1. I vote for Poloniex
2. I suggest limiting buy back programs for hard crash, i.e. periodically buy small amounts of shares, if price tanks under $0.20 or something low.

I ask you seriously: please consider to pay dividends without relying on the Bitcoin network.  Fees have tripled ovrr the last month,  and they could quintiple till next year. Do you really want to pay $20 dollar fees to get our dividend?
Maybe it's possible to utilize a cheaper block chain,  like Ethereum Classic,  or build counterparty on top of Litecoin, where fees are way cheaper than Bitcoin? Bitcoin fees are goind through the moon, and so will Counterpartybfees, because it's based on Bitcoin.
Investors will want dividends, without paying outrageous fees to Bitcoin miners.

Avoid relying on the Bitcoin network at all costs !

At least you can consider it for version 2 of NVO.

To Herur: yes. Maybe USDT will be supported.  Digital currencies, that are backed by fiat, but not fiat itself. It is written in the white paper.

I think it makes most sense to use CounterParty - CounterWallet, if you want to invest. In this case you will be able to "see" incoming dividend (NVOT + NVOS).

"in July the token will be available in which exchanges?"

No one really knows, it is up to the exchanges to list it, but I believe Poloniex will start trading it soon after.

I still don't understand how do you prevent double spending.
Any details,  please?

Yes, I agree with "dzimbeck" and I would like to hear more about defence vs. Double Spend attacks, and updated white paper to address such issues. Before I can invest a penny.

LN = Lightning Network? (Hint: it will not work. Bitcoin and Dash don't have SegWit, so no LN for ya). It can work on Litecoin and on Ethereum, though.

"Apollo777": Correct.

1. How do you plan to distribute dividends on Bitcoin/Counterparty network ?

Think about it for a moment. Assume 10,000 investors, means that you will need to do 10k Bitcoin transactions (and pay $20,000; $2/tx) just to distribute the dividends.

...When each transactions costs $2.
Maybe it's smarter to find a way to do it without relying on over-crowded Bitcoin network ? (based on Ethereum or Ethereum classic, or some other network)
After all there is a good reason why StorJ coins migrated from Bitcoin/Counterparty to Ethereum.

2. Double-spend attacks that "dzimbeck" mentioned

Another way to double-spend Bitcoin is to use zero-confirmation RBF - Request-by-Fee (and send transaction to self with a higher fee).
Bitcoin miners will pick-up a tx with higher fee, even if arrived *later*.
How do you plan to deal with it ?
A safe BTC transaction requires 6 confirmations, but I don't see how-to achieve it in this case of decentralized exchange.

Dash has a good solution, called "Instant Send", which locks-in zero-conf transactions instantly, and guarantees money delivery. Bitcoin, sadly, cannot.

Sadly, game over. There is no way to recover.

Wallet needs some GUI fixes.

For example, after entering a wrong amount in the "exchange", I got a useless error message.

"Place Big Order:"
"misc error"
..and No Cancel button !!!! OMG !!!

And then I see "balance: ? HEAT", and "balance: ? BTC" on that same page.

Using Heatclient_Setup_1.0.6 -- on Windows 7.

>You don't see a problem with scam instamining 2+ million coins

I believe that coin creators (developers) don't need to work for free. They need to be paid.
Pre-mine or insta-mine is one of the very few ways to make some money for coin developers.

Crypto-coin development is one of the 5 hardest dev jobs on Earth. Those include: operating-systems (Windows, Linux), virtualization (VMware, VirtualBox), 3D games, Artificial Intelligence (A.I) and crypto-coins.
Very few developers can even understand it, let alone hack it's code and make significant improvements. Evan Duffield (of Dash) and Vitalik Buterin (of Ethereum) are one of the few, who can.

And if we don't pay (the investors), then BlockStream will attack our coin !

Partial Instamine is a non-issue.

1. Bill Gates pre-mined Microsoft stocks.
2. Mark Zuckerberg pre-mined Facebook stocks.
3. Vitalik pre-mined Ethereum.
4. Crypto-coins are both digital gold and a stock.

I believe that creators need to have financial incentives to make their projects a success.

EDIT: Here a guy that wrote an article that Bitcoin is not a digital gold, but more like a company stock. Good read !
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/65ks6p/critical_misunderstanding_bitcoindigital_gold/

EDIT2: Even better would be, for the investors, is if creator pre-mines his coins, but uses a 5-year TIME LOCK transaction, so he can't dump it on the market. This will provide a long-term motivation to improve his creation. Pump-and-Dump out; Innovation in !

-Technologov

block time in Dash is not a problem, due to instant-send. Those transactions take 2 seconds, even with 2.5 min block time.

For me, Dash is Bitcoin 2.0. Dash is Bitcoin done Right (TM) !

Dash solves a lot of Bitcoin's problems, including scalability and self-financing for developers and instant transactions.

Moreover: in traditional corporations, Bill Gates and Mark Zuck pre-mined a ton of Microsoft and Facebook share, respectively.

IMO decentralized corporation is still a corporation. No one wants to work for free. Not Vitalik from Ethereum and not Evan Duff from Dash.

And Dash is a decentralized corporation.

Dash is no more instamined than Ethereum. Dash and ETH are partial instamine, as opposed to 100% insta-mine, which is Ripple.

Dash of course

Why I invest in Dash?

Ethereum is great. It's a programmable block chain with lots of level 2 projects, Raiden, Augur, StorJ, etc... I hold some Ethereum, but Dash is my biggest position nowadays.

I feel that Dash is much simpler to use and more focused to be Money.

1. Instant transactions (InstantSend). About 2 seconds in Dash vs 17 sec in Ethereum is very important for retail brick-n-mortar shops. Compared to 10 min in Bitcoin on it's best-day.
2. Dash Masternode Voting - governance mechanism, similar to shareholder voting in traditional corporations.
3. Incentivized Masternodes. - even if our block chain will grow huge, it's incentivized to buy new hardware to keep up with demand.
4. Dash network can pay it's own expenses. Dash developers are getting paid in Dash right out of the block chain, and even sponsor an advertisement campaign from it's block chain rewards. Bitcoin and Ethereum never had anything like it. Put it simply, the economic model of Dash is superior. For example we will vote with our Masternodes for Charlie Shrem's Dash Mastercard, and he will get paid by the Dash network for his start-up business. https://www.dashcentral.org/p/DASHPAYCARD-DEBIT-CARD
5. Dash is a drop-in replacement for Bitcoin, while Ethereum has a learning curve. It means that it's easier to adopt for merchants, that already accepts Bitcoin. Dash wallets are simpler to use.
6. I think Ethereum could become the Linux of crypto-currencies. Scalable, programmable, powerful and open, but hard to use. Especially if you want some advanced features. Very few people can take advantage of the Linux system, as compared to Windows. Same here: very few people will have the technical skills to take advantage of Ethereum's programmability, while Dash stays much simpler for day-to-day use.
7. Monero transactions are huge, about 40x bigger than Dash or Bitcoin. It will not scale in my opinion.
8. Biggest reason by far: Bitcoin is dysfunctional. My transactions take between 3 hours up to 26 hours to confirm, when a year ago I used to confirm in 10 minutes . Bitcoin used to provide me a service, but now it provides me a dis-service. I have sold most of my Bitcoins for Dash.

-"Technologov"

Thanks a lot.

Especially "spartacusrex" for his interesting idea.

I have read the Humaniq white-paper. It doesn't explain and doesn't answer to my concerns.

I support Big Blocks. Not necessarily BU; Bitcoin XT with BIP-101 also good.

But in this poll, Bitcoin Unlimited wins for me.

I think we may be able to reduce a block chain size dramatically, by re-generating automatically a new genesis block every year, (or every X blocks), and keeping the balance of the previous block chain, last block of it.
Theoretically it will solve the hard disk space issues, And will reduce network bandwidth requirements for setting a new Full node. It will not solve new block propagation delays.

Objective: My primary concern is that with on-chain scaling, our blockchain can grow into a multi-petabyte size, over a few decades, and both network capacity and hard disk space demands will out-grow our ability to support those.

Concept:
2016 [block 0]...[block n] --- the last block's balance could transfer into a new genesis block 2017.
2017 [block 0]

Balance (all utxo) of each address are copied into a new Masterblock as one transaction. Masterblocks are created in a deterministic fashion, so every node can see it and reproduce the correctness of a Masterblock.

Afterwards Mining should start build up on the new chain. Just the history of transactions will be lost.

There could be more types of nodes: Archival node, keeping all history of all the previous block chains, and the Full Node, keeping only the current block chain.

In this scenario, only block explorers and scientists will need to keep an Archival Node. It is not be needed for payments and verification at all.

This idea, if it works, will mean that Bitcoin will beat Visa x 10 transactions, with a goal to break 1 billion transactions per day, in a decentralized way.

NOTE1: Blockchain pruning, as is done in Bitcoin has very bad side effects: namely inability to start new nodes from them and doing full rescan. My approach doesn't have such downsides. https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning/

Clarification 01: New Term: Let's rename our so-called new Genesis Block into a Masterblock. (for clarity)

Clarification 02: New Masterblock must be generated in a deterministic way, to be reproducible by all miners and Full Nodes.

Clarification 03: tiny dust amounts  can be distributed to the last 1000 miners.
Let's define 'dust' as transaction outputs  below the median fees for the last 100 blocks.
(this removes a bunch of bloat from the blockchain)

Clarification 04: Old chain doesn't get removed immediately, but only after Y blocks (say after 1 month).
This means that new nodes connecting to the network during this period can download both new chain and old chain, can verify the new Masterblock by recalculating it from the last year's chain.

Clarification 05: Q: What do new nodes do when they come online after this one month has passed? How do they verify the correct chain from scratch?
A: Consensus must work as follow:

1. Same as nowadays (longest chain) AND
2. current timestamp (of year 2017) - proof of work must include timestamp.
(if it finds a very long chain, but with old timestamp like 2015 or 2016, it gets rejected; future timestamps also get rejected)


TODO: Research new attack vector: NTP protocol / wrong time. (For now my idea requires the administrator to manually setup clocks on critical production systems, such as payment processors. Maybe we can solve this problem later.) -- Perhaps we can solve it via an idea of cryptographic time -- a separate block-chain for time-keeping, with the same SHA256-proof-of-work and same difficulty as the main-chain, that doesn't reset on each Masterblock -- it's continuous. It should be merge-mined together with the primary block chain. Basically Segregated Time - 'SegTime'.

NOTE: New problem: My idea, as written now, will invalidate special tx-outputs, such as lock-time and multisig. But perhaps there is an elegant solution to this problem too... -- something like an extended block, that will be written into the Masterblock, and will list all previous special transactions in unspent tx outputs as valid.)

================
Okay, Let's do some maths:
4 GB block each 10 min = . This will allow us for 1 billion tx/day. In Bitcoin it would equal to 144 blocks/day x 4 GB/block = 576 GB/day.

It's 576 GB/day x 365 (year) = 210 TB-per-year.

Without my idea we will grow into a multi-petabyte territory in 5 years. Will be hard, even with good server-grade hardware.
With my idea, it would take only 18 Hard Disks (okay 20 HDDs, with RAID6) to keep an entire block chain (that's assuming big 12 TB HDDs; that both Seagate and Western Digital started producing this year).

Block propagation ? It takes only 8 seconds on a Google Fiber (1 Gbit/s Internet) -- so I believe it's very much possible and feasible to grow with on-chain transaction scalability.
================

What do you think of it?

-Technologov
05.Mar.2017
UPDATED on 02.04.2017

Link:
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/issues/340