[ANN] MemoryCoin

[FreeTrade]

If you also allowed down-voting of a grant, it would ultimately give the masses capability to add or subsequently remove a grant if it was decided it should not be receiving grant coins anymore, as I'm sure would be the case if an individual managed to game that system and vote themselves a personal grant like is currently happening.

This is an interesting idea - but I wonder if it would be possible to structure it in a way that prevents a Mr. Wax style interest fund - where a broad base of coin holders collaborate to split interest payments. Some more discussion on that here -
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=285232.msg3093133#msg3093133

For a multiple grant system - this is the idea I'm leaning towards -
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=285232.msg3086702#msg3086702

[bahamapascal]

I think the grants are a great idea, but simply allowing anyone to make a grant address and have it voted on may not be the best way to accomplish a meaningful dent in the crypto world (people will always be greedy, and do anything they can to game the system).

My idea would be to implement a system where grants are proposed (and explained, maybe make a minimum # of words on explanation) through a "grant" tab on the QT miner, and need a certain number of votes (separate from sending satoshis) from mining addresses with >40MEG (or whatever number would work) to become a valid grant proposal, at which point they can be sent satoshis to receive grant status.  It still fits the theme of decentralization since there is no central authority deciding what is a valid grant, it would just require tuning of the # of votes and amount of required MEG per valid voting address to make a grant.

Making a special Grant "tab" for people to vote on new grand addresses is definitely a interesting idea! Though I personally think that it might make it more complicated then necessary.
I think that this problem should get taken care of automatically by getting enough voting support or not. And I think for the beginning we should set minimum required vote support, for a grant address to be accepted, rather high (maybe 30k Voting Power? ).
In case you over read my initial post:

As you can see, you can add and subtract VP, so if the initiative you have supported dose not full fill its promises, you can remove your VP and use them on other addresses.
On the left bottom you can see a button saying " Generate grant address", when clicking on that a window should appear with a impute field for the description where you can put the name/reason and link to a website/forum for more info; also when creating a new grand address you have to pay a fee of lets say 25MEG, which will be refunded should the address get enough Vote support or else, if it dosn´t get enough VP after lets say 7 days, your address will be removed from the list and at the same time you will get the 25MEG back; though there should  be a notification about that in the same pop up window as the description field.Should you have the required funds and have filled the text field you can then proceed to generate the address, which then will get listed in the List.
The 25MEG are there to prevent people/bots to spam the List with hundreds,thousands or even millions of grand proposals, which would/could brake the system.

If you also allowed down-voting of a grant, it would ultimately give the masses capability to add or subsequently remove a grant if it was decided it should not be receiving grant coins anymore, as I'm sure would be the case if an individual managed to game that system and vote themselves a personal grant like is currently happening.

Hmm, so you suggest making a option to use your VP to cast a negative vote, is this correct? Interesting idea, will think about it some more, but I think that might be a nice option.

If I knew anything beyond basic C++, I'd attempt this myself, however I lack the knowledge or programming experience to even have a chance of success.  If anyone can point out any major flaws or necessary refinements in this idea, feel free to.  If we can agree on a system that would be fair and have some semblance of balance, I'd be happy to donate whatever I can to anyone willing to undertake the actual assembly of the code.

Beyond that, I'm still having trouble going more than a day or two without the miner hanging on a block...right now I firmly believe that's the primary hindrance to this coin's success.  People don't want to have to constantly monitor their miners just to make sure they're still mining, and if they have to, they'll move on to a coin that doesn't require this.

Hey thanks, that would be grate if you would help donate fore development ...but let´s first get the ideas straightened out, then when we have agreed on a plan we can look into development and donations.
Yes the hanging on a block is still annoying, though lately I have gone several days before it hang on a block, so that's an improvement from the beginning If you are not already, try starting the normal memorycoin-qt.exe (and not the "start.bat"). I have way less problems with errors since I start without the add noods....tough this might just be coincidence, don´t know.

And thanks for your thoughts and support, really appreciate it

[FreeTrade]

This would create a very dynamic environment/community...
Where miners are actively involved in jockeying for position within that Top 100...

There's merit to this. While awarding interest through grants is unfair . . . interest is not evenly distributed, it does create a source of demand for the coin. Coin owners can find themselves in a position where they only need 1% additional coins to secure a 4% grant. This creates competition and demand. Demand is essential for a coin and creating demand in the early stages is worth looking at.  However it may create a bubble, and I wonder if a new coin would survive the subsequent bust.   

[MrJiggledaddy]

This is an interesting idea - but I wonder if it would be possible to structure it in a way that prevents a Mr. Wax style interest fund - where a broad base of coin holders collaborate to split interest payments. Some more discussion on that here -
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=285232.msg3093133#msg3093133

For a multiple grant system - this is the idea I'm leaning towards -
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=285232.msg3086702#msg3086702

Actually, I believe we want to encourage community based grants for these funds, it would encourage adoption of the coin by allowing communities of miners to compete with each other for a chunk of the grant.  If you also include a maximum amount of the total grant a single proposal can capture (say 20%), then once a grant hits 20%, people no longer have any need to put more of their limited votes to it, and if they do, they're effectively wasted.

While there's always the possibility that these "interest fund" grants would grow to capture more than one individual grant once the first hits 20%, it's incredibly unlikely that this would ever cause you or MCF to actually lose your grant.  If you also allow more than 5 grants (maybe not unlimited, but a lot, in this sense I agree with the 100 grants idea), then you may not get a full 20% of the grant coins, but however much you do receive would fully be a reflection of the mining community's perception of how well you're doing as a developer.  Additionally, even if these interest funds captured 80% of the grants in total, that would simply be an indication of the community mindset in general, and if the mindset is truly that greedy overall, it's very likely that those interest funds will eventually capture your single grant in the planned fork.  The bottom line is that as long as you let people vote on where free money goes, there will be a certain percentage that will always vote for it to go to themselves.

As for the potential of having a voted on regulator to approve grant proposals, I believe it would be detrimental in that the regulator would inevitably make a decision that upset some people, and these people would rally/rage/abandon the coin.  If this were to happen to a large enough extent, or if a malicious group managed to gain control of this regulatory position it could effectively kill the coin by giving them too much control.  If, instead, you allow your users to directly control approval of grant proposals before they're even voted to be funded, the only blame for a bad decision is on the community itself, and people tend to get less angry when they're the one making the decisions, even if they're stupid decisions that backfire.

[FreeTrade]

While both you and QuantPlus make valid statements on the grant system, your last remark really hits the nail on the head.
No matter how the grant system is implemented, as long as there are stability issues the coin will not be mined by a broad audience.
Fixing the stability issues should be the #1 priority on FreeTrades list and instead he is focussing on 'fixing' the grant system.
What will happen when the big grant after block 8710 will not go to FreeTrade? Will he go on strike again or do another fork to 'fix' the grant system again?

The grants are designed to support development and promotion of the coin. I imagine that if the grants aren't used to fund development and promotion, there won't be any development and promotion.

As far as I can see now, the MCF is in a strong position to win the grant and continue to fund development and promotion.

However, if a private individual or consortium were able to take control of the grant, I think this would be viewed as a very negative development by the market and cause the price to fall significantly. Thus it would be a self-defeating strategy to try to privatize the grants and I don't expect it to happen.

[MrJiggledaddy]

However, if a private individual or consortium were able to take control of the grant, I think this would be viewed as a very negative development by the market and cause the price to fall significantly. Thus it would be a self-defeating strategy to try to privatize the grants and I don't expect it to happen.

I truly do hope that you're right about this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there's plenty of people out there either too blindly greedy, or too stupid to not try this.

[FreeTrade]

The fork seems to have gone according to plan, taking place at the first grant award (8720) after the fork height (8710).

The large grant was won by the MemoryCoin Foundation - thanks to everybody who voted for the MCF.

The maintainer of the Block Explorer went AWOL about 2 weeks ago - and so the Block Explorer wasn't updated in time for the fork and displays an incorrect chain from block 8720. I'm expecting we'll have a new Block Explorer shortly. Ditto with Linux builds.

Bter updated for the fork and is on the new chain.

Next I'll be updating the documentation to reflect the simplified grant system and updating to the new Bitcoin base code to help with stability issues.

[ahmed_bodi]

im working on a mining client and pool. memory coin is scrypt right? im guessing it doesnt use 1024,1,1, as the values?

[FreeTrade]

im working on a mining client and pool. memory coin is scrypt right? im guessing it doesnt use 1024,1,1, as the values?

More info on the pool and bounty here -
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278782.0

It uses Scrypt-Jane, with three levels . . . hashing algorithm is on the first page of this thread.

[ahmed_bodi]

right so it is scrypt jane. I guess i could try out one of my ideas

[B.T.Coin]

Here are a few interesting facts for everyone who is still mining Memorycoin.
I was holding 2 out of the 5 grants up until the fork but calculated that my coins would not be enough to get the big grant so I sold them off to someone who was interested in making a go for the big grant. Obviously he didn't make it.
I was involved in Memorycoin because there was the option of getting a grant if you mine and buy enough coins. FreeTrade his new grant system has killed this option and that's why the coin is not fun anymore and I sold.

Freetrade did not know I sold the coins and thought I was still going for 'his' grant so here is the threat he made to me on my PM just now:
'I see you're still trying to win the grant.'
Maybe I haven't made this clear enough, but this is a foolish course of action. If you succeed in winning the grant, I'll regard the coin as a failure and abandon it - it will die, and your coins will be worthless, however many of them of you have.'

Another user (QuantPlus) has pointed this out already a few times (in not so kind words), but the only thing FreeTrade appears to be interested in is collecting his 20% mining tax.
Why go through all the trouble and hide it under grants and marketing talk? Why not just hardcode into the client that 20% of all the blocks automatically go to FreeTrade?
What will happen if the RevolutionPool will go for the grant and take it away from FreeTrade? In his posts before FreeTrade wrote that he would accept if this would happen but judging from what he wrote to me, I'm not so sure.

Anyway, I'm back to XPM mining and will be keeping an eye on Memorycoin to see if FreeTrade will finally solve the stability issues now he gets his 'development tax'

[FreeTrade]

Another user (QuantPlus) has pointed this out already a few times (in not so kind words), but the only thing FreeTrade appears to be interested in is collecting his 20% mining tax.

I can understand you might be angry and disappointed that you lost your grant but you know very well that I'm advocating that the MCF should win the grant.

MCF has been very transparent about its funds and awards - and the details are here.
http://memorycoin.org/foundation/

I'm sorry you understood my advice to be a threat. It's just a statement of fact - if the MCF isn't funded, there is no way to pay for bounties for things like development, logos, pools, block explorers. That'll mean the coin dies. It is a stupid course of action to try to privatise the grant, and I advise you and anyone else against it.

[B.T.Coin]

Another user (QuantPlus) has pointed this out already a few times (in not so kind words), but the only thing FreeTrade appears to be interested in is collecting his 20% mining tax.

I'm sorry you understood my advice to be a threat. It's just a statement of fact - if the MCF isn't funded, there is no way to pay for bounties for things like development, logos, pools, block explorers. That'll mean the coin dies.

I hope the people on the forum can read for themselves.
When you write: 'If you succeed in winning the grant, I'll regard the coin as a failure and abandon it - it will die, and your coins will be worthless'
I think this means something else as what you are trying to make us believe above.

I can understand you might be angry and disappointed that you lost your grant but you know very well that I'm advocating that the MCF should win the grant.

No, I'm not angry at all. I really enjoyed mining Memorycoin because of the challenge/game to grab a grant. There were 5 so there was plenty for everybody and it was good fun working for it and kept the coin interesting for me.
Now that challenge is gone, there is no fun in the coin anymore for me and that's why I sold my coins.

As mentioned before, I will keep an eye on the coin in the furure and I'm interested to see what good the grants will be put to.

[FreeTrade]

Full 'private' message.
---------------------


BTCoin,

I see you're still trying to win the grant.

Maybe I haven't made this clear enough, but this is a foolish course of action. If you succeed in winning the grant, I'll regard the coin as a failure and abandon it - it will die, and your coins will be worthless, however many of them of you have.

You already have 3% of all the coins that will ever be issued. You'll do very well if MCF continues to win the grant and increases the value of the coin. I urge you to vote to support MCF - who else is going to fix the stability issues with the software?

Regards,

FT

[FinShaggy]

Are there ways to earn this coin without mining, maybe by writing?

[FreeTrade]

Are there ways to earn this coin without mining, maybe by writing?

Absolutely - The MemoryCoin Foundation is looking to incentivize and reward any and all projects that help the coin. What is it you'd like to write?

http://memorycoin.org/foundation/

[FinShaggy]

Are there ways to earn this coin without mining, maybe by writing?

Absolutely - The MemoryCoin Foundation is looking to incentivize and reward any and all projects that help the coin. What is it you'd like to write?

http://memorycoin.org/foundation/

I write about history, and alkaloids and all kinds of stuff.
I am also willing to share links and make YouTube videos or anything else.

I'll do anything bloggy.

[FreeTrade]

I am also willing to share links and make YouTube videos or anything else.

I'll do anything bloggy.

A video covering the three main MemoryCoin improvments could be very useful -
1. Rapid minting schedule
2. Foundation supported by grants in Block chain
3. CPU miners - for wide distribution.
http://memorycoin.org/manifesto/

You got any examples of videos you've made before? Happy to pay for it, but I want to make sure you're capable of quality work.

[FinShaggy]

I am also willing to share links and make YouTube videos or anything else.

I'll do anything bloggy.

A video covering the three main MemoryCoin improvments could be very useful -
1. Rapid minting schedule
2. Foundation supported by grants in Block chain
3. CPU miners - for wide distribution.
http://memorycoin.org/manifesto/

You got any examples of videos you've made before? Happy to pay for it, but I want to make sure you're capable of quality work.

Well, I don't yet have "quality" videos, but I do have a good audience (over 250,000 views on YT), and as I begin to earn money online I can get better and better, and I am willing to accept lower payment for early work.

If you want to see my videos, search "FinShaggy" on YouTube. If you search for me on Google, there's like 50+ pages. So if I get paid, I can make sure your coin gets some exposure. And I can eventually help with art, and make slideshows and everything.

[FreeTrade]

No matter what happens...
Just repeat the same bullshit over and over and over.