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

[mogonzo]

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 love it. This is right up my alley!

The possibilities from this approach are endless, and I can say I have more than a few political contacts who would be very interested in this. We need to get mindfox into this part of the discussion, but from my own limited coding knowledge I think this would be feasible and it makes perfect sense from a "why we're doing this" standpoint. It could also be a natural growth point to our 3rd mandate. Net-neutrality is a big political passion of mine, it's one of the main reasons I got active in politics.

[1714620789]

1714620789

[1714620789]

1714620789

[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

I love it. This is right up my alley!

The possibilities from this approach are endless, and I can say I have more than a few political contacts who would be very interested in this. We need to get mindfox into this part of the discussion, but from my own limited coding knowledge I think this would be feasible and it makes perfect sense from a "why we're doing this" standpoint. It could also be a natural growth point to our 3rd mandate. Net-neutrality is a big political passion of mine, it's one of the main reasons I got active in politics.

Mindfox and I were chatting a bit about it before but i was in a rush heading out so I wasn't able to express my entire reasoning for thinking this way (ANON vs PRIVACY protection)

[Troubled]

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 love it. This is right up my alley!

The possibilities from this approach are endless, and I can say I have more than a few political contacts who would be very interested in this. We need to get mindfox into this part of the discussion, but from my own limited coding knowledge I think this would be feasible and it makes perfect sense from a "why we're doing this" standpoint. It could also be a natural growth point to our 3rd mandate. Net-neutrality is a big political passion of mine, it's one of the main reasons I got active in politics.

I'm waiting to make up my mind on anon feature..... but don't listen to some of the jerks in this thread!!! I know for a fact they are part of a stupid pump group!! They're only upset you might beat them by playing an honest game!!! WHAT THE COMMUNITY DECIDES WON'T BE A SCAM THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS!!!!

I love this coin because the community owns it and that protects us from the scammers who make fake coins to walk away from!!!

[mogonzo]

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.

I'm curious, your post history shows that you have supported coins with anon functionality. You seem to have changed tac on that and I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be facetious sincerely interested in your experience.

[mogonzo]

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 love it. This is right up my alley!

The possibilities from this approach are endless, and I can say I have more than a few political contacts who would be very interested in this. We need to get mindfox into this part of the discussion, but from my own limited coding knowledge I think this would be feasible and it makes perfect sense from a "why we're doing this" standpoint. It could also be a natural growth point to our 3rd mandate. Net-neutrality is a big political passion of mine, it's one of the main reasons I got active in politics.

I'm waiting to make up my mind on anon feature..... but don't listen to some of the jerks in this thread!!! I know for a fact they are part of a stupid pump group!! They're only upset you might beat them by playing an honest game!!! WHAT THE COMMUNITY DECIDES WON'T BE A SCAM THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS!!!!

I love this coin because the community owns it and that protects us from the scammers who make fake coins to walk away from!!!

I appreciate your enthusiasm but please try to keep the conversation civil. I saw some of your posts earlier and I don't think it's healthy for us to appear unwelcoming from people who participate in other coin communities. Crypto is all one big industry and family and we need to be open to all ideas. Some of us may disagree in where whitecoin goes in the future, but I hope we can continue to set a high standard for how we exchange ideas. If you see someone behaving in a way you don't approve of, either directly call them on it and move on, or ignore them.

Thanks again for your interest and support, hope you don't take this as me trying to chastise you.

[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 love it. This is right up my alley!

The possibilities from this approach are endless, and I can say I have more than a few political contacts who would be very interested in this. We need to get mindfox into this part of the discussion, but from my own limited coding knowledge I think this would be feasible and it makes perfect sense from a "why we're doing this" standpoint. It could also be a natural growth point to our 3rd mandate. Net-neutrality is a big political passion of mine, it's one of the main reasons I got active in politics.

I'm waiting to make up my mind on anon feature..... but don't listen to some of the jerks in this thread!!! I know for a fact they are part of a stupid pump group!! They're only upset you might beat them by playing an honest game!!! WHAT THE COMMUNITY DECIDES WON'T BE A SCAM THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS!!!!

I love this coin because the community owns it and that protects us from the scammers who make fake coins to walk away from!!!

I appreciate your enthusiasm but please try to keep the conversation civil. I saw some of your posts earlier and I don't think it's healthy for us to appear unwelcoming from people who participate in other coin communities. Crypto is all one big industry and family and we need to be open to all ideas. Some of us may disagree in where whitecoin goes in the future, but I hope we can continue to set a high standard for how we exchange ideas. If you see someone behaving in a way you don't approve of, either directly call them on it and move on, or ignore them.

Thanks again for your interest and support, hope you don't take this as me trying to chastise you.

If you are going to call me out on my previous post, please quote me because I have been more than civil on this forum. I don't appreciate you skirting the issues and unless you can answer my questions as to "who these folks are in support of this new coin" I will go ahead and call what you are doing "a scam" and an attempt to dilute current WC value in order to obtain additional mining revenue on a new coin. Please, don't insult my intelligence and make me out to be someone that is trying to harm this coin. I have a stake and right to be heard and to let others know that may not be within the "circle of decision".

[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?

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

So it'd be a fair assumption that the general direction for WC for the future is to have multiple coins?

Hence the desire to be a base trade currency so WC is the fundamental currency and be able to be traded directly WC - WOC and then WC - WXX coin that could be developed in the future?

If that's the concept to create new companion coins when and where they're needed to offer different services to different groups then i think WOC is a good idea, it's 'of the current moment' and would provide a good base starting point on further releases.

[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.

I'm curious, your post history shows that you have supported coins with anon functionality. You seem to have changed tac on that and I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be facetious sincerely interested in your experience.

I am not saying I am against ANON. I am saying I against having yet another coin. I want to settle on a coin, one that is not pump and dump. I thought this was the coin and want to invest more. Now I have effectively put on the break and have told my camp the same. I don't think I am really reaching the right person to make my case. Who is in charge here?

[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.

So it'd be a fair assumption that the general direction for WC for the future is to have multiple coins?

Hence the desire to be a base trade currency so WC is the fundamental currency and be able to be traded directly WC - WOC and then WC - WXX coin that could be developed in the future?

If that's the concept to create new companion coins when and where they're needed to offer different services to different groups then i think WOC is a good idea, it's 'of the current moment' and would provide a good base starting point on further releases.

That's my general line of thought, I think that companion coins of some kind one day are inevitable, and really when you think about it, merely a matter of branding and packaging as to how you get them to work. I'm not saying we need to rush into it, nor do I think we should ever create a companion coin without a clear reason behind it. But yeah, having a multi-faceted service I think will be in our best interest in the long haul.

[mogonzo]

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.

I'm curious, your post history shows that you have supported coins with anon functionality. You seem to have changed tac on that and I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be facetious sincerely interested in your experience.

I am not saying I am against ANON. I am saying I against having yet another coin. I want to settle on a coin, one that is not pump and dump. I thought this was the coin and want to invest more. Now I have effectively put on the break and have told my camp the same. I don't think I am really reaching the right person to make my case. Who is in charge here?

The community is in charge. I hope you haven't interpreted my own statements as saying "this is what we have to do". If a critical mass of opinion in our community moves to not doing this as a companion coin, then I'll support that. I feel that my main role for now as these discussions take place is to try to make clear to people where majority opinion seems to exist.

I do think your concerns are valid, I share them. That's why at every step of the way I've tried to ensure that this proposed project have direct and lasting benefit to holders of WC. To me, if they're in the same wallet and it's a simple matter to exchange WC for WOC when you need them, I don't think we'd see WC taper off at all, I do think the economics of these concepts are sound (which are not solely mine, most of what I drafted earlier came from weeks of consulting with community members in direct chats).

Especially if we time the release of an awesome new development for whitecoin for around the end of the IPO period, we'd essentially have a multi-faceted service on our hands. There are still plenty of options for developing WC and I hope you don't think we'll be abandoning that in the long term, because nothing could be further from the truth. Our most requested feature has been some form of privacy, and that's why this discussion is happening now.

All the best,

Chris

[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?

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

So it'd be a fair assumption that the general direction for WC for the future is to have multiple coins?

Hence the desire to be a base trade currency so WC is the fundamental currency and be able to be traded directly WC - WOC and then WC - WXX coin that could be developed in the future?

If that's the concept to create new companion coins when and where they're needed to offer different services to different groups then i think WOC is a good idea, it's 'of the current moment' and would provide a good base starting point on further releases.

That's my general line of thought, I think that companion coins of some kind one day are inevitable, and really when you think about it, merely a matter of branding and packaging as to how you get them to work. I'm not saying we need to rush into it, nor do I think we should ever create a companion coin without a clear reason behind it. But yeah, having a multi-faceted service I think will be in our best interest in the long haul.

yeah certainly, it's a long term concept for what the foundation is doing and what cryptos are doing.

fundamentally i never saw the point of an anon feature but i liked that it's working towards something and i support the idea now because if the long term concept is to have a multi-faceted service then starting out at this point is probably a good move to gauge how the crypto world responds to it and hopefully learn some things which could be implemented on grander projects of the future

[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.

I'm curious, your post history shows that you have supported coins with anon functionality. You seem to have changed tac on that and I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be facetious sincerely interested in your experience.

I am not saying I am against ANON. I am saying I against having yet another coin. I want to settle on a coin, one that is not pump and dump. I thought this was the coin and want to invest more. Now I have effectively put on the break and have told my camp the same. I don't think I am really reaching the right person to make my case. Who is in charge here?

The community is in charge. I hope you haven't interpreted my own statements as saying "this is what we have to do". If a critical mass of opinion in our community moves to not doing this as a companion coin, then I'll support that. I feel that my main role for now as these discussions take place is to try to make clear to people where majority opinion seems to exist.

I do think your concerns are valid, I share them. That's why at every step of the way I've tried to ensure that this proposed project have direct and lasting benefit to holders of WC. To me, if they're in the same wallet and it's a simple matter to exchange WC for WOC when you need them, I don't think we'd see WC taper off at all, I do think the economics of these concepts are sound (which are not solely mine, most of what I drafted earlier came from weeks of consulting with community members in direct chats).

Especially if we time the release of an awesome new development for whitecoin for around the end of the IPO period, we'd essentially have a multi-faceted service on our hands. There are still plenty of options for developing WC and I hope you don't think we'll be abandoning that in the long term, because nothing could be further from the truth. Our most requested feature has been some form of privacy, and that's why this discussion is happening now.

All the best,

Chris

Again, you keep bringing up "the community" and quite frankly have not provide any names of the community. I am in the community for that matter and most likely a hundred others, but I don't see a hundred others stating their support for your "community plans". This is called avoidance to the questions that I am asking and trying to response in a manner that is shallow and without substance. I want you to know that I will no longer support this coin based on what you have just stated and what I have learned over the last few days. You are not forthright with your dealings in your development and you are trying to create the illusion that there are hundreds of you support the idea of a new coin. This is simple not the case as evidence throughout your continued responses.

This is why your coin is trading at 120-140 sat and will most likely never attract new investment for a healthy currency. Just another failed ALT with wishful thinking and poor implementation. Even Hobo Nickles has a greater market cap. Please get the price a little higher so I can dump your coins back to you and take my camp to another coin that has a business plan and honestly looks out for the interest of their current investors

Good day Sir.

[mogonzo]

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.

I'm curious, your post history shows that you have supported coins with anon functionality. You seem to have changed tac on that and I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be facetious sincerely interested in your experience.

I am not saying I am against ANON. I am saying I against having yet another coin. I want to settle on a coin, one that is not pump and dump. I thought this was the coin and want to invest more. Now I have effectively put on the break and have told my camp the same. I don't think I am really reaching the right person to make my case. Who is in charge here?

The community is in charge. I hope you haven't interpreted my own statements as saying "this is what we have to do". If a critical mass of opinion in our community moves to not doing this as a companion coin, then I'll support that. I feel that my main role for now as these discussions take place is to try to make clear to people where majority opinion seems to exist.

I do think your concerns are valid, I share them. That's why at every step of the way I've tried to ensure that this proposed project have direct and lasting benefit to holders of WC. To me, if they're in the same wallet and it's a simple matter to exchange WC for WOC when you need them, I don't think we'd see WC taper off at all, I do think the economics of these concepts are sound (which are not solely mine, most of what I drafted earlier came from weeks of consulting with community members in direct chats).

Especially if we time the release of an awesome new development for whitecoin for around the end of the IPO period, we'd essentially have a multi-faceted service on our hands. There are still plenty of options for developing WC and I hope you don't think we'll be abandoning that in the long term, because nothing could be further from the truth. Our most requested feature has been some form of privacy, and that's why this discussion is happening now.

All the best,

Chris

Again, you keep bringing up "the community" and quite frankly have not provide any names of the community. I am in the community for that matter and most likely a hundred others, but I don't see a hundred others stating their support for your "community plans". This is called avoidance to the questions that I am asking and trying to response in a manner that is shallow and without substance. I want you to know that I will no longer support this coin based on what you have just stated and what I have learned over the last few days. You are not forthright with your dealings in your development and you are trying to create the illusion that there are hundreds of you support the idea of a new coin. This is simple not the case as evidence throughout your continued responses.

This is why your coin is trading at 120-140 sat and will most likely never attract new investment for a healthy currency. Just another failed ALT with wishful thinking and poor implementation. Even Hobo Nickles has a greater market cap. Please get the price a little higher so I can dump your coins back to you and take my camp to another coin that has a business plan and honestly looks out for the interest of their current investors

Good day Sir.

Well, I've never seen you on IRC. I never said how many people, I just said that from my own observations so far the majority support some move of this form, and I don't feel it's my place to declare their votes by proxy. They may well change their mind, you've certainly made me think. It's only your approach that I take issue with, with all due respect you seem to have an attitude probelm. I have no idea why you'd be saying I'm being dishonest here, we've extended community discussion because of the concerns you and a few others have raised. I think you may need to take some more time to familiarize yourself with how this community functions.

Until we have our first general assembly, we're operating by the loose consensus codes of the internet. If you scroll back, you can see birddog, cryptoseo, and many other promiment members of this community supporting some kind of a move towards privacy features. I posted the original plan day of because it seemed we had a critical mass of people on the ops side ready to take this step, which is why we brought this forward for community discusison. You can see from the reaction at first, as well as on the markets, that people were happy we went with this move.

If working together as a group to improve these ideas and take the best possible course of action is not up your alley, then I would humbly suggest that you are right, you've come to the wrong coin. I believe the real long term strength of crypto is decentralization of power, and community based decision making. You seem to be under the impression that I am married to this idea, when all I'm trying to do here is help facilitate discussion and community desires.

Best,

Chris

[delphs]

I'll take Privacy over Anon any day of the week.

Also, WhiteNotWright, I hope you don't think the community is simply this forum, this is the entrance door only

[blitzkitten]

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.

I'm curious, your post history shows that you have supported coins with anon functionality. You seem to have changed tac on that and I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be facetious sincerely interested in your experience.

I am not saying I am against ANON. I am saying I against having yet another coin. I want to settle on a coin, one that is not pump and dump. I thought this was the coin and want to invest more. Now I have effectively put on the break and have told my camp the same. I don't think I am really reaching the right person to make my case. Who is in charge here?

The community is in charge. I hope you haven't interpreted my own statements as saying "this is what we have to do". If a critical mass of opinion in our community moves to not doing this as a companion coin, then I'll support that. I feel that my main role for now as these discussions take place is to try to make clear to people where majority opinion seems to exist.

I do think your concerns are valid, I share them. That's why at every step of the way I've tried to ensure that this proposed project have direct and lasting benefit to holders of WC. To me, if they're in the same wallet and it's a simple matter to exchange WC for WOC when you need them, I don't think we'd see WC taper off at all, I do think the economics of these concepts are sound (which are not solely mine, most of what I drafted earlier came from weeks of consulting with community members in direct chats).

Especially if we time the release of an awesome new development for whitecoin for around the end of the IPO period, we'd essentially have a multi-faceted service on our hands. There are still plenty of options for developing WC and I hope you don't think we'll be abandoning that in the long term, because nothing could be further from the truth. Our most requested feature has been some form of privacy, and that's why this discussion is happening now.

All the best,

Chris

Again, you keep bringing up "the community" and quite frankly have not provide any names of the community. I am in the community for that matter and most likely a hundred others, but I don't see a hundred others stating their support for your "community plans". This is called avoidance to the questions that I am asking and trying to response in a manner that is shallow and without substance. I want you to know that I will no longer support this coin based on what you have just stated and what I have learned over the last few days. You are not forthright with your dealings in your development and you are trying to create the illusion that there are hundreds of you support the idea of a new coin. This is simple not the case as evidence throughout your continued responses.

This is why your coin is trading at 120-140 sat and will most likely never attract new investment for a healthy currency. Just another failed ALT with wishful thinking and poor implementation. Even Hobo Nickles has a greater market cap. Please get the price a little higher so I can dump your coins back to you and take my camp to another coin that has a business plan and honestly looks out for the interest of their current investors

Good day Sir.

If you want to see where the community support for the idea is go back to page 559 from about 2 weeks ago, theres about 2 pages of people wanting anon

[mogonzo]

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.

I'm curious, your post history shows that you have supported coins with anon functionality. You seem to have changed tac on that and I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be facetious sincerely interested in your experience.

I am not saying I am against ANON. I am saying I against having yet another coin. I want to settle on a coin, one that is not pump and dump. I thought this was the coin and want to invest more. Now I have effectively put on the break and have told my camp the same. I don't think I am really reaching the right person to make my case. Who is in charge here?

The community is in charge. I hope you haven't interpreted my own statements as saying "this is what we have to do". If a critical mass of opinion in our community moves to not doing this as a companion coin, then I'll support that. I feel that my main role for now as these discussions take place is to try to make clear to people where majority opinion seems to exist.

I do think your concerns are valid, I share them. That's why at every step of the way I've tried to ensure that this proposed project have direct and lasting benefit to holders of WC. To me, if they're in the same wallet and it's a simple matter to exchange WC for WOC when you need them, I don't think we'd see WC taper off at all, I do think the economics of these concepts are sound (which are not solely mine, most of what I drafted earlier came from weeks of consulting with community members in direct chats).

Especially if we time the release of an awesome new development for whitecoin for around the end of the IPO period, we'd essentially have a multi-faceted service on our hands. There are still plenty of options for developing WC and I hope you don't think we'll be abandoning that in the long term, because nothing could be further from the truth. Our most requested feature has been some form of privacy, and that's why this discussion is happening now.

All the best,

Chris

Again, you keep bringing up "the community" and quite frankly have not provide any names of the community. I am in the community for that matter and most likely a hundred others, but I don't see a hundred others stating their support for your "community plans". This is called avoidance to the questions that I am asking and trying to response in a manner that is shallow and without substance. I want you to know that I will no longer support this coin based on what you have just stated and what I have learned over the last few days. You are not forthright with your dealings in your development and you are trying to create the illusion that there are hundreds of you support the idea of a new coin. This is simple not the case as evidence throughout your continued responses.

This is why your coin is trading at 120-140 sat and will most likely never attract new investment for a healthy currency. Just another failed ALT with wishful thinking and poor implementation. Even Hobo Nickles has a greater market cap. Please get the price a little higher so I can dump your coins back to you and take my camp to another coin that has a business plan and honestly looks out for the interest of their current investors

Good day Sir.

If you want to see where the community support for the idea is go back to page 559 from about 2 weeks ago, theres about 2 pages of people wanting anon

It's the most popular topic for whitecoin on twitter as well.

[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.

I'm curious, your post history shows that you have supported coins with anon functionality. You seem to have changed tac on that and I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be facetious sincerely interested in your experience.

I am not saying I am against ANON. I am saying I against having yet another coin. I want to settle on a coin, one that is not pump and dump. I thought this was the coin and want to invest more. Now I have effectively put on the break and have told my camp the same. I don't think I am really reaching the right person to make my case. Who is in charge here?

The community is in charge. I hope you haven't interpreted my own statements as saying "this is what we have to do". If a critical mass of opinion in our community moves to not doing this as a companion coin, then I'll support that. I feel that my main role for now as these discussions take place is to try to make clear to people where majority opinion seems to exist.

I do think your concerns are valid, I share them. That's why at every step of the way I've tried to ensure that this proposed project have direct and lasting benefit to holders of WC. To me, if they're in the same wallet and it's a simple matter to exchange WC for WOC when you need them, I don't think we'd see WC taper off at all, I do think the economics of these concepts are sound (which are not solely mine, most of what I drafted earlier came from weeks of consulting with community members in direct chats).

Especially if we time the release of an awesome new development for whitecoin for around the end of the IPO period, we'd essentially have a multi-faceted service on our hands. There are still plenty of options for developing WC and I hope you don't think we'll be abandoning that in the long term, because nothing could be further from the truth. Our most requested feature has been some form of privacy, and that's why this discussion is happening now.

All the best,

Chris

Again, you keep bringing up "the community" and quite frankly have not provide any names of the community. I am in the community for that matter and most likely a hundred others, but I don't see a hundred others stating their support for your "community plans". This is called avoidance to the questions that I am asking and trying to response in a manner that is shallow and without substance. I want you to know that I will no longer support this coin based on what you have just stated and what I have learned over the last few days. You are not forthright with your dealings in your development and you are trying to create the illusion that there are hundreds of you support the idea of a new coin. This is simple not the case as evidence throughout your continued responses.

This is why your coin is trading at 120-140 sat and will most likely never attract new investment for a healthy currency. Just another failed ALT with wishful thinking and poor implementation. Even Hobo Nickles has a greater market cap. Please get the price a little higher so I can dump your coins back to you and take my camp to another coin that has a business plan and honestly looks out for the interest of their current investors

Good day Sir.

If you want to see where the community support for the idea is go back to page 559 from about 2 weeks ago, theres about 2 pages of people wanting anon

Perhaps I did not make my self clear. I stated I was oppose to a new coin, nothing to do with rejecting privacy in any statement I have ever made. Please show me where more than four or five people (out of hundreds) are supporting a new coin to dilute the current WC. If this is the only way to get ANON, then yes you could infer the position. Some call it attitude, I call it questioning the structure and organisation. There is nothing I can do at this point. It sounds like the wheels are in motion to create this new coin and it will ultimately wipe out the original WC for better or for worse. I am merely selecting to hedge my position before this eventuality removes value completely. Having said that, I think be shady with anon doesn't fair well with the image you are trying to sell, so you kind of contradict yourselves in that regard. White is suppose to be pure.

Good luck in your efforts as well.

[mogonzo]

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.

I'm curious, your post history shows that you have supported coins with anon functionality. You seem to have changed tac on that and I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be facetious sincerely interested in your experience.

I am not saying I am against ANON. I am saying I against having yet another coin. I want to settle on a coin, one that is not pump and dump. I thought this was the coin and want to invest more. Now I have effectively put on the break and have told my camp the same. I don't think I am really reaching the right person to make my case. Who is in charge here?

The community is in charge. I hope you haven't interpreted my own statements as saying "this is what we have to do". If a critical mass of opinion in our community moves to not doing this as a companion coin, then I'll support that. I feel that my main role for now as these discussions take place is to try to make clear to people where majority opinion seems to exist.

I do think your concerns are valid, I share them. That's why at every step of the way I've tried to ensure that this proposed project have direct and lasting benefit to holders of WC. To me, if they're in the same wallet and it's a simple matter to exchange WC for WOC when you need them, I don't think we'd see WC taper off at all, I do think the economics of these concepts are sound (which are not solely mine, most of what I drafted earlier came from weeks of consulting with community members in direct chats).

Especially if we time the release of an awesome new development for whitecoin for around the end of the IPO period, we'd essentially have a multi-faceted service on our hands. There are still plenty of options for developing WC and I hope you don't think we'll be abandoning that in the long term, because nothing could be further from the truth. Our most requested feature has been some form of privacy, and that's why this discussion is happening now.

All the best,

Chris

Again, you keep bringing up "the community" and quite frankly have not provide any names of the community. I am in the community for that matter and most likely a hundred others, but I don't see a hundred others stating their support for your "community plans". This is called avoidance to the questions that I am asking and trying to response in a manner that is shallow and without substance. I want you to know that I will no longer support this coin based on what you have just stated and what I have learned over the last few days. You are not forthright with your dealings in your development and you are trying to create the illusion that there are hundreds of you support the idea of a new coin. This is simple not the case as evidence throughout your continued responses.

This is why your coin is trading at 120-140 sat and will most likely never attract new investment for a healthy currency. Just another failed ALT with wishful thinking and poor implementation. Even Hobo Nickles has a greater market cap. Please get the price a little higher so I can dump your coins back to you and take my camp to another coin that has a business plan and honestly looks out for the interest of their current investors

Good day Sir.

If you want to see where the community support for the idea is go back to page 559 from about 2 weeks ago, theres about 2 pages of people wanting anon

Perhaps I did not make my self clear. I stated I was oppose to a new coin, nothing to do with rejecting privacy in any statement I have ever made. Please show me where more than four or five people (out of hundreds) are supporting a new coin to dilute the current WC. If this is the only way to get ANON, then yes you could infer the position. Some call it attitude, I call it questioning the structure and organisation. There is nothing I can do at this point. It sounds like the wheels are in motion to create this new coin and it will ultimately wipe out the original WC for better or for worse. I am merely selecting to hedge my position before this eventuality removes value completely. Having said that, I think be shady with anon doesn't fair well with the image you are trying to sell, so you kind of contradict yourselves in that regard. White is suppose to be pure.

Good luck in your efforts as well.

You are jumping to some pretty serious conclusions and not being constructive. Propose another solution or back up your assertions with evidence and substance.

My reporting of my own experience when talking with people privately and publicly does not mean I'm going to force the decision through, I'm trying to help to guide the discussion and it's not an easy job. I think our track record speaks for itself, we're a community coin, we make decisions together. You've voiced yours but have yet to actually counter with much of substance beyond some valid general concerns. But we need specifics.

How is it that you think this IPO process -if we pursue it- and linking of the coins together permanently would cause value to leave WC? If the economics or math point to you being correct, well then in my opinion it's a no brainer that we put the companion coin on hold.

[Khelgaar]

Mogonzo mentioned proposal, let`s wait and see what is the plan. Not a big fan about topic too but will give`m chance to reassure me 

Haha, I like your quote. 

"'If you are going through hell, keep going' Sir WC" - Khelgaar

thanks mate, describes all that we are going through in couple of months 
hope we continue struggle 

cheers
B.

[malbee]

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.

I'm curious, your post history shows that you have supported coins with anon functionality. You seem to have changed tac on that and I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be facetious sincerely interested in your experience.

I am not saying I am against ANON. I am saying I against having yet another coin. I want to settle on a coin, one that is not pump and dump. I thought this was the coin and want to invest more. Now I have effectively put on the break and have told my camp the same. I don't think I am really reaching the right person to make my case. Who is in charge here?

The community is in charge. I hope you haven't interpreted my own statements as saying "this is what we have to do". If a critical mass of opinion in our community moves to not doing this as a companion coin, then I'll support that. I feel that my main role for now as these discussions take place is to try to make clear to people where majority opinion seems to exist.

I do think your concerns are valid, I share them. That's why at every step of the way I've tried to ensure that this proposed project have direct and lasting benefit to holders of WC. To me, if they're in the same wallet and it's a simple matter to exchange WC for WOC when you need them, I don't think we'd see WC taper off at all, I do think the economics of these concepts are sound (which are not solely mine, most of what I drafted earlier came from weeks of consulting with community members in direct chats).

Especially if we time the release of an awesome new development for whitecoin for around the end of the IPO period, we'd essentially have a multi-faceted service on our hands. There are still plenty of options for developing WC and I hope you don't think we'll be abandoning that in the long term, because nothing could be further from the truth. Our most requested feature has been some form of privacy, and that's why this discussion is happening now.

All the best,

Chris

Again, you keep bringing up "the community" and quite frankly have not provide any names of the community. I am in the community for that matter and most likely a hundred others, but I don't see a hundred others stating their support for your "community plans". This is called avoidance to the questions that I am asking and trying to response in a manner that is shallow and without substance. I want you to know that I will no longer support this coin based on what you have just stated and what I have learned over the last few days. You are not forthright with your dealings in your development and you are trying to create the illusion that there are hundreds of you support the idea of a new coin. This is simple not the case as evidence throughout your continued responses.

This is why your coin is trading at 120-140 sat and will most likely never attract new investment for a healthy currency. Just another failed ALT with wishful thinking and poor implementation. Even Hobo Nickles has a greater market cap. Please get the price a little higher so I can dump your coins back to you and take my camp to another coin that has a business plan and honestly looks out for the interest of their current investors

Good day Sir.

If you want to see where the community support for the idea is go back to page 559 from about 2 weeks ago, theres about 2 pages of people wanting anon

Perhaps I did not make my self clear. I stated I was oppose to a new coin, nothing to do with rejecting privacy in any statement I have ever made. Please show me where more than four or five people (out of hundreds) are supporting a new coin to dilute the current WC. If this is the only way to get ANON, then yes you could infer the position. Some call it attitude, I call it questioning the structure and organisation. There is nothing I can do at this point. It sounds like the wheels are in motion to create this new coin and it will ultimately wipe out the original WC for better or for worse. I am merely selecting to hedge my position before this eventuality removes value completely. Having said that, I think be shady with anon doesn't fair well with the image you are trying to sell, so you kind of contradict yourselves in that regard. White is suppose to be pure.

Good luck in your efforts as well.

You are jumping to some pretty serious conclusions and not being constructive. Propose another solution or back up your assertions with evidence and substance.

My reporting of my own experience when talking with people privately and publicly does not mean I'm going to force the decision through, I'm trying to help to guide the discussion and it's not an easy job. I think our track record speaks for itself, we're a community coin, we make decisions together. You've voiced yours but have yet to actually counter with much of substance beyond some valid general concerns. But we need specifics.

How is it that you think this IPO process -if we pursue it- and linking of the coins together permanently would cause value to leave WC? If the economics or math point to you being correct, well then in my opinion it's a no brainer that we put the companion coin on hold.

I am in favor of a new coin that adds a privacy function to the services provided by the WCF...  There I said it!

But, If we as a foundation decide to not make a new coin, and go in a new direction other than privacy.  I will continue to back WC and the WCF.  You see that is the difference between someone who backs the WCF and someone who obviously has other motives. 

I just wanted you to know that I too have quite a stake in WC and the attention of a group of investors...also watching what is happening here.  Do they wish things were better...who doesn't?  But what is at the core of the WCF is what counts, and what will count in the end. 

Do not get thrown by blow hards that only have one tactic...threats.  Threats of leaving and never coming back...only to comment two posts later that this is the end...they are really out this time...ok, one more time about why this sucks...then I'm OUT...

Thank you Mogonzo for keeping the conversation going and for keeping a level head...you are great example of that for all of us. (a sign of a good leader)      So let's keep talking!   I really would like to hear from Mindfox on what is possible...especially with a two coin wallet.  And I would love to hear from more people who think a new coin might not be a good idea. 

Thanks,
malbee