Anyone get refund??

Live cam girl action integrated in the wallet

Merge mining with Litecoin puts a really high sell pressure on Dogecoin, effectively guaranteeing a low price forever.

Not to mention Coinotron does not breed a lot of confidence.

but adapted to what? whatever "innovation" (and I use the word lightly) gets its ten seconds of fame in the latest pump n dump crapcoin?

100% Credits CRD


they have the biggest potential
see ann, they got it all, integrated and worked out

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=634403.0

Every time I see CoinHoarder post here I laugh he hates Litecoin but can't remove the Litecoin logo from his avatar. So everytime he posts he's helping Litecoin LOL

Please read the article and do a little research. This is not about changing the Bitcoin blockchain but using the tech itself. There are several crypto's that have actually succeed in doing this. This has nothing to do with sha256 hashes.

I think everyone needs to read this article. This is the future of cryptocurrency. Stop investing in shitty pump and dump coins and put your money where it is really needed.

http://www.coindesk.com/5-global-problems-bitcoins-proof-work-can-help-solve/

My main point really is that functionality (security etc) vs features ....functionality wins.

I can drive a beat up old car to town just like I could drive a Jaguar to town but the difference in those is I would have to take on more risk buying an expensive vehicle to do so.

Features are nice but one thing I stand by is that anything added that has not been tested very well over time is not something I want to touch.

You admit it, you aren't someone who writes software. So please follow me when I say that time tested software along with multiple parties double checking everything to make sure there are no security flaws or bugs in the code is essential.

Anyone who knows how to program on a basic level can release a new coin and then put new features on it that are not tested well. My other point here is that software that isn't tested well (which most of them are still pretty new) are not on my radar for the near future. Should some of those other coins past the test of time...then perhaps I'll take a look. Until then they are on my ignore list. lol

What is this swarm thingy? Care to direct me?

I am quite wary about IPOs. Avoided Maidsafe, for instance, and in hindsight looks a good decision.

In Berlin on June 17th Swarm declared a revolution.

We stated our vision to restore to all people the power currently monopolized by the 1%, the power to participate meaningfully in economic life.

Unlike past revolutions, this is a revolution not to be joined, but to be owned. This is a fundamental fight for democracy, this is the Swarm Spring.

The right to invest and innovate is in the grips of the few with the resources. They force us to ask them permission to innovate and deny our freedom to participate. This is ostensibly to 'protect' us from our lack of intelligence. Ironically these same 'protectors' would not mind if we gamble our meagre savings at casinos or on the lottery, lest we accidentally do something of value and climb a step on the economic ladder.

We believe that we can build a better future. We believe that we can enable all to participate in a revolution of collective ownership, something that will radically shift the nature of human society. Witness the impact that the internet revolution has brought to bear on everything from book sales, to music, media, the Arab states, and even to the way we catch a taxi.

We are committed to bringing this same revolution to finance.

To deliver, the Swarm will build these vital components:

The first is cryptoequity. Cryptoequity is a replacement for traditional investment infrastructure. It is decentralized, and democratic and auditable. It allows flexibility in operating to suit any project requiring an investment. It permits the parameters of the equity to be aligned with what is best for the project. This may include both a share of profit or growth or even a true and equitable share of decision making power.

We believe that cryptoequity is to equity what cryptocurrency is to currency. It is a totally new technology that needs to be treated as such. We will spend our time and effort to ensure that it is treated as the promising new technology that it is, rather than simply forced into an old legal box. Although we will be forced to work across legal jurisdictions, we believe that the benefits of adopting these new technologies are immensely greater than working to resist them, and we expect many nation states to welcome and accomodate this, just as they have accommodated Bitcoin.

The second core feature of our platform is crowdsourced due diligence. The purpose of regulatory bodies is to avoid the manipulation of people via various scams. We salute this purpose, but believe this system has become increasingly dysfunctional and corrupt. All that has been achieved is a stifling of innovation, including a complex framework whereby fraud and misdirection of the highest order has been allowed to flourish.

We believe that collective intelligence, empowered by well designed reputational systems, can combine to vet new ideas and allow them to rapidly receive funds in an open, collaborative and well informed symphony. We will be revealing our full plans for this system at a special party in London on the 10th of July.

The third and major differentiating aspect of Swarm is that our technology allows us to distribute coins to all swarm holders. These coins may be:

    A percentage of some coin launched via the Swarm network (i.e. a share in a project)
    A coin that gives special access to types of information or puchases available exclusively to members of Swarm (i.e. a coupon)
    A coin that gives access to exclusive events (i.e. a ticket)

Swarm today is like a crypto-kickstarter offered via coins, with the intention of gradually introducing elements of cryptoequity as the legal framework is established for them. Because we do not know exactly what the future holds we cannot make certain promises to all particulars. But we can promise to work as hard we can to fulfill these offerings with the maximum potential.

We also believe that vested powers will seek to use their political ties to prevent this from being successful. This makes it imperative that we build rapidly and funnel the money we receive into building a large and resilient global network. No matter how much money we have, our enemies will be better funded and ready to use all of political connections to crush us. We must be resourceful and wily and fast.

To do this we need your help. The ultimate success of the swarm is as up to you as it is to us. We believe absolutely that the positive energy that comes out of decentralized networks is reciprocal, that it will build up an ecosystem of increased potency and innovation that out-innovates traditional structures. This is because we are swarming together, with spontaneity and syncronicity, not simply fitting things into a spreadsheet.

If this appeals to you, we invite you to join us. If not, we ask you to stay away. The benefits of our network will be revealed gradually to those who participate in our vision. For those who prefer the old ways, you will never realize what it means to receive a GOLDTICKET.

In the Swarm it is all for one and one for all. Let's do this.

Yours,
The Swarm

Innovation doesn't always equate to success.

I've heard the misconception on this forum that for a coin to succeed it needs to be innovative.

I don't believe that is a 100% truth. I've said it many times before that FORD was innovative with the invention of the automobile but Toyota, Honda, kia and every other automobile maker was not really innovative (IMO) as they basically copied the invention.

Now had those auto dealers invent (or innovate) the concept of an airplane. That is something worth noting and is innovative.

Let's squash this misconception that INNOVATION is required in order to be successful.

Sometimes luck plays a factor in being successful as well as other variables and dynamics.

Just because a particular crypto coin doesn't have the "whistles" and "bells" you think it should does not mean the coin you are critiquing will not be successful.

I would venture to say that if the underlying functionality and security of a crypto coin are sound then the free-market will choose whether it is "successful" enough for them to pour money into it.

Looks like most of the crap coins around here although they may have lots of "features" have not experienced success in terms of acceptance by many.

I will even use myself as an example. My physical coins are a copy (in essence) of Mike Caldwell's physical bitcoins that he started in 2011. Yes I made them to support both Litecoin and Bitcoin and have my own design but I did not need to be really innovative (have whistles and bells) in order to be successful. Much of it had to do with (IMO) timing as well as marketing and some luck.

Personally I believe the coins I have sold have been a success as there have been many around the world who buy them and continue to do so. They are not coerced nor forced to. But willingly do so.

There you have it. Innovation can lead to success but it doesn't guarantee you success.

Have you considered setting some constraints? First, what is the ideal distribution, secondly what is an acceptable distribution.

Proving identity is hard, especially on the web.

It may be worth considering what each person has a limited supply of, and easy access to. PoW was based on CPU power. For PoS cell phones immediately spring to mind. If you could claim an amount of $coin by sending a text message to a distributing node that could work. It would be open to manipulation, but not so open.

I'm sure there are other approaches, automation is most likely required.

A question which arises is: if all coins are distributed freely, what gives them value? Perhaps this answer is the same as I came to, utility.

How to combat multi accounting:
-   Each person in a hand should be assigned a multi accounting score. This score represents the likelihood that player(s) involved in a hand were the same person based on the examining the multi accounting data points.
-   It may be possible to use biometric fingerprint scanners, or iris and facial recognition software to use to make sure no one is playing more than one account at the same table. However, I’m not sure this technology is practical quite yet. The data could be encrypted and proven via zero knowledge proofs and other forms of cryptography without people having to reveal their identities. Another more practical or idea may be to make web cameras mandatory so you can see who you’re playing against.
-   Charge for player accounts. In my opinion is the most decentralized and practical way at the moment of fighting Multi Accounting. Charge a fee for the account to play, based on the stakes they want to play at, so that it isn’t too much to deter players but that it would be expensive to multi account. This money can also be used for marketing and/or collusion/bot/ma checking. This is not a good solution because It is doubtful players will ever pay for an account on a poker site.
-   All data points will need to be extensively beta tested to figure out how heavy they should be weighted, as a ton of false positives are possible and the formula for the multi accounting score will need to be tweaked. I suggest setting points for each data point, and have the data points that are more likely to catch what we’re looking for be worth more points.
-   Multi Accounting Data Points:
1.   Check IP for TOR and Proxy use
2.   Check for same IPs across the network.
3.   Check if the player funded his account with the same Bitcoin/whatever coin address as another player, or used to fund another player’s account. Block chain analysis could be done versus players who have mixed their coins.

I'm interested to hear what you'd propose yourself. If you had to pick a proof and algo what would they be?

edit: reasoning, compromise to achieve the end goal is the aim, I believe we both want to achieve the same end goal, thus interested to hear viable alternatives.

No rush, you aren't required to reply again Thank you so much for your input so far.

A. Far advance warning of an cryptocurrencies' distribution/fundraising, with a clear objective and roadmap for the project and a set timeframe for the distribution/fundraising.
B. A working closed source beta, to be open-sourced after the original distribution period
C. PoW distribution (50% of the genesis stake)
Ca. Use several different mining algorithms, with each having an their own separate difficulty and the same chance to find the next block (implemented in several coins.. MyriadCoin was the first)
Cb. Use at least one algorithm per different types of mining hardware (one for Scrypt ASICs, one for SHA256 ASICs, one for CPUs, one for ATI GPUs, one for NVIDIA GPUs, etc..)
Cc. The point of this is to allow people with all types of minin hardware to participate so it is inclusive of everyone.
D. A regular IPO distribution (50% of the genesis stake)
Da. This is to allow people to participate in the initial distribution that do not want to hassle with mining equipment.
E. Launch said closed source beta into the wild after the distribution/fund-raising has occurred and switch to PoS
F. To mitigate claims of having an unfair PoS distribution to early insiders...
Fa. Have an annual block-limited PoW period that issues more coins to PoW miners.
Fb. The amount of tokens mined in the annual PoW periods should be reduced each year until eventually there is only a small amount of coins issued annually in perpetuity (aka. a tail emission).
Fc. This is intended to mimic the block reduction scheme and distribution of most PoW currencies, but with an added tail emission.

One of the biggest grudges people have with purely PoS coins are that the coins are unfairly distributed. Side note: I don't agree with this line of thinking, as everyone has a chance to invest in IPOs if they'd like. This same argument could also be applied to early adopters of Bitcoin... but I am getting sidetracked. I think it is a shame something as silly as this could hold back purely PoS coins, as I feel they are a step up from purely PoW coins which consume much more energy to secure their block chains and waste processing power.

Now that "Oracles" can confirm real world data, would it be possible to do a recurring IPO for a purely PoS coin? I feel like this would solve the problems people have with "unfair" distribution. The way I envision it there would be an initial IPO, and then one every year after that as determined by the oracles. The amount of IPO coins should be slowly reduced like Bitcoin's block reward. Using something like Oracles, the current price of the coin could be determined to figure out how much the IPO coins should cost in the recurring IPOs, or they could be sold at the original price (this may affect the market negatively and I'm not sure of the best approach.)

So, it'd go something like this:
1st IPO = 5,000,000,000 coins @ .0001
2nd IPO 1 yr later = 2,500,000,000 @ current market price or original price
3rd IPO 1 yr later = 1,250,000,000 @ current market price or original price
4th IPO 1 yr later = 625,000,000 @ current market price or original price
... so on so forth ...

I have a few questions. I am not a developer, so would something like this be possible or is it just a pipe dream?

Would this idea even make sense to due to market variables? I'm thinking maybe it would be more fair to just keep the recurring IPOs at the original price of 0.0001, but it would affect the market.

Are recurring IPOs even possible?

Any other ways you guys can think of to improve distribution of IPO/purely PoS coins?

Hi,

Too bad you locked the thread

You might want to check out our paper:
https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-Paper

It would be quite easy to do using oracles. The most straightforward way would be to essentially premine all the coins, and give M of N access to a set of oracles. Then program those oracles to release coins according to schedule and external inputs.

With little modification Orisi framework could be used for that. The biggest challenge is of course deciding who handles oracles, and what program the oracles run (e.g. who decides what datafeed is being used). There's also a challenge of modifying the list of oracles. I.e. one of the oracles belongs to a guy who revealed himself as a scammer, or someone lost keys to the oracles, and the rest of the nodes has to vote a new oracle in his place.

Visit our forums for more information or to ask questions: orisi.net