FairCryptocurrency Committee - FairLaunch Approval - Please Read

[kalus]

I think this is how the FDA was created - and we all know how well that has come along 

So altcoins are just a bunch of snake oil? 

this is a more apt analogy than i first thought. 

[kelsey]

i believe your are trying to help people, and i can respect that, but it seem like you are trying to setup a crypto police,   the digital currency world is made of Crypto Anarchists, which rejects controls. a system like that is everything cryptos is against.



may i suggest you just start your own newsletter to inform instead of making a foundation.  just my opinion.


j

Well there already is crypto police on this forum, we'd all agree on the idealist stance if it wasn't for reality. Monies involved, so no policing here and every second download would be a wallet stealer.

My committee idea is not policing anyways, copy/paste 100% premines could still be pumped out to would be dev's heart content.
And again its not about protecting individuals from their own stupid mistakes, its about the survival of legit alts, and not being flooded and diluted with all these scamcoins.

and those anarchists are a minority in the crypto community now the get rich quick types have moved in.

[kelsey]

strength in numbers, if the numbers are wrong they wont make it to the exchange and will die out naturally I believe.

lol so you're saying no scamcoins have made it too exchanges? non with hiddden premines? pump n dump dev's? ....yeah sure 

[BitJock-e]

I am completely in agreement with this idea!

I would like to volunteer Colbertcoin to be the first, or one of the first alts to be developed under the newly created Faircoin Foundation guidelines.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=398018

Lets get in touch this weekend.

[Protato]

Please! Establish a group / thread which can analyze / review new alt coins
Any alt coins released without the unique ID# issued by the review board should be mined with caution.

We really need to distinguish the shitcoins from the ones that devs are actually working and putting their effort into!

DONT MINE COINS THAT ARE MEANT TO BE PUMP & DUMP!
all it does it devalue the economy and cause promising alt coins to stay under the radar!!


PLEASE QUOTE AND BUMP THIS IF YOU AGREE!

[zackclark70]

tokyoghetto about to send you a pm interesting concept

[kelsey]

also like to add I am totally in disagreement with the term 'foundation' (cause it wouldn't be one) or 'watchdog' (its not a policing etc) for this committee.

[tokyoghetto]

So should we just refer to it as the FairCoin Committee?

we can also refer to it as FairCoin Association, Union, Trust, Council, Commission, Group, or Board.

[tokyoghetto]

I am completely in agreement with this idea!

I would like to volunteer Colbertcoin to be the first, or one of the first alts to be developed under the newly created Faircoin Foundation guidelines.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=398018

Lets get in touch this weekend.

It may be sometime before we get the first draft of guidelines established. I hope that you can be patient.

[BitJock-e]

So should we just refer to it as the FairCoin Committee?

FairCoin Commission also sounds good, but I should warn that the acronym is already in use.

[tokyoghetto]

So in order to help establish the first draft of guidelines, we should perhaps breakdown the cycle of an altcoin and what parameters should be followed.

Please feel free to copy and edit the following, as much input is required so we can get the first draft and vote on it.

This is what I would personally like to see, its not set in stone and is subject to change. Remember that everyone in the community has a say in this, we are trying to ensure our survival and fight back against the scumbag scamcoins that are sucking the life out of this place.

The first cycle is the code of the coin. Now we shouldn't care about the algorithm that will be used, but there are some things that should be looked at more closely to make sure that the dev isn't just trying to scam people by running a premine/instamine pump and dump.

In this age of mining, with so much hashing power available, there is NO reason why coins should be launched with such low diffs. So devs can do one of two things. They can either:

A) have a coin with low diff, but with no block rewards, low block rewards or a sliding scale of increasing block rewards until say "X" number of blocks are mined. After "X" is crossed than full block rewards are given. This is how Stablecoin was launched and it was very successful. By the time we hit full block rewards we had stable pools running and all miners were in full force hashing away.

or

B) start the coin with full block rewards and a high diff.

These two things prevents instamining by devs and insiders, plus takes away the advantage that solo miners have over pool miners.

The second cycle is the Pre-Launch. This is when a dev gets ready to launch the coin. If the dev would like FairCoin stamp of approval, the dev will need to ensure the following is in place BEFORE launching the coin:

1) Official [ANN] thread, which should include as much information about the coin as possible.
2) Information on how to solomine the coin. .conf file settings with ports
3) At least 1 pool, with pre-registration so that miners can get workers set up. The more pools the better.
4) Compiled windows and linux wallets. If devs are expected to code and fix coins, they should know how to compile wallets.
5) source code, so that we may scan and verify that it doesn't contain any trojans, keyloggers.

Premine:

If there is a premine, the dev should list the amount, and how the premine will be spent before hand. It seems like devs like to pull a percentage out of thin air, but never say how the premine will be spent. We don't expect to have the entire premine accounted for bounties and giveaways, but a portion of it should be allotted to things like block explorers, logos, giveaways, android wallets, pools, exchanges etc etc. Dev can keep some of the premine as compensation for setting up official websites, pools and for working on the coin. Some devs aren't miners and barely get donations so even good devs walk away from projects when its no longer economically viable for them.

I propose that a % cap limit should be established for premines. Say for example 3%. A portion of that should be put up for bounties and giveaways and the rest is up to the devs discretion. Some devs may need to use the premine to help pay with coding and getting stuff fixed. Some devs may decide to keep the rest of the premine for themselves.

a) a public ledger should be maintained by the dev team
b) failure to do so results in the coin losing its FairCoin status.

So whats in it for the devs/coins being launched using FairCoin guidelines?

Once a coin has FairCoin status, the dev can expect full support from FairCoin. The approval of FairCoin will ensure anyone involved in the devs project trusts the project to be legit and not a scam. In the future we can explore launching an actual FairCoin...umm...coin and use it as a source of funding to help other coins with FairCoin status. This can include compensating devs, promoting the coins to exchanges and the media, perhaps even starting our own exchange were only coins with FairCoin status will be traded.

[zackclark70]

this is the biggest issue right now there will be hundreds of altcoins made in the next few days > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=396991.0

[tokyoghetto]

What about coins launched before FairCoin is established?

Any coins launched before these guidelines are finalized and available to those wishing to follow them will not be looked at. Any coins launched after FairCoin will only get FairCoin status at the request of the dev or the community. Other than that everyone is free to launch coins with whatever parameters they feel like, however we hope that serious devs will use FairCoin as a way to show the community that their coin is the one to be  supported.

[Protato]

+1

[jerrybusey]

I think ultimately the market will be the arbiter of this. Look at how out of the dozen or more coins to launch over the past couple weeks only a handful have made it to exchanges and only a couple of them have retained any value at all. The coins launched in the past few days are generating almost no interest from investors. Even the most enthusiastic investors seem to be learning to not put money into every piece of shit that comes along. This is good since it's the only way to solve this problem. As long as there is demand for something there will be supply no matter what you try to do. If we get to a state where people are only creating random shit coins for fun with zero expectation of profit, then we'll be in a better place.

If you do decide to start something like this, one suggestion I have is that Github repositories should be started as forks off of whatever coin they're copying. It's so much quicker to evaluate code if I can see exactly the changes that went into it --as well as which code base from which it was derived-- in the easiest way possible. It also makes it much easier to track down bugs that have popped up in certain families of alts. This should be mandatory as far as I'm concerned.

One other idea that I've suggested in a few coins' announcement threads half trolling is to make make transaction records for all premined coins public. It's trivial to export the csv of transactions from the wallet to which coins were premined. This could then be posted on the coin website with references to where all the transactions went. Links to giveaway threads or bounties paid (make sure bounty recipients have posted their addresses publicly) would be sufficient documentation for most purposes. Of course there's little to stop a dev from reneging on promises of transparency but it would make it harder to dump if everyone knew what was happening.

[tokyoghetto]

this is the biggest issue right now there will be hundreds of altcoins made in the next few days > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=396991.0

My guess is that all those coins will launch with a ridiculously low diff, which means instamine. Since FairCoin discourages instamining, because it puts a large portion of coins into the hands of few people, these coins most likely wouldn't get approval. If we can educate people on the importance as to why instamining is harmful to a coins economics, they will avoid all these coins like a plague.

[mallocdotc]

I love this idea, but with so many shitcoins already on the market and so many shitcoins being created all the time, there have to be other criterium.

I think a huge obstacle is going to be getting an exchange on board. Cryptsy and CoinedUp keep adding new shitcoins. BTC-e hasn't added any new coins in some time. While a huge obstacle to tackle, any foundation is going to have to either a) promote an exchange that uses ONLY FairCoin approved coins; or b) create an exchange that ONLY adds approved coins.

Additionally, peer-review is going to be required. Transparency is essential for this to work. What are you going to do to guarantee this?

[kelsey]

I think a crypto should be in the market for some period before it receives an endorsement;
otherwise a dev could premine 3% say its for bounties, giveaways etc, keep a ledger for 1% list on an exchange personally dump 2% and go "so long suckers" (with the committees endorsement to get a higher value).

[kelsey]

So should we just refer to it as the FairCoin Committee?

we can also refer to it as FairCoin Association, Union, Trust, Council, Commission, Group, or Board.

FairCrypto, FairCurrency, FairCryptocurrency as not all cryptos are coins, but yeah committee or similar.

[kelsey]

I love this idea, but with so many shitcoins already on the market and so many shitcoins being created all the time, there have to be other criterium.

I think a huge obstacle is going to be getting an exchange on board. Cryptsy and CoinedUp keep adding new shitcoins. BTC-e hasn't added any new coins in some time. While a huge obstacle to tackle, any foundation is going to have to either a) promote an exchange that uses ONLY FairCoin approved coins; or b) create an exchange that ONLY adds approved coins.

Additionally, peer-review is going to be required. Transparency is essential for this to work. What are you going to do to guarantee this?

Yes exchanges add any crap attitude is part of the reason a separate (non benefiting) committee is needed.