I don't understand why the chance is disappearing. It could always be added later, right?

Namecoin was around for quite a while before it was merge mined with bitcoin, much more than a week or two.

I don't see any urgency at all.

Those aren't your blocks (necessarily) just any block you received from p2p that got orphaned.

If it doesn't say "found block" then you didn't find one yet. At that hash rate it should be maybe 1-2 per day but you can easily get unlucky for a few days.

What happened when you tried?

You do the signing yourself. You don't have to give your private key to anyone.

+1

No.

That's going to be portrayed as an instamine. It's not really but that will be the perception.

I can confirm this. You get duplicate shares but you get those on other pools too. Seems to be an issue with the S2 (at least mine). Doesn't seem to affect the hash rate much if at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97xnWVZYq_Q

I'm hoping this pre-order doesn't have that ending though.

The reason real startups do equity with vesting is that a low salary does not compensate success enough (or in total) and a high salary doesn't align incentives enough.

But I agree that's better than a premine.

I already pledged 10k which is half of my coins. Actually I pledged a bit over half because I figured by the time this conversation even got going I would have more.

I also think just slowing down the rewards a bit until the total drops down to the new curve is fine. Say starting at block 20k, we reduce the block reward by 1/N of difference between the actual curve and the eventual target curve where B is the block number and N is 10000-B. This provides a "sunrise" period of approximately two months during which the block reward is lower by about 2 coins until the new curve is reached. The size of the reduction can be greatly reduced if we got solid participation in the crowdfunding.

This is assuming the block time is retained at 60 seconds. I would increase it to 120 seconds, in which case the numbers needs to be adjusted, but that is a separate question.

It was announced in the best forum to announce it at the time (crypto list), and the code was made available to anyone who wanted to mine. Obviously this worked out pretty well didn't it.


Again, nothing prevented anyone from developing a GPU miner. It was open to anyone who wanted to do it and had the talent. And again this worked out quite well (though tiny by comparison to bitcoin).

Both of these cases are quite different from an IPO or premine which simply puts money into the developers pocket essentially by fiat.


Actually, in the "real world," developers and entrepreneurs (unless they invest their own money) have things like vesting periods and other mechanisms to ensure that they only profit over a long period of time and only if the venture is successful. Furthermore, many ventures are started in a pre-funding phase where the founders are not compensated at all.

They don't get to just take the investors money and run. That is very different from an IPO or premine where the developer/entprepeneur is free to dump his coins at the first opportunity.

Something that could work, and this is very rough, is a premine where the developer's coins are protected by a time lock transaction (say for 2-4 years) and even then can only be sold if the shareholders haven't fired the developer.

As for why there are so many shitcoins, I would suggest that you have it backwards. It is a structure that encourages developers to go for a quick hit (i.e. pump-and-dump) that encourages it. The shitcoins get worse and worse (and less successful) because eventually people figure out that they are being scammed, but it takes a while for this to happen, which is why IPOs and premines continue to persist to some extent.

Buying or selling?

To clarify, was changed from (approximately) 184460 million to 18.4460 million.

What does that even mean? Do you understand how block chains work?

That is like asking how do you get a sun tan if you don't go in the sun. Simple. Go in the sun.

The developer should buy some coins or mine if he believes in what he's doing. It's called having skin in the game. Bitcoin had no IPO or premine. #1 crypto currency by a wide margin. Litecoin had no IPO or premine, #2 crypto currency by a wide margin. Wake up man.

Furthermore you should study the open source business models. There are many ways to pay for development of open source software, which obviously must be true or there wouldn't be any.

It looks like honeypenny is doing 21. Given that this coin is clearly superior to honeypenny on every other basis (first mover advantage, no block rewards going to the developer as free money, far better name, etc.) we should really just do 21 and remove a differentiator has the potential to hurt us. If the emissions curve matters, then honeypenny could outcompete this coin on that basis, and if it doesn't matter there is  no harm in having the same curve.

With the same emissions curve we almost certainly outcompete honeypenny. They have one or two interesting features but we can easily adopt those if they turn out to be useful, since it is open source.

If you need more for the giveaway fund let me know and I will donate.

There is most certainly more demand for MRO. I have two trading threads and the MRO one sees far more demand.

BCN was 80% premined in secret. That is a huge turn off to a lot of people, for many reasons.

MRO was launched in public with no pre-mine, no-IPO, no block fee, and no other funny business that puts money directly into the developer's or into early adopter's pocket pocket. Anyone who wants to make money from this coin will have to mine it, buy it with their own money (or earn it), and then work to make it a success.

MRO also has a slower reward curve (closer to bitcoin), which may be further slowed down to be even closer to bitcoin.  Only about 0.1% of MRO has been mined so far.