Bitcoin Forum

Most of these coins are non factors and/or dead coins at the moment, with that being said I would like to open a discussion regarding this little trend as of late.  I call it postmining dead coins.


Applecoin, Microcoin, and Topcoin have (or have not) told holders to trade in all of their coins which would then be replaced by the new version.  Version 2 of these coins reside on a new blockchain.  Applecoin was swapped via BTC-38, Microcoin by Alcurex, and Topcoin facilitated it on a swap thread.


What happens to the version one of these coins that are traded in?  The dev gets all of them (huge postmine).

Version two of the coins are premined (?) to match the first versions coin supply, except Topcoin has a 1000:1 ratio for the swap.  Surely not all coins will be swapped out, which again will leave the dev with another large chunk of coin (secondary postmine of the premined version 2).
Furthermore some devs have given a window which expires for the swap, and they tell holders that the old wallet will not connect soon and all coins will be lost.  


So if a qt and some nodes are ever put up for the first versions of these coins in the future the devs will dump their massive wallet from all the people who traded it in.
Then if version 2 ever takes off devs will have the "unswapped" coins to dump.  
Postmine dumps.




I do not know how burning coins works, or if it is possible for all coins but if I assume it is then may I suggest:


Provide proof of burn for all version 1 coins that have been traded in.
Once the trade in period is over and the version 1 wallet is dead burn the leftover coins that were not swapped out of version 2.



I would like to thank Halibit for stating all MRC (V1) will be destroyed that are left on Alcurex after they are all swapped out for (V2), some proof would be very noble.



I initiated this post to deter developers from taking this route if what I am saying makes sense, and may I ask if somebody knows if any coin can be burned?  

I would think that any "actual" coin would be burnable. If you cannot create an address with an intractable key (either never existing or demonstrably destroyed) then this would logically imply a lack of security of coins in addresses to begin with.

Also, I personally think that what you are saying does make a lot of sense.  However, I have never actually understood there to be a legitimate need for any "turn in" process anyway.  It would seem to me that any "V2" of a coin could just be seeded from the chain state of its predecessor in its genesis.  This fact makes me suspect of the practice.

In fact, I'd like to generalize this statement and say that I have never actually understood there to be a legitimate need for any centralized and manual intervention by developers on anything related to balance holdings of users.  This encompasses things like manually disbursed mining subsidies, features/aspects of some hosted wallet services, many IPO/ICO mechanisms, certain types of hard forks and rollbacks, etc.  My understanding is that crypto-currency was devised specifically to avoid these kinds of practices found in traditional fiat finance.  I consider their use to be representative of a significant failure of a crypto-currency to meet first principle goals, in any case.

Any opportunity for a developer (or anyone) to adjust the apportionment of stake held is an opportunity for them to increase their own relative holdings.

Using that technique would save people who never heard about a swap from losing coins. Imagine the furor if bitcoin did a swap to a v2 and only gave people a month to hand their old coins in. Taking a block chain snapshot sounds better.

Thank you for the input, hopefully this thread will have a positive impact on future developments.