Although you posted a disclaimer that your topic should not be about a single cryptocurrency, I'ld have to point out NEM is the one which fulfills all your criteria and it is currently in the top 5 of currencies on coinmarketcap. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/Sounds like OP either wants to launch his own crypto, which most failure, or is theorizing when his dream coin is real and out there. 1. NEM was a wide distribution to 1000s of stakeholders and only around 65 BTC was collected. When R0ach and Spoetnik call ICOs scams, they're almost always referring to stuff which collects millions of dollars and is distributed to a few. 2. NEM is Proof-Of-Importance 3. Proof-Of-Importance 4. NEM does not have a voting system. At one time NEM considered it, but there were a lot of disasters then with other people's implementation and even now. Bitshares' issue was it was very hard to kick out apathetic / inactive delegates. DAO, before the hack, was only able to get around 20% participation. 5. Proof-Of-Importance.  These are threads I have seen a lot on Bitcointalk. People saying we need a fair distribution or an alternative to PoW/PoS. NEM already had you all beat since 2014 and now it's a top 5 currency. NEM is still cheap so the time to buy is now. Ok granted I'm plugging my currency too, but what is proof of importance in 2 sentences? |
|
|
|
The best initial distribution of an alt is to take the snapshot of bitcoin blockchain at a particular point of time and enable holders of these bitcoins to receive this altcoins, in proportion to their bitcoin holdings.
No ICO is good, but what is the initial distribution proposed?
What about manually distributing from a market with total holdings limited to prevent oligarchy - we've grown a new network of 500 non bitcoin users this way with no marketing spend |
|
|
|
I don't know any coins that operate without either Proof-of-work or Proof-of-Stake. To make your ideal a reality someone would have to invent a new way to power a block chain, unless I missed a coin that quietly implemented a new system without many people noticing.
There is a way to power a blockchain without proof of work or proof of stake, and we're doing it on the Carboncoin It's not the perfect solution, because as the op is well aware, a perfect solution does not exist We have demonstrated our ethos and trustworthiness by operating without security breach for over 2 year. This becomes more valuable the longer it goes on. Anyone can hash on the network but they wont be rewarded with enough coins to make it worthwhile to do that in anything other than the most effective way. I have my "ideal" structure for a coin, which will be implemented on the carboncoin project at some stage in the future but in the meantime we have been able to add approximately 500 non crypto users since we started (who have bought coins coming from the market), and that is without any significant fundraising or resources for marketing or development. The funding is now happening, so we will see where it goes. I would very much like to engage this community and find fellow innovators to work with on the ideal currency application of the blockchain - Carboncoin continues to be my best effort |
|
|
|
|
It seems that so far despite the nothing at all camp in the lead there are more votes in the top two categories combined so 1.5% and over.
Leaving voting open
Great engagement and feedback so far
|
|
|
|
|
Has it occurred to you that I might have been acting defensively because my honest intentions were being criticised and a photograph I took myself was being accused of being photoshopped when all I did was adjust the colour to make it look better, not being a professional photographer.
It might also have occurred to you that I believe in what Carboncoin can achieve and that is why I continue. Many others believe in it too, although many of them aren't the members of the cryptocurrency community who reside here.
The point of the Carboncoin is that, having gained an understanding of bitcoin and how it worked I could not reconcile myself with the energy consumption of the protocol despite agreeing with the rest of the ethos. I identified that there was a way of making a network work without having to change a great deal to fix this problem. At the same time I was confronted by the extent of the damage that humanity was doing and sought to do something to make that better in the most pragmatic way possible, and planting trees is a pretty good way of doing that, and a pretty good thing to do regardless of which side of the climate change fence you sit on.
The fact of the matter is that landowners are not planting trees at the rate they need to, and doing it for people for free is a pretty good way to change that. There is still a net drawdown in the number of trees on the planet and that is fundamentally unsustainable. Your first post was something along the lines of "Carbon Offsetting is Bull IMO", how is that not a dick move to someone you've never met?
Bitcoin worked in its capacity as a payment system and Carboncoin, out of respect for Bitcoin and acknowledgement of it having worked, has stuck very closely to the structure in protocol as much as operations. We are an energy efficient alternative which will have a positive effect on the planet.
You've spent two years trying to hurt something good. All you've possibly achieved is stopping a few people on this forum buying coins.
I'll be switching to ignore now and DemetriusAstroBlack's posts on our thread will be deleted before I read them. I've nothing to hide, but I'm done with you. The network continues to run securely with new members joining regularly and that is simply going to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
7.5 BTC's of capital inflow to multiply our market cap by 30 to $6M? #nodepthonthesellside #justsaying
|
|
|
|
|
Yep keep on believing that, and keep on trolling, see where it gets you - it's certainly achieved a whole lot so far.
|
|
|
|
Over two years of secure protocol operation and we've actually made this into something, through sheer hard work, determination and self funding in the face of the troll, who besides occasionally giving us useful feedback hasn't done much at all. Oh, he did private message that he loved me the other day i love you.  Keep on raising awareness Dim!  |
|
|
|
i thought i've read cabroncoin  seem this coin are just for environmentalist? No this coin is for everyone. We're just making sure it is good for the planet. |
|
|
|
It is how the coins are used by the dev that counts far more than the % retained.
Agreed
With a full ledger with detailed costings then there is no issue with the development team having 50% in theory.
What do you think of the argument that coins retained centrally are just future inflation?
I mean if you know exactly to the cent how the coins were liquidated and used for the development then it is still fair.
Surely it is more important to get the coins out into the world?
There should be milestones and detailed costing plans put forth before release. Measures put in place to ensure those are met.
Is this about coin retention or ICO, because certain jobs must be done to build demand for the idea to start with before there is enough market depth to make any realisable return anyway, regardless of any mandate behind coin spending.
In that case what is an amount of money (in fiat) you think is necessary to build a viable team behind a cryptocurrency?
In this case the coins are simply distributed via exchanges and development costs are covered as you go. The more development the more it costs and hopefully the more advanced and desirable the currency becomes.
The original dev team should put forth a detailed costing plan with milestones the large development pot is then released over time to them as is set forth in the plan.
Stratification is clearly key!
What is more important is where the coins that are not kept by the dev team go . Mining with a fair release protocol is the best way to ensure they are disbursed equally.
What about an actual properly managed airdrop?
Or a fully transparent ICO with board user names listed.
So board usernames rather than actual names, sounds like a good idea.
What proportion of the total circulation would you suggest is a sensible amount for an ICO, and how much is a sensible amount of capital to raise in your opinion?
There is no real 100% fair way to ensure non dev pot coins are distributed fairly but with a bit of analysis you can either puppet accounts have to work harder or some accounts are struck off from having the right to buy in. With a largely advertised pow launch with pools at the start and fast increasing diff it is hard for single entities to grab up vastly unfair swathes of gpu mined coins. Even if they do they are having to expend energy at the same rate as everyone else albeit at different energy costs. Then again they have had to buy the hardware at similar rates to everyone else. That's about as fair as you can ensure.
Interesting. I have seen many of these happen but think i might have found another way.
Huge % grabbed that are not accounted for and monitored can be used for market manipulation. This is what you do not want.
No, very true.
The currency should be valued upon its merits and desirability/functionality.
Development costs time and money. There is no problem paying for that at a reasonable rate.
The development pot is there to reward reasonably the devs for producing something very useful. If they do then they should be paid very well but it should not be a guarantee to making a fortune even when producing nothing or something of low value.
The problem with it at the moment is that devs are in a win win position. They need to be put in a win if they produce something of worth and risk of not getting paid out if milestones are not reached position.
Would you say that the amount of time already invested by the dev would be supportive of "something to lose"?
|
|
|
|
It depends?
1. What are the developer's credentials? (education, experience, past projects, etc.)
A PhD computer scientist updating and securing the protocol, a multi asset hedge fund trader is behind the protocol variables and infrastructure
1a. Is the developer anonymous?
To the public, yes; to the board, no
2. How long and how hard will you dedicate yourself to the project? (6 months means nothing. You need to specify whether it is 5 hours per week for 6 months or 40+ hours per week for 6 months)
It has been ~40 hours a week, most weeks, for over two years and will continue as such - time is spent on systems and infrastructure development rather than protocol development currently.
2a. You need to provide some way for shareholders to audit that you are spending that much time on the project, and give shareholders the ability to approve coin distribution in portions (for example- 1 portion per month worked.)
Like it! Surely the main thing going on here is prevention of spending of the coins, which could be demonstrated. I certainly wont be relinquishing any of my holdings for several years, given the amount of work i have already put into it.
3. Is your idea/vision for the cryptocurrency valuable? Will it fill a niche, solve a problem, have competition, be the 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th, etc) to market, be valuable if developed as planned, be possible to develop?
Yes and it has demonstrated this by bringing on several hundred non crypto users since we started, as just one of several supporting arguments
Some people will adamantly say 0%.
Others (me including) will judge cryptocurrencies on a case-by-case scenario using some arbitrary combination of the parameters I listed above (and others, as that list is incomplete).
Would you mind telling me what the above might be worth to you in terms of market capitalisation as an estimate? If you were going to do an ICO what proportion would you sell and for how much? Would an incorporated development company behind the protocol be of interest to you over and above an ICO? |
|
|
|
|
1% of the total circulation of carboncoin is available on c-cex for just under 7 BTC - that's about $4500
Anyone know much about ICO's and what they are going for? I heard some have raised a huge amount of money this way
|
|
|
|
Perfection is for incapable dreamers who handicapped themselves with their perfectionist delusion. The real world requires a balancing act. Let's get the balance right.
Thank you for taking the time on this. I think you are spot on, have messaged hoping for a further discussion |
|
|
|
I will. I am part of the FailCommunity team, which supports FailCoin for more than 2 years as well. We are 12 people from 10 different countries. All of us are working for a specific % of the coin and as one of the Project leaders, I really know how hard it is. Especially to find honest people out there.
The lesson I learnt is if a system relies to much on honesty then it's probably not really suitable for humans  There's a really good documentary on netflix about it called "(dis)honesty" which I would very much recommend At the heart of the Carboncoin are 8 who help regularly and many many more on stand by. We've grown a community of about 500 people who have bought coins to hold on to since we started. We've done our best to ensure that no one individual owns more than 2% apart from the charity which has just over 4%. That said, many have come and gone seeking short term gains to throw at the next pump. They don't do anyone any good. A pleasure to make your acquaintance. |
|
|
|
I went with over 2% because I have worked on enough tech projects to know you need funding to continue dev. Stressing about where the money is going to come from impedes development. Sometimes you need badly to hire coders for different parts in order to keep it moving. Then branding...quality branding is expensive and this area must not be bypassed.
+1 One of the hardest things I've been though is watching people who believe in my project, and want to be a part of it, move on to a new thing because of not being able to get paid. Carboncoin is certainly the last project I will be doing without raising money at the proof of concept stage because of that. The decision not to jump into getting funding straight away was that we wanted to spread the coin out widely and fairly while it was at low value, and we've been relatively successful at that - but it has ended up costing much more in non monetary terms! |
|
|
|
What I meant was that "Nothing at all" sounds like people want developers to work for free. I am not all against ICO's, because I see nothing wrong with "funding some brains", but far too many scams happened. If a developer has funds and want to invest them in his coin, then it's good. He can then rent miners and mine as much as he can. Premine doesn't work very well nowadays. Majority of the people do care only about Bitcoin and few others. Try gather a team funded with the premine (without selling it for BTC). Believe me. it is extremely hard.
Tell me about it! Carboncoin has been running for 2 years and self funded, we also had to do a community takeover when the original developer disappeared in questionable circumstances... We're just working on a new feature which will prevent our future helpers from exchanging their rewards straight away, and i'm also considering implementing a staking reward for a little while to give people some incentive to accumulate coins. Nothing like a bit of hard work |
|
|
|
Most of you voted "Nothing at all", but you must be joking, right? Let's say that a developer has 0.5% of the entire supply. That would give him like $5,000 if the coin reaches $1Mn market cap. Don't you think that this is unfair? I see nothing wrong if the developer of a particular coin holds a bit more of it as long as he is not buying before releasing some news and selling when he knows it goes nowhere... i think he need to use those money for the development of the coin, and not for dumping his own coin for bitcoin like 99,99% of dev do lol, soif he is a legit dev i would say that 15 is ok to give him as a reward to develop further his coin, otherwise zero coins is always good, because he need to mine like any other here Interesting point about dev mining, but it is very difficult to avoid conflicts of interest if you are able to know when key events are happening. I'm not sure Devs should mine in a fair system, past keeping the network going. For example you might get in touch with the owner of your main pool to have his service go down at a critical moment so you can take advantage of, for example, a marked difficulty reduction - all sorts of stuff like this can and does happen Definitely also a valid point about market abuse from @spartak_t |
|
|
|
Good times with CarboinCoin
It should be a good addition to our other initiatives |
|
|
|
Most of you voted "Nothing at all", but you must be joking, right? Let's say that a developer has 0.5% of the entire supply. That would give him like $5,000 if the coin reaches $1Mn market cap. Don't you think that this is unfair? I see nothing wrong if the developer of a particular coin holds a bit more of it as long as he is not buying before releasing some news and selling when he knows it goes nowhere... I think "nothing at all" assumes that the developer has raised enough funds to start the thing on a salary anyway, not sure if this is the crypto-startup status quo these days. There is nothing about an ICO in the question for example. Could there be legal ramifications if the person who is starting the network at genesis block effectively issues himself with coins? It makes clear sense that those who help a network are rewarded for doing so |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
