Arcurus

having an own mining alg sounds good, because in the long run if there are Freicoin specific asics, they would have an incentive to stay helpful to the coin.

It could be even a good idea to have both algs running on the same time, therefore we should think about never fully abandon SHA256.

Having it asics resistant is no need, i think its good to have ascis mining the coin, otherwise again lot of general purpose mining power can switch to mine the coin and also botnets can mine the coin....

To miner centralisation, i think a mining alg change will not solve that long. Centralization will always happen in the industry. If asics are easy to produce for the alg the hope is, that competition will always be big enough that no monopoly happens.

If you ask me, to solve the centralization problem switching mining algs will never help, either you make it genera purpose, in this case the current companies like intel / asus / amd dominate, or you make it special, in this case asic manufactures dominate.

A true solution to the mining centralization problem would be to implement Freimining, in short give subsidies to decentralized community driven miners and or Freicoin related hardware producers

Or change to a combination of proof of work and proof of stake / proof of member / or something like stellar / ripple consensus

this can also be implemented as a soft fork as maaku described above.

 

By the way, if you switch the mining alg it would be good to switch also to a better difficulty alg.

 

Some ideas to that:

 

Why use a two way proof of work architecture?

The main reason why to use a two way architecture is to not be dependent on one mining hardware provider. In case if needed one mining algorithm can be replaced more easily. Another reason is to allow more people to have access to new coins. One alg could for example be an alg that is easy to use with general purpose computers and therefore allow a wide access to new coins. The other alg could be easy for asics, so that special asics are created that have an interest in the health of the coin.

 

Isn't a double spend more easy in a two way proof of work architecture?

In the end transactions are secured through the economic value given as reward o the miners. A two way proof of work architecture doesn't change that. Proof of work in layer 1 is used to make sure that is is economically expensive to undo transactions. A layer  2 can make sure that transactions can be treated as good as irreversible once confirmed in layer two.

Further by default blocks that are mined before the target blocktime is reached can be required to have a higher difficulty or be rejected by the network (see below)

 

How can a simple difficulty algorithm look like?

First of all it is good to clarify the two design goals a difficulty algorithm should fulfill. First it must make sure, that the difficulty adapts if the mining power increases or decreases. Second it must make sure that in the long run the blocks created per time period is ¨fixed¨.

The first goal could be reached through this:

- the difficulty is increased / decreased each block by up to 10% if the last 10 blocks have been in average faster / slower then target block time

 

The second goal could be reached through this:

- if 10 blocks more / less then the expected blocks are created the target block time is set to 0.8 / 1.2 the target blocktime.

 

A third optional goal could be to make fast block creation more difficult:

- a node only propagates a block if the difficulty is higher then: target difficulty * target block time / time since last block. At minimum a block must have still at least the target difficulty. With this a block that is double too fast would need double the difficulty to be propagated in the network. Four times to fast would need four times the difficulty. 

This would also reduce the problem of mining  centralization and therefore give an opportunity to reduce the block-time, because with the above alg miners would have in average  more time to receive the new block. On top of that through making the required difficulty time based this would allow a much more stable blocktime even if using the same mining alg like other coins. In short No more incentives for drastic hash increase or decrease.

 

For example, normally the difficulty does not change relative to the last blocktime. Therefore the difficulty is either that low that the coin is the most profitable to mine and therefore attracts the majority of the mining power or that high that the coin is not the most profitable coin to mine. This leads normally to sudden and drastical hash increase or decrease. A drastic decrease in hashpower is even more fatal, because this normally slows down the difficulty adoption. Economically no miner would have an economic incentive to mine such a coin to bring down the difficulty, which makes the coin dependent on good willing miners that make an economic lost.

In case the above alg is used if the last blocktime is too low and therefore the difficulty too high, miners will mine simple another coin (or stop mining). With time if the last blocktime becomes higher, the difficulty will decrease and therefore the coin becomes lucrative to mine until the next block is found.    

 

On 4/23/2018 at 7:14 AM, magius said:

Actually that relationship doesnt exist in the issuance model of Freicoin. How to implement it?

the plan was to have something like a decentralized foundation.

as said, it could look confusing what the newest version is, if someone oversees the -

yes i understand the numbering now, just for clarity i would suggest to write: “v0.8.6.0-2” instead of  “v0.8.6-2” in this case v0.8.6.1-4  would not look lower if you oversee the - then “v0.8.6.0-2”

ah, in this case better name v0.8.6.0-2

by the way, do you plan to switch to the new bitcoin version?

nice. 

Maybe it would be good to list by default only outgoing foundation transactions.

Just one question, wasnt the old Freicoin client version 8.6.2 already? 

Great! Much thx!

On 3/15/2018 at 7:19 AM, Bicknellski said:

I wish FRC did exactly that.

i wish too...

still in the long run it would be good to bring also further properties into a freieconomy. Silvio Gesell vision was not just having a demurrage. There was also land property and so on.

yes, i agree, that in an system with price inflation people have to argue for higher salaries to get more or less the same while a stable currency or a demurrage based currency prices may stay more stable, therefore employees don't need to argue to get inflation increase of their salary.

To the other part, lower wages must not lead necessarily to less productivity, or higher prices, most likely its the other way round, lower wages would lead to more employment, because less cost and lower prices, because less money too spend (not counting the money inflation itself).

What an UBI would change is that more people would have access to money, therefore the money would not that much accumulate in certain regions / people, therefore salaries are expected to be more even in regions / city / land and globally (also it would even out between poor and rich communities).

I think in the end the UBI should not be financed completely from the demurrage or money inflation, instead it should be financed from the rent on property (stocks) as described above (see former post).

To the UBI itself, i dont know if it is good to give all the money out for nothing. I think we must make experiments what is the best way to give out the money. For sure people must have a guaranteed access to money, so that they can take part in the economy if they wish so.

Different possibilities to distribute the money could be for example:

1. Direct without any conditions

2. Require to do certain work

3. Give as bonus for buying products (see freipay project)

4. give as bonus for certain investments / credits (see freiinvest project).

 

Because its the easiest way i think its good to start with 1. and then slowly add / test other methods.

 

To demurrage or inflation:

Currently i think the best money system would be with neither demurrage or price inflation. Just take a stable currency as described in the post above.

In the beginning if the economy of this currency grows there is to be expected lot of money which must be generated to guarantee price stability.

Part of this money could be used to buy stocks / coins / property and then rent it out (for example on the blockchain itself).

This rent is then used to guarantee that all people have a fair access to money.

In case of price inflation, the rent could be used to buy back the currency and therefore stabilize the prices.

 

 

Hi Mark, thank you for your answer! Just for my understanding. 

what is the difference between self-organized byzantine fault tolerant consensus algorithms and for example stellars federated Byzantine agreement (FBA)?

 

Another question is, is there a need to have a perfect system from the beginning, or could we start with something good enough to work, and later evolve it further if we have more resources?

For me it looks like dashs, stellars and ripples consensus system is good enough working to distribute and transfer tons of money proofing with each day since years now.

 

Hi Rik,

to inflation vs demurrage and the above article.

What is currently happening / not happening  in the system like wage increases cannot be compared to a system which distributes the newly generated money directly to the people.

I'm not so much talking about basic income, im talking about fair access to money.

Currently the newly generated fiat money accumulates with few people  because it is generated by giving out loans and by directly buying stocks and properties.

But simply giving out new loans does not increase the need for new products, because the money goes only to few, therefore does not increase product prices or product demand (except stocks and property prices), therefore does not increase salaries.

It even reduces the product prices, because currently there is low interest on loans, therefore the cost of a product which comes from interest costs (currently around about 1/3), reduces, therefore we don't see much rising prices even with the money supply drastically increased.

This is the current system, another system would be if the newly generated money goes directly to the people.

In this case the purchasing power of the people will increase, therefore the prices will increase or more products will be asked for, therefore companies will be required to hire more people (except the automation is too much influencing already) therefore the wages will increase.

This would be totally another system compared to the system described above.

Yes in this system there will be an inflation in the long run, but if the interest is near the inflation plus a certain risk for not getting the credit back, then this system could function for eternity, because money would not accumulate that much (not considering other tendencies that lead to money accumulation like property / stock income, thats another story that must be solved in a fair system).

The question is now, what is the benefit from a demurrage, vs inflation, vs fully price stable currency.

 

Demurrage would in the long run keep the product prices more stable, while an inflation based currency will increase the name value of the products slowly according to the inflation.

Therefore demurrage based money would be a slightly better unit of account, but this accounting effect could also be easily calculated in if you do accounting.

Using paper money in an demurrage based system could be tricky.

Another difference of demurrage money would be that salaries would not be by default inflated, therefore employees would not need to bargain to increase their wages each year to have the same after inflation.

Inflation based money would once in a while have to get rid of some zeros, while demurrage based money could have the need to add some zeros if the production grows.

 

I think the most fair system would be if the inflation is equal to the production / economy growth, in this case there would not be an price inflation at all.

Newly generated money should go directly to the people so that they have fair access to money and directly as zero interest loans to small / medium enterprises, and to buy properties (see below).

In case of an price increase the money from the loan payback could be used to reduce the money supply and therefore guarantee a stable money / unit of account with aimed 0% inflation or deflation.

 

In this system, money itself would not accumulate through interest. Of course accumulation of money / property through stocks and properties must be still fixed to have a fair system.

This could be implemented gradually through using newly generated money for buying up property and stocks. This property and stocks can then be rented out for X% with X guaranteeing that all people have fair access to property.

 

All other taxes, except for environmental / guiding taxes like on chemicals, drugs, advertisements, harming products could be abolished step by step.

The system itself would be self balancing, so no need for inheritance taxes or income taxes.

Thats it, hope not too long

By the way Bick, we have allready a Manna forum since long time here, the name is just outdated

(Manna was formerly Grantcoin)

 

i guess manna will reach this year already 100.000  people if they manage to scale up to the demand.

Only thing i worry about is, that they have a similar problem like  we have with with the Freicoin Foundation.

Currently their Foundation holds a big part of the available manna (true market cap must be so 100 million already).

Also the current manna wallets are on a centralized server. both could be hacked....

Of course with one exchange currently its easy to make the hack undone, but would destroy some trust...

 

 

Fedde said he wants to add Manna...

I like manna very very much. Currently They are the leading basic income currency.

I hope that Fedde will add Manna soon, i think Manna is very promising, except we finally manage to start our basic income project

Manna currently has only one exchange, if we add Manna now we could make freiexchange to the most liquid manna exchange!

 

All the good,

Martin

P.s.: Im in contact with some of them, and they seem to be very nice and welcoming!

Disclaimer, im for sure invested currently in Manna

 

Freirepublic could be really what makes Freicoin different to other coins.

 

I would do it for example like this:

Implement Freirepublic in a second layer like for example dash does it.

 

Second layer could look like this:

A part of the block reward + fees lets say 80% is distributed according to the votes. (can be phased in starting by 20%)

To vote the demurraged coins are used.

You can vote pro and con for a project.

Each month the X top voted projects receive coins relative to the amount of votes (pro-con) they received.

 

Enforcement could look like this:

Demurraged coins can be used to vote pro or con a sentry (masternode).

Top X (pro-con) voted sentries (masternodes). each month are added for at least one year.

Each sentry (masternode). has votes according to pro votes - negative votes.

Max number of votes per sentry (masternode) can be limited.

Sentry (masternode) get Y% of the mining reward (can be phased in starting by 20%)

Consensus is reached over a valid block either like in dash or like in stellar.

 

If layer two fails, fallback is layer one like in dash.

 

 

UPDATE:

one thing i would add: Votes count 100% after one week time period 1/7 after one day. After one year votes are not valid anymore (phased out in one month).

 

UPDATE:

I was thinking about the enforcement. In away we could start without having something like frei / masternodes at start. At worst it behaves like all goes to the miners if miners block votes therefore at worst we are there where we are now. In case of vote blocking through miners. A single tool which tracks vote censoring should be enough to reject blocks from miners that dont include known voting transactions. This could be added as softfork later if needed. 

Hi all,

I was thinking the hole night about what would be the easiest way to secure the network.

 

What you think about the following:

If there is no known chain split a block with 6 confirms is considered as final / not reversible. 

All colliding block will be rejected by the node (soft fork).

 

Further it could be advanced like that:

There is no difficulty target anymore that a block must reach.

instead the longest chain is the chain with the most work (not blocks like now).

A node propagates only a block if number of blocks is smaller or equal to number of targetblocks.

With number of target blocks is: (currenttime - timefirstblock) / targetblocktime

 

With this, mining centralization is not that big issue anymore, because the next block is in most cases well known in advance.

Also difficulty jumps / hash attacks are not valid anymore, because there is no difficulty algorithm to attack anymore.

 

Forexample: Lets say the chain has 6 blocks already and targetblocks is 6 currently.

No node will propagate any block build on block 6  until targetblocks reaches 7.

Miners will therefore not try to mine on the last block until targetblocks reaches 7.

Therefore miners will try to replace the last block with an higher proof of work as long as it is economical valid.

In average the blocktime will be therefore perfectly the targetblocktime. No diff alg needed anymore.

With this target blocktime could be reduced to 1 minute or even less.

Block header propagation takes seconds to reach all miners, in most cases the next block will be known long before these seconds.

 

 

Further to make it much more harder to redo blocks time stamp based block weighting could be added as soft fork:

For example:

Each node tracks when he received a block.

The work of each block for considering the longest chain is calculated: donework *  (timesincefirstseen - timelastblock)

Only the last 6 blocks matter, because a block with 6 confirms is seen final (see above).

With this a block that is seen since 2 minutes has double the weight then a block that is seen since one minute.

Normally block headers in Bitcoin reach all mining nodes in seconds, so differences in block timings should not be that big.

 

Summary:

To have a secure block chain not necessarily proof of stake is needed. With the above in place in most cased a block with 6 confirms can never be undone. Blocks are expected to be generated in a perfectly  stable blocktime while at the same time reducing the benefit for miner centralization. Therefore block-time could be reduced drastically so that 6 confs could be reached in minutes and therefore blocks  / transactions be final and secure.

thx for your work!

I have some questions to the implementation of demurrage in Freicoin:

Is there still a need to have a refheight in the Freicoin transaction if so why?

Is the demurrage calculated on the uxto set, or on the transactions itself?

If on the transaction itself is then pruning of old transactions possible in Freicoin?

 

On 8/4/2017 at 11:30 AM, Bicknellski said:

Have to say... I am giving up. LOL! I never was able to get the blockchain updated. Why? No idea.

 

maybe because its far tooo big? Better use some wallet that dont need to download the full chain.

Hello Rik,

just read that you want to use proof of stake to secure the chain. I made also some research into that and would be glad to share my research with you.

 

If you want to have more stable blocktimes there are also other more simple solutions for that:

TargetDifficuly = (TargetBlocktime /  TimeSinceLastBlock) * Difficulty

This could be implemented as soft fork. By default the Difficulty should be 1/2 of the normal difficulty.

For example a block that is created 5 minutes after the last block would need two times the difficulty then a block created after 10 minutes or four times the difficulty of a block created after 20 minutes since last block.

That would greatly help to provide stable blocktimes, even if in competition with other coins that have the same mining algorithm.

 

To bring more security to the coin you could also add a trusted node list like ripple or stellar does it.

If 80% of the nodes in the list agree, the block could not be undone.

The list should be set in a file, so that everybody could use his trusted node list.

On a later stage by default nodes could be added if they hold a certain amount of coins as security.

 

 

 

some feedback to the new website:

I would focus on the first page on the registration to the universal dividend.

Just look at google, keep it simple and focus on the most important.

What we want is sign ups!

I would also add a counter on the signed up people, thats what we want to increase

I would also describe the basic data, like coins in circulation, coins given out in UD last month, UD per month.

would be nice to have the universal dividend paid out more frequently like one a day.

the bot is great, got my first universal dividend :).

Is it possible to send coins to a facebook name? Would also be nice to send coins to new people to invite them.

 

Hi Rik, I would use a system of verificators.

For example coin holders elect through donating coins some sentries.

These sentries can assign or unassign caretakers (verificators).

To be verified one need two verifications from two caretakers (verificators). (4 eye Principe)

The verification could be done in person / on verification parties, or through video chat.

The process of verification could also be used to introduce the newcomers to solidar.

After 5 years the verification must be redone (for this time period it is also paid to dead people).

 

Each verified participant, can invite up to 10 further participants that receive 1 / 10 Of the Universal dividend.

 

On top of that there could be some bounties to find double accounts. The caretakers would then have to pay the bounty if a double account is found which they verified.

Each caretaker could get one 1 / 10 of a UD for each verified person for one year and pay one year worth UD if he verified a double account (this UD must be hold in security).

If the number of double accounts is high / low the bounty could increase / decrease.

 

With this in place you have an decentralized and economic system to limit double accounts.

Have fun,

Arcurus

Hello Rik,

I really like your Solidar experiment, im really little bit sad, that still with Freicoin we seem to be currently stuck, but maybe you are open with Solidar for some experiments.

Until now Solidar as far as in understand it goes to miners and as universal dividend.

 

Here are some suggestions how we could make Solidar more attractive with using some part of the block reward:

1.Give incentives for invitations: For example Grantcoin gives incentives of one year universal dividend per invite

2.Give incentives for holding some coins. For example up to 10 extra coins (one UD) for holding 100 coins (10 UDs).

This would encourage not just to dump all the coins, but double the UD through holding some coins.

3. Give incentives for liquidity providers.

- reduce the trading fee with -0.1% per day to max -1% on Freiexchange

- the negative fee is then paid from a Grantcoin pool. If the pool is not enough, the negative fee could be adjusted.

With this 1 Grantcoin could stimulate up to 100 Grantcoin in exchange therefore create a lot of liquidity which is most needed for a new currency.

 

4. Give out some grantcoins for people that do something good. For example let them post on the forum or facebook some great thinks they do and give out for example 1 Grandcoin per hour they invested to a maximum of one UD per user. This would encourage some activity / community building on the forum / facebook.

 

What do you think?