[ANN][SHA]SHACoin2 - Dead Revival - Virtual & Physical Coin - Faucet

[frank123m]

Any news on a multipool coming out at some point that supports SHA-256 mining?  I'd love one.

If ya got the time and the space... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=701200.msg7924468#msg7924468

thanks for the info.

[1715482052]

1715482052

[1715482052]

1715482052

[1715482052]

1715482052

[1715482052]

1715482052

[frank123m]

Heh that is very brave to set up multipool by yourself... but community needs to react in some way and this would shake things a bit... so go go multipool

yes, community needs to react in some way.
multipool? that was on our todo list. but delisted because we have better idea.
it still good to have a multipool if we can do something special about it.

our plan (part3-2) will be there in 8 hours.

[Voltarius]

Heh that is very brave to set up multipool by yourself... but community needs to react in some way and this would shake things a bit... so go go multipool

yes, community needs to react in some way.
multipool? that was on our todo list. but delisted because we have better idea.
it still good to have a multipool if we can do something special about it.

our plan (part3-2) will be there in 8 hours.

Thanks for the update.

[frank123m]

Our Plan:

what can we do?

Part3-2.

making "Physical Coins"! then we can change the world.

wait! you might have the question, bitcoin had physical coins right?

yes, but BTC lovers made a mistake.

they made two types of physical coins of it so far.

1.Commemorative Coins.
2.Coins with QR code.

first one, expensive and cannot be used in social life.
second one, based on virtual coins, btc. it basically is another type of paper wallet.
it still cannot be used in social life, we cannot give away our private key to others.
because the coin will be worthless if someone import the key to their wallet.

actually, all we need is physical coins made by metals, and don't need the QR code.
then we don't need to explain if it have value or not.
when it show up, people will know it is a particular form of money.
then if they feel they need more of them we can show them our bank system.
we don't have to show them our system in a hurry.

so, lets build physical coins. a real stable and anonymous system.
then we will be a currency.

tomorrow, we will show you our physical coins (ver.1).

[dimke_yu]

Plan sounds great. Can`t wait to see real coins 

[eddyfitz]

so, lets build physical coins. a real stable and anonymous system.
then we will be a currency.

tomorrow, we will show you our physical coins (ver.1).

Gee, how will we send those coins between countries? In a priority mail? 

[Biomech]

so, lets build physical coins. a real stable and anonymous system.
then we will be a currency.

tomorrow, we will show you our physical coins (ver.1).

Gee, how will we send those coins between countries? In a priority mail? 

sarcasm aside, I'm failing to see the utility of this myself, unless they ARE some form of a paper wallet.

Let me rephrase that. I can see LOCAL utility, but if the physical coin does not have a way to translate to the blockchain, then it isn't SHA, it's something else. And what makes cryptos unique amongst currencies is a combination of a few factors.

1. Instant transfers (not counting confirmation, of course) anywhere in the world without the need of third parties. (physical coins defeat this!)

2. No central issuance. The coin IS the blockchain! (physical coins defeat this!)

3. irreversibility of transactions. (this one is true of both forms)

The other factors of cryptocurrency are common to all forms of money, so I'll not belabor them here. But the first two items on my list are cause for a great deal of concern on my part. You need to be REALLY specific in what you're doing here, Frank. So far, I've had your back on the revival. I don't stand opposed now, but physical coins that, on reading it, don't appear to have any connection to the block chain is very concerning.

[frank123m]

so, lets build physical coins. a real stable and anonymous system.
then we will be a currency.

tomorrow, we will show you our physical coins (ver.1).

Gee, how will we send those coins between countries? In a priority mail? 

we can learn something from many shopping site. I believe it is not difficult to send physical coins.
now it will be good to exchange it at some little place from the beginning.
like friends, playing games or just save it in your own secret place because they are the money.

[frank123m]

sarcasm aside, I'm failing to see the utility of this myself, unless they ARE some form of a paper wallet.

Let me rephrase that. I can see LOCAL utility, but if the physical coin does not have a way to translate to the blockchain, then it isn't SHA, it's something else. And what makes cryptos unique amongst currencies is a combination of a few factors.

1. Instant transfers (not counting confirmation, of course) anywhere in the world without the need of third parties. (physical coins defeat this!)

2. No central issuance. The coin IS the blockchain! (physical coins defeat this!)

3. irreversibility of transactions. (this one is true of both forms)

The other factors of cryptocurrency are common to all forms of money, so I'll not belabor them here. But the first two items on my list are cause for a great deal of concern on my part. You need to be REALLY specific in what you're doing here, Frank. So far, I've had your back on the revival. I don't stand opposed now, but physical coins that, on reading it, don't appear to have any connection to the block chain is very concerning.

I know you are very worried about this thing.
by doing this, we will have both systems, virtual and physical. then we can be a currency.

it seems no connection?
actually, the physical coins have the name SHA Coin on it, so they have connections.
anyone get them will know they are SHA Coins.

as long as we continue to move forward, keep making physical coins,
then we can succeed with physical and virtual.

and of course, if we can succeed with ver.1 physical coins,
then we can start to define the coin's amount of SHA with different metals, sizes in ver.2.
if we working much better, then maybe we can have our own banknote system.
finally we can act like a currency, with metals backed.

[eddyfitz]

sarcasm aside, I'm failing to see the utility of this myself, unless they ARE some form of a paper wallet.

Let me rephrase that. I can see LOCAL utility, but if the physical coin does not have a way to translate to the blockchain, then it isn't SHA, it's something else. And what makes cryptos unique amongst currencies is a combination of a few factors.

1. Instant transfers (not counting confirmation, of course) anywhere in the world without the need of third parties. (physical coins defeat this!)

2. No central issuance. The coin IS the blockchain! (physical coins defeat this!)

3. irreversibility of transactions. (this one is true of both forms)

The other factors of cryptocurrency are common to all forms of money, so I'll not belabor them here. But the first two items on my list are cause for a great deal of concern on my part. You need to be REALLY specific in what you're doing here, Frank. So far, I've had your back on the revival. I don't stand opposed now, but physical coins that, on reading it, don't appear to have any connection to the block chain is very concerning.

I know you are very worried about this thing.
by doing this, we will have both systems, virtual and physical. then we can be a currency.

it seems no connection?
actually, the physical coins have the name SHA Coin on it, so they have connections.
anyone get them will know they are SHA Coins.

as long as we continue to move forward, keep making physical coins,
then we can succeed with physical and virtual.

and of course, if we can succeed with ver.1 physical coins,
then we can start to define the coin's amount of SHA with different metals, sizes in ver.2.
if we working much better, then maybe we can have our own banknote system.
finally we can act like a currency, with metals backed.

Probably backing up physical "version" of currency with BLOCKCHAIN will be better than with metals

[frank123m]

Probably backing up physical "version" of currency with BLOCKCHAIN will be better than with metals

I don't think so.

I think virtual backed by physical will be good.
we will not say a 1 usd physical coin worth 100 or 1,000 usd,
so it don't need backed by virtual blockchain.

I thought you might not know, we will distribute the coins close to the cost price,
so you don't need to worry about they will not worth money.

even the recycling plant will accept them with good price because it is the money.

so if you can make physical coins, we will very happy about that because you can help us.

[frank123m]

We don't know if you are ready for this. As promised, we did this for you.
This is the beginning of a revolution. Follow us, then we can change the world.

or you can keep playing pump and dump games and hope everything will be ok.
and, be a slave to the bankers.

SHA Physical Coins.

[Voltarius]

They look nice.

[frank123m]

We don't know if you are ready for this. As promised, we did this for you.
This is the beginning of a revolution. Follow us, then we can change the world.

or you can keep playing pump and dump games and hope everything will be ok.
and, be a slave to the bankers.

SHA Physical Coins.

I like it, Frank!  They look really nice!

welcome.

now we can build them less than 1 usd each.
we need community's help to build them less than 0.1 usd each.
and define them how many SHA of the Copper Version is.
now the coin's both sides are the same image of our logo.
we need another side including "amount" and some more info.

so we need to define it about SHA virtual coins.

if we define it as 1 SHA, SHACoin's price need to be 15000+ sata.
if we define it as 10 SHA, SHACoin's price need to be 1500+ sata.
if we define it as 100 SHA, SHACoin's price need to be 150+ sata.

we may have to discuss this, and then make the coin.

[powersup]

I truly admire your commitment and the level of work put into this project but I cant understand how it will work. 

From what I can understand, you would need someone to see value in your coins.  So how do you create value linked to the shacoin blockchain, or over existing physical currency.

This is left field, but why not print a public key on the coins and destroy the private key.  This way the value of the coin is held in the shacoin blockchain, but can only be transferred to another party by exchange of the physical coin.

Or, i guess another option is you provide a service where you hold the private key in cold storage and produce a physical coin with the associated public key.  They someone, if the choose, could have the private key in exchange for the physical coin, at which point the physical coin is destroyed and made into a new coin with a new public address.

[Biomech]

I truly admire your commitment and the level of work put into this project but I cant understand how it will work. 

From what I can understand, you would need someone to see value in your coins.  So how do you create value linked to the shacoin blockchain, or over existing physical currency.

This is left field, but why not print a public key on the coins and destroy the private key.  This way the value of the coin is held in the shacoin blockchain, but can only be transferred to another party by exchange of the physical coin.

Or, i guess another option is you provide a service where you hold the private key in cold storage and produce a physical coin with the associated public key.  They someone, if the choose, could have the private key in exchange for the physical coin, at which point the physical coin is destroyed and made into a new coin with a new public address.

I FULLY endorse what I bolded and colored! That is a vastly awesome idea!

[frank123m]

I truly admire your commitment and the level of work put into this project but I cant understand how it will work.  

From what I can understand, you would need someone to see value in your coins.  So how do you create value linked to the shacoin blockchain, or over existing physical currency.

This is left field, but why not print a public key on the coins and destroy the private key.  This way the value of the coin is held in the shacoin blockchain, but can only be transferred to another party by exchange of the physical coin.

Or, i guess another option is you provide a service where you hold the private key in cold storage and produce a physical coin with the associated public key.  They someone, if the choose, could have the private key in exchange for the physical coin, at which point the physical coin is destroyed and made into a new coin with a new public address.

I FULLY endorse what I bolded and colored! That is a vastly awesome idea!

thx. good thinking.

it seems we are entering a place of difficult to explain.

I guess you are still in how to guarantee the physical coins value,
but the question should be how to guarantee the blockchain?
by this point, maybe you can find the way out.

lets talk about this more:

"print a public key on the coins and destroy the private key.  This way the value of the coin is held in the shacoin blockchain, but can only be transferred to another party by exchange of the physical coin."

yes, it was a good idea. and BTC lovers did this before. but it is not good after these days.

because building such a coin will cost more than 10 usd each, or more than 50 usd each.
and the metal of it still worth less than 1 usd each. it just like a paper wallet without private key.
we cannot use them in social life. it just too expensive and will need guarantee by blockchain.
without a good blockchain like BTC, it worth almost nothing.

or if you build them by gold, worth more for sure, but it still too expensive and cannot use them in social life.
if you cannot use them in social life, then why not just buy gold?

by this way, our blockchain still worthless.
blockchain, almost worth nothing these days because we can create altcoins as many as we want with almost nothing.

what we need is something guarantee our blockchain. not our blockcain guarantee something.

for example: we need more power or more money guarantee it.

guarantee:

1. using electricity? failed because free electricity.
2. using gold or silver? failed because too expensive.

so we decide using copper or other metals to guarantee our blockchain.
by this way, we can guarantee our blockchain's value. and blockchain can transfer our money worldwide faster.

[Biomech]

I truly admire your commitment and the level of work put into this project but I cant understand how it will work.  

From what I can understand, you would need someone to see value in your coins.  So how do you create value linked to the shacoin blockchain, or over existing physical currency.

This is left field, but why not print a public key on the coins and destroy the private key.  This way the value of the coin is held in the shacoin blockchain, but can only be transferred to another party by exchange of the physical coin.

Or, i guess another option is you provide a service where you hold the private key in cold storage and produce a physical coin with the associated public key.  They someone, if the choose, could have the private key in exchange for the physical coin, at which point the physical coin is destroyed and made into a new coin with a new public address.

I FULLY endorse what I bolded and colored! That is a vastly awesome idea!

thx. good thinking.

it seems we are entering a place of difficult to explain.

I guess you are still in how to guarantee the physical coins value,
but the question should be how to guarantee the blockchain?
by this point, maybe you can find the way out.

lets talk about this more:

"print a public key on the coins and destroy the private key.  This way the value of the coin is held in the shacoin blockchain, but can only be transferred to another party by exchange of the physical coin."

yes, it was a good idea. and BTC lovers did this before. but it is not good after these days.

because building such a coin will cost more than 10 usd each, or more than 50 usd each.
and the metal of it still worth less than 1 usd each. it just like a paper wallet without private key.
we cannot use them in social life. it just too expensive and will need guarantee by blockchain.
without a good blockchain like BTC, it worth almost nothing.

or if you build them by gold, worth more for sure, but it still too expensive and cannot use them in social life.
if you cannot use them in social life, then why not just buy gold?

by this way, our blockchain still worthless.
blockchain, almost worth nothing these days because we can create altcoins as many as we want with almost nothing.

what we need is something guarantee our blockchain. not our blockcain guarantee something.

for example: we need more power or more money guarantee it.

guarantee:

1. using electricity? failed because free electricity.
2. using gold or silver? failed because too expensive.

so we decide using copper or other metals to guarantee our blockchain.
by this way, we can guarantee our blockchain's value. and blockchain can transfer our money worldwide faster.

Well, I can think of a few rebuttals, but I'm going to try to be constructive instead. To start with, if you're going to make pure copper coins with the name SHA on them, I'm totally good with that. Copper has been the poor man's coin for centuries, and works well as a store of value. And the SHA design does have some advertising merit. But it remains a separate coin.

On the idea of coins with the public key on it, and the private key destroyed, I like this because it eliminates the NEED for it to be metal, or even actually a coin. It opens up many possibilities for you to put out this "solid" cryptocurrency. Like for instance, a laminated card with a specific denomination on it, along with a QR code for a payment processor.

Why? Because the value of that card will never change, but the link to a payment processor makes it possible to MAKE CHANGE at the cash register via a normal interaction with the blockchain. So the user of the solid currency hands it over, just like he might a $20 bill, and gets change from the live coins in the account of the merchant. The merchant does not have to wait for confirmation, because the private coin/card/token has a set value that is forever attached to that one key. So to him, it's a totally solid deal.

But reverting to my first point, if the coins have the public key and the private has been destroyed, then they don't even have to be metal. They are a token, but a token that can't be altered in value. They could be made of a dense plastic, which would be cheap and easy to build, or they could be steel, which is ridiculously durable and very cheap to produce. And etcetera.

I think your idea would also work, in conjuntion with the above. I think it needs a lot more detail though.

I'm going to risk insult here, but I think I'm right. English is not your native tongue, correct? Perhaps you could put together a bulleted list with all the features you have in mind, either here or in PM, and I could write it out in a more presentable form (privately for your approval or amendment) because right now it's a bit too vague. I like some of your ideas and am somewhat afraid of some of the others, but it could easily be because I don't fully understand them.

[frank123m]

I'm going to risk insult here, but I think I'm right. English is not your native tongue, correct? Perhaps you could put together a bulleted list with all the features you have in mind, either here or in PM, and I could write it out in a more presentable form (privately for your approval or amendment) because right now it's a bit too vague. I like some of your ideas and am somewhat afraid of some of the others, but it could easily be because I don't fully understand them.

well, thx man.

english is not my native tongue.
that is true. so, sometimes it is not so easy to express the idea.
that is why i said need a translator before.

i still will try the best to explain the idea to you.

what you are saying is right, but,
you may have misunderstood something about the plan. we maybe talking different things.
because the main purpose of the plan is to guarantee our blockchain's value.
it is not to make tokens of our blockchain.

from my point, we now have computers, cell phones, actually no need to make tokens.
unless we are already a currency, then we need tokens to play in some place.
now we just need an electric wallet. our cryptoworld actually have good system already.

but, without value, we are nothing.
we need something people can trust you know. for example, copper or other metals.

maybe you can think about multipool, we are trying to do something similar.
but this time we will do physical.

with multipool, people mining a coin, but they sold for btc finally,
no matter how many hashing power we plugin,
no matter how many btc we spending on our coin, they will all go to btc,
and then sold for usd, because people now only trust usd.

so i would say our world need a fix.
after this fix, we can move on, we can go further, we can have a stable coin.

and, if you want help, sure, we need that. welcome!
put these things brief and make them clearly will help a lot.

[Biomech]

I'm going to risk insult here, but I think I'm right. English is not your native tongue, correct? Perhaps you could put together a bulleted list with all the features you have in mind, either here or in PM, and I could write it out in a more presentable form (privately for your approval or amendment) because right now it's a bit too vague. I like some of your ideas and am somewhat afraid of some of the others, but it could easily be because I don't fully understand them.

well, thx man.

english is not my native tongue.
that is true. so, sometimes it is not so easy to express the idea.
that is why i said need a translator before.

i still will try the best to explain the idea to you.

what you are saying is right, but,
you may have misunderstood something about the plan. we maybe talking different things.
because the main purpose of the plan is to guarantee our blockchain's value.
it is not to make tokens of our blockchain.

from my point, we now have computers, cell phones, actually no need to make tokens.
unless we are already a currency, then we need tokens to play in some place.
now we just need an electric wallet. our cryptoworld actually have good system already.

but, without value, we are nothing.
we need something people can trust you know. for example, copper or other metals.

maybe you can think about multipool, we are trying to do something similar.
but this time we will do physical.

with multipool, people mining a coin, but they sold for btc finally,
no matter how many hashing power we plugin,
no matter how many btc we spending on our coin, they will all go to btc,
and then sold for usd, because people now only trust usd.

so i would say our world need a fix.
after this fix, we can move on, we can go further, we can have a stable coin.

and, if you want help, sure, we need that. welcome!
put these things brief and make them clearly will help a lot.

I will have something for you to look over by monday, based off of my understanding. I'll PM it to you, you tell me what's wrong with it, and I'll fix it. You can use it how you will. I'm invested in this coin, so I'm not after bounties or anything like that, I just want to boost it's value.

Some thought on securing the blockchain.

One. It's a pure POS coin, so 51% is just about not an issue.

Two, anything, even cosmetic, that raises it's exchange value will attract more investors. But as you noted they are likely to trade it for BTC almost immediately.  Like all cryptocurrencies, real world adoption is the holy grail, and most don't even realize it.

So I think you're on to something. We just need to flesh it out and see where it goes and what can be done.