Based off the whitepaper, the Congress system seems like a good way to avoid a lot of the chaos that tends to surround cryptocurrency management.  Decisions effect multiple levels of the blockchain, from the scaling to the transactions themselves.  It seems like it will be an extremely powerful system.  Likewise, as I stated above, it seems to add the capability to truly create communities around BOScoin that have direct influence on the chain. 

There are incentives for nodes to operate in the best interest of the system.  However, according to the whitepaper these incentives can be changed as well which means BOScoin has a shifting game theory that I don't think we've seen ever.  Also seems like a more organic solution than miner fees for insuring the lifespan of the system.  I was wondering if the system has a 'benevolent dictator' that can overrule a decision or is the congress truly democratic?  Secondly, do people believe that one or the other is superior?  We can vote on that...

I really dig some of the ideas you have here.  The idea of incentives built around uptime are pretty compelling.  I think perhaps some sort of reward along with the punishments would work as a way to create an incentive spread that attracts people to both begin running a node as well as curating it in a way that keeps the system intact.

I recommend heading to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1759662.0  and talking to some of the devs about your idea.  Although for a dev building your own coin is an awesome challenge it also requires a significant amount of time and effort that you may not have.  That said, there are a bevy of nascent coins that could really help you put together some of your ideas, if not on an architectural level, on the congressional or application level...

I was thinking about mFBA and the congress structures some more and I think it would be helpful for users if the block explorer had more robust tools than your average block explorer.  For instance, with the freezing structures, the block explorer could show individual nodes with their currently frozen coins with user coins.  Likewise, the block explorer could have social tools which allow people to register their nodes and market opportunities with BOScoin.  This way, BOScoin acts just as much as a social platform and attracts more devs and users.

Although it is an oft underappreciated element of a crypto, the social element is what attracts (or pushes away) many people to digital currencies in general.  Just look at what Dash has done.  I think there is a lot of virtue in BOScoin cultivating a really positive community with not just media but with the systems of their coin itself. 

I've met and spoke with the team and CEO in Seoul.  Although they are new to ICO's, the team is earnest and serious about their purpose.  They are aiming to both make this thing work and be a very long term fixture in both the Korean and Global cryptocurrency scene.  Between the application layer and mFBA stuff it seems pretty cool and I am getting more and more interested.  If you want to speak directly with the team on here, their main thread for info is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1759662.0

Also their website: https://www.boscoin.io/

Aaaand the white paper: https://www.boscoin.io/wordpress/wp-content/themes/boscoin/src/pdf/boscoinwhitepaperv20170202.pdf

I am really interested in the Modified Federated Byzantine Agreements (mFBA) spoken about in the whitepaper that allow for the Governance system to interact with the Proof of Work System. 

The section is here:


There are some really interesting implications to this system.  For me, one of the the most intriguing aspects is the game theory aspect of having users freeze funds inside of nodes then basing the freezing reward off of the node's own frozen funds.  I think this will lead to small 'lending' groups of people who work together with nodes to take care of the system.  With the current governance chaos of Bitcoin, it will be interesting to see what happens when the system and the users are creating confederations.  It really does seem like multi-level consensus. 

Does anyone here have any experience working with the Byzantine Tolerance systems or have any insights about the BOScoin solution?  I know they have been used in traditional data-basing and P2P systems in the past and I am amped to see how they perform as more proof of stake systems enter the wild. 

I was doing some research on the price fluctuations of various coins and I just want to say that I'm really excited to see how the price control measures for BOScoin works out.  This could be a real boon for institutions looking to use Cryptos to back assets.  Has anyone here looked much into the BOScoin technical, white papers, and otherwise about the theories behind currency price controls and their effect of markets?

Personally, I think a more stable currency holds a lot of potential and could go beyond the volatility that currently marks cryptos.

The use of OWL  and TAL is an extremely interesting element of BOScoin.  I wonder if the use of decidable contracts will allow for really streamlined style guides for the language.  Likewise, does BlockchainOS have any recommendations on primers, early SDK's, or guides for developers looking to begin writing  apps before the actual ICO? 

I've already perused the theoretical side of OWL and have some experience looking at Timed Automata Languages but would like a more comprehensive look at the BOScoin structure and usage specifically.  I have some people I have spoken to about the Application layer of BOScoin and would love to have a conversation here about Web Ontology Languages.

With the end of the latest ETF drama and the strange fluxes of the Bitcoin price paired with the meteoric rise of coins such as Dash, there is an interesting conversation to be had about price stability and the measures taken with cryptocurrencies when it comes to price stability.

With Bitcoin, the supply is partially regulated with the difficulty curve changing based on the number of miners.  This has a certain effect on pricing but Bitcoin's price is largely based on perception.  With Ethereum, the price took a massive hit with the DAO and the various forks as the Ethereum VM matures.  In this sense, the adoption of Ethereum as a platform seems to be the main determiner of price. 

Now with 2017 as the year of many ICO's I have stumbled on a coin that has a more strict governance measure for price stability.  BOScoin.  With this particular currency, users can Freeze coins for a reward.  This alone pulls supply out of the system while rewarding issuance to users.  Most interestingly, however, is the concept of timed unlocking.  In order to unfreeze a coin, a user must give 2 weeks notice before unfreezing.  This, as the whitepaper suggests, is a mechanism that stabilizes BOScoin.  The applicable snippet from the paper is below:

From the BOScoin Whitepaper (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@boscoin/the-boscoin-white-paper):

"Coin Freezing is a Proof of Stake concept where if a user locks-in their coins and in
return they will receive interest based on the number of coins frozen and the length of
time the coins are stored. This interest is called the Freezing Reward. Users can
freeze coins in units, which are sets of 10,000 BOS. Frozen coins are used as
collateral in case of attempted forgery of the blockchain. If a node attempts to forge
the blockchain, a portion of the frozen coins are confiscated and sent to the
Commons Budget. Additionally the system requires two weeks prior notice to
unfreeze coins, as a mechanism to promote price stability."

I think this is a really interesting way for BOScoin to maintain price and protect the system from rapid outflows while offering a reward/incentive to users.  I could also see how this may turn off the more libertarian minded Crypto-enthusiasts.  That said, some level of price governance seems to be an inevitable part of cryptos moving forward if their platform managers wish for the space to move out of being a 'commodity' and start being used by everyone for buying coffee. 

So here are some questions for the economist/cryptocurrency specialists here. How can digital only currencies maintain price?  How important is price stability anyway?  And what do you think about more involved stability measures such those put forth by BOScoin?

So I've been looking at Ontological Web Languages (OWL) for a bit now and am curious about all of your thoughts.  I am looking currently at the BOScoin project (https://www.boscoin.io/?page_id=14)  which is using OWL for its smart contract system that operates on the blockchain as well as large portions of the chain itself.  On their site they include a comparison and list of attributes that OWL grants:

http://i.imgur.com/h5CyHpO.png

Likewise, the BOScoin OWLchain uses a Timed Automata Language (TAL) to help the chain speed up and have more deterministic outcomes allowing for more efficient compute times and faster transaction times.

Their summary of TAL is as follows:

"""
OWL, which is a language for knowledge representation(KR), does not support the computational power needed for processing the blockchain. In the case of Ethereum, the computing capacity required for processing Smart Contract is resolved by implementing the turing complete Ethereum virtual machine(EVM). However, the method of using virtual machines will result in the undecidability of the blockchain, which is not resolved in terms of security aspects of the blockchain network. We use the Timed Automata Language execution environment in a manner that considers the computational power and decidability. The timed automata ensures that all programs base on the timed automata is guaranteed to operate in a finite time limit. Timed Automata Language(TAL) is a programming language designed to support the computational functionalities within a range that do not impair the integrity of the blockchain. Instead of supporting turing completeness, TAL provides the computational power through a finite automata model.
"""

So I was wondering if anyone else here has looked into OWL as both a programming language or been in involved with TAL development/research or looked into the most public implementation project at the moment, BOScoin.  Likewise any further reading about Web Ontologies and the tech in general would be great.

On OWL : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language
On TAL : https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~alur/TCS94.pdf
On Boscoin: https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@boscoin/the-boscoin-white-paper

I've been doing some research on how Blockchain systems could be used for voting.  I think Blockchain offers some unique benefits for the storage and collection of votes.  I've read through some of the content on followmyvote and also found these apps being built by the BOScoin  people https://www.boscoin.io/?page_id=20. 

They seem to be building two applications, one where people vote on celebrities as a way to get people into the tech and test it with a user base.  The second is an application allowing users to place stake into decision making systems.  Both seem to be exactly the kinds of tests we need to begin looking at putting voting on the blockchain.  Has anyone else looked at BOSCoin?  Howabout other blockchain based voting systems?

Could these kinds of technology really change the way democracy works?

 

So, I post something.. maybe a contract (smart or otherwise... on Counterparty or via OpenAssets)... how do I know this contract or "token" is real or representative in the court of law??

initial Coin Offerings have become popular lately, with the advent of not just Bitcoin-clones, but many new kinds flavors of cryptocurrencies. Other the BOSCoin, any coin offerings you guys excited about? I'm sure we could use BOS to create a prediction app/game for how well cryptos do. Also, might be interesting gauge for how well an ICO might do...

It's hard to get consensus on changes to blockchains these days. Especially when we're dealing with proof-of-work and allowing miners to vote, putting all of the power of the voting system into the hands of people who have incentives to collect higher fees by keeping the transaction throughput low (Decreasing bandwidth supply with heightening demand). This can slow down progress regarding change proposals to the Bitcoin protocol. Bitcoin has taught us much. What if there were a network of verifying and mining nodes that bet (based on the number of other nodes that bet on them to mine blocks well) on changes... Then we might have a system in which the goal of the community would be heard and could be implemented, instead of great fixes sitting on ice for... prolonged... periods... of... time.
Thoughts?

Cryptos and consensus currently looks like this:
Bitcoin = Proof of Work
Ethereum = Proof of Work
What about Modified FBA (Federated Byzantine Agreements?)
In which consensus does not rely on all nodes, but one networks of nodes that are betting on each other to succeed and thus speeds up confirmation times?
Would love feedback on the downsides to this... Link here: https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@boscoin/the-boscoin-white-paper