FreiCoin (FRC) Fork WITHOUT 80% Of Coins Given To FreiCoin Foundation

[jtimon]

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.

Ok, then when you your fork starts rejecting them it will be a hard fork. At that point honest nodes will start ignoring your branch of the chain.

And again, even if all nodes accepted your hard fork, if you don't change the reward for miners formula it will take many many years to have a fixed supply. We wanted less years than bitcoin even before the 80% fund decision and your fork will take many more than bitcoin.

It's like when IXcoin creator thought he was issuing the 21 M twice as fast when in fact with his original code he was issuing 42 M in the same time. You just don't understand "your own" code.

By "honest" nodes, you mean nodes that pays the 80% tax? Hmm?
By using this fork right now, you're voting with your hashrate.

Also, this fork will put MORE frc in the hands of miners and users, instead of more frc into the foundation. It's basically what happens if the Foundation Reserve distributed their self-printed to everyone in a open, decentralized and fair manner.

You can discuss about how mandating 80% of mined coins goes to you is honest, but at the end of the day, the network, the miners and the users makes the decision on which version they're going to use.

Yes, I meant that by honest nodes, nodes that follow the initial rules instead of your attack. Seriously, if you really like freicoin without the fund, just start a new chain, but do it right: rewrite the reward for miners curve. You just need to copy and paste from an earlier beta (I think beta3 will make it).

By giving more coins to miners you'd be putting more of them in the hands of miners, not necessarily users, that's our point.

If you know of a method for distributing the foundation's part of the supply to everyone in an "open, decentralized and fair manner" (we disagree mining is such a method), please let us know. We've been trying to think of something for years without success.

[1715537457]

1715537457

[1715537457]

1715537457

[1715537457]

1715537457

[hanzac]

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.

Ok, then when you your fork starts rejecting them it will be a hard fork. At that point honest nodes will start ignoring your branch of the chain.

And again, even if all nodes accepted your hard fork, if you don't change the reward for miners formula it will take many many years to have a fixed supply. We wanted less years than bitcoin even before the 80% fund decision and your fork will take many more than bitcoin.

It's like when IXcoin creator thought he was issuing the 21 M twice as fast when in fact with his original code he was issuing 42 M in the same time. You just don't understand "your own" code.

By "honest" nodes, you mean nodes that pays the 80% tax? Hmm?
By using this fork right now, you're voting with your hashrate.

Also, this fork will put MORE frc in the hands of miners and users, instead of more frc into the foundation. It's basically what happens if the Foundation Reserve distributed their self-printed to everyone in a open, decentralized and fair manner.

You can discuss about how mandating 80% of mined coins goes to you is honest, but at the end of the day, the network, the miners and the users makes the decision on which version they're going to use.

Yes, I meant that by honest nodes, nodes that follow the initial rules instead of your attack. Seriously, if you really like freicoin without the fund, just start a new chain, but do it right: rewrite the reward for miners curve. You just need to copy and paste from an earlier beta (I think beta3 will make it).

By giving more coins to miners you'd be putting more of them in the hands of miners, not necessarily users, that's our point.

If you know of a method for distributing the foundation's part of the supply to everyone in an "open, decentralized and fair manner" (we disagree mining is such a method), please let us know. We've been trying to think of something for years without success.

What is a fair trade? By forcing a 80% tax? This is obviously greed and even can be put a scam tag. Such greed won't even push the FRC forward, because it seems that it's a permanent tax & the money is permanent in your hands, that makes the FRC value won't go higher. You're not the government, a government supported central bank, it has the gold reserve & the nation's trust as the foundation to support their currency supply. What you can offer, a piece of the modified code of the original bitcoin? I can only say that's too greed. OVER.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Yes, I meant that by honest nodes, nodes that follow the initial rules instead of your attack. Seriously, if you really like freicoin without the fund, just start a new chain, but do it right: rewrite the reward for miners curve. You just need to copy and paste from an earlier beta (I think beta3 will make it).

By giving more coins to miners you'd be putting more of them in the hands of miners, not necessarily users, that's our point.

If you know of a method for distributing the foundation's part of the supply to everyone in an "open, decentralized and fair manner" (we disagree mining is such a method), please let us know. We've been trying to think of something for years without success.

>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.

[jtimon]

@hanzac

It's a one-time-only initial distribution of coins that (unfortunately for greedy miners) doesn't go to miners.
A tax needs a State or another coercion source to enforce it. This is a voluntary currency, if you don't like the initial distribution rules just don't use it. If you like demurrage but not this distribution rule, just fork it instead of planning a hard-fork attack.
If miners colluded through a hard fork to change initial bitcoin rules to their benefit (for example, issuing 100 M instead of 21) wouldn't that be considered an attack? The honest (in the same meaning it has in Satoshi's bitcoin whitepaper) nodes would just reject those block and the real bitcoin network would continue, just with less hashing power.

[jtimon]

>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!!

It's not the same thing. P2SH had community and mining consensus, your hard fork clearly hasn't it. You want to completely (not only destroying the not-to-miners distribution part but also making the currency monetary inflationary for much longer) change the dynamics of the currency. This would be an attack. Just like trying to impose demurrage on bitcoin's chain through mining force.

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.

We think we have enough rewards for miners to keep the network secure perpetually. Working for a non-profit (say the fsf or eff, which could perfectly get some initial freicoins) is also a productive job. It's called private charity. The difference is that here the generous people isn't the freicoin foundation (which is just a tool to distribute the donation) but the people who accept the currency knowing that its initial distribution is going to these projects.

[hanzac]

@hanzac

It's a one-time-only initial distribution of coins that (unfortunately for greedy miners) doesn't go to miners.
A tax needs a State or another coercion source to enforce it. This is a voluntary currency, if you don't like the initial distribution rules just don't use it. If you like demurrage but not this distribution rule, just fork it instead of planning a hard-fork attack.
If miners colluded through a hard fork to change initial bitcoin rules to their benefit (for example, issuing 100 M instead of 21) wouldn't that be considered an attack? The honest (in the same meaning it has in Satoshi's bitcoin whitepaper) nodes would just reject those block and the real bitcoin network would continue, just with less hashing power.

I think mining is one important part to a crypto currency, but on the freicoin website, there's no words about 80% tax on miners, only the 5% fee every year. This is unfair & hiding important affair to the person who devote their hashpower (which is electricity & hardware investment). If you're open & clear about the 80% TAX & other important issues, there won't be people questioning because you're honest.

If you're not honest, in which base you claim these nodes are honest?

Please do be honest when you take public affairs.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

@hanzac

It's a one-time-only initial distribution of coins that (unfortunately for greedy miners) doesn't go to miners.
A tax needs a State or another coercion source to enforce it. This is a voluntary currency, if you don't like the initial distribution rules just don't use it. If you like demurrage but not this distribution rule, just fork it instead of planning a hard-fork attack.
If miners colluded through a hard fork to change initial bitcoin rules to their benefit (for example, issuing 100 M instead of 21) wouldn't that be considered an attack? The honest (in the same meaning it has in Satoshi's bitcoin whitepaper) nodes would just reject those block and the real bitcoin network would continue, just with less hashing power.

According to your definitions, the "honest nodes" that are still running v 0.0.1 or v 0.1 are running the network. Honest nodes will reject things with new features like multisig, TXes without really high fees for that time, etc etc etc. Everyone who has updated, we are attacking the network!

It's entirely voluntary to use this fork. In fact, right now all you are doing is making the money printing for the foundation optional.

I also like how the website has no mention of this.. except maybe in tiny print or something.

[jtimon]

@ hanzac

You should check our public forum at http://www.freicoin.org/ (linked from the main page)
Specifically this public thread http://www.freicoin.org/freicoin-foundation-development-thread-t81.html
We would update the main page when the granting process is more formally defined (I'm not saying again that you can contribute to define the process as fair as possible because obviously you're not interested).

@ TradeFortress

Whatever, then Luke-jr has never attacked a chain, he was only voting with his hashing...
Still, if you take over the network the supply graph will be completely flawed and we would have to start from scratch (also people that like demurrage but not the 80% fund if they like to have a fixed supply this century).
If effectively destroying a chain is not an attack, I don't know what is it.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

@ hanzac

You should check our public forum at http://www.freicoin.org/ (linked from the main page)
Specifically this public thread http://www.freicoin.org/freicoin-foundation-development-thread-t81.html
We would update the main page when the granting process is more formally defined (I'm not saying again that you can contribute to define the process as fair as possible because obviously you're not interested).

@ TradeFortress

Whatever, then Luke-jr has never attacked a chain, he was only voting with his hashing...
Still, if you take over the network the supply graph will be completely flawed and we would have to start from scratch (also people that like demurrage but not the 80% fund if they like to have a fixed supply this century).
If effectively destroying a chain is not an attack, I don't know what is it.

Intent.

is occupying a park against city ordinances attacking the city?

the intent of this fork isn't to destroy or attack freicoin. As of now it just makes printing money for the Foundation optional, by accepting all otherwise valid blocks. I'm not sure if you understand this part

Either way I'm going to go to bed now, will be back tomorrow.

I am also not against creating a currency blockchain by the way, maybe with some other differences decided on a voting based approach.

[jtimon]

the intent of this fork isn't to destroy or attack freicoin. As of now it just makes printing money for the Foundation optional, by accepting all otherwise valid blocks. I'm not sure if you understand this part

Well, I'm not sure I understand what you want neither.

I am also not against creating a currency blockchain by the way, maybe with some other differences decided on a voting based approach.

I think that would be better than your current approach for everyone.

[DiCE1904]

this is great! 

[Nyx]

can somebody build binaries for windows, please? 

[galambo]

can somebody build binaries for windows, please?  

TradeFortress is being pretty deceptive, here. This announcement is kind of a "developer troll."

The changes he made here took about 5 minutes, literally. If you don't believe my claim, check the post times on the Freicoin discussion thread.

He doesn't intend to keep this up to date.

He doesn't intend to distribute windows binaries.

None of the pools will be changing to this fork.

TradeFortress is lying about what his code does. It doesn't do what he says it does.

Ultimately, TradeFortress is intimidated by Freicoin's success and he's trying to dilute, confuse, and distort our message. He's not tricking us, but he is tricking you. He will fail and we're not really worried about it.

I'd just like to note that nobody cares if other coins have a Foundation, because nobody expects to be using them in 5 years. Everyone who reads about Freicoin knows they'll be using it even if you don't like the entire idea.

[itsgoldbaby]

I have no idea why anyone cares about this coin.

[bushstar]

Do you have any way to tell how much hashing power your fork is getting?

By the way if this succeeds I expect you will ruin FRC for all.

[crazy_rabbit]

Do you have any way to tell how much hashing power your fork is getting?

By the way if this succeeds I expect you will ruin FRC for all.

I doubt there is anyway to tell how much hashing power the fork is getting. I imagine it could be cruising along stealthy for quite awhile waiting to get far enough along.

[galambo]

Do you have any way to tell how much hashing power your fork is getting?

By the way if this succeeds I expect you will ruin FRC for all.

It's getting 0 hash power. I doubt a compiled binary of this exists anywhere. It's not even a fork yet. It just removes one check from the code.

[galambo]

Oh, even better! Maybe the hashin power that the MaakuCoiners celebrate already is FortressCoin hashing power. We wouldn't know until somebody spent some MaakuFoundation coins.

This code doesn't actually do anything to the Foundation coins even if someone ran it.

I'm just saying this for the benefit of people that don't really understand what they are looking at.

[bushstar]

Do you have any way to tell how much hashing power your fork is getting?

By the way if this succeeds I expect you will ruin FRC for all.

It's getting 0 hash power. I doubt a compiled binary of this exists anywhere. It's not even a fork yet. It just removes one check from the code.

I've compiled it just for fun

[DeathAndTaxes]

Do you have any way to tell how much hashing power your fork is getting?

By the way if this succeeds I expect you will ruin FRC for all.

I doubt there is anyway to tell how much hashing power the fork is getting. I imagine it could be cruising along stealthy for quite awhile waiting to get far enough along.

If the fork was modified to include a "flag" in the coinbase field ([FAIR]) then it would be possible to see what % of the recent blocks have the flag.