[ANN] <redacted> (seeking opinions)

[Gleb Gamow]

<redacted> in the thread title because the naming may be open for discussion, albeit I have an available (procurable) five-letter .com in mind that's an excellent fit for what's envisioned if the following is feasible.

Envisioned is an altcoin 100% pegged to the US dollar, viz. one <redacted> coin to $1.00 USD. <redacted> would be primarily available via exchanges at the locked-in one US dollar per for reasons explained next.

<this is the "next" part> The primary utility (but could easily be used for [lesser] others) would be for the über-safe movement of any nation-state's fiat currency across borders by those concerned with the price fluctuations of cryptocurrencies, namely Bitcoin, when seeking such a service to transfer moneys that'll required (for whatever motives) placed on-hold for an extended period of time.

Mining would be POW exactly like Bitcoin's protocol with Segregated Witness (SegWit) implemented at the onset, such acting as a proving grounds of sorts. Same true for other Bitcoin-based implementations designed to address a plethora of known and future vulnerabilities, somehow readily effectuate quasi-regardless consensus by <redacted>'s miners. In essence, perhaps, the miners may have little say in protocol changes, their main concern being maintaining the network while making bank (again, open for discussion on the feasibility of such).

Speaking of "making bank", miners would not only enjoy the block rewards, but earn a fixed $1.00 USD fee per transaction regardless the amount transacted, a neat added incentive to assure onboarding enough miners to protect the network. Granted, a $1.00 tx fee may come across as excessive, especially for wee transaction amounts, but, again, consider the primary utility of <redacted> - conveniently moving large amounts of money around the world sans worrying about price fluctuations, very easily converting to bitcoins so to immediately convert to fiat of choice with extremely very little loss (or gain) of value. Converting <redacted> directly to fiat would be accomplished via the trusted legacy cryptocurrency exchanges if desiring to bypass the to-bitcoins option, not to mention in-person transactions et al. Readdressing the $1.00 USD transaction fee, a scaleable at-first $0.25 incrementally to $1.00 USD fee, perhaps reevaluated accordingly to the decreased block reward, may be prudent, again, open for discussion.

Standard bounties apply for naming suggestions, logos, explorer(s), wallets, apps, etc., payable via <redacted> coins slightly above the prevailing rate.

No premining, airdrops, IPO, etc., albeit a TBD/TBA premium will be allocated per block reward toward <redacted>'s coffer for bounties, development, legal, [fancy new cars, trips to China, hookers, blow,] etc. (seriously, this is a genuine proposed endeavor)

Furthermore, optimistically, institutional mining would be keep at bay so that more independant miners would be able to reap the block rewards et al.

Tentatively, so to guarantee plenty of <redacted> coins in circulation given its intended usage, the starting block reward of 200 coins at an on-average every two minutes (every five minutes on average at most) most likely is warranted, again, open for discussion.

Thoughts?

Bruno

[Gleb Gamow]

Reserved for more content.

[jwinterm]

Maybe I'm slow, but you don't seem to mention at all how you're going to keep <redacted> pegged at one USD, do you?

[eddie13]

I remember not too long ago someone else guaranteed a $X floor..
I watched it last like 20 seconds..

Who is going to foot the bill for these miners dumping $200 every 2 minutes?
You know miners just love to dump..

[ArcCsch]

Where do the block results come from?
Adding more currency to the money supply would destroy the backing.
The only way I can think of to keep a currency pegged to the United State Dollar is to provide a backing authority, that produces units of currency in exchange for dollers stored in a vault somewhere, and destroys units of currency to extract the cash.
The way Tether works, I believe, is by piggybacking on the bitcoin blockchain and using transaction fees to buy block space for hashes.
You talk a lot about bounties and fees, are you paying them out of your pocket?

[Gleb Gamow]

Maybe I'm slow, but you don't seem to mention at all how you're going to keep <redacted> pegged at one USD, do you?

Wouldn't "Because I say so!" work? Seriously, <redacted>'s core premise should sustain said pegging, thus "Because I say so!" is back in play.

I remember not too long ago someone else guaranteed a $X floor..
I watched it last like 20 seconds..

Who is going to foot the bill for these miners dumping $200 every 2 minutes?
You know miners just love to dump..

The Chinese! Seriously, the Chinese.

Granted, the above [altered] meme seems crazy, but think about it, for it's not outside the realm of possibility given the current financial climate in China, among elsewheres.

ArcCsch's reply (not quoted) to be commented on via a subsequent post.

[Gleb Gamow]

Let's see how I handle the tough questions and concerns, eh?

Where do the block results come from?

Well, dahhhhh! The normal place where they come from. (seriously, please reask the question so to better address it accordingly, bud)

Adding more currency to the money supply would destroy the backing.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm sure the brainiacs among us could put forth a solution.

The only way I can think of to keep a currency pegged to the United State Dollar is to provide a backing authority, that produces units of currency in exchange for dollers stored in a vault somewhere, and destroys units of currency to extract the cash.

The way Tether works, I believe, is by piggybacking on the bitcoin blockchain and using transaction fees to buy block space for hashes.

You talk a lot about bounties and fees, are you paying them out of your pocket?

HELL NO! The only thing I'm paying outta pocket is for the domain name, if that. Bounties, fees, etc., would be paid via <redacted> coins/coinage stemming from the retainage held per block reward once <redacted> becomes mineable (at least that's the plan)

With apologies for not addressing everything, any of you brainiacs care to weigh in, offering up answers/viable solutions? (that's how I handle the toughies  - pass 'em to the dudes with brains  )

Craziness said, I'll tell you what - I'll go 'head and purchase the domain name I have in mind so to at the very least rid the <redacted> thingy, mmmkay?

[debtstack]

It's impossible, there are too many factors. I thought about it too but there are many problems involved.

There is no way to trade a coin with a fixed value. The coin would never stay within the range you would have it governed as. Within that same thought, money/fiat is not mined, but minted. Your coin would be mined at a rate that would not be within that range since you would would be always mining and a government releases newly minted fiat whenever they feel like. If you modeled it off of the USD market cap you would need trillions of coins, not billions or millions.

This would then move to the biggest problem of all. The coin would have to be centralized to control it, and no one in the crypto world is interested in that. Traders and miners would turn into miniature trusted banks if you controlled output and we would all be in the same boat we are in at the moment with government money. Down the line this would not be good.

Though I will say you could create an ethereum contract coin that held the value of a dollar and maybe that would work. But remember, you would need a large amount of coins. More than any other coin out there.I forget the name of the guys who are doing it with gold. It is similar in theory but gold can't be magically minted thus it has a steady value.

[Gleb Gamow]

It's impossible, there are too many factors. I thought about it too but there are many problems involved.

There is no way to trade a coin with a fixed value. The coin would never stay within the range you would have it governed as. Within that same thought, money/fiat is not mined, but minted. Your coin would be mined at a rate that would not be within that range since you would would be always mining and a government releases newly minted fiat whenever they feel like. If you modeled it off of the USD market cap you would need trillions of coins, not billions or millions.

This would then move to the biggest problem of all. The coin would have to be centralized to control it, and no one in the crypto world is interested in that. Traders and miners would turn into miniature trusted banks if you controlled output and we would all be in the same boat we are in at the moment with government money. Down the line this would not be good.

Though I will say you could create an ethereum contract coin that held the value of a dollar and maybe that would work. But remember, you would need a large amount of coins. More than any other coin out there.I forget the name of the guys who are doing it with gold. It is similar in theory but gold can't be magically minted thus it has a steady value.

Dude, now you tell me after I just procured not one, but two .com domains - penjer.com and penjr.com - costing me the price of two normal buffets or one fancy one. I'll fade away, perhaps reaching down to 250 lbs.  

Nonsense said, firstly, thank you, debtstack, for your well-thoughtout reply, and secondly, before I comment, why Penjer and, moreover, Penjr. The Norwegian word for money is penger, but penger.com was already taken, obviously. The letter replacement seemed natural with the added benefit of the .coms being available, coupled with it/them having a pleasing sounding name, with the same true for PENJ, the proposed ticker symbol and individual units (Penjs if plural, unless Penjz - FUCK ME! penjz.com is still available).

Re your reply, debtstack:

On the surface, what's general proposed may be deemed impossible, but may not necessarily be true, especially if we put our collective heads together to ferret out a solution as to how to safely plus easily transfer money via blockchain technology sans concerning oneselves with price fluctuations while the [crypto-]money is on account for a lengthy period of time, readily convertible back to fiat [of choice] with little expense. Currently, such is not possible, hence this thread to explore the feasibility of such, then moving forward to build the bitch [and have the Chinese pay for it, taking a page from Trump (think: his proposed wall on US/Mexican border)].

In re needing a large amount of coins, more than any other coin out there, I did think of one unique solution while penning the OP - PENJ², PENJ³, etc., exactly mirroring PENJ^[1] to satisfy any future demand for coins.

Okay, now that ALL the major hurdles are outta the way, let's build this bitch.  

[Spoetnik]

Sorry Bruno but i have to agree with debtstack 100%.
I have no solutions to the quandary.

[ArcCsch]

A currency pegged to the United States Dollar must necessarily be centralized, as experience shows that a decentralized system produces natural fluctuations in exchange rate.
You mentioned mining in your post, the planned currency is to be secured by PoW in the same way as Bitcoin.
Finally, you expect someone to use this currency.
Therefore, your planned currency has three groups:
1. The scammer backing authority (presumably you).
2. The miners (to secure the network).
3. The suckers users (people you expect to use your currency)

Lets examine the miners first:
Mining is a process that destroys value, miners use up highly organized energy by sapping the Poynting vector field propagating through the electric grid, create entropy, and release the energy in the highly disorganized form of waste heat.
This value must come from somewhere, either the backing authority, or the users.
You said you are not paying anything out of pocket except the domain name, so the users must provide the value.
This can be done in two ways:
1. Inflating their holdings by paying block rewards, this would imply that the currency is not fully backed.
2. Taxing transactions with fees, this is what Bitcoin already does and will rely on when the block rewards die out.

To keep the currency pegged, you must provide new units of the currency by selling it (users give backing authority USD in exchange for newly created PENJ) and destroy units of the currency by redeeming it (backing authority gives users PENJ in exchange for destroying PENJ).
If you manage to persuade anyone to use your currency, you will find yourself holding their deposits, which you owe to them.

If you do this, you will be effectively running a bank, storing other peoples money and letting them trade a privately issued token.
But then, why bother with mining?
If users trust you with running the reserve, just sign the blocks to run the blockchain.
Since mining is ultimately paid for by users, they would be able to enjoy lower fees by using a system without mining.
Tether uses work done by bitcoin miners, so it creates the need for very little additional work.
Having miners running when there is no need for them is preposterous, and a total waste.

[eddie13]

China..
So china listen up.. The ICO is for these $1 coins that will be pegged to the USD BUT the ICO price is $1.10 in CNY..
If you think about it it's a great deal because if you buy it right now in $1.10 CNY value by time the thing gets around to the initial release your CNY will only be worth $0.10 so you will make 10X YOUR MONEY!!


拿我的钱现在

[Gleb Gamow]

@ArcCsch

Dude, I thought for a sec you misspelled Poynting alluding to some poly- thingy till I looked it up, and loo and behold look what I found:

This expression is often called the Abraham form.^[6] The Poynting vector is usually denoted by S or N.

In the "microscopic" version of Maxwell's ...

I found S and N and Maxwell. What are the odds?

Wait a second! You mentioned Tether which I just now visited their website: https://tether.to/

Every tether is always backed 1-to-1, by traditional currency held in our reserves. So 1 USD₮ is always equivalent to 1 USD.

Are you telling me that there's exactly, if not more US dollars in a verifiable Tether reservatory just like there's enough gold in The Royal Mint vault that equals or exceeds Royal Mint Gold tokens, or like there's more than enough silver in James Ray Houston's (BFL's Sonny Vleisides' real dad) Nevada office vault to cover his pegging endeavor days prior to the Gubernatorial election where Houston was neck-and-neck with his opponent until ... (follow the link to see what happened if not up to speed or unable to guess on your own)? Hell, I won't even bother you with where the link in my sig'll take you where that entity promises payment via proof of blockchain where their Investards can see firsthand BitFury paying out what's due via newly minted bitcoins, an impossibility given that BitFury is purposely sitting on all their newly minted bitcoins, and has been for quite awhile now, with apologies for not bothering you.

That said, if some sort of reserve to peg PENJ to is warranted, I have the Colorado River literally outside my backdoor littered with river rocks, and now that I have the formula, I can easily calculate the entropy exerted to get them there, thus giving each and every one of them precious stones value, whereupon I'll pick up as many as needed at a dollar per minus the entropy cost that placed them there. In essence, I can easily at any time show proof of as many Colorado River rocks one wanna sees, unlike, is my guess, dollars in Tether's vault, gold in The Royal Mint's vaults, or, in case you missed it, silver in Houston's empty vault. Oh, I almost forgot, Hashing24's BitFury's promised payouts from sitting-idle block rewards, promises made while calling all its naysayers trolls, among other niceties.

Apologies if the above came across as terse, for sincerely that was not my intend nor feelings while penning the informative prose. Thank you for understanding in that regard.

Bruno

[tokeweed]

Maybe I'm slow, but you don't seem to mention at all how you're going to keep <redacted> pegged at one USD, do you?

Wouldn't "Because I say so!" work? Seriously, <redacted>'s core premise should sustain said pegging, thus "Because I say so!" is back in play.

If only it were that easy.  I mean who's to stop someone from selling it for more or for cheap vs USD (or USDT) in the exchanges?  So in a way if it gets listed in multiple exchanges there would be different values for <redacted>.

[ArcCsch]

@ArcCsch

Dude, I thought for a sec you misspelled Poynting alluding to some poly- thingy till I looked it up, and loo and behold look what I found:

This expression is often called the Abraham form.^[6] The Poynting vector is usually denoted by S or N.

In the "microscopic" version of Maxwell's ...

I found S and N and Maxwell. What are the odds?

The Poynting vector is what actually transmits the energy, the wires only guide it.

Wait a second! You mentioned Tether which I just now visited their website: https://tether.to/

Every tether is always backed 1-to-1, by traditional currency held in our reserves. So 1 USD₮ is always equivalent to 1 USD.

Are you telling me that there's exactly, if not more US dollars in a verifiable Tether reservatory just like there's enough gold in The Royal Mint vault that equals or exceeds Royal Mint Gold tokens, or like there's more than enough silver in James Ray Houston's (BFL's Sonny Vleisides' real dad) Nevada office vault to cover his pegging endeavor days prior to the Gubernatorial election where Houston was neck-and-neck with his opponent until ... (follow the link to see what happened if not up to speed or unable to guess on your own)?

I never said Tether was trustworthy.

Hell, I won't even bother you with where the link in my sig'll take you where that entity promises payment via proof of blockchain where their Investards can see firsthand BitFury paying out what's due via newly minted bitcoins, an impossibility given that BitFury is purposely sitting on all their newly minted bitcoins, and has been for quite awhile now, with apologies for not bothering you.

I'm confused, are you calling Hashing24 a scam or Bitfury?
As far as I know, Hashing24 is a claimed cloud mining scheme, and BitFury is a mining pool.
BitFury could be paying out with "stale" bitcoins they mined or otherwise have from some time ago, and keep the fresh ones unspent to keep them "pure".
If Hashing24 claims a 405% return on investment, they are an obvious scam, but that does not implicate BitFury.

That said, if some sort of reserve to peg PENJ to is warranted, I have the Colorado River literally outside my backdoor littered with river rocks, and now that I have the formula, I can easily calculate the entropy exerted to get them there, thus giving each and every one of them precious stones value, whereupon I'll pick up as many as needed at a dollar per minus the entropy cost that placed them there. In essence, I can easily at any time show proof of as many Colorado River rocks one wanna sees

I'm confused, entropy never works like this in my physics textbooks.

, unlike, is my guess, dollars in Tether's vault, gold in The Royal Mint's vaults, or, in case you missed it, silver in Houston's empty vault.

I am not claiming their legitimacy, if you want to protect your holdings by buying metals, buy the metals, not certificates. The same thing happened to mtgox.

Oh, I almost forgot, Hashing24's BitFury's promised payouts from sitting-idle block rewards, promises made while calling all its naysayers trolls, among other niceties.

When you mine for a pool, you usually complain if you don't receive bitcoin, but getting stale coins instaid of fresh ones shouldn't be a problem.
Hashing24 aside, do you have any proof BitFury is a scam?

Apologies if the above came across as terse, for sincerely that was not my intend nor feelings while penning the informative prose. Thank you for understanding in that regard.

Bruno

I understand.

[Blockchain Mechanic]

I cannot comment much on everything else, but decentralized pegging is rather trivial to implement, as well as supply management to maintain price range with perhaps a few blocks delay between corrections. The hilarious but solvable part is maintaining consensus across the network. This idea of yours is actually more feasible than you think.

[debtstack]

The biggest problem if you think about it is simple.

You are pegging your coin against the US dollar, while simultaneously competing with it. You are either a centralized bank or a decentralized cryptocurrency. In this scenario A can never equal B as their basic fundamentals clash. Eventually people may give in to a central coin because they trust it more, yet it would only lead to exactly what we have now, a central economic power. So in the end it is compromising to the point that you eventually lose that free decentralized economy.

It may sound preachy, but that is why this conundrum pops up when you try to peg a coin with a currency. You can only do it by sacrificing the beliefs of the cryptocommunity.

[Spoetnik]

@debtstack
Yup.. i can't see any practical way around that.
Not saying a centralized portion of a coin me be needed in the future though.
Hell Bitcoin is heavily centralized in various aspects already.
You can narrow it down to saying how has the password to the main Github account.
It was Gavin that got a 1 million dollar a year salary from the BTC Foundation..
It was Gavin that got a trip to the FBI's office to have a little chat about Bitcoin in private.

@The Other Guy
Bitfury ?
Check out the scam section for a couple related topics Gamow posted.
I think it may boil down to the same crap as the Amanda B topic here the other day.
You have a suspected scam project..
Then a shill flogging it.
Does shill KNOW the project is scammy ?
I think that is the summary of it LOL

[dinofelis]

Maybe I'm slow, but you don't seem to mention at all how you're going to keep <redacted> pegged at one USD, do you?

There is only one, but very reliable technique for doing so.   You need to possess the same amount of real $ as there will be coins (in the end).   You allow everyone to come and exchange coins against an equal amount of dollars you send them.  You also allow them to pay in dollars, and you will send them an equal amount of coins.

That's it.

This is how central banks do the pegging of currencies.  This is how "paper gold" is pegged to physical gold.  If you want to peg an asset to another one, you have to be able to set up an exchange that will exchange one for the other at 1-1 rate, and hence you have to have sufficient reserve to guarantee that.  If you don't, you do what's called fractional reserve banking.

So, if you want, say, to issue 500 million coins, each pegged to the dollar, you need ideally to be ready to put 500 million dollar on the table.  If you can't, you cannot peg that coin.  Simple as that.

[Gleb Gamow]

Firstly, I wish to thank each and every person who's replied to date, I digesting your words in spite of humorous and, perhaps, incorrect responses on my part.

I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the why pegging one PENJ to one US dollar is an issue given light that:

The US dollar fluctuates on a continuous basis, albeit small movements, relatively speaking.

The first pricing of bitcoins was pegged to the average electricity usage cost (calculated worldwide).

The current price per bitcoin is currently pegged to $796.08.

Yesterday's price per bitcoin was pegged to $930.28 (quasi-contrived, but you get the gist).

Akin to now being able to present a definitive mathematical proof thanks to some recent conjecture et al., Satoshi Nakamoto's solving of the double-spend problem presented in the infamous white paper may be an element incorporated in the solving of the discussed pegging issue.

I'm not a brainiac to have, let alone come up with an answer(s) sought on my own, but feel bright enough to recognize that a solution could be found, at the very least become closer to being solved via continually discussing the issue, akin how a detective (e.g.) continues to drill a suspect till the truth is revealed of their guilt or innocence. (analogy perhaps sucks, but, again, hope you get the gist)

Thanks again, guys, for all the input to date.

BTW, do you like my domain name - penjr.com? (Norwegian for money is penger)