|
Why didn't they just go the route of YouTube and analyze any uploaded files? If the file signatures matched that of a previously DCMA'd file, then don't allow the upload.
|
|
|
|
movie computer needs to be as silent as possible.
mining computer is about as noisy as it gets.
seems strange to me that anyone would attempt watching a movie while mining.
I'd rather make money watching a movie than lose money watching a movie. I can deal with a little extra background noise while watching my wallet grow larger.  |
|
|
|
|
This campaign needs more emails! Keep 'em going!
|
|
|
|
Lol, thanks. Hopefully you'll add enough pennies to my account so I can actually buy $1 worth of BTC, since that's the minimum trade. |
|
|
|
I sent an email to these guys to see if they will accept Bitcoins: http://www.irs.gov/I will let you know. I dare someone to send a private key loaded with Bitcoins with instructions on how to redeem it to the IRS as their yearly tax payment. |
|
|
|
Now seriously, I am thinking about putting together a bounty thread to change your avatar. How much would it cost for something less vile?
Lol - that joke is definitely too funny to make the cut. Tis ok, I already submitted my entry earlier. Or can we make multiples? In that case... There was a moron standing on the side of the road. He picked his nose, and the buger ate him. |
|
|
|
BFL made an FPGA and it shipped. Rimshot, please.
TH-R122005
Now seriously, I am thinking about putting together a bounty thread to change your avatar. How much would it cost for something less vile? |
|
|
|
|
A white horse fell in the mud.
Haha. ha. ha...
TH-R1283
|
|
|
|
Time to break out this thread again! Because $6.10 is now a rally from where we were!  |
|
|
|
I get what you are saying. I am semi-indifferent to the actual reserve behind this. Their claim to be working with BTC leads me to feel the best reserve would be BTC to live up to that claim. For the currency *For Now* I agree the USD is the best and easiest to implement.
BTC backed as a reserve still differentiates this coin, unlike LTC marketed as Bitquarters but a complete stand-alone chain, this crypto could TRULY be Bitquarters/Bitpennies or whatever, it would have that fixed ratio to BTC and provide the additional liquidity BTC might need as it begins to deflate out of control if it ever gets widespread enough adoption.
USD is just the *current* easiest and safest option I agree, but consider planning for tomorrow instead of today?
In the future, BTC might be rather stable and a more solid backing option. But here's the problem with backing with BTC: The company might not be able to sustain itself, and go bankrupt, if it cannot make investments that outperform BTC's performance. That's the same reason I wouldn't recommend creating a coin and backing it with gold: If gold outperforms the investments made out of the company, they could go insolvent and not be able to hold up their guarantee of backing. This is why I say USD is the best option, from the company's perspective (and from the user's perspective, because if the company is unprofitable, the user could lose all their money invested into the coins). It is easy to outperform the USD with very SAFE investments. Heck, you could even go with treasury bonds if you wanted, and still be able to pay all the miners if you have enough coins in circulation. I am also of the opinion that the current structure of only 8.2mil RLC is better than the total amount of RLC being premined because it brings miners into play with an active role.
Does that mean you won't promise to buy back any and all coins at a specific dollar value? |
|
|
|
Investors are needed to pay for the miners. Nothing more. Because, you're right, investors aren't needed if you're generating all coins at genesis, and sell them each for $1. You'd have exactly as many dollars as coins to repay for, which means you could always repay all of the outstanding coins from your reserves.
And here's what I mean by "pay for the miners". Each block has a 15 RLC reward, right? But you've already generated all RLC's in the genesis block, so the only way to pay the miners is by removing coins from the genesis address. Inevitably, most miners will simply resell those coins for USD as soon as they are generated, so you need a sizable investment to start with to be able to pay for those miners.
Backing it with BTC is a bad idea. Then, the RLC is just as volatile as BTC is. USD is very non-volatile, at least compared to BTC, which is why it makes a good backing. That would be the whole goal with RLC - a non-volatile Bitcoin-like currency.
People might argue against the USD, but for the time being, it is a much more stable currency to use. Merchants don't have to set prices for their products according to an exchange rate on some website, and consumers already have it in their mind what the purchasing power of the dollar is. Yes, the USD is inflationary, but think about what that will eventually do for the coins - they will become worth less and less, but SLOWLY. People would keep RealCoins just the same as they would keep money in their checking account. And eventually, when all of the RLC's are bought, they could potentially be worth more than just 1 USD each - if they are useful and highly sought after - because of scarcity, and only 1 billion of them being available. And if 1 billion of them are in circulation, then the exchange rate will be relatively stable, even if there is a value increase per coin, simply because of the massive exchange volume that would likely occur.
USD for the time-being is probably not the best argument, using BTC helps support their claim of wanting to coincide and support BTC --AND-- they would be assisting in making BTC less volatile. I would propose that instead of rewarding miners with generates, reward them only with tx fees, since the value is more stable vs. BTC miners should probably like this, yes it means they will likely get less than 15 RLC but what they do get doesn't plummet into oblivion price wise like most alts... I mean right now if you say got 1000DVC their value is nearly in the trash, but if the coin is at a 1:4 ratio or some such with BTC then once they have at least 4 RLC they are guaranteed to get 1 BTC and that I would think is something they can live with. In any case the reserve ratio should be published and set in stone, changing the ratio after the fact easily breaks the system. Setting it vs. USD is easiest because USD will always outnumber the ratio of this coin, setting it vs. BTC gets a little tougher because BTC is destructable and if the ratio falls below the number of BTC in existence then some RLC would never be touchable. Incidentally going with a reserve backing forces this reserve exchange to not be able to handle all "pairs" with the reserve, the reserve could only be traded between RLC and USD if USD was the reserve. Incorporated in a business legit country is very important, I agree with that... this system in the Carribean is not something I would gamble with (ala. MyBitcoin). Edit: Additionally the reserve exchange could not profit (fees) on the reserve coins traded at ratio, trades above this could have fees however and this could be used to in time repay the initial investors and then later for profit. You still don't get it. If it is backed by BTC, it is just as volatile value-wise as BTC is. Therefore, it offers no competitive advantage vs Bitcoin. Therefore, there is no reason for it to exist. The differentiating factor of RealCoin vs Bitcoin is that RealCoin would be backed by something non-volatile (or at least, significantly less volatile than Bitcoin is), so that merchants and the like wouldn't have to be afraid of their "coins" losing value after selling some of their products in exchange for them. If you back them by Bitcoins, you lose that competitive advantage, and like I said before, there would be no reason for RealCoins to exist at that point. |
|
|
|
|
I haven't bought any services from them myself, but have worked with sites hosted on their platform. I wouldn't recommend them either - there are better hosts out there.
|
|
|
|
if you're generating all coins at genesis and garauntee a $1 buy, you could also put all coins for sell at $1 ... in this way no investors are needed and $1 per coin is the lowest it ever gets, the coins bought for $1 create the garaunteed repurchase fund... And this is nearly the purest form of a "Reserve" currency .... except I wouldn't do it against $s, you'd best do it against some other fixed reference... ie. BTC but you then could not put the reserve ratio 1:1 if you have a billion generated or whatever you went with. BTC people might actually like this because it would assist deflating bitcoin and thus raising it's value... if this coin is actually used much. The inherent problem with a reserve currency however is if the value of your reserve asset falls too low and people come back to claim the reserve at lower than market value.
Investors are needed to pay for the miners. Nothing more. Because, you're right, investors aren't needed if you're generating all coins at genesis, and sell them each for $1. You'd have exactly as many dollars as coins to repay for, which means you could always repay all of the outstanding coins from your reserves. And here's what I mean by "pay for the miners". Each block has a 15 RLC reward, right? But you've already generated all RLC's in the genesis block, so the only way to pay the miners is by removing coins from the genesis address. Inevitably, most miners will simply resell those coins for USD as soon as they are generated, so you need a sizable investment to start with to be able to pay for those miners. Backing it with BTC is a bad idea. Then, the RLC is just as volatile as BTC is. USD is very non-volatile, at least compared to BTC, which is why it makes a good backing. That would be the whole goal with RLC - a non-volatile Bitcoin-like currency. People might argue against the USD, but for the time being, it is a much more stable currency to use. Merchants don't have to set prices for their products according to an exchange rate on some website, and consumers already have it in their mind what the purchasing power of the dollar is. Yes, the USD is inflationary, but think about what that will eventually do for the coins - they will become worth less and less, but SLOWLY. People would keep RealCoins just the same as they would keep money in their checking account. And eventually, when all of the RLC's are bought, they could potentially be worth more than just 1 USD each - if they are useful and highly sought after - because of scarcity, and only 1 billion of them being available. And if 1 billion of them are in circulation, then the exchange rate will be relatively stable, even if there is a value increase per coin, simply because of the massive exchange volume that would likely occur. |
|
|
|
Then why not help RLC with your ideas since you find similarities. I have read a lot of your posts and you seem to have a good grasp of economics. The economic side of things within the RLC is still liquid in terms of a set of rules (which still doesnt not exist) so why not get involved and have your say in what you believe would be best model to follow. I was trying to come out as friendly (and i really am) but most of the posts are negative. You seem to be calm and logical in your replies so please feel free to post more of the ideas you have and get more involved to help RLC take a rigid shape. As i have explained, you might not see plenty of differences between the two clients (although there will be a lot in the near future) but still a coin is different from another coin in terms of the economy as well. Doesnt have to be just the tech side of the things to be different.. Anyway thanks for your reply. Yes, I do see the similarities. But, your project is still missing the key point: The coins do not have guaranteed/backed value. I can't buy 100 RLC from you for $10, then go and sell them back to you for $10 a year from now. Without that guarantee, the value of the coins isn't stable.
Sure, I'm willing to give suggestions. In my opinion, this is what needs to happen to make your RealCoins viable: - Register your company as a money service business in the US. This will help build trust with the people who will be exchanging USD for your coins. - Generate 1 billion coins total. I just picked that number, but whatever is chosen, it needs to be relatively high, at least in the hundreds of millions. - Generate all coins in the genesis block, and have them sent to an address you control. - Guarantee to buy back any and all coins at a specific USD value ($1 per coin would be an excellent metric, IMO, as it would make conversions for merchants quite easy/nonexistant). This would stabilize the value of the coins, and would be the main factor of differentiation from Bitcoin. You still have the same decentralized ledger and potentially anonymous platform, but with a stabilized value of the currency as well. - Set a block reward that you can afford to pay, out of pocket, for at least a year. Bitcoins mined at $2.50/ea bottomed out at about 8 TH/s worth of hashing power. That's $18,000/day worth of coins. IMO, it is necessary to have at least 1 TH/s of power protecting the network. To do this, you need to offer an incentive equal to Bitcoin mining. Assuming a guaranteed value per coin of $1, you'd need to offer 2,250 RLC per day, or 15.5 RLC per block (if you have difficulty set up for a block every 10 min, as Bitcoin does). - If you don't have close to $1M to pay out to miners over the course of the next year, find an investor who does. Once you show them the potential of the project to be the next PayPal, you'll probably draw their interest, though I imagine it would still be very difficult to get an investor willing to risk on this sort of thing. - Once at least 17 million of the coins are out in circulation, you'd be making enough interest off the USD deposited to pay for the miners to sustain 1 TH/s of protection. Anything beyond that 17 million is profit to be shared amongst the company's shareholders. It's an extreme plan, but extreme is needed in order to not be "just another alt-coin". This sort of plan would provide a very useful service, as a stable USD alternative that is both liquid and has the potential to be anonymous/tax-free if a person wants it to be. |
|
|
|
Your post is actually really close to the idea of RLC. One by one:- All coins premined. (8,2m premined attracting both regular users and miners)- The coins are held by a legitimately incorporated business, with plenty of public information about it so people can be sure it isn't a scam or fly-by-night deal. (the exchange is owned by a registered legitimate incorporated business)- The coins can initially only be bought from said business, but could be traded with others after that point. (the coins will be bought only from the RLC exchange but will be available to be traded with others afterwards)- The business guarantees to buy back coins at the same rate it sells them (less a small percentage fee for exchange). (the business will invest the correct amount of $ in return for X RLC as specified in the OP and the total fiat currency gathered will be thrown back in the RLC network [and for the time being zero fees at the exchange]. the action of throwing money back into the RLC economy can be done by the incorporated business or by a newly incorporated business structured in such a way that there is the need for the majority of shareholders to take a decision)- The coins are insured against fiduciary irresponsibility, so that anyone holding the coins would be refunded the face value in the event of the coin maker leaving town with the reserves. (look at the above reply for correctly structuring an incorporated business to run the Fund)- A somewhat low limit on the total number of coins relative to the cost, so that there is the potential for scarcity and value increase down the road if the coin got REALLY popular (thus encouraging initial purchases from speculative people). (cannot think of a way right now or maybe dont correctly comprehend this point to answer it)I hope you see some similarities to what you propose. You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot by basing your claims of feature set of this new coin on features that, if you do in fact have the prowess to create them, would equally well be features if you did them using Bitcoin instead of some new coin.
You also are not really going full out on the one "feature" that does pretty much require a new coin: the ability to fully back every coin without your "reserves" being bled dry by "miners" creating coins and "dumping" them without any intention of "backing" them.
The folk who have been after me to make currency software for them to try their "backing" concept with at least do plan to go full-on with their concept: every coin will be issued in the genesis block, to them, at the outset. Thus no coins will be out in the wild for them to worry about "backing" unless/until they actually part with a coin, whereupon what they accepted in return for parting with it will be in their "reserves" for backing their currency with.
If your plan is to make cryptocurrency more accessible to grandma, soccer moms and the computer-illiterate, please apply those ideas directly to bitcoin. If you do a decent job of it, all the other alt-coins, of which we have plenty already thanks and more than you know of, can also adopt those same concepts thus each provide this very ease of use you claim to be hoping to bring about.
-MarkM-
This! The only real innovation I saw here was that coins purchased on the exchange would be backed by reserves to buy them back, but that can't be guaranteed if there aren't enough reserves to cover the coins in circulation. MarkM, I am very curious about the project you are working on for whoever it is you are working on. The only place I can see for a legitimate alt-coin is one that is backed by other real-world currencies, like the USD, to ensure stability of value. What I'd like to see in an alt-coin is: - All coins premined. - The coins are held by a legitimately incorporated business, with plenty of public information about it so people can be sure it isn't a scam or fly-by-night deal. - The coins can initially only be bought from said business, but could be traded with others after that point. - The business guarantees to buy back coins at the same rate it sells them (less a small percentage fee for exchange). - The coins are insured against fiduciary irresponsibility, so that anyone holding the coins would be refunded the face value in the event of the coin maker leaving town with the reserves. - A somewhat low limit on the total number of coins relative to the cost, so that there is the potential for scarcity and value increase down the road if the coin got REALLY popular (thus encouraging initial purchases from speculative people). This would make it essentially like a Paypal using Bitcoin technology. Yes, it would be centralized, but trading outside of the MSB wouldn't be out of the question, so coins could be made anonymous if wanted. The MSB could invest the fiat currency received in trade for the coins in order to grow the reserves and pay for its own existence. The biggest problem would be paying people to mine. Until the business had enough reserves to gain enough interest to pay a good $200/day to miners, I don't think the network could be considered safe from 51% attacks. I would LOVE to create this myself if I had the resources to register a MSB. But, I don't have $10k to do that. I could try to get investors, but having never run a MSB before, who would trust me? So, I just accept the fact that I won't be able to start something like this, even though I think it would make for an excellent alt-coin. So I am somewhat sad, but somewhat glad, to hear that someone is working on putting the same idea into existence. Yes, I do see the similarities. But, your project is still missing the key point: The coins do not have guaranteed/backed value. I can't buy 100 RLC from you for $10, then go and sell them back to you for $10 a year from now. Without that guarantee, the value of the coins isn't stable. |
|
|
|
You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot by basing your claims of feature set of this new coin on features that, if you do in fact have the prowess to create them, would equally well be features if you did them using Bitcoin instead of some new coin.
You also are not really going full out on the one "feature" that does pretty much require a new coin: the ability to fully back every coin without your "reserves" being bled dry by "miners" creating coins and "dumping" them without any intention of "backing" them.
The folk who have been after me to make currency software for them to try their "backing" concept with at least do plan to go full-on with their concept: every coin will be issued in the genesis block, to them, at the outset. Thus no coins will be out in the wild for them to worry about "backing" unless/until they actually part with a coin, whereupon what they accepted in return for parting with it will be in their "reserves" for backing their currency with.
If your plan is to make cryptocurrency more accessible to grandma, soccer moms and the computer-illiterate, please apply those ideas directly to bitcoin. If you do a decent job of it, all the other alt-coins, of which we have plenty already thanks and more than you know of, can also adopt those same concepts thus each provide this very ease of use you claim to be hoping to bring about.
-MarkM-
This! The only real innovation I saw here was that coins purchased on the exchange would be backed by reserves to buy them back, but that can't be guaranteed if there aren't enough reserves to cover the coins in circulation. MarkM, I am very curious about the project you are working on for whoever it is you are working on. The only place I can see for a legitimate alt-coin is one that is backed by other real-world currencies, like the USD, to ensure stability of value. What I'd like to see in an alt-coin is: - All coins premined. - The coins are held by a legitimately incorporated business, with plenty of public information about it so people can be sure it isn't a scam or fly-by-night deal. - The coins can initially only be bought from said business, but could be traded with others after that point. - The business guarantees to buy back coins at the same rate it sells them (less a small percentage fee for exchange). - The coins are insured against fiduciary irresponsibility, so that anyone holding the coins would be refunded the face value in the event of the coin maker leaving town with the reserves. - A somewhat low limit on the total number of coins relative to the cost, so that there is the potential for scarcity and value increase down the road if the coin got REALLY popular (thus encouraging initial purchases from speculative people). This would make it essentially like a Paypal using Bitcoin technology. Yes, it would be centralized, but trading outside of the MSB wouldn't be out of the question, so coins could be made anonymous if wanted. The MSB could invest the fiat currency received in trade for the coins in order to grow the reserves and pay for its own existence. The biggest problem would be paying people to mine. Until the business had enough reserves to gain enough interest to pay a good $200/day to miners, I don't think the network could be considered safe from 51% attacks. I would LOVE to create this myself if I had the resources to register a MSB. But, I don't have $10k to do that. I could try to get investors, but having never run a MSB before, who would trust me? So, I just accept the fact that I won't be able to start something like this, even though I think it would make for an excellent alt-coin. So I am somewhat sad, but somewhat glad, to hear that someone is working on putting the same idea into existence. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
