Bicknellski

I agree with that Rik.

I guess a lot of the 20% in circulation is dead coin... lost wallets etc... 

I agree with that Rik.

Gentlemen, we broke the 300 level on CoinMarketCap, We are ranked at 292. This rating always fluctuates, but this is a benchmark in Freicoin's new life. At the last trade, FRC was at 0.00000190 BTC.

I'm so glad fedde managed to set up this smart and simple exchange, absolute professional. Without it this would be unthinkable..

Yes we would need a hardfork to provide a sustainable budget. I'm all for it since years.

HI, sorry for bringing up the topic of the opening post. but i have a question to you fellow freicoiners:
I think that it is very important for a system to be sustainable. This is why i fixed the miner/budget ratio in Solidar. In Freicoin we have now the situation that all mined coins go to the miners. Its not that i don't want them to run a profit but in times when the foundation is less active this could lead to an unnecessary price decrease. As the inflow/outflow in these time would still be the same it shouldn't mean less profits but a higher price and that would decrease the volatility. My main concern about Freicoin atm is that it has no sustainable structure.
To fix it we would need a hard fork from the devs, what do you think?
Rik

Gone?
Interesting. Maybe people trying to hold the coin?
 

Mainly we need to improve the following:
- Secure the blockchain
- bring the coin issuing / foundation to run or replace it
once the coin issuing is functioning, we could give incentives for using freicoin
How could Freicoin 2.0 lesson learned look like:
- use merge mining or alternative mining alg that only freicoin has
- switch to a combination of proof of work and proof of stake
POW + POS example:
- in each block 8 stakeholders are chosen, the more stake the more likely they are chosen
- foundation coins are not considered as stakeholders
- addresses with less than 1 coin are not considered as stakeholders (to remove dust in the unspent spet that is relevant for consens)
- not moved coins for one month are not considered as stakeholders if they didn't sign at least one stake transaction in the last month  
- each chosen stakeholder can create a so called ¨stake¨ transaction
- each stake transaction must refer one block and can only be included in the next block after this refered block
- the block which includes a stake transaction needs -10% difficulty for each included stake transaction
- each included proof of stake transaction gets 10% of the fees + 10% of the coinbase coins
 
If we would have this in place, how could the coin issuing look like?
- each stake transaction can assign up to 10% of the demurraged coins to so called ¨white listed addresses¨ 
- as long as there are non distributed foundation coins, each stake transaction can assign additional up to 10 times the value of the demurraged coins from the unspent foundation coins to the to so called ¨white listed addresses¨
with this in place and a demurrage of 5% per year, foundation coins could be at best issued in 2 years
- white listed addresses are enforced by a softfork through miners / stakeholders / nodes
for example the same like voting for bitcoin softforks: new addresses need 2/3 approval and are valid for one year or at max X coins. Addresses can be removed by setting x to 0  
 
 

Enough is enough! ECB is stealing our name: they made ¨freecoin¨
https://bravenewcoin.com/news/eu-parliament-states-virtual-currencies-cannot-be-anonymous/

Well, not the only one, FreeRoosterCoin also

Bicknellski,
That is exactly what I was talking about yes. Why it happens I'm not exactly sure. The old wallet was still adding blocks and diverging on another chain. So I suppose the wallet was simply unable to reconcile previous transaction. But my question to you is: since, 32 bit applications are supposed to be able to run on 64 bit Windows is you computer an AMD machine? Mine is. I thought that may be the problem.

Thx to fedde we have now: https://freiexchange.com/login

looks quite good, only few addresses have some less than 0,1% difference

That's a little bit of awesome.

No. but doing some new tests on p2pool after the softfork as now from what i see there is no tx to foundation and the blocks are more normal. Will report back

92.93% growth in price.

Hi all,
here is a draft, how the current blocksize could be increased though using a soft fork similar to segwit. Please outline my errors if you find some.
All the good,
Arcurus
 
Introducing extended blocks:
- like with segwit an extended block is used to have extra space
- these extended block is referenced from the normal block
- transactions can be either stored in normal block or the extended block
- the old block plus the extended block is not allowed to be bigger then the new extended block size
- so called extended transactions that can be stored in the extended block, must mark their output to be spent by all according to the logic of the old nodes
- enforced through a soft fork only transactions are allowed to be placed in the normal block that are not conflicting transactions in the extended block
- once activated updated nodes will not propagate conflicting blocks and transactions
 
With this in place old nodes would only process transactions up to the 1 MB block limit. Updated nodes could use the extended block on top of that to process extended transactions. If the fee is high enough, extended transactions can also be included in the normal block.
 
Implementation:
- the output of transactions once included in the extended block could only be spent again though using the extended block. With time this will naturally dry out the normal block (if not manifested, see below)
- since transactions in the extended block can be spent by all according to the old nodes, a so called manifestation transaction could be used if needed to manifest what was happening in the extended block
- to be valid according to the old nodes these manifestation transactions would naturally need to include at least the initial transactions, which marks the output to be spent by all according to the old block logic
 
Introducing a Multi tier block chain:
The same way as outlined in Extended Blocks we could use a multi tier block chain architecture.
 
More to that you can find here:
 

UPDATE:
old nodes that are not aware of an higher existing tier can just continue to validate transactions as they always did. Updated nodes, that are aware of an higher tier, but do not have enough resources to be a full node on a higher tier, could if they want take part in the active enforcement of higher tear transactions in the following way:
- they could download the full or a part of the current balances (unspent set) from higher tier nodes and block transactions / blocks that are not valid according to that
- if they dont have the current balances they could ask higher tier nodes if the transaction is valid and block if not
 
What is the trust model for that?
At worst it would have the same trust model as now, because also now miners have the power to block transactions as long as a majority of the mining power agrees.
Further the following could be done to increase the security:
- lower tier nodes could verify, that the balance set is referenced from an block in the longest chain and therefore has at least the majority of the miners behind it
- lower tier nodes could partially proof the validity of the balances and could denounce nodes that provide invalid data 
- lower tier nodes could ask different higher tier nodes they trust if they agree on the current balances or validity of an higher tier transaction

I have currently set up a chatroom based on rocket.chat for use with Freicoin.
Join in at http://chat.freicoin.info/channel/Freicoin and take part in current discussions. 
Cheers
Fedde

Ok, it is not exactly like fiat money. But i see what is happening today and lay it on this model. If there is a monthly inflation in prices of 1%, the prices are rounded to the next higher cent. 1.05,- would end up as 1.07.- not 1.06.-. For small businesses this makes no big change but for large it makes a real difference. So as fast rising prices are too confusing for most people and the big corporations will profit more. The result is inequality and rising prices that are slowly eating up the basic income like inflation in fiat money slowly dissolves loans.
Summarized: Using inflation to redistribute wealth is just not working IMHO. We need an active approach like a wealth tax or - even better - just demurrage. Or a debt cut.

why is grantcoin fiat money? Yes grantcoin will lead to rising prices, but not necessarily this gives advantages to big corporations. As long as the newly created money is given directly to the people, the people have the most benefit and cannot be dried out like in the current interest / debt based system or in an gold like system which will ultimately again lead to a interest / debt based system, because it accumulates with time.

Here a draft that includes also a dividend (basic income) to all members (I like the distribution, because it has the golden distribution rule 1 / 5):
 
POW + POS + POM (proof of member) example:
Transaction fees plus demurrage coins plus not yet distributed coins are distributed the following way:
20% goes to proof of work block creators at max (this number is not set in stone and could be reduced if the blockchain is successfully secured with other methods).
20% goes to stake voters
20% goes to member voters
20% is assigned to projects according to the stake votes
20% is assigned to projects according to the member votes
 
Introducing proof of member:
- in each block 8 member groups  from a so called ¨members group list¨ are chosen through using the proof of work hash
 
Introducing Member Transactions:
- member transactions are handled similar to stake transactions (see above post)
- each stake or member transaction must link to one block and can only be included in the next block after the linked block
- for each included stake or member transaction the difficulty target of this block is reduced by 5% 
Example: If a block includes all possible 16 stake / member transactions the difficulty of this block is reduced by 16 * 5% = 80% 
- each stake or member transaction gets  2.5% of the coins to distribute in this block (in total max 20% for all stake transactions and 20% for all member transactions)
- each stake or member transaction can assign up to 2.5% of the coins to distribute to a project address (therefore in total max 40% of the issued coins) 
 
Introducing Member groups:
- member groups have a member count that indicates how many members this group has
- a single member is simply a member group with the count 1
Example: a member group with a member count of 10 has 10 times the chance to be chosen for creating an member transaction then a single member has
 
Introducing Member Group List:
- each stake or member transaction can vote for a member groups 
- each stake or member transaction can vote against a member group
- an member group becomes added to the member list if it has at least 16 positive votes and at least 2/3 positive votes 
- an member group becomes removed from the member list if it has at least 2/3 negative votes 
- optional: after one year a member group must be again approved or the member count is halved (rounded down)
- optional: for each added member the average payout* per member for one month must be paid as fee
Example: average payout for one month = 20% of the demurrage of this month / member count

Sorry for the hickup, i need to move this to a new server one of these days when i have some time to do it.

I can do some testing. My computer skills are not so great as to be able to build a wallet without a dummy's guide, but Im willling to learn and put in the time.