Bicknellski

testet electrum windows setup on unbuntu with wine.
Up to know runs perfectly. Could Send and Receive coins.
Great work! 

Aren't we on the "lets make freicoin great again" ????????

I'll update the code on fa github with the current code. 
If all agree her to pay out the bounty I'll get a hold of molly. Also I will get the wallet over to you arc. First we need to approve to pay the bounty ????
Type agree here ????????

Well, it's totally phyton so let's wrap it up  haha

Well worth the coin... we should discuss a bounty.
 

Well worth the coin... we should discuss a bounty.
 

or... 1 penny each to a million or 0.10 cents each to a thousand. Value is minimal... distribution of valueless coins seems trivial at the moment.
 
I love the idea. Just impractical when there would be zero demand for pennies and you can't spend those pennies anywhere.
 
 

Even better. It can be done via SQL! Actually ABE stores the public keys in encrypted form (or gibberish form, anyway). So you can't read the address in the SQL tables. But this is my next project with ABE: to have human readable tables and do blockchain analysis!! I was thinking of asking for Freicoin foundation coins for this.

With 5% coins to distribute we have 5 Mille/12 >= 400.000 coins to distribute each month.
If we aim for 100 participants at the beginning for the universal dividend with 10 coins per day we have 30*100 * 10 = 30.000 coins per month.
This would be less then 10% of the demurrage. Therefore currently i would not aim for less than 10 coins per day to start with, so that we distribute a significant amount of the demurraged coins per month.

I have alot of cleanup but it gets better and better every day
 

Is there any way of estimating this: Number of adresses that have become inactive, Number of wallets upgraded, Historical number of codes?
 
 

I found this idea also on another project (circles) that brought up the idea to use the tier2 Kraken accounts to prevent the siblings problem. They need a bank account, an address and a name to verify that you are you. As they did already an airdrop with stellar, they are familiar with the idea. I offered the same thing for solidar to c-cex exchange, their main argument was that the coin was valued too low to make sense of an airdrop. Not quite an argument as we have seen that alcoins can rise 3000% a day in price. But of course this problem is solveable. Though we can - and should - start with freiexhange, the userbase increase we would gain with an older exchange would be "tremendous" ;-).
And i would change the giveaway to this:
100 coins if you signup with email and have an invitation
200 coins if you sign up and verify with handy (no invitation required)
10 coin per month if you sign up once a month with email
20 coin per month if you sign up once a month with mobile
Invitations have to be reviewed, so as long as we have no clear agenda to why we are doing this imho it's not a necessity.
Rik

To use Invitation is just an idea to make sure, that the number of double accounts cannot increase drastically. Maybe it's enough for the beginning to start with phone verification.
With the amount of coins: I would prefer to give out the coins on a daily basis. The welcoming coins in my proposal is equal to 100 days. 

To get started here a simple solution:
100 coins if you signup with email and have an invitation
1000 coins if you sign up and verify with handy (no invitation required)
1 coin per day for email sign ups
10 coins per day for handy signups.
Invitations we give out.
 
 

Hello Freicoiners,
currently we plan to make a Freicoin giveaway thorough using the Alliance Forum infrastructure. To speed up the registration without increasing much the danger of fraudulent accounts the following draft for an universal dividend project is invitation based and designed with three different registration levels.
The intention of the first level is, that people can easily join through an invitation so that people can get easily some experience with Freicoin.
The verification for the second level is more harder to get and receives the full dividend.
The third level is very hard to get. Its use case is mainly to limit abuse of accounts through requiring invitations.
This draft also includes the concept of giving interest on Freicoins hold for security. To encourage a fair distribution of Freicoins the maximal interest is limited per person. 
The intention behind giving interest on Freicoins hold in security is that each person has an incentive to hold some Freicoins and therefore the Freicoins are more evenly distributed among the Freicoiners. Also the interest on the security encourages not just to dump the Freicoins. The security itself encourages to stay honest.  
Please feel welcome to give your feedback!
Arcurus
 
Three factor verification:
- Applicant: Level 1: just name and email plus invitation from level 2 or higher
- Member: Level 2: SMS verification plus invitation from level 3 or higher
- Full Member: Level 3: Video chat, personal meeting or well known in the community
 
Invitations:
Level 2: Can make 10 invitations for level 1 accounts
Level 3: Can make 10 invitations for level 1 accounts plus can make 1 level 2 invitation for every 1000* Freicoin deposited (100 days universal dividend)
 
To be eligible to receive a universal dividend:
- must be active, or must have shown through his actions his eligibility (Life time member) 
- Must be verified at least at 2 or higher
- Level 1 receives 1/10 of the universal dividend
 
Universal dividend:
1* coins per day Level1 
10* coins per day Level2 
100* coins (100 days of universal dividend level 1) for welcoming Level 1 
1000* coins (100 days of universal dividend level 2)  for welcoming Level 2 
0,1* extra coins for each 100 coins (36,525 % interest p. year) 
in total max 5* coins per day for level 1 
in total max 50* coins per day for level 2
* the exact number depends on how much active level 2 or above accounts are there.
Therefore the exact dividend per day for level 2 or higher equals:
 (available funds / active level 2 or above members) / 2** / 5***
** 2 because each level 2 can have 10 level 1 account invitations. with level 1 getting 10% of the universal dividend of level 2
*** 5 because 20% is given as direct dividend 80% as interest for the Freicoins hold as security
 
Information required for Level 1:
Email, Full Name
Must agree to the Freicoin mission statement.
 
Information required for level 2:
Level 1 + Birth year, birth city, picture, verification information like telephone number
Text field, why he should be eligible for Universal dividend.
Text field what he can give for the movement.
 
Information required for Level 3:
Same as Level 2
 

here a link to ALGORAND: The Efficient and Democratic Ledger: https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341
from Silvio Micali an turing award winner
An here the link to the coinbase article:
http://www.coindesk.com/scalable-blockchain-consensus-turing-award-winner-thinks-hes-got-solution

news to proof of stake from an turing award winner: http://www.coindesk.com/scalable-blockchain-consensus-turing-award-winner-thinks-hes-got-solution

Hi Sarko,
to 1) lol yea the thermodynamics ... it's both the thermodynamics / work securing the chain, and the right to include a transaction
to 2) attempt yes, success most likely not long.... by the way, also here dahs pow algorithm sound more promising than script mining.
to 3) confirmations currently is pow, therefore see 1) thermodynamics .
The balance is known? yes and no. No because it is not known to 100% if the balance stays like it is, because currently longer pow chain can undo the balance. And not necessarily 100% of the nodes agree on the same balance. And yes, because nodes could enforce an certain chain, like forexample steem or dash does it with their masternodes, or you can use the ripple / stellar protocol to come to a consens.
to 4) poof of stake and proof of work favor ¨rich¨ people. Therefore i want to go towards proof of member which is described here: (Currently im also working on an fair coin distribution on top of the masternode concept)
 
 

its really sad currently in Bitcoin, it seems that the main mining hardware provider doesnt like core and now tries to make a bitcoin fork with bitcoin unlimited.
Its really sad, that they block segwit, which would increase the blocksize 2 fold.
It's also really sad, that the core developer still don't have coded or even described an way beyond the current 1 mb limit as promised to the miners.
I more and more see no good reason for proof of work other than a coin distribution and the simplicity of it. But the problem is with time one single company will more and more dominate the mining and therefore destroy decentralisation. Only solution to that would be to switch the mining alg quite often or don't use mining at all.
Also mining facilities are more and more centralized and easy to attack.
I more and more look into other ways of securing the block chain:
Mainly i see these three different solutions out there, each of them could be implemented in an second tier:
 
Using Masternodes like dash:
https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DOC/Whitepaper
Using Forking / pure proof of stake (in the second layer) like nxt:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cbuwrorf672c0yy/NxtWhitepaper_v122_rev4.pdf
Using delegated proof of stake like steem and bitshares:
https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus/
 
all three also have allready voting and budget systems.
Dash and steem have nearly instant transaction confirmation
nxt steem / bitshares allow allready decentralised exchanges
steem would provide even the possibility to use as decentralised forum.
 
Dos anybody know something about successful attacks against one of them? (I mean attacks like double spending)
NXT:
Simplified as far as I understood, next chooses one stakeholder that can then create the next block. the more coins you have the more likely he is chosen. 
If this stakeholder does not create a block, the next in line can create one.
Both problems could be solved or hardly reduced through using some kind of proof of work combination to elect the next forker. The proof of work could also be used to making it hard for an forker to sign two competing blockchains. 
 
Problems with NXT based forking:
As far as i know is that next had some problems, because their forking / block creation allows at no cost creating different blocks, but i have to research it.
Also I don't know yet how exactly the next stakeholder is chosen. It seem to me, that someone who created a block can try to choose again one account under his control.
 
Dash:
Dash uses the proof of work to elect 10 masternodes form the masternode list. A masternode node needs to have 1000 dash which is currently more then 40000 dollar.
These 10 elected master nodes then lock transactions. Blocks that double spent these locked transactions are simply ignored.
Problems with Masternodes:
Up to know i didnt hear about an successful attack, but i didnt research yet.
To me it lookes like if 1 elected masternode could block the locking of transactions. Therefore 10% to 20% masternodes could block most of the locking consens.
This would be easily solvable by requiring only 2/3 of the chosen masternodes to agree. 
Also i dont know yet how they exactly solve race conditions if one set of masternodes locked one transaction, and a set chosen in another created block locks the double spent transaction.
This race conditions could be reduced by using an older bock, lets say one hour ago to elect the next masternodes.
Another attack vector would be when the shift between the old elected masternode set and the new happens.
The old masternodes could lock one transaction while the new masternodes lock the double spent transaction.
This could be solved by electing / replacing only one of 10 masternodes in each block. 
In this case the new set of elected masternodes will know what the old sett locked and therefore dismiss double spent attacks.
 
bitshares / steem:
In short, each stakeholder can vote for up to X (30) block creators (they can even delegate their vote)
The top 21 are the new set of block creators. In each round each block creator can exactly create one block at an scheduled order.
Problems with delegated proof of stake:
Up to know i dont know about any attack vector other then 50% +1 of the elected block creators colluding, which would be similar to 50%+1 of the miners in bitcoin colluding.
For me it lookes at least more easy to attack then the masternode network, but still an attack doesnt look that easy.
 
Summary:
NXT- forking looks for me most easy to attack, but i didnt look fully into it up to know. Most of next problems seems to me solvable though combining it with some kind of proof of work.
Masternodes looks quite nice. Most of the problems as far as i see them looks solvable to me. The two tier implementation of proof of work and masternodes looks quite elegant.
Steems delegated proof of stake looks also quite elegant. In comparison to masternodes it looks more centralised, which has their pros and cons, currently i would favor a wider participation in block creation / transaction locking like masternodes have.
 
Then there is also ethereums proof of stake proposal which i didnt look into it yet:
https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/parametrizing-casper-the-decentralization-finality-time-overhead-tradeoff-3f2011672735#.sysy5p4e9
And finally here also the Tendermint proposal:
https://cosmos.network/

Nice post about mining power accumulation in Bitcoin:
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@dantheman/who-really-controls-bitcoin

one by one.
First lets concentrate in distributing them to people.
If they have coins it more easy to bring merchants on board again.
Some part of the giveaway we could use to give reduced prices if they use freicoin.
In the beginning i guess its good to start with proxy payments in the community.

Okay thanks. Well it seems to me that any discussion of sustainability should probably include at least something about where to spend the coins. There are none. I suppose thats a large part of what the foundation was about, to encourage a community, sellers and buyers. I feel we are forgetting this part of circulation.

yes we need a way to distribute coins other than mining.
I would not say take away from the wealthy, i would say we use stuck coins to bring them in circulation again and therefore help both the wealthy and the poor to become wealthy.
Because stuckness is good for nobody. 

Demurrage is thought to be the start of a cycling of money. Take away from the wealthy, give to the poor and repeat. In this way there can be no bubbles within the monetary system. But to do redistribute it effectively the money has to flow from stakeholders to the people.
When it flows to the miners it is sustainable but there is no redistribution because the miners already belong to the wealthy class.
So we need an active redistribution (Use the demurrage coins to support the poor). For that we need the demurrage coins to be collected by an organization that then distributes the coin to social causes or better to the people directly.

Please define 'sustainable' and 'redistribution' place, for me.