MC2: A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system

[achimsmile]

Awesome! Sounds good. Thanks so much for taking the time to do this!

Lastly, do you have a number specified for the cap of the coin? Or is there no cap

No cap, see first post:

After 27 coin years it employs a system of voting to manipulate the interest rate of the block chain (users act as the central bank and regulate the rate of inflation)

[1714870819]

1714870819

[1714870819]

1714870819

[1714870819]

1714870819

[1714870819]

1714870819

[1714870819]

1714870819

[_ingsoc]

Great to see that this is progressing!

When do you roughly expect the Kickstarter to happen or how much notice will you give? I want to make sure that my prior engagements will not be in the way.

Thanks Taco!

There will definitely be plenty of notice! I think a week or two notice should be okay for everyone before we launch the crowdfund. Exciting stuff!

[Luckybit]

Great to see that this is progressing!

When do you roughly expect the Kickstarter to happen or how much notice will you give? I want to make sure that my prior engagements will not be in the way.

Thanks Taco!

There will definitely be plenty of notice! I think a week or two notice should be okay for everyone before we launch the crowdfund. Exciting stuff!

2 weeks would be good and give time for a massive marketing push. The real question is how will it be paid for? Will Bitcoins be accepted? Not all of us have the USD but we all have Bitcoins. It would allow more people to fund if it were not restricted exclusively to the dollar.

[achimsmile]

I like every aspect of this coin!
I consider giving 1000$ in BTC once the kickstarter campaign begins

[wizzardTim]

I am also very excited about this. I believe it deserves to be the NBT (NextBigThing).

[_ingsoc]

2 weeks would be good and give time for a massive marketing push. The real question is how will it be paid for? Will Bitcoins be accepted? Not all of us have the USD but we all have Bitcoins. It would allow more people to fund if it were not restricted exclusively to the dollar.

In an ideal world, perhaps the world we're building, funding ideas through cryptocurrency is a huge step forward. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. There are a number of things to consider at present. Firstly, as much as banks can cause people headaches, in most cases money in an account is insured against theft. It'd be great if we could have something similar for a cryptocurrency as well one day. Secondly, we want to do this as professionally and transparently as we can with the medium available to us. The fact of the matter is that most individual developers or teams of developers would enter into a contractual agreement with us for the development of Netcoin, or a component of it. That means paperwork, invoices, documented transactions, etc. That could happen with cryptocurrency as well, but in all likelihood any breach of our agreement wouldn't be as enforceable as it would be in traditional systems.

I know it's not ideal, but I'm thinking of the best ways to my knowledge that we can do this as smoothly as possible. There are no guarantees whatsoever with this, which is why I want to stress that if you can't afford losing what you put toward the fund, please don't do it! It would be horrible to know that if something goes wrong someone suffered because of it. Having said that, tacotime, xwebnetwork, and myself are all putting in money of our own as well. Hopefully the advance notice will help you with this. I think one day this will all be very different and we can incubate ideas through new platforms for sure.

[Robre]

With the Kickstarter project, will we require USD or can we do LTC?

[_ingsoc]

With the Kickstarter project, will we require USD or can we do LTC?

Most crowdfunding platforms allow whatever fiat currency you use to convert to USD. The reasoning for why we need to do this at present is outlined in post #902. I do foresee that this will change one day, but right now we don't have cryptocurrency platforms to do so, as we need to bridge the space between funding to development. It may be an extra step for a few people, which sucks, but in the bigger picture it's no big deal.

[Luckybit]

2 weeks would be good and give time for a massive marketing push. The real question is how will it be paid for? Will Bitcoins be accepted? Not all of us have the USD but we all have Bitcoins. It would allow more people to fund if it were not restricted exclusively to the dollar.

In an ideal world, perhaps the world we're building, funding ideas through cryptocurrency is a huge step forward. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. There are a number of things to consider at present. Firstly, as much as banks can cause people headaches, in most cases money in an account is insured against theft. It'd be great if we could have something similar for a cryptocurrency as well one day. Secondly, we want to do this as professionally and transparently as we can with the medium available to us. The fact of the matter is that most individual developers or teams of developers would enter into a contractual agreement with us for the development of Netcoin, or a component of it. That means paperwork, invoices, documented transactions, etc. That could happen with cryptocurrency as well, but in all likelihood any breach of our agreement wouldn't be as enforceable as it would be in traditional systems.

I know it's not ideal, but I'm thinking of the best ways to my knowledge that we can do this as smoothly as possible. There are no guarantees whatsoever with this, which is why I want to stress that if you can't afford losing what you put toward the fund, please don't do it! It would be horrible to know that if something goes wrong someone suffered because of it. Having said that, tacotime, xwebnetwork, and myself are all putting in money of our own as well. Hopefully the advance notice will help you with this. I think one day this will all be very different and we can incubate ideas through new platforms for sure.

I understand the necessity of professionalism and proper accounting. It's better to be safe than sorry.

One way out of this stipulation could be to allow people to sell the tickets they purchased with USD for Bitcoin or Litecoin. Once the ticket has been purchased and development has started what if they want to sell some of their slots, will it be possible? I'd think that the Kickstarter setup associates with an email address so if they sell the password to that then they'd be able to do it, but it would be high risk for whoever purchases that.

The other thing to consider is, if Netcoin is going to be released in phases then perhaps include the source code and binaries in password protected rars and then Tacotime can release the password to the binarie and source code when it's time. This same mechanism works so every has access at relatively the same time.

I believe Feathercoin or Litecoin did something like that. SunnyKing launched Primecoin with over a weeks notice. So it seems that to make a launch seem fair the users must be given notice of the launch in advance and all components must be available at the scheduled date.

These tickets (private keys corresponding to a stakeholder vote) will be distributed randomly upon the completion of the crowdfunding.

Here is one final thing, let's say a bunch of people fund the Kickstarter and it sells out all slots within a couple days, then is there a secure method of connecting their email addresses to the ticket mechanism? I guess I don't understand a certain aspect about how that happens. If it's some kind of key which gets sent to them, could it be sent encrypted at least via PGP? If it's not some kind of key then will they have to log in somewhere behind an SSL wall?

I guess I don't understand how the private key will be distributed because that has not clearly been defined in the Wiki. I don't think it would be hard to include a recommendation that the user choose an encryption capable email and recommend services if thats how it will be done.

[bybitcoin]

With the Kickstarter project, will we require USD or can we do LTC?

Most crowdfunding platforms allow whatever fiat currency you use to convert to USD. The reasoning for why we need to do this at present is outlined in post #902. I do foresee that this will change one day, but right now we don't have cryptocurrency platforms to do so, as we need to bridge the space between funding to development. It may be an extra step for a few people, which sucks, but in the bigger picture it's no big deal.

Actually treating and following this subject in the btc community forum and keeping people attended and informed about this new cryptocurrency  that is coming to change their experience of using previous ones, but then limiting the already established fan club by a fiat payment only, not only sucks but hurts and disappoints as well    
That is true, things are not ideal, but I think creating a btc exchange account (in Bitstamp, MtGox..) and letting the btc users to pay and buy limited number of tickets through it, based on the current exchange rate of usd/btc at the moment of payment, wouldn't hurt anybody. This can at least be done for small investment/purchase of the tickets (<1 btc~=$100 for example).
The final amount received in that account (after reaching a cap perhaps), which will be in $, can be easily transferred by the use of wire system to any bank in US and Europe in not more than a week (you can include and charge the transfer and other fees this method may cause, to the investor's payment bill)
It will be wise to let 30% or even a bit more share of tickets to be sold this way (and you may put a limit for each purchase, by using btctalk id, to avoid rush or unfair distribution). Your currency will certainly have a brighter future if you let more people in to have a piece of the pie (even a very small one).

[Luckybit]

With the Kickstarter project, will we require USD or can we do LTC?

Most crowdfunding platforms allow whatever fiat currency you use to convert to USD. The reasoning for why we need to do this at present is outlined in post #902. I do foresee that this will change one day, but right now we don't have cryptocurrency platforms to do so, as we need to bridge the space between funding to development. It may be an extra step for a few people, which sucks, but in the bigger picture it's no big deal.

Actually treating and following this subject in the btc community forum and keeping people attended and informed about this new cryptocurrency  that is coming to change their experience of using previous ones, but then limiting the already established fan club by a fiat payment only, not only sucks but hurts and disappoints as well    
That is true, things are not ideal, but I think creating a btc exchange account (in Bitstamp, MtGox..) and letting the btc users to pay and buy limited number of tickets through it, based on the current exchange rate of usd/btc at the moment of payment, wouldn't hurt anybody. This can at least be done for small investment/purchase of the tickets (<1 btc~=$100 for example).
The final amount received in that account (after reaching a cap perhaps), which will be in $, can be easily transferred by the use of wire system to any bank in US and Europe in not more than a week (you can include and charge the transfer and other fees this method may cause, to the investor's payment bill)
It will be wise to let 30% or even a bit more share of tickets to be sold this way (and you may put a limit for each purchase, by using btctalk id, to avoid rush or unfair distribution). Your currency will certainly have a brighter future if you let more people in to have a piece of the pie (even a very small one).

It's bad enough that those paying will have to provide identifiable information, but it's even worse if they have to connect it to their Bitcointalk ID too. That reduces security for the participants in exchange for decentralization of power. I think in this case security is more important than decentralization of power because power can be decentralized in other ways and at later times. Honestly, the people who buy in early aren't really guaranteed a larger piece of the pie than people who buy in late, they aren't necessarily going to have more coins, it just means they believed in the project from the start and were the first to become stakeholders and take the plunge.

[bybitcoin]

With the Kickstarter project, will we require USD or can we do LTC?

Most crowdfunding platforms allow whatever fiat currency you use to convert to USD. The reasoning for why we need to do this at present is outlined in post #902. I do foresee that this will change one day, but right now we don't have cryptocurrency platforms to do so, as we need to bridge the space between funding to development. It may be an extra step for a few people, which sucks, but in the bigger picture it's no big deal.

Actually treating and following this subject in the btc community forum and keeping people attended and informed about this new cryptocurrency  that is coming to change their experience of using previous ones, but then limiting the already established fan club by a fiat payment only, not only sucks but hurts and disappoints as well    
That is true, things are not ideal, but I think creating a btc exchange account (in Bitstamp, MtGox..) and letting the btc users to pay and buy limited number of tickets through it, based on the current exchange rate of usd/btc at the moment of payment, wouldn't hurt anybody. This can at least be done for small investment/purchase of the tickets (<1 btc~=$100 for example).
The final amount received in that account (after reaching a cap perhaps), which will be in $, can be easily transferred by the use of wire system to any bank in US and Europe in not more than a week (you can include and charge the transfer and other fees this method may cause, to the investor's payment bill)
It will be wise to let 30% or even a bit more share of tickets to be sold this way (and you may put a limit for each purchase, by using btctalk id, to avoid rush or unfair distribution). Your currency will certainly have a brighter future if you let more people in to have a piece of the pie (even a very small one).

It's bad enough that those paying will have to provide identifiable information, but it's even worse if they have to connect it to their Bitcointalk ID too. That reduces security for the participants in exchange for decentralization of power. I think in this case security is more important than decentralization of power because power can be decentralized in other ways and at later times. Honestly, the people who buy in early aren't really guaranteed a larger piece of the pie than people who buy in late, they aren't necessarily going to have more coins, it just means they believed in the project from the start and were the first to become stakeholders and take the plunge.

That you take only the part of my post which mentioned btctalk id (just proposed it for limiting the purchase per each buyer, but that can be ignored easily) and not the proposed way of buying in with btc, is interesting and really btctalk typical  
One may desire to buy-in early not only to have a part of potential profit but also to support its favorite project. And after all, don't you think paying directly in fiat will more disturb the privacy and provide identity disclosure than paying by btctalk id and a btc wallet?!  

[Luckybit]

Tacotime, this is something you should have a look at because it has serious potential to change the cryptocurrency playing field.

https://payswarm.com/specs/source/web-api/
https://dev.payswarm.com/
http://blog.meritora.com/launch/
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/introducing-navigator-mozpay-for-web-payments/
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/WebPayment

I propose the idea to make Netcoin an underlying web protocol and develop with Payswarm open standards in mind. I believe sooner or later cryptocurrencies are going to become an underlying protocol of the web.

PaySwarm allows currencies to be specified by either an internationalized currency code, like “USD”, or by an IRI that identifies a currency. This means that anyone capable of minting an IRI, which is just about anybody on the Web, has the ability to create a new alternative currency. The one draw-back for alternative currencies is that there must also be a location, or network, on the Web that acts as the currency mint. The concept of a currency mint will be covered later in this blog post.
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/web-payments-comparison/#currency-mints

Payswarm is also coming in the near future and it includes a specification of "currency mint" based around an IRI which identifies the currency. I propose that developers put the creation of a Netcoin IRI on the development to-do list. If it's relatively simple and could be done before or shortly after the release of Netcoin it could greatly benefit Netcoin users in the long term and promote adoption through integration with Payswarm technology and thus integrate it into the web itself.

If "Bitcoin" becomes the only standard and it's cemented in stone then it stops progress, innovation, and evolution of digital currencies. Bitcoin has many flaws, and there are few reasons why we should expect it to be the only coin ever any more than we would want there to only be one credit card, search engine, payment processor, operating system, etc. That in itself would be centralization of power in a way which does not improve security of cryptocurrencies over the long term.

[Luckybit]

With the Kickstarter project, will we require USD or can we do LTC?

Most crowdfunding platforms allow whatever fiat currency you use to convert to USD. The reasoning for why we need to do this at present is outlined in post #902. I do foresee that this will change one day, but right now we don't have cryptocurrency platforms to do so, as we need to bridge the space between funding to development. It may be an extra step for a few people, which sucks, but in the bigger picture it's no big deal.

Actually treating and following this subject in the btc community forum and keeping people attended and informed about this new cryptocurrency  that is coming to change their experience of using previous ones, but then limiting the already established fan club by a fiat payment only, not only sucks but hurts and disappoints as well    
That is true, things are not ideal, but I think creating a btc exchange account (in Bitstamp, MtGox..) and letting the btc users to pay and buy limited number of tickets through it, based on the current exchange rate of usd/btc at the moment of payment, wouldn't hurt anybody. This can at least be done for small investment/purchase of the tickets (<1 btc~=$100 for example).
The final amount received in that account (after reaching a cap perhaps), which will be in $, can be easily transferred by the use of wire system to any bank in US and Europe in not more than a week (you can include and charge the transfer and other fees this method may cause, to the investor's payment bill)
It will be wise to let 30% or even a bit more share of tickets to be sold this way (and you may put a limit for each purchase, by using btctalk id, to avoid rush or unfair distribution). Your currency will certainly have a brighter future if you let more people in to have a piece of the pie (even a very small one).

It's bad enough that those paying will have to provide identifiable information, but it's even worse if they have to connect it to their Bitcointalk ID too. That reduces security for the participants in exchange for decentralization of power. I think in this case security is more important than decentralization of power because power can be decentralized in other ways and at later times. Honestly, the people who buy in early aren't really guaranteed a larger piece of the pie than people who buy in late, they aren't necessarily going to have more coins, it just means they believed in the project from the start and were the first to become stakeholders and take the plunge.

That you take only the part of my post which mentioned btctalk id (just proposed it for limiting the purchase per each buyer, but that can be ignored easily) and not the proposed way of buying in with btc, is interesting and really btctalk typical  
One may desire to buy-in early not only to have a part of potential profit but also to support its favorite project. And after all, don't you think paying directly in fiat will more disturb the privacy and provide identity disclosure than paying by btctalk id and a btc wallet?!  

I'm not too happy about the USD payment requirement. I understand why it would exist (for accounting and because it minimizes risk on the developers), but I also understand it merely shifts some risks from the developers onto the investors. Developers must have identities in order to get paid and to make the process transparent (for defense against scams, fraud, theft). Pseudo-anonymous development would be fine if you do it for free but when money is involved then there is currently no effective infrastructure in place to allow independent contractors to get paid in Bitcoin (developers in this context would be considered independent contractors).

When we make payment to kickstarter we are not going to be anonymous and that means somewhere a paper trail will exist on all who supported Netcoin development. That introduces a privacy risk to all who pay in USD, but if you do believe Netcoin is a good idea and you do support the idea then in my opinion you should pay. If you want some privacy you can pay in a friends name. The other problem is what you mentioned in that it would mostly be Americans who have USD so the early distribution might not be as good as it could be with Bitcoin.

I hope there is a way to let people pay with Bitcoin, have it exchanged into USD and then pay the developers. I think that would be the ideal way but I do understand it would be difficult.

[barwizi]

people have waited long enough. Launch it already.

[Luckybit]

With the Kickstarter project, will we require USD or can we do LTC?

Most crowdfunding platforms allow whatever fiat currency you use to convert to USD. The reasoning for why we need to do this at present is outlined in post #902. I do foresee that this will change one day, but right now we don't have cryptocurrency platforms to do so, as we need to bridge the space between funding to development. It may be an extra step for a few people, which sucks, but in the bigger picture it's no big deal.

Actually treating and following this subject in the btc community forum and keeping people attended and informed about this new cryptocurrency  that is coming to change their experience of using previous ones, but then limiting the already established fan club by a fiat payment only, not only sucks but hurts and disappoints as well    
That is true, things are not ideal, but I think creating a btc exchange account (in Bitstamp, MtGox..) and letting the btc users to pay and buy limited number of tickets through it, based on the current exchange rate of usd/btc at the moment of payment, wouldn't hurt anybody. This can at least be done for small investment/purchase of the tickets (<1 btc~=$100 for example).
The final amount received in that account (after reaching a cap perhaps), which will be in $, can be easily transferred by the use of wire system to any bank in US and Europe in not more than a week (you can include and charge the transfer and other fees this method may cause, to the investor's payment bill)
It will be wise to let 30% or even a bit more share of tickets to be sold this way (and you may put a limit for each purchase, by using btctalk id, to avoid rush or unfair distribution). Your currency will certainly have a brighter future if you let more people in to have a piece of the pie (even a very small one).

It's bad enough that those paying will have to provide identifiable information, but it's even worse if they have to connect it to their Bitcointalk ID too. That reduces security for the participants in exchange for decentralization of power. I think in this case security is more important than decentralization of power because power can be decentralized in other ways and at later times. Honestly, the people who buy in early aren't really guaranteed a larger piece of the pie than people who buy in late, they aren't necessarily going to have more coins, it just means they believed in the project from the start and were the first to become stakeholders and take the plunge.

Yup security is more important at this point. Yeah, there's really no guarantee, like Lucky said. This is a highly risky venture and it could be a possible flop for all we know. Only invest what you can afford to lose.

I think Kickstarter is a great platform to start with and really simplifies the whole process. It eliminates the possible headache that may occur with refunds should the project not be fully funded. I think it's still best to fully launch the crowd funding through an actual crowd funding platform that will only take the money once the goal is met. This is the most secure way to do this and in my opinion the best way to do it.

Privacy and identity isn't a major concern to me. Just as long as the developers get the money they need in an organized and efficient manner, I will be quickly happy as I have many ideas that I would like to see implemented socially for Netcoin and I can't wait to get started on those.

Very interesting.  Kickstarter does have some benefits that people know what it is and I do believe the Kickstarter launch will meet the funding amount provided there is a marketing campaign behind it.

If it only takes the money once the goal is met then when exactly would developers get the money? Seems abstract.

[JessicaMILFson]

Tacotime, this is something you should have a look at because it has serious potential to change the cryptocurrency playing field.

https://payswarm.com/specs/source/web-api/
https://dev.payswarm.com/
http://blog.meritora.com/launch/
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/introducing-navigator-mozpay-for-web-payments/
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/WebPayment

I propose the idea to make Netcoin an underlying web protocol and develop with Payswarm open standards in mind. I believe sooner or later cryptocurrencies are going to become an underlying protocol of the web.

PaySwarm allows currencies to be specified by either an internationalized currency code, like “USD”, or by an IRI that identifies a currency. This means that anyone capable of minting an IRI, which is just about anybody on the Web, has the ability to create a new alternative currency. The one draw-back for alternative currencies is that there must also be a location, or network, on the Web that acts as the currency mint. The concept of a currency mint will be covered later in this blog post.
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/web-payments-comparison/#currency-mints

Payswarm is also coming in the near future and it includes a specification of "currency mint" based around an IRI which identifies the currency. I propose that developers put the creation of a Netcoin IRI on the development to-do list. If it's relatively simple and could be done before or shortly after the release of Netcoin it could greatly benefit Netcoin users in the long term and promote adoption through integration with Payswarm technology and thus integrate it into the web itself.

If "Bitcoin" becomes the only standard and it's cemented in stone then it stops progress, innovation, and evolution of digital currencies. Bitcoin has many flaws, and there are few reasons why we should expect it to be the only coin ever any more than we would want there to only be one credit card, search engine, payment processor, operating system, etc. That in itself would be centralization of power in a way which does not improve security of cryptocurrencies over the long term.

This sounds excellent and this should be taken seriously. I just tried the demo and already see the big potential for this. It can help with the adoption problem for the layman person, and we can take advantage of the businesses that already accept Payswarm, so that Netcoin can expand its reach.

One thing that I'm uncertain about is whether or not we would need to create an organization to support the Payswarm. From my understanding, it seems that Payswarm is a payment processing platform that we can implement into a central website. Would we need anyone to handle the customer support as well invest in managing the security of the account information? Basically, are we creating our own Paypal with the Payswarm payment processing technology?

[JessicaMILFson]

With the Kickstarter project, will we require USD or can we do LTC?

Most crowdfunding platforms allow whatever fiat currency you use to convert to USD. The reasoning for why we need to do this at present is outlined in post #902. I do foresee that this will change one day, but right now we don't have cryptocurrency platforms to do so, as we need to bridge the space between funding to development. It may be an extra step for a few people, which sucks, but in the bigger picture it's no big deal.

Actually treating and following this subject in the btc community forum and keeping people attended and informed about this new cryptocurrency  that is coming to change their experience of using previous ones, but then limiting the already established fan club by a fiat payment only, not only sucks but hurts and disappoints as well    
That is true, things are not ideal, but I think creating a btc exchange account (in Bitstamp, MtGox..) and letting the btc users to pay and buy limited number of tickets through it, based on the current exchange rate of usd/btc at the moment of payment, wouldn't hurt anybody. This can at least be done for small investment/purchase of the tickets (<1 btc~=$100 for example).
The final amount received in that account (after reaching a cap perhaps), which will be in $, can be easily transferred by the use of wire system to any bank in US and Europe in not more than a week (you can include and charge the transfer and other fees this method may cause, to the investor's payment bill)
It will be wise to let 30% or even a bit more share of tickets to be sold this way (and you may put a limit for each purchase, by using btctalk id, to avoid rush or unfair distribution). Your currency will certainly have a brighter future if you let more people in to have a piece of the pie (even a very small one).

It's bad enough that those paying will have to provide identifiable information, but it's even worse if they have to connect it to their Bitcointalk ID too. That reduces security for the participants in exchange for decentralization of power. I think in this case security is more important than decentralization of power because power can be decentralized in other ways and at later times. Honestly, the people who buy in early aren't really guaranteed a larger piece of the pie than people who buy in late, they aren't necessarily going to have more coins, it just means they believed in the project from the start and were the first to become stakeholders and take the plunge.

Yup security is more important at this point. Yeah, there's really no guarantee, like Lucky said. This is a highly risky venture and it could be a possible flop for all we know. Only invest what you can afford to lose.

I think Kickstarter is a great platform to start with and really simplifies the whole process. It eliminates the possible headache that may occur with refunds should the project not be fully funded. I think it's still best to fully launch the crowd funding through an actual crowd funding platform that will only take the money once the goal is met. This is the most secure way to do this and in my opinion the best way to do it.

Privacy and identity isn't a major concern to me. Just as long as the developers get the money they need in an organized and efficient manner, I will be quickly happy as I have many ideas that I would like to see implemented socially for Netcoin and I can't wait to get started on those.

Very interesting.  Kickstarter does have some benefits that people know what it is and I do believe the Kickstarter launch will meet the funding amount provided there is a marketing campaign behind it.

If it only takes the money once the goal is met then when exactly would developers get the money? Seems abstract.

It's an all or nothing funding approach, which is why i like it because there's less risk for everyone. I believe that they will recieve the money at the end of the fundraising date that the developers have set up only if they have met their goal

There's also a legal basis that ensures that the project starter will fulfill the ends of the project.

Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) We crafted these terms to create a legal requirement for creators to follow through on their projects, and to give backers a recourse if they don't. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.

[bybitcoin]

With the Kickstarter project, will we require USD or can we do LTC?

Most crowdfunding platforms allow whatever fiat currency you use to convert to USD. The reasoning for why we need to do this at present is outlined in post #902. I do foresee that this will change one day, but right now we don't have cryptocurrency platforms to do so, as we need to bridge the space between funding to development. It may be an extra step for a few people, which sucks, but in the bigger picture it's no big deal.

Actually treating and following this subject in the btc community forum and keeping people attended and informed about this new cryptocurrency  that is coming to change their experience of using previous ones, but then limiting the already established fan club by a fiat payment only, not only sucks but hurts and disappoints as well    
That is true, things are not ideal, but I think creating a btc exchange account (in Bitstamp, MtGox..) and letting the btc users to pay and buy limited number of tickets through it, based on the current exchange rate of usd/btc at the moment of payment, wouldn't hurt anybody. This can at least be done for small investment/purchase of the tickets (<1 btc~=$100 for example).
The final amount received in that account (after reaching a cap perhaps), which will be in $, can be easily transferred by the use of wire system to any bank in US and Europe in not more than a week (you can include and charge the transfer and other fees this method may cause, to the investor's payment bill)
It will be wise to let 30% or even a bit more share of tickets to be sold this way (and you may put a limit for each purchase, by using btctalk id, to avoid rush or unfair distribution). Your currency will certainly have a brighter future if you let more people in to have a piece of the pie (even a very small one).

It's bad enough that those paying will have to provide identifiable information, but it's even worse if they have to connect it to their Bitcointalk ID too. That reduces security for the participants in exchange for decentralization of power. I think in this case security is more important than decentralization of power because power can be decentralized in other ways and at later times. Honestly, the people who buy in early aren't really guaranteed a larger piece of the pie than people who buy in late, they aren't necessarily going to have more coins, it just means they believed in the project from the start and were the first to become stakeholders and take the plunge.

That you take only the part of my post which mentioned btctalk id (just proposed it for limiting the purchase per each buyer, but that can be ignored easily) and not the proposed way of buying in with btc, is interesting and really btctalk typical  
One may desire to buy-in early not only to have a part of potential profit but also to support its favorite project. And after all, don't you think paying directly in fiat will more disturb the privacy and provide identity disclosure than paying by btctalk id and a btc wallet?!  

I'm not too happy about the USD payment requirement. I understand why it would exist (for accounting and because it minimizes risk on the developers), but I also understand it merely shifts some risks from the developers onto the investors. Developers must have identities in order to get paid and to make the process transparent (for defense against scams, fraud, theft). Pseudo-anonymous development would be fine if you do it for free but when money is involved then there is currently no effective infrastructure in place to allow independent contractors to get paid in Bitcoin (developers in this context would be considered independent contractors).

When we make payment to kickstarter we are not going to be anonymous and that means somewhere a paper trail will exist on all who supported Netcoin development. That introduces a privacy risk to all who pay in USD, but if you do believe Netcoin is a good idea and you do support the idea then in my opinion you should pay. If you want some privacy you can pay in a friends name. The other problem is what you mentioned in that it would mostly be Americans who have USD so the early distribution might not be as good as it could be with Bitcoin.

I hope there is a way to let people pay with Bitcoin, have it exchanged into USD and then pay the developers. I think that would be the ideal way but I do understand it would be difficult.

I think my proposal works efficiently: just receive the payments through an exchange (like merchant payment model in mtgox). People will pay in btc based on the current btc/usd rate. Received btc will be converted instantly to usd in that exchange account and when the cap is reached, it can be easily sent to any bank account or distributed among the developers. That account will have a transaction history which can be used to check honesty. (and if there are any extra conversion to usd and then wire transfer to bank expenses, it can be calculated and be paid by the buyers proportionally)
Paying directly in USD would only mean limited, sophisticated and full of hassles..

[JessicaMILFson]

With the Kickstarter project, will we require USD or can we do LTC?

Most crowdfunding platforms allow whatever fiat currency you use to convert to USD. The reasoning for why we need to do this at present is outlined in post #902. I do foresee that this will change one day, but right now we don't have cryptocurrency platforms to do so, as we need to bridge the space between funding to development. It may be an extra step for a few people, which sucks, but in the bigger picture it's no big deal.

Actually treating and following this subject in the btc community forum and keeping people attended and informed about this new cryptocurrency  that is coming to change their experience of using previous ones, but then limiting the already established fan club by a fiat payment only, not only sucks but hurts and disappoints as well    
That is true, things are not ideal, but I think creating a btc exchange account (in Bitstamp, MtGox..) and letting the btc users to pay and buy limited number of tickets through it, based on the current exchange rate of usd/btc at the moment of payment, wouldn't hurt anybody. This can at least be done for small investment/purchase of the tickets (<1 btc~=$100 for example).
The final amount received in that account (after reaching a cap perhaps), which will be in $, can be easily transferred by the use of wire system to any bank in US and Europe in not more than a week (you can include and charge the transfer and other fees this method may cause, to the investor's payment bill)
It will be wise to let 30% or even a bit more share of tickets to be sold this way (and you may put a limit for each purchase, by using btctalk id, to avoid rush or unfair distribution). Your currency will certainly have a brighter future if you let more people in to have a piece of the pie (even a very small one).

It's bad enough that those paying will have to provide identifiable information, but it's even worse if they have to connect it to their Bitcointalk ID too. That reduces security for the participants in exchange for decentralization of power. I think in this case security is more important than decentralization of power because power can be decentralized in other ways and at later times. Honestly, the people who buy in early aren't really guaranteed a larger piece of the pie than people who buy in late, they aren't necessarily going to have more coins, it just means they believed in the project from the start and were the first to become stakeholders and take the plunge.

That you take only the part of my post which mentioned btctalk id (just proposed it for limiting the purchase per each buyer, but that can be ignored easily) and not the proposed way of buying in with btc, is interesting and really btctalk typical  
One may desire to buy-in early not only to have a part of potential profit but also to support its favorite project. And after all, don't you think paying directly in fiat will more disturb the privacy and provide identity disclosure than paying by btctalk id and a btc wallet?!  

I'm not too happy about the USD payment requirement. I understand why it would exist (for accounting and because it minimizes risk on the developers), but I also understand it merely shifts some risks from the developers onto the investors. Developers must have identities in order to get paid and to make the process transparent (for defense against scams, fraud, theft). Pseudo-anonymous development would be fine if you do it for free but when money is involved then there is currently no effective infrastructure in place to allow independent contractors to get paid in Bitcoin (developers in this context would be considered independent contractors).

When we make payment to kickstarter we are not going to be anonymous and that means somewhere a paper trail will exist on all who supported Netcoin development. That introduces a privacy risk to all who pay in USD, but if you do believe Netcoin is a good idea and you do support the idea then in my opinion you should pay. If you want some privacy you can pay in a friends name. The other problem is what you mentioned in that it would mostly be Americans who have USD so the early distribution might not be as good as it could be with Bitcoin.

I hope there is a way to let people pay with Bitcoin, have it exchanged into USD and then pay the developers. I think that would be the ideal way but I do understand it would be difficult.

I think my proposal works efficiently: just receive the payments through an exchange (like merchant payment model in mtgox). People will pay in btc based on the current btc/usd rate. Received btc will be converted instantly to usd in that exchange account and when the cap is reached, it can be easily sent to any bank account or distributed among the developers. That account will have a transaction history which can be used to check honesty. (and if there are any extra conversion to usd and then wire transfer to bank expenses, it can be calculated and be paid by the buyers proportionally)
Paying directly in USD would only mean limited, sophisticated and full of hassles..

It's my belief that I think centralizing of the funding platform is best. I've had several projects funded and it went smoothly without any hassle at all. With Kickstarter, you have the option to close the campaign the moment that it funds. This will preserve the amount of set awards that we have.

It's hard to predict how much of the population will have Bitcoin and they may have other cryptocurrencies as well. (what's the demand like...etc) It may sound easy on paper to coordinate these two different payment methods, but I suspect it may be a tad more difficult than it appears and would require some work, that will be taken away from developing Netcoin. One issue would be the timing of the payments and you could have to cross verify the first $50k...etc and you may have to refund payments through the exchange (not sure if conversion rates would be charged for this) I don't think you can limit the amount of payments with the exchange account (if this exceeds the 30% you proposed) and if the funding happens quite quickly, then the administrator would have to verify the transactions, see who paid what and then send the payments back accordingly (there can be lots of room for error, furthermore there may be additional fees for reversal of payment, no refunds for Bitcoin...) Sounds like a mess waiting to happen

But honestly though, Kickstarter isn't broke and it's very optimized. Over $500 million projects have been already funded...and they process the payments through Amazon Payments, which allows you to fund in a variety of ways. Just stick with what they proposed and lets get this project finally started. It's really no big deal.

However, the main reason why I think it has to be done in traditional systems is that the work is being delegated to developers or teams of developers and currently these agreements are best enforceable with traditional systems. We need the transparency, paperwork and invoices, so that there is accountability.

Kickstarter also provides us with that additional legal obligation.