No ID Development and Tech Talk

VISIBLE LEDGER INVISIBLE PEOPLE THE MANIFESTO FOR SOVEREIGN VALUE TRANSFER PROTOCOL SPECIFICATIONS Ticker: NID Total Supply: 21,000,000 Premine: 0% (FAIR LAUNCH) Consensus: PoW (Argon2id 32MB / 2 / 1) Block Time: 60 Seconds Difficulty: LWMA-60 Privacy: Ring Sig (5) + Stealth Maturity: 10 Confirmations P2P Port: 4000 / 4001 Halving: Every 2.1M Blocks (~4 Years) THE ISSUE: IDENTITY AS A BARRIER No ID is based on the idea that you shouldn't need an identity to hold or transfer value at the protocol level. Everyone is treated the same here no accounts, no registration, no personal info needed. It relies on cryptographic proofs and consensus rules to validate transactions. By ditching identity requirements from the ground up, No ID aims to make digital value accessible for everyone, permissionless, and long-lasting. It allows anyone to hold and transfer value without having to tie it to their identity. When money is linked to identity, transactions become all about permissions. Access can be controlled, tracked, limited, or cut off by some middleman. Once value is tied to identity, privacy gets wiped out for good. THE ANSWER: NO ID No ID is here to break that chain. Its goal is to make sure that holding and transferring value is a basic human right, not something that needs registration, approval, or any personal info. No Identity Needed: No KYC, no accounts. No Control Issues: Built for peer-to-peer. No Central Failures: Runs on distributed consensus. The system d

Why create a separate thread for technical discussion, review, and suggestions? It should be included in the announcement thread if there is ever a new topic for this project; it should not come from the creator or be part of the team, you'll just want to shill your project. Just continue updating your announcement thread. If your project has real potential, investors will notice it and support it.

Thank you for the feedback. The separation is intentional and follows a common engineering practice rather than a marketing one. The announcement thread exists to describe the project scope, design goals, and current status in a stable, readable way. The development & technical discussion thread is meant to stay focused on protocol review, implementation details, and constructive criticism without diluting the announcement with long technical debates or iterative changes. This approach helps: Keep the announcement thread clear and factual Avoid noise and off-topic discussion in the OP Give reviewers a dedicated place to challenge design decisions, suggest improvements, or point out weaknesses There is no pre-mine, no ICO, and no developer tax. The project is not seeking investment or promotion. It is approaching final testnet development, with a public testnet scheduled to be released soon for a limited testing period prior to mainnet launch, and is intentionally open to technical scrutiny during this phase. Anyone is free to ignore the development thread or participate as they see fit. If the design stands on its own merit, it will do so regardless of where discussion takes place. Constructive technical criticism is welcome in either thread, but the separation exists to keep discussion organized and transparent, not to “shill” the project.

I don't know how you connect the definition of engineering practice to your topic https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/engineering-practice But based on what I see and my interpretation of the rule, you are violating the forum rules because you copied and pasted the entire content from your announcement.

Hi coin-investor, I understand your concern regarding forum rules. I want to clarify that the segmentation of the content was purely for clarity and technical organization, not marketing, and it remains fully within the same thread. My intent is to gather as much constructive feedback as possible before our testnet release, which is approaching soon. Input from the community at this stage is invaluable to refine the project and gauge public opinion. If this structure is considered an issue, we are fully prepared to adjust or remove one of the posts at the discretion of the admins. The goal is to engage the community constructively, not to violate rules.

This is the problem with some newbies: they joined, they never bother to check or read the forum rules, and they implement their own. We don't need to bother the admins; just use your common sense and check if what you're doing is according to what the forum stipulates. Don't make it a practice, lest you get your account banned and your thread locked. We have a dedicated section for Newbies. We'll appreciate your effort to contribute, but it should be within what the forum rules stipulate.

This video was one of the catalysts that motivated the creation of No ID: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AXnzDKK1B/ It highlights a broader issue that has become increasingly visible in recent years and reinforces the need for a system where value transfer does not depend on identity, intermediaries, or centralized controls. At the moment, the project is in an active testnet phase. We are validating network behavior and tuning the consensus parameters, with a particular focus on stabilizing block production around a 1-minute target. This phase is intentionally iterative, as the goal is to ensure correctness, predictability, and resilience before any testnet release. Further technical details and documentation will be shared once testnet parameters converge and the system demonstrates consistent behavior under varied conditions.

Thanks for raising the concern. To clarify: the original ANN post was intentionally shortened and simplified so it would not overlap with the technical discussion. The goal is to keep both threads clearly distinct — the ANN for high-level project information, and this thread specifically for technical review, critique, and discussion. Our primary focus here is to invite constructive technical feedback: identification of flaws, protocol or design risks, and ideas that could meaningfully improve the project. At this stage, community critique is more valuable to us than anything. While we are actively working to stabilize and deliver the testnet as quickly as possible, we believe early technical discussion helps us avoid mistakes and improve the protocol before mainnet. If the current structure is considered an issue under forum rules, we are fully prepared to adjust, consolidate, or remove one of the posts at the discretion of the moderators. The intention is not to bypass rules or create redundancy, but to engage the community transparently and constructively. We appreciate experienced members taking the time to point out potential issues, and we are open to guidance on how to better align with forum expectations. Constructive criticism and technical input are welcome. That is the purpose of this thread.