@bybitcoin: Ok, I cannot say if this scheme can be a sidechain to Bitcoin since the paper does not provide a detailed description of a SPV proof. Without knowing that I would just be speculating. When Blockstream launches their "demo version" of a sidechain, the federated peg, there will be more information. But I wouldn't mind if the scheme became a sidechain instead of a altcoin.

So you don't have a copy of your original wallet file or your private keys? If you didn't delete the data folder your wallet file should still be there.

There is an advantage in having a smaller total supply, the range proofs get smaller (514 bits for each bit of the total coin supply). Since Bitcoin's supply is ~2^50.9, a total supply between 2^40 and 2^50 is desirable.
The distribution curve is difficult to decide. If it is too short, the supply gets concentrated in a small number of people and the coin gets accused of being a pump and dump. If it is too long and the price does not rise accordingly, no one wants to hold onto the coin because it devalues too fast. Normally if a (fiat) currency exceeds 4% inflation it starts to be a problem. I don't like Bitcoin's distribution curve (see http://www.mattwhitlock.com/Bitcoin%20Inflation%20logarithmic.pdf) because it takes a long time (12 years) to reach a good inflation rate (2%) and then only spends 4 years at that rate. I would prefer to have a initial period of very high inflation to distribute coins (like the first 4 years of Bitcoin) but then have a longer period where the inflation is kept at a constant rate between 2% and 4%.

Presales (and premines and instamines) have a negative connotation regardless of what the money is used for. It would be a shame to turn people away from a good cryptocurrency just because there was a presale. IMO, voluntary coders and fair distribution is the way to go.

Thank you. I would also like to have their opinion, especially Adam Back since I borrowed a lot from his homomorphic value scheme (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305791.msg3294618#msg3294618). But every opinion is welcomed, I just want the paper to be reviewed.
Bybitcoin, if you have any doubt you can PM me and will respond ASAP. I know the paper ended up being too "dense". Maybe I should write a "lighter" version?

As promised, the new paper. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21vncLoIlIydUVGcjdDak1pRGc/view?usp=sharing

Launch Postponed

On the advice of our diverse set of financial and regulatory attorneys, we are postponing the launch of AI Coin until such time as we have obtained the necessary money services business licenses in 48 States, and BitLicense or equivalent licenses in jurisdictions requiring them. To go forward without those in place would make our business plan a legal risk.

Development continues.

It turns out that if the company owns all the coins, even for just the day they are created, it would be an "administrator" of a central repository from which tokens are issued and redeemed according to FinCEN guidance published last October. We knew this and assumed that we could obtain the money services business licences in the 48 US States where they are required as we progressed after launch. Our legal advice now is that we cannot launch under the previous business plan as that entails a legal risk in the USA.

Reaper mentions the new plan, which is to have a conventional altcoin minting method whereby independent operators create the new aicoins each day and pay a software licence fee to the company, which in turn promotes and develops AI Coin for the benefit of operators, current and future holders. Even this business plan is subject to tweaking, as the software license may create an situation in which the deal between the company and its independent operators creates what the US SEC views as a security, which is subject to onerous regulation. As a lay person, my reading of the regulation and court decisions is that because the company is not the *sole* provider of effort which makes the deal valuable, then the deal is not a security. Instead I believe it is similar to retail store franchise agreements in the USA in which a share of store revenues is sent back to the franchisor. The analogy is that aicoin mining operators, its super peers, must perform effort too in order for the deal to be valuable. AI Coin Inc is seeking the advice of attorneys who know this sort of law. Fortunately, our president works in New York City, and networks conveniently with such law firms. If the software license becomes a poor choice due to SEC regulations, then another method to try for the desired revenue split would be to have a distinguished super peer owned by the company that gets more turns to create aicoins than the other super peers.

No not yet, I've been sidetracked with BitShop updates and some other projects. I'm kind of putting it off because I know it's going to be a hassle for me to convert the existing brainwallet code into javascript which can correctly sign a cryptonite transaction. I'm still willing to pay up to half a bitcoin to anyone who can do it for me, as I mentioned a few pages back. But I'm going to give it a shot within a few days because I doubt anyone else is going to do it any time soon.

Even with a hard fork I'm not sure it would be possible, the schemes are just too different. And like I said on the last page there are many good reasons to implement the idea as a separate altcoin, there are always disadvantages associated with anon coins and it's no different in this case. It's better to think of these two schemes as separate concepts which both use the mini-blockchain as the backbone. It's like the difference between Bitcoin and Monero. If you've ever used Monero you'll be very aware of its weak points, and you wouldn't argue for the implementation of the Monero ring signature stuff into Bitcoin. It's the same thing in this case, it would be illogical to try to merge this anonymity scheme into Cryptonite.

For anyone interested in the anonymity paper discussed on the last page, I recently discovered that the author has created a revised version of the paper and has posted a thread in the altcoin discussion forum where it is being discussed in more detail:

Anonymity in the Mini-Blockchain scheme