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

[surfguy72]

Here's our WhiteCoin Reddit Thread.

We need LIFE over there!

Go upvote, go comment. 


http://www.reddit.com/r/whitecoin

[Halofire]

Instead of messing around with the mechanics of the coin, give the coin purpose.............

[Ownski]

If timed right I do beleive Ownski is on to something here with the coin reduction.

As for the ads I will donate a few neteller $'s to get the campaigns started. Last I checked I struggled to find subreddits associated to crypto currency that had openings for ads but for sure the Facebook is a no brainer and I am sure pretty easy to target in.

I would have a combined release of the Whiteout feature and the coin reduction (Bigger effect) . They would go hand in hand with the block chain having to be modified. Naturally advertising would follow shortly after/during the release. Since we would have two big updates to the coin, it would give us something to advertise. If the stars align then our community would grow as a result thereof and we will see the fruit of our labors.

A+B=C

[Halofire]

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

[birddog]

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

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

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

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

[WhiteCoinJesus]

I think a great idea would be to bootstrap another coin through a proof of burn of white coin. The new coin could have anon or other features.

The only way to get them would be to buy and burn whitecoin.

A win - win.

[Ownski]

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

[bitluryz]

Here are some ideas that could attract more investors and the reasoning behind it. I'll call it Ownskis Expeto Auctus

• Reduction to 3 Million Market Cap (100 to 1 ratio) This will create less coins but increase the value and scarcity which investors like (DRK,CINNI,etc) So if you have 1,000WC right now it would become 10WC. This would also increase the price to reflect that (130sat=13,000sat)
• Website facelift The current websites need a major facelift. The WCF foundation index page looks like a clown show, no theme or consistency (very bad) I would recommend using some of the WCF BTC funds to pay for a professional to redo it. It would be money very well spent.
• Facebook/Twitter/Reddit Marketing This would also require BTC funds from the WCF bank but would be a nescassary expense to help build up the community. Daily advertising could be bought for a mere $5 a day for each venue. I use social media marketing for my business and it is very successful. I can't stress it enough.
• Whiteout Anon feature This is a good idea but should be carefully implemented. Whitecoin took its biggest hits when the block chain forked and/or had security problems. If it can be professionally integrated and tested before release, it could be the holy grail for the community.

+1 !

[Pantalaimon]

Here are some ideas that could attract more investors and the reasoning behind it. I'll call it Ownskis Expeto Auctus

• Reduction to 3 Million Market Cap (100 to 1 ratio) This will create less coins but increase the value and scarcity which investors like (DRK,CINNI,etc) So if you have 1,000WC right now it would become 10WC. This would also increase the price to reflect that (130sat=13,000sat)
• Website facelift The current websites need a major facelift. The WCF foundation index page looks like a clown show, no theme or consistency (very bad) I would recommend using some of the WCF BTC funds to pay for a professional to redo it. It would be money very well spent.
• Facebook/Twitter/Reddit Marketing This would also require BTC funds from the WCF bank but would be a nescassary expense to help build up the community. Daily advertising could be bought for a mere $5 a day for each venue. I use social media marketing for my business and it is very successful. I can't stress it enough.
• Whiteout Anon feature This is a good idea but should be carefully implemented. Whitecoin took its biggest hits when the block chain forked and/or had security problems. If it can be professionally integrated and tested before release, it could be the holy grail for the community.

Great ideas, Ownski, some of them were circling in my head too.

For the coin reduction I was thinking it could've gone along the presentation of the new logo; release of a new coin (WC2.0), 1/10th or 1/100th of the current market cap. Advertise it big and show the crypto world WC is back and better. I really missed the fireworks with this presentation of the logo. Besides twitter/facebook, has it reached anywhere beyond the community (aka potential investors) as it is?

I guess I'm one of few against an anon function for WC. I don't see myself ever using such a feature, and the hype for anon imo has died out for the most part. It's a big risk to attempt it, and the profits may be minimal to none. We as a community should put our heads together to think of a truly unique feature.

What I would like to see, and I've said it before; we need real-life applications for WC. We need a vision, a target audience, have them(us) invest in Whitecoin and give them(us) opportunities to SPEND them for goods or services, instead of sole fundraising. Has the whitiest event I can think of been contacted for a possible collaboration? Or maybe other merchants?

Another brainfart I had, was a geocache kind of game where WC is 'hidden' at physical locations on earth, and others can go claim them at that spot. Haven't figured it out yet how that would work, and my app programming skills are below par but maybe it'll inspire others.

[birddog]

I guess I'm one of few against an anon function for WC. I don't see myself ever using such a feature, and the hype for anon imo has died out for the most part. It's a big risk to attempt it, and the profits may be minimal to none. We as a community should put our heads together to think of a truly unique feature.

What I would like to see, and I've said it before; we need real-life applications for WC. We need a vision, a target audience, have them(us) invest in Whitecoin and give them(us) opportunities to SPEND them for goods or services, instead of sole fundraising. Has the whitiest event I can think of been contacted for a possible collaboration? Or maybe other merchants?

Another brainfart I had, was a geocache kind of game where WC is 'hidden' at physical locations on earth, and others can go claim them at that spot. Haven't figured it out yet how that would work, and my app programming skills are below par but maybe it'll inspire others.

We have talked about the feature being labeled less of an "anonymous" feature and more of a "privacy" feature. I believe the best way to implement would be to have it as an option rather than mandatory. For example, before you send coins from the Whitecoin wallet, you would have the option of applying the "Whiteout" feature.

Privacy is very attractive to investors and business professionals alike. Not everyone is keen to have their transactions displayed on a public ledger. We would not be catering to money laundering or criminal activities, but rather providing privacy to Whitecoin users.

[Halofire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[surfguy72]

If timed right I do beleive Ownski is on to something here with the coin reduction.

As for the ads I will donate a few neteller $'s to get the campaigns started. Last I checked I struggled to find subreddits associated to crypto currency that had openings for ads but for sure the Facebook is a no brainer and I am sure pretty easy to target in.

I would have a combined release of the Whiteout feature and the coin reduction (Bigger effect) . They would go hand in hand with the block chain having to be modified. Naturally advertising would follow shortly after/during the release. Since we would have two big updates to the coin, it would give us something to advertise. If the stars align then our community would grow as a result thereof and we will see the fruit of our labors.

A+B=C

I need to hear more on why reducing the total supply of coins needs to change, or why a change would be beneficial.

[WhiteCoinJesus]

I think a great idea would be to bootstrap another coin through a proof of burn of white coin. The new coin could have anon or other features.

The only way to get them would be to buy and burn whitecoin.

A win - win.

Well with this method mentioned above , whitecoin will be burnt (raising the market cap by taking coins out of supply) and also allow an anon feature to run on a separate block chain for those that want it.

Bonus points for an exchange to exchange the whiteout coins for whitecoins..

[birddog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[surfguy72]

I think a great idea would be to bootstrap another coin through a proof of burn of white coin. The new coin could have anon or other features.

The only way to get them would be to buy and burn whitecoin.

A win - win.

Well with this method mentioned above , whitecoin will be burnt (raising the market cap by taking coins out of supply) and also allow an anon feature to run on a separate block chain for those that want it.

Bonus points for an exchange to exchange the whiteout coins for whitecoins..

Ahh, ok.  I can understand that process, curious to hear what others would think on this specific implimentation.

[birddog]

I think a great idea would be to bootstrap another coin through a proof of burn of white coin. The new coin could have anon or other features.

The only way to get them would be to buy and burn whitecoin.

A win - win.

Well with this method mentioned above , whitecoin will be burnt (raising the market cap by taking coins out of supply) and also allow an anon feature to run on a separate block chain for those that want it.

Bonus points for an exchange to exchange the whiteout coins for whitecoins..

This is an interesting idea. So we would have to create a new coin?

Can you elaborate a little further?

[WhiteCoinJesus]

   I may have already said too much.

[CryptoSEO]

  I may have already said too much.

To me this is the way of the jedi

[Halofire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I numbered your thoughts in red to make life easier.

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

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

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

[WhiteCoinJesus]

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

My thoughts came from here :


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