|
It seems like as long as Smoothie is alive I'm going to need to create self moderated threads for the rest of my life...
/reboot
|
|
|
|
Really? This thread is self-moderated? Lol
It doesn't say it is anywhere on here.
It looks like I failed at making a self moderated thread. I've never made one before and apparently I don't know how to click a check box. Stay on topic and no trolling, or I will just lock it again and start a new one. |
|
|
|
I started a similar thread the other day in the "Project Development" subforum, but was met with anti-PoS trolls and I subsequently locked it. This new thread is self moderated and any off topic trolling will be deleted. Please stay on topic. This was my original post: 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?
After thinking it over a bit more, I think instead of funding the IPOs with a crypto currency, it might be better to adopt a Vericoin-like PoW distribution for each of the IPOs (I suppose the initial IPO could be funded if you wanted to without any complications.) This solves the conundrum as to what the price of the recurring IPOs should be, and further decentralizes distribution. I suggest using an algorithm that does not have ASICs yet, as this will further increase the decentralization of the distribution (x11, keccak, dagger (ethereum), proof of primes, etc.) IF an ASIC is developed for the algorithm used before the recurring IPOs finish, I suggest hard forking it to use an algorithm that does not have ASICs for fair distribution. The developer/inventor of Oracles (Kolinko) contacted me via PM sad that I had locked the old thread. Since he shared new information, I decided to start a new one (since I can't figure out how to unlock the old one & a self moderated thread is better to keep this on topic.) This is what he had to say: Hi, Too bad you locked the thread  You might want to check out our paper: https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-PaperIt 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 I'll point him to this new thread so that the conversation can continue. So, it seems that it is possible to use oracles for this purpose. IMO this is a better distribution model for purely PoS coins. Do you guys have any opinions or ideas to improve upon this, or how it could be done on a technical level? There are still some things to work out obviously. |
|
|
|
By the way, it's funny that all those wildly successful companies you mentioned have webpages specifically for their determination to be innovative. I found Litecoin's innovation webpage too with a quick Google search: http://www.this-page-intentionally-left-blank.org/ |
|
|
|
First you should start by editing out of the OP your examples of companies that "weren't innovative" since you obviously know nothing about those companies. All 3 companies you mentioned didn't start out by making cars, so no they did not "copy Ford." If you spent the time to research your examples you will find they all have a history of innovating: Toyota is successful today because they innovated, maybe you should learn about their history before calling them copy cats. They have a long history of innovating starting with the way cars are mass produced and built to today where they pioneered hybrid vehicles via the Prius. Honda's history: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/Honda's recent innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/Honda got its start innovating the use of auxillary engines in motorcycles and is still today focused on innovation. Honda's history: http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/encounter/index.htmlHonda's current innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/Although Kia didn't get its start innovating products per say, it was the first company in South Korea to make domestic bicycle, motorcycles, cars, and trucks. Today they definitely have a strong focus towards innovating and were innovative in the US market by making vehicles affordable, among other recent innovations. Kia's history: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovationKia's current Innovations: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovationMaybe you should research claims a little bit before you make them? It took me 5 minutes to look all this up... As to the rest, I'll give you the attention you so badly want a little later.. I'm busy.  |
|
|
|
This is like the most used reason on why LTC will not "succeed".
Since when does innovation = success and only then?
Ford was an innovator...but along came Toyota, Honda, Kia...etc. They weren't very innovative as they basically copied the idea and layout.
Now had Toyota or the others came up with the idea of the airplane ...now that is innovative. But it didn't require innovation to be successful.
Toyota is successful today because they innovated, maybe you should learn about their history before calling them copy cats. They have a long history of innovating starting with the way cars are mass produced and built to today where they pioneered hybrid vehicles via the Prius. Honda's history: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/Honda's recent innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/Honda got its start innovating the use of auxillary engines in motorcycles and is still today focused on innovation. Honda's history: http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/encounter/index.htmlHonda's current innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/Although Kia didn't get its start innovating products per say, it was the first company in South Korea to make domestic bicycle, motorcycles, cars, and trucks. Today they definitely have a strong focus towards innovating and were innovative in the US market by making vehicles affordable, among other recent innovations. Kia's history: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovationKia's current Innovations: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovationMaybe you should research claims a little bit before you make them? It took me 5 minutes to look all this up... I never said they weren't innovative. I said they weren't very innovative as they did not invent something new. Obviously this is my opinion lol. My point was innovation =/= success as so many including you appear to be claiming here. Nice backtracking there buddy. Seems like I'm not the only one that "gives themselves enough wiggle room to back out of their statements."  Sure, it's not the only reason for a company's success obviously. They could have a very innovative product, and be scammers at the same time, killing their chances of being successful. Being innovative certainly helps companies be successful though. To deny that is just you being dumb. My point I will say again is innovation =/= success 100% of the time. You really sound butthurt lol. Please tell the smart money how dumb they are (or "not smart") even though you are not in a position to be a judge of that based on your past failures.  Still backtracking. This is what you sound like: dumbanddumber-soyouthinkthere'sachancememe.jpg Don't flatter yourself, you are not smart money Smoothie. You were simply in the right place at the right time. With every statement you make you highlight the fact that you are not smart money. |
|
|
|
learn2write
lol your statement bolding doesn't change your misconception of what supply is and how it relates to difficulty (in your writing).
Let's read what you wrote again for the kiddies:
"Supply stays more or less the same no matter who has control of the hash power or how many hashes they throw at it. That is the whole purpose of adjusting difficulty."
Supply doesn't stay more or less the same. The supply is always changing at each block. The difficulty has everything to do with controlling the inflation of supply and not just the supply as you so eloquently failed to do communicate correctly.
We are both saying the same thing in different words. All you can do is pick at my words to try to "prove me wrong." Yet, we are both saying the same thing in different words. It does stay the same MORE OR LESS. It hasn't deviated from the mean much in its history. http://cryptometer.org/litecoin_60_month_charts.htmlDo you not know what more or less means? LOL you even said "inflation stays the same". Then went to say "more or less" without addressing that supply and inflation of supply are two different things. You should probably get your wording correct as then people can't "pick" at your words so easily. lol I have never once mentioned inflation in this thread. Inflation & supply, in the context that you and I are discussing them in, are the same thing. They both stay the same more or less.You are focusing on technicalities of my words when anyone with half a brain would have been able to understand what I was saying. |
|
|
|
This is like the most used reason on why LTC will not "succeed".
Since when does innovation = success and only then?
Ford was an innovator...but along came Toyota, Honda, Kia...etc. They weren't very innovative as they basically copied the idea and layout.
Now had Toyota or the others came up with the idea of the airplane ...now that is innovative. But it didn't require innovation to be successful.
Toyota is successful today because they innovated, maybe you should learn about their history before calling them copy cats. They have a long history of innovating starting with the way cars are mass produced and built to today where they pioneered hybrid vehicles via the Prius. Honda's history: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/Honda's recent innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/Honda got its start innovating the use of auxillary engines in motorcycles and is still today focused on innovation. Honda's history: http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/encounter/index.htmlHonda's current innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/Although Kia didn't get its start innovating products per say, it was the first company in South Korea to make domestic bicycle, motorcycles, cars, and trucks. Today they definitely have a strong focus towards innovating and were innovative in the US market by making vehicles affordable, among other recent innovations. Kia's history: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovationKia's current Innovations: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovationMaybe you should research claims a little bit before you make them? It took me 5 minutes to look all this up... I never said they weren't innovative. I said they weren't very innovative as they did not invent something new. Obviously this is my opinion lol. My point was innovation =/= success as so many including you appear to be claiming here. Nice backtracking there buddy. Seems like I'm not the only one that "gives themselves enough wiggle room to back out of their statements." Sure, it's not the only reason for a company's success obviously. They could have a very innovative product, and be scammers at the same time, killing their chances of being successful. Being innovative certainly helps companies be successful though. To deny that is just you being dumb. |
|
|
|
learn2write
lol your statement bolding doesn't change your misconception of what supply is and how it relates to difficulty (in your writing).
Let's read what you wrote again for the kiddies:
"Supply stays more or less the same no matter who has control of the hash power or how many hashes they throw at it. That is the whole purpose of adjusting difficulty."
Supply doesn't stay more or less the same. The supply is always changing at each block. The difficulty has everything to do with controlling the inflation of supply and not just the supply as you so eloquently failed to do communicate correctly.
We are both saying the same thing in different words. All you can do is pick at my words to try to "prove me wrong." Yet, we are both saying the same thing in different words. It does stay the same MORE OR LESS. It hasn't deviated from the mean much in its history. http://cryptometer.org/litecoin_60_month_charts.htmlDo you not know what more or less means? |
|
|
|
what is conclusion on syscoin? i think potential but lot of concerns. i took a look like suggested, but very easy for ppl to fork ipo
Syscoin looks good, but funding isn't open yet. If it comes to fruition then this may save Scrypt coins. Litecoin worshipers should really hope it will be a success, but apparently they aren't into innovating so who knows. |
|
|
|
I've posted in other threads that as BTC continues to make the transition from "underground" to "mainstream" (more adoption every day, more wall st. types involved every day, etc.) there is going to be a void. With more acceptance will come more scrutiny & regulation. People who (have) used BTC to buy pot, buy guns, send money across the globe for whatever reason will (at some point) shy away from BTC due to the above.
There needs to be a legit alternative to BTC that is viable. Will it be LTC? My guess is likely not. I just don't see a whole lot from the LTC community in terms of evolution and innovation of the coin.
Which coin is it? No idea, but there are only a handful (if that) that could emerge that are bringing either actual innovation to the table or have a legit community behind it (not going to name names)... but I don't think it will be an IPO coin or a POS coin that proves to be viable long-term.
This is like the most used reason on why LTC will not "succeed". Since when does innovation = success and only then? Ford was an innovator...but along came Toyota, Honda, Kia...etc. They weren't very innovative as they basically copied the idea and layout. Now had Toyota or the others came up with the idea of the airplane ...now that is innovative. But it didn't require innovation to be successful. Toyota is successful today because they innovated, maybe you should learn about their history before calling them copy cats. They have a long history of innovating starting with the way cars are mass produced and built to today where they pioneered hybrid vehicles via the Prius. Honda's history: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/Honda's recent innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/Honda got its start innovating the use of auxillary engines in motorcycles and is still today focused on innovation. Honda's history: http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/encounter/index.htmlHonda's current innovations: http://corporate.honda.com/innovation/Although Kia didn't get its start innovating products per say, it was the first company in South Korea to make domestic bicycle, motorcycles, cars, and trucks. Today they definitely have a strong focus towards innovating and were innovative in the US market by making vehicles affordable, among other recent innovations. Kia's history: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovationKia's current Innovations: http://www.kia.lk/corporate/innovationMaybe you should research claims a little bit before you make them? It took me 5 minutes to look all this up... |
|
|
|
And those "obvious" reasons are what?  I believe this has everything to do with sentiment, that is how prices of crypto currencies are established, supply and demand. The demand has gone down over the past 6 months and you can't deny it as the supply stays the same.. that is the point of difficulty. Supply hasn't stayed the same. You currently have over 30% of the entire network hashrate accounted for by just FIVE wallet addresses (solo miners). Over on Coinotron there are two miners with over 6 GH/s in hashrate each, and the next two on the list each have over 3 GH/s. That is the whole purpose of adjusting difficulty.To debate this point is dumb, just go look at the block frequency chart: http://cryptometer.org/litecoin_60_month_charts.htmlWhat you mean to say is that the supply is more centralized towards big players with deep pockets and/or hardware manufacturers than it used to be.  That has concentrated an abnormally gigantic amount of the block rewards into a very few hands and they are all making a mad dash toward ROI, before the even larger hardware starts shipping this month and next, reducing their percentage of the network to a fraction of what it is today.
You don't like me making inferences, so why are you allowed to make them? Do you know these large miners personally? How can you be sure it is them that are selling Litecoins and not someone that already owned Litecoins who has recently changed their mind about it? But it is an abnormal condition for so few miners to have so much of the new coin production...and it won't remain the case as the network is taken over by ASICs and the hashrate redistributes to something approximating normal.
We'll agree to disagree on that one, ASICs brings centralization. Why would people buy mining equipment if it won't break even due to people with deep pockets and/or the mark up from mining hardware manufacturers? The idea that it's going to magically fix itself over time doesn't make sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to buy mining hardware (in terms of profit), then what is the point? There are very few people that mine just "to protect the network". This isn't even as centralized as I am expecting Bitcoin/Litecoin to become. It will get much worse as old money, old money crypto, bankers, and VCs go full throttle on the mining landscape. Due to economies of scale, massive institutions with deep pockets can make a lot of mining hardware much cheaper than what the average miner can buy them for at retail prices. The only other coin to have ever gone through this transition is Bitcoin...and it did it at a time when there were a LOT fewer eyes on it and a whole hell of a lot less money involved.
That is not true. Litecoin is at about a $252 million market cap right now.. I wouldn't exactly say that's "a whole hell of a lot less money" compared to Bitcoin's Feb 2013 market cap of $228 million. Look at February 2013 forward: http://www.quandl.com/BCHAIN/MKTCP-Bitcoin-Market-CapitalizationThe arrival of Bitcoin ASICs also made it more centralized, but they did not see a similar dip in price. Go from February 2013 forward: http://www.quandl.com/BAVERAGE/USD-USD-BITCOIN-Weighted-PriceI agree that there are more people around now than in Feb. 2013, but I'm not sure how this makes a difference in the topic at hand. More people are around to buy Litecoin and Litecoin mining hardware, yet the price is falling and the network is becoming more centralized. How does that support your argument? Realistically, no other coin in existence could hold up under these conditions...but Litecoin has not failed. It has lost some ground in price denominated in dollars, but not nearly as much as one would expect, considering the rampant dumping.
It has also lost some ground denominated in Bitcoins. You are also making an assumption that no other coin could hold up, as it hasn't happened yet so know one knows what would happen. Again you assume all the dumping is ASIC miners... I think I heard Smoothie himself say he didn't currently have a stake in Litecoin... this is another large assumption as well that it is only ASIC miners dumping. I think personally it is both ASIC miners dumping and market sentiment is shifting. I'd like to state again, Bitcoin's price didn't slip when their ASICs came out, why should Litecoin be given a free pass as to this being the reason for the price falling? Supply doesn't stay the same. lol If you are talking about a particular instant then yes it hasn't changed in the last minute or two. Over time the supply changes. The inflation of supply stays the same more or less and THAT is the reason for the difficulty adjustment. There is the correct statement. learn2read |
|
|
|
I'll get back to you later, I've got some things to do. |
|
|
|
BTC will continue to be adopted by business/investors/consumers and LTC will not unfortunately. Satoshi's don't allow LTC to be a silver currency. LTC offers nothing new, and the speculation buying is over, you will see some small spikes, but it will indeed die. I like Charlie Lee, a great guy and appreciate what he's done for Crypto.
Quark, it's already replaced by a new wave of shit alts and will never rise again, it will die a lot faster than LTC along with many other.
Usability rules all, look at Doge and Aurora, even with spectacular marketing, it's going down the toilet. Big money investors and business always look at usability first.
Nothing will replace BTC as Crypto Gold, POW. You will see other Crypto's being adopted in different verticals; POS, storage, smart contracts, etc... But again there will be only one to rule each vertical. Right now I see Nxt as the POS king. I see Ethereum as the Smart Contract/Script king. I predict Sia as the Storage king (not maidsafe), etc... More verticals will be created and we will hopefully see more innovative Cryptos. It's a crazy time, but very exciting.
My advice for investors, ride the IPO wave for new alts, then sell and buy a king coin.
I don't buy Cryptos to sell them, I buy Cryptos to use them, I have never sold a Crypto for Fiat (believe it or not), so take my advice as a holder and not a day trader.
I agree with your train of thought here. Except that I feel it is possible that Bitcoin could be replaced as king at some point in time. |
|
|
|
Supply stays more or less the same no matter who has control of the hash power or how many hashes they throw at it. That is the whole purpose of adjusting difficulty. To debate this point is dumb, just go look at the block frequency chart: http://cryptometer.org/litecoin_60_month_charts.htmlWhen I say supply, I mean on the exchanges...which portion of the supply is being used to define the price/market for the coin. That is in constant flux, but the constant selling pressure that has been exerted on Litecoin in the last 3-4 months has been unprecedented. Alright, I get what you are saying now and I agree this has affected Litecoin's price. However, I don't see how this helps the argument of why Litecoin is a good investment. Your assumption that it will work itself out over time is just that, an assumption. An assumption that I personally don't agree with due to the reasons I stated earlier. You don't like me making inferences, so why are you allowed to make them? Do you know these large miners personally? How can you be sure it is them that are selling Litecoins and not someone that already owned Litecoins who has recently changed their mind about it? Because I watch the addresses that are public and the market behavior on a daily basis. All but one of the five largest solo miners have dumped the majority of what they've mined to their wallet addresses. When you look at the launch of the Innosilicon devices, the week after they started deploying in China saw a VERY clear start of the strong extended downtrend we're in. It's like there's a bright flashing neon arrow pointing at that date on Bitcoinwisdom. I will take your word for that, but again I don't see how this helps the argument for Litecoin as to the big picture. I find it unlikely that it is not a combination of this and shifting market sentiment, as is evident from a lot of people posting their opinions and the market. You make it seem as if this is the only reason for the downtrend.. ASIC miners dumping. I'm referring to Bitcoin's market cap at the time it experienced the ASIC transition, relative to today. That doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to bring market cap into the debate about ASICs being a reason for the downtrend, then I feel like Bitcoin's market cap at the time ASICs were introduced (Feb. through August 2013) should be compared with Litecoin's market cap at the time ASICs were introduced (Dec. 2013 through today). But there were FAR, far fewer eyes on Bitcoin at that time than are currently on both it and Litecoin, right now.
I still don't get how this helps your argument. There are more people around to buy Litecoins and Litecoin mining hardware, yet the price is going down and the network is becoming more centralized. How does this help make your point? That and the media have a much greater sway over sentiment than existed when the Bitcoin community was relatively small and very few news outlets reported on it. The entire landscape has changed since then. So the conditions that prevail around Litecoin right now are unlike what Bitcoin had to go through...and it's still holding up, even with a whale dumping his load all over the market, tonight. That's my point...it is going to take a LOT to kill Litecoin off. The market is dealing with some real stiff challenges at the moment and it has resisted a crash.
I agree the media has some sway, and there are more reporters covering crypto currency today than a year ago. However, after a quick search there is only one or two articles stating Litecoin is stagnant or dying. I'm not so sure this is the reason either, there are way more people in the crypto currency community stating this than in the press. Agreed the landscape has changed a lot sense then, it is why I've change my opinion on Litecoin. As to your point of Litecoin not dying with the huge dump.. market sentiment won't change overnight unless something drastic were to happen. It will take time for market sentiment to shift, and it has been slowly shifting that way for 6 months now. I don't think Litecoin is "out of the woods" quite yet. Things are going to look a lot different by the end of 2014. Time will tell, whose prediction was right.
Agreed |
|
|
|
|
By the way- even Vericoin's model is susceptible to unfair distribution because of ASICs, so I would suggest changing the algorithm as well if you were to take this approach.
There are more memory hard Scrypt algorithms that are more ASIC resistant, and other algorithms like x11, keccak (sp), dagger (ethereum's pow), etc.
This would further improve distribution of the coins by not allowing ASICs to participate... ie. anyone with a computer could mine a fair portion of the IPO coins.
I prefer something that's mineable on GPUs as it would help keep bot nets out, CPU coins could be unfairly distributed to bot nets as compared to GPU coins in which people have built mining rigs over the years and the average infected bot net computer (average consumer computer) doesn't have a nice GPU.
|
|
|
|
Cheers, thanks for the kind words. I'd like to point out one thing which is controversial and opinions differ, but I feel very strongly about it. I wish I would of seen your project earlier so I could of voiced my concerns. I feel like crypto currencies that are mined by ASICs are not a good thing, and I would suggest looking into alternatives. 1. ASICs make the network more centralized due to ASIC companies being able to make them for pennies compared to the retail prices average consumers can get. Due to economies of scale, they can build large farms much cheaper than the average miner can. This also applies to anyone with enough money to build their own ASICs or buy ASICs in bulk, so it favors large institutions and old money, more so than the average joe blow. 2. I feel like PoW is broken in that so much electricity and processing power is wasted on securing the block chain. PoS coins help and/or solve the electricity problem (depending on whether its fully PoS or not), and coins like Primecoin solve the wasted processing power problem. I'm not saying these solutions are ideal... finding prime numbers isn't going to change the world, and there are many variants of PoS out there and PoS security is still under question. However, with all the talk of how "unsecure" PoS coins are from the naysayers, I find it odd that there have been no problems with it thus far.. not even with PPcoin in which people seem to think is the most insecure PoS implementation. So, I take these arguments with a grain of salt. 2a. Fair distribution is the only main issue others and myself have with purely PoS coins. However, I feel like there are work arounds that can be implemented. 2a1. Having the coin start out as a PoW coin for the initial distribution of the coins, then switching to purely PoS at a set point in time. See Vericoin as an example. 2a2. I have been thinking about other solutions for this problem, as I'm sure they exist. I would like some feedback on something I thought about.. I'm not sure if it would work. Here is a brief overview of my idea: 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?
Since you don't want to do an IPO, you could use Vericoin's approach for the above idea if the logistics were worked out. 3. ASIC mining unnecessarily makes the mining community susceptible to preorder scams, late delivery, manufacturers mining on customers hardware, etc. |
|
|
|
Great ideas CoinHoarder.
Would you be willing to commit some time in the future to the bitmark project, particularly at the adoption stage? I can see the way you think being very beneficial during brainstorming sessions and when discussing targeting specific markets / encouraging adoption - as the target is non crypto currency affiliated ventures.
To clarify regarding the RI, all Bitmark code is already open source and free to use, I just need to polish a few bits, fork, and provide some documentation so that it's easily clone-able by others.
I think what I'd like to convey is that I would like the process of others cloning the RI to be a documented manual process, rather than an automated process.
Thanks. I'll certainly try to help where I can, but I don't want to get officially involved with any projects at the moment. I learned my lesson with Litecoin not to invest too much of my time and support into one crypto currency, as it makes it much harder to leave if I don't like the direction things are headed. Also I think I'll receive less flak from the community of whatever coin I may abandon in the future by not getting so attached. Some people unfortunately don't understand that opinions can change. Furthermore, I feel genuinely horrible for perhaps convincing people to invest in Litecoin, as they have lost money over the past 6 months. The same goes for perhaps convincing people to buy ASIC mining hardware- I feel bad for that too and I no longer support ASIC mining of any kind. I'll keep an eye on your project and help out however I can though. Good luck! |
|
|
|
Clearly this was an attempt by a certain person to win a "moral" bet with another person that LTC would dip under $2.
Clearly this attempt failed. Well, better luck next time.
Clearly that statement is a guess.  I was just teasing on the bet that never happened between Darkota and Smoothie (in the LTC Critique thread that you have). That's all.  Admittedly, looking at the right-hand trend, this really does look like a "fat-finger" error because of the pair mismatches between BTC/LTC and LTC/USD on btc-e. Figures you were joking |
|
|
|
Clearly this was an attempt by a certain person to win a "moral" bet with another person that LTC would dip under $2.
Clearly this attempt failed. Well, better luck next time.
Clearly that statement is a guess. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
