Unfortunately, it never got off the ground. It was impossible for it to work how it was coded. I really hope TradeFortress is done posting about this. It's very embarrassing for him. I'm not sure if hes completely unaware of that or this is some weird troll.

After thing about this issue a bit, the problem is the foundation ALREADY has 8 million Freicoins. We need to create a new coin, but I suggest something different.

Currently, all cryptocurrencies are based off Satoshi's bitcoin, with same or slightly modified protocols, and only some modifications (eg demurrage in Freicoin, block timings and distributions with other coins, proof of stake with PPCoin). But look at all the failed cryptocurrencies - we are essentially making a new Linux distro instead of actually making something new.

I propose making a new cryptocurrency from scratch and discussing and testing different ways to do it. Blockchain, hashcash-style mining, addresses, they're all one way to do things. There's bound to be better ways, and for a cryptocurrency to succeed we need to do it differently. Not blindly do things differently, but look at it and see which way is BETTER other than just creating a fork and modifying a bit of code from bitcoind.

I have a few ideas. For example, addresses. Instead of a clunky to remember, hard to type address, why not use something like this?

someguyswebsite.com/wallet
dicegame.com/lessthan512
192.168.0.12/lanpartydonations
wc6sbavw7fcotfgm.onion/order1274621
mywallet.bit/someusername

To verify those addresses, we could use a similar system to randomart. There's of course the attack where say you're on dicegame.com is compromised and the attacker changes the randomart displayed on the site for verification, but that's similar for bitcoin too. The coin obviously won't actually use http, it'll use it's own protocol, but will find addresses via DNS, tor, other darknets, etc etc.

Again, this is just one of the ideas I have about addresses. I'm sure if people think about it, experiment with some test code, we'd come across different ways, maybe better.

Another important thing is that the core development needs to be just that - core. Make the protocol extensible. Have headers, like HTTP requests. Over time, the community will enhance this currency by itself. For example, say a header called 'RETURN_ADDRESS: freewallet.org/ponies', say if you're betting on a gambling game and send an amount greater than the max bet, and you want returns in a DIFFERENT address (eg if you're withdrawing from an exchange) It's a nice thing to have, but it might not need to be in the core development. People will be able to add this feature, peers and nodes would implement and support it.

Take a look at websockets. Take a look at new IRC features and additions. If we make the protocol robust and extensible, the currency will involve by itself, and with the community and the users to make it last. There obviously would be a core set of guidelines - max cap of X coins, but if we discover a BETTER address system, maybe if someone wants to make it work with emails, they can code a module or extension, tell people and nodes to install and use it, and supported clients will use it automatically. Not supported? "Command not found. This command is part of coinemail, sudo cpm install coinemail".

Just some ideas. Can we do a system where transactions have a verifiable sending time? Use the hashcash mining system. A new "timecode" every 20 seconds (as it is not a block, it is not coupled with transactions, each timecode would just be a few bytes). Transactions would include the latest timecode as proof of when it was sent. First sent coins triumph in double spend attacks. 3 confirms in 1 minute on average. Still vulnerable to 51% attacks, but again this is just one idea.

I assume that it averages the two orders (liquidity provider and liquidity consumer), which is both standard and fair. Warning should have been given though, given the amount at stake.

Talked to TradeFortress for some details.
Did some testing, so far everything looks correct.

It appears that the price was correct.

Will be keeping an eye on things and will further testing to be sure though.

Wow, really? Some JS:

var gridSize = 1024;
var bits = 512;

var assignedBits = 0;
var grid = [];

while(assignedBits < bits){
newLoc = Math.floor(Math.random() * gridSize);
if(!grid[newLoc]){
grid[newLoc] = 1;
assignedBits++;
}
}

No need for floats or anything.

>initial rules

Alright. Freeze your code base please, rule changes are not allowed even if the majority agrees to it. Currently Bitcoin contributors are planning to change the coin dust constants and the transaction fees, but if they do they're not honest according to your definition!!

Please take a look at this thread and see that currently ALL criticism are from FRC Foundation members.

You can clearly see their goal is to protect themselves, not the users, the miners, the traders, the merchants, and the peasants collecting FRC from faculets (unless it benefits them). Just like how the Federal Reserve's goal is to protect the banking system, not to help the common public.

Attack: It would be an attack if I took over the network and double spent transactions. But this isn't an attack when you have ZERO criticism from those not part of the elite foundation/reserve club. Take a look It's rewriting the rules of FRC, just like how a new bitcoind version will rewrite the rule of BTC transaction fees. If 51% of the network agrees to it, goodbye to the 80% tax.

Mining isn't the best method for distributing coins. But it's the a method for rewarding people to keep the network secure. There's a difference. Welfare might be the best way to distribute money, but getting a job would be a method to be productive towards society.

Perhaps an donation to the foundation with each block mined. Miners won't get any coin more if they don't donate, but if they feel the Foundation is doing a good job, they can include printing FRC for the foundation. If the foundation abuses the coins they spend, then miners will choose to NOT print FRC. If they feel that everyone is given a fair say and the Foundation is HELPING Freicoin, include the donation.

DPony13, Thanks for sharing your opinion on Freicoin.

I think you may have a misconception.

You lose 5% per year. Not per transaction.

Thanks again!

THIS WILL NOT BE REJECTED BY THE NETWORK. Wanna know why? Because the blocks are still valid to the network with the 80% foundation backdoor issuing method.