I agree with you. It's the Cryptopia owners themselves that pump the volumes.
They are doing what in another context would be called "market maker".
They see the spread between the sell and buy offers and as it's very large they "do" buy and sell somewhere in the middle. It doesn't cost them anything and anybody who wants to buy or sell TRC will be attracted by those volumes, because in this way it seems that they are leaders of the market.
I guess that if you put an buy or sell offer for something like 100,000 TRC there in the middle their fake trading the volumes will immediately drop or they will change the price at which they are "trading", so your offer will be not satisfied.
To stop that fake volumes you can make one large sell offer and one large buy offer at the extremes of their "trading" area and than gradually reduce the spread, but it can be risky of course for your capital.

The fluctuation of BTC is such, that 20% of profit in BTCs is very different matter than 20% of profit in USD.

Generally speaking lets discuss the condition for sponsoring the masternode creation project, so once it's clear what one can get from it maybe many BTC, USD or TRC holders may begin to send you funds.

I think we have to be careful with this idea, because we can't be 100% sure of the true causes of the DASH's success. Apparently it's in the masternode system and decentralized management, but it can be an illusion as well.

I agree with this idea.

I'd like to invest BTCs, but I'd need to have BTC profit as result. Another idea here is to offer to the developers TRCs bought with the BTCs that would be invested into the project, so along with the masternode development we will have the rise of the TRC price, in that case I'd rather receive profits in TRCs.

I will have at least one as well

I'd say that we are not seeing developers eager to work for the future of TRC, so probably they will not appear. We have to think another strategy here. I personally always pay people what they think they deserve and they always work well because of that. What if we try to find developers using upwork.com? You can find very interesting prices there.

The high volumes on Cryptorpia are fake and that volumes let the price not to settle in the right position, that's why I consider it fake. I'd prefer much more the price to go down as much as possible but once the bottom is reached it will go for a long long time up (just think that the price of TRC is 100 times lower than the price of LTC, which is ridiculous), with this fakes volumes we don't have the possibility for the market to evolve naturally. We are just stuck there and nothing is happening. In this way we can't attract new community members because the most of people in the cryptoworld are here to have profits. With a "stable" market there are no profits=no new community members.

I think that this is a very important point. The market capitalization of TRC is something about 70000 USD so even paying the developers all the TRC that are available at the current price we'll be able to pay only 10 month of developer work.

I think that we have to invest some BTC in this project because TRCs are just not enough to make something serious at the current market price (which is by the way fake, from my point of view).  

I'd like to know if you mean here to limit the number of masternodes at first, or if you just think that only 10 people will invest into TRC masternodes in the beginning because of the relatively high price. 

I think that DASH's masternode system creates a great number of guaranteed holders, until the masternode gives to the investor 10% of his investment per month he will be holding all the DASHs he has invested into masternode.
The TRC price fluctuation do not guaranty 10% of the investment per month.
Once the majority of investors wants to keep the coins they will became scarce and because they may give to the masternode owner a great profit everybody wants to buy them, that's why the price of the DASH is going up quicker than the BTC's.
And it will be so until the real economy will not be created based on the DASH, and it will be more convenient to invest DASHs into the real projects instead of just holding them.
This mechanism prevents the DASH price to be dumped too much as it can happen with BTC, because there are not so much people that would like to risk their DASH's to double them while you can reach the same goal without doing anything, just holding them.
If the price is going up mining is still convenient even if the miner receive less coins.
I agree that some solution to finance the TRC project should be found and the DASH's masternode system can help.
And once the TRC Foundation have the money to evolve the coin we can go on with the new ideas.
That's why I'm asking again. What advantages we can offer to the investors in this initial stage in order to have money to develop masternodes?
Maybe we can reserve to the investors the possibility to have cheaper masternodes or the right to invest into the first masternodes while the others will have this right later? How much money do we need to have the masternode system ready to use?


        

Thank you very much for your research, I think we know what should be done to create an TRC/EUR or TRC/USD gateway. Of course we are interested to cooperate with everybody who is interested to cooperate. And we don't believe into a voluntary cooperation so every effort we'll be paid.  

The idea to ask TRC Foundation to be an escrow was born because we wanted to find the way to help the TRC community and to sponsor TRC Foundation.

In fact we are ready to finance the masternode system creation, but we think that the investment should bring some profit, so we invite everybody to think about what can be offered to those who finance the development of the TRC.

Maybe we can think about some discounted masternode reserved to those who has invested into their creation.

Having said that, I personally believe that we have to choose from one of three possible options:
1) Or we just copy the BTC development without changing anything. So one day the TRC will cost a 0,5 BTC, whatever BTC will cost.
2) Or we try to jump from one successful altcoin to another. So maybe we'll do better than BTC, or not.
3) Or we try to be ahead of the others.

I think that copying others ideas without at least trying to improve them well head as nowhere. We need to become leaders if not one day TRC may disappear. That's why I was thinking about a better governance than the DASH's, for instance.
So I'd like to understand better, if anybody can explain it to me. If we do not use the anonymization features of DASH what will the masternodes take their money for?

Another thing that is not clear to me what does it mean that the masternode will cost 10.000 TRC and it's set up will cost 100.000 TRC?
 
 
 

Dear Clockuniverse,
thank you for your effort. I think that everybody appreciates it very much.

The idea of the real world use of TRC is still alive.
We are working on the legal aspect of it.
After we have an idea in this sense we are planning to begin with TRC/EUR gateway.
I'd like to ask you: would TRC Foundation hold our warranty provision, a bit as if it was an escrow service, in order our TRC/EUR gateway users to be sure we have serious intentions, so in case of any controversy our client would be able to make a claim to you and you'll decide whether he is right or wrong and possibly compensate him (using the TRCs we'll send to you as warranty) from the losses he had using our service?
The idea here is that if everything goes as planned we'll gradually donate the TRCs from our warranty provision to the TRC Foundation (so at some moment of time there will be no warranty provision left, but everybody will be sure that our service is working).
If instead we'll see that idea is not working, we'll just ask you our warranty provision back.

Speaking about masternodes, I'd suggest to consider the idea of the gradual increasing of the masternode price. Because if now a masternode will cost 10000 and in 10 months it will cost 1000 I'm afraid that everybody will prefer to wait.

I was not speaking about the attacks done with the technical means, but with political ones.
It's much more easy to treat, corrupt, brainwash or convince with any other mean 4000 masternodes holders than the whole coin owners community.
Think about any political system. Is there any country in which the politicians has never voted against their people interests?

I think that the new owner of coins has the same right of decision that the old one, once he invested in our economy. And it's a fair thing that he could play with the same right as the other coin holders straight after buying.
If not we risk to stimulate the TRC holders and not the active TRC investors.
By other hand if the coin age becomes zero with every transaction we risk to see the total stop of transaction in the important decision voting period. Which can influence positively the price but not the economy of TRCs.

Great idea! I think that the TRC vote loaning may be also a business in the future.

I think we have to remember that al these large mysterious holders are the people that has bought or mined and hold trcs for a large period of time, so they believed in it when it was going down down and much more down again, while all the others where looking for becoming reach quickly elsewhere, so their opinion is important.

I agree with you its almost impossible, we have to make it easy for the large investors to operate.

It would be an interesting feature for the TRCs holders and it make the coin to become scarce in the meantime the economy of that coin is not mature.

I think that the coin age since the last voting is a great idea, but I wouldn't connect it to the movements of the coin, because if the coin age since the last voting is inferior to the date of beginning of the voting, independently from whether the coin has been moved or not, it can not vote, by other hand if one owner of the coin has sold the coin without voting (maybe he was not interested in the question), the next owner will be able to vote, or to sell without voting to someone who is interested to vote (if the voting period has not expired in the meantime). This mechanism may create a market of coins that has not been used to vote and there may be an increase of the transactions in the voting period (which is still positive for the economy of the coin).
In case we decide that on every coin movement the coin age will become zero the people that are interested to influence the coin evolution will tend to hold the coins, which is still good for the price of the coin, because the tendency of holding them will cause scarcity, but is not good for the economy that stays beneath of the value of the coin, because holding may create the stagnation of the trc economy, which by the way for the moment is practically unexistent.
  

I think that Dash governance system is quite imperfect, because the number of the masternodes is much more limited than the number of the people that holds Dashs.
Giving the decision power to the masternodes owners make the whole system vulnerable to the external attacks.
To avoid this problem we can decide to give one vote for each TRC that the person holds, but there might be still a conflict of interests between the TRC holders and the TRC miners that are very important for the whole system.

Another thing is that if the coin has anonymity features it will be very difficult to promote it in the real word (see the last communications of the Chinese Central Bank and the motivations of Bitcoin EFT rejection).

Maybe on the other linux you don't have all the dependencies installed or they are not updated or the libraries are in different places.

Have tried ldconfig command?

It's not that difficult to compile the TRC qt-wallet for linux.
For instance I found useful this reference on how to compile it for Archlinux: http://labufalissima.com/how-compile-terracoin-wallet-archlinux

Consider this case:
Alice has to pay Bob for an item.
But Bob receives a lot of payments.
So there are risks of misidentification.
And moreover the transactions are publicly visible, so someone else (in case of a kind of a middleman attack) can see the transaction and pretend that the payment was made by him.
So if some information is being attached directly to the transaction, for instance the address where to send the item or some identification code, the problem of the identification is solved.
It would be even more useful in case in which the payment is automatically elaborated without Bob control.
Of course the information attached has to be encrypted, because Alice may not want everybody to see her address, for instance.
Maybe there are other ways to solve this question. I'd be happy to receive suggestions.

By the way I think that SEGWIT is useful, AFAIU it reduces the blockchain and speeds up the transactions.

 

I'd like to ask whether it's possible to add some encrypted information to the TRC transaction.

Sorry I was looking at the question from the prospective of my project.

Generally speaking the biggest problem of BTC and TRC as well for every retailer is their high volatility, and there are many few of them that would risk their profits holding all the BTCs or TRC after they've sold their products, because they'll have to pay their suppliers in fiat.

So for the sake of tracking and accounting probably the Coinpayments are very useful, but for me the merchant tool is something that exchanges the cryptocurrency immediately into fiat, without  risking a dime at the current market rate, because the retailer is not a trader, it's another job. Something like Bitpay.

In any case of course the possibility to advertise TRC to 120,000 vendors is a great thing.

Dear clockuniverse,
are you sure we need to get into coinpayments?
For me it's not quite clear what service they are offering.
As I wrote before, I got an e-mail from them where they were explaining that they don't really change any cryptocurrency not even into BTC, they just calculate you the value of the altcoin in BTC, which you can do by yourself using Excel.
Am I missing something?
 

I think that coinomi wallet will cost much more than Mrbodz's. As far as I understand in both cases we will have an Android wallet.
The possibility to have an iOs and Windows phone wallet that coinomi is offering us in the future is just a future possibility. The desktop edition is not our priority for the moment.
And Mrbodz has already created a good wallet for us.
So I suggest to ask him to work on this project.
For my side I'd ask Mrbodz in case he'll go on with the Android wallet project whether it will be possible for him to integrate the Android wallet with a bar code scanner so in case of the real world interaction the buyer will just scan the bar code of the TRC address of the seller to make the payment, in order to avoid the typing errors.