[ANN] Terracoin (TRC) - Est 2012

[hanzac]

Regarding the block size, we can follow with bitcoin solution. They will use segwit to improve it, right?

[clockuniverse]

Regarding the block size, we can follow with bitcoin solution. They will use segwit to improve it, right?

I believe segwit is supposed to help with the block size issues that BTC has.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

[mrbodz]

yeah segwit helps with transaction malleability and block size's.

I managed to get auto-builds for all OS's working on vertcoin. Maybe the same could be done for TRC, not sure though

[clockuniverse]

As I was working on the list of things that we need to pay to add to Terracoin I noticed we have talked about a lot of stuff, but we haven't made a real list.  Which is exactly what Phatkiller was talking about.

Here is a list of things that we can accomplish if we had the money (BTC).

Android wallet
Tipping on Reddit
Cloud server to server a variety of things, such as nodes, and tipping
Updated the wallet to the newest version of BTC code while keeping our special flavor

I know Mrbodz can specify a price for each thing, so we have that on our side.

What other things have we talked about?  Post on here to add to the list!

I didn't have time to try and compile a Linux precompile this weekend.  Hopefully my work will let up soon!

[deeplink]

What do you think of the governance system that Dash uses? Self-sustainable decentralized governance as they call it I think.

It is pretty clever and unique, because it gives direct financial incentive to many different types of people besides programmers to help grow the ecosystem. Like the way it pays directly for that channel on Youtube with Amanda B. Johnson.

I think we are seeing the network effects with the current explosion of the Dash price.

[clockuniverse]

What do you think of the governance system that Dash uses? Self-sustainable decentralized governance as they call it I think.

It is pretty clever and unique, because it gives direct financial incentive to many different types of people besides programmers to help grow the ecosystem. Like the way it pays directly for that channel on Youtube with Amanda B. Johnson.

I think we are seeing the network effects with the current explosion of the Dash price.

Can you explain more with links?  I poked around the web and eventually just I looked at her youtube and watched part of one of her videos, but I didn't see the part where it pays directly for her channel.

One of the parts I did watch was about the death of Reddit, and I totally agree with her that is going to happen very soon.

[cryptofarmer]

Terracoin added to
www.Mining-Dutch.nl

Diff:   8192    stratum+tcp://mining-dutch.nl:3390
Diff:  Vardiff   stratum+tcp://mining-dutch.nl:3490
Diff:  16384    stratum+tcp://mining-dutch.nl:3590

http://www.mining-dutch.nl/pools/terracoin/public/index.php?page=dashboard

Enjoy.

[deeplink]

What do you think of the governance system that Dash uses? Self-sustainable decentralized governance as they call it I think.

It is pretty clever and unique, because it gives direct financial incentive to many different types of people besides programmers to help grow the ecosystem. Like the way it pays directly for that channel on Youtube with Amanda B. Johnson.

I think we are seeing the network effects with the current explosion of the Dash price.

Can you explain more with links?  I poked around the web and eventually just I looked at her youtube and watched part of one of her videos, but I didn't see the part where it pays directly for her channel.

One of the parts I did watch was about the death of Reddit, and I totally agree with her that is going to happen very soon.

Sure.

Amanda talks about it in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GwsmnHE3Rk

Here is a technical piece on it: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708/

I haven't had time to read that myself to be honest. But the way I understand it is, that Dash has a unique transparent system that allows for decentralized voting on proposals, not restricted to the software. Anyone can submit a proposal, for example like Amanda Johnson did for starting a Youtube channel. People vote and some funds may then be allocated. I am pretty sure this has really helped to gain popularity and the Dash price increase we saw in the last couple of weeks.

Like I said, it allows to give direct financial incentive to different types of people besides programmers to help grow the ecosystem. It also allows for faster decision making, unlike with Bitcoin.

If it were possible to integrate something like this into Terracoin, in my opinion, you would have a winner.

[clockuniverse]

Amanda talks about it in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GwsmnHE3Rk

Here is a technical piece on it: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708/

I haven't had time to read that myself to be honest. But the way I understand it is, that Dash has a unique transparent system that allows for decentralized voting on proposals, not restricted to the software. Anyone can submit a proposal, for example like Amanda Johnson did for starting a Youtube channel. People vote and some funds may then be allocated. I am pretty sure this has really helped to gain popularity and the Dash price increase we saw in the last couple of weeks.

Like I said, it allows to give direct financial incentive to different types of people besides programmers to help grow the ecosystem. It also allows for faster decision making, unlike with Bitcoin.

If it were possible to integrate something like this into Terracoin, in my opinion, you would have a winner.

Wow that technical piece looks pretty impressive.  What does everyone else think?

[clockuniverse]

Some guy is going around reddit asking cryptocurrancies about the state of their coin.

My response is here:  https://www.reddit.com/r/Terracoin/comments/5xwcnk/state_of_terracoin/

[hanzac]

Current top priority is to think about how to attract developers to grow the ecosystem involving TRC.
Since some people are holding TRC without doing anything, this is not a good thing to the ecosystem.
A healthy system is that the shares are in the hand of people with ability and action.
Think about how this will work in the real world. A company with shares. When the company needs to grow, they do SPO and offer the shares/option as some incentive.
If we do not do SPO, to protect the existing investors. We can raise money to buy back the shares and then use these shares to pay development services.
So I think a voting system is good for the TRC or any other similar systems to grow.
Is there any reference implementation of it?

[clockuniverse]

Current top priority is to think about how to attract developers to grow the ecosystem involving TRC.
Since some people are holding TRC without doing anything, this is not a good thing to the ecosystem.
A healthy system is that the shares are in the hand of people with ability and action.
Think about how this will work in the real world. A company with shares. When the company needs to grow, they do SPO and offer the shares/option as some incentive.
If we do not do SPO, to protect the existing investors. We can raise money to buy back the shares and then use these shares to pay development services.
So I think a voting system is good for the TRC or any other similar systems to grow.
Is there any reference implementation of it?

If I understand your meaning I totally agree.

Getting it implemented for TRC would probably cost a bit of BTC, but would be well worth it.  Can anyone quote a price for that, or reasons why it is impossible?

Having that ability would help with the other projects that keep getting mentioned (Android wallet, etc) accomplished!

[clockuniverse]

I am going to check out DASH a little bit more and see how it works in real life.

Any option that give us the ability to vote and pay out on projects is a good idea to me.

[Telepo]

I am going to check out DASH a little bit more and see how it works in real life.

Any option that give us the ability to vote and pay out on projects is a good idea to me.

Yes, That is good idea, Dev . We need more solutions to attract more investors coming back so the price will be boosted higher.

[johnwhitestar]

I think that Dash governance system is quite imperfect, because the number of the masternodes is much more limited than the number of the people that holds Dashs.
Giving the decision power to the masternodes owners make the whole system vulnerable to the external attacks.
To avoid this problem we can decide to give one vote for each TRC that the person holds, but there might be still a conflict of interests between the TRC holders and the TRC miners that are very important for the whole system.

Another thing is that if the coin has anonymity features it will be very difficult to promote it in the real word (see the last communications of the Chinese Central Bank and the motivations of Bitcoin EFT rejection).

[hanzac]

I think that Dash governance system is quite imperfect, because the number of the masternodes is much more limited than the number of the people that holds Dashs.
Giving the decision power to the masternodes owners make the whole system vulnerable to the external attacks.
To avoid this problem we can decide to give one vote for each TRC that the person holds, but there might be still a conflict of interests between the TRC holders and the TRC miners that are very important for the whole system.

Another thing is that if the coin has anonymity features it will be very difficult to promote it in the real word (see the last communications of the Chinese Central Bank and the motivations of Bitcoin EFT rejection).

I think miners' vote is the mining hash power they thrown.
In my idea, the proper vote is the coin age. Once vote made or coin moved, the coin age will become zero.
This will prevent people make fake votes or double votes.

[johnwhitestar]

I think that the coin age since the last voting is a great idea, but I wouldn't connect it to the movements of the coin, because if the coin age since the last voting is inferior to the date of beginning of the voting, independently from whether the coin has been moved or not, it can not vote, by other hand if one owner of the coin has sold the coin without voting (maybe he was not interested in the question), the next owner will be able to vote, or to sell without voting to someone who is interested to vote (if the voting period has not expired in the meantime). This mechanism may create a market of coins that has not been used to vote and there may be an increase of the transactions in the voting period (which is still positive for the economy of the coin).
In case we decide that on every coin movement the coin age will become zero the people that are interested to influence the coin evolution will tend to hold the coins, which is still good for the price of the coin, because the tendency of holding them will cause scarcity, but is not good for the economy that stays beneath of the value of the coin, because holding may create the stagnation of the trc economy, which by the way for the moment is practically unexistent.
  

In my idea, the proper vote is the coin age. Once vote made or coin moved, the coin age will become zero.
This will prevent people make fake votes or double votes.

[clockuniverse]

I think that Dash governance system is quite imperfect, because the number of the masternodes is much more limited than the number of the people that holds Dashs.
Giving the decision power to the masternodes owners make the whole system vulnerable to the external attacks.
To avoid this problem we can decide to give one vote for each TRC that the person holds, but there might be still a conflict of interests between the TRC holders and the TRC miners that are very important for the whole system.

Another thing is that if the coin has anonymity features it will be very difficult to promote it in the real word (see the last communications of the Chinese Central Bank and the motivations of Bitcoin EFT rejection).

It definitely has imperfections, but I think we need to implement something similar to it very soon.  Currently getting a team/money together to work on any of the projects we have discussed has become nearly impossible.

I see they there are 4000 masternodes with DASH right now, so I don't think external attacks would be an issue for them.  It does require a 1,000 DASH to set up a masternode which is insane.  That is like $80,000.

I have been hearing a lot of talk about not doing anonymous features because of the things you mentioned.  We could not implement that portion of the code for now and see how things play out.  It is easier to add a feature then to take one away.

I think miners' vote is the mining hash power they thrown.
In my idea, the proper vote is the coin age. Once vote made or coin moved, the coin age will become zero.
This will prevent people make fake votes or double votes.

Since we have merge mining I think people who mine SHA256 will mine TRC regardless because why not?   

I think that the coin age since the last voting is a great idea, but I wouldn't connect it to the movements of the coin, because if the coin age since the last voting is inferior to the date of beginning of the voting, independently from whether the coin has been moved or not, it can not vote, by other hand if one owner of the coin has sold the coin without voting (maybe he was not interested in the question), the next owner will be able to vote, or to sell without voting to someone who is interested to vote (if the voting period has not expired in the meantime). This mechanism may create a market of coins that has not been used to vote and there may be an increase of the transactions in the voting period (which is still positive for the economy of the coin).
In case we decide that on every coin movement the coin age will become zero the people that are interested to influence the coin evolution will tend to hold the coins, which is still good for the price of the coin, because the tendency of holding them will cause scarcity, but is not good for the economy that stays beneath of the value of the coin, because holding may create the stagnation of the trc economy, which by the way for the moment is practically unexistent.

So voting by coin amount is not a good idea because of those large mysterious holders who could vote and pass every vote they wanted.  I guess they could also just set up a ton of masternodes to do the same thing.

We need a balance of ease to set up a master node, and not let people spam them to get their way.

Coin age seems interesting.  It would be nice if every wallet with a certain amount and coin age could vote.  For example every wallet that had 1000 or more could vote.  This means that if someone who had 1,000,000 could still set up 1000 wallets and vote 1000 times, but what a crazy amount of work to get that set up.

Also remember the masternode people get a payout when it has been run.

We also have to be careful not to fall into the traps of so many POS (Proof of Stake) coins.

[hanzac]

I think that the coin age since the last voting is a great idea, but I wouldn't connect it to the movements of the coin, because if the coin age since the last voting is inferior to the date of beginning of the voting, independently from whether the coin has been moved or not, it can not vote, by other hand if one owner of the coin has sold the coin without voting (maybe he was not interested in the question), the next owner will be able to vote, or to sell without voting to someone who is interested to vote (if the voting period has not expired in the meantime). This mechanism may create a market of coins that has not been used to vote and there may be an increase of the transactions in the voting period (which is still positive for the economy of the coin).
In case we decide that on every coin movement the coin age will become zero the people that are interested to influence the coin evolution will tend to hold the coins, which is still good for the price of the coin, because the tendency of holding them will cause scarcity, but is not good for the economy that stays beneath of the value of the coin, because holding may create the stagnation of the trc economy, which by the way for the moment is practically unexistent.
  

In my idea, the proper vote is the coin age. Once vote made or coin moved, the coin age will become zero.
This will prevent people make fake votes or double votes.

After vote or transaction, the coin age becomes zero, this is the current mechanism of transaction, I think it's fair for the owners. When they buy coins from market, these coins are always fresh. Only serious holders have the rights to vote. It's fair right.
In case some people want to transfer the voting power or create the market of votes, they can sell the private keys. They don't need to make the normal transaction of move.

But in case the same owner wants to move the coins to his another address because he is afraid of the current address might be compromised, we can provide a special transaction type to keep the coin age. But I don't think it's high priority.

[johnwhitestar]

So voting by coin amount is not a good idea because of those large mysterious holders who could vote and pass every vote they wanted.  I guess they could also just set up a ton of masternodes to do the same thing.

I think we have to remember that al these large mysterious holders are the people that has bought or mined and hold trcs for a large period of time, so they believed in it when it was going down down and much more down again, while all the others where looking for becoming reach quickly elsewhere, so their opinion is important.

This means that if someone who had 1,000,000 could still set up 1000 wallets and vote 1000 times, but what a crazy amount of work to get that set up.

I agree with you its almost impossible, we have to make it easy for the large investors to operate.

Also remember the masternode people get a payout when it has been run.

It would be an interesting feature for the TRCs holders and it make the coin to become scarce in the meantime the economy of that coin is not mature.