[ANN] (WC) | WhiteCoin | BIG NEWS: Foundation, investors & more ☯ whitecoin.info

[birddog]

The incentive to burn the coins would be to require a coin with equal if not greater value though.

My thoughts came from here :


Coin-burning as a tool for transition between cryptocurrencies
Proof of burn may also be of interest as a tool for managing an orderly transition from one cryptocurrency ("oldcoin", let's call it) to another ("newcoin"). If the developers of newcoin are looking for a way of avoiding proof-of-work's real resource consumption even in newcoin's initial distribution phase, they can't use proof of newcoin-burn: newcoins don't exist yet. But they can use proof of oldcoin-burn! (Assuming their reason for creating newcoin is not a doubting of oldcoin's security model, anyway. - Or at least, not a doubting severe enough to affect sufficiently deeply buried oldcoins, these being the candidates for burning.)
The newcoin blockchain would thus start with (at least a hash referring to) a complete catalogue of all the [sufficiently deeply buried] unspent txouts of oldcoin. Miners would then exhibit burning events within oldcoin up to a certain date; after which, the protocol would switch to burning of newcoin itself (and the dependency on oldcoin could even be thrown away entirely, if a checkpoint of that transition moment was promulgated and accepted by the newcoin community).
This has the nice consequence that, if people throughout the broader economy are gradually deserting oldcoin (as newcoin catches on), its value need not collapse! Instead, oldcoin gets burnt in the transition process, neatly reducing its nominal supply in just such a way as to roughly keep pace with its declining real demand. Meanwhile, those same acts of burning are minting fresh newcoins, at just the pace required to keep up with newcoin's growing real demand. (At least, that's the case if miners anticipate the transition speed correctly, and enter / exit the coins' respective mining trades at a pace that competes away supra-normal profits. We also have to assume that the total real demand for both[/all...] cryptocurrencies is roughly stable in "economy-tracking" terms; or at least, that miners anticipate the time path of the size of total real demand, and of its currency-by-currency composition, correctly, or near enough correctly.)
To sum up: proof of burn could, just maybe, qualify as a new tool to greatly assist overall (multi-cryptocurrency) economic robustness and stability!

^what he said 

[1714114112]

1714114112

[1714114112]

1714114112

[1714114112]

1714114112

[birddog]

Grrr....Reducing the coins in circulation is a long term band-aid. You have 300+ million WC in existance. Reduce the coins by 100-fold. Now you have 3 million coins. At 2%, it will take hundreds of years to get back up to 300 million. But it will get back up to 300 million. Then what? We're all dead so we don't worry about it? Wrong answer.

How about destroying coins instead of reducing them? I've thought about a wallet feature that would take a 1 WC fee with every transaction, this 1 WC would then get sent to a burn address and would never be recovered. Over time, the WC's would add up and we could limit it to a target amount of coins. For instance, we could reduce from 300 mil coins to 200 mil over a long period of time and have the burn feature turned off once the target is reached.

Or instead of having this as a mandatory feature, it could be an option with every transaction. With every transaction you would get prompted if you would like to send any WC to the burn address. This way instead of reducing the coin count by ratio, we are actually reducing the coin count. Less coins in circulation = scarcity. Scarcity = higher value (in theory).

Just an abstract idea, don't grill me too hard on this one

Ah no worries about the grilling. I'm not here for that, I just understand coin economics and think about the future of ALL crypto. Who knows if WC will even be around in 2 years let alone 500. I just had a similar issue over at Orangecoin with the devs, trying to figure out how to pay the masternodes. They originally wanted to slice the POS rate in half. We ended up shaving off 4-5 years from the end of PoS.

Destroying the coins is the same as reducing what's in circulation... Same problem exists years from now. Method is different, yes, but end up at same result.

If you have the amount reduced over a long period of time "300 to 200", it will screw up the PoS from an investor point of view. 2% PoS but with a 2+X% reduction of coins in circulation? You need PoS to keep the chain moving unless: Is 'afterhours' PoW still going on paying 10 WC per block? I haven't heard anything about that since I pop in and out of the WC thread.

1: Reducing coins by destroying is different than reducing coin count by ratio. Think about the maths on that  

2: PoS wouldn't be affected either. You would still stake at 2% a year. The only difference would be the 1 WC fee with every transaction going to the burn address, chipping away at the total coin count over time.

Anyways, Im not completely sold on this idea. Just thinking out loud.

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from yet. Not a problem. I'll try to explain again.

I numbered your thoughts in red to make life easier.

Thought number 1: It doesn't matter what method WC chooses to reduce the coins, long drawn out reduction of years or a quick chop, by ratio or deletion. The result will be the same in respect to the problem we are discussing  WILL come up again in hundreds of years. And I'm not talking about the price or curves. I know that chopping the coins by ratio or destroying will impact the price differently, but the problem I'm talking about still exists: At 2% PoS, 3 million or 30 million or just 2 WC will eventually become 300 million again, thus repeating the problem we face today. Again, it's not about price.

Thought number 2: PoS Mechanics itself would not be affected, I know that. I merged two ideas together in my last post and I see how that got messed up. If WC chooses to do 300 to 200 million over 'X' years, then the its like PoS doesn't exist since the code HAS to reduce more WC than PoS generates. For example, hypothetically: I am an investor looking at WC. I see that it has 2% PoS, but the coding is made to take out 3%. So, investors gain 1% in worth from reduction, but lose 3% of the total coins, and from where do these coins get reduced from? My wallet? Your wallet? WCF donation wallet? They can't even get substantial WC donations to pay the dev team handsomely for their hard work, let alone get enough WC to 'reduce'. No good. 'Burning' helps but.....

People won't 'burn' enough coins to make up the required difference, we can't even split up the hashes, remember Nitro and Nitro 2 from mining UTC? Too many orphans, no one mined at different pools, the miners didn't want to take the losses, so everyone was mining at nitro. Nitro had 75% of the hashrate and miners were URGED over and over to switch pools. Miners are greedy in that respect, and granted that Nitro could of handled the situation differently, but it shows the community isn't as giving as we'd like to think, same as why WCF donations have been lacking. So for people to optionally 'burn' coins will not impact, since PoS generates 2%, wed need to reduce by 2.1% just to keep up. So 2.5-3% minimum required for reduction, 1% of 300 million is 3 million, good luck trying to optionally 'burn' them all.

I understand where your coming from. I believe the problem is that we aren't seeing eye to eye. No need to hold my hand or use colored numbers, I'm keeping up just fine.

The coins would be reduced by method of a WC transaction fee. I've stated this clearly. Let me make clear that this is just an idea. There are other methods of utilizing a burn feature as WhitecoinJesus mentioned.

I believe we are doing just fine fundraising WC to pay developers. We have, and will continue to reward the work done outside of our core team with pay in Whitecoin. The majority of the WCF volunteers do so to see their investment grow, not to get paid from the donation funds.

[surfguy72]

...

...

Ah no worries about the grilling. I'm not here for that, I just understand coin economics and think about the future of ALL crypto. Who knows if WC will even be around in 2 years let alone 500. I just had a similar issue over at Orangecoin with the devs, trying to figure out how to pay the masternodes. They originally wanted to slice the POS rate in half. We ended up shaving off 4-5 years from the end of PoS.

Destroying the coins is the same as reducing what's in circulation... Same problem exists years from now. Method is different, yes, but end up at same result.

If you have the amount reduced over a long period of time "300 to 200", it will screw up the PoS from an investor point of view. 2% PoS but with a 2+X% reduction of coins in circulation? You need PoS to keep the chain moving unless: Is 'afterhours' PoW still going on paying 10 WC per block? I haven't heard anything about that since I pop in and out of the WC thread.

1: Reducing coins by destroying is different than reducing coin count by ratio. Think about the maths on that  

2: PoS wouldn't be affected either. You would still stake at 2% a year. The only difference would be the 1 WC fee with every transaction going to the burn address, chipping away at the total coin count over time.

Anyways, Im not completely sold on this idea. Just thinking out loud.

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from yet. Not a problem. I'll try to explain again.

I numbered your thoughts in red to make life easier.

...

...

..

Lots of sweat equity built up from the volunteers

[dreambox700]

It looks like we have sparked someones interest on Mintpal. 12BTC of buy support just appeared out of nowhere. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

All buy support in cryptoworld just appeared out of nowhere.

[Halofire]

The incentive to burn the coins would be to require a coin with equal if not greater value though.

My thoughts came from here :


Coin-burning as a tool for transition between cryptocurrencies
Proof of burn may also be of interest as a tool for managing an orderly transition from one cryptocurrency ("oldcoin", let's call it) to another ("newcoin"). If the developers of newcoin are looking for a way of avoiding proof-of-work's real resource consumption even in newcoin's initial distribution phase, they can't use proof of newcoin-burn: newcoins don't exist yet. But they can use proof of oldcoin-burn! (Assuming their reason for creating newcoin is not a doubting of oldcoin's security model, anyway. - Or at least, not a doubting severe enough to affect sufficiently deeply buried oldcoins, these being the candidates for burning.)
The newcoin blockchain would thus start with (at least a hash referring to) a complete catalogue of all the [sufficiently deeply buried] unspent txouts of oldcoin. Miners would then exhibit burning events within oldcoin up to a certain date; after which, the protocol would switch to burning of newcoin itself (and the dependency on oldcoin could even be thrown away entirely, if a checkpoint of that transition moment was promulgated and accepted by the newcoin community).
This has the nice consequence that, if people throughout the broader economy are gradually deserting oldcoin (as newcoin catches on), its value need not collapse! Instead, oldcoin gets burnt in the transition process, neatly reducing its nominal supply in just such a way as to roughly keep pace with its declining real demand. Meanwhile, those same acts of burning are minting fresh newcoins, at just the pace required to keep up with newcoin's growing real demand. (At least, that's the case if miners anticipate the transition speed correctly, and enter / exit the coins' respective mining trades at a pace that competes away supra-normal profits. We also have to assume that the total real demand for both[/all...] cryptocurrencies is roughly stable in "economy-tracking" terms; or at least, that miners anticipate the time path of the size of total real demand, and of its currency-by-currency composition, correctly, or near enough correctly.)
To sum up: proof of burn could, just maybe, qualify as a new tool to greatly assist overall (multi-cryptocurrency) economic robustness and stability!

^what he said 

Interesting.

[Halofire]

Grrr....Reducing the coins in circulation is a long term band-aid. You have 300+ million WC in existance. Reduce the coins by 100-fold. Now you have 3 million coins. At 2%, it will take hundreds of years to get back up to 300 million. But it will get back up to 300 million. Then what? We're all dead so we don't worry about it? Wrong answer.

How about destroying coins instead of reducing them? I've thought about a wallet feature that would take a 1 WC fee with every transaction, this 1 WC would then get sent to a burn address and would never be recovered. Over time, the WC's would add up and we could limit it to a target amount of coins. For instance, we could reduce from 300 mil coins to 200 mil over a long period of time and have the burn feature turned off once the target is reached.

Or instead of having this as a mandatory feature, it could be an option with every transaction. With every transaction you would get prompted if you would like to send any WC to the burn address. This way instead of reducing the coin count by ratio, we are actually reducing the coin count. Less coins in circulation = scarcity. Scarcity = higher value (in theory).

Just an abstract idea, don't grill me too hard on this one

Ah no worries about the grilling. I'm not here for that, I just understand coin economics and think about the future of ALL crypto. Who knows if WC will even be around in 2 years let alone 500. I just had a similar issue over at Orangecoin with the devs, trying to figure out how to pay the masternodes. They originally wanted to slice the POS rate in half. We ended up shaving off 4-5 years from the end of PoS.

Destroying the coins is the same as reducing what's in circulation... Same problem exists years from now. Method is different, yes, but end up at same result.

If you have the amount reduced over a long period of time "300 to 200", it will screw up the PoS from an investor point of view. 2% PoS but with a 2+X% reduction of coins in circulation? You need PoS to keep the chain moving unless: Is 'afterhours' PoW still going on paying 10 WC per block? I haven't heard anything about that since I pop in and out of the WC thread.

1: Reducing coins by destroying is different than reducing coin count by ratio. Think about the maths on that  

2: PoS wouldn't be affected either. You would still stake at 2% a year. The only difference would be the 1 WC fee with every transaction going to the burn address, chipping away at the total coin count over time.

Anyways, Im not completely sold on this idea. Just thinking out loud.

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from yet. Not a problem. I'll try to explain again.

I numbered your thoughts in red to make life easier.

Thought number 1: It doesn't matter what method WC chooses to reduce the coins, long drawn out reduction of years or a quick chop, by ratio or deletion. The result will be the same in respect to the problem we are discussing  WILL come up again in hundreds of years. And I'm not talking about the price or curves. I know that chopping the coins by ratio or destroying will impact the price differently, but the problem I'm talking about still exists: At 2% PoS, 3 million or 30 million or just 2 WC will eventually become 300 million again, thus repeating the problem we face today. Again, it's not about price.

Thought number 2: PoS Mechanics itself would not be affected, I know that. I merged two ideas together in my last post and I see how that got messed up. If WC chooses to do 300 to 200 million over 'X' years, then the its like PoS doesn't exist since the code HAS to reduce more WC than PoS generates. For example, hypothetically: I am an investor looking at WC. I see that it has 2% PoS, but the coding is made to take out 3%. So, investors gain 1% in worth from reduction, but lose 3% of the total coins, and from where do these coins get reduced from? My wallet? Your wallet? WCF donation wallet? They can't even get substantial WC donations to pay the dev team handsomely for their hard work, let alone get enough WC to 'reduce'. No good. 'Burning' helps but.....

People won't 'burn' enough coins to make up the required difference, we can't even split up the hashes, remember Nitro and Nitro 2 from mining UTC? Too many orphans, no one mined at different pools, the miners didn't want to take the losses, so everyone was mining at nitro. Nitro had 75% of the hashrate and miners were URGED over and over to switch pools. Miners are greedy in that respect, and granted that Nitro could of handled the situation differently, but it shows the community isn't as giving as we'd like to think, same as why WCF donations have been lacking. So for people to optionally 'burn' coins will not impact, since PoS generates 2%, wed need to reduce by 2.1% just to keep up. So 2.5-3% minimum required for reduction, 1% of 300 million is 3 million, good luck trying to optionally 'burn' them all.

I understand where your coming from. I believe the problem is that we aren't seeing eye to eye. No need to hold my hand or use colored numbers, I'm keeping up just fine.

The coins would be reduced by method of a WC transaction fee. I've stated this clearly. Let me make clear that this is just an idea. There are other methods of utilizing a burn feature as WhitecoinJesus mentioned.

I believe we are doing just fine fundraising WC to pay developers. We have, and will continue to reward the work done outside of our core team with pay in Whitecoin. The majority of the WCF volunteers do so to see their investment grow, not to get paid from the donation funds.

Burn through mandatory TX fees, ok. I was refering to the "optional burning" through TX fees you mentioned. Make sure they are adjusted in accordance with price, manually or automatically through software, or it will limit the movement of coins, which could have both positive and negative effects.

WCF has gotten several hundred thousand last I knew, split between how many people? Out of 300 million? That's great and all but... you redirect my point. I'm not attacking the donations itself, I'm attacking the fact people aren't as generous as we like to think, getting back to the optional method of burning point I was making. There are a bunch who give back, yes. And, yes, the WCF thanks them everytime.

Since you want to take that stance and want to redirect my points already, and can't see that I used 2 little colored numbers in a big block of black font to save myself some typing in re-introducing your thoughts easier into my thoughts, which had nothing to do with you keeping up, I'll leave it at this.

[tevayo]

As an end user, which motivation would have to use toilet that makes me burn coins whenever I transfer instead of using any other altcoin?
The reduction of the coins do not think that's a good solution (other currencies have done has been a failure) 300,000,000 I also think is a good amount.
As for anon, I totally agree that is always implemented as an option and not an obligation.
I think we should focus on WC advertise and get used in the real world, get shops etc accept it .. that's what BTC has made it what it is today.

[birddog]

Burn through mandatory TX fees, ok. I was refering to the "optional burning" through TX fees you mentioned. Make sure they are adjusted in accordance with price, manually or automatically through software, or it will limit the movement of coins, which could have both positive and negative effects.

WCF has gotten several hundred thousand last I knew, split between how many people? Out of 300 million? That's great and all but... you redirect my point. I'm not attacking the donations itself, I'm attacking the fact people aren't as generous as we like to think, getting back to the optional method of burning point I was making. There are a bunch who give back, yes. And, yes, the WCF thanks them everytime.

Since you want to take that stance and want to redirect my points already, and can't see that I used 2 little colored numbers in a big block of black font to save myself some typing in re-introducing your thoughts easier into my thoughts, which had nothing to do with you keeping up, I'll leave it at this.

Sorry, I had the feeling I was being patronized   

Anyways, It was not my intent to redirect your thoughts. You have offered some very useful feedback and I appreciate your participation in the discussion. I apologize, no hard feelings here.

[eddienova]

I find that that some folks in the crypto communities are in need of instant gratification. Personally, however, I'm quite content to see the price of WC remain stable. Like many others in the whitecoin community, I'm in this for the long term.

Perhaps an anon feature might be interesting, or perhaps it's just a fad. Personally, I'm ambivalent about a feature that I don't think I'd get much use out of.

The key, I think, is the term "use."

What is going to set whitecoin apart in the long term? What is going to make whitecoin, or any other crypto for that matter, stand out from the crowd? My feeling is that the answer to these questions rest in a coin's ability to be used for something. All the features in the world are a moot point if there's nothing tangible to be done with the coin.

Cryptos, in general, seem to be in a holding pattern while that one killer app sits on the horizon, just beyond reach - that one killer app that makes the general population think ... "Hmm ... that's useful. I'd like to participate in this new, people-driven type of economy."

If I had a way to sell my goods or belongings in exchange for cryptos, I would. But as far as I know, there is not a marketplace that allows me to do that - at least, as far as i know, there is no marketplace in existence that makes it easy for me to do so. There is no Amazon or eBay that facilitates a trustworthy exchange of goods for cryptos. And establishing a marketplace with trust is the key - particularly for a form of currency that has no chargeback ability. As everyone already knows, once you send your cryptos out to cyberspace, they are gone for good. A marketplace that acts as a facilitator of this trust might very well be the killer app that gives crypto currencies a useful purpose (beyond being simply a store of value).

I know that this idea doesn't necessarily focus on whitecoin, in particular. A truly killer app would be able to accommodate the majority of popular cryptos and allow people to exchange goods with whatever crypto they choose.

I'm sure that this idea will eventually hit the Internet (in a far more developed form than what i'm proposing). And when it does, I'm certain I'm going to use it. In my perfect world, this app would be developed by people from within the whitecoin community ... and whitecoin would be promoted as the flagship crypto of this marketplace.

I think the people behind whitecoin have the ability to lead the way in the crypto world. And I think that taking the lead in developing some kind of tangible use for cryptos would be a complete game changer. Every other crypto would be left trying to catch up and jump on board just to stay relevant.

[Halofire]

Burn through mandatory TX fees, ok. I was refering to the "optional burning" through TX fees you mentioned. Make sure they are adjusted in accordance with price, manually or automatically through software, or it will limit the movement of coins, which could have both positive and negative effects.

WCF has gotten several hundred thousand last I knew, split between how many people? Out of 300 million? That's great and all but... you redirect my point. I'm not attacking the donations itself, I'm attacking the fact people aren't as generous as we like to think, getting back to the optional method of burning point I was making. There are a bunch who give back, yes. And, yes, the WCF thanks them everytime.

Since you want to take that stance and want to redirect my points already, and can't see that I used 2 little colored numbers in a big block of black font to save myself some typing in re-introducing your thoughts easier into my thoughts, which had nothing to do with you keeping up, I'll leave it at this.

Sorry, I had the feeling I was being patronized   

Anyways, It was not my intent to redirect your thoughts. You have offered some very useful feedback and I appreciate your participation in the discussion. I apologize, no hard feelings here.

Thank you, much appreciated. We're good.

[piotrek]

A while without PC and now, almost instantly, I found a block

[electricretard]

Reducing the amount of coins does absolutely nothing. If there's no demand it doesn't matter if there's a billion coins or 6 coins.
Look at 42 coin. There's not that many of them I hear, does anyone care? It's still a shit coin.

[mogonzo]

Hey Everyone,

A couple of updates that will soon be bigger announcements.

Registration Process

There have been some minor delays in the registration process as I consult with various government departments and advisors familiar with running not for profit associations, but I am feeling confident now that we are very close to setting ourselves up without any possibility of hassles down the road. Very soon, The WhiteCoin Foundation will be one of the only user driven cryptocurrency associations in the world. By registering in Canada and providing a clear accountability process for how this coin is operated, The WhiteCoin Foundation will have something most other coins lack: mainstream credibility.

Update Re the test of the Foundation's 2nd Mandate

Our work with ChunkyPools has been going very well, Mindfox and I have been working closely with mculp to bring more improvements to chunkypools. By sharing the load and freeing up more time for the dev's to get their important work done, we returned chunky to profitability within 10 days. We also grew it's average hash rate by over %250, and it's still growing. That's right, our test of WhiteCoin's revolutionary form of price support has been a success.

Today was just a taste of what's to come. I can't thank all of you enough for your hard work and dedication to this community, it's a pleasure to see these discussions and great ideas for the future of the coin. But I believe the real joy will come as we see these ideas brought to implementation.

Best regards,

Chris Salsman

[WhiteCoinJesus]

As an end user, which motivation would have to use toilet that makes me burn coins whenever I transfer instead of using any other altcoin?
The reduction of the coins do not think that's a good solution (other currencies have done has been a failure) 300,000,000 I also think is a good amount.
As for anon, I totally agree that is always implemented as an option and not an obligation.
I think we should focus on WC advertise and get used in the real world, get shops etc accept it .. that's what BTC has made it what it is today.

Aaah but you wouldn't be burning every time.   The burn would only happen once at the start of the new coin.

Like an IPO..

This way the anon feature will be an option for those wanting to participate.

[leonar76]

Hey Everyone,

A couple of updates that will soon be bigger announcements.

Registration Process

There have been some minor delays in the registration process as I consult with various government departments and advisors familiar with running not for profit associations, but I am feeling confident now that we are very close to setting ourselves up without any possibility of hassles down the road. Very soon, The WhiteCoin Foundation will be one of the only user driven cryptocurrency associations in the world. By registering in Canada and providing a clear accountability process for how this coin is operated, The WhiteCoin Foundation will have something most other coins lack: mainstream credibility.

Update Re the test of the Foundation's 2nd Mandate

Our work with ChunkyPools has been going very well, Mindfox and I have been working closely with mculp to bring more improvements to chunkypools. By sharing the load and freeing up more time for the dev's to get their important work done, we returned chunky to profitability within 10 days. We also grew it's average hash rate by over %250, and it's still growing. That's right, our test of WhiteCoin's revolutionary form of price support has been a success.

Today was just a taste of what's to come. I can't thank all of you enough for your hard work and dedication to this community, it's a pleasure to see these discussions and great ideas for the future of the coin. But I believe the real joy will come as we see these ideas brought to implementation.

Best regards,

Chris Salsman

Thanks for hard work, we ll see over 1K sat soon. i love wc.

[leonar76]

Hey community,

New investors comes to wc, some of them are my firend, now they are collecting cheap wc coins from weak hands, yesterday they bought some, now over to 200sat is only 5btc, i advise dont write huge sell orders below 200 sat, later you ll be so sad, they can pump over the 200sat just 5 second, 5 btc is nothing for them, still they are collecting cheap, and i am collecting cheap too. , few days we ll see price up, take care. have a good day.

[WhiteCoinJesus]

Building walls at 150 would be a good place to get coins from weak hands.

[rod]

Hello everyone,

this is my first post ever so be gentle.

Id like you to give you an idea how to turn Whitecoin in special crypto. Idea is to make one additional feature in wallet, you can name it void or something like that. Sender and receiver are agreed by their choice to turn function void in transaction. The void function is to keep crypto till the moment when sender and receiver are agreed to let money out of void  when all condition for payment are met. Or you can have option to authorize third party for void payment. This primary idea for additional wallet function and making wallet better. Im sure that this addition will make this crypto a way better and functional then others.

Thank you and donations are welcome.

[WhiteCoinJesus]

Hello everyone,

this is my first post ever so be gentle.

Id like you to give you an idea how to turn Whitecoin in special crypto. Idea is to make one additional feature in wallet, you can name it void or something like that. Sender and receiver are agreed by their choice to turn function void in transaction. The void function is to keep crypto till the moment when sender and receiver are agreed to let money out of void  when all condition for payment are met. Or you can have option to authorize third party for void payment. This primary idea for additional wallet function and making wallet better. Im sure that this addition will make this crypto a way better and functional then others.

Thank you and donations are welcome.

I like this idea..

Sort of like a multi sig function based on set criteria. 

Implementation of this sort of thing would be a whole other story and discussion and would require a trusted 3rd party to manage the "resolutions" of cases where the void conditions are not met by both parties.

Interesting though, if WCF registers itself successfully they could easily take on this responsibility with the help of some volenteers .. Their would need to be a void fee that goes to whoever is dealing with resolutions.

[cryptohunter]

No point talking forever as yet there is no clear winner or even completed anon feature that works well. All have issues. This privacy/anon whiteout feature needs to get going now. The party is still going we can still get there drink and pick up the hottest chick. Let's go with that first before the party ends.