1. What percentage of the VRM supply will be available for ICO?
2. What will the ICO funds be used for?
3. And what is the incentive for people taking part in the ICO?
Can somebody from the dev team please answer these 3 questions? I am sure a lot of people want to know the answers. Thanks you very much.
1. What percentage of the VRM supply will be available for ICO? Still determining this based on mining requirements etc. 2. What will the ICO funds be used for? The funds will largely be saved for long term usage on likely infrastructure, development, projects and collaborations. All usage of funds will be publicly and transparently voted for by the core community at vericoinforums.com, which anyone can be a member of. There are some post requirements and such for voting though. 3. And what is the incentive for people taking part in the ICO? The ICO will likely be a first come, first serve tiered discount (probably starting at 40% discount) on what we estimate the value of Verium to be based on the 10x lower total supply ratio with VeriCoin and it's price at the time of the ICO. |
|
|
|
VRM mining algo and ICO e.t.a.?
Also, you can only invest in VRM ICO with VRC?
Yes you can only get VRM in ICO with VRC. Date of ICO coming soon but it will likely be in July, release of Verium shortly thereafter. |
|
|
|
Thanks! Estimated total supply in 10 years ~35,351,985 |
|
|
|
Any news from the old, good Vericoin project? What about Supernet and the rest of plans?
I'm wondering this too this shocking 2nd attempt was awful I felt the original vericoin had some promising features and philosophy I am not sure what was that 2nd attempt, last time I heard from them it was the PoS which of course means absolutely nothing, but at least it was an attempt in innovation and well done for that. I think Vericoin still have an opportunity to be the next crypto that could be attractive for the general public (but of course the time is running out quickly). Bitshare realized this opportunity with Identabit. Now a well known crypto developer Dan Larimer of Bitshare basically implements what we have suggested to Vericoin a year ago: use the personal profile of the DEVs to create a currency that complies with laws and regulations. We said, fuck the dark net, fuck anonymity, in order to reach out to the public (which was the original theme of Vericoin) the digital currency will have to comply with regulations, therefore must have a public face for the coin - which Vericoin is having from the beginning. For some unknown reason the devs don't do this, however here and there I can hear that basically this will be the end goal. Vericion still in the position to reach out to the public using the profile of the DEVs as the public face of the operation, but of course it is more difficult than it was a year ago I don't blame the DEVs for not pushing harder. The whole digital currency movement is in serious trouble. The DEVs don't have income from this (though probably Patrick Nosker and a few others around the project had pocketed a lot) so of course they get on with their carrier instead of working on a digital currency. We are still working on significant things more details will come in 2.0 whitepaper. This release will be biggest innovation since the release of VeriCoin itself. We opted not to go down the identity road for one primary reason. If you require identity, you also must require a permissioned system, if you require a permissioned system you re-enter the security cat and mouse game and lose all the efficiencies of pseudonymous public systems. We will be addressing identity in a pseudonymous way but not true identity. The permissioned systems will be the way the banks handle the blockchain initially, however they will quickly realize beyond backend efficiencies they cannot compete with the efficiencies of pseudonymous permissionless systems. At this point the banking industry will be disrupted, but likely not until the smaller more adventurous banks utilize this public permissionless system without having to fire most of their employees and they end up out-competing the traditional banking system. However this all will take some time. We will be building on the public, permissionless system and will have significant infrastrucutre in place when this disruption takes place. Thanks for the update. I think there are still users, potentially investors out there who are interested in Vericoin and see potential in the team, so it is great to hear some updates sometimes from you. Terms of the identity and protocol matters, we are having lots of discussion about these issues in the economy and other threads of this forum. Could you explain please briefly what are the permissioned system and pseudonymous public system in this context? Of course you can explain in more details if you have time - I am sure it would be appreciated by many -, but even a brief explanation would be very useful to understand what are the main attributes of a public permissionless system. Even in bullet points would be great to get some info to understand the basic idea and what are you up to. Sure. By public permissionless systems what I mean is the Bitcoin blockchain format. The data and access to the network is public and unrestricted, we are working on a identity system through pseudonyms (like twitter for instance) for VeriCoin address identification and usability. By permissioned systems I mean private blockchains that require authentication and true identity or login credentials associated with a true identity. These systems will be the first mainstream step towards a bitcoin-like blockchain but are vulnerable to hacking and thus more costly. If a blockchain is used by a bank privately it can save them some costs but the most costly security measures are still required. Smaller banks or banking 2.0 will implement a BTC-like blockchain and they will begin to out-compete the traditional banking systems due to lack of costs. This will bring the public blockchain technology mainstream. If BTC has the biggest hashrate (distributed security) at that time it will be used by many and the banking 2.0 startups will likely do exchanging in BTC. The traditional banking systems will take longer to move beyond permissioned or login based blockchain technologies because their entire infrastructure is built on top of this paradigm, it will only happen when their survival is at risk due to their excessive costs relative to the public systems. I hope this is a more clear depiction of what I think will unfold over the next few years on this. VeriCoin is building an infrastructure that will be able to enable, support and lead the banking 2.0 technology 'revolution'. Thanks for explaining, it is much appreciated! I doubt any banks will use the BTC blockchain for managing financial transactions. One of the main unique selling points of traditional bank services over crypto currency network transactions is the privacy, which is simply cannot be guaranteed using the BTC blockchain. Customers don't care if the bank having knowledge about the transactions, moreover for regulatory reasons the bank must associate the transactions with customers' identities, but the customers won't accept if the transactions are stored and visible in the public blockchain. From customer viewpoint it is unacceptable if the transaction information will be exposed to others than the bank and law enforcement. The mixing services also won't be solutions, because law enforcement and authorities must have access to the transaction details, and mixing service or anonymity algorithms by definition denies such access. You would have to design a system that addresses a) privacy b) traceability c) auditability In the meantime, to comply with money laundering regulations you would still have to associate the customer's identity with the transaction. That means you will end up with the blockchain version of an Oracle or MS SQL database terms of data structure (to store everything what a bank must store such as customer names, address, identity documents, etc.). Would such semi-public blockchain save money for the banks? Not much as most of them would still store the blockchain in a database to serve the customers with light wallets - which will requires the very same infrastructure as the current one to address high availability and scalability. Anyway, innovation is always good fun, so I understand you are keen to move forward the project :-))) and good luck with that. I agree with this assessment, and no this permissioned format will not save much costs but some for the banks. We are working on a system that has public transactions associated with pseudonyms that are nearly impossible to associate with a VRC address. We are targeting more privacy than BTC yet the same public transaction database, via a combination of technologies into an innovative mechanism. We are going for the sweet spot, the VRC 2.0 infrastructure will be part of the solution. The banks and therefore governments will not have any choice when banking 2.0 is out-competing the traditional banks in cost savings, but it will require some unique technologies that no coin has right now. Regulation of these public systems will be sparse and flexible by necessity. Less overhead always wins, it's just a matter of time and the right technologies. This is our focus. We have been utilizing this lull in the market to build this new infrastructure, and while many are giving up and assuming this sweet spot can't be found our competition has gotten lighter. |
|
|
|
Any news from the old, good Vericoin project? What about Supernet and the rest of plans?
I'm wondering this too this shocking 2nd attempt was awful I felt the original vericoin had some promising features and philosophy I am not sure what was that 2nd attempt, last time I heard from them it was the PoS which of course means absolutely nothing, but at least it was an attempt in innovation and well done for that. I think Vericoin still have an opportunity to be the next crypto that could be attractive for the general public (but of course the time is running out quickly). Bitshare realized this opportunity with Identabit. Now a well known crypto developer Dan Larimer of Bitshare basically implements what we have suggested to Vericoin a year ago: use the personal profile of the DEVs to create a currency that complies with laws and regulations. We said, fuck the dark net, fuck anonymity, in order to reach out to the public (which was the original theme of Vericoin) the digital currency will have to comply with regulations, therefore must have a public face for the coin - which Vericoin is having from the beginning. For some unknown reason the devs don't do this, however here and there I can hear that basically this will be the end goal. Vericion still in the position to reach out to the public using the profile of the DEVs as the public face of the operation, but of course it is more difficult than it was a year ago I don't blame the DEVs for not pushing harder. The whole digital currency movement is in serious trouble. The DEVs don't have income from this (though probably Patrick Nosker and a few others around the project had pocketed a lot) so of course they get on with their carrier instead of working on a digital currency. We are still working on significant things more details will come in 2.0 whitepaper. This release will be biggest innovation since the release of VeriCoin itself. We opted not to go down the identity road for one primary reason. If you require identity, you also must require a permissioned system, if you require a permissioned system you re-enter the security cat and mouse game and lose all the efficiencies of pseudonymous public systems. We will be addressing identity in a pseudonymous way but not true identity. The permissioned systems will be the way the banks handle the blockchain initially, however they will quickly realize beyond backend efficiencies they cannot compete with the efficiencies of pseudonymous permissionless systems. At this point the banking industry will be disrupted, but likely not until the smaller more adventurous banks utilize this public permissionless system without having to fire most of their employees and they end up out-competing the traditional banking system. However this all will take some time. We will be building on the public, permissionless system and will have significant infrastrucutre in place when this disruption takes place. Thanks for the update. I think there are still users, potentially investors out there who are interested in Vericoin and see potential in the team, so it is great to hear some updates sometimes from you. Terms of the identity and protocol matters, we are having lots of discussion about these issues in the economy and other threads of this forum. Could you explain please briefly what are the permissioned system and pseudonymous public system in this context? Of course you can explain in more details if you have time - I am sure it would be appreciated by many -, but even a brief explanation would be very useful to understand what are the main attributes of a public permissionless system. Even in bullet points would be great to get some info to understand the basic idea and what are you up to. Sure. By public permissionless systems what I mean is the Bitcoin blockchain format. The data and access to the network is public and unrestricted, we are working on a identity system through pseudonyms (like twitter for instance) for VeriCoin address identification and usability. By permissioned systems I mean private blockchains that require authentication and true identity or login credentials associated with a true identity. These systems will be the first mainstream step towards a bitcoin-like blockchain but are vulnerable to hacking and thus more costly. If a blockchain is used by a bank privately it can save them some costs but the most costly security measures are still required. Smaller banks or banking 2.0 will implement a BTC-like blockchain and they will begin to out-compete the traditional banking systems due to lack of costs. This will bring the public blockchain technology mainstream. If BTC has the biggest hashrate (distributed security) at that time it will be used by many and the banking 2.0 startups will likely do exchanging in BTC. The traditional banking systems will take longer to move beyond permissioned or login based blockchain technologies because their entire infrastructure is built on top of this paradigm, it will only happen when their survival is at risk due to their excessive costs relative to the public systems. I hope this is a more clear depiction of what I think will unfold over the next few years on this. VeriCoin is building an infrastructure that will be able to enable, support and lead the banking 2.0 technology 'revolution'. |
|
|
|
Any news from the old, good Vericoin project? What about Supernet and the rest of plans?
I'm wondering this too this shocking 2nd attempt was awful I felt the original vericoin had some promising features and philosophy I am not sure what was that 2nd attempt, last time I heard from them it was the PoS which of course means absolutely nothing, but at least it was an attempt in innovation and well done for that. I think Vericoin still have an opportunity to be the next crypto that could be attractive for the general public (but of course the time is running out quickly). Bitshare realized this opportunity with Identabit. Now a well known crypto developer Dan Larimer of Bitshare basically implements what we have suggested to Vericoin a year ago: use the personal profile of the DEVs to create a currency that complies with laws and regulations. We said, fuck the dark net, fuck anonymity, in order to reach out to the public (which was the original theme of Vericoin) the digital currency will have to comply with regulations, therefore must have a public face for the coin - which Vericoin is having from the beginning. For some unknown reason the devs don't do this, however here and there I can hear that basically this will be the end goal. Vericion still in the position to reach out to the public using the profile of the DEVs as the public face of the operation, but of course it is more difficult than it was a year ago I don't blame the DEVs for not pushing harder. The whole digital currency movement is in serious trouble. The DEVs don't have income from this (though probably Patrick Nosker and a few others around the project had pocketed a lot) so of course they get on with their carrier instead of working on a digital currency. We are still working on significant things more details will come in 2.0 whitepaper. This release will be biggest innovation since the release of VeriCoin itself. We opted not to go down the identity road for one primary reason. If you require identity, you also must require a permissioned system, if you require a permissioned system you re-enter the security cat and mouse game and lose all the efficiencies of pseudonymous public systems. We will be addressing identity in a pseudonymous way but not true identity. The permissioned systems will be the way the banks handle the blockchain initially, however they will quickly realize beyond backend efficiencies they cannot compete with the efficiencies of pseudonymous permissionless systems. At this point the banking industry will be disrupted, but likely not until the smaller more adventurous banks utilize this public permissionless system without having to fire most of their employees and they end up out-competing the traditional banking system. However this all will take some time. We will be building on the public, permissionless system and will have significant infrastrucutre in place when this disruption takes place. |
|
|
|
|
Another factor is if the coins have been idle for a long time some of the stakes could be age matured from holding over the course of the last year. The number I sited assumes coins were recently moved and does not include any amounts beyond the 34 million market supply. After the first stake this long age will reset to zero.
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys, This is Doug from VeriCoin. I thought I would come in and help you better understand the mechanism, it is in fact working properly. If you run getmininginfo in the rpc console you will see that the inflation rate is 0.8%, which means that of the approximate market supply of 34,000,000 there are only 272,000 SLR (34000000*.008) being created over the course of a year right now but it is being split by very few people. You will also see that the interest is in the thousands and the network weight is just a few thousand, what is happening is this. That 272,000 over the course of a year is split across those that stake, right now that is very few as the network weight is only 3k or so and PoST is new to this network. So as the number of stakers increases the interest will drop off in a logarithmic decline to reach equilibrium and it is in fact working as it should. It is keeping inflation under control at 0.8% but greatly incentivizing more to stake like when the difficulty is low in PoW because the network needs more staking. If all your coins stake you will have to wait 8 hours for another stake and your coins will be split into smaller coin lots which will smooth the staking dynamics over time and equilibrate the network during the transition period. All is in fact working as it should, you just need more stakers for security and it is greatly incentivized as it should, but inflation is still under control. See reward section for a better more detailed explanation of this mechanism: http://www.vericoin.info/downloads/VeriCoinPoSTWhitePaper10May2015.pdfWelcome to PoST! |
|
|
|
The price is dropping again. It is not really fair to the developers as - even we know the shady side of Effect and PNosker - they are at least still around and have not ran away from the project.
RANT on:
Strange environment this crypto became or perhaps it always has been. I read in some other thread a user was worry about whether some design is POW/POS and he was upset about the lack of some POW/POS malarkey and what a fucking big thing the POW/POS question in the evolution of mankind (he didn't say this but I interpreted like this his concerns). While end users don't give a fuck about POW/POS, what matters for example for a business: does digital currency save money for my business ergo generate more revenue? No wonder no one is using digital currencies and the user base of digital currency is limited to the 300,000 daily visitors of this forum. Developers should focus on usability and practicality instead of nonsenses like optimizing POW/POS features - which features by the way used by absolutely nobody as the fucking currency is used by nobody in the first place. The VRC devs were busy for 6 months with implementing some fucking POS timing malarkey which I am sure has its technical justification, but what's the point of the fucking POS timing if nobody is using the fucking thing? That's not my business with what the VRC devs spend their time, but it is just painful to watch that the effort and work of talented young scientists are related to absolutely meaningless development instead of focusing on usability, practicality and finding real world use cases for the coin.
RANT over.
Interesting points. What we did was make the protocol secure, exponentially more secure. Although this doesn't attract the average user it does prevent the average user from being told there is an inherent flaw in the protocol or something of the like. The true solution to usage by the regular user is yet to be determined for any crypto, what we have done is make it safe and relatively easy to use. We are still trying to find new ways to attract the average user, but it's tough. Once the user base is broad we think the disinflation targeted interest is about as good as you can get for supply stablilty, but we need to get a broad user base that truly stabilizes the price with competing interests. Bitcoin doesn't really have that yet, per se. Any ideas on this are welcome. Being a technology workforce myself for decades I can understand why you have undertaken that development task, and the PosT makes lots of sense from system stability, usability and security viewpoint. The problem in my opinion is that the reasoning for the need of changes is based on flawed logic. You build the feature assuming that the thing will be used at some stage. Using that logic you could build a Zombie reincarnation timing feature as well to prepare the coin for the Zombie revolution. I don't think people who believe in the the Zombie revolution are more nuts than we digital currency enthusiasts are (because this is obviously the craziest environment on Earth), so that Zombie world might happen as well and your coin will be prepared for that unfortunate Zombie event, which has the same probability than the masses adoption of Vericoin has. You are a developer and obviously it is not your fault at all where the digital currency movement is heading, or precisely not heading because it seems it is not progressing anywhere, but you as a developer with such a good academic credentials, reputation for (mostly) the good reason and with a relatively active community, you could probably do something about moving things in the right direction. All I try to say, try prioritize and spend your valuable time and energy on sensible tasks. Find a use case for your coin, partner up with some real world application/business that would have a reason to use your coin. Porn, gambling, casino, fitness, some point based reward system or anything that morally is acceptable for you and would find useful your coin within its business (possible by building a service on it, but of course you could build that service with your development resources). Your community manager frequently talks about how Vericoin will overtake Bitcoin. Apart from the irrational aspect of that expectation, the main question is, overtake in what? Overtake on the path of being irrelevant? Even Bitcoin, after 5 years of struggle and millions of hours development and marketing man hours, used by a handful 100,000 users. It's just a ridiculous low number taking into account the incredible amount of work and media exposure around Bitcoin. With little steps, but step by step you could probably change that irrelevance for Vericoin by start working with real world businesses on something. What is that "something" is the question, but must be something out there in the real world. I think these are good points. I do also think at this point it is time to partner with and/or enable some needed service or product etc. Regarding crypto in general I think there is a simple argument to be made regarding it's success in the long term. It is at least 10x less costly than hiring a "trusted third party" (bank) to do your transaction processing. All philosophy aside that is enough to win in the long run. If VeriCoin is positioned uniquely when that time comes alongside needed products or services like you say, VRC will do well. |
|
|
|
The price is dropping again. It is not really fair to the developers as - even we know the shady side of Effect and PNosker - they are at least still around and have not ran away from the project.
RANT on:
Strange environment this crypto became or perhaps it always has been. I read in some other thread a user was worry about whether some design is POW/POS and he was upset about the lack of some POW/POS malarkey and what a fucking big thing the POW/POS question in the evolution of mankind (he didn't say this but I interpreted like this his concerns). While end users don't give a fuck about POW/POS, what matters for example for a business: does digital currency save money for my business ergo generate more revenue? No wonder no one is using digital currencies and the user base of digital currency is limited to the 300,000 daily visitors of this forum. Developers should focus on usability and practicality instead of nonsenses like optimizing POW/POS features - which features by the way used by absolutely nobody as the fucking currency is used by nobody in the first place. The VRC devs were busy for 6 months with implementing some fucking POS timing malarkey which I am sure has its technical justification, but what's the point of the fucking POS timing if nobody is using the fucking thing? That's not my business with what the VRC devs spend their time, but it is just painful to watch that the effort and work of talented young scientists are related to absolutely meaningless development instead of focusing on usability, practicality and finding real world use cases for the coin.
RANT over.
Interesting points. What we did was make the protocol secure, exponentially more secure. Although this doesn't attract the average user it does prevent the average user from being told there is an inherent flaw in the protocol or something of the like. The true solution to usage by the regular user is yet to be determined for any crypto, what we have done is make it safe and relatively easy to use. We are still trying to find new ways to attract the average user, but it's tough. Once the user base is broad we think the disinflation targeted interest is about as good as you can get for supply stablilty, but we need to get a broad user base that truly stabilizes the price with competing interests. Bitcoin doesn't really have that yet, per se. Any ideas on this are welcome. |
|
|
|
|
Stay tuned guys, there will be a new official VeriCoin bitcointalk thread this week run by the community.
|
|
|
|
Nice work on the white paper! While it is clear that VeriCoin is only a hobby project for the developers, still, it's really good to see that the VeriCoin devs are trying to create/develop something original. Once the concept of PosT is implemented VeriCoin will be other than a Sunny King copy/paste clone (i.e. one of the 600 shit coins) like it is today.
Time will tell that the aims of the white paper such as "bring Proof-of-Stake to a new level of security, with strong incentive and fair distribution" can be achieved at all, but there are certainly a few very interesting aspects of this concept like "this protocol addresses other major drawbacks of the PoS system, one being the "Rich Rule" problem" which - if it can be implemented - could be a game changer.
I am going to keep on disagreeing on that one. While security is a given, there are several other projects much better "endowed" in that regard. As for Proof of stake... really? The whole concept exists for the ONLY purpose to keep the network active and safe. It is meaningless. The crypto that will make the transition, that will be used by Joe Sixpack and Walmart, will not have any POS, no matter what letters you add to it, or will have it automatically, like any others will, much like everyone wears shows, no matter how different the models, ok? While the tripling in price is quite remarkable or late, the (lack of) volume makes it clear it's only a minimal thing soon to disappear once a few starved bagholders reduce losses (mind you, most hold bags averaged in the 20ks, so all of this, paper included, is meaningless). Vericoin, paper or no paper, POS or no POS, regardless of subsequent letters, is just another shitcoin bound to disappear into oblivion sooner rather than later. I am in fact surprised that the stooges are still around. Quite remarkable fact, really. Possibly satisfying one of you two guys with this work, is a win for me.  Thanks for paying attention to our continued efforts, we appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Nice work on the white paper! While it is clear that VeriCoin is only a hobby project for the developers, still, it's really good to see that the VeriCoin devs are trying to create/develop something original. Once the concept of PosT is implemented VeriCoin will be other than a Sunny King copy/paste clone (i.e. one of the 600 shit coins) like it is today.
Time will tell that the aims of the white paper such as "bring Proof-of-Stake to a new level of security, with strong incentive and fair distribution" can be achieved at all, but there are certainly a few very interesting aspects of this concept like "this protocol addresses other major drawbacks of the PoS system, one being the "Rich Rule" problem" which - if it can be implemented - could be a game changer.
Thanks for the read. Also I'm glad you see some value in the work. As for implementation, it ran on testnet fully coded up for a month and the claims made in the paper are a direct result of that. So we are going to do a final optimization of the protocol code, move it over to mainnet, turn it on at a certain block number and release it. |
|
|
|
how many time to ending syncronizing?!?
Or how to fast it?!?
478909 blocks remaining but it's a lots of days that I run the wallet in background on my computer....
Is an endless sycronizing? The worst is,that I can get access to my funds or my addres....
Anyone have a logic explanation?
Or I am wrong something?!?
Go to File menu, Reload Blockchain. A whole years worth of blockchain will be fully synced in 5 minutes. |
|
|
|
A new thread will be opened on Bitcointalk when we announce our new PoS protocol, Proof-of-Stake Time, which is currently on testnet. It is a culmination of 6 months of research, development and testing. I look forward to discussing the details after realease with all. Cheers!
Thanks for the info! Good news that you are considering to open a new BCT thread. Make sure that you are opening it as unmoderated thread and with the intention of not closing it down like you have closed down so disgracefully the previous thread. As for the PoS, what make you think that polishing a turd could make any differences? Are you really believe that the main issue with Vericoin and altcoins in general that the staking algorithm is not adequate, that's what you think the reason is that altcoins are not mainstream yet? The new thread will opened and run by community volunteers, all decisions in this regard will be made by them, not us. You could have a say in this if you so choose. There are many reasons why VeriCoin, altcoins and Bitcoin have not gone mainstream. However after the mintpal hack it became clear to us that the standard PoS protocol was not sufficient to protect the network from that extreme condition. Without great security there cannot be a currency worth having, so we focused on redefining the protocol to withstand the mintpal level security challenge as well as many other problems with PoS that needed solutions. So no it is not per se why any one coin has not gone mainstream, but it is a prerequisite for all we envision for VRC. |
|
|
|
|
A new thread will be opened on Bitcointalk when we announce our new PoS protocol, Proof-of-Stake Time, which is currently on testnet. It is a culmination of 6 months of research, development and testing. I look forward to discussing the details after realease with all. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
A new thread will be opened on Bitcointalk when we announce our new PoS protocol, Proof-of-Stake Time, which is currently on testnet. It is a culmination of 6 months of research, development and testing. I look forward to discussing the details after realease with all. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
