[ANN] BlackCoin (BC/BLK) | PoS | BlackHalo | Smart Contracts | Anonymous

[dcm987]

Dunno if the guy from blackcoinstore is still reading here:

do we have a status update about the KNC Titan Group Buy?

most of the shares were paid for, they are just now waiting on like 13 or so. if they are not sold, the original buyers had the chance to scoop one up, but now i think those shares have been released to the public to try and sell the rest

[foaman]

I have to say I don't really like the idea of a tiered voting system nor a 1-BC-1-vote method; both of these types of voting give the biggest voice to those with the most money, thus an entrenching a hierarchy with power focused at the very top. I believe a system like this is unfair, and not to mention easily corruptible by those with very deep pockets (or the biggest miner!)

In my opinion a one-member-one-vote system (or one-member-n-vote) is the best way to distribute votes; this gives every member, rich or poor, equal power and an equal share in voting decisions.

We should instead give consideration to what number of votes are necessary to come to a decision on something - will decisions pass with a majority vote (50% +1member), by first-past-the-post (most votes wins), a two-thirds majority, consensus, or some other form of voting system.

Fee for entry should be symbolic(not to expensive we will find balance) because we want rise in community matter.
More members we have much stronger community will be.
And all members will have conviction that they can drive BC.

That is an excellent idea, we should focus on adoption and gaining more people who will be invested in BlackCoin as shareholders as well as investors. a non-prohibitve members fee will allow for this, hopefully more donations etc from a higher number of members will make up for any shortfall in income.

I have to agree on this point.  A bigger pockets should not mean more votes.  1 person 1 vote otherwise don't call it a Foundation.  Foundations have fair and consistent voting and are non-profit.  1 person with deep pockets getting 20 votes should not be able to overturn a decision when the other 6 people vote the other way but their votes only totaled 19.  I think the Foundation is a good idea but don't let it be like everything else in crypto land.  Pay per Vote ... if for greedy people not people who are in it for good will.

[NoUseForACoin]

everyone seen the Emma Jean Delia blackcast pic.... wow.

I haven't, link?

I want to retweet but it think you have to follow her on twitter: https://twitter.com/EmmaJeanDelia

[mellomike]

I have to agree on this point.  A bigger pockets should not mean more votes.  1 person 1 vote otherwise don't call it a Foundation.  Foundations have fair and consistent voting and are non-profit.  1 person with deep pockets getting 20 votes should not be able to overturn a decision when the other 6 people vote the other way but their votes only totaled 19.  I think the Foundation is a good idea but don't let it be like everything else in crypto land.  Pay per Vote ... if for greedy people not people who are in it for good will.

I also agree with 1 person -> 1 vote

The number of coins you have should not = the number of votes you can make.

[Ashdrake]

I have to say I don't really like the idea of a tiered voting system nor a 1-BC-1-vote method; both of these types of voting give the biggest voice to those with the most money, thus an entrenching a hierarchy with power focused at the very top. I believe a system like this is unfair, and not to mention easily corruptible by those with very deep pockets (or the biggest miner!)

In my opinion a one-member-one-vote system (or one-member-n-vote) is the best way to distribute votes; this gives every member, rich or poor, equal power and an equal share in voting decisions.

We should instead give consideration to what number of votes are necessary to come to a decision on something - will decisions pass with a majority vote (50% +1member), by first-past-the-post (most votes wins), a two-thirds majority, consensus, or some other form of voting system.

Fee for entry should be symbolic(not to expensive we will find balance) because we want rise in community matter.
More members we have much stronger community will be.
And all members will have conviction that they can drive BC.

That is an excellent idea, we should focus on adoption and gaining more people who will be invested in BlackCoin as shareholders as well as investors. a non-prohibitve members fee will allow for this, hopefully more donations etc from a higher number of members will make up for any shortfall in income.

I have to agree on this point.  A bigger pockets should not mean more votes.  1 person 1 vote otherwise don't call it a Foundation.  Foundations have fair and consistent voting and are non-profit.  1 person with deep pockets getting 20 votes should not be able to overturn a decision when the other 6 people vote the other way but their votes only totaled 19.  I think the Foundation is a good idea but don't let it be like everything else in crypto land.  Pay per Vote ... if for greedy people not people who are in it for good will.

This is stupid. 1 User = 1 Vote is called Democracy and is everything is wrong with our current political system in the world. As Aristotle once said, "Once the opinion of the village idiot is equal to mine, then something is fucked up"

People that have more money should have a higher say, The more blackcoin they have, the more they care to have it successful, also the more they know what are they doing since if you have $20K USD to buy crypto with, its more likely that you are a very successful business owner in real life with a lot of experience, then a bum living in your mom's basement. Just probabilities and its a number game.

I vote for people that hold the most cash to have the biggest say in what the foundation should do. Oligarchy for the win

[CADguy]

Coinkite just posted this pic, lol!

https://twitter.com/Coinkite/status/464815252618887168

Hahahaha!! Look how happy the BlackCoin is!!! lol

this is just awesome

[mellomike]

I vote for people that hold the most cash to have the biggest say in what the foundation should do. Oligarchy for the win

So for example if 500 members with a total of 500,000 coins vote that BlackCoin shouldn't be renamed.. but 2 members with millions of coins decide they want to rename the coin. We have to rename the coin. Just because 2 members with more coins made the decision?

[Ashdrake]

No

I vote for people that hold the most cash to have the biggest say in what the foundation should do. Oligarchy for the win

So for example if 500 members with a total of 500,000 coins vote that BlackCoin shouldn't be renamed.. but 2 members with millions of coins decide they want to rename the coin. We have to rename the coin. Just because 2 members with more coins made the decision?

That is a stupid example. However if for ex: 500 people want to X thing, but 2 people with a lot of money know or have a feeling that doing X will actually have a negative impact on the coin value, then yeah those 2 people will be right, however, its not 500 vs 2 people , its more like 500 vs like 50 big holders, and yeah, if 50 big holders say doing X will lead to bad things, then since the bad thing will impact them the most (since they have the most coins) they have the right to veto it

[Chiggins]

This is stupid. 1 User = 1 Vote is called Democracy and is everything is wrong with our current political system in the world. As Aristotle once said, "Once the opinion of the village idiot is equal to mine, then something is fucked up"

People that have more money should have a higher say, The more blackcoin they have, the more they care to have it successful, also the more they know what are they doing since if you have $20K USD to buy crypto with, its more likely that you are a very successful business owner in real life with a lot of experience, then a bum living in your mom's basement. Just probabilities and its a number game.

I vote for people that hold the most cash to have the biggest say in what the foundation should do. Oligarchy for the win

Fuck.That.Shit.

Everything wrong with US right now is based upon the people with the deepest pockets controlling everything, including buying politicians and even having the most say in how our internet is controlled (net neutrality anyone?).

If you honestly believe that Democracy specifically is what's wrong, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[Chiggins]

No

I vote for people that hold the most cash to have the biggest say in what the foundation should do. Oligarchy for the win

So for example if 500 members with a total of 500,000 coins vote that BlackCoin shouldn't be renamed.. but 2 members with millions of coins decide they want to rename the coin. We have to rename the coin. Just because 2 members with more coins made the decision?

That is a stupid example.

No, this is the PERFECT example.

[mellomike]

No

I vote for people that hold the most cash to have the biggest say in what the foundation should do. Oligarchy for the win

So for example if 500 members with a total of 500,000 coins vote that BlackCoin shouldn't be renamed.. but 2 members with millions of coins decide they want to rename the coin. We have to rename the coin. Just because 2 members with more coins made the decision?

That is a stupid example.

Why are you so angry. I was asking a question. There's no need to call anyone's opinion or questions stupid. We are all adults here. Lets act like it.

[mr_random]

I vote for people that hold the most cash to have the biggest say in what the foundation should do. Oligarchy for the win

So for example if 500 members with a total of 500,000 coins vote that BlackCoin shouldn't be renamed.. but 2 members with millions of coins decide they want to rename the coin. We have to rename the coin. Just because 2 members with more coins made the decision?

Makes sense to me. The more coins you hold, the more you are affected by any decision.

Why should 20 people who own 10 coins each outweigh the opinion of someone who has $20k worth of blackcoin.

[mellomike]

I vote for people that hold the most cash to have the biggest say in what the foundation should do. Oligarchy for the win

So for example if 500 members with a total of 500,000 coins vote that BlackCoin shouldn't be renamed.. but 2 members with millions of coins decide they want to rename the coin. We have to rename the coin. Just because 2 members with more coins made the decision?

Makes sense to me. The more coins you hold, the more you are affected by any decision.

Why should 20 people who own 10 coins each outweigh the opinion of someone who has $20k worth of blackcoin.

Good point, but can't we turn that around? In all fairness, why should someone who is fortunate enough to afford $20k worth of coins be able to have full control over the direction of the coin. Not everyone was born rich... but everyone should have a right to vote fairly. If that's the case, why even bother voting for anything. Let them just take control of the coin and let everyone else have no voice.

[dcm987]

I vote for people that hold the most cash to have the biggest say in what the foundation should do. Oligarchy for the win

So for example if 500 members with a total of 500,000 coins vote that BlackCoin shouldn't be renamed.. but 2 members with millions of coins decide they want to rename the coin. We have to rename the coin. Just because 2 members with more coins made the decision?

Makes sense to me. The more coins you hold, the more you are affected by any decision.

Why should 20 people who own 10 coins each outweigh the opinion of someone who has $20k worth of blackcoin.

and this gentleman, is the beginning of a government lol. guys, if yall dont like what the foundation decides, please do remember this is decentralized currency, you are free to gather your own support and do stuff outside the foundation as well. the foundation is great though for providing organized direction.

[mellomike]

and this gentleman, is the beginning of a government lol. guys, if yall dont like what the foundation decides, please do remember this is decentralized currency, you are free to gather your own support and do stuff outside the foundation as well. the foundation is great though for providing organized direction.

I agree 100%!! And if this coin ever got to the point where the people with the most coins decided where the coin goes... I'd cash out and leave lol. No point in having a decentralized currency if ONLY the biggest bag holders are the center of it. That would defeat the whole purpose of crypto currency.

All we have to do is look at the open source community as an example of how their foundations do voting.... 1 person = 1 vote. It has worked for years.

[Ashdrake]

goverment or no goverment. The foundation itself is a central authority for a descentralized Currency.

Unfortunately we as humans always require some sort of direction, and even if we are independent and self sufficient, what happens if a new merchant wants to add blackcoin as a payment method for his online store? Who does he talk with? Every random joe here or someone from a central authority that is a liaison for everyone who requires assistance with adding blackcoin as a new payment method.

Its pretty simple to see this. Not all Goverment is evil, an effective Goverment that has the best interests of its country at heart, even if its more Authoritarian, is a hellalot more effective than Democracy that takes 2 years to vote a simple law in Parliament.

Now for this coin, having a central authority that also is backed by high value investors is the best thing possible, those investors want a point of contact, someone that holds 1 million blackcoins, want to have a person he can contact at 2am to discuss random shit. This is what every institution and business does for VIP clients. They provide a point of contact, because they are doing more business than hundreds of thousands of their "normal" clients. People that have half a million USD in blackcoin, really appreciate knowing that there is 1 Central Authority that will do the major events and who they can hold responsible.

This is not a democracy, this is either a corporation or an authoritarian goverment. When big bucks is involved, libertarianism goes off the window , over the hills, and into the sewage ditch.

[mr_random]

Good point, but can't we turn that around? In all fairness, why should someone who is fortunate enough to afford $20k worth of coins be able to have full control over the direction of the coin. Not everyone was born rich... but everyone should have a right to vote fairly. If that's the case, why even bother voting for anything. Let them just take control of the coin and let everyone else have no voice.

1. Why can't we turn what around?
2. Someone who has $20k worth of Blackcoin does not have full control over the direction of the coin.
3. I wasn't born rich and I own more than $20k worth of Blackcoin
4. Everyone does have a right to vote fairly. The more Blackcoin you own, the more your vote counts. That sounds fair to me
5. Why bother voting for anything? Google the paradox of voting.
6. Everyone has a voice.

Btw I don't care either way about the voting myself, I'm too busy right now. But I've yet to see a solid argument against votes being proportional to the amount of your Blackcoins.

Really you have no choice anyway if we have decentralised voting via Blackcoins: A determined person with lots of Blackcoin can just split up their coins to different addresses and looks like different voters to anyone else.

[dcm987]

goverment or no goverment. The foundation itself is a central authority for a descentralized Currency.

Unfortunately we as humans always require some sort of direction, and even if we are independent and self sufficient, what happens if a new merchant wants to add blackcoin as a payment method for his online store? Who does he talk with? Every random joe here or someone from a central authority that is a liaison for everyone who requires assistance with adding blackcoin as a new payment method.

Its pretty simple to see this. Not all Goverment is evil, an effective Goverment that has the best interests of its country at heart, even if its more Authoritarian, is a hellalot more effective than Democracy that takes 2 years to vote a simple law in Parliament.

Now for this coin, having a central authority that also is backed by high value investors is the best thing possible, those investors want a point of contact, someone that holds 1 million blackcoins, want to have a person he can contact at 2am to discuss random shit. This is what every institution and business does for VIP clients. They provide a point of contact, because they are doing more business than hundreds of thousands of their "normal" clients. People that have half a million USD in blackcoin, really appreciate knowing that there is 1 Central Authority that will do the major events and who they can hold responsible.

This is not a democracy, this is either a corporation or an authoritarian goverment. When big bucks is involved, libertarianism goes off the window , over the hills, and into the sewage ditch.

i agree with this as well. IMO i believe both centralization and decentralization can coexist. I believe in centrallization bc not ALL authority is evil lol. decentralization spurs on innovation and ideas.so why cant they compliment each other?

[mellomike]

Regardless of this debate... the final outcome will more than likely be 1 person = 1 vote. If not, people won't use the foundation as a means of driving the direction of the coin. History will just repeat itself and the coin will once again go into the hands of the people.

The foundation is a smart group.. they won't allow just a few to have more pull over the masses. So I'm glad of that.

[maarx]

Hi guys, thank you for your concerns,

As XBladeX pointed out, any member will also have to pay a yearly fee to the Foundation (money which is used to support projects in turn). To "rig votes" one would be paying several yearly fees, have different email accounts and prove different addresses.

Also we will be adding a tiered system:

0-1k bc = 1 vote
1-2k bc = 2 votes
2-5k bc = 3 votes
5-10k bc = 4 votes
10-20k bc = 5 votes
20-50k bc = 6 votes
50-100k bc = 8 votes
100-200k bc = 10 votes
200-300k bc = 12 votes
300-400k bc = 14 votes
400-500k bc = 16 votes
500k-1 million bc = 18 votes
+1 million bc = 20 votes

Logarithmic scaling

Let me know if you think if this is fair ^ (still a draft!)

Hi, let me make this clear:

Votes as I talk of them now are on a per project basis.

e.g. say the website shows there are 3 community projects:

- Wall Street promotion
- PR firm fundraising
- MIT airdrop promotion

And the foundation has 2000 BLK funds.

In total there are 3 users.

Person A has 700 BLK (1 vote)
Person B has 70000 BLK (8 votes)
Person C has 700000 BLK (18 votes)

Now these persons combined voting power is 27 votes and they go vote:

- Wall Street promotion (A, C) - 19 votes
- PR firm fundraising (C) - 18 votes
- MIT airdrop promotion (B) - 8 votes

: Total votes cast = 45 * Note that anyone can vote on any project, but they can only add a vote, or remove their vote.

Funds would be divided accordingly between the projects. e.g.:

- Wall Street promotion: 19/45 * 2000 BLK
- PR firm fundraising: 18/45 * 2000 BLK
- MIT airdrop promotion: 8/45 * 2000 BLK

e.g. funds will be divided equaly between projects.

Larger holders have more votes, because in essence, they can gain/ lose the most (though debatable). But as you can see: it doesn't matter.

There are some problems with above formulas though (e.g. the foundation's funds would be 0 after said funding of projects- and this formula does not take into account that perhaps projects would be over-funded if they receive the share as stated)

Therefore there will be a Treasurer to budget for projects. The budget per project will be discussed with the board. Say for example 600 BLK is budgetted per project:

- Wall Street promotion: 19/45 * 600 BLK

Is what would be funded or pledged to the Wall Street promotion.

This however, brings the "human" into the equation. Ultimately, we want to have a plan which removes the human from the equation. (e.g. why would 600 BLK be budgetted for the project, and not 800 BLK?)

We are looking for, ultimately, a complex equation that includes the following:

# of current projects AND the required $ for these projects
# of new projects per week and the expected average $ for these projects
Amount of BLK in the foundation's funds
Amount of votes cast for a specific project
Amount of total votes that all members combined could have added during the voted period
Expected amount of new donations/ fees going into the foundation fund

The system will have to take into account that there will be future projects and limited funds. The system should fund projects fairly without compromising the funding power on new potential projects.

Mathematicians that would be willing to help on such a formula, I am calling out for you!

In the end, the foundation is just 1 part of the crowd that will fund projects. It is in no means a mean to completely fund projects.

Also posted on:
http://www.reddit.com/r/blackcoin/comments/255nke/blackcoin_foundations_funding_of_projects_a_call/