A proposed fair premine idea

[JessicaMILFson]

There is a goal and purpose (But let's ignore this for now. Assume Interest). But just wondering what the best way to award the early investors and what the community won't object to as a way of funding the development of the coin.

What are your thoughts on the methods that I suggested?

[mr_random]

Anyone who creates an alt coin for the purpose of getting a profit has dubious motivations.

What does that actually mean though? If a developer brings out a new coin in the future full of innovations and took a year to code what is your objection to him profiting from his hard work?

[markm]

Since ideally we would want a team that is expert at maintaining and promoting a chain, the best source of funding would be for them to get rich improving and promoting bitcoin so we all know they are qualified to maintain and promote such a product.

Or if not bitcoin, then there are already oodles of other chains they can catapult to success to demonstrate their expertise and oodles of chains that are sorely in need of some maintenance they can demonstrate their maintenance skills on.

Currently the community is not even able to keep up with maintenance of all the existing chains, so creating more seems kind of pointless. Lets prove we can actually maintain the ones we already have.

Already some of the latest ones are spawning "Is RecentScamCoin (RSC) dead?" threads.

So we are already overstraining our maintenance capacity. Maybe our hashing power too, as we also have not been able to keep all the existing chains at high enough levels of hashing to secure them all.

So again we really need to get off our asses and work on what we already have instead of piling up more work we likely also will not have enough hashing and maintenance-work to adequately support.

-MarkM-

[mr_right]

Bitcoin was also made to get rich. Why else make the reward decay with a power series, the fastest decaying series there is. The difference is when bitcoin w born, there were significant doubts and risks and much less crowd interested.

No premine is fair.

Bitcoin was not created by someone who wanted to make a quick buck. Bitcoin was created by someone who wanted an alternate system for digital money and transactions.

Anyone who creates an alt coin for the purpose of getting a profit has dubious motivations.

[Luckybit]

No premine is fair.

Bitcoin was not created by someone who wanted to make a quick buck. Bitcoin was created by someone who wanted an alternate system for digital money and transactions.

Anyone who creates an alt coin for the purpose of getting a profit has dubious motivations.

Yes, maybe the bitcoin was not created with the purpose of making a quick buck, but let's be fair, a lot of people got rich with the bitcoin. A lot of people that are shouting that all premine is bad got rich by just pointing some hardware to the network on the early stage and sit on their asses. Yes, everybody want to make a quick buck, to think that someone will do something only for the good of the humanity is just plain silly. If this is the case, then why everybody is buying ASICS? To see a better world? And is only fair that the developer will benefit in some way from his work.

When bitcoin was launched, almost nobody knew about it, and the core team was mining a fair share, and this is fair. Now, when a new coin is launched everybody with launch at it massive computing power, and so the dev, to make something out of it it will use some tricks to have a fair share. Again, if you think that someone will spend countless hours of work just so some guy with a powerful rig to make a quick buck you need to think again. What if the guy that developed the coin has just a normal GPU and is generating maybe 400 kh\s on scrypt, you think that he will work just for someone else to get rich? No, he will use tricks to have his fair share, and everybody will scream on the forum about orphans and other problems

Did you even read what I fucking wrote?

The problem with fiat currency these days are because they're controlled by people who want to make money.

A good alt coin exactly needs someone who donates their time to an open source project. They may be rewarded, but they need to play by the same rules as others.

Why do people contribute to OpenOffice?

Why do people submit patches to Linux?

Because they want to make a quick buck? No!

But that doesn't mean you can't make money off something like bitcoin. Think of it as offering support contracts for Linux.

Time isn't free. So basically only rich people or retired people will get to work on these projects? Not fair at all. And to think people will dedicate years of their lives for free or to expect slave labor to produce quality is basically the sweat shop model.

Developers should be allowed to get paid. How much is fair? Whatever they would be paid in the private sector + 10%. So $100,000 would be fair for the developer, but to expect the developer to work essentially for free, full time? We are talking PHD level work. Linux was developed by private corporations like Redhat, Suse, IBM, Oracle, they all funded Linux. The developers working on the Linux kernel and other critical components like Mozilla are getting paid.

Bitcoin was also made to get rich. Why else make the reward decay with a power series, the fastest decaying series there is. The difference is when bitcoin w born, there were significant doubts and risks and much less crowd interested.

No premine is fair.

Bitcoin was not created by someone who wanted to make a quick buck. Bitcoin was created by someone who wanted an alternate system for digital money and transactions.

Anyone who creates an alt coin for the purpose of getting a profit has dubious motivations.

The risks are still there today. What if the government decides to crack down on everyone? These risks still exist and every new cryptocoin faces these risks and every miner, investor, developer and early adopter faces these risks. Allowing them all to profit doesn't reduce the risk but it might give them enough money to move to a less oppressive location or hire a lawyer at least.

The purpose of developing a coin shouldn't be to get rich, but it shouldn't be expected that people will work for free. The purpose of developing these coins is to make peoples time worth something to the economy and to monetize things. The idea that the developers time is worthless, or that electricity is just free, is unfair. The developers time is not worthless, and electricity is not free. Developing a successful cryptocoin is not easy on any level, and while Bitcoin launched on the cheap it also took 4 years to go mainstream. The next generation coins may only have a year, or 6 months to launch and that is if they are planned out, it's also going to require a lot more effort in terms of programming.

Go read the Bitcoin code and see how it was hacked together. The design of Bitcoin is the design of a mathematician but the code is a hack job. New coins need to be designed by full time programmers with highly modular and secure code bases. No more just taking the Bitcoin code and adding a hack or two or a new hash or two, but we need new better rewrites of the code and that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of time. As a programmer go compare the QT5 code to GTK and see for yourself the difference in quality.  

[Luckybit]

Since ideally we would want a team that is expert at maintaining and promoting a chain, the best source of funding would be for them to get rich improving and promoting bitcoin so we all know they are qualified to maintain and promote such a product.

Or if not bitcoin, then there are already oodles of other chains they can catapult to success to demonstrate their expertise and oodles of chains that are sorely in need of some maintenance they can demonstrate their maintenance skills on.

Currently the community is not even able to keep up with maintenance of all the existing chains, so creating more seems kind of pointless. Lets prove we can actually maintain the ones we already have.

Already some of the latest ones are spawning "Is RecentScamCoin (RSC) dead?" threads.

So we are already overstraining our maintenance capacity. Maybe our hashing power too, as we also have not been able to keep all the existing chains at high enough levels of hashing to secure them all.

So again we really need to get off our asses and work on what we already have instead of piling up more work we likely also will not have enough hashing and maintenance-work to adequately support.

-MarkM-

The argument that people can and should work for free isn't going to build infrastructure. I agree with you all the various blockchains have to be secured, that hashing power has to be increased, that each coin needs to be promoted with websites, word of mouth, blogs, twitter, full marketing campaigns have to be launched for each.

So what we need to do as a community is actually put our minds together to develop a fair model to reward the behaviors we want to encourage. If we aren't willing to pay for infrastructure then we can't complain about the lack of distributed exchanges or MtGox going down or sites being hacked all the time and so on. In order to build this infrastructure, members of the community have to be compensated and Devcoin isn't working and probably isn't going to work either. My advice is instead of a centralized Devcoin which isn't really working, we should design an IPO funding model and test that model out and see exactly how well that model works in practice, then write up case studies and papers detailing what did work and why so the next generation can rely on those research papers and the scientific method to refine their launches to make them even more fair and more impressive.

To start we need to assume each developer will need $100,000, as this isn't enough to make a developer rich but it is enough to pay a US or Japanese citizen in the most expensive part of the country to live for at least 1 year. Also this is only slightly more than what developers usually make, so it's a fair amount and will get developers to quit their jobs and want to do this. The funding mechanism has to be something we continue to improve on and we have to find a mechanism to reward the people who do that, so that those people can research full time, develop new prototypes based on that research so that future launches can become even more fair than the last.

We can disagree on numbers, on how to get it done, but infrastructure has to be developed, new coins have to be developed, research has to be funded, and we cannot expect it to just happen or for it to happen for free, we have to figure out how to generate enough money as a community to create a vibrant self sustaining economic eco-system.

[hany103]

What about the very first amount of coins mined is non-transferable out of the wallet for certain amount of time (e.g. 1 year), by that we wouldn't see huge amount of coins dumped at exchange for quick buck and the price goes to near Zero.