Skaro

@Arcurus why don't you come sell me some of your DASH on FreiExchange?

well anyway, it works better if you start with no block chain downloaded (empty chaindata\) then run C:\Users\Reza\AppData\Roaming\Ethereum Wallet\binaries\Geth\unpacked\geth --syncmode "fast" --cache 1024 console.

That loads chain much faster. After that, run wallet. I'm not sure how wallet performance will be after that. more info:

https://theethereum.wiki/w/index.php/Ethereum_Wallet_Syncing_Problems#How_to_recover_from_slow_syncing.3F

But the time is over. And their first declaration was already recorded.

i could be completely wrong here. But I value the 'back to basics' thought process to see what exactly is meant or required to happen. After a few ego 'releases' it is actually fun.

it seems to me the POW essentially does 3 things: (1) choose a unique person to issue the block; (2) maintaing the 10 min pace (allowing time for transactions to be transmitted accross the network and for people to assemble blocks); (3) third 'to have skin in the game' to not cheat. The second can be achieved by a clock, the first through a lottery, and the third with a deposit. I am purposely not going back to do research here to make sure I am not just being a parrot but creating a reasoning. but I could be wrong, that's the thought excercise. Tonight I will go back to Satoshi's white paper.

Oh. The fourth is to ward off DOS attacks. 

Added later:

I think part of the answer to my question is that my scenario uses essentially a usenet. Where as Satoshi says POW is needed to establish a time stamp server on a peer to peer network. 

Back to basics. Please endulge me:

Why can't something like this work instead of POW? 

1) Master clock starts at 0

2) At a special viewing area, a number is randomely chosen and put in a closed "box" and put in central viewing area (but number remains nonvisible). 

3) for 10 minutes, nodes compile block. When they are ready to submit, they announce they have a block and submit it with another randomly produced number.

4)At the end of the 10 minutes, the random number is revealed, and the node that submitted closest number wins.

A variation is, a node is selected at random to be the 'viewing area' and selects the first random number. This node cannot contribute a block.

Oh! And nodes submitting a block submit a fee that will be reimbursed unless their block is bad, then it goes to the winner.

Is there something that can be done so that the blockchain cannot be copied with a hardfork like BCC? It seems to me now, BCC has proven that Bitcoin is not a trustless system. Am I wrong in my perception of this? 

But I realize I am asking to make a hardfork that won't allow hardfork ...

Perfect. I will use that excuse for the explorer too.

How can that happen? How does the wallet allow you to send more then you have? Demurrage is deducted every block, when you open your wallet.

But there is a difference of 1 satoshi. So it's really close. 

I would like to help with the testing. 

@Mark Friedenbach Yup. I meant 'currency split' as in 'stock split'. 

Hi Maaku! 

Is what you are describing a currency split to bring remaining funds back up to a total supply of 100 million?

Well, that's as official as things get here. We got a majority of 'Yays' agreeing that Option 4 represents the communities choice for ending the foundation. So its done, decided. LET'S DO THIS!

Oh me too. Just updating the wallet for a couple of weeks takes longer that the initial load a month ago. I think this has to do with the denial of service attacks. 

Apperently there is a 'fast load' method, but I don't think this makes a difference for recent attacks. I too gave up.

I will try 'fast load'. We have to figure this out so we can put Ethereum on the exchange. Honestly, I'm not sure how Ethereum can even function right now. I mean, my lap top has 12G of RAM and it can't update the wallet! To me, it's like Rick's animation ^^, a total car wreck.

Thank you. But I already counted you @fedde. We still need one more 'yay' to say this was decided 

Since, we are not using rules of order, discussion is still happened while voting on a resolution to move forward. That's fine. But one more 'yay', or synonym of, will make it a majority.

@Fabrizio, regarding the parameters for option 2, I too did ask if @jtimon could maybe share some thoughts on that. And thanks for presenting your ideas too--although I wanted to wrap this up. He has so far clarified: 1)funds to go through miners, not POS; 2) one of the reasons we want to end the Foundation is because no alternative method for distribution was developed by us, so we shouldn't pretend that we will developed one now, 3) the goal is to end the Foundation, not to create another one. So option one represents the maximum time to distribute the funds, option 4 thier complete destruction. I think your suggest kinda falls under (2), we haven't got the basic income up and running yet. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, But it may not materialize.

We could reasonably target having a round figure still of say 30 million. I think people reading Freicoin history will think, "they saw a problem and fixed it while still keeping that character of the coin the same."

anyway keep discussing, but let's aim to get this wrapped up soon.

Yes, smiley crêpes are considered a synonym for 'yay'.

While we are not following rules of order, 3 more 'agrees' would make it final. So please indicate a 'yay' or a 'nay'.

Yay = 'yes' and nay = 'no'. Any other synonyms are acceptable

Well Fab and Bick weighed in. A total of 10 people voted. That's pretty good.

It's a little difficult to count and rank as some people voted for one option, some ranked their choices, and some gave equal rank to two or more options, then some changed their minds ... . I also know Fedde's second choice is option 4, which I included. So not counting 3rd or 4 th rank, and giving equal weight to 1st and second choice, I count:

option 1 - 7

option 2- 4

option 3 - 1

option 4 - 7

It appears that option 4 is most people's second choice and the philosophical 'middle ground' as it creates no inflation and privileges miners less. I think it may be the technically best option, and has good appearance. It also makes Freicon coin generation truely complete, which is sociologically unique and consistent with the original concept. Option 4 is also JTimon, Fedde, and Arc's second choice. I grant the tie to devs and active programmers.

I recommend option 4 be regarded as the community's choice.

regarding distributing mining coins in a different way, could CPU mining be a solution? Obviously not for the hash rate, but for identifying a participant. Then mining rewards can be distributed on a weighting factor between hash rate and no of participants (as identified by the network of wallets configured for mining). I suppose this has nothing to do with developers but rather P2pool. 

@jtimon, could you maybe say what you thought would be a good set of parameters for Option 2? I assume this would set the time frame and payment regime for the Foundation funds?

Anyway, option 3 looks bad. One thing there is to learn about the Foundation is that bad optics should be avoided. While the Foundation funds have remained mostly untouched, people had viewed it as a possible scam.  So then we distribute the Foundation funds and the richest people get richer--pure POS. After we multiply all address balances by 5, what then? Where are you going to spend it? Its like you and your friends declaring leaves money then dividing all the leaves in your backyard amoungst each other. At least miners need to pay an electricity bill--that's legitimate economic circulation. (LOL I digress.) Also, we don't want to replace it with another type of Foundation either.

Increasing users and  use for the coin is the end game. With increased use the hash rate fixes itself, money circulates, the value will be more constant etc, and there will be more volunteers and community members! So we want to keep the optics good.

Presently, debating here, we are actually agreeing on important things: 1) the Foundation must end, and 2) that the community is welcome to code and develop things that interests them.  All options 1,2 and 4 are fine. 

Well, staying off topic for just one more comment, ;-) @jtimon, that sounds GRRR-EAT!!

Looking through the comments, people have voted for more than one option. Considering that, it appears that option 1 has the most support at 6 votes, and option 2 at 4 votes. 

Well, @jtimon with the  BTC from the ico, you pay the developers to work full-time on FRC and do promotion. I'm not saying one has to do an ICO, I'm just answering what one could do with the BTC: invest in FRC. But, the time it takes to set up a ICO, FRC wallets could be updated.

Certainly, you know the issues surrounding coming regulation better than most. 

;-)

Well anyway, Freicoin without demurrage is not Freicoin. Without demurrage, it just becomes a crappy 2014 clone of Bitcoin. You could POS or change the hash protocol, but there is no originality there. How many clones from 2014 are significant today? The top 20 list of crypto-currencies now are 50% coins in ICO (ie not even existing),Ethereum, and Ethereum copies which are at best multi-million dollar templates for Azure. Meanwhile we have a bunch of mouth frothing 'investors' creating self fulfilling prophecies from technical 'analysis' while everything is simply correlating to BTC. What, am I the only one that has ever made and LOST money on the stock exchange? You can't remember the downside?

Like the guy in that excellent Facebook post copied above said, when people really start using crypto currencies for buying things (as opposed to 'investing') a measure against inflation-deflation-speculation-hoarding will be very attractive. Also, it is a real solution that has been repeatedly applied in the past; ie there is a need. Freicoin is unique in this. It is regarded and listed in all books as innovative for demurrage. What is a currency 'investor' anyway? That term doesn't even exist. It's just mouth frothing lunacy piggy backing on Bitcoin developer's hard work. And there are more than enough bigger as#%les in the finance world that will eat them up.

The Foundation simply didn't work. It was supposed to be dissolved by having distributed all its funds by now. And yes, It should go, in a transparent verifiable, and fair way.