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

[blitzkitten]

+1 for the update.

I think i can safely say that everyone is cool with time off for RL and all that it entails, the lack of communication is what i think has caused me to scratch my head about what's happening with both Chunky and the Salsman.

Thanks for keeping us in the loop Jason that's the big thing!

As for chunky's backlog it wouldn't be that big in the grand scheme of things, hash rates have never been that massive with probably only 14-16 days of average capacity outstanding then probably 7 days at an unkown but most likely lesser value while the pool pages were down

At a very rough guess i'd put it between 1 - 3M WC, but thats a very rough guess from my average payouts and my usual percentage of the X11 pool.

Not to mention the value between the mined coins against the value of WC has changed significantly. It would also be difficult to work out who would be eligible for payouts (you'd need that info from chunky and if it was at that point then i think it'd be safe to assume that chunky would just do the trades anyway)

Basically my conclusion is that although that's a really nice gesture to hold funds and compensate the difficulties of allocating make it unfeasible and exploitable unless all the info was to be retrieved and if that was the case then chunky could just do the pay out.

[flogi]

someone pointed out IRL meaning of WC on casheer forums so i wonder what is the sentiment on updating acronym "WC"

perhaps could be voted and implemented at the same time as proposed "4. Reduce Confirmation Times"

candidate acronyms:
1. WTC
2. XWT (this would fit well with XBT )
3. XWH

(whc is already used by some other alt)

why x? "X" refers to ISO code for alternative currencies not controlled by any government.
like Gold is referred to as XAU, Silver (XAG), Palladium (XPD), Platinum (XPT)

ISO standards are set by the international standards organisation, and Bitcoin is already included as XBT (so this would be a good goal for WCF to work towards, establish some international standards recognition)

I think WTC is a good name, but is somewhat associated with World Trade Center --unless that is what you are going for..

[surfguy72]

someone pointed out IRL meaning of WC on casheer forums so i wonder what is the sentiment on updating acronym "WC"

perhaps could be voted and implemented at the same time as proposed "4. Reduce Confirmation Times"

candidate acronyms:
1. WTC
2. XWT (this would fit well with XBT )
3. XWH

(whc is already used by some other alt)

why x? "X" refers to ISO code for alternative currencies not controlled by any government.
like Gold is referred to as XAU, Silver (XAG), Palladium (XPD), Platinum (XPT)

ISO standards are set by the international standards organisation, and Bitcoin is already included as XBT (so this would be a good goal for WCF to work towards, establish some international standards recognition)

I think WTC is a good name, but is somewhat associated with World Trade Center --unless that is what you are going for..

i would vote for XWT or XWH myself, for standards reasons - unless its not assigned by request but assigned by ISO - thats something WCF representatives should ask about

I think if we decide on a new abbreviation for WhiteCoin, it can be whatever the community wishes.  I think it would alleviate some of the humor from our european friends with WC meaning toilette.

[surfguy72]

In case you didn't see...


MintPal V2 – Policies on addition, removal, verified markets and ICO escrows.
by moolahch

Introduction

The following is a tentative structure for the addition and removal of coins on V2 of MintPal, as well as additional policies in relation to verified market and ICO fundraising.

Path to Addition

A coin will be reviewed for addition, once the following requirements are met.

Active development team.
No major bugs in current release of coin.
Strong community support.
Functional wallet.
Functional blockchain explorer.
Is not yet another find and replace clone of Litecoin.
Is at least 28 days old.
A request is made by the development team to review the coin.
Once a request to us has been made, your coin will be put in to the queue for review. The review process will then generally start within 7 days.

Once we begin the process of reviewing a coin, a decision will be made within 7 days – and the details of this publicly announced. If a positive decision is reached, a coin will be added within 24 hours.

From time to time, we will add coins on our own initiative with no external involvement.

Path to Removal

The following are paths to removal.

Coin has less than 1 BTC volume per week, for a period of 4 weeks.
Coin abandoned by developers, with no new developers stepping up to take over. Essentially, if a coin dies.
Request by the developers, where backed by majority sentiment within the coin community. If not backed by the community, we will not act on this request.
In the event that any of the above occur, a 10 day removal notice will be publicized. The markets will be suspended at this time, and no more deposits will be processed. Withdrawals will continue to be processed for a period of 60 days once removed.

Shortcut to Addition

A coin can be urgently reviewed for addition when the following occurs.

A review fee of 5 BTC is paid.
We do not require coins taking the urgent route, to be at least 28 days old. Coins scheduled for release are also welcome to take this route.

We encourage coins to take the regular path to addition. For those in a hurry, the review fee means we will review your coin – and make a decision within 24 hours. If a positive decision is reached, your coin will be added within 24 hours of the decision being made.

Listing fees are not refundable. We do not guarantee addition, but if you meet the requirements for general addition – then there is no reason why you won’t be added.

Shortcut to Removal

While we hope not to instantly remove any coins (skipping the removal notice entirely), the possibility is there. Is there a hidden premine? Has the whole project been outed as a massive scam? We will hit you with a giant space laser from orbit in this scenario.

We will be taking great care with the addition of new coins in order to completely avoid this scenario.

Verified Markets

We will be introducing a new flag in the form of verified markets. A verified market is one that has met the following requirements.

Developer identity verified (commonly known as POD).
Valid roadmap published to the general public, with rough timelines also included.
Functional wallet.
Functional blockchain explorer.
Functional website.
Coin older than 60 days.
A meeting between ourselves and the developers, to get a feel for the project and the people behind it.
We will be adhering strictly to data confidentiality as per our legal requirements (we are a registered data controller with the Information Commissioner’s Office), and your details will only be passed over as a part of any legal request arising from negligence or fraudulent activity on behalf of the developers in question.

A coin can be flagged as developer identity verified without being flagged as a verified market.

Escrow / ICO Policy

We have learned from our past experiences with escrow and ICO procedures, and will be introducing the following general terms for future fundraisers.

Any coin offering an ICO, will not be allowed any additional premine for developer rewards. The funds from an ICO should be sufficient.
An ICO must last a minimum of 72 hours, and no longer than 2 weeks.
Funds will not be released for a period of 7 days, once the ICO has ended.
If the coin is not released during this 7 day window, the ICO will be cancelled, and all purchases refunded.
A coin must have a minimum of a working wallet, blockchain explorer and any core features advertised by the ICO (unless described as having later delivery).
A coin must resolve any major bugs interfering with general operation of the coin, within the 7 day window, plus an additional 72 hour overflow window if bugs become apparent towards the end of this period.
If major bugs are not resolved during this window of between 7 and 10 days, the ICO/escrow will be cancelled and all funds will be refunded.
Refunds will be processed via either direct return where coins have not been traded, or via ICO level buy walls for those that have.
Fees for this process are negotiable on a case by case basis.
These terms are adaptive, but any future ICO and escrow arrangements will have all terms publicly available.

FYI From Moolah:

"In light of community debate and further internal discussions - we are removing the urgent review process from V2 of @MintPalExchange"

[tw0rak]

someone pointed out IRL meaning of WC on casheer forums so i wonder what is the sentiment on updating acronym "WC"

perhaps could be voted and implemented at the same time as proposed "4. Reduce Confirmation Times"

candidate acronyms:
1. WTC
2. XWT (this would fit well with XBT )
3. XWH

(whc is already used by some other alt)

why x? "X" refers to ISO code for alternative currencies not controlled by any government.
like Gold is referred to as XAU, Silver (XAG), Palladium (XPD), Platinum (XPT)

ISO standards are set by the international standards organisation, and Bitcoin is already included as XBT (so this would be a good goal for WCF to work towards, establish some international standards recognition)

Hi there,

i do also think, the acronym should change - just because what does mean here in europe.

But Im sorry I dont like any of your candidates, here is why:

1. - WTC its rly like world trade center - not a good brand
2.,3. - I just dont like the X there - also i dont understand the T and H...I just think its not the good way to move on

but 4. - from the CoinMill they used WHC - http://coinmill.com/USD_WHC.html I like it much more.

Please write your opinions - WHC doesnt incline to toilet, it isnt someway screwedup like XWT, XWH or sth. I think the acronym needs this two letters W(hite) and C(oin)

TW0R

[mogonzo]

Hey Everyone,

Sorry for the long break between posts. It's been a bit of a wild summer for me, with a few family members falling quite ill, 3 weddings, and helping my girlfriend move to a new city all in the last six weeks.

As you can see, our decentralized model has been working very effectively over the summer. Work never stopped on WhiteCoin because we've structured the foundation to avoid depending on one person only. I've always had complete faith in the team and I think it's very fair to say that faith has been 100% justified. I'll be making a few updates to you all in the next couple weeks as we continue to move forward with registering as an association.

In regards to chunky, I regrettably do not have much to add to the conversation. Unfortunately we were never given full access to chunky's servers, and I too suffered some losses as I kept quite a bit of my portfolio on its servers (quite stupidly, I might add, however I liked the convenience and the owner was always above board with me). I never thought it would vanish offline like that, as I worked with the owner for almost a year. I still hold out hope he will return, but I have yet to hear back from him. I know he experienced some pretty serious health and personal issues this year, so I also hold out hope that chunky going offline is innocent in nature, and I also hope he's ok.

I hope you will all point your miners to coinking, as they have a solid operation and an owner who has the drive to see that site continue to grow.

All the best,

Chris

[blitzkitten]

Hey Everyone,

Sorry for the long break between posts. It's been a bit of a wild summer for me, with a few family members falling quite ill, 3 weddings, and helping my girlfriend move to a new city all in the last six weeks.

As you can see, our decentralized model has been working very effectively over the summer. Work never stopped on WhiteCoin because we've structured the foundation to avoid depending on one person only. I've always had complete faith in the team and I think it's very fair to say that faith has been 100% justified. I'll be making a few updates to you all in the next couple weeks as we continue to move forward with registering as an association.

In regards to chunky, I regrettably do not have much to add to the conversation. Unfortunately we were never given full access to chunky's servers, and I too suffered some losses as I kept quite a bit of my portfolio on its servers (quite stupidly, I might add, however I liked the convenience and the owner was always above board with me). I never thought it would vanish offline like that, as I worked with the owner for almost a year. I still hold out hope he will return, but I have yet to hear back from him. I know he experienced some pretty serious health and personal issues this year, so I also hold out hope that chunky going offline is innocent in nature, and I also hope he's ok.

I hope you will all point your miners to coinking, as they have a solid operation and an owner who has the drive to see that site continue to grow.

All the best,

Chris

Good to see you back!

[surfguy72]

Hey Everyone,

Sorry for the long break between posts. It's been a bit of a wild summer for me, with a few family members falling quite ill, 3 weddings, and helping my girlfriend move to a new city all in the last six weeks.

As you can see, our decentralized model has been working very effectively over the summer. Work never stopped on WhiteCoin because we've structured the foundation to avoid depending on one person only. I've always had complete faith in the team and I think it's very fair to say that faith has been 100% justified. I'll be making a few updates to you all in the next couple weeks as we continue to move forward with registering as an association.

In regards to chunky, I regrettably do not have much to add to the conversation. Unfortunately we were never given full access to chunky's servers, and I too suffered some losses as I kept quite a bit of my portfolio on its servers (quite stupidly, I might add, however I liked the convenience and the owner was always above board with me). I never thought it would vanish offline like that, as I worked with the owner for almost a year. I still hold out hope he will return, but I have yet to hear back from him. I know he experienced some pretty serious health and personal issues this year, so I also hold out hope that chunky going offline is innocent in nature, and I also hope he's ok.

I hope you will all point your miners to coinking, as they have a solid operation and an owner who has the drive to see that site continue to grow.

All the best,

Chris

Thanks for the update Chris, glad to hear you are getting back in action, and look forward to working with you more

[malbee]

Hey Everyone,

Sorry for the long break between posts. It's been a bit of a wild summer for me, with a few family members falling quite ill, 3 weddings, and helping my girlfriend move to a new city all in the last six weeks.

As you can see, our decentralized model has been working very effectively over the summer. Work never stopped on WhiteCoin because we've structured the foundation to avoid depending on one person only. I've always had complete faith in the team and I think it's very fair to say that faith has been 100% justified. I'll be making a few updates to you all in the next couple weeks as we continue to move forward with registering as an association.

In regards to chunky, I regrettably do not have much to add to the conversation. Unfortunately we were never given full access to chunky's servers, and I too suffered some losses as I kept quite a bit of my portfolio on its servers (quite stupidly, I might add, however I liked the convenience and the owner was always above board with me). I never thought it would vanish offline like that, as I worked with the owner for almost a year. I still hold out hope he will return, but I have yet to hear back from him. I know he experienced some pretty serious health and personal issues this year, so I also hold out hope that chunky going offline is innocent in nature, and I also hope he's ok.

I hope you will all point your miners to coinking, as they have a solid operation and an owner who has the drive to see that site continue to grow.

All the best,

Chris

Hey Chris,

Life can be a bitch...and sorry about the Chunky stuff.

But, welcome back, great to hear from you...

[WhiteNotWright]

Welcome back, hope the people that are owed funds are not too upset. Maybe the missing 30m can make up for it?

[Oizopower]

Welcome back, hope the people that are owed funds are not too upset. Maybe the missing 30m can make up for it?

WhiteNotWright, what 30m are you talking about? is it from you're previous count that you did not get above 277M ?
Let me clear that for you. i think you have counted the richlist, and the richlist only shows the top 1000 addresses, so there are many small addresses above that top 1000.

on the summary you can the total count from the indexed coins (total count from the database)


The block explorer also shows the amount indexed from the blkfile, please see: http://explorer.whitecoin.info/

Also when you do a "getinfo" on the wallet it will return: "moneysupply" : 303127397.27136499
coinmarketcap is showing the same data: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/whitecoin/ there might be a little difference between then, but that's the time between index and real time. (richlist only indexes every 3H)

We are talking about 3 different index systems now (richlist, block explorer, wallet RPC), and they all show the same amount.
Can you please explain how you get to those 277M and why you think 30M coins are missing?

[surfguy72]

Yeah, its just got to be a misunderstanding on interpreting the rich list top 1000 total coins vs total coins in existence.

[CryptoFanboy]

Welcome back Mogonzo!

[Oizopower]

Don't forget our IRC channel: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#whitecoinfoundation

[WhiteNotWright]

[quote author=Oizopower link=topic=568517.msg8772110#msg8772110 date=1410418435
We are talking about 3 different index systems now (richlist, block explorer, wallet RPC), and they all show the same amount.
Can you please explain how you get to those 277M and why you think 30M coins are missing?
[/quote]

Yes, I think that came out wrong (lol) - I was doing a tally of the rich list through 1000 and that equaled about 277m, with a massive amount of individual wallets have 20-30k toward the end. Thus I thought how many thousands of individual users (not within the 1000 top) would actually own 100-1000K set of coins (is that really that many holder)? Thus it seemed the 30m where in some cold storage, held by the community chest to use when needed to insure reserves should there be some emergency with the coin whereas those coins needed to be available (e.g. thwart 51% attacks, etc). So, maybe I was over thinking the escrow reserve that could be used to pay the chunky folks that basically got robbed as well. This type of failure does a lot of harm to the coin and not having an answer and then coming back in with the bad news cast a shadow of doubt. I have been trying my hardest to help keep the coin honest from a distance and only trying to provide ways to keep answers out front for others that may wonder the same.

With that said, looking forward to more positive things and trying to figure out how the folks that lost coin on Chunky are going to get made whole. I know this type of ethical action goes a long way in the perception of the coin. Anything I can do to help, just let me know.

wnw

[CryptoSEO]

[quote author=Oizopower link=topic=568517.msg8772110#msg8772110 date=1410418435
We are talking about 3 different index systems now (richlist, block explorer, wallet RPC), and they all show the same amount.
Can you please explain how you get to those 277M and why you think 30M coins are missing?

Yes, I think that came out wrong (lol) - I was doing a tally of the rich list through 1000 and that equaled about 277m, with a massive amount of individual wallets have 20-30k toward the end. Thus I thought how many thousands of individual users (not within the 1000 top) would actually own 100-1000K set of coins (is that really that many holder)? Thus it seemed the 30m where in some cold storage, held by the community chest to use when needed to insure reserves should there be some emergency with the coin whereas those coins needed to be available (e.g. thwart 51% attacks, etc). So, maybe I was over thinking the escrow reserve that could be used to pay the chunky folks that basically got robbed as well. This type of failure does a lot of harm to the coin and not having an answer and then coming back in with the bad news cast a shadow of doubt. I have been trying my hardest to help keep the coin honest from a distance and only trying to provide ways to keep answers out front for others that may wonder the same.

With that said, looking forward to more positive things and trying to figure out how the folks that lost coin on Chunky are going to get made whole. I know this type of ethical action goes a long way in the perception of the coin. Anything I can do to help, just let me know.

wnw
[/quote]

Dude, stop trying to create FUD to push prices down, simply tired of it, you sound like Prometeous

No one got robbed, chunky has done so much to help Whitecoin, even fixed things when shit hit the fan a long time ago... Chunky (Mc Gulp) is NOT Whitecoin, go fud their thread.

There is no "Mystical Reserve" more Fud so you can try to push prices down, lets see your dumps keep happening when you post these types of FUD messages, the community just isn't falling for your shit anymore... move on.

[WhiteNotWright]

[quote author=Oizopower link=topic=568517.msg8772110#msg8772110 date=1410418435
We are talking about 3 different index systems now (richlist, block explorer, wallet RPC), and they all show the same amount.
Can you please explain how you get to those 277M and why you think 30M coins are missing?

Yes, I think that came out wrong (lol) - I was doing a tally of the rich list through 1000 and that equaled about 277m, with a massive amount of individual wallets have 20-30k toward the end. Thus I thought how many thousands of individual users (not within the 1000 top) would actually own 100-1000K set of coins (is that really that many holder)? Thus it seemed the 30m where in some cold storage, held by the community chest to use when needed to insure reserves should there be some emergency with the coin whereas those coins needed to be available (e.g. thwart 51% attacks, etc). So, maybe I was over thinking the escrow reserve that could be used to pay the chunky folks that basically got robbed as well. This type of failure does a lot of harm to the coin and not having an answer and then coming back in with the bad news cast a shadow of doubt. I have been trying my hardest to help keep the coin honest from a distance and only trying to provide ways to keep answers out front for others that may wonder the same.

With that said, looking forward to more positive things and trying to figure out how the folks that lost coin on Chunky are going to get made whole. I know this type of ethical action goes a long way in the perception of the coin. Anything I can do to help, just let me know.

wnw

Dude, stop trying to create FUD to push prices down, simply tired of it, you sound like Prometeous

No one got robbed, chunky has done so much to help Whitecoin, even fixed things when shit hit the fan a long time ago... Chunky (Mc Gulp) is NOT Whitecoin, go fud their thread.

There is no "Mystical Reserve" more Fud so you can try to push prices down, lets see your dumps keep happening when you post these types of FUD messages, the community just isn't falling for your shit anymore... move on.

[/quote]

[quote author=Oizopower link=topic=568517.msg8772110#msg8772110 date=1410418435
We are talking about 3 different index systems now (richlist, block explorer, wallet RPC), and they all show the same amount.
Can you please explain how you get to those 277M and why you think 30M coins are missing?

Yes, I think that came out wrong (lol) - I was doing a tally of the rich list through 1000 and that equaled about 277m, with a massive amount of individual wallets have 20-30k toward the end. Thus I thought how many thousands of individual users (not within the 1000 top) would actually own 100-1000K set of coins (is that really that many holder)? Thus it seemed the 30m where in some cold storage, held by the community chest to use when needed to insure reserves should there be some emergency with the coin whereas those coins needed to be available (e.g. thwart 51% attacks, etc). So, maybe I was over thinking the escrow reserve that could be used to pay the chunky folks that basically got robbed as well. This type of failure does a lot of harm to the coin and not having an answer and then coming back in with the bad news cast a shadow of doubt. I have been trying my hardest to help keep the coin honest from a distance and only trying to provide ways to keep answers out front for others that may wonder the same.

With that said, looking forward to more positive things and trying to figure out how the folks that lost coin on Chunky are going to get made whole. I know this type of ethical action goes a long way in the perception of the coin. Anything I can do to help, just let me know.

wnw

Dude, stop trying to create FUD to push prices down, simply tired of it, you sound like Prometeous

No one got robbed, chunky has done so much to help Whitecoin, even fixed things when shit hit the fan a long time ago... Chunky (Mc Gulp) is NOT Whitecoin, go fud their thread.

There is no "Mystical Reserve" more Fud so you can try to push prices down, lets see your dumps keep happening when you post these types of FUD messages, the community just isn't falling for your shit anymore... move on.

[/quote]

I am actually sorry you feel thatway and continue to treat me like that. Why don't you go back through my post and actually read what I post and perhaps you will understand a little more. Heck, even ask Surfdude who donated over 500K WC for the KUT and who provided the idea AND White Paper. YOU want to know who dumped, go back and look at Leonor of whatever his silly name is, he even indicated he was going to dump then came back in to prop the coin at 50 sat lol. You are such a flame for trying to call me out when you have no idea what is going on. With that I will leave you and honestly, I have already made 20x my investment at another coin that is actually doing something. I still have faith this coin will get something working and already own 5 million, so really don't need anymore. When you buy at 20 sat, you really can't loose. Keep on talking crap arsewipe, I will always be here waiting to dump my coin when the price is right.

Have a nice day.

[WhiteNotWright]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4GwWlc2j3E5UDlfcnJXWUdqMXM/edit

wnw

[Oizopower]

Relaxe guys, it's almost weekend. There was just some misunderstanding that's all. No need to flame.
Good things are going to happen, and we already discussed some more new (unique) ideas for Whitecoin. But first we need to get the open things done before moving to new features, Developing takes time, it's not as easy as copy/paste

Thanks for answering my question WhiteNotWright, if there is something on your mind just PM me or contact me on IRC (where i'm most active)

[digicidal]

Using any 'richlist' to determine ownership is problematic... to some extent it's not even a reliable determiner of whales... consider someone like myself:

During mining I have a separate wallet address for each pool being mined.  I also have a separate wallet address for each exchange.  Any time I'm doing a large transaction with someone... you guessed it: another address.

So if you look at that list, I have at least 6 addresses in the Top 1000 under my control - but I also have more than 6 addresses which do not appear as they have very small amounts.

Not sure how many people simply use a single address for everything vs. doing more like I do (which is as Satoshi recommends in his whitepaper incidentally).

As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them
from being linked to a common owner. Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input
transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk
is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to
the same owner.

SOURCE