wow CoinHorder, This has grown exceptionally large. (I bought in on your first order, before they went on sale). You sure have some work on your hands. I bought in thinking this would be much smaller and more personal.
I was putting my money into Rick & the prison, now this feels like I'm apart of Woodbury...
We need to get this more organized. This is a large group. First a private website for investors.
Public blog for CoinHorder to update us. Private forums that CH verify each account. Only people with current shares will have access. If you sell all your shares then your access will be removed.
For share trade/sells I propose this.
Members will find other members that want to sell/buy and come to agreement. Once a week/month, CH will go through a list of members that wish to trade. Members send payments, CH verifys, updates records, etc.
Take 10mins to setup, few days to get everyone to reg/verify forum accts. I have servers/domains. I'm sure half of us do. Don't know why it take us so long to do simple thing as this.
Drop me a PM CH if interested.
This at most!!! I really don't want CH to have to do any more work than he signed up for and want him rested to look after the farm.... We can negotiate between ourselves he should not have to do it, he never said he was opening an exchange, nor should he be put to the work of it. |
|
|
|
03:49 <@gmaxwell> I thought it would be nice to go and talk about bitcoin for once, instead of being flooded out by more north korea stuff.
03:49 <@gmaxwell> We were actually _unable_ to talk about bitcoin, to the point where d-dimer suggested we go to another channel.
03:49 <@gmaxwell> and I think thats nuts
03:49 < rikur> You probably thought wrong, unless you auto +v everyone who is authed in the channels and help new people to get started too
03:49 < rikur> gmaxwell: this is more nuts
03:50 < rikur> just because you and d-miner wanted to chat in a more peaceful environment, you blocked out 1k people
03:50 <@gmaxwell> I'll be removing the +m in probably 10 minutes or so when we complete doing this multisign tutorial.
03:50 < rikur> gmaxwell: I don't think that you should be able to just shut the channel because you're walking someone through a tutorial
03:51 < rikur> #bitcoin-tutorials?
03:52 < rikur> the very foundation of bitcoin is to counter censorhip. This is just so wrong.
Anyone else think that is is just plain stupid?
No. And it's not that uncommon either. Your right, but that big bitcoin founder pic makes you look a bit wanky |
|
|
|
Hi all, hope you're having a nice holiday weekend!
I am seriously entertaining the idea of adding our group as an asset on Litecoinglobal.com. This would solve several problems for me and the group immediately.
First of all, this would allow everyone in the group to buy and sell shares at any time without me having to do all the work. I can tell you guys right now, my fees are very small and soon difficulty will be very high. I do not want to spend all my free time transferring shares all the time for everyone for pennies. I need to have a life too.
Secondly, this would be a way for me to streamline dividend payments. This is one of the only remaining things to figure out before our Avalons come. I could write a shell script for bitcoind to do this, but then I will not be allowing the buying/selling of ahares because it would again, require too much upkeep for little incentive.
Honestly, I'm not too familiar with litecoinglobal or what kind of fees, etc. would be involved, but I know it is a possible solution to the problems we face ahead of us. I am interested in everyone's opinions on this and how we should proceed. Please speak up!
Thanks,
Ch
You should only have to do the work you have signed on for, and others have agreed to up front,
[1] that is Only give people back in proportion to what they invested minus fees. [2] No share scheme or other fees should be added unless 100% agreed which is likely impossible, why should any ones terms be varied because of a majority vote, unless you can some how leave the non voting group on original terms [3]If people want to sell of shares, let them make their own shares and sought that out themselves [4]If people want to band together and all move to some aggregated share model, let them pay that from their fees IF your fee model kept the same for reduced workload then you would be ok with out any vote because you are still keeping to the whole terms of the agreement, Edit even if you go for the internal model, this means more work for you, and thus dilutes your attention from tending the farm...rest..etc....and you have to do all sorts of things like decide compensation level for current sellers, anyone on the list can contact any one else and make an offer, or anyone selling on the list can say the want to sell and at what rate, I would want you compensated however for any redirection of BTC's (except maybe from original holders), otherwise you will be doing this as a full time job |
|
|
|
|
Ok having been here a while we need something to explain this to newbies like me @ the time.
See Blockchain.info just confuses the $%$# out of people with the Block chain
We have to explain that the BlockChain is the database, that anyone can get and 1000's of people have
the blockchain.info is just one of may services to view that BlockChain and interact with it.
Like email, I can use several clients to look at the same email over many years, except the blockchain is even better because not only microsoft/yahoo has my records, there are thousands of copys other people hold for me, and its all encrypted....so I and only I can view and build from scratch
Also, when to back up, how, and why the downlaod button is missing from the export.
Further explain how you rebuild from scratch your wallet of a different service by importing you private keys, and that every one should try this with 0.01 BTC so they are sure about what they are doing.
Seriously!
|
|
|
|
Both are here for the long term.
agreed, but as the dedicated mining/tech base migrates en mass to LTC, you will see a proliferation of applications, support etc....and info given out.....proselyting, conversation...chatter etc... Already I've noticed more and more people querying about Litecoin mining. The litecoin subreddit http://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin is growing super fast too. one way to think about it is this. one of the strengths of any coin is the tech/mining base. The larger this is the more powerful it is. Say there are 1000 miners for BTC, they are in a way employees of BTC that is you would have to hire them, thier gear and the know how for support. So thats about a 1000 person company, how much does that cost is that worth. LTC because of its hardware may attract a 1000,000 people, imagine the greater effect of this, if the n^2 effect is true then this is a million times more powerfull than BTC. How much would it cost to employ 1000,000 and all thier gear and know how?  plus rent the space out.... |
|
|
|
Both are here for the long term.
agreed, but as the dedicated mining/tech base migrates en mass to LTC, you will see a proliferation of applications, support etc....and info given out.....proselyting, conversation...chatter etc... think of it like OS's.....an OS that is hardware agnostic is going to dominate the market......we have already done this dance....and thats even when the OS is inferrior....in this case LTC is just as good as BTC Its going to be an interesting reversal when BTC is worth fractions of LTC as that guys tag say BTC = mc^2 , LTC = mc^3 |
|
|
|
I am coming to the view that the longer LTC can hold out from specialty hardware, and its scrypt nature appears to make this at least a while....(eventually as the price goes up some one will weld on enough memory to a FPGA and write a driver) that LTC may >>> overtake BTC for these reasons
[1] faster transactions
[2] more coins, people just like the idea of having more whole coins.
[3] more distributed
BTC could counter by changing client and fork....but that's probally never going to happen, easier to just buy into the other model on an exchange.
Not saying LTC is the winner another coin may overtake it, but LTC does seem better that BTC at what BTC is trying to do.
any views?
My view is that you are astroturfing because you want your LTC to go up in value. None of your three points are valid arguments for LTC overtaking BTC. You forgot some of the more common arguments used by LiteCoin supporters: [4] LiteCoin has a blockchain that grows 4 times as fast as BitCoin and more is better. [5] LiteCoin is based on a really old version of BTC so it's more stable.<<solved with time WTF>> [6] It has 'Lite' in the name and is therefore less heavy than BitCoin which is full of 'Bits'. This helps>>[7] It doesn't cost as much as BitCoin therefore everyone wants to use it because it is cheaper. This helps [8] BitCoin was cheap once and went up in value. LiteCoin is cheap now so it will go up in value because it's the exact same thing. User base power = n^2 this helps [9] Every single GPU miner will mine LiteCoin and because there will be so many different people selling LiteCoins the value will go up. See above [10] LiteCoin has no active developers therefore it must be really good because it doesn't need any changes. There was no where to send email at one time >>>[11] There is one shop somewhere that takes LiteCoin for sea shells therefore its economy will soon overtake the entrenched BTC economy. |
|
|
|
Could Bitcoin still be changed to 2 minute blocks and a smaller reward per block if a majority of the community would accept it? Or is it impossible to make those changes?
If it is impossible, LTC will get a strong position for small, fast transactions for services like "Satoshi Dice".
Is it bad? No... You need big bucks to buy a car or a house or quick pocket change to buy a hamburger.
But what advantage would BTC offer, over total LTC use then? |
|
|
|
It does seem that a currency with an extraordinarily high JINI...
What's JINI? Anyways... I think the only way to do this properly would be to use a centralized authority (such as social security number verification) to make sure 1 person can have 1 account. Otherwise, people would game the system by buying IP addresses, proxies, forcing DHCP resets, etc. I would imagine botnets to be the biggest violators. Tying IPs to accounts would make transactions much more easy to track too; more so than bank transfers because transactions are public. Opps. s/J/G/ 'Gini Index'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_indexAnyways...the issue you point out hit me right away to, but I sort of gave up without trying real hard on the problem you mention when I was mulling it over a while back. I actually switched over to thinking about an 'exchange' currency design which would specifically not be a 'reserve' currency. In that case it makes sense (to me) to have it automatically extinguish if not readily used which opens up some possibilities for redistribution. Also some address of the niggling privacy and scaling issues associated with a permanent ledger. (As for a reserve currency, I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact that there will always be ultra-wealthy folks, and the best we can hope for is that they have limited means of subjugating the rest of us.) I abandoned all of my thoughts along these lines until I study and understand Ripple more fully though. No point in re-inventing the wheel if that is a danger. I think friecoin sotra goes towards what I am aiming at, or addresses some issues, but it too centralized....See the thing is BTC had a stealth premine when you think about it.....becuase no one really knew what was going on. If every one had a year to digest this, and then the code was released....it would be different....though even then I appreciate no one would have listened, it was only by having other see others make money that their interest was sharpened to a pin and their attention glued |
|
|
|
But for your adroit presence in this thread, replete with sound articulated reasons, it would be bereft of all wisdom |
|
|
|
... may ...
you speek the truth, sir. the moon may fall down too. yes I did say may, didn't I, mayhap I should have proffered some stronger term. one thing that really hold's LTC back is the troll box on BTC-e I can't help wonder if this is deliberate some one can mine the crap out of it while just keeping it burbling along |
|
|
|
|
I am coming to the view that the longer LTC can hold out from specialty hardware, and its scrypt nature appears to make this at least a while....(eventually as the price goes up some one will weld on enough memory to a FPGA and write a driver) that LTC may >>> overtake BTC for these reasons
[1] faster transactions
[2] more coins, people just like the idea of having more whole coins.
[3] more distributed
BTC could counter by changing client and fork....but that's probally never going to happen, easier to just buy into the other model on an exchange.
Not saying LTC is the winner another coin may overtake it, but LTC does seem better that BTC at what BTC is trying to do.
any views?
|
|
|
|
To be honest you do not think like a lawyer but much more like a mathematician or engineer. Don't worry; thinking like a lawyer is very counter-intuitive. You can't seem to point to any issue with the things I posted except to make some claim I do not think like an attorney. Anyone can read the fincen rules and see that, while they are unclear in sections, they are clearly meant to cover things such as Bitcoin. As I understand it businesses like BitInstant spend a lot on lawyers and they came to the same conclusion. I would not want to be in a position of going into a federal court to split hairs argue Bitcoin transactions do not apply to the rules. I think the judge will use the duck analogy and will not listen to the hair splitting. Without a court decision or official decision from fincen it is negligence to claim to people that the rules do not apply. I don't see how the wording in a video is going to somehow change the legal analysis of Bitcoin. Everybody knows what it is and how it works so some video put out by some organization will have zero effect on whether a specific regulation applies or not. [/quote] As both a Lawyer and Engineer, let me say that this is the problem with the Law not Engineering. The law is not logical, and fraught with inconsistency, uncertainty and poor/lazy judges, decisions, systems and access. Engineering is ruled by the purity of maths, it goes wrong, it breaks. In law it goes wrong, the wrong party suffers, rarely the judge, or legal system. I hope BTC can strip away the inefficiencies of the legal system |
|
|
|
Alienation? Maybe you - not me, and I'm hardly an early adopter. I have no time for envy. I'm told it's a sin.
And you haven't answered the question at the core of my point: what's the incentive?
Everybody picks at some/one aspect of Satoshi's creation - "...the rest of it's just great! But..."
I look at it as a whole: a gestalt, if you will. It all fits together - or it doesn't work at all. Not at all.
But hey! Start your OwnCoin. See how it goes...
I agree my thoughts are not fleshed out, which is why I write, but I think satoshi can be improved upon, [and inmho LTC does this] Your right you need to start own coin but before this getting input from the community is important they know a lot. I think the miners would be insentivised in this way, while only half the coins can ever be mined they can reach 25 times more people or 10 times more people than BTC due to (expected) market penetration, so its worth 5 - 12.5 times more than BTC. |
|
|
|
So I bought some Casascius coins, which I will probably distribute as gifts to the people I really like.
All my friends and family have one. I told them to not worry about what the heck that is, just stash it somewhere safe and forget about it for some years. PS now when it's at $100, I stopped giving out free coins until Casascius prints satoshis  I have thought about this....but they will forget and and not know how to access their BTC and it will be lost, accidentally sent anyway....you have to have an interest in it and really look into it to understand it....at this time.... |
|
|
|
I might be able to make it.
Great!!! hope to see you |
|
|
|
I've been musing about this a bit lately.
It does seem that a currency with an extraordinarily high JINI may be at a dis-advantage in terms of it's appeal to the masses vs. one without. It also may have more and more difficulty capturing the passion of the most talented technical folks. Both could be increasingly stubborn problems for Bitcoin as we march forward I fear.
It also strikes me that with an inflationary currency, value can be siphoned off in fees but new money is created and distributed among the economic participants. A deflationary currency with such siphoning will almost certainly develop a high JINI quite rapidly. Miners and exchange operators can buy only so many massages and so much blow, and the rest will probably go where all wealthy people's funds go...into a hoard which is hoped to be bigger than anyone elses.
I'm not sure that there is a whole lot which can (or should) be done about the JINI issue. It's basically a pretty understandable phenomenon in the real world. It tends to be resolved with pitchforks, but one of the niceties of Bitcoin-style crypto-currencies is that there is the potential for the resolution to be somewhat less bloody.
One way or another, the future will be quite interesting to watch unfold.
Yes pretty much spot on....particularly the alienation of talented people, who just never heard about it at the right time...now this is one of the things that plague any economic system to date. I agree with the hard limit of coins, but is has to be a large number just so people feel like they can get whole coins (though different issue). Perhaps one way is to have say 100 coins x population. By Escrow - Premine 50% (a term I have coined), and the rest up for grabs in usual way. The shear weight of the pre mine would act as a buffer to the other 50% the premine is randomly distributed over time to wallets, or IP's or something, and once it has gone to that wallet or IP then thats it not again to there. The premine would be in an escrow feature that would then auto distribute...over time. any way just thought in the wind....but there is a problem that results in a lesser market penetration because of alienation. The Omni-penetration coin may rise to the same value as BTC by virtue of it appeal, It gets 50% market rather that 5% or 1%, and thus has more attraction |
|
|
|
|
How could you make a coin system (maybe one of the alts does this)
that has the feature that an initial distribution is made across the widest number of people, eg 100 coins to every IP address of something?
this couple with some other features may help the mass adoption of a coin, once they are used to the idea of a crypto...I'm not against early adopter windfall, but it seems that it may not allocate resources well and be encompassing enough.
|
|
|
|
I use BTC, I am female, I do not hate men. I love men, just wish there were more of them. boom tish |
|
|
|
03:49 <@gmaxwell> I thought it would be nice to go and talk about bitcoin for once, instead of being flooded out by more north korea stuff.
03:49 <@gmaxwell> We were actually _unable_ to talk about bitcoin, to the point where d-dimer suggested we go to another channel.
03:49 <@gmaxwell> and I think thats nuts
03:49 < rikur> You probably thought wrong, unless you auto +v everyone who is authed in the channels and help new people to get started too
03:49 < rikur> gmaxwell: this is more nuts
03:50 < rikur> just because you and d-miner wanted to chat in a more peaceful environment, you blocked out 1k people
03:50 <@gmaxwell> I'll be removing the +m in probably 10 minutes or so when we complete doing this multisign tutorial.
03:50 < rikur> gmaxwell: I don't think that you should be able to just shut the channel because you're walking someone through a tutorial
03:51 < rikur> #bitcoin-tutorials?
03:52 < rikur> the very foundation of bitcoin is to counter censorhip. This is just so wrong.
Anyone else think that is is just plain stupid?
but censorship is different from tuning out the static, a spam a lot threat become static, they are not stopping any of you forming your own group anywhere else. They are not making you buy BTC or mine or anything else, they may be altering a modle you adopted without you input, and that needs an outlet to redress.... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
