I have a question for the Labcoin team which many others probably would like the answer to as well. What are is the first year's forecast profit range? Can we have at least an indication on how much these shares could be worth so that we resist pressure to sell?

Don't waste your time or money. If you understood the technology you would know that it's not anywhere near powerful enough to be used to mine Primecoins more effectively than a Xenon. Sure you could give it a try but I think it's just not worth the expense for the very marginal gain.

Labcoin can sell to BTCguild and 50BTC and make massive profits while also mining.

Why not simply use shareholders dividends to purchase more shares and then give the empty shares?

The problem is not enough volume.

Why didn't you just create a Kickstarter?

SHA256 is safe. In fact it's one of the safest most conservative choices Satoshi could have made. Ask anyone who knows anything about this and you'll get a similar answer.

Can we use electrum or does it have to be the Bitcoin wallet with a blockchain?

LTC isn't ready for Mt Gox. I think in a year or two it might be different.

Brilliant idea.

One question that you can answer is whether or not there should be any caps, should the crowd funding be set up and a whale were to purchase most of the slots in bulk would this be an acceptable situation?

I'm looking at what RealSolid said when offering fee shares https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264182.msg2825833#msg2825833, and the Lealana physical litecoin sale https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=243341.0 , both had to introduce a sort of cap so that there is a max that any single person can buy within a set period of time.

These caps were introduced to promote a more decentralized distribution so that more people overall have a stake. Is this something which should be replicated or are limits like these bad? I wouldn't have a problem with it either way, I just figure it should be brought up prior to the crowd funding as a move to be considered and debated.

At this point I can't wait for the Kickstarter or crowdfunding campaign to start.

+1

I think we should support the business model you are proposing because it's wise. It will produce more profits for you because if people make more money they'll use exchanges more, but it also gets them out of the poisonous 9-5 system which is really outdated.

If your business model does work then lets see if more exchanges try it.

The first spike was actually due to the reward halving. The next major spike will be 2017 and Bitcoin will be $10,000+.

The most important thing for a cryptocurrency is that it be used. It's a good idea for Netcoin to embed itself into the web as a long term adoption strategy. Think of Netcoin as becoming the Netcoin protocol, and think of Bitcoin as becoming the Bitcoin protocol, and so forth so that at some point the technology of it speaks and it can exist independently of tribal / partisan politics. At this time Bitcoin is a product and products never become as widely used as core protocols. Productism and politics in my opinion are holding Bitcoin back from mainstream adoption at this point.

I would hesitate to label it our Paypal because Paypal is an "evil" business with a corrupt political agenda. I suggest we unofficially refer to it as project Freepal because it opposes the very essence of what Paypal is doing. Freepal liberates the will of the user by allowing the user to have free speech in the economic form. There is to be no middle man, no centralized master telling us what we can or can't buy, no boss to lend us money we don't really get to own, no third party or man in the middle to charge us fees. It's a direct expression of the economic will of the user to send value person to peerson or peer to peer.

Payswarm is superior to Paypal on every level. It's an open standard, it's built into the web as a specification, it's not proprietary so that the political views and opinions of the some CEO cannot influence anything. Payswarm is attempting to be as politically neutral as possible and I think that is a good direction for Netcoin as well. Offer a very good core technology from a politically neutral point of view, offer the tools of liberty and democracy and let the users determine what direction to take Netcoin.

The reason to have an organization isn't to promote Payswarm particularly but to give people the capability of economically focused electronic democracy. To have a community you need the ability to vote, and to protect a community you need the ability to make decisions. To make it as fair as possible you need the ability to allow stakeholders to vote in a manner which is coercion resistant. It also has to be anonymous, if we know how everyone is voting then we can bully them into voting for our way of doing things or our candidate, I just want the product to adhere to the will of the users and the community of users who give Netcoin meaning.

I don't think it's enough just to build a tool but not give the community any way to regulate itself. When you don't give the community any kind of democratic processes at all then you can end up with fiefdom corporate type systems where they lock the common users out from the decision making process or share holding. We could end up with a digital caste system where individuals from other industries come in years from now and buy everything up and then set up gatekeepers, unfair legal regulations, bosses, middlemen and very undemocratic systems to create a high tier of unaccountable rulers.

Winkelvoss makes people uneasey because of what they could do. They could end up owning the Bitcoin eco-system, and if people disagree with a decision how would that be expressed? So in my opinion sooner or later the voting mechanisms and democratic processes have to be brought in and one thing I like about Netcoin is it's forward thinking enough to reach the conclusion that after 27 years we will have to bring that in for determining the interest rate. I think any cryptocurrency protocol is ultimately backed by the faith of a community and a community is in my opinion better off with democratic processes built in.

For instance lets say it's a year from now and Netcoin is released and I propose the idea that Netcoin should adopt a strategy of embedding itself into the web. If users could somehow vote on it and if they agree or disagree we know, then we have feedback which is very important. If we just for instance rely on Bitcointalk then you could have the votes get fudged because people who have nothing to do with Netcoin could vote in ways to sabotage it or confuse.

I think long term the situation is cryptocurrencies are going to be regulated. It can be self-regulating, or not self-regulated in which case it will be made to conform into the will of others. If it's self-regulating to a certain extent then the elected Netcoin leadership or representatives whomever they turn out to be would go to the SEC, Congress and politicians around the world to explain how things work. The worst case scenario is that there is a leadership void and there are no representatives for the interests of the community to go to the government/politicians and help formulate the legislation and laws around cryptocurrencies. I don't think Netcoin in particular has to be the only cryptocurrency community involved in this but I think the best case scenario is a scenario where you have various cryptocurrencies which have a way to get feedback from the community and then determine the rules based on a combination of that feedback and discussion with lawmakers. I don't think the wild west will last forever.

I notice you're literally the only one on the forum saying this.

XPM/LTC! Pair em.

XPM/LTC

Very interesting.  Kickstarter does have some benefits that people know what it is and I do believe the Kickstarter launch will meet the funding amount provided there is a marketing campaign behind it.

If it only takes the money once the goal is met then when exactly would developers get the money? Seems abstract.

I'm not too happy about the USD payment requirement. I understand why it would exist (for accounting and because it minimizes risk on the developers), but I also understand it merely shifts some risks from the developers onto the investors. Developers must have identities in order to get paid and to make the process transparent (for defense against scams, fraud, theft). Pseudo-anonymous development would be fine if you do it for free but when money is involved then there is currently no effective infrastructure in place to allow independent contractors to get paid in Bitcoin (developers in this context would be considered independent contractors).

When we make payment to kickstarter we are not going to be anonymous and that means somewhere a paper trail will exist on all who supported Netcoin development. That introduces a privacy risk to all who pay in USD, but if you do believe Netcoin is a good idea and you do support the idea then in my opinion you should pay. If you want some privacy you can pay in a friends name. The other problem is what you mentioned in that it would mostly be Americans who have USD so the early distribution might not be as good as it could be with Bitcoin.

I hope there is a way to let people pay with Bitcoin, have it exchanged into USD and then pay the developers. I think that would be the ideal way but I do understand it would be difficult.

Tacotime, this is something you should have a look at because it has serious potential to change the cryptocurrency playing field.

https://payswarm.com/specs/source/web-api/
https://dev.payswarm.com/
http://blog.meritora.com/launch/
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/introducing-navigator-mozpay-for-web-payments/
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/WebPayment

I propose the idea to make Netcoin an underlying web protocol and develop with Payswarm open standards in mind. I believe sooner or later cryptocurrencies are going to become an underlying protocol of the web.


Payswarm is also coming in the near future and it includes a specification of "currency mint" based around an IRI which identifies the currency. I propose that developers put the creation of a Netcoin IRI on the development to-do list. If it's relatively simple and could be done before or shortly after the release of Netcoin it could greatly benefit Netcoin users in the long term and promote adoption through integration with Payswarm technology and thus integrate it into the web itself.

If "Bitcoin" becomes the only standard and it's cemented in stone then it stops progress, innovation, and evolution of digital currencies. Bitcoin has many flaws, and there are few reasons why we should expect it to be the only coin ever any more than we would want there to only be one credit card, search engine, payment processor, operating system, etc. That in itself would be centralization of power in a way which does not improve security of cryptocurrencies over the long term.

It's bad enough that those paying will have to provide identifiable information, but it's even worse if they have to connect it to their Bitcointalk ID too. That reduces security for the participants in exchange for decentralization of power. I think in this case security is more important than decentralization of power because power can be decentralized in other ways and at later times. Honestly, the people who buy in early aren't really guaranteed a larger piece of the pie than people who buy in late, they aren't necessarily going to have more coins, it just means they believed in the project from the start and were the first to become stakeholders and take the plunge.