You really want to spam the dev thread with votes?! Please open a new topic.

I'm for Beave162 logo and Yet Another Currency.

Well not for, but a system by which we decide stuff. (If that was clear ignore)

The rest would be just anarchy and as Sairon said even changing a logo or name would otherwise result in a flamewar. A voting result by an commonly accepted method is the only way to shut up people that can't accept that their suggestion won't be used without shutting them up forever. It might not be so essential on the current size, but if YAC grows we will need it to be able move.

And you are very supportive to keep Yacoin the same way.

Did you even think thru your ideas? The only way that could work if you become our dictator so you can decide to whom you might want to listen and how to value their vote. Idiots won't shut up, and intelligent people have the same egoism when it comes to their money.

My idea is complicated, but could it be done simpler without being a hoax? I simply wouldn't accept that my vote is euqualy weighted like someone with a few hundred Yacs. Hell, I've given more away than that. On the other hand I belive it's unfair to let 5 wealthy people actually decide and the rest just has to follow. The reason I don't accept thread votes for something important is that they can be faked so easily that it doesn't matter what the result is. If this were about a serious topic I'd have my socketpuppets ready long time ago.

Without an consenus bevor we have a bigger crowd it will be a few rich people ruling and everyone else following, or do you think Joe would have any legitimcy to overule even a small minority? If enough money is involved I can hire a better programmer, no one isn't replaceable.

The two wallet thing means that just the rich decide what's happening. Once the CC is into the off. client I'm going to pay a 5k bounty I gave just for fun, so 700YAC on a decision I'm actually interrested in means nothing to me. That isn't me having more power, that is you having no power at all.

Don't get me wrong. I don't belive that there should be equal vote for everyone, but people outside an moneyelite sould be able to vote. YAC doesn't survives because of a few people having a lot of them, it's because the people that supported it.

My idea is the following:
n/3 of votes will be controlled by the people actually owning YAC. Send a coin to the voting adress and it get's weighted by the balance of the adress sending.

(3-n)/3 of votes will be counted on a one vote/adress basis. To prevent someone to send 1000votes not every adress can vote. We start a new topic and everyone that posts his adress gets a coin from a special adress. Only adresses that resived a txt from it will be counted.The person with the special adress can't cheat, if he fucks up we start another thread.

For now I would say everyone that has ever posted something on the dev. threads (Original+WM) should get a vote, for the future I would raise the requirements. My idea would be n=2.

Remember:
This isn't about those damm logos or the name, we will have to face controversial decisions in the future. We can't fork a new altcoin everytime we see a good innovation.

That's stupid and misses my point completely. My point is about agreeing on a voting system.

You talk about adding some innovation later, but that's impossible without a consenus. You seen to think we don't need to change anyting now,ok I agree with that, but you say we shouldn't have the possibility to change anything controversial.*

Once we have that market you talk about we won't be able to find a consenus ever again. Everyone would have a strong oppinion about changes that effect his personal wealth. You said you also wouldn't agree on a system that weights everyone equal, but everyone witout tenthousands YAC wouldn't agree on a few wealthy people deciding what's going on either. This would make it impossible to change anything that isn't supported by everyone so nothing can change.

A lot of people aren't satisfied with the name/logo/etc, but there is currently no way to vote on such. I belive voting on the name f.e. would result in most of the people sticking to the old one, but no matter of the result it would end the discussion once and for all.


*)I belive most here agree that PoW+PoS is better than PoW alone, but the bitcoin community wouldn't be able to make changes like this even when most of them agree without risking a breakup. If YAC gets bigger one day there will be PoF and we won't be able to adapt either. Some group is always against innovation.

This was never solely about logos... This kind of arnachy isn't working.

We don't have a way to decide stuff on YAC, so we can't decide anything of importance. That is a problem, since the current anarchy style only works for small groups as now, but if this grows this would bring stagnation. There are like 100 possible voting mechanisms and if don't agree on one soon we won't be able to agree on one later when we face hard decisions when noone accepts a mecanism that isn't favouring his interrests then.

Without the ability to agree on changes we won't be able to innovate and be replaced by the next better YAC fork. We don't have the starter bonus like BTC, the developers of novacoin or the community like FTC, so we have to be innovative to survive.


It doesn't matter how this will be done decided as long as it is accepted by the community. I wouldn't like equal weight either, but I rather have that than nothing. If we face a decision like f.e. reducing PoS or bigger PoS minimum we won't be able to agree on a way to vote on this, so we have to decide on the voting mechanism bevor we face such decisions. Not beeing able to decide would be the worst, and even Joe doesn't have the right to decide on such things alone either.

I don't see why this shouldn't be feasible.

I wouldn't use the 2nd privkey to store anything besides change and this really improves the security of my funds massively. Nobody can force me to decrypt my wallet or steal it. The funds of the 2nd privkey could be even seen as donation to electrum if you don't want to handle user funds.

That's a cool idea, actually I haven't thought of using my mobile for YAC as an addition at all. As long as it isn't used for PoS it's ok, but when it does there has to be some measures to prevent somone adding PoS blocks to his shorter chain.


Besides the obvious uses I think this could be used for some kind of 2factor autentification. I'm thinking of the following:

There are already multisig wallets so I use 2 signatures on my wallet. I sign it with yacoin-qt the first time and send the transaction to your server. I could even give you a copy of the 2nd privkey so you can sign the 2nd time and broadcast it when I log in. It's unlikely someone hacks my PC AND mobile without even knowing that they are related to each other.

A small bounty adress with some spare would be left aviable for a thief so your servers check it regulary and delete the 2nd key once the bait got stolen. Afaik  there would be no way for the thief to know that the privkeys on my PC had been used to sign other adresses, right?

I love the possibilities with this.


EDIT: Does multisig actually work with PoS?

It would kinda kill the security benefits from PoS if everyone uses a centralized datasource for their clients. On the other hand is YAC so small that there wouldn't be many people using it.

Are you talking about the same Germany that fucked up it's reunion in nearly every possible way? The very same that killed the Economy of Cyprus by supporting the theft of saving accounts? Germany is among the worst contries regarding bureaucracy and I don't expect them to realize anything.

Sorry for offtopic.

Do you really belive Europa couldn't come up with stupid regulation as well?

It's a shame that todays regulators kill every innovation once they see it. Bitcoin seem to be a special area, but the same regulations also kill normal business innovation. If it hadn't be done 10 years ago it can't be done today without a big legal budget.

You would have no chance to fake something.

This has to be on an non moderated thread and if there is one legit adress without an transaction from you we would nullify your whole thread. After a while you would have to publish priv.keys and we go thru the tread. Everyone that didn't get a coin would scream andit's trivial to check if there are more outgoing than adresses in the thread.

BTW: CC is esential for any kind of voting via adresses and not donations.

EDIT: After publishing privkeys new txt are of course non valid for voting.

Reed my previous post(#972). A giveaway voting thread.

So the biggest 10 wallests split up in order to make up most of those 100 adresses. Although this would favor my vote, I think it is a bad way to let the rich decide what the people want.

I have like 30 unique addresses, so do I have 30 votes? Wait a week and I'll make it 3000 untill we vote on my logo.

Since these are all directly from exchanges there is no way to tell whether they are from 30 people or just me. The only way this could be done in a non fakeable way would be to weight votes by size of the sending wallet,but that's a very bad way to make decisions as community if "poor" people can't vote.

We could start a vote-giveaway threat from one special adress and only count votes if it had ever resived directly from that wallet. As long as we are voting over trivial stuff like logo,name,... there are little to no incentives to steal a vote privelege. Now it should be easy to get a vote, but we have to limit that in the future to prevent interest groups to get too much power.


I think this is urgent to agree on a safe way to make desissions bevor we face decisions where everyone has strong opinions and only agrees a voting mechanism that favours his interrests. A bad deciding mechanism is still better than not beeing able to decide at all.

Should I start a new topic and write some of my ideas on this?Would anyone support this idea?What do you think?

Absolute consensus is an illusion, I won't like another logo once I've spend hours designing it. We will have to stick to the old one untill we found absolute consensus or a good way to vote on such issues.

My question was actually about finding a good way to vote on such things. ? ??

I have no problems with people having a different opinion than me. I know you won't convince me to sell my junk and I won't change your opinion either, but that article was junk. If it makes you happy I would have written the same thing on an article positive on altcoins.

The problem I have with people like you (srry for generalisation) is that you live in your own opinion bubble and just read stuff that support your ego and prejustice.

I don't like it either, but aren't there more important things to do ATM?

Nevertheless we lack of a good way to decide about things such as this. AFIK there hasn't been any real changes to Yacoin yet, but even such trivial things like a logo can't be decidet yet. We have to stick to the old one.As long as nobody changes anything viral this is ok, but if we ever want to be able to decide about controversial things we need to find a good way to do it. Polls in a forum are rigged, letting the dictator Joe rule the world or a scream battle in a threat aren't good ways to do it.
What do you think?

This article can be summed up by:

The Problem With Altcoins is that they hurt my personal wealth, so they are bad.
The rest is just backward reasoning to justify that Bitcoin is superior to everything.

There is no point in reading an argumentation which is driven by it's agenda. I have to admit that I haven't carefully read thru the whole nonsense, but the fact there isn't even one positive thing about altcoins in it shows it's purpose. Greed is more visible to most bitcoiners when they look down at altcoins, but that is the very same greed that got most of them into bitcoins aswell.

Independet of the topic, it is alwasy a bad idea to read only stuff that supports your oppinion.

Took me longer to find that damm logo than resizing only to find that alenevaa had it already done.

Good work alenevaa!