Sharecoin - A blockchain with shareholders.

[Anonymous]

Create a bitcoin fork and sell shares in the ownership of it through glbse. The chain will be premined by the devs untill there is enough to pay out an amount of them to shareholders based on amount of shares held.

In this way anyone who wants to can be an early adopter and you wont need to fight gigantic pools for the scraps as soon as the chain starts.

You can then buy and sell your shares before you have the coins themselves. This contract would be included in the genesis block along with a timestamp with proof of the date of genesis.

 No fake japanese guys or getting pwned by a massive pool. The only thing left is figuring out the design of the chain.

[1715126027]

1715126027

[1715126027]

1715126027

[1715126027]

1715126027

[1715126027]

1715126027

[Binford 6100]

i'm in for the mental exercise.
how do you imagine the coins would be distributed initially?
do you think about including a difficulty / mining reward correlation to solve 'early adopters' problem?
i like bitcoin very much and am willing to look at forks and clones. so far all of them have the easy early mining problem that i like to solve or watch being solved.

[markm]

This can be quite simple really.

Create a blockchain with 21 million (to keep it simple and familiar) coins already mined.

Sell all 21 million coins in one "must sell them all" auction.

Each coin is 1/21000000 share of the burden and pleasure of ensuring they actually have and retain value.

Or leave out the auction. Find the cost of creating the chain. Let us suppose for example we can have them built for a nice round 21 Bitcoins.

Everyone who wants such a chain simply buys one.

Those who cannot afford the full 21 Bitcoin price can divvy up their 21 million coins based on how much of the 21 Bitcoins each of the sharers or the cost paid.

This way we can have many blockchains, some of them shared some of them completely owned, every coin, by one person or entity.

Then each chain's decision-makers can choose their own means of distributing the coins.

Some of them might choose to buy coins of other blockchains using coins of their blockchain if they feel the price is right.

The games is basically to cause your coins to be perceived as having value.

If all the nations of the world buy each others' currencies, does that help make all those currencies seem to have some value?

How is the relative value of different nations' currencies determined? Supposedly that is what markets are for. We would need markets of all currencies against all other currencies. We might want some variability in order to attract speculators who will try to profit from the variations in relative price. On the other hand we might want some that are relatively stable compared to each other to attract businesses that like currency to be relatively stable. So ideally we provide a whole gamut of variation and stability in order to attract a whole spectrum, from those who like extreme instability to those who like extreme stability.

For the latter, we could look at Bitnickels and wonder which currency it should be that they ought, by-and-large, be worth 1/20th as much as.

Are they Martian Botnickels, 1/20 of a Martian Botcoin each? Or Britnickels, worth 1/20 of a Britcoin each? Or Canadian Digital Nickels, worth 1/20 of a Canadian Digital Note each?

Hmm, maybe we can look at fundamentals. There are 21 million Martian BotCoins, 21 million United Kingdom Britcoins, 21 million Canadian Digital Notes, and 420 million Bitnickels. Aha! Maybe a Bitnickel ought by and large be 1/20 of any of those other three types of coin?

But wait! What if Martian BotCoins trade at much higher price (value?) than CDN or UKB? Which should the value of a Bitnickel follow, if any?

See how fascinating a game this can be? How much does the warp speed and cargo capacity of Martian starships relative to whether Brits or Canadians even have starships and if so the capabilities of such starships as they do have affect the relative value of the currencies?

If you have no Martian BotCoins but the Brits and Canadians do, and they use them to buy Martian technology for resale to you at prices denominated in Britcoins or Canadian Digital Notes will arbitrage make sure that the price of Martian BotCoins balances the markups the Brits or Canadians make in re-selling Martian technology?

I am looking forward to finding out. There are 21 million General Mining Corp coins and 21 million General Retirement Funds coins, how many would you like to buy? How many Martian Botcoins are you willing to pay for them? How many Britcoins are you willing to pay for them? How many Canadian Digital Notes are you willing to pay for them?

Will GMC and GRF start charging more Britcoins per coin for their coins once they have as large a reserve of Britcoins as they feel they need? Will they start charging more Canadian Digital Notes per coin for their coins once they have as many Canadian Digital Notes as they feel they need? If Britcoins start trading at higher prices compared to various "baskets" of other currences might GMC and/or RF re-evaluate how many Britcoins they would like to have in their reserves? Or will they, on the sontrary, dump some of their reserves due to basing their estimation of how many they want or need on apparent "value" instead of simply the number of coins or the percentage of the total number of coins?

Currency is such a fun game! Bring it on!

-MarkM-

[Binford 6100]

aaaah, i missed completely the option to put all coins ever to be mined into the genesis block
and exchange them for shares

this could keep the difficulty forever at 1 because mining would happen only when someone would want to spend such coin
would start a miner to broadcast the transaction with that transaction (or a handfull of miners would be online 24/7 to keep blocks comming)
but no difficulty race. a peacefull quiet currency, p2p but issued at the beginning. why would someone try to take over 51% of hashing power if there would be no binary coins as reward?

[Nefario]

why would someone try to take over 51% of hashing power if there would be no binary coins as reward?

To be able to reject the transactions they dont agree with.

I suggest a name for the project, nomicoin, with the domain nomico.in which is currently under BitcoinGlobal control and we'll happily give, if anyone is interested in it.

Nefario.

[Anonymous]

aaaah, i missed completely the option to put all coins ever to be mined into the genesis block
and exchange them for shares

this could keep the difficulty forever at 1 because mining would happen only when someone would want to spend such coin
would start a miner to broadcast the transaction with that transaction (or a handfull of miners would be online 24/7 to keep blocks comming)
but no difficulty race. a peacefull quiet currency, p2p but issued at the beginning. why would someone try to take over 51% of hashing power if there would be no binary coins as reward?

Yes it would be like a company doing an ipo with 21 million shares and simply trading them. Or however many shares they decided.

[Anonymous]

why would someone try to take over 51% of hashing power if there would be no binary coins as reward?

To be able to reject the transactions they dont agree with.

I suggest a name for the project, nomicoin, with the domain nomico.in which is currently under BitcoinGlobal control and we'll happily give, if anyone is interested in it.

Nefario.

 Cryptonomicon > Cryptonomicoin > nomico.in

Its way better than share certificates.

[Binford 6100]

why would someone try to take over 51% of hashing power if there would be no binary coins as reward?

To be able to reject the transactions they dont agree with.

I suggest a name for the project, nomicoin, with the domain nomico.in which is currently under BitcoinGlobal control and we'll happily give, if anyone is interested in it.

Nefario.

i'm familiar with this type of attack but just can't see it's value for attacker.
i agree that this would disrupt the currency from working (mining blocks with 0 transactions) but don't know why someone would do that.
It'll be probably the shareholders dilema, to add or not to add hashing power to the network.
but since the shareholders would be known or at least the share ownership would be not empty, there would be people taking care of that.

maybe by adding a rule that to mine a block, it must include a non-empty transaction, thus leaving bystanding watchers out of the spoil-the-currency game. and if miners would like to disrupt the network, since the minig difficulty would be 1, any legit coin owner could publish his block with spending transaction. no big deal. subtle paradigm shift

[VPoro]

Create a bitcoin fork and sell shares in the ownership of it through glbse. The chain will be premined by the devs untill there is enough to pay out an amount of them to shareholders based on amount of shares held.

In this way anyone who wants to can be an early adopter and you wont need to fight gigantic pools for the scraps as soon as the chain starts.

You can then buy and sell your shares before you have the coins themselves. This contract would be included in the genesis block along with a timestamp with proof of the date of genesis.

 No fake japanese guys or getting pwned by a massive pool. The only thing left is figuring out the design of the chain.

AKA create money for the person who created the fork from thin air? Why would people swap from the "early adopters" in bitcoin to this nomicoin with the same issue -- one person or few persons getting most of the profit by selling the shares for the coins? As is, bitcoin is 'fair' enough, anyone who is willing to sacrifice some computing power (i.e. electric bill) gets some coins as a reward. This proposed scheme is just to get fiat currency from people, which fights against the idea of having an ecurrency like bitcoin. The received coins in this 'nomicoin' are as valuable as 'bitpaper' I can conjure with a pen and a paper for you, just 10$ each, any takers? :p

[Anonymous]

Create a bitcoin fork and sell shares in the ownership of it through glbse. The chain will be premined by the devs untill there is enough to pay out an amount of them to shareholders based on amount of shares held.

In this way anyone who wants to can be an early adopter and you wont need to fight gigantic pools for the scraps as soon as the chain starts.

You can then buy and sell your shares before you have the coins themselves. This contract would be included in the genesis block along with a timestamp with proof of the date of genesis.

 No fake japanese guys or getting pwned by a massive pool. The only thing left is figuring out the design of the chain.

AKA create money for the person who created the fork from thin air? Why would people swap from the "early adopters" in bitcoin to this nomicoin with the same issue -- one person or few persons getting most of the profit by selling the shares for the coins? As is, bitcoin is 'fair' enough, anyone who is willing to sacrifice some computing power (i.e. electric bill) gets some coins as a reward. This proposed scheme is just to get fiat currency from people, which fights against the idea of having an ecurrency like bitcoin. The received coins in this 'nomicoin' are as valuable as 'bitpaper' I can conjure with a pen and a paper for you, just 10$ each, any takers? :p

Its got nothing to do with fiat.

Instead of one person holding all the early coins you spread the risk and reward.

[VPoro]

Its got nothing to do with fiat.

Instead of one person holding all the early coins you spread the risk and reward.

Who will be the one who people would buy the shares from in GLBSE? What currency would they use to buy the shares? Wouldn't this person/instance selling the shares just be generating money out of thin air for him/her/itself, without any risk?

[markm]

GLBSE is an un-necessary complexity since the coins themselves can be traded directly person to person without need for a "stock exchange".

A simple coin-exchange like bitparking uses, for each currency people might choose to buy the coins with, should suffice.

There is no need for votes and so on, that too can simply be distributed decision-making, andone can do stuff they think might increase the value of the coin, if it does increase the value all holders benefit, if it lowers the value oops too bad.

As for who gets paid for the initial shares, it is going to cost *something* to have a block chain created, however much some programmer is paid to create the initial app(s) is the initial cost of the IPO.

For example the Martians paid the Hackers an undisclosed amount of the Hacker currency (Bitcoin) plus the initial fifty Martian Botcoins. The Brits, Canadians, whoever is behind Bitnickels (the Martians again, maybe? Hackers themselves, maybe? No one seems sure which nation is behind those a lot of nations seem to exchange with them though) and so on also each gave an initial 50 coins in their gernesis block to the Hackers.

If you can get someone to put in the hours creating your initial coins for you free, fine, you have an IPO at cost of zero. Hmm at that price might as well give everyone as many blockchains of their own as they can fit on their machines...

-MarkM-

[Anonymous]

GLBSE is an un-necessary complexity since the coins themselves can be traded directly person to person without need for a "stock exchange".

A simple coin-exchange like bitparking uses, for each currency people might choose to buy the coins with, should suffice.

There is no need for votes and so on, that too can simply be distributed decision-making, andone can do stuff they think might increase the value of the coin, if it does increase the value all holders benefit, if it lowers the value oops too bad.

As for who gets paid for the initial shares, it is going to cost *something* to have a block chain created, however much some programmer is paid to create the initial app(s) is the initial cost of the IPO.

For example the Martians paid the Hackers an undisclosed amount of the Hacker currency (Bitcoin) plus the initial fifty Martian Botcoins. The Brits, Canadians, whoever is behind Bitnickels (the Martians again, maybe? Hackers themselves, maybe? No one seems sure which nation is behind those a lot of nations seem to exchange with them though) and so on also each gave an initial 50 coins in their gernesis block to the Hackers.

If you can get someone to put in the hours creating your initial coins for you free, fine, you have an IPO at cost of zero. Hmm at that price might as well give everyone as many blockchains of their own as they can fit on their machines...

-MarkM-

I used glbse as an example but you are right about not needing it, however it makes it easier for people to trade while the chain is being established and you need a way to distribute the coins based on proof of ownership. The contract will be in the genesis block so all you have to do is look at that.

And the price of shares relies on the cost to establish the initial coins as there is some cost to do that. This isnt a communist block chain.

Exactly what I predicted has happened with i0coin where pools are the only ones able to get coins- they can simply refuse to accept any other coins as they own the block chain. Too bad if someone buys coins and then the pools fork the chain at will and people lose their money.

Its not fair for one person to mine all the first coins and its not fair that pools do either, remember that they are owned by 1 person.

[Anonymous]

Might I add doing an ipo means having the funding to actually fix some of the issues with bitcoin and have it compatible, for instance being able to mine both bitcoin and sharecoin/nomicoin at the same time.

You could say the capital raised creates bitcoin 2.0 with many issues fixed.

[Binford 6100]

what would be the implication of trading shares? change of ownership of the blockchain would not impact ownership of the coins.
would not shared mining produce too many blocks until the difficulty reaches the one of bitcoin? if only 1/4 of all bitcoin miners would share their hash power to crunch newcoin hashes, they would produce a block every few secons all the way from difficulty 1 to 1/4 of bitcoin's difficulty.
they would hit the target for newcoin hash very frequently just by design.
i hope i'm wrong on this but it would cause high number of blocks in the few hours. to fix that i think of:
- remove limits for difficulty adjustment factor if there are any. if it should jump from 1 to 100000, let it
- allow dificulty adjustment every 128 blocks
- increase new coin maturity to over 1024 blocks or even over 5000 (who needs to spend coins in first months, can trade shares)

i will elaborate a bit on this how it might be used as escrow coin
optionally backed with btc (share purchase/trade), maturity in far future - not spendable within hours of mining
or change the curve of new coins per block from 50-25-12.0 to something 0-0-0-0.1-0.2-0.5-1-1-2-3-5-8-5-5-3-2-1-0.5
the monetary policy can be fundamentally different from that of bitcoin. could solve the run for new coins while the mining is unreasonably easy and ultra profitable. as long the new coin is hitchhiking bitcoin mining network it should be only moderately rewarded (maybe in shares instead of coins - not fixing the reward in coined currency).

and the most important question - who needs new coins when there is bitcoin?
namecoin adds dns like feature
blowjob coin adds human touch
shitcoin adds humor (see bitcoin.org.uk forum for definition) and includes every bitcoin clone that adds nothing to features/design.

i like the idea of a share company to support new crypto currency's start. but to call it evolutive, it should be distinguishable by a revolutionary new attribute, p.ex. difficulty target could be broadcasted via tor.stimetamp every hour or so, to prevent difficulty limbo - p.ex. when 90% of all miners quit, it could take months to find next block. if no new block is found for a long time, lowering the bar could 'force' miners to disclose blocks to the network and after 2-3-5 new blocks are found, the situation would get back to normal. eventual lost transactions from abandoned branches and potential double spending losses could be claimed from shares of the owners as a last resort insurance. reference tor.servers list could be shared and updated via blockchain. but back to the most important question - who needs new coins when there is bitcoin?