arks DPoS system, with specific accounts, which are allowed to contribute to the blockchain (and mint coins in the process). Different to DPoS, who is eligible for minting is determined by a token which differs from the regular coin: If an account holds such a token, it is allowed to mint.

The specifics about how a token is accquired and what "minting" means exactly seems to be up for discussion, although the author gives some ideas, which are quite interesting. Overall, not a bad concept.

This looks like an idea, which looks interesting especially for semi-private blockchains, blockchain-as-a-service solutions and so on.

In a recent article I proposed a dual-token approach to blockchain consensus. The system aims to provide economic decentralization, fulfilling the paradigm: One entity, one vote! The model stands in a stark contrast to existing blockchains like Bitcoin, Ethereum or NXT in which the influence of a party is proportional (or even superlinear) to its resources or stake. My proposal can be broken down into the following key points:

- The blockchain makes use of two different tokens: minter accounts and currency units (coins)
- Blocks can only be built by minter accounts
- The creation rate of minter accounts is limited: With every block, only a predefined number of new minters accounts are created.
- Minter accounts can be sold once upon creation, while further sales are strongly discouraged as the seller will still know the private key (and could steal the funds back any time).
- No economic incentive to own multiple accounts

In my second post I relax some of the assumptions made in my seminal article and further explore the design space around Proof of Membership blockchains. The name “Proof of Membership” is chosen to express that every member of the system can contribute to the blockchain, while a member’s impact on the consensus is not based on stake nor on hash rate. Even though it is impossible to physically restrict the number of accounts held by a member, we can make it economically pointless to possess more than one (or maybe a few) account.

You can find my article here: https://hackernoon.com/proof-of-membership-for-blockchains-1534a3f9faba

Please let me know what you think!

This is why Casper tries to punish those that do not follow the rule ; but then this can be gamed too and you get a hopelessly complicated game-theoretical bungle.

If there's nothing at stake (in both senses) with staking, your only stake is that the system works well.  If the random deterministic choice of who can stake, is random enough, then it is also essentially impossible to BRIBE you into staking, because in order to find out WHOM to bribe, you'd need to spend a lot of "proof of work" and chances are you'll find one necessary staker who doesn't accept the bribe.

I agree with you.  The error in most crypto is the reward, which gives rise to strategies that do not necessarily induce the desired properties.  I also think that the only viable kind of crypto currency is where the validation/consensus decision is taken on a voluntary basis, the "reward" being that the system in which you are invested, keeps running correctly.

However, you still need a kind of deterministic decision *that is hard to game* (because you can do "proof of work" like calculations to get the deterministic solution in your advantage).  This is why a kind of PoS signature scheme is necessary in my opinion.

The betting stuff enables what Vitalik refers to as "dark uncles" or "dunkles", which Vitalik incorrectly thinks will solve the nothing-at-stake problem.

Also Casper has the problem that all deterministic finality PoS and Byzatine agreement systems have, which is a 33% liveness threshold which if that many validators balk or stop processing, then the chain can't move forward without a hard fork.

The only way to replace PoW is with an Inverse Commons consensus protocol, which is my new invention.

Meshcash, is designed to be race-free: there is no “race” to generate the next block, hence
honestly-generated blocks are always rewarded. This property, which we define formally as
a game-theoretic notion, turns out to be useful in analyzing rational miners’ behavior: we
prove (using a generalization of the blockchain mining games of Kiayias et al.) that race-free
blockchain protocols are incentive-compatible and satisfy linearity of rewards (i.e., a party
receives rewards proportional to its computational power).

From my deep study of the range of plausible designs for a blockchain consensus system (and I studied much deeper than in than what is contained in that linked thread), I conclude that it is impossible to have a fungible token on a blockchain in which the consensus doesn't become centralized iff the presumption is that the users of the system gain the most value from the system due to its monetary function.

However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff that value can't be financed (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way that is not democracy and is a crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium, then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.

I assume you meant "decentralized". But that leaves us with a dilemma:
a) They think it because they are very smart and proved the impossibility of decentralized currencies before releasing Bitcoin. Though that would mean that your design would turn out as impossible as well. Either because it's impossible as such or because it will finally get captured by them.
b) They didn't prove it and just think (or hope) it. In that case they would be very dumb (and thus cannot be called an "elite") since they must have been aware of the risk that someone would eventually come and fix Bitcoin's flaw of becoming centralized.

Because they don't think anything can be. They will view it as another speculation or if necessary something they can capture when needed.