|
It's almost like having a second chance at the ICO price...
|
|
|
|
|
Iconic Expert and his crew must be dumping...
|
|
|
|
|
@James
The above explanations are way too technical and way too complex for most people to fully understand --me included.
I believe it would serve you -and us all- quite well if you work a bit on a much simple explanation... with analogies that work. The one about SuperNET being to crypto (Alts, I imagine you mean) what the Internet is to websites simply doesn't cut it. The internet is a highway and SuperNET is nothing of that short. In my (admittedly very little) understanding of it, SuperNET would be much more an aggregator (like Yahoo, for instance) or a specific portal with several sites linked under a common general umbrella. I may be wrong?
Also I have no doubt you have the general lines and sources of revenue quite clearly delineated in your mind for that project, but it doesn't come through clearly. You speak of "advertising", for instance... what advertising? There's no advertising revenue whatsoever in Vericoin -or in any other coin that I know of for that matter-, so how is advertising revenue going to make its way to to the SuperNET? Like I said, I have no doubt you have all that sorted out quite clearly in your mind but it would be more than convenient (and greatly appreciated) if you spend a few minutes in trying to go into it, in detail, AND in a language that the average 11 year old can understand.
I'll give you a few instances, besides the above mentioned, that are hard to grasp: "Assets" (or cryptoassets, as per your description). Which are them? Does Vericoin have any, currently? If so, which?
I am quite familiar with the NXT platform myself... which I have posted long ago I believe is the best in crypto, by far... only that the distribution sucks and I wouldn't recommend anyone to invest in something fully owned by 70 people, all of which can retire and live like millionaires if they sell off their coins. If only a couple of them do, the entire platform goes practically to zero value in price practically overnight... that's my opinion, of course. But, as it stands, I believe all sort of things can and will be built on top of that platform (will those things to be built, what you call "cryptoassets"? I also understand -hopefully correctly- that NXTventures is a incubator but I don't get what kind of assets can be monetized in the SuperNET when every tech is open source and it is going to be widely available to anyone shortly after implemented. And that would be for free, right? So I still fail to see any source of revenue....
So, again, please give me a detailed lecture so I can understand, in layman's terms, how you plan on monetizing the blockchain traffic that linking the blockchains of it's members to the blockchain of the SuperNET (is that how it is going to work?) will provide.
I'm sure I am not alone in wanting to have a much clearer vision of what the SuperNET you have envisioned is going to be, since Vericoin is going to be part of it, hopefully, core part of it. The interested parties will be as thankful as I am in advance for it.
|
|
|
|
|
You know Bob, you are doing just fine with your group of manipulators... congratulations on that one.... so far. It does seem that the "guaranteed" double on XST may be in a little bit of a conundrum, though. You see, that project promises investors a 20% interest and you know as well as anyone that it is an impossibility, a de facto impossibility. So you may have some trouble fulfilling that guarantee of yours this time around even with the power to manipulate the price that gives your substantial purchasing power. Good luck with that, you are going to need it.
Now, to call an idea -an idea that has been enthusiastically embraced by dozens of rich and not so rich investors-, a "scam", that is a tall tale... It hasn't even happened yet. Won't for a while either... what has happened, like I just said, is that people has put enthusiastically, thousands of BTC behind that idea. And yes, Vericoin is now part of that general idea. No guarantees here though, we just like it. We like it enough that a lot of generous people in the community has gone several extra miles to support it with their own money... with a lot more to come. And guess what Bob? The price has doubled (there's your 100%) since the conversations started a few days ago. So, so far, quite so good.
But I am quite sorry that you do not like it... then again, you never liked this project (Vericoin) at all: You wanted it dead, not salvaged.
I understand the subsequent actions to ensure its survival were not of your liking and you might be quite pissed off... which means we probably have to warm to the idea that your group will stay quite away from Vericoin while the price continues doubling.
And that, Bobby, is a very good thing. For us. For you? Immaterial: I'm sure you will continue doing quite good yourself, financially. Healthwise, if you don't come around here, I'm sure you will be much happier. But it will be your call, ok?
|
|
|
|
Trading Xbot is a bad way to make money. This is obviously a long term investment because it has very limited amount of supply. Xbot was the 1st coin in Twitter space. The correct price for Xbot should be around $10 each. I'm valuing Xbot at $20,000,000 market cap.
This is just funny, sorry... |
|
|
|
|
@ James
I read that one of the requirements to join the SuperNET is that SuperNET has to own 10% of the joining coin. I understand it is way too early at this point but since, initially, your requirement was 10% precisely to be bought at 10k sat, I am quite curious as to how do you envision that potential future transaction to go down and perhaps a schedule..?
Also, association and cross-promotion between coin projects are (today SYNC/PINK) and are going to continue being more and more extensive and frequent in the near future. Not exactly the same idea behind SuperNET but not altogether very distant either, how do you see that progressing and in which way, if in any, will those associations affect that project?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
and the power of investors that come with jl777
That power is lot less than what was promised and expected. After the great speeches and the promised endless access to infinitely rich whales the price couldn't even break 20k, and VRC started from a very low volume and very low price of 10k. I would never do the bitching and complaining if the price rise, but as the price is fluctuating around 15k and going nowhere, better to ask where is the promised buy support of whales and not to celebrate what is not there. I am not a pumper and I never promised instant 10x on price. That is not how it works. BBR was a special case as its price was artificially lowered, so there was a snapback to a more normal price. Adding value takes time, but the 50% gain indicates a fundamental revaluation has occurred and from here what is wanted is a steady gain of ~2% per day The rapid gains are speculators who will just sell at a profit. The way to get 10x long term is with 2% per day. This is what I work for and what I have done with BTCD. The base rate was higher than 2% there, but this is because it started at 100K marketcap, not $1 mil. If anybody doubts the power of 2% per day, do the calculation of 1.02 to the 120th power This is a four month timeframe of boring 2% gains. Not everyday will be a gaining day, so we need 120 net gaining days of 2% dozens of new investors are watching VRC very closely now. They are providing buy support that creates a stable base needed for the steady gains. I know that you know that $1 mil in marketcap doesnt happen without investor support. There will be a time for some more active price movements, but for now, it is important to stabilize at a new floor. usually a week, sometimes two. So the price is going to stay around here for while. I am surprised you are complaining. Have you looked at the long term charts? 10x volume and 50% gain, we are making a flag pattern on chart as the initial buy panic is oscillating around this level. .00015 is a perfectly fine range for this stage. To create a long term price gain, you need to be gaining new investors without losing existing ones. This happens in cycles. Like climbing stairs. Any sudden rise is always followed by a drop, the key to note is where the price is oscillating around. Once the long term stair step pattern is created, then investors will learn to wait to buy at the bottom, maybe sell a bit at the top if they are keen for the excitement of daytrading. Of course the HODL is the best strategy if you are thinking in 6 months the price is much higher. So we have to be realistic and satisfied with steady progress in price. When the new releases are coming out, that is usually when the next step up in price happens. James Fair enough, what you said makes lot of sense. I guess, I was just trying to squeeze out more from the situation :-))) not that I want to sell as I bought a reasonable amount even during the last few weeks when the price was at 8-9k and in the meantime I sold a very little during the weekend, and I am sure many VRC holders did the same and did buy during even the stagnation period, but we long time VRC bag holders already bought as much as we could, we have been staking and we need new investment to flow into the coin. Not that we want to day trade, but to keep the momentum going. Besides of that, just like in professional golf or football the winning take care of everything, in this business the raising coin price take care of every problems. But it seems you know that and you are acting to get there. Thank you for understanding! It seems 2 of the 3 are now convinced that maybe I am bringing some value. I think there is a song about this? 2 out of three aint bad James I don't know why you insist but let me remind you, once again James, that I was the FIRST here, in the coin and on the forum, to enthusiastically support the idea brought in by drkman. The FIRST. So I don't quite understand what you may mean with putting "the three" in the same box. |
|
|
|
|
This Emilio dude is, no question, the biggest imbecile on planet Earth and quite probably in the entire world.
In fact he's imbecile enough to believe a white man living in the West Coast of the US is the same individual that is known to live in the East Coast and being African American.
Go figure.
Some levels of stupidity are impossible to even fathom.
Oh and by the way, the ONLY coin so far included in my WALL OF HONOR, is PINK, so go take a look to see what happens to the coins I "touch"...
|
|
|
|
It is forgotten indeed.
You know how I know you are gay.... its how you type indeed ever so gently....  GO VRC WOOOOO I don't know if that is a homophobic statement or just a very stupid one... indeed. |
|
|
|
In all fairness the "James effect" has not produced just a 50% gain... The coin was in the low, very low 8, quite stagnant and with more probability of continuing down than up at all. The "conversations" between James and the devs took the price to the 10 level, so it was quite the first steps of the "James effect". Finally, the full announcement and immediate actions -i.e.- giving the donations to the community-, produced the frenzy that took the price to 19800.
Under any and all considerations, the "effect" has been -and continues being- extremely powerful, especially considering that VRC reached the top spot on Bittrex in volume and remains among the top most traded coins... all of this while dealing with the vocal skepticism of some AND, more importantly, the reality of a sort of "waiting period" that, in crypto terms, is quite big.
With all these considerations -and others, including those who clocked profits and others that exited after recouping losses- taken into account, the price action is frankly encouraging, as it is the volume which brings awareness to the project, a project, mind you, that had been discounted as a failure by many that are now quite interested in keeping track of developments and that feel, like me, that it can have a future.
oh my, didnt though i would see something like that again after 2 months of derp from you. i totaly agree with you.... gosh - my head is spinning  Well it only proves that you understand just one direction... something quite worrysome when that direction goes all the way to Palookaville... Think about it: From your standpoint, nothing has happened here during the last few days, nothing at all. Now think about that a little bit more, ok? You really, really need it. Because a lot, a huge lot, has indeed changed here with James' arrival. Consequently -please google that word-, my words reflect the new and quite different situation. |
|
|
|
|
In all fairness the "James effect" has not produced just a 50% gain... The coin was in the low, very low 8, quite stagnant and with more probability of continuing down than up at all. The "conversations" between James and the devs took the price to the 10 level, so it was quite the first steps of the "James effect". Finally, the full announcement and immediate actions -i.e.- giving the donations to the community-, produced the frenzy that took the price to 19800.
Under any and all considerations, the "effect" has been -and continues being- extremely powerful, especially considering that VRC reached the top spot on Bittrex in volume and remains among the top most traded coins... all of this while dealing with the vocal skepticism of some AND, more importantly, the reality of a sort of "waiting period" that, in crypto terms, is quite big.
With all these considerations -and others, including those who clocked profits and others that exited after recouping losses- taken into account, the price action is frankly encouraging, as it is the volume which brings awareness to the project, a project, mind you, that had been discounted as a failure by many that are now quite interested in keeping track of developments and that feel, like me, that it can have a future.
|
|
|
|
Just one question: How is this coin going to support annual inflation of 20%?
That's the APR on staked coins, not the inflation. The inflation is much lower. Please teach me what you mean. The staking is 20% on 20M coins that 4M a year or 250K a month. So what do you mean? EDIT: Oh you mean because not all coins are staked that the inflation is lower? Exactly. Only something like 20-25% are staked of any coin. So the true inflation is about 4-5%. I read about this on another coin (SSD), but it comes from Hondo. He thinks about stuff like this. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=730844.msg8343688#msg8343688
I am going to disagree with Hondo. Big time. But not only the "stat" is a complete fallacy (contrary to his opinion, the overwhelming majority of established coins do stake 50-80% or more of their float) the MOST important factor is that a coin that only stakes 20-25% is EXTREMELY vulnerable to a successful -and fatal, for it means the end of the coin- "double spending" attack. Better known as a "51% attack". For instance: If only 2 million Stealthcoin stake, anyone with much less than 2 million coins can carry out a successful attack. Even Owning "only" 1.6 million. Anything above that increases the speed of the success in the attack and, obviously, 2 million and one coin guarantees the success of the attack on first try. That means the immediate end of the coin. That's why it is so important that the staking is as high as possible, at least above the 50% threshold. But, according to Hondo's fallacy, then Stealthcoin doesn't provide 20% interest (or POS benefit) but much less in fact since the figure of 20% is reached under the false pretenses and calculations exposed above, the real figure -the one written in the code- is much lower, at -I imagine- 5%. Still quite crazy and impossible to sustain with time. Obviously Stealthcoin has not been designed with any idea of future, beyond the P&D phase. To illustrate the situation I will offer the example of a similar coin -in figures-, Vericoin. It has just under 27 million coins. When 8 million of those were stolen from Mintpal a few weeks back, the devs were forced to fork the blockchain to the time previous to the theft, thus invalidating it. Otherwise, the coin was destroyed since 8 million coins were close to 100% of all the coins staking, therefore the attack would be almost immediately successful, if not at the first try. Vericoin, atm has a steady rate of staking -at much lower levels than 5% interest, less than half that in fact- of 15-20 million of it's total of 26.7 million coins. It's seem you already know the answer to your question and what you want to write about. The 50-80% stake of their float, then the 8 million coins is close to 100% of the 27 millions of Vericoin float. 8 million coins float is not 100% of 80% of 27 million coins. I see you chose the number 50%-80% but not say 35%-60%, it's seem you trying to convince people to believe this is very bad as you also mentioned about P&D. Have you ever though of Vericion stake stat could be wrong, it is just a dummy number? The reason I see the Vericoin difficulty is so low, say it's only 0.09 or 0.1? Either way one of them must be wrong. I believed in this as Vericion have many flaws in coding. Now Vericoin is putting all the trust of coding in this one well known scam artist, it's just unbelievable. I do see some coins have up to 100% first year and 50% second year ect., it's the survive of the coin in the start and this could easily be change. 20% is not the end of the coin as you suggested and this could easily change. I see many coins almost get destroy for not having many people to stake, I have seen this happen to XC and also Stealthcoin itself, this is why we have The Great Stake Challenge. This 20% could easily change in coding by the way. I still believed of this 20% only 4%-5% would happen. I don't think this 51% attack even posible in POS coins. If 51% attack is possible then pow/pos is not possible, all coins would have about 0%-5% stake when it's first switch, you get my point. Actually what it seems, quite clearly, is that you are -very clumsily, by the way- trying to deliberately mud the waters pretending you don't understand (or "...actually don't think...") how a 51% -or double spending- attack works. Lets first clear the waters so you cannot keep on pretending: The theft of 8 million Vericoin made the inevitable attack sure-fire successful because AT THE TIME of the theft, no more than 8 million coins were actually staking with the bulk of them -including the 8 million stolen- being deposited in the different exchanges. This is clear without possibility of manipulation now? OK. SUBSEQUENTLY, the community moved on to support the pleas of the developers and massively moved their coins out of the exchanges and put them to stake, resulting in up to 80% (and higher) staking. I hope I will not have to straighten out again your deliberate "misunderstanding". Now, for the added element, can you back your accusation of "Jl777" as being this "well known scam artist"? Or, like the clumsy attempt at "misunderstanding just straightened out, it is just another instance of your libelous and baseless FUD? TRhe guy has quite a profile in crypto, indeed, but search as I have done, I haven't found a single instance of "scamming" anyone and, on the other hand, many instances of huge, sustained and continuous success with different projects, most of them still in early stages and already wildly successful. So, please, put up or stfu. As for what's in the code of Stealthcoin, I am not going to believe you, of course. What is it? 20% or 5%. Just fucking look it up, ok? It is a FALLACY, a deliberate lie "explained" by Hondo with a load of bull crap designed to convince those who want to be convinced by anything. The code does not lie. It's either or, no "ifs" no "buts". Anyway, the case is clearly made and it's up to everyone to make their own decisions. More than enough said already. Now you is clearly a mother fucker FUDster. I am going to leave Vericoin and Jl777 out of this as I don't know much beside the thing I've just mentioned about them. For your answer of 20% or 5%, it is clearly 20%. You're just fucking really dumb or acting dumb I really don't know for you to ask this question. The 20% is if all 20,700,000 coins are stake and that is you mother fucker believed, all users and all coins would stake. Way more than enough said already, obviously. Have a nice life... |
|
|
|
Just one question: How is this coin going to support annual inflation of 20%?
That's the APR on staked coins, not the inflation. The inflation is much lower. Please teach me what you mean. The staking is 20% on 20M coins that 4M a year or 250K a month. So what do you mean? EDIT: Oh you mean because not all coins are staked that the inflation is lower? Exactly. Only something like 20-25% are staked of any coin. So the true inflation is about 4-5%. I read about this on another coin (SSD), but it comes from Hondo. He thinks about stuff like this. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=730844.msg8343688#msg8343688
I am going to disagree with Hondo. Big time. But not only the "stat" is a complete fallacy (contrary to his opinion, the overwhelming majority of established coins do stake 50-80% or more of their float) the MOST important factor is that a coin that only stakes 20-25% is EXTREMELY vulnerable to a successful -and fatal, for it means the end of the coin- "double spending" attack. Better known as a "51% attack". For instance: If only 2 million Stealthcoin stake, anyone with much less than 2 million coins can carry out a successful attack. Even Owning "only" 1.6 million. Anything above that increases the speed of the success in the attack and, obviously, 2 million and one coin guarantees the success of the attack on first try. That means the immediate end of the coin. That's why it is so important that the staking is as high as possible, at least above the 50% threshold. But, according to Hondo's fallacy, then Stealthcoin doesn't provide 20% interest (or POS benefit) but much less in fact since the figure of 20% is reached under the false pretenses and calculations exposed above, the real figure -the one written in the code- is much lower, at -I imagine- 5%. Still quite crazy and impossible to sustain with time. Obviously Stealthcoin has not been designed with any idea of future, beyond the P&D phase. To illustrate the situation I will offer the example of a similar coin -in figures-, Vericoin. It has just under 27 million coins. When 8 million of those were stolen from Mintpal a few weeks back, the devs were forced to fork the blockchain to the time previous to the theft, thus invalidating it. Otherwise, the coin was destroyed since 8 million coins were close to 100% of all the coins staking, therefore the attack would be almost immediately successful, if not at the first try. Vericoin, atm has a steady rate of staking -at much lower levels than 5% interest, less than half that in fact- of 15-20 million of it's total of 26.7 million coins. It's seem you already know the answer to your question and what you want to write about. The 50-80% stake of their float, then the 8 million coins is close to 100% of the 27 millions of Vericoin float. 8 million coins float is not 100% of 80% of 27 million coins. I see you chose the number 50%-80% but not say 35%-60%, it's seem you trying to convince people to believe this is very bad as you also mentioned about P&D. Have you ever though of Vericion stake stat could be wrong, it is just a dummy number? The reason I see the Vericoin difficulty is so low, say it's only 0.09 or 0.1? Either way one of them must be wrong. I believed in this as Vericion have many flaws in coding. Now Vericoin is putting all the trust of coding in this one well known scam artist, it's just unbelievable. I do see some coins have up to 100% first year and 50% second year ect., it's the survive of the coin in the start and this could easily be change. 20% is not the end of the coin as you suggested and this could easily change. I see many coins almost get destroy for not having many people to stake, I have seen this happen to XC and also Stealthcoin itself, this is why we have The Great Stake Challenge. This 20% could easily change in coding by the way. I still believed of this 20% only 4%-5% would happen. I don't think this 51% attack even posible in POS coins. If 51% attack is possible then pow/pos is not possible, all coins would have about 0%-5% stake when it's first switch, you get my point. Actually what it seems, quite clearly, is that you are -very clumsily, by the way- trying to deliberately mud the waters pretending you don't understand (or "...actually don't think...") how a 51% -or double spending- attack works. Lets first clear the waters so you cannot keep on pretending: The theft of 8 million Vericoin made the inevitable attack sure-fire successful because AT THE TIME of the theft, no more than 8 million coins were actually staking with the bulk of them -including the 8 million stolen- being deposited in the different exchanges. This is clear without possibility of manipulation now? OK. SUBSEQUENTLY, the community moved on to support the pleas of the developers and massively moved their coins out of the exchanges and put them to stake, resulting in up to 80% (and higher) staking. I hope I will not have to straighten out again your deliberate "misunderstanding". Now, for the added element, can you back your accusation of "Jl777" as being this "well known scam artist"? Or, like the clumsy attempt at "misunderstanding" just straightened out, it is just another instance of your libelous and baseless FUD? The guy has quite a profile in crypto, indeed, but search as I have done, I haven't found a single instance of "scamming" anyone and, on the other hand, many instances of huge, sustained and continuous success with different projects, most of them still in early stages and already wildly successful. So, please, put up or stfu. As for what's in the code of Stealthcoin, I am not going to believe you, of course. What is it? 20% or 5%. Just fucking look it up, ok? It is a FALLACY, a deliberate lie "explained" by Hondo with a load of bull crap designed to convince those who want to be convinced by anything. The code does not lie. It's either or, no "ifs" no "buts". Anyway, the case is clearly made and it's up to everyone to make their own decisions. More than enough said already. |
|
|
|
If only 10-20% stakes, the blockchain is not secure at all and can be easily and successfully attacked... furthermore, why would people not stake when they can make 20% for sure? That makes no sense...
It doesn't matter what makes sense. What matters is what actually happens. That is indeed a "convincing" argument... Good luck with your investment in Stealthcoin. |
|
|
|
Just one question: How is this coin going to support annual inflation of 20%?
That's the APR on staked coins, not the inflation. The inflation is much lower. Please teach me what you mean. The staking is 20% on 20M coins that 4M a year or 250K a month. So what do you mean? EDIT: Oh you mean because not all coins are staked that the inflation is lower? Exactly. Only something like 20-25% are staked of any coin. So the true inflation is about 4-5%. I read about this on another coin (SSD), but it comes from Hondo. He thinks about stuff like this. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=730844.msg8343688#msg8343688A far better written explanation of Earnings and Losses of PoS Stakeholders than I had. Care of Hondo. Typically only about 25% of the money supply for a given Proof-of-Stake (PoS) coin is subject to continuous staking. This "fractional staking" leads to (1) gains for those who stake (minters) and (2) losses for those who don't (non-minters). Fractional staking therefore results in wealth transfer from non-minters to minters because inflation of the money supply is lower than it would be if the entirety of the money supply were continuosly staked. To understand how wealth is transferred, it is helpful to quantify wealth as an individual's ownership of the total money supply of a given coin. For example, if an individual holds 1000 coins of a money supply of 100,000, then the individual's wealth is quantified as 1%. The following example uses a 20% APY as an example because this value typically leads to a reasonable inflation rate of about 5% per year, given that all coins are subject to approximately the same fractional staking of 25%. Note the following values: - Total money supply after 1 year: 105% (5% inflation)
- Relative number of coins after one year for a minter: 120% (20% APY)
- Relative number of coins after one year for a non-minter: 100%
Using these values, the relative wealth of a minter after one year is 114% (120% / 105%). In other words, a minter who stakes continuously grows wealth at the rate of 14% per year. Thus, a minter of a coin with a 20% APY doesn't just keep up with inflation, but beats it by 14%! On the other hand, a non-minter loses wealth over time. After a year, a non-minter's total coins is 100% of what it was at the beginning of the year. Therefore, a non-minter's drops to 95.2% during this time, losing wealth at the rate of 5% per year. It is also possible to calculate a non-minter's losses in terms of forgone profits, which is 19.7% ([114% - 95.2%] / 95.2%). Thus, a non-minter could have nearly 20% more wealth if they had staked their coins ([114% - 95.2%] / 95.2%). Not coincidentally, these lost profits are approximately equal to the nominal APY. I am going to disagree with Hondo. Big time. But not only the "stat" is a complete fallacy (contrary to his opinion, the overwhelming majority of established coins do stake 50-80% or more of their float) the MOST important factor is that a coin that only stakes 20-25% is EXTREMELY vulnerable to a successful -and fatal, for it means the end of the coin- "double spending" attack. Better known as a "51% attack". For instance: If only 2 million Stealthcoin stake, anyone with much less than 2 million coins can carry out a successful attack. Even Owning "only" 1.6 million. Anything above that increases the speed of the success in the attack and, obviously, 2 million and one coin guarantees the success of the attack on first try. That means the immediate end of the coin. That's why it is so important that the staking is as high as possible, at least above the 50% threshold. But, according to Hondo's fallacy, then Stealthcoin doesn't provide 20% interest (or POS benefit) but much less in fact since the figure of 20% is reached under the false pretenses and calculations exposed above, the real figure -the one written in the code- is much lower, at -I imagine- 5%. Still quite crazy and impossible to sustain with time. Obviously Stealthcoin has not been designed with any idea of future, beyond the P&D phase. To illustrate the situation I will offer the example of a similar coin -in figures-, Vericoin. It has just under 27 million coins. When 8 million of those were stolen from Mintpal a few weeks back, the devs were forced to fork the blockchain to the time previous to the theft, thus invalidating it. Otherwise, the coin was destroyed since 8 million coins were close to 100% of all the coins staking, therefore the attack would be almost immediately successful, if not at the first try. Vericoin, atm has a steady rate of staking -at much lower levels than 5% interest, less than half that in fact- of 15-20 million of it's total of 26.7 million coins. |
|
|
|
The person who made the video of the StealthText transaction in Iran asked for a modest bounty, so we voted to give 2000 XST from the premine.
The transaction ID for this transaction is afa61f2bca588fde36cc056de1952d2f92df67d1bc76a10fd653828812d1f1f3
The ledger will be updated shortly.
We were also asked for a bounty for the code review. The devs and a few investors paid this from pocket. The devs paid 1 BTC out of pocket, but will reimburse themselves from the premine when the price is higher to lessen the impact on the premine. We will post that transaction when we make it.
Just one question: How is this coin going to support annual inflation of 20%? Not everyone stake. Say only about 10 to 20% are stakes and these people getting reward big. If only 10-20% stakes, the blockchain is not secure at all and can be easily and successfully attacked... furthermore, why would people not stake when they can make 20% for sure? That makes no sense... |
|
|
|
The person who made the video of the StealthText transaction in Iran asked for a modest bounty, so we voted to give 2000 XST from the premine.
The transaction ID for this transaction is afa61f2bca588fde36cc056de1952d2f92df67d1bc76a10fd653828812d1f1f3
The ledger will be updated shortly.
We were also asked for a bounty for the code review. The devs and a few investors paid this from pocket. The devs paid 1 BTC out of pocket, but will reimburse themselves from the premine when the price is higher to lessen the impact on the premine. We will post that transaction when we make it.
Just one question: How is this coin going to support annual inflation of 20%? |
|
|
|
I think we should not stake until we've raised what James considers to be a suitable amount. As this was originally intended to be a fundraising activity until we reach 2.7 million VRC, I think he can call the shots as to when we have enough in the escrow. When that happens, we will audit the donations and get both corresponding VRC and BTC addresses for each donor. That way we can split the share evenly, with precision, and know how to refund the coins. Right now, we just have a VRC address. Ultimately we will need a BTC address to pay the 10k satoshi/VRC payment. But if we start staking, the blockchain gets confusing and we really need it to be as simple as possible to track.
If my calculations are correct, there is no need to actually convert to BTC to pay people. You can pay them in VRC just returned to them. (Ex. 50,000*.5*.0001=2.5BTC, 2.5BTC buys 5000 VRC @ .0005.). Thus just return 5000 VRC to the originator and no need to sell VRC and pay in BTC. Or, actually an even better method is just use whatever the VRC price is AT THE TIME of the end of year distribution. If after 1 year the price is .0006, then your 2.5BTC of value would represent 4166 VRC plus the 1150 of interest. The key being it's not too difficult to add in the interest portion to each address once we are done with all donating for this project. Yeah I agree we don't need a BTC address, that was the original intent for simplicity. Also drkman if you would be willing to build up the spreadsheet (which would help tremendously) then I would be happy to bring the coins online periodically to earn the interest accrued via coinage. This is also another incentive to make the pot bigger as the community would be getting some significant interest payments over time. My point exactly... with the added bonus that it will be a significant amount of coins staking and therefore reinforcing the blockchain and protecting the coins from attacks. Especially if the pot can get anywhere near 2 million coins. I already suggested a public honor roll, at least a voluntary one, with the devs listing their contributions to the fund. This could act as an incentive... direly needed for while the "donors" have been quite generous for the most part so far, I feel a very small part of the community has actually donated... in spite of the fact that we have practically doubled the price already exclusively on the "James effect". Thank you! It means more to me that you are now part of VRC than whatever small effect I have had on price so far. I now know that you meant well all this time, but circumstances just created a "brownian motion" where the conflict just made things go in circles. Now VRC will benefit from your intellect. With everybody in harmony, the brownian motion is transformed to a laser beam! James P.S. Yes, I realize brownian motion are gas molecules and lasers are for photons, plz forgive the scientific inaccuracy. When people join together, anything is possible My message has always been quite clear all along... including being the first one in this forum in favor of "your plan" when first proposed and no one knew who you were. Vericoin needed someone like you to bring the tech know-how that, unfortunately, our devs don't have. Now there's a possibility, a strong one, of going forward for real and at a good pace... if we are able to set egos and arrogance aside before personal conflict -inevitably- arises.Back to business: Very few people has, so far, participated in "donating" (thank you, by the way, for giving back to the community the option). Like I have stated before, there are a number of things, quite positive all of them, that can and must be done with those funds -- especially if we get anywhere near 2 million coins -2.7 is completely absurd since at least 7-8 million coins are in exchanges-. Staking, to begin with, is the natural and profitable option; to create an "stabilizing fund", like Nautilus, is another worth considering for we must strive to reach a level of non-volatility that the merchants as well as non-initiated customers, will demand before adoption. And simply funding for projects that require investment. But, like I said, only a very few have gotten involved -albeit quite generously- so far. Much more is needed so it will be the bulk of the community pushing forward and pushing hard. Hey, if having their stakes doubling in price only because of you don't bring the generosity (which in this case is only technically generosity). I don't know what will. But what we shouldn't do is to call "the community" some 50-odd (at best) people so far carrying the big burden. Edited to add: And this is a BIG problem going forward... for which we may have already found the solution: The vision of James with Vericoin as the entrance door from the FIAT world -a vision that coincides exactly with that of Pat, Doug and Dave, as well as the vast majority if not all in the community. We have discussed one of the main obstacles Vericoin -and everyone else- has: The be able to convert FIAT directly to Vericoin, in the US, requires paying a pretty hefty price... anywhere around $150k. Cryptsy paid it. Mintpal -I'm quite sure- will eventually pay it. It is cost-effective, to them. Will it be for Vericoin? IF we are really to go after some kind of "mass" market, definitely. Now, to raise $150k, up until now, has been chimeric and, definitely, within the circumstances, not advisable... but now, circumstances have changed. Drastically. To foresee a very significant increase in price in the more or less close future is not chimeric at all so, where $150k was a huge figure a week ago, unrealistic to be ever assimilated by this project, has become now something (potentially) quite accessible. I am not as optimistic as to believe that we will get to 0.001 BTC within 6 months (I hope I am wrong, of course), but half that seems not too difficult (only a triple from here), so lets assume we can get to something in between, something like 0.0007. Let's also assume that the donations reach 2 million VRC. Those 2 million would be worth $700,000. Even after returning to the "donors" the 10k sat, the community would still have $600k (not even counting the staking in between... or any appreciation of BTC from here to there). Definitely in that circumstance, $150k doesn't look unreachable at all, does it? The other "problem" that we need to provide solutions for, in advance, is the upcoming, inevitable, regulation. It is not IF, it is when. Vericoin should still welcome it. How the potential integration in the SuperNET could affect compliance depends on what the regulation will demand. But this, in any case, is premature... except that Vericoin must be prepared -with tools, disposition AND RESOURCES- to be the first crypto currency welcoming regulation and be in full compliance and, if possible, with the resources to influence that the compliance is not too strict. Some level of privacy can and must be requested from legislators. Accountability will not be a problem IF the resources are there to cover the risks... yet another reason to make of this pot one as big as we can possibly muster. So, for those still on the sidelines: Come on: You have doubled your money in just a few days, can't you really afford to give 10% for such purposeful endeavor? Once again, I encourage the idea of creating an honor roll, if for nothing else, to be thankful to those generous enough to, along with James, having made this actually possible. It is something to be proud of -and thankful for. And it should inspire those with less generous inclinations in the community. It is indeed for a great set of causes. |
|
|
|
I think we should not stake until we've raised what James considers to be a suitable amount. As this was originally intended to be a fundraising activity until we reach 2.7 million VRC, I think he can call the shots as to when we have enough in the escrow. When that happens, we will audit the donations and get both corresponding VRC and BTC addresses for each donor. That way we can split the share evenly, with precision, and know how to refund the coins. Right now, we just have a VRC address. Ultimately we will need a BTC address to pay the 10k satoshi/VRC payment. But if we start staking, the blockchain gets confusing and we really need it to be as simple as possible to track.
If my calculations are correct, there is no need to actually convert to BTC to pay people. You can pay them in VRC just returned to them. (Ex. 50,000*.5*.0001=2.5BTC, 2.5BTC buys 5000 VRC @ .0005.). Thus just return 5000 VRC to the originator and no need to sell VRC and pay in BTC. Or, actually an even better method is just use whatever the VRC price is AT THE TIME of the end of year distribution. If after 1 year the price is .0006, then your 2.5BTC of value would represent 4166 VRC plus the 1150 of interest. The key being it's not too difficult to add in the interest portion to each address once we are done with all donating for this project. Yeah I agree we don't need a BTC address, that was the original intent for simplicity. Also drkman if you would be willing to build up the spreadsheet (which would help tremendously) then I would be happy to bring the coins online periodically to earn the interest accrued via coinage. This is also another incentive to make the pot bigger as the community would be getting some significant interest payments over time. My point exactly... with the added bonus that it will be a significant amount of coins staking and therefore reinforcing the blockchain and protecting the coins from attacks. Especially if the pot can get anywhere near 2 million coins. I already suggested a public honor roll, at least a voluntary one, with the devs listing their contributions to the fund. This could act as an incentive... direly needed for while the "donors" have been quite generous for the most part so far, I feel a very small part of the community has actually donated... in spite of the fact that we have practically doubled the price already exclusively on the "James effect". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
