FairCryptocurrency Committee - FairLaunch Approval - Please Read

[hypostatization]

I believe you are correct. If you notice when these crapcoins first launch, all the new members shout "Good Coin" and "This should be good" before the dev has even launched the source code. All they care about is mining and dumping. In order for these scams to work, they depend on the uninformed public to believe them that the coin is good.

All you hear is "to da moon" and "don't sell cheap" and "this coin will do this trust me". Out right scams. All while they are just waiting for an exchange to pick up the coin so they can dump and move on. If we succeed in educating people about the scams and allowing good projects to really shine, these scams will go the way of the dodo bird.

no exchanges will pick them up, no miners will mine, no one will do google docs exchanges. The scammers and mine/dump folk will only trade amongst themselves and slowly even they will stop.  

How does this proposal in any way discourage the creation of crapcoins? All it does is set standards to legitimize them.

[StewartJ]

I believe you are correct. If you notice when these crapcoins first launch, all the new members shout "Good Coin" and "This should be good" before the dev has even launched the source code. All they care about is mining and dumping. In order for these scams to work, they depend on the uninformed public to believe them that the coin is good.

All you hear is "to da moon" and "don't sell cheap" and "this coin will do this trust me". Out right scams. All while they are just waiting for an exchange to pick up the coin so they can dump and move on. If we succeed in educating people about the scams and allowing good projects to really shine, these scams will go the way of the dodo bird.

no exchanges will pick them up, no miners will mine, no one will do google docs exchanges. The scammers and mine/dump folk will only trade amongst themselves and slowly even they will stop.  

How does this proposal in any way discourage the creation of crapcoins? All it does is set standards to legitimize them.

The idea in no way discourages the creation of crap coins, just helps everyone recognize them.

Loving the pushback...we've hit a nerve.

[hypostatization]

I believe you are correct. If you notice when these crapcoins first launch, all the new members shout "Good Coin" and "This should be good" before the dev has even launched the source code. All they care about is mining and dumping. In order for these scams to work, they depend on the uninformed public to believe them that the coin is good.

All you hear is "to da moon" and "don't sell cheap" and "this coin will do this trust me". Out right scams. All while they are just waiting for an exchange to pick up the coin so they can dump and move on. If we succeed in educating people about the scams and allowing good projects to really shine, these scams will go the way of the dodo bird.

no exchanges will pick them up, no miners will mine, no one will do google docs exchanges. The scammers and mine/dump folk will only trade amongst themselves and slowly even they will stop.  

How does this proposal in any way discourage the creation of crapcoins? All it does is set standards to legitimize them.

The idea in no way discourages the creation of crap coins, just helps everyone recognize them.

Loving the pushback...we've hit a nerve.

Crap coins can meet these standards, no?

How does this prevent someone copy/pasting search/replacing to create a coin---and then following whatever procedures FairCoin produces to be labelled 'fair'?

[StewartJ]

Working with Forum administrator to make this thread, or similar ....a Sticky thread.

[defaced]

A regulation committee is a great idea.

[StewartJ]

A regulation committee is a great idea.

More of an advisory committee, a seal of approval... not regulation!

[BitJock-e]

Crap coins can meet these standards, no?

How does this prevent someone copy/pasting search/replacing to create a coin---and then following whatever procedures FairCoin produces to be labelled 'fair'?

We are not looking to prevent anybody from starting a coin.

The purpose here is to let newbie0872, who just joined yesterday, know that there is a difference between litecoin and lollipopcoin.

[tokyoghetto]

Has anyone see the "altcoin" announcements section of this forum?. Thanks to the altcoin generation service and coins like DOGE, you now have:

shoecoin
leprocoin
oilcoin
crapcoin
cagecoin
monacoin
hexacoin
coinye
electric

plus many more, these are the ones I just saw on the first page! We can't force these coins to follow FairCoin guidelines but if the committee reviews these coins and provides the ones that qualify with an approval rating, it would make it easier for new comers to avoid the obvious scam coins.

We all know what a scamcoin constitutes of. Instamining, Premining with no ledger, Front loaded "early adopter" blocks and launching a coin with low diff. You can also include keyloggers/trojan wallet stealers, no source code, lack of compiled clients and mining pools at launch.

So the committee can set guidelines that they can *choose* to follow so that they gain more support from the public. Coin development is becoming saturated and more competitive. Serious coin developers would welcome a service like FairCoin in order to give them an edge over other developers.  

[hypostatization]

The purpose here is to let newbie0872, who just joined yesterday, know that there is a difference between litecoin and lollipopcoin.

Except nothing proposed accomplishes that. LollipopCoin creator can copy/paste search/replace LiteCoin code, and then meet just make sure he/she meets the following:

a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.

Criteria of the above are actually most easily met by quick copy/paste clones and pump/dump schemes, than by new dev efforts with limited resources.

It sounds like this is actually (inadvertently?) going to encourage copy/paste clones and the homogenization of alts:

1) develop source code that devs can copy and use to launch their own coins. the source can include several parameters set by the foundation that will insure a fair launch and longevity of the coin.

It does not solve the flood of crap alts.

It also potentially hinders innovative systems that differ in new fundamental ways.

[tokyoghetto]

The purpose here is to let newbie0872, who just joined yesterday, know that there is a difference between litecoin and lollipopcoin.

Except nothing proposed accomplishes that. LollipopCoin creator can copy/paste search/replace LiteCoin code, and then meet just make sure he/she meets the following:

a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.

Criteria of the above are actually most easily met by quick copy/paste clones and pump/dump schemes, than by new dev efforts with limited resources.

It sounds like this is actually (inadvertently?) going to encourage copy/paste clones and the homogenization of alts:

1) develop source code that devs can copy and use to launch their own coins. the source can include several parameters set by the foundation that will insure a fair launch and longevity of the coin.

It does not solve the flood of crap alts.

It also potentially hinders innovative systems that differ in new fundamental ways.

You are correct. We can scrap the source code idea in order to avoid homogenization of altcoins. Devs will be free to develop code with what ever parameters they chose to do.

However, when it comes to launch, devs know that by launching without source code, pools, or compiled clients, they just give themselves and insiders an edge when it comes to coin distribution. Giving such power over few individuals whose only intention is to sell the coins into BTC is dangerous. This creates a lack of confidence in a free market and puts a burden on the entire altcoin community as a whole.

[BitJock-e]

Except nothing proposed accomplishes that. LollipopCoin creator can copy/paste search/replace LiteCoin code, and then meet just make sure he/she meets the following:

We have not set any parameters or guidelines yet, its all being discussed right now.

Simply cut n pasting Litecoin does not make you legit.

If a new user with 3 posts starts up an altcoin "OMGAMAZINGCOIN - litecoin clone!!"
And then we see a rush of newly created users signing up saying

"Great coin!"

"Nice idea!

"I love it!

"This will do well!"

Yeah, guess what? This is not getting the stamp of approval.

Not that the dev will care, they can keep on with the charades, but they will not be getting the nod of approval from the committee.

[StewartJ]

The purpose here is to let newbie0872, who just joined yesterday, know that there is a difference between litecoin and lollipopcoin.

Except nothing proposed accomplishes that. LollipopCoin creator can copy/paste search/replace LiteCoin code, and then meet just make sure he/she meets the following:

a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.

Criteria of the above are actually most easily met by quick copy/paste clones and pump/dump schemes, than by new dev efforts with limited resources.

It sounds like this is actually (inadvertently?) going to encourage copy/paste clones and the homogenization of alts:

1) develop source code that devs can copy and use to launch their own coins. the source can include several parameters set by the foundation that will insure a fair launch and longevity of the coin.

It does not solve the flood of crap alts.

It also potentially hinders innovative systems that differ in new fundamental ways.

A seal of approval for a coin does not stop the creation of scam coins.

Its just to point out that some coins meet a standard that are safer, less risky to invest in

I can't see how a voluntary committee with absolutely no enforcement powers whatsoever could stop the next great innovation in alt currency.

We just want to call out the pump and dump scammers, is that too much to ask for?

[zackclark70]

g at the coin will know that its not just a pump and dump, instamine scam coin.

2) All new coins seeking a FairCoin Foundation Stamp of Approval must launch with the follow.

a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.

3) In order time maintain FairCoin status, all coins must have

a) a public ledger for premine bounties. All bounties must be established before launch so everyone knows who is getting what they are doing. This can be hosted on the coins official website or thread, and the FCF will maintain a copy of the ledger on the FCF website.

4) Hardforks should be in the best interest of the coin, and not be done to turn the coin into a scam coin. FCF will use its discr

not trying to be negative here but that could all be done for less than 1BTC all it will do is filter out the opportunist scamers

mabe the coin has to be backed by a long term forum member ( mabe over 6 months and no bad rep and active on the forums to stop the buying of accounts )

[tk808]

Hire me, i'll make you a pro site

Once we get an actual name down and secure the domain, we can discuss site design. Compensation would be through donations. I feel that people who wish to donate their time and energy into this project would like to see altcoins succeed and not just use altcoins as a way to become BTC/FIAT rich.

Not to get rich, i'm genuinely interested in creating a site and contributing to this project.

PM me, when your ready to take this to the next level.

[smolen]

2) All new coins seeking a FairCoin Foundation Stamp of Approval must launch with the follow.

a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.

My 2 cents:
- properly forked github repo, so the differences from the base coin could be easily audited
- working testnet

[AllAgesCoin]

Great idea!

But there is a coin named faircoin.

[tokyoghetto]

Great idea!

But there is a coin named faircoin.

faircoin is just a working title. We are still working on a proper name. any input would be welcomed.

[tokyoghetto]

2) All new coins seeking a FairCoin Foundation Stamp of Approval must launch with the follow.

a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.

My 2 cents:
- properly forked github repo, so the differences from the base coin could be easily audited
- working testnet

I agree. Another member mentioned this in an earlier post. Especially the fact that it should have a working testnet. Most copy and paste devs don't even know what the testnet is. The list of coins that are trading on exchanges without a testnet is a mile long.

[tokyoghetto]

ColbertCoin has asked if they can be the first coin to receive the approval and support of this committee. This is a great opportunity for us to develop  a first draft and see if it works on a real launch. I will review the points that members have brought up and create a master list of guidelines that the dev can follow to ensure a fair launch of the coin. Please feel free to bring up more reasonable criteria you would like to see in a coins creation and launch that would appeal to the community.

[jerrybusey]

It is important to me that the 'Fair Cryptocurrency Committee' or whatever it is eventually called, it should not strictly limit itself to simplistically judging whether a new issue follows particular rules.  I will explain why using a concrete example.

I've been working on an alt cryptocurrency, but with some major changes to the usual algorithms.  I'm concerned that some deliberate choices made for maximal fairness and for the long-term good of a cryptocurrency, with no intent of personal profit, could disqualify it  from being considered a 'fair coin'.  Note that these are not the only major changes made; merely those made specifically for the sake of fairness.  

Firstly, there will be little or no mining, meaning that maybe 10% of block awards or maybe no block awards at all will be available merely for having compute power.  All, or all the rest, will be distributed via proof-of-stake only.  For at least 90% of the blocks a smartphone with a permanent Internet connection should have as much chance of getting a block as a ten thousand dollar server.  

Secondly, if there is mining, it will not be anything that can be done with ASICs or GPUs.  This is because I believe in fairness.  These things are two or three orders of magnitude faster, for the money, than non-specialized equipment, and I do not want to support a specialized class of miners.  They tend to cause more problems than they are worth, especially when operating en masse, and it is both unfair and counterproductive in my estimation to exclude (by overwhelming) that fraction of the public that uses normal computers from mining.  Finally, miners who own specialized equipment are primarily those who are mining for profit only, and who can be expected to simply dump coins as fast as they mine them in order to buy Bitcoin.  They represent a drag on a coin's value, not an asset.

Thirdly, I object strongly to any pressure to allow mining pools, if mining is allowed at all.  Mining pools in my estimation represent an existential threat to cryptocurrencies; first in terms of centralization, second in terms of logistics by screwing horribly with the difficulty as they jump on and off and overwhelming the probably-small server infrastructure of a fledgling currency, and third in their propensity to attract miners who believe that no other cryptocurrency exists for any reason other than to dump it on the market in order to buy Bitcoin.  

Fourth, as is necessary with proof-of-stake, there will be a ridiculously large premine.  My intent is to distribute about a million units *WIDELY* (to at least a hundred thousand pubkeys) before even announcing.  People who check will mostly discover that they already own the corresponding privkey to at least one of them.  Some will own more than one; that is unfair, but can't be helped.  To the extent that addresses are held by those who do not participate, the coins that those nonparticipants could otherwise claim will (mostly) eventually be claimed on a random basis by those who do participate.  The initial blocks will be created with a script that permits more and more addresses to spend the coinage as time goes on;  each month, about ten percent of them will become spendable by an additional existing key, until the distribution is complete or until they have gone through seven keys each.  Those who participate will occasionally "inherit" a distribution award from those who do not.

During the first year about 30 thousand coins (that is, three percent of the existing million) will be created.  Thereafter each year will see three percent more coins created than the previous year.   So, 3 percent long term inflation after the initial distribution.  But absolutely no relevance to anything like a 'halving time' or 'ultimate total number of coins' criterion that a committee is likely to come up with.  This is specifically to avoid an initial phase of very high rewards, because that would attract pump'n'dumpers rather than people who simply want a currency to use.

Now, I believe that this outlines a plan for a very "fair" cryptocurrency.  In fact fairness is one of my *PRIMARY* intents in creating it.  But I also believe that because it works differently from the expected model, it is very unlikely to meet any set-in-stone criterion of "fairness" based on the usual set of expectations.  

Therefore I ask that whatever else you decide here the committee should remain free to exercise human judgement as to whether a new issue is fair, rather than merely interpreting narrow rules.

I think coins that are relying on a substantially unique code base should be treated somewhat differently than coins which are just copy/paste clones. Otherwise this organization would do more to stiffle innovation than help it. As far as the copy/paste scrypt and sha clones go though there really should be a compelling reason for creating another coin at all, in addition to the other requirements listed. The whole point of currency is to be at least a somewhat universal unit for trade.

That said, I do like the idea of a colbertcoin for publicity purposes IF the developer can get a Colbert endorsement (he started a super PAC so why not this?) AND if the developer has the skills to pull off a decent coin/launch. On the later point, I would hope the dev has enough familiarity with the code to not fork an existing coin with known bugs or other issues (which is a large portion of them).