Appeal to the community for the development of MC2 and related technologies

[JessicaMILFson]

I prefer the crowd funding rubric with a factor of 10 less than what it already is. Given the total amount of coins after year 1, 2...etc, I feel that 40 million would be too much.

I'm happy with 0.108 cents each. What about the others?

[1713914070]

1713914070

[1713914070]

1713914070

[1713914070]

1713914070

[_ingsoc]

I prefer the crowd funding rubric with a factor of 10 less than what it already is. Given the total amount of coins after year 1, 2...etc, I feel that 40 million would be too much.

I'm happy with a factor of 10 less or the way it is now. Ultimately the tech should represent the value of the cryptocurrency, but before that can happen, we can only look at what we already know about other cryptocurrencies. On a very primitive level, it looks like people like a lot of supply because it's easy to throw around for plenty of reasons, whereas less supply equates higher value (as we can only assume a market would determine through supply/demand). This is a tough balance.

Would love to see what the arguments are for and against a factor of 10, because obviously there are also psychological factors to consider as opposed to strictly economic rationale.

I'm happy with 0.108 cents each. What about the others?

Even at 0.18/coin, it's reasonable considering at that point tacotime and the devs would have produced quite a bit of tech to show they're good for it. 0.10/coin feels reasonable for the amount of risk early adopters carry because there is nothing to show for it yet, aside from (1) reputation of the developer and (2) the ideas themselves. If (1) and (2) check out and people feel what's being asked for to pay the developer to do the work is reasonable, then that balances against the risk they're asked to undertake (of course, that's not for everyone). So I think the model reflects that really well.

[_ingsoc]

I still would like to translate the whitepaper into Dutch. Tacotime mentioned I should ask ingsoc_ for the file, so I figured I'd ask here now that I think about it. Has the paper been finalized yet?

I can send you the 0.5 version, aside from the changes tacotime wants to make. At this point we don't have any money to pay for translations, so I should get that out in the open. I'll take care of setting up the forums, doing all the community stuff, and all the things that would otherwise take time away from development so tacotime and whoever else comes along for dev can focus solely on that.

I should also mention that I won't take any funds for myself to set this stuff up and maintain it. It's purely voluntary because I think we need to make the funds last as long as possible to produce the best tech/$. That sits well with me. This is also why tacotime will start at the bottom of the field in terms of salary.

[_ingsoc]

I've not heard of you before but I read the whitepaper and your ideas look great.  I'd be interested in contributing.

Welcome aboard! You should PM me your Bitmessage address if you like and I can help you test to see if it works. That way have direct access to any future communication that tacotime sends out about the project.

[tacotime]

For POS, the coins that we have will generate more coins. Let's say we have 100 coins, how much will that generate in a years time?

It's variable (return is constantly decreasing as with PoW reward), and coins need to be distributed to stake pools to get interest.  Your interest will also be dependent on what the stake difficulty is.  So, it's impossible to say, it's sort like asking what your return would be on mining if you bought a 3 TH/s miner 6 months from now.  But it will be something, and predictable based on the time of your submission to the stake pool.

[tacotime]

In light of all the problems that the Bitcoin exchanges are having atm; MTGOX (self explanatory), Crypsty (withdrawal issues, login issues, account security), I feel the the archilles heel of Bitcoin are the exchanges.

How does your proposed digital exchange work and how is it an improvement over what we have for Bitcoin?

Public oracle system sort of like that described originally for MasterCoin in Goldshares/Goldcoins, but with much enhanced stabilization.  The downside is that transfers will probably be slow to hedge risk, so if you want to trade fiat with equity on a daily basis you need some kind of exchange.  But, obviously, at some level, to get real fiat you need a bank.  The point here is to have a system that includes fiat built in, so that you can actually just be paid with the in chain fiat and send it to your landlord to pay rent over the chain.

[emuLOAD]

The project is looking very interesting indeed.

Jumping from graduate school to such an unknown and uncertain endeavor, dangerous and exciting no doubt. I wish you all the luck in the world.

While I do understand the risk associated with forking, I do believe quite strongly that source availability is paramount. While I have no doubt in the good faith of the developers and any security auditing company involved, it would add a layer of uncertainty that could lead to unpleasant situations.
The code does not necessarily have to be FOSS, meaning that the licence with which you decide to release the code could perhaps be clear on its stance regarding derivative work, but the full source code associated with the entire system should be available to the whole community.

[indiemax]

I admire your commitment,best wishes

pm sent

[_ingsoc]

The project is looking very interesting indeed.

Jumping from graduate school to such an unknown and uncertain endeavor, dangerous and exciting no doubt. I wish you all the luck in the world.

While I do understand the risk associated with forking, I do believe quite strongly that source availability is paramount. While I have no doubt in the good faith of the developers and any security auditing company involved, it would add a layer of uncertainty that could lead to unpleasant situations.
The code does not necessarily have to be FOSS, meaning that the licence with which you decide to release the code could perhaps be clear on its stance regarding derivative work, but the full source code associated with the entire system should be available to the whole community.

This brings up a really interesting point. There is no doubt that this project will be FOSS. The only question is when. Without contributors who fund the developer to build and innovate, there can be no project. However, by not making it FOSS the project would do the larger world a great disservice.

So on the one hand we have the desire and need to make it FOSS, and on the other hand we have an ethical obligation to the contributors to protect what they essentially built - in order to ensure their contributions weren't in vein. Even though the larger world benefits from the created knowledge, we can't have a situation where those who contributed become martyrs. That would kill the model in the long term. This is a question Ethereum is also thinking about.

I think there are two ways that can run in parallel that we can use to deal with this question:

(1) Make everything FOSS so everyone can benefit from the knowledge but keep one component out that is not straightforward and critical to the functioning of the cryptocurrency system (something PoS related)
(2) Wait for the community to grow sufficiently large so that the network matures to a point where there is no incentive to migrate overnight to an identical clone with nothing novel (this may be more of an unsubstantiated fear than a real possibility, however)

That's my take. Forgive me if my logic is flawed. I'd love to hear what you think because this is something that remains untested for the most part.

[emuLOAD]

Well, I think you bring up valid points to both arguments. Clearly the large investment (money and effort) spent in building a solution need to be protected.

From perhaps the more ideological standpoint, FOSS and its goals match rather well with the concept of cryptocurrency and it's admirable (and perhaps a little expected) that in the long run the source ought to be fully public and OS.

I was wondering how practical an intermediate solution is. Beyond the ideological benefits of openness.
I think source availability is key to providing a modicum of trust in the technology.
A solution, I thought, could be to initially release the software under a limiting license, which allows scrutiny but disallows derivative works, clones, etc. This obviously raises the question of enforce-ability, and that is a question I don't really have an answer to.

Releasing the code in partial form, with key components missing is an interesting take on the problem. It could doubtlessly be interesting, in terms of knowledge sharing, however it would still not help provide any comfort over the security and transparency of the software released in binary form.

Judging by the Alt-Coin frenzy and ongoing existence, I would tend to think the risks posed by clone currencies to be somewhat small, but this does assume this project innovates enough and delivers enough to claim a top spot, rather than just being an alt-coin among many others. It certainly looks like it has the chance.

[achillez]

Hey Tacotime as always you have my support. One thing I think is lacking is transparency in the pre-launch process, and then when coins are launched having a solid, robust tooling and infrastructure in place. Maxcoin is a perfect example of where they had the former but the latter was pretty horrid. Not sure if this is purposeful (it seems like it might be), but we really need to fix these launches. I'm almost thinking of having a phased launch:

1) pre-launch announcement
2) launch stage0 - people can start mining up to X % over 2 weeks then coins stop being distributed for Z%, this rewards but also tests the system initially
3) launch stage1 - restart people can mine another Y% over 1 year then coins stop shortly to fix bugs in the system
4) launch stage2 - long-term launch, mining continues for 5 years ... etc.

This might build some fairness in the system.

[tacotime]

The project is looking very interesting indeed.

Jumping from graduate school to such an unknown and uncertain endeavor, dangerous and exciting no doubt. I wish you all the luck in the world.

While I do understand the risk associated with forking, I do believe quite strongly that source availability is paramount. While I have no doubt in the good faith of the developers and any security auditing company involved, it would add a layer of uncertainty that could lead to unpleasant situations.
The code does not necessarily have to be FOSS, meaning that the licence with which you decide to release the code could perhaps be clear on its stance regarding derivative work, but the full source code associated with the entire system should be available to the whole community.

I think the ideal situation is that we release FOSS after 3 or so months, and in the meantime have several trusted, independent members of the community audit the code.  I would also like at least one security firm to do an audit, and hopefully something like that would put the community at rest until the code goes FOSS.  Conformal Systems will have access to everything I write as well, and I'm sure that if there were something malicious they would raise an issue with it.

The truly paranoid can also run it inside a VM.

[tacotime]

Hey Tacotime as always you have my support. One thing I think is lacking is transparency in the pre-launch process, and then when coins are launched having a solid, robust tooling and infrastructure in place. Maxcoin is a perfect example of where they had the former but the latter was pretty horrid. Not sure if this is purposeful (it seems like it might be), but we really need to fix these launches. I'm almost thinking of having a phased launch:

1) pre-launch announcement
2) launch stage0 - people can start mining up to X % over 2 weeks then coins stop being distributed for Z%, this rewards but also tests the system initially
3) launch stage1 - restart people can mine another Y% over 1 year then coins stop shortly to fix bugs in the system
4) launch stage2 - long-term launch, mining continues for 5 years ... etc.

This might build some fairness in the system.

Miners I want to open source and get out for the testnet as early as possible, to let people play with optimizations.

It's hard to tell exactly how to mitigate problems with large hashrates at introduction -- you'd like have to titrate the difficulty by some means, perhaps by a centralized mechanism akin the the alert keys of the network, but you still run into the problem that people won't start hopping on until the difficulty is low enough for it to be very profitable for them.  I think a 4.5-9.0 day titration period may be ideal where you set the difficulty sky high and then keep halving it every hour until you start seeing a lot of blocks enter the network, then release the network to the miners.

[TECSHARE]

I offered to help fund this project but Taco Time is far too important to reply to PM's. Good luck guys.

[indiemax]

I offered to help fund this project but Taco Time is far too important to reply to PM's. Good luck guys.

Me too,ah well, all the best

[tacotime]

I offered to help fund this project but Taco Time is far too important to reply to PM's. Good luck guys.

Sorry, the PM/e-mail/Bitmessage volume is kind of high right now and there are a number of people I need to reply to.  I have replied to you.

[_ingsoc]

I offered to help fund this project but Taco Time is far too important to reply to PM's. Good luck guys.

Me too,ah well, all the best

Send it to me and I promise I'll get it to him and a response for you, if I can't assist you with it directly. Problem is he's running around like crazy tying up all the loose ends before he moves into this full-time. That will all change in the future. In the meantime, if you don't get a response from him, send it to me, and I'll get it sorted. I want to commit to try and look into everyone's concerns. An insane task, but let's see.

[tacotime]

I offered to help fund this project but Taco Time is far too important to reply to PM's. Good luck guys.

Me too,ah well, all the best

also replied

[Stark-Fujikawa]

I still would like to translate the whitepaper into Dutch. Tacotime mentioned I should ask ingsoc_ for the file, so I figured I'd ask here now that I think about it. Has the paper been finalized yet?

I can send you the 0.5 version, aside from the changes tacotime wants to make. At this point we don't have any money to pay for translations, so I should get that out in the open. I'll take care of setting up the forums, doing all the community stuff, and all the things that would otherwise take time away from development so tacotime and whoever else comes along for dev can focus solely on that.

I should also mention that I won't take any funds for myself to set this stuff up and maintain it. It's purely voluntary because I think we need to make the funds last as long as possible to produce the best tech/$. That sits well with me. This is also why tacotime will start at the bottom of the field in terms of salary.

Alright, I sent you a PM regarding this.

[Korean]

MC2 is name of coin?