Jokes aside, what about setting up a donation fund for developers, who actually will turn this into a serious project?
NEM accepts donation as in my signature. No thanks, you made enough from NXT already  . |
|
|
|
Looking forward, this is the first by the People for the People coin! Dems and socialists are finally getting their own crypto - currency!  |
|
|
|
|
Jokes aside, what about setting up a donation fund for developers, who actually will turn this into a serious project?
|
|
|
|
Quick, before 70 people send in their BTC and the founder decides to cut everyone else off!  |
|
|
|
Will you accept only 70 "founders" as well? |
|
|
|
He probably means a secret master plan from your great leader BCNext / CfB, directed only to the chosen holy 70 , about how to milk the market slowly. |
|
|
|
Several potential ways:
1. Make all of them local and provide a way to globalize them (my suggestion)
2. Give them a finite lifespan that causes them to expire now/some time in the future (luckybit's suggestion)
3. Invalidate all of them and start over (the brute force solution) - personally I don't recommend this
4. Don't do anything (it's only 5 XCP...)
5. Retroactively charge 5 XCP (really don't recommend this)
The workable solutions I bolded.
Any others?
Perhaps a mix of 1 and 2 can be a good idea, both creating assets locally and pushing/paying when needed, and allowing fair chance others to re-register the asset in future. |
|
|
|
|
A thought I had about the future danger of BTC miners blocking the XCP transactions - what if we provide XCP as miners fee?
The fee might be relational to what BTC currently takes (0.0001) vs XCP total volume, 0.00001 for example.
Provided XCP raises in value, this will motivate miners to allow it through their systems and get paid for that, in addition to regular BTC fee.
|
|
|
|
Announcement: The develop branch of counterparty now specifies that 5 XCP is destroyed in all future asset issuances (after block 281235). If we decide to make this official, the fixed amount will be temporary, and should be determined by a distributed, proof-of-stake voting system as soon as possible.
Awesome! Any way to clean up all the already squatted assets? |
|
|
|
we are not saying there is not enough user or the coin is shitty, just that maybe the "distribution" can be improved or divided to few stages to be fair to MOST or ALL people and not the selected 73 people .
This is like book building of IPO by Goldmac Sachs and ONLY the "Uber 3%" get the IPO.
While all this right, I can only repeat what I said earlier - there are other 2nd gen crypto's are coming with exactly same features that NXT claims to have now or soon, and who should provide a fair and large distribution. So while they won't make same insane returns as NXT did, they still will provide ample profit opportunities (while probably correcting NXT price to whatever it is). For better or worst, software is not hardware and there will be no ASIC monopoly here . |
|
|
|
There's a fundamental difference.
I can use Gmail perfectly fine without Google shareholders having to return their investment many thousands times over.
Its not about NXT rewarding early stakeholders. It's about rewarding very FEW and having a low userbase.
Its about major NXT cats constantly having to dump and undercut each other in order to grow that base.
The last line was golden , through apparently there are a few genesis investors who preferred to dilute themselves early and relatively cheaply in order to spread NXT, rather then hoarding all for a big payout later. Not all lost for the humanity! |
|
|
|
Yet MSC is valued at 60 million.
XCP despite it's alpha-stage and few bug has already more presently working functionality than it's concurrent.
Both may succeed, both may crash, one may succeed better than the other.
But if MSC is valued at 60 millions, theoretically there is nothing preventing XCP to reach 30/60/120 millions.
Just don't expect such valuation too fast.
It could happen in 4~6 month, it could happen in 1 month, or it could never happen.
Just as BTC itself could lose most of it's value if a really amazing innovation appear in 6 month.
I personally plan to hold my XCP a few month, and will not sell them at loses.
If I must way 6 month for that, then 6 month it will be.
Middle term I hope a very nice ROI, but it's gambling.
Hope everyone who have invest to making fast money have also remember make small donations for XCP project... Developers: PhantomPhreak, xnova (Bitcointalk usernames)
BTC and XCP donations: 12J1YFvsWHDCU5HNAWNLNy1Q9nZo8Q4Xgs+1 to above. Also please don't forget to donate to the developers. Without their efforts, there wouldn't be XCP, nor it has much chances to grow further. Remember, there is no 5M$ fund like MSC, no wealthy early investors like NXT who can sponsor the R&D, so this is a truly community project. |
|
|
|
3. To "globalize" an asset, for each block a proof-of-stake calculation is run for addresses controlled by a running instance of counterpartyd (against some random function derived from BTC block hash, for instance). A "globalize" command can be called by the user to denote the asset to "submit" to the PoS function. (I'm no good at the maths, so looking to existing PoS implementations to figure out how to do this). If no asset is selected to globalize, the client automatically chooses the "first" one (in lexicographical order, for instance).
The whole idea is good, though this might imho cause that an asset lower in priority, will be never globalized. We need to think of some way to compensate for that. |
|
|
|
Just a quick idea, what if any fees paid for new assets allocations, will be donated to the developers of XCP? Thus both limit the spammers, and motivate the developers pushing the technology further, potentially doing it as full-time work. My two mXCP . |
|
|
|
Note that the genesis block had not been created before investment was closed, and this still does not change the fact that no advance notice was given prior to closing the sale.
+1, the original date in post was always 3/1/14. Also add to this the fact that last released source code is from 3/1/14, and does not include any advanced feature promised. Compare this to any other alt. coin project out there, or to bitcoin itself. |
|
|
|
Devs, I just found a nice QA plan for MSC: https://github.com/marv-engine/QAPerhaps we can fork and adapt it for XCP testing needs, so community could submit bug reports in proper manner? |
|
|
|
|
Great post.
That said and after reading all this, why do you think that NXT should be forcefully saved at all?
In the next 1-2 months, at least 2 more 2nd gen platforms (etherum, emunie, bts?) will be launched, having much better funding by community or investors, developed by crypto experts (as they claim), and with a much better and predictable early distribution model. These platforms should provide all the features, that NXT claims to be working on, out of box.
If the market sees that he has a better opportunity going with these platforms, rather then playing to NXT founders game (if there is one), NXT will be eventually pushed away by market forces naturally.
The only thing that I can think for the moment being beneficial for the community, is pointing it at these alternatives, as a potentially better and more solid investment options, rather then investing in NXT.
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome rebuttal, good even for people who only now are starting to look more seriously into eMunie.
From looking at the website and forums, I see a lot of features similar to NXT. What are the main differences from NXT, in addition to distribution model, which (hopefully) will be more fair to everyone?
|
|
|
|
Are there any plans to implement a voting system, in order to allow the community to express their opinion on protocol or client changes?
AFAIK DAC's should allow this.
Will be nice to hear dev's opinion about this, so the community could decide together on important decisions in a truly democratic fashion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
