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

[mogonzo]

Hey Everyone,

So here is my thought process on how we'd work the IPO. This is of course just an informal proposed course of action, anything is open for discussion or change at this point.

I would propose we carry out a 5% premine, which would translate to 1.5 Million WOC if there were a total of 30 million to be mined.

WOC would have an extended mining period similar to bitcoin's, many years, taking place using a bell curve block reward system.

By using the bell curve block reward, it encourages a fair launch, and also in the initial stages makes mining the coin difficult, which means that the IPO could continue after mining begins. Using this, we could offer the IPO for a month before the coin's launch, and then continue to offer it for approximately two weeks before block rewards would begin to ramp up. We could also extend this period if we wanted.

This would ensure that the majority of the coins in circulation in the first few months are largely the result of the IPO, and therefore of direct benefit to WC prime. With slow release of new coins mined over time would we can also offer stability to those who wish to buy in.

I would suggest that the coins bought via the IPO be released in 3 stages over the period of a 30-60 days to prevent flooding the market, and each person that bought in via WC would be paid out according to a "first come first serve" basis on a set schedule to ensure that there is not a radical shift in available coins on the markets.

I believe the price of the IPO package (let's say we sold them in bundles of 1000 coins) should be fixed according the ratio difference of total coins between WC and WOC, and sold in fixed numbers daily over the course of the 60 days to prevent one whale buying them all up on day 1, defeating the ongoing purpose of this. So 1000 WOC would cost 10000 WC. Factoring this out, 1.5 million WOC offered in the IPO would translate to 15 million WC, which is a large percentage of the WC currently held on major exchanges. According to my calculations, if we carried it out this way, approximately 30% of the coins used for active day trading now would be essentially put into cold storage for years.

I would suggest that a small but respectable fraction of what's accumulated via the IPO be split up among the operations team to provide incentive and fair pay for their work. The remainder would be reserved for future development of specific items by the foundation, and in my opinion should be released in stages over a period of years, to provide an extended period where there are less WC on the market.

The financial plan for the funds gained via the IPO in the form of WC could only be changed via an act of the General Assembly of the Foundation with agreement from the Operations team (acting as a senate and parliament, if you'd want a real world example). The funds would of course be managed in a transparent manner similar (if not more transparent) to how they are managed currently by the foundation.

Finally, to ensure the momentum stays with WC prime, I believe we would need to time the release of a hot new feature for WC for around the time of the end of the IPO. One suggestion I've heard is to implement changes to speed up WC's transfer and confirmations times, so that we could market it as the ultimate arbitrage coin.

Factoring in economics, democratic inclusion, transparency, and accountability, I think that this project could show the larger markets what we're really capable of.

I look forward to everyone's thoughts! It's Canada Day here tomorrow, so I probably won't be online too much. But I'll be reading where I can and it's hard at work with press engagement as soon as the holiday is done.

All the best, and happy Canada Day!

Chris

[1714610231]

1714610231

[1714610231]

1714610231

[1714610231]

1714610231

[1714610231]

1714610231

[1714610231]

1714610231

[1714610231]

1714610231

[WhiteNotWright]

All the best, and happy Canada Day!

Chris

I don't know why the topic of a new coin keeps coming up, and outside a few fanboys have not heard from anyone saying they want this new coin. Can I get a show of hands of current investors that wish to have their WC diluted with the onslaught of a shadow coin. Seriously, you are snubbing your nose at potential new investors to the current coin and for the life of me cannot understand what the real motive is for this project. Seems like you folks have enough to do with the existing coin. Again, count me out if this goes ahead, not interested and will dump again.

[blitzkitten]

Hey Everyone,

So here is my thought process on how we'd work the IPO. This is of course just an informal proposed course of action, anything is open for discussion or change at this point.

I would propose we carry out a 5% premine, which would translate to 1.5 Million WOC if there were a total of 30 million to be mined.

WOC would have an extended mining period similar to bitcoin's, many years, taking place using a bell curve block reward system.

By using the bell curve block reward, it encourages a fair launch, and also in the initial stages makes mining the coin difficult, which means that the IPO could continue after mining begins. Using this, we could offer the IPO for a month before the coin's launch, and then continue to offer it for approximately two weeks before block rewards would begin to ramp up. We could also extend this period if we wanted.

This would ensure that the majority of the coins in circulation in the first few months are largely the result of the IPO, and therefore of direct benefit to WC prime. With slow release of new coins mined over time would we can also offer stability to those who wish to buy in.

I would suggest that the coins bought via the IPO be released in 3 stages over the period of a 30-60 days to prevent flooding the market, and each person that bought in via WC would be paid out according to a "first come first serve" basis on a set schedule to ensure that there is not a radical shift in available coins on the markets.

I believe the price of the IPO package (let's say we sold them in bundles of 1000 coins) should be fixed according the ratio difference of total coins between WC and WOC, and sold in fixed numbers daily over the course of the 60 days to prevent one whale buying them all up on day 1, defeating the ongoing purpose of this. So 1000 WOC would cost 10000 WC. Factoring this out, 1.5 million WOC offered in the IPO would translate to 15 million WC, which is a large percentage of the WC currently held on major exchanges. According to my calculations, if we carried it out this way, approximately 30% of the coins used for active day trading now would be essentially put into cold storage for years.

I would suggest that a small but respectable fraction of what's accumulated via the IPO be split up among the operations team to provide incentive and fair pay for their work. The remainder would be reserved for future development of specific items by the foundation, and in my opinion should be released in stages over a period of years, to provide an extended period where there are less WC on the market.

The financial plan for the funds gained via the IPO in the form of WC could only be changed via an act of the General Assembly of the Foundation with agreement from the Operations team (acting as a senate and parliament, if you'd want a real world example). The funds would of course be managed in a transparent manner similar (if not more transparent) to how they are managed currently by the foundation.

Finally, to ensure the momentum stays with WC prime, I believe we would need to time the release of a hot new feature for WC for around the time of the end of the IPO. One suggestion I've heard is to implement changes to speed up WC's transfer and confirmations times, so that we could market it as the ultimate arbitrage coin.

Factoring in economics, democratic inclusion, transparency, and accountability, I think that this project could show the larger markets what we're really capable of.

I look forward to everyone's thoughts! It's Canada Day here tomorrow, so I probably won't be online too much. But I'll be reading where I can and it's hard at work with press engagement as soon as the holiday is done.

All the best, and happy Canada Day!

Chris

well implementing WOC had to be done carefully and be well thought out. Good ideas there and sounds like you've factored in as many possible outcomes as there are foreseeable ones.

just to bump this bit from before

Mogonzo, in your latest post you say you see the future of Cryptos being focused on companion coins. Could you flesh out why you think this is the case?

I don't really see the benefit of another coin, I understand that its better for WC itself as you state about the blockchain and inherent weaknesses in anon, but if you could justify why you think companion is the future and how WOC will be a benefit, as you say anon is something people 'currently' want, which you allude to the potential of it being a current fad.

thanks

[WhiteNotWright]

"I would suggest that the coins bought via the IPO be released in 3 stages over the period of a 30-60 days to prevent flooding the market, and each person that bought in via WC would be paid out according to a "first come first serve" basis on a set schedule to ensure that there is not a radical shift in available coins on the markets. "

what this means is unless you are within the "inner-circle", you are last in line and basically screwed --what a joke. You folks know the WC is toast and trying to scam off into another coin and actually wanting lemmings to pay you for it. Tell MoosaNYC hello and the rest of the scam club and part-time DEVS.

I'm out lol

[blitzkitten]

"I would suggest that the coins bought via the IPO be released in 3 stages over the period of a 30-60 days to prevent flooding the market, and each person that bought in via WC would be paid out according to a "first come first serve" basis on a set schedule to ensure that there is not a radical shift in available coins on the markets. "

what this means is unless you are within the "inner-circle", you are last in line and basically screwed --what a joke. You folks know the WC is toast and trying to scam off into another coin and actually wanting lemmings to pay you for it. Tell MoosaNYC hello and the rest of the scam club and part-time DEVS.

I'm out lol

just put your buy order in first...

and if you're out can i have your coins?

[WhiteNotWright]

"I would suggest that the coins bought via the IPO be released in 3 stages over the period of a 30-60 days to prevent flooding the market, and each person that bought in via WC would be paid out according to a "first come first serve" basis on a set schedule to ensure that there is not a radical shift in available coins on the markets. "

what this means is unless you are within the "inner-circle", you are last in line and basically screwed --what a joke. You folks know the WC is toast and trying to scam off into another coin and actually wanting lemmings to pay you for it. Tell MoosaNYC hello and the rest of the scam club and part-time DEVS.

I'm out lol

just put your buy order in first...

and if you're out can i have your coins?

Trust me, you will know when I dump

[Ownski]

I think we should work on and fix Whitecoin and add features to it. If people don't want to buy WC in the first place I don't see why people would wanna buy a spin off coin.

[WhiteNotWright]

I think we should work on and fix Whitecoin and add features to it. If people don't want to buy WC in the first place I don't see why people would wanna buy a spin off coin.

I think we should work on and fix Whitecoin and add features to it. If people don't want to buy WC in the first place I don't see why people would wanna buy a spin off coin.

For new coin:

Yea: 1

Nay: 2

[mogonzo]

"I would suggest that the coins bought via the IPO be released in 3 stages over the period of a 30-60 days to prevent flooding the market, and each person that bought in via WC would be paid out according to a "first come first serve" basis on a set schedule to ensure that there is not a radical shift in available coins on the markets. "

what this means is unless you are within the "inner-circle", you are last in line and basically screwed --what a joke. You folks know the WC is toast and trying to scam off into another coin and actually wanting lemmings to pay you for it. Tell MoosaNYC hello and the rest of the scam club and part-time DEVS.

I'm out lol

With respect, that is completely wrong. That group has not been involved in WC for approaching two months now, first of all.

Secondly, the point of a public consultation process is to refine this to make it as fair as possible for everyone. No one would get a head start and I think that's clear. The first come first serve would be to help create demand on the markets, there would of course have to be a public start gun open.

Privacy services are something people want, and that's the only reason this has been proposed. You can see my post history on it, this is not a passion project of mine, the privacy feature is something the community has essentially demanded and you are clearly in the minority on this.

Those suggestions I wrote come from weeks of consulting with our most active community members, many people have reached out to me to see this done. I'm open to any possible implementation of it, I want to see the community's desires represented here. If you wind up feeling like you're in the miniority opinion in the community and that's reason enough for you to leave, then I wish you well.

[WhiteNotWright]

"I would suggest that the coins bought via the IPO be released in 3 stages over the period of a 30-60 days to prevent flooding the market, and each person that bought in via WC would be paid out according to a "first come first serve" basis on a set schedule to ensure that there is not a radical shift in available coins on the markets. "

what this means is unless you are within the "inner-circle", you are last in line and basically screwed --what a joke. You folks know the WC is toast and trying to scam off into another coin and actually wanting lemmings to pay you for it. Tell MoosaNYC hello and the rest of the scam club and part-time DEVS.

I'm out lol

With respect, that is completely wrong. That group has not been involved in WC for approaching two months now, first of all.

Secondly, the point of a public consultation process is to refine this to make it as fair as possible for everyone. No one would get a head start and I think that's clear. The first come first serve would be to help create demand on the markets, there would of course have to be a public start gun open.

Privacy services are something people want, and that's the only reason this has been proposed. You can see my post history on it, this is not a passion project of mine, the privacy feature is something the community has essentially demanded and you are clearly in the minority on this.

Those suggestions I wrote come from weeks of consulting with our most active community members, many people have reached out to me to see this done. I'm open to any possible implementation of it, I want to see the community's desires represented here. If you wind up feeling like you're in the miniority opinion in the community and that's reason enough for you to leave, then I wish you well.

You keep saying "these people reaching out to you" --names please because all I see on this forum is people not wanting a new coin. You are getting after the new features, I respect that. LTC failed to do that and now is being punished. However, we are just saying stick to this coin. I don't see why you cannot code the existing coin to do what your are stating. Please explain in detail why the WC cannot be brought up to speed to satisfy these requirements.

[CryptoSEO]

Been thinking, is it really ANON we are after?  I mean to hide ourselves from _____?

OR are we discussing Privacy and ensuring that WC will not be blocked by ISP's etc?

See my biggest issue with ANON is tax evasion shit and getting the gov't all down on us because we enable it with WC...

IMO its not in The WCF's best interest to implement ANON.  Doing a second coin, meh, not really up for that imo however...

If protection of the currency itself is the top priority meaning, when ISP's crack down and go against Net Neutrality (they decide what you can surf, how much you pay for premium content, regulate what flows through their internet fiber etc.), wouldn't it be in Crypto's best interest to have a mechanism in place to over come this?

Simply put:

1. Put a "privacy" switch inside of WC wallet
2. This then switches to a "Tor" type network
3. ISP's cannot mess with this type of traffic therefore the transactions will be solid and live on

if you want to, throw up a mixer and use that in conjunction with "Privacy"

I think this type of thinking would align with The WCF mandate to fight the good fight, we will then partner up with my buds over fighting for our rights for Net Neutrality... could make this happen VERY FAST if we want to imo, now i haven't talked to Mindfox (WCF's CTO) in detail about this process however IMO, if we are not trying to hide anything and its not going to compromise the blockchain at all, then this approach would have my vote...

PS - not to mention that the blockchain is being used by our cryptocopyright partnership that have invested directly into WC and not WOC...

Just my 2 WC

[mogonzo]

Hey Everyone,

So here is my thought process on how we'd work the IPO. This is of course just an informal proposed course of action, anything is open for discussion or change at this point.

I would propose we carry out a 5% premine, which would translate to 1.5 Million WOC if there were a total of 30 million to be mined.

WOC would have an extended mining period similar to bitcoin's, many years, taking place using a bell curve block reward system.

By using the bell curve block reward, it encourages a fair launch, and also in the initial stages makes mining the coin difficult, which means that the IPO could continue after mining begins. Using this, we could offer the IPO for a month before the coin's launch, and then continue to offer it for approximately two weeks before block rewards would begin to ramp up. We could also extend this period if we wanted.

This would ensure that the majority of the coins in circulation in the first few months are largely the result of the IPO, and therefore of direct benefit to WC prime. With slow release of new coins mined over time would we can also offer stability to those who wish to buy in.

I would suggest that the coins bought via the IPO be released in 3 stages over the period of a 30-60 days to prevent flooding the market, and each person that bought in via WC would be paid out according to a "first come first serve" basis on a set schedule to ensure that there is not a radical shift in available coins on the markets.

I believe the price of the IPO package (let's say we sold them in bundles of 1000 coins) should be fixed according the ratio difference of total coins between WC and WOC, and sold in fixed numbers daily over the course of the 60 days to prevent one whale buying them all up on day 1, defeating the ongoing purpose of this. So 1000 WOC would cost 10000 WC. Factoring this out, 1.5 million WOC offered in the IPO would translate to 15 million WC, which is a large percentage of the WC currently held on major exchanges. According to my calculations, if we carried it out this way, approximately 30% of the coins used for active day trading now would be essentially put into cold storage for years.

I would suggest that a small but respectable fraction of what's accumulated via the IPO be split up among the operations team to provide incentive and fair pay for their work. The remainder would be reserved for future development of specific items by the foundation, and in my opinion should be released in stages over a period of years, to provide an extended period where there are less WC on the market.

The financial plan for the funds gained via the IPO in the form of WC could only be changed via an act of the General Assembly of the Foundation with agreement from the Operations team (acting as a senate and parliament, if you'd want a real world example). The funds would of course be managed in a transparent manner similar (if not more transparent) to how they are managed currently by the foundation.

Finally, to ensure the momentum stays with WC prime, I believe we would need to time the release of a hot new feature for WC for around the time of the end of the IPO. One suggestion I've heard is to implement changes to speed up WC's transfer and confirmations times, so that we could market it as the ultimate arbitrage coin.

Factoring in economics, democratic inclusion, transparency, and accountability, I think that this project could show the larger markets what we're really capable of.

I look forward to everyone's thoughts! It's Canada Day here tomorrow, so I probably won't be online too much. But I'll be reading where I can and it's hard at work with press engagement as soon as the holiday is done.

All the best, and happy Canada Day!

Chris

well implementing WOC had to be done carefully and be well thought out. Good ideas there and sounds like you've factored in as many possible outcomes as there are foreseeable ones.

just to bump this bit from before

Mogonzo, in your latest post you say you see the future of Cryptos being focused on companion coins. Could you flesh out why you think this is the case?

I don't really see the benefit of another coin, I understand that its better for WC itself as you state about the blockchain and inherent weaknesses in anon, but if you could justify why you think companion is the future and how WOC will be a benefit, as you say anon is something people 'currently' want, which you allude to the potential of it being a current fad.

thanks

Hey, I'm going to take our conversation from IRC and expand for your answer here so others can see. Blitz and I had a chat about this in #chunky earlier.

basically, I think it's going that way because most of the 700 coins that have been made, are the product of only a handful of groups and coders. Most of these coins, they make, pump them up, and then ditch out onto the next project, but the market is getting wise to this and wc is the perfect example, because even though the devs may change personas, they can't change their code. So in WC's case for example we were able to figure out a path of coins the previous dev had made.

so I think that very soon most of those "coins of the week" devs are going to be forced to either withdraw from the crypto dev scene, or change their tactics. Because I do think that while part of the development of these new coins is only profit based, the reality is there is another factor too, and that is innovation. Alot of coinse currently available have limits as to what can be done to improve them, which requires creating new blockchains.

We're already seeing dead coins resurrected as sequels, so I think that very soon we're going to see these groups move towards offering different coins, at different total coin count and mining time intervals, with linked devlopment and marketing. The rest, has to do with flexbility in offering unique features, WC can have a certain set of improvements made to it but we can only divert so far from the original without having to do something wild with the blockchain.

I'm starting to think of cryptocoins as no different than any other online service. And if you think of it in those terms, you could look at social media and get a feel for how it should factor out of a large period of time. Generally, users migrate from one big platform they like of a service only when something new becomes available that takes many services they had to use previously and combines them into one.

So like ICQ took IRC to the next level, and facebook did the same with myspace, taking the primary features of the previous big platform and then integrating all the niche platform features that had cropped up in the meantime.

I think crypto one day has to go the same way, and companion coins are the only real answer. Coding is only half the battle on the innovation front, coins have to have a purpose to exist. WC's can be very, very flexible in that regard if we always maintain it as our top priority and focus, even if new features have to be developped on the side. Is WhiteOutCoin the first step in this? Maybe we're not ready, maybe the market isn't ready. But one day someone is going to do this and I think I'd prefer WC to be the innovator even if privacy features aren't on my personal priority list as a user of WC.

Hope that explains it.

[mogonzo]

"I would suggest that the coins bought via the IPO be released in 3 stages over the period of a 30-60 days to prevent flooding the market, and each person that bought in via WC would be paid out according to a "first come first serve" basis on a set schedule to ensure that there is not a radical shift in available coins on the markets. "

what this means is unless you are within the "inner-circle", you are last in line and basically screwed --what a joke. You folks know the WC is toast and trying to scam off into another coin and actually wanting lemmings to pay you for it. Tell MoosaNYC hello and the rest of the scam club and part-time DEVS.

I'm out lol

With respect, that is completely wrong. That group has not been involved in WC for approaching two months now, first of all.

Secondly, the point of a public consultation process is to refine this to make it as fair as possible for everyone. No one would get a head start and I think that's clear. The first come first serve would be to help create demand on the markets, there would of course have to be a public start gun open.

Privacy services are something people want, and that's the only reason this has been proposed. You can see my post history on it, this is not a passion project of mine, the privacy feature is something the community has essentially demanded and you are clearly in the minority on this.

Those suggestions I wrote come from weeks of consulting with our most active community members, many people have reached out to me to see this done. I'm open to any possible implementation of it, I want to see the community's desires represented here. If you wind up feeling like you're in the miniority opinion in the community and that's reason enough for you to leave, then I wish you well.

You keep saying "these people reaching out to you" --names please because all I see on this forum is people not wanting a new coin. You are getting after the new features, I respect that. LTC failed to do that and now is being punished. However, we are just saying stick to this coin. I don't see why you cannot code the existing coin to do what your are stating. Please explain in detail why the WC cannot be brought up to speed to satisfy these requirements.

I don't think it's my place to out people, if they want to state their public support for this they can do so. In the end, we'll be handling this democratically most likely via the general assembly. If you think I'm being dishonest, well I'll just say I'm sorry you feel that way. But scroll back to the time before you created your account, and you'll find many of the most known names in the community calling for anon functionality of some kind.

Mindfox then explained that the blockchain would be put at risk with most current privacy implementations, which is where the discussion then went to a companion coin on the operations side. If you'd like to be included more in the operations discussions, I encourage you to join up with us and get to work. While the general assembly and public consultation side will always be open to everyone, to be on the ops team you have to be willing to work.

For specifics on why anon functionality wouldn't be a good thing for WC proper, I do think that you're best talking to mindfox. He did offer a detailed explanation in IRC a couple weeks ago which has been passed around and is up in the #whitecoinfoundation logs.

I'm not saying that WC can't be further improved or have new features developed, you'll note in my oriignal post tonight about the IPO I directly addressed that. Did you check it out?

[adoress]

I am so tired to hear you guys talking talking talking, always talk

[blitzkitten]

So like ICQ took IRC to the next level, and facebook did the same with myspace, taking the primary features of the previous big platform and then integrating all the niche platform features that had cropped up in the meantime.

in the instance of facebook and myspace, one killed the other off.

is the idea that the WC brand is what maintains relevance for both currancies?

[mogonzo]

So like ICQ took IRC to the next level, and facebook did the same with myspace, taking the primary features of the previous big platform and then integrating all the niche platform features that had cropped up in the meantime.

in the instance of facebook and myspace, one killed the other off.

is the idea that the WC brand is what maintains relevance for both currancies?

Exactly, we'd be creating multiple features by tying coins together conceptually into one meta-service.

[blitzkitten]

I am so tired to hear you guys talking talking talking, always talk

its a forum..

[WhiteNotWright]

Hey Everyone,

So here is my thought process on how we'd work the IPO. This is of course just an informal proposed course of action, anything is open for discussion or change at this point.

I would propose we carry out a 5% premine, which would translate to 1.5 Million WOC if there were a total of 30 million to be mined.

WOC would have an extended mining period similar to bitcoin's, many years, taking place using a bell curve block reward system.

By using the bell curve block reward, it encourages a fair launch, and also in the initial stages makes mining the coin difficult, which means that the IPO could continue after mining begins. Using this, we could offer the IPO for a month before the coin's launch, and then continue to offer it for approximately two weeks before block rewards would begin to ramp up. We could also extend this period if we wanted.

This would ensure that the majority of the coins in circulation in the first few months are largely the result of the IPO, and therefore of direct benefit to WC prime. With slow release of new coins mined over time would we can also offer stability to those who wish to buy in.

I would suggest that the coins bought via the IPO be released in 3 stages over the period of a 30-60 days to prevent flooding the market, and each person that bought in via WC would be paid out according to a "first come first serve" basis on a set schedule to ensure that there is not a radical shift in available coins on the markets.

I believe the price of the IPO package (let's say we sold them in bundles of 1000 coins) should be fixed according the ratio difference of total coins between WC and WOC, and sold in fixed numbers daily over the course of the 60 days to prevent one whale buying them all up on day 1, defeating the ongoing purpose of this. So 1000 WOC would cost 10000 WC. Factoring this out, 1.5 million WOC offered in the IPO would translate to 15 million WC, which is a large percentage of the WC currently held on major exchanges. According to my calculations, if we carried it out this way, approximately 30% of the coins used for active day trading now would be essentially put into cold storage for years.

I would suggest that a small but respectable fraction of what's accumulated via the IPO be split up among the operations team to provide incentive and fair pay for their work. The remainder would be reserved for future development of specific items by the foundation, and in my opinion should be released in stages over a period of years, to provide an extended period where there are less WC on the market.

The financial plan for the funds gained via the IPO in the form of WC could only be changed via an act of the General Assembly of the Foundation with agreement from the Operations team (acting as a senate and parliament, if you'd want a real world example). The funds would of course be managed in a transparent manner similar (if not more transparent) to how they are managed currently by the foundation.

Finally, to ensure the momentum stays with WC prime, I believe we would need to time the release of a hot new feature for WC for around the time of the end of the IPO. One suggestion I've heard is to implement changes to speed up WC's transfer and confirmations times, so that we could market it as the ultimate arbitrage coin.

Factoring in economics, democratic inclusion, transparency, and accountability, I think that this project could show the larger markets what we're really capable of.

I look forward to everyone's thoughts! It's Canada Day here tomorrow, so I probably won't be online too much. But I'll be reading where I can and it's hard at work with press engagement as soon as the holiday is done.

All the best, and happy Canada Day!

Chris

well implementing WOC had to be done carefully and be well thought out. Good ideas there and sounds like you've factored in as many possible outcomes as there are foreseeable ones.

just to bump this bit from before

Mogonzo, in your latest post you say you see the future of Cryptos being focused on companion coins. Could you flesh out why you think this is the case?

I don't really see the benefit of another coin, I understand that its better for WC itself as you state about the blockchain and inherent weaknesses in anon, but if you could justify why you think companion is the future and how WOC will be a benefit, as you say anon is something people 'currently' want, which you allude to the potential of it being a current fad.

thanks

Hey, I'm going to take our conversation from IRC and expand for your answer here so others can see. Blitz and I had a chat about this in #chunky earlier.

basically, I think it's going that way because most of the 700 coins that have been made, are the product of only a handful of groups and coders. Most of these coins, they make, pump them up, and then ditch out onto the next project, but the market is getting wise to this and wc is the perfect example, because even though the devs may change personas, they can't change their code. So in WC's case for example we were able to figure out a path of coins the previous dev had made.

so I think that very soon most of those "coins of the week" devs are going to be forced to either withdraw from the crypto dev scene, or change their tactics. Because I do think that while part of the development of these new coins is only profit based, the reality is there is another factor too, and that is innovation. Alot of coinse currently available have limits as to what can be done to improve them, which requires creating new blockchains.

We're already seeing dead coins resurrected as sequels, so I think that very soon we're going to see these groups move towards offering different coins, at different total coin count and mining time intervals, with linked devlopment and marketing. The rest, has to do with flexbility in offering unique features, WC can have a certain set of improvements made to it but we can only divert so far from the original without having to do something wild with the blockchain.

I'm starting to think of cryptocoins as no different than any other online service. And if you think of it in those terms, you could look at social media and get a feel for how it should factor out of a large period of time. Generally, users migrate from one big platform they like of a service only when something new becomes available that takes many services they had to use previously and combines them into one.

So like ICQ took IRC to the next level, and facebook did the same with myspace, taking the primary features of the previous big platform and then integrating all the niche platform features that had cropped up in the meantime.

I think crypto one day has to go the same way, and companion coins are the only real answer. Coding is only half the battle on the innovation front, coins have to have a purpose to exist. WC's can be very, very flexible in that regard if we always maintain it as our top priority and focus, even if new features have to be developped on the side. Is WhiteOutCoin the first step in this? Maybe we're not ready, maybe the market isn't ready. But one day someone is going to do this and I think I'd prefer WC to be the innovator even if privacy features aren't on my personal priority list as a user of WC.

Hope that explains it.

It explains you thinking, which is logical, but if you are going the way of yet another ALT, I would just as soon keep my money flowing through the other 200+ pump and dump alts until they are fail and resort back to a few select coins with core innovations. I guess should your new coin arrive at that level in time and have good market cap like the others, it would be worth looking at during that time. Doesn't do much for your current "foundation" coin.

[WhiteNotWright]

Been thinking, is it really ANON we are after?  I mean to hide ourselves from _____?

OR are we discussing Privacy and ensuring that WC will not be blocked by ISP's etc?

See my biggest issue with ANON is tax evasion shit and getting the gov't all down on us because we enable it with WC...

IMO its not in The WCF's best interest to implement ANON.  Doing a second coin, meh, not really up for that imo however...

If protection of the currency itself is the top priority meaning, when ISP's crack down and go against Net Neutrality (they decide what you can surf, how much you pay for premium content, regulate what flows through their internet fiber etc.), wouldn't it be in Crypto's best interest to have a mechanism in place to over come this?

Simply put:

1. Put a "privacy" switch inside of WC wallet
2. This then switches to a "Tor" type network
3. ISP's cannot mess with this type of traffic therefore the transactions will be solid and live on

if you want to, throw up a mixer and use that in conjunction with "Privacy"

I think this type of thinking would align with The WCF mandate to fight the good fight, we will then partner up with my buds over fighting for our rights for Net Neutrality... could make this happen VERY FAST if we want to imo, now i haven't talked to Mindfox (WCF's CTO) in detail about this process however IMO, if we are not trying to hide anything and its not going to compromise the blockchain at all, then this approach would have my vote...

PS - not to mention that the blockchain is being used by our cryptocopyright partnership that have invested directly into WC and not WOC...

Just my 2 WC

I would support this position.

[WhiteNotWright]

I am so tired to hear you guys talking talking talking, always talk

Trying closing your eyes and putting your head in the sand. That will keep pace with current thinking.