Antimatter Official Development and Release

[digitalindustry]

If you can lock them into things like multisig escrows and merge them into Open Transactions, you will have viable derivatives.

You mean using an escrow service to distribute the coins? wow, thanks. I'll look around for a trustworthy guy, any suggestions?

the part i don't get is the merging into Open transactions.

he's basically talking about Nashx - and Nash equilibrium , but he probably/maybe doesn't realize it .

merge into open transaction i'd say just means - "automate the process and make it seamless"

I brought it up in Netcoin - but the Nashx guy done it first - , but i don't think it needs to be done ?

if Ant goes to Cryptsy Ant is being exchanged so the value of the derivative is being exchanged .

he is talking about a P2P exchange .

[digitalindustry]

I don't really understand. How do you know exactly was is the price for altcoin1 ... altcoin2 ... altcoinxx ?

we consider 1) Volume mined 2) level of premining 3) distribution 4) how much interest was shown 5) if the chain was forked or any other deal breakers

who decides ?

i didn't even think of that , i think i just asked the deal breaking question -

there will be a one off poll 24 hours before launch where people will vote the coins in. That way the community part  is satisfied in a free manner.

you will have to run continuous votes as new coins will be wanting to be added all the time , not that this is a bad thing , I'm just saying , also make sure there is large market participation otherwise the obvious will happen, but however that will be equaled out by the exchange of Ants in the future, ha ha interesting flow of electrons here.   

[cbeast]

If you can lock them into things like multisig escrows and merge them into Open Transactions, you will have viable derivatives.

You mean using an escrow service to distribute the coins? wow, thanks. I'll look around for a trustworthy guy, any suggestions?

the part i don't get is the merging into Open transactions.

he's basically talking about Nashx - and Nash equilibrium , but he probably/maybe doesn't realize it .

merge into open transaction i'd say just means - "automate the process and make it seamless"

I brought it up in Netcoin - but the Nashx guy done it first - , but i don't think it needs to be done ?

if Ant goes to Cryptsy Ant is being exchanged so the value of the derivative is being exchanged .

he is talking about a P2P exchange .

I wasn't aware of Nashx or Netcoin, but yes a Nash equilibrium. I would use interconnected nested multisignature transactions based on coin age and/or WoT.

[digitalindustry]

Or - ok wait for this:


Grab ALL the spam literally as much as you can find

put them in a vote and then request / ask Devs to remove them or send a request for them to be removed.

why?

because you are going to value them all at the same very low price -

if the Dev believes his value to be higher and its going to exchange he will request it to be removed , however if there is no chance that its going to exchange there is no motive to do this.

thus it gets added to the Ant at a = No chance to exchange price value. whatever that may be and could be voted on.

then if the Devs that removed coins find out they are holding something that has no chance to exchange , then they can submit it to Ant.

exceptions to this should be a "viable currency clause" :

for example Kopimikoin is not a "viable currency" as Hazard wrote himself 900k of them, so the market agrees its "not viable" these are the votes that could be taken.

this way the vote motive equation polarity is shifted from the positive to the negative and it will balance.

then there would be two votes in the process and process follows this path :

1. Submit list of currency-
2. verify list for = "viable currency"  Vote if necessary on argument.
3. let list been seen on open market,  request Developers/owners  to remove  if they wish.
4. vote on the final  = "No chance to exchange price" which should never exceed an exchanged currency price or possibly the division of all the exchanged currencies on the market, let market decide.

start filling the Ants legs up  !

[barwizi]

If you can lock them into things like multisig escrows and merge them into Open Transactions, you will have viable derivatives.

You mean using an escrow service to distribute the coins? wow, thanks. I'll look around for a trustworthy guy, any suggestions?

the part i don't get is the merging into Open transactions.

he's basically talking about Nashx - and Nash equilibrium , but he probably/maybe doesn't realize it .

merge into open transaction i'd say just means - "automate the process and make it seamless"

I brought it up in Netcoin - but the Nashx guy done it first - , but i don't think it needs to be done ?

if Ant goes to Cryptsy Ant is being exchanged so the value of the derivative is being exchanged .

he is talking about a P2P exchange .

Ah i get it!!! Yes that would be perfectly suited for this. But which people to trust with that? my servers are down and i do not own escrow software, perhaps i'll speak with the phenix guys and koolio.

[barwizi]

Or - ok wait for this:


Grab ALL the spam literally as much as you can find

put them in a vote and then request / ask Devs to remove them or send a request for them to be removed.

why?

because you are going to value them all at the same very low price -

if the Dev believes his value to be higher and its going to exchange he will request it to be removed , however if there is no chance that its going to exchange there is no motive to do this.

thus it gets added to the Ant at a = No chance to exchange price value. whatever that may be and could be voted on.

then if the Devs that removed coins find out they are holding something that has no chance to exchange , then they can submit it to Ant.

exceptions to this should be a "viable currency clause" :

for example Kopimikoin is not a "viable currency" as Hazard wrote himself 900k of them, so the market agrees its "not viable" these are the votes that could be taken.

this way the vote motive equation polarity is shifted from the positive to the negative and it will balance.

sounds reasonable. but you do know half of them have the same dev right?

[digitalindustry]

sounds reasonable. but you do know half of them have the same dev right?

hmm interesting and yes you are right of course - , then that Dev has to decide if they are all useless , lets face it , Cryptsy isn't going to add currencies forever its just not feasible.

Cryptsy might add a few more , but at a point i bet C++ code can make them quicker than he can add them .

Ant may help the whole crypto community -  because in this way it's asking the Dev to value his currency - if he chooses to :

A)  remove them all from Ant , but then they will likely never get listed , he could make his own exchange but no one will use it so they have 0 price and he is just creating things that have no value in the hope that he can destroy cryptocurrency or one of them might get taken up one day. , neither of which will happen, as the market determines.

or

B) Admit they are useless shit and have them added to Ant as an exchangeable derivative, but at A price at least.

also it sorts out the problem of Dev monopoly because other Developers do exist and they will submit their failed currency to Ant also .

interestingly -

also the obvious will happen  devs that know they are creating useless shit will create currency just to add to Ant , because they will see it as having an inherit value , in this way you will need to be able to control "inflation" . - if it is done smartly then you could solve the problem of spam crypto being created for the sake of it .  

[digitalindustry]

Ha HA what about a reverse pyramid?

Ok so the first batch of "Coins" can be valued as a group - based on the information in the market today we have to say "some are spam some might not be"

so we exist in this reality so those coins are valued at a = to "No chance to exchange" of say oh lets call it 1 to simplify.

then you have cause an inherit motive in the information market to create a "coin" and submit it to Ant.

so any subsequent batch  has to be valued at lower than this , and the equation is simple reverse pyramid -

First batch
1111111111111111111111111111111  < this is the number in the first batch they all get valued at the same = "no chance to exchange value"

i'm just putting more than one "1" to express the number of currencies int he first batch

Second batch
0.03125

this number is derived by the amount of "coins" that are submitted < i.e there are 32 new pieces of crap released < the devs admit it divide 1 / 32 = 0.03125.
all the second batch of currencies are now valued at 0.03125

Third batch
0.0020833333333333

15 more spam currencies that failed to get to an exchange , Dev(s) admits it -  

0.03125 / 15 = 0.0020833333333333

Fourth Batch  - The spam continues -
0.0010415

2 more spam come and greet our shores -
0.0020833333333333/ 2 = 0.0010415

so on so fourth - ?

[digitalindustry]

this is a very nice an simple solution -

and it solves :

Cryptsy  having to asses these currencies - but still can, but it helps excahnges a lot as if the Dev is 1. absent or 2. has not faith to exchange, why would you ever list that? 

then if there is a Dev revolt by one particular Dev , and all those coins are not added then its likely they are worthless anyhow. 

there will invariably be currencies pulled that the community believes has merit -  these are the currencies that Cryptsy and other exchanges can look at and asses.

[barwizi]

Ha HA what about a reverse pyramid?

Ok so the first batch of "Coins" can be valued as a group - based on the information in the market today we have to say "some are spam some might not be"

so we exist in this reality so those coins are valued at a = to "No chance to exchange" of say oh lets call it 1 to simplify.

then you have cause an inherit motive in the information market to create a "coin" and submit it to Ant.

so any subsequent batch  has to be valued at lower than this , and the equation is simple reverse pyramid -

First batch
1111111111111111111111111111111  < this is the number in the first batch they all get valued at the same = "no chance to exchange value"

i'm just putting more than one "1" to express the number of currencies int he first batch

Second batch
0.03125

this number is derived by the amount of "coins" that are submitted < i.e there are 32 new pieces of crap released < the devs admit it divide 1 / 32 = 0.03125.
all the second batch of currencies are now valued at 0.03125

Third batch
0.0020833333333333

15 more spam currencies that failed to get to an exchange , Dev(s) admits it -  

0.03125 / 15 = 0.0020833333333333

Fourth Batch  - The spam continues -
0.0010415

2 more spam come and greet our shores -
0.0020833333333333/ 2 = 0.0010415

so on so fourth - ?

wow, what a great valuation idea, this is becoming a reality faster and faster.

[r3wt]

You know, its really great to see a community brainstorm as a group to bring a great idea like this to fruition. I can't provide much in the way of dev since i'm currently busy with my own projects, but you do have %100 of my support. Swing for the fences bro.


r3wt

[barwizi]

ok, can we also take into consideration the amounts of coin the others have? For instance infinitecoin and zwcoin have absurd block rewards. I do not believe ANT should have a extremely large number of coin, i know devcoin does it, but it just seems messy.

[digitalindustry]

Yeah i think this reverses the motive to create spam - of course if there is no motive then some of that will continue , but interestingly ha ha after the first batch - the Devs will know that the more spam that is created and admitted to then the less value it will have so they have a paradoxical question :

A) Create the spam and don't admit it is spam, ( then the market will know , or call it spam)

B) Don't create as much spam but admit to it and have it valued higher inside Ant.

ha ha , i like those options

r3wt.

what is nano all about?  i'll do a giveaway , I'll do it on digitalcurrencytalk.com  I'm trusted in this forum and that forum.

[digitalindustry]

ok, can we also take into consideration the amounts of coin the others have? For instance infinitecoin and zwcoin have absurd block rewards. I do not believe ANT should have a extremely large number of coin, i know devcoin does it, but it just seems messy.

yes this needs to be done indeed.  - so wait , is infinite-coin literally never ending  with huge block rewards ?

this would be cause to throw to a "viable currency vote"

if the forum believes its not viable then it is excluded -

however then with the other currencies  the total cap would need to be looked at , hmm need to think on this . ..

ok so the Ant is there and at the start he has say 34 Legs - 34 Devs admit that = "no chance to exchange" so in each leg of the Ant goes each currency valued at exactly the same value.

this value adds up and creates a ratio downward the more that goes in ? so maybe the same principal :

i will take two examples :

Currency A has a very large block reward
Currency B has a very low block reward - the Gem and Bitbar type

both are submitted to the Ant leg

Leg 1 - large block reward is valued at 1 (in the first batch) with the first unit being valued at that in the ant body as more come in it divides the unit down
Leg 2 - small block reward comes in at 1 (in the first batch) with the next coming in much more slowly but dividing down as they do

Sum all legs to get final Ant value?

then rinse and repeat - the next batch will have legs of lesser value that get divided in the same way, yes? does this work ?


but as Ant is trade-able  there will be the Ant number and the Ant Value - that's what makes it fun .

but in this way you could still make it a low number with its own Ant cap right  ?

[digitalindustry]

Chat soon on this , need maybe more input.

[Online24o0n]

does it act as a unifying currency?

[Breen2543]

Currency A has a very large block reward
Currency B has a very low block reward - the Gem and Bitbar type

[barwizi]

yes it is a unifying currency.

[barwizi]

ok, can we also take into consideration the amounts of coin the others have? For instance infinitecoin and zwcoin have absurd block rewards. I do not believe ANT should have a extremely large number of coin, i know devcoin does it, but it just seems messy.

yes this needs to be done indeed.  - so wait , is infinite-coin literally never ending  with huge block rewards ?

this would be cause to throw to a "viable currency vote"

if the forum believes its not viable then it is excluded -

however then with the other currencies  the total cap would need to be looked at , hmm need to think on this . ..

ok so the Ant is there and at the start he has say 34 Legs - 34 Devs admit that = "no chance to exchange" so in each leg of the Ant goes each currency valued at exactly the same value.

this value adds up and creates a ratio downward the more that goes in ? so maybe the same principal :

i will take two examples :

Currency A has a very large block reward
Currency B has a very low block reward - the Gem and Bitbar type

both are submitted to the Ant leg

Leg 1 - large block reward is valued at 1 (in the first batch) with the first unit being valued at that in the ant body as more come in it divides the unit down
Leg 2 - small block reward comes in at 1 (in the first batch) with the next coming in much more slowly but dividing down as they do

Sum all legs to get final Ant value?

then rinse and repeat - the next batch will have legs of lesser value that get divided in the same way, yes? does this work ?


but as Ant is trade-able  there will be the Ant number and the Ant Value - that's what makes it fun .

but in this way you could still make it a low number with its own Ant cap right  ?

let me think on this.

[MaGNeT]

It will only be a success if I can explain it to my mother.

Too complicated, I think.
You guys?