I would like to buy some BOLI if anyone has any to sell, thanks.

This is a good coin, long chain, 3 year history, but there are people running cryptocurrency without a clue of what to do or how to manage a financial or economic project.

The ONLY way you make the unit worth money is if it has a use and investors, the exchanges are a con, each coin needs to be used/accepted by banks and big businesses on its merits.

So, I ask again, is there a foundation or are you noobs doing anything?

Thanks. Visual studio supports Java, I also have Netbeans IDE, but will ask the Googles

Cool. Thanks! Is there a recursive diff function in Visual Studio or do you use a particular program? Thanks

Advanced NXT Platform Clone

Hi all, I need to create an NXT "clone" but with design improvements and a different primary unit (currency) of transaction.

I have downloaded the NXT master to modify however need some help to modify and set up with a new genesis block, configuration etc.

Can anyone help at all. This is a substantial project (potential for significant funding at a later date).

Requirement

3 x NXT Clones custom currency and modified front end

Note: this is a development on a project that has been in development for 2 years. PM's welcome.

Wil, yes, like many IT people you largely did the work single handedly with little in return at that time, but you should realise these are 25 year projects not 2 year projects, blockchain is long term.

I offered to take it off your hands and continue with its development even partially funding it, however you wanted money for the websites etc which kind of goes against the grain of a "community" project and consensus without quantifying time and value.

I have offered a challenge for you to open up to the community about Ken, however you seem to have declined the challenge, that in itself raises some suspicion - I am not saying you arent a good person and you have clearly done alot with a hope of at least a small return on your efforts however you need to be straight with the community.

Anyone can fork Britcoin and make the new fork undesirable (as long as there are blockchain checkpoints) so a community must work together.

Im not a "giant bagholder" I am a stakeholder and an investor - it is disrespectful to call someone an asshat when they have the best intentions for the coin, blockchain and other investors - if that makes me an asshat looking out for other people then so be it.

Lets look at the Britcoin values, when purchased each coin was around 120 sats, which means even my 500,000 are only worth 0.6 BTC at purchase value (not including losses or gains from trading), given only 10 million coins these are well undervalued (considering DMD with 4 million are around 70,000 sats) so a realistic value at the current time as is should be around 28,000 sats each.

Now that would make my 500k worth 140 bitcoins, around $56,000. Tidy.

So if you, for example, initiated another premine of 10 million which would reduce the value to around 14,000 sats each that would still give you a potential income of 1,400 BTC which is $560,000.

This is EXACTLY why I am against an additional premine, but for the official establishment of a foundation.

I will checkpoint the current blockchain and remain on that chain for the purposes of a rollback to preserve the value and integrity of the chain.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new roadmap, establishment of a foundation with a 25 year timeline, and more information about the mysterious Ken.

I agree, Britcoin is a fantastic project, but it needs high level investors which it is unlikely to get unless it starts to co-opt existing banking infrastructure.

To be fair Wil, to be honest you decided no longer to guide the coin and left (I also clearly remember the rather unsavoury dispute from the original thread), and then this Ken guy was obviously completely made up, no one would pay for something then not do it, Ken doesnt even exist.

Increasing POS payouts benefits investors who have been supporting the coin for a number of years and kept the stake, unlike others who dumped for Bitcoin before it was removed from the exchange, so it's their loss really. Experience has shown that actually people who have premined coins have dumped at some point along the timeline, additional premine is not a trust based mechanism.

Any premine is going to be dumped on an exchange as soon as it is listed to pay for development, and to maximise the revenue for the dev team other people have to keep buying to keep the price high so you can sell the premine to make enough for development.

The facts are;

- there are insufficient coins to create enough market interest, increasing to 250 million + for a mass use cryptocurrency would be better (particularly for a global audience)
- increasing POS over a 2 year period (or sooner) to that level and then being guided by stakeholders contributions would be a fasttrack way for achieving both aims
- the development team should make money trading crypto like everyone else who has invested that way?

The assumption that 3 - 5 million "may have been lost" is a bit absurd, there is no way of quantifying that at all. However if that were true the remaining coins are of increased value rather than the $28 you were offering for 100,000 units earlier in this thread!

So therefore I dispute and disagree with the option to create an additional premine for a dev team that (1) has picked up the coin without consensus and thus has not demonstrated trust yet and (2) you already decided not to participate (when you sold it all to the non existent Ken) so why come back now?

Management of cryptocurrency may seem like a bit of fun just now, but if you manage to create a currency that is used by millions of people, will you accept your financial responsibility or will you just dump it like you did before and leave millions of people without being able to use money? It's a very worrying prospect.

Existing stakeholders are being asked to support a level of unreliability and perhaps dishonesty.

Do you have a telephone number, address, website, business contact details for "Ken" Wil? And can they be verified in a public digital/business/telephone directory? Or do you have a copy of an invoice/payment from Ken for the Britcoin stuff?

I think now would be a good time to pass on that information so we can be demonstrated that there is honesty and transparency, and we can ask "Ken" why he has chosen not to take on the development of something he purchased.

One or more people have to be officially responsible. I smell a scam, particularly as Cryptsy said they had been scammed by a Dev including a backdoor into a wallet that stole Bitcoins, there has to be a significant element of trust built before moving forward.

Look forward to hearing some details.

Thanks Graham, interesting read.

I do think, however, that Parliament or the FSA will draw up clear guidelines or implement legislation for blockchains in the future which would apply in retrospect, for example for a blockchain/currency to be listed on the equivalent of the currency exchanges, or to be compatible with the BoE, that there would for example need to me a maximum of 1 fork every 3 years, there has been no or limited premine, etc etc. So what I am suggesting is that many of the currencies out there today will be disgarded because they have not respected the blockchain or consensus. So by applying legislative regulations in this case it can serve in retrospect, and thats because the blockchain is a continuous timeline. Hope that makes sense.

Cheers

Hi Graham, thanks. What I am merely suggesting is that just because the underlying software is open-source, the layer of IP (intellectual property) that is the coin configuration model, naming convention and brand as a combination are of significant value in the sector. Of course any additional development added to the blockchain basic Bitcoin source, e.g. proprietory development, also adds key value.

When I mentioned legal position, any government, or authority can apply legislation in retrospect to the detriment of, or the governance of a sector. So just because there is no legislation now it cannot be assumed that todays development will not be looked at in retrospect.

I'm not looking out for me as an individual, but for the team and investors, I just had a terrible experience with Colossuscoin where Cryptsy has 1.2 billion of my coins, however the team have decided to do Colossuscoin V2 and decided that despite me owning those they will not be providing me with the same amount from the new chain. I find this pretty disgusting, which is why i am saying that there will be regulations to protect consumers, in fact there already is, but people think because the software is open-source that people do not have any protection, remembering that anyone can fork the chain and take a community with it.

That's all I was trying to get across, (the think bit was just a general comment not directed at anyone in particular) if the team acts professional, and works in consensus I think it has a good chance of success.

To the other stuff;

Glad people have picked this up, I contacted Wil ages ago to do something, but I didn't have a budget for financial responsibility, so happy to support and contribute.

I can easily create a new website if needed. I will still run the Britcoin Revival and get people on the V3 blockchain once we have decided on a clear roadmap of development.

22 million coins is not really many at all - the value is not in the number of coins but in the community and its consumption, for example, DMD will have value because it is Diamond and its "brand" digital diamond would be valuable in this space (Most coin values are artificially valued anyway, the real value will only be visible upon mainstream adoption.)

Would people rather have 1 million Britcoins or 10 Britcoins? At the current issuance the max count is less than 0.5 Britcoin per person in the UK, I think it is unlikely that Britcoin will peer a 1:1 value with Bitcoin, depends on what everyone thinks on the coin supply.

If you want a better corporate roadmap and fasttrack uptake I would recommend;

- increasing to a high POS for a fixed period (as mentioned before)
- adding a "tail off" POW and smaller long term POS after the fixed high POS period (having both like DMD is a good idea)
- creating an "airdrop fund" where Britcoins are given to;
--- HM Treasury (airdrop a resonable supply per month)
--- World & British Banks (airdrop a smaller proportion as a one-off)
--- Charities (airdrop smaller proportions regularly)
- creating a direct purchase avenue (e.g. sell for £1.00 each, but buy back available at £0.75p) which will help keep coins in circ (uness exchanges are willing to add the coin)
- having multiple faucets (I will be running one just from my coin stake anyway)

* the airdrops are to encourage Britcoin as an investment vehicle for treasury money, bank money to stabilise and help regulate the coin. donating to charities would increase adoption as it would encourage them to accept Britcoin. Ultimately HM Treasury / BoE will most likely deliver their own digital vehicle but from a consensus perspective it would be valuable for all parties to work together to establish and deliver the brand. I suspect there are bumpy roads ahead but ultimately all money absorbed by digital currencies is fiat money from one location or another *

Hope that helps, I will contribute 0.01 BTC for the node, once we've decided on a route forward.

Good luck.

Hi Graham,

Can you explain the "non-legal" rights of stakeholders?

For conventional currencies, the issuer (or directors appointed to manage an economy within a currency e.g. the Bank of England with pound sterling) are stakeholders, e.g. they manage the currency for the best interests of its users (other banks and general public) to maintain its value against other currencies.

So given that investors are stakeholders (e.g. any business, person or asset that chooses to use a currency for purchasing and selling), in the traditional sense, what you are saying Graham is that Bitcoin and all digital currencies can be FUCKED at any time by a handful of people despite people (stakeholders) owning the coins, and anyone can divert investment for their own means if they are willing to do a bit of developing.

You do realise what you have just demonstrated with that statement that means that digital currencies are machines of theft, and that Bitcoin and digital currencies are a con, and no better than fiat? And therefore ONLY proof of work coins that work purely on consensus and open voting can be trusted.

Satoshi invented Bitcoin (without the foresight of ASICS) to be run in consensus, that is that all stakeholders have a say, after all that is the whole point of the blockchain. So why would people think it is OK to sabotage something that people have invested in?

Just because there are no formal regulations does not mean that digital currencies do not conform to existing legislation.

The governments will be watching everything people are doing and just waiting for the honeypot to catch enough people.

Any change that is implemented without the stakeholders would invalidate the trust nature of the blockchain and therefore abuse its trust and potentially damage the future integrity of a brand or coin. You may think that is rubbish now, but I guarantee when finTech moves into the blockchain there will be a set of key regulations and checkpoints that any digital currency will have to pass in order to be listed on any exchanges, which will be regulated.

If the blockchain is about trust, then POS digital currencies that are manipulated without consensus during its lifetime are no investment vehicle and will not pass stringent tests in the future.

THINK before you do anything!

I just think it's unfair for people who have supported Britcoin for a long time, nearly two years, who invested money in good faith and to date have little in return, buying and selling on Bittrex just to keep the coin there etc etc, so I would appreciate a vote in any developments for the proportion of my stake.

The chain is not broken as such, so as long as there are backups of the blockchain to this point then at least everything is in good order.

I think it is important that existing stakeholders receive additional coins by increasing POS only for a fixed period to help increase distribution - I am happy to do a giveaway and contribute coins ongoing.

To create an additional "premine" on the chain, is the equivalent of banks printing money against thin air (quantitative easing) which is partly why the blockchain was invented to prevent that sort of behaviour.

I would suggest;

Implementing an increased POS for a fixed period, say 2 years.
Increase the POS to 100% - 200% per month for the fixed period.
Form a foundation with contracts with stakeholders to fund a foundation from the stake.
Allow the coin to be governed by its stakeholders.

As I said I am from the UK, own 500,000 of these with over 12,000 already dedicated for a giveaway.

You can be sure that I will use my investment for the growth of Britcoin.

** I dont care about Britcoin being on exchanges, the important thing is to recognise legal rights of stakeholders/investors (without doing so voids the nature of consensus of the chain) and then increase global uptake and distribution. **

Also get the old website from archive.org if Wil hasn't sold it and get that up with the new wallet.

Price: there can only be one BRITcoin, I think with public uptake each coin will in future be worth a minimum of £1.00 each, as I said before in order to do so the banks and HM Treasury do have to become "partners" to increase the amount of cash liquidity into the brand.

Do you have a slack?

Im smelling a bit of a scam. No additional premine.

The main "customer" for Britcoin is HM Treasury, they are after all the largest investment vehicle and success would be dictated by their level of interest or support. There are issues of course, technically you cannot use "the crown" on anything that has not been approved or endorsed by The Crown. So Britcoin already sits on problematic ground.

It is critical that we form a foundation to represent the Britcoin brand, and any current investment, draw up an agreed roadmap and treat the blockchain with respect.

As far as "getting on Bittrex" being necessary;

1 - in the future banks and regulated exchanges will be important, not existing exchanges
2 - coins can be added anytime, the important thing is a consistent blockchain from day zero
3 - some people are developing decentralised exchanges for buy and sell orders
4 - you can now create currencies and assets across existing platforms - bitshares, nxt, horizon so britcoin is not currently exclusive

I think someone has seen an opportunity to make some quick money from this...

What is going on? Another premine? Erm, no!? Disagree.

By all means increase the stake so initial and current investors retain the same proportion of investment in the coin/brand and let stakeholders distribute and contribute to a foundation. I wouldnt be happy for my investment to be reduced from 5% to 1% because of an additional premine.

The existing blockchain must be continued and respected!

If I were you I would communicate with this "Ken" chap to see what he is doing, although I suspect Ken doesnt even exist, why would you buy something to take it offline? Bit weird.

A foundation and roadmap should be made, and largely decided, by its richlist and main investors (an additional premine is unacceptable as this would devalue any initial investment by current stakeholders.)

I hope that is acceptable.

Hi All

I have 500,000 Britcoin from the original coin.

Happy to support and contribute, also happy to give away proportion of staked coins.

I have set up a Britcoin Revival on twitter - www.twitter.com/britcoinbitcoin and happy to run a dedicated column over at www.digital-currency-world.com

Is the 3.0 genuine? What's the latest news?

Thanks

I have a few questions about DIONS.

Will DIONS support a domain DNS tree for example;

If someone has the name IOCOIN-IO registered in IONS will they be able to;

Create a sub registration or sub "domains" against the address, for example;

currency.iocoin-io

Will then the person that has that address allocated to their xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wallet address then be able to create further sub "domains" for example;

digital.currency.iocoin-io
bitcoin.currency.iocoin-io

If so, to what nth degree x.x.x.x.iocoin-io?

When DIONS comes online, will IONS address holders be able to allocate redirector resources like DNS, for example

pointing digital.currency.iocoin-io to an IP address 127.0.0.1
adding information to digital.currency.iocoin-io
uploading files to a datachain referenced by digital.currency.iocoin-io

It would be great to know what the scope for these technologies will be and how they will be implemented, thanks alot.

If so I have some wallet addresses and I would like to be able to offer preregistration of "sub domains" on some of my registered IONS addresses.

Thanks alot.

TOS do not apply. LOL You cant make a TOS until there is regulation. The law does not recognise any TOS unless it is regulated by the Financial Services Authority, similar or legislated. Terms and conditions are not above any law by the way.

So what you are saying is, you do not care about Colossuscoin investors and that V2 is purely a scam? There is a practise, that is well known in the cryptocurrency circuit called "HOLDING" ,it is where when a coin is launched the developers of scam coins encourage holding so that they can dump coins or change/fork the blockchain later on. All holders are investors.

One question is, how do you know that I have not been ill for 6 months? You can't presume someone is active, in fact I can provide evidence of long term illness so do you have another excuse?

My question is, have you continued with the original chain, or have you completed a hard fork before you have collected all coins from the previous fork?

People think digital currencies are a game, a quick way of making money, but ultimately you are "trying" to become one of a number of payments.

If you treat fellow investors in such a manner, I think it is an unreasonable attitude, therefore Colossus V2 is no more than SCAM to protect YOUR OWN investment and encourage others to buy in and increase your income. Colossuscoin V2 is a ponzi scheme, any coin relaunch is a ponzi scheme.

There are such things as trading standards and ethics, you clearly do not have any community ethics.

Guys don't buy this coin, you will get dumped on eventually, its already happened once....

Is Colossuscoin V2 in anyway related to Colossuscoin V1? Is it a fork? A new chain?

I have 1.2 billion Colossuscoins currently (buy value 0.25 BTC) at Cryptsy locked in to their wallet. The purchase dates were;

24 August 2015 and 7 October 2015.

Legally;

A transaction has occurred and the coins (regardless of Cryptsy's position) is that the coins are legally mine, it is the responsibility of Cryptsy to allow access to withdrawels and after such do an audit of their financials, their financials cannot include current customers owned coins.

The purchase has been made and registered on the blockchain, this means that an investment has been made in the Colossuscoin blockchain and "foundation" running the coin, this represents;

a legal stake in the coin and a legal right of entitlement to full replacement or reimbursement of value if that coin is no longer accepted by the team
(evidence can be provided of balance including all transactions to the wallet).

Development teams think that they can allocate a cut off date for transfer of coins - this of course relies on;

a) that the development team is able to contact all stakeholders and inform them personally
b) that the stakeholders are treated as investors, not "cash cows" or anything less than human in any circumstances

Those people responsible for cut off dates will be liable for reimbursements at any time, which includes the future, in particular;

if Colossuscoin were to reach a value of a dollar (highly unlikely) then I am sure you would not really want a lawsuit for someone to claim losses of $1.2 billion

ONLY legal regulation, including time limits, such as PPI claims (which have now been running for 5 years because it is unlawful for them to stop until directed to do so) can be issued by regulatory bodies.

Digital currencies are not centrally issued, however in cases whereby one or a group of people are managing the exchange of goods, the consumer act means that if a product purchased (from any outlet including 1st or 3rd parties) does not function in the manner intended - e.g. the product becomes unusable, it can be returned for a full refund or compensation.

It should be known that cryptocurrencies are not devoid from existing legal consumer protection frameworks.

Please bare all that information in mind when deciding who and who does not qualify for refunds or exchanges, you cannot discriminate at any time between stakeholders, whereby there is no legal cut off date appointed by a financial regulator or government regulations.

I will wait therefore, firstly for a response and how you are going to action outstanding refunds or exchanges, and if nothing is forthcoming and if you cannot treat everyone with the same dignity, maturity and equality then I shall wait until Collossuscoin2 are worth money and simply appoint a lawyer to collect my investment at a later date.

The same thing happened with BDSM and FETISH coins, what is the status of the original colossuscoin blockchain, those of us that are left holding should perhaps continue with the old fork, and discount colossuscoin2 which seems to exclude pre-existing stakeholders.

Info Please!!!!!!!

NEW LAUNCH DATE (preliminary) 21st April 2016.

Hi, there's no launch failure just a delay, no problem at all, just more time needed.