FairCryptocurrency Committee - FairLaunch Approval - Please Read

[singula]

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

May not be so easy to properly fork if borrowing several features from several coins, though if there is some base, then it should be obvious from which revision of what it is the fork.
It would be always nice to have something better that git repo with single commit "First released coin version".

- working testnet

How many alt coins have currently a working testnet?

[tokyoghetto]

here is a shortlist of coins with/without testnets.

altcoin testnets? Wasteland of failed assertions
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=271176.0

Chances are that any coins released within the last 1 month, including those from the altcoin creation service, will not have testnets. Its a big problem because it means that the dev didn't test the code and may lack the skills to fix the coin if it ever becomes broken. Most scamcoin devs only want the coin to work long enough for it to get listed on a exchange so that they can dump. If that is the true intention of the dev, most likely they will not bother with testnet.

[dreamwatcher]

I have been struggling with how I should eventually decide which coins will make it on CCE. The CCE3 project is an ongoing effort to create an explorer that takes up less resources and giving CCE the ability to host more coins.
At first the goal was to be able to handle the vast majority of coins, but the more I think about it, that my not be possible from a human resource standpoint. If CCE has 150+ coins, without developer interaction, there would be no reasonable way for me to keep up with client updates/forks etc. Lets just say developer interaction with just the coins now hosted on CCE has been less then needed.

I have been trying to think of a criteria for adding coins to CCE. I used to get requests to add coins before the Spring rush because CCE gave coins some measure of legitimacy, perhaps it is time to go back to that before CCE3 is finished.
Perhaps a committee like this could play a part in which coins get onto CCE. Maybe a requirement to notify all services directly of mandatory updates, and developer monitoring of services to let services know when something related to their coin(s) has gone awry.

Perhaps it is a blessing in disguise that my work on developing the SCI-FI coins has pushed back the final development of CCE3.

Just a thought.....

[hypostatization]

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.

I agree. I love the intent... but this does not discourage crap coins---and may stifle innovation, as you have said. It seems that this is (inadvertantly) more about concerns for the long term mining integrity of Bitcoin directive descendants than about supporting innovation.

Mining, as we know it today, may not be the future.

As a counter-proposal I would like to suggest: create an alt-coin matrix.

Use the momentum behind this idea to create a site that details specific objective criteria, such as source code availability/location, main site, lead developers, launch date, whether or not the coin is mined, initial coin count, expected coin count, re-launch history, fork history, supported exchanges, etc...
 
WikiMatrix does something like this for wiki engines: http://www.wikimatrix.org/

I would love to see that for alts.

[gitm]

While I support free market, I do have to agree that it is getting out of hand.

Maybe instead there should just be higher standards on these forums.  The forums have been around a long time are considered to be the staple-point of the bitcoin community.  I think that in order to have your "new" coin posted here, it should meet certain guidelines and then and only then can it be posted here.

These forums are spinning out of control, and frankly it is looking even worse with all these "reserved" posts.  Now whether they are there to sell to someone at a later point, or whether it is to help peoples post count, I don't know but they need to be cleaned up.

Just my 2 cents.

[tokyoghetto]

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.

I agree. I love the intent... but this does not discourage crap coins---and may stifle innovation, as you have said. It seems that this is (inadvertantly) more about concerns for the long term mining integrity of Bitcoin directive descendants than about supporting innovation.

Mining, as we know it today, may not be the future.

As a counter-proposal I would like to suggest: create an alt-coin matrix.

Use the momentum behind this idea to create a site that details specific objective criteria, such as source code availability/location, main site, lead developers, launch date, whether or not the coin is mined, initial coin count, expected coin count, re-launch history, fork history, supported exchanges, etc...
 
WikiMatrix does something like this for wiki engines: http://www.wikimatrix.org/

I would love to see that for alts.

Excellent proposal. We can also develop a grading system based on certain criteria available before, during and after launch. A score out of 100 based on things like source code availability, compiled clients, supported exchanges, forking history, testnet etc etc.

That way people can have a better place to compare and make wiser decisions on what coins to support. We can also include "FairLaunch" as an option for any new coins. If devs would like, for a small donation we can have committee members review their coins before, during and after launch and if a fair launch is accomplished, they get an approval rating. This way anyone late to the coin knows that coin isn't just a pump and dump scam.

This would also include coins with innovative designs like 100% Premined PoS coins that are meant for fair distribution and purchase, closed source coins, or coins with new and unique algorithms  that have yet to be developed.

[dreamwatcher]

here is a shortlist of coins with/without testnets.

altcoin testnets? Wasteland of failed assertions
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=271176.0

Chances are that any coins released within the last 1 month, including those from the altcoin creation service, will not have testnets. Its a big problem because it means that the dev didn't test the code and may lack the skills to fix the coin if it ever becomes broken. Most scamcoin devs only want the coin to work long enough for it to get listed on a exchange so that they can dump. If that is the true intention of the dev, most likely they will not bother with testnet.

Not necessarily. For example with the Darsek relaunch I had a few public test nets and even more private test nets. Just because a public test net is not available, does not mean the developer did not use private test nets. In many ways it makes more sense because with a public test net , every time there is a  change something that effects the block chain you need to reset the test net. With a public test net, that means getting everybody helping with the test net on board every time a major change occurs. This can slow things down. Once a coin is released, a test net is really just a couple of public nodes set with the test net switch on, not really a big feat or any sign of developer competence.
I rarely find myself using a public test net, as setting up a private test net is much more efficient in terms of testing code as a public test net requires others to also be testing your code.
Public test nets do have there place in development, but not to the extent being suggested.

Just my experience

[hypostatization]

Excellent proposal. We can also develop a grading system based on certain criteria available before, during and after launch. A score out of 100 based on things like source code availability, compiled clients, supported exchanges, forking history, testnet etc etc.

That way people can have a better place to compare and make wiser decisions on what coins to support. We can also include "FairLaunch" as an option for any new coins. If devs would like, for a small donation we can have committee members review their coins before, during and after launch and if a fair launch is accomplished, they get an approval rating. This way anyone late to the coin knows that coin isn't just a pump and dump scam.

This would also include coins with innovative designs like 100% Premined PoS coins that are meant for fair distribution and purchase, closed source coins, or coins with new and unique algorithms  that have yet to be developed.

I would like to recommend the foundation consider a wiki system, in order to quickly produce an immediately useful resource.

Lock down editing of the home page, and use that to present the matrix information.

Link from the home page to sub-pages for individual coins and global concepts (PoW, PoS, PoB, etc...). Create a required template of information for all individual coins (covering the criteria you with to present on the main page).

Neutral point of view should be the content policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Moderation overhead will be heavy, but directly proportionate the challenge of the Foundation itself. Elected foundation members can serve as content moderators. I would donate to see this get off the ground.

[BitJock-e]

That said, I do like the idea of a colbertcoin for publicity purposes IF the developer can get a Colbert endorsement

Exactly right.

In efforts to set a good example, we are not simply grabbing the Colbert name and slapping it on a coin. We have reached out to the producers and will bring them in on this.

If they say no, then its off.

If they want to proceed with this experiment, then its full steam ahead.

I will need the assistance of good devs, so if any of you have some experience or have contacts, send them through.

[Stalratos]

I am strongly sympathetic to the hardcore cryptocurrency anarchists who are involved in the decentralization of the world's currency systems.  This makes me hesitant to support an approval system such as the one outlined.

On the other hand, the proliferation of worthless coins is definitely a problem, and one that should be addressed.  I feel that in order for alt coins to be successful as a long-term challenge to the fiat currencies, they must gain wide mainstream acceptance.  The crapcoins released almost daily seem to me to be counterproductive in this regard, and are making all alternative currencies look more risky and more scam-like to the general population of consumers and investors, simply because most people (outside this community) don't understand the difference between BTC and DGC, and [insert today's CRAP coin name here].  Getting new coins to a state of "safety" and/or "fairness" would help expand the community of coin users and enhance the legitimacy of not necessarily any one group of coins, but to the concept of alternative currencies generally. 

A Fair Crypto Foundation may be a step in this direction if it leads to more stable coins with long-term growth potential, without enforcement powers against new coins and without limiting new currencies to a set template of what an "approved" coin should look like.  Crap coins will still be released, and perhaps some good coins may come about without official approval, but this system may bring in some valuable investment that the community needs to flourish.  And in the end, the free market will still decide which currencies fail and which survive.   

[Protato]

ehhh, I suggested the stamp of approval idea a few days ago in another thread =P
great to see something is done to stop all these copy/scam coins ruining the economy!

[jerrybusey]

ehhh, I suggested the stamp of approval idea a few days ago in another thread =P
great to see something is done to stop all these copy/scam coins ruining the economy!

The more I think about this idea the more I like it but I still don't think it will do much on its own to slow down the rate of scam creation. Even if all it does is send a message to outsiders looking in that there are people trying to keep things clean and above board I think it can be helpful to alt community legitimacy in the long run. Image matters.

Also I don't think this is all that conflicting with the crypto-anarchist position since it's a purely voluntary thing. I just hope it doesn't turn into the American Heart Association where any food processor can get a heart healthy label on its junk food in exchange for a healthy donation. I also hope it doesn't end up overly rigid or ideological. That would be the quickest path to irrelevance.

[lamontweaver]

Let the market sort it out. Be patient. Decentralized systems are selforganizing ,but messy, regulators, rule-makers, and organizers are old school. That's what I want to get away from. If you need that just stick to the dollar.