[ANN][VRC] VeriCoin Proof of Stake-Time Currency | New Roadmap Released

[jl777]

As someone who has had to deal with Mr. Lawsky and many other Inspector Zenigata like people before as well as spent many months attempting to reacquire seized assets from the us gov after egold, liberty reserve, a few other incidents....

I warn you, do not under estimate Ben Lawsky and NYC's reach of influence when it comes to these matters.


We have had a plan for VRC since the beginning but then mintpal to put it so elegantly... fucked us...

We then gave mintpal a chance to make things right by throwing buy support towards vrc to help prevent dump after the hax but instead they decided to make a quick exit and sold to Mr. Green and the moolah crew... since he was a "supporter" of VRC we thought maybe he would correct the situation as well as show some appreciation to the fact that b/c of the vrc hack Mr. Green most likely paid a very discounted price for mintpal and so we thought maybe just maybe mintpal would do the right thing and put vrc back to the price we had gotten it to b4 they at mintpal dropped the ball but mintpals support was non existant. so the market entered a dump phase... or well more of a controlled fall to bottom out around 10k.

Even through all this we still had in motion plans to put REAL money and Corporate support behind vrc We just needed to wait for final draft of the NY regs before companies felt comfortable enough to move forward.


but since james has expressed not a care in the world about laws or the extent of influence that the NY and US banking industry has we and the people working with us no longer feel comfortable with injecting any more money into this project due to the amount of influence Mr. JL has (even if the community support aspect of JL has been positive for VRC) or with the amount of the market promised to him by devs and community.

must ask where is our 1.3 mil coins for being part of taking market to 50k? like you ppl have promised JL... we never got 1.3 mil coins for that... I only have my personal stash of just over 1/2 mil coins now and nobody gave me any of those.

Let me understand this. The fact that I am calling the sending of assets to the holders of NXTventure assets a "dividend" is somehow making all of VRC illegal in the USA?

Even though NXTventure has no direct relationship to VRC

Maybe the fact that I am involved in some things that USA does not like makes everything I do tainted?

If this is truly the case, then since I am involved in a lot of crypto projects, maybe people in USA need to immediately stop all usage of crypto? It is not possible to follow every law in every country, especially if they are contradicting of each other. I am not able to solve two mutually exclusive things at the same time.

I am making the crypto solutions. I do not have the ability to solve 100+ fiat compliance things, but maybe this is VRC's role. To make a "fiat GUI". To put a layer around my dangerous raw crypto to make it legal for the USA.

I do not advocate illegal activities! Please do whatever is needed to follow all your laws, we do not need troubles from the lawmen.

James

[1714049430]

1714049430

[1714049430]

1714049430

[1714049430]

1714049430

[barabbas]

Monsieur Lupin, you express yourself very poorly and, consequently, it is very hard to understand what you say. Some of it.

I believe you are worried by the potential inclusion of Vericoin in the SuperNET being a possible non-compliance aspect of possible (as a matter of fact, sure) regulation coming up in the US... while we all must be thankful for your felt concern, we also should do everything we can to push the Vericoin project forward, you know. And while you give credit to James for having unified the community, you fail to give him credit for several other things that, presumably, he has also brought, chief among them the technological know-how to bring Vericoin to the forefront of the most advanced coins in the market. And, although you give that credit to the community, the increase in volume and price, sorry monsieur, all "Jame's effect". So, as they say, we will cross the bridge of regulation when we get there. And, hopefully, we will do it with enough tools and resources to even influence that regulation coming, something we would have never been in position to do sans the "James effect".

You use the word "market" in several different ways, all wrong, I'm afraid. You use it as a synonym of "price", which is quite incorrect and then you use it in a very ambiguous way that I am unable to discern when you say "... with the amount of market promised to him...", which is just too confusing to even address. So I would just say NO, YOU ARE 100% wrong. And leave it at that, since no amount of explanations would convince you of the evident truth.

But you are extremely confused in a lot of things, besides those too: Mintpal is an exchange and, as such, lacks any power whatsoever to "... maybe just maybe mintpal would do the right thing and put vrc back to the price we had gotten it to b4 they at mintpal dropped the ball...". What did you expects exactly, that you even dare to call "the right thing"? You SURELY don't mean that somehow manipulating the price would be "the right thing", do you? And how would you figure an exchange can manipulate the price? It seems to me monsieur that "the right thing" that you hoped for is indeed a very nasty, illegal, punishable by law and otherwise impossible to carry out "thing".

Those plans that "we" (you and your group) had to bring in "REAL money and Corporate support..." to Vericoin, were anywhere in the horizon? Because when the coin bottomed (not "around 10", but actually below 8 sat) we experienced a prolonged drought of any kind of support, Corporate, REAL money or otherwise, from anywhere, while people was jumping ship right and left and all the way around while Vericoin was discounted as just another dead project by most across cryptoland. You know? It is very nice to offer someone food when he's hungry but if you offer a potential nice dinner sometime down the road, lets say MONTHS down the line, how do you think the hungry man would feel about it?

Finally, Monsieur, your 1/2 million VRC is worth today, still, even at these weekend discount prices, 60% more than it was worth before James' involvement in VRC. This is a FACT that I dare to suggest you should take advantage of since the project, to you Monsieur, has veered away from the idea that brought you in. Personally, while I hate that you will leave, I admit that I'd love to see you go.

[wetwipe]

wont investors and business move away from them laws?, seems its all electronic can be instantly moved to other accepting countries?.

[lootz]

I live in New York....  Ben Lawsky can go fuck himself just like I told him the day he announced it on reddit. Good luck proving anything and if you do good luck trying to get me as I never open my door to strangers and do not have a phone. Most New Yorkers are sick of this shit just as I am, every week there is a new law or regulation followed by the new summons or ticket. This system is designed to be one big cash register for the government, I do not use banks anymore and most of my wealth is in precious metals for long term

[barabbas]

@ James

The main and so far ONLY purpose of the regulation coming in the US is the PROTECTION of the consumers and investors. Investors are ALREADY quite responsible for their dividends, in crypto or anything else, and they MUST pay taxes on those. Already.

Now, it is presumable that part of the regulation coming will include the obligation of a carrier of funds to notify the authorities when a transaction exceeding X amount, takes place in its network. This is part of the obligation of banks, currently. Could it be exported to crypto? It seems quite unlikely (for no matter how big the amount it could be sliced into many smaller transaction, therefore going under the radar), so the presumption that peer-to-peer transactions, anonymous or not, would be against the law after regulation is implemented, is just that, a baseless presumption; now, when that is carried out to make the coin itself responsible, legally, for what the users do with the technology it provides, it is simply, at this point, preposterous.

Monsieur Lupin  has simply gone fou on us here ...

[jl777]

@ James

The main and so far ONLY purpose of the regulation coming in the US is the PROTECTION of the consumers and investors. Investors are ALREADY quite responsible for their dividends, in crypto or anything else, and they MUST pay taxes on those. Already.

Now, it is presumable that part of the regulation coming will include the obligation of a carrier of funds to notify the authorities when a transaction exceeding X amount, takes place in its network. This is part of the obligation of banks, currently. Could it be exported to crypto? It seems quite unlikely (for no matter how big the amount it could be sliced into many smaller transaction, therefore going under the radar), so the presumption that peer-to-peer transactions, anonymous or not, would be against the law after regulation is implemented, is just that, a baseless presumption; now, when that is carried out to make the coin itself responsible, legally, for what the users do with the technology it provides, it is simply, at this point, preposterous.

Monsieur Lupin  has simply gone fou on us here ...

This whole legality issue is one that is those messy problems that I like to avoid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Bitcoin_by_country

Now it used to be encryption itself was illegal and regulated like military grade explosives in the USA. So, to make any sense of this seems a waste of my time. I cannot hope to understand all the intricacies of the laws of any single country, let alone globally.

With the coming devaluation of the USD, the various levels of govt there will take more and more extreme measures to obtain "revenues", which is of course a nice way of saying taxes and fines.

So, I will keep on making the low level tech and rely on others to make the GUI that allows for its easy use and legal compliance. If there is some need for tech to split things up to be smaller than a threshold amount, just let me know, this is not a hard thing. If there are requirements to make the reportings of accts with a transaction volume over a threshold, I can implement virtual accts that are formed from a set of smaller accts. Or you can just send in the entire blockchain as a nice printout

James

[Arsène Lupin]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1aqur3juJHY/UqETJmPFuII/AAAAAAAAPYY/S39TN5CNMJc/s1600/as_you_wish.gif

[altcoinUK]

my apologies for mistaking 1.3 mil being given to Mr JL... I was going off of kevandos vrcradio info from previous recording but this deal has been changed so many times by so many different ppl that it has been hard to keep track.

Allow me to state more clearly and please do correct me if I am wrong but 2.6 million vrc will be given to "supernet" as assets "controlled" by the vrc community of which a certain percentage will go to James' personal wallet once the price hits 50k for a day and another percentage payment to JL once prices hits 100k for a day.

and James yes, it does when you have the intentions of using vrc as the entry and exit point of fiat to a system or network used for illicit and non compliant/prohibited transactions.

I suggest that the devs get with a top level NY financial legal consultant preferably one already familiar with digital currencies, the banking industry, and potential liabilities and discuss all possible scenarios to minimize exposure. Although this will not be a cheap venture as anyone decent will cost an average price of $1000+ an hr (our last qtr. rate was 1250 per hr) it would pay off in the long run for vrc and its public devs.


and yes barabbas the price is up 60% since james' involvement but 60% is nothing in this world of crypto...


you also did not see me running around shouting about the lupin effect when vrc went up by 10000% or how it is still 2000% above the price at the time of our entrance to the market which was 500-700 vrc.


and yes lootz I feel the same way... but that will not stop him from doing as he pleases to make examples of people.

What are you saying, are you holding vericoin, selling it or buying? Are you still supporting the operation or moving out from the coin?

[barabbas]

my apologies for mistaking 1.3 mil being given to Mr JL... I was going off of kevandos vrcradio info from previous recording but this deal has been changed so many times by so many different ppl that it has been hard to keep track.

Allow me to state more clearly and please do correct me if I am wrong but 2.6 million vrc will be given to "supernet" as assets "controlled" by the vrc community of which a certain percentage will go to James' personal wallet once the price hits 50k for a day and another percentage payment to JL once prices hits 100k for a day.

and James yes, it does when you have the intentions of using vrc as the entry and exit point of fiat to a system or network used for illicit and non compliant/prohibited transactions.

I suggest that the devs get with a top level NY financial legal consultant preferably one already familiar with digital currencies, the banking industry, and potential liabilities and discuss all possible scenarios to minimize exposure. Although this will not be a cheap venture as anyone decent will cost an average price of $1000+ an hr (our last qtr. rate was 1250 per hr) it would pay off in the long run for vrc and its public devs.


and yes barabbas the price is up 60% since james' involvement but 60% is nothing in this world of crypto...


you also did not see me running around shouting about the lupin effect when vrc went up by 10000% or how it is still 2000% above the price at the time of our entrance to the market which was 500-700 vrc.


and yes lootz I feel the same way... but that will not stop him from doing as he pleases to make examples of people.

Arsene, you still don't get it:  but "...this deal has been changed so many times by so many different ppl that it has been hard to keep track." is both misleading AND incorrect. This deal has only been changed by one person, James. Only by him. And yes, he has changed it a couple of times -every single one in favor of Vericoin's community, it is important to say- but I find that you looking for in formation from other sources, when you have posted here, from the horse's mouth (not only James but also the devs of Vericoin), the truth, seem quite absurd... or worse.

Again: You still have it wrong. Quite. James is no longer asking for any personal compensation to him... except anything the the Vericoin community deems he deserved and decides to give to him when and if the results exceed the thresholds already set. It will be entirely VOLUNTARY. You get that, don't you? But ask James for further clarification before reaching quite "fou" conclusions on your own.

The other thing where you are 100% WRONG -so I am correcting you, as requested- is in the matter of the 2.6 million VRC "given" to SuperNET... NOTHING will be "given" here. It is, currently, an initial requirement of the SuperNET to have the candidates to be part of its core, invest 10% of their total value in SuperNET which, in turn, will invest the same amount in the candidate. So instead of "given" it would be a "swap" of equal value. Quite a different proposition.

Now, as James has explained, these things change and adapt depending on the many variables and circumstances along the way, so nothing is either guaranteed nor written on stone. And EVERYTHING will depend on the free will of the Vericoin community when those milestones are reached.

Which, like in the case of your advice regarding future potential legislation, is I am afraid, quite premature.

As for 60% being "nothing in this world of crypto..." I get your meaning, clumsy and absurd as it is, but it is still 60%: People have 13 now where they had 8... which is MORE than 60% but still good for reference purposes.

Now you are quite funny indeed when you state that you didn't go running around shouting the gains in Vericoin after the launch were "the Lupin effect"... Really funny. You know what? They weren't "the lupin effect". The lupin effect is, in a very twisted way, laughable (because laugh is good, which is the opposite of what you, lupin, represent). I'm sorry for being a bit blunt but coming here completely uninformed, spreading all kind of misinformation and somehow pretending that having 1/2 million VRC gives you any kind of authority, makes me feel that I need to be way blunt-er. Like medieval blunter. So I exercise quite a bit of restrain to keep it civil.

I hope you appreciate it.

[wetwipe]

When is the new forum due?, it was or maybe seems like it was a while back since it was said "wont be long now", yes im just asking so no bashing !.

I would like to add that i'm currently tuned into Reavons discussion on the VRC Radio with Kev.

So thanks for putting it all on loop/replay? so the community have the option to catch up. Thanks.

[pnosker]

That Doesn't sound Veri Democratic.

More coins = more votes. Humm!!

Why so? People who were putting more in the fund are risking more then people who didnt.
I think thats a good incentive for people to send vrc into the fund.
I.e. it would suck if a troll that has no vrc in the fund would have as much votingpower as me who put thousands of vrc in there... tbh that would be not veri democratic ughs

I strongly disagree.

One Person. One vote!

Pat,`   
   You're comparing apples to oranges. POS  isn't a Democracy.

   In a Democracy everybody is equal. Because someone has more stuff doesn't entitle them to influence decisions affecting the entire community. One person, One vote.

   The suggestion that  every community member contribute  10%  of their holdings isn't binding.  It's up to the individual holder how much they "invest" in a proposal concerning fund raising. The reality is it  won't be strickly adhered to. Some will give more. Some will give less. Some will give nothing.

   In the purest sense a vote should be taken by the community BEFORE asking for contributions  and with what the funds raised will be used for clearly spelled out. This should occur prior to kicking off a campaign for capitalization.

    James' magnanimous  gesture (assuming no hidden agenda's) of returning the 536,042 coins raised (and anymore of the 2.6 million he required) to the community had stipulations on how it is to be used.
                 1.The dev's must be in favor of any project to be funded.
                 2. The community gets to vote on it.
                 3.  The result of the community vote would decided the fate of the proposed project.

    Now it's being said  a "weighted vote"  will be used to decide how, when, and for what purpose the Veri-SuperNet Fund will be utilised. This method  gives a contributor votes in proportion to the amount of Vericoin they transferred to the funding drive.  It is not a Democratic vote. Those in the community who didn't contribute are effectivrly excluded  from having a voice in what the community is proposing.
    Humm! Sounds something like a "Special Interest Group" having it's way because it gave money to ensure the vote came out in their favor. It certainly isn't Democracy.

As far as I am concerned, those who donated get to choose where their money goes. I'm not the final say in the matter, however. But that's my personal vote. And it makes sense to have it based upon the coins that were contributed as those people put more currency at stake. But we should definitely hold a discussion to see what people's thoughts are.

If that 536,042 coins were a crypto network, it would be decided by the majority votes according to coin count.

[wetwipe]

Either way Kevondo, AKA  (Eugene) .

The whole veri community still has to overcome this and still make the next hike to raise the next milestone of coins.

[Kevondo]

That Doesn't sound Veri Democratic.

More coins = more votes. Humm!!

Why so? People who were putting more in the fund are risking more then people who didnt.
I think thats a good incentive for people to send vrc into the fund.
I.e. it would suck if a troll that has no vrc in the fund would have as much votingpower as me who put thousands of vrc in there... tbh that would be not veri democratic ughs

I strongly disagree.

One Person. One vote!

Pat,`   
   You're comparing apples to oranges. POS  isn't a Democracy.

   In a Democracy everybody is equal. Because someone has more stuff doesn't entitle them to influence decisions affecting the entire community. One person, One vote.

   The suggestion that  every community member contribute  10%  of their holdings isn't binding.  It's up to the individual holder how much they "invest" in a proposal concerning fund raising. The reality is it  won't be strickly adhered to. Some will give more. Some will give less. Some will give nothing.

   In the purest sense a vote should be taken by the community BEFORE asking for contributions  and with what the funds raised will be used for clearly spelled out. This should occur prior to kicking off a campaign for capitalization.

    James' magnanimous  gesture (assuming no hidden agenda's) of returning the 536,042 coins raised (and anymore of the 2.6 million he required) to the community had stipulations on how it is to be used.
                 1.The dev's must be in favor of any project to be funded.
                 2. The community gets to vote on it.
                 3.  The result of the community vote would decided the fate of the proposed project.

    Now it's being said  a "weighted vote"  will be used to decide how, when, and for what purpose the Veri-SuperNet Fund will be utilised. This method  gives a contributor votes in proportion to the amount of Vericoin they transferred to the funding drive.  It is not a Democratic vote. Those in the community who didn't contribute are effectivrly excluded  from having a voice in what the community is proposing.
    Humm! Sounds something like a "Special Interest Group" having it's way because it gave money to ensure the vote came out in their favor. It certainly isn't Democracy.

As far as I am concerned, those who donated get to choose where their money goes. I'm not the final say in the matter, however. But that's my personal vote. And it makes sense to have it based upon the coins that were contributed as those people put more currency at stake. But we should definitely hold a discussion to see what people's thoughts are.

If that 536,042 coins were a crypto network, it would be decided by the majority votes according to coin count.

But the Veri-SuperNET Fund isn't a crypto network. It was given by James to the Community with it's use to be at the discretion of the Community.

[Kevondo]

Either way Kevondo, AKA  (Eugene) .

The whole veri community still has to overcome this and still make the next hike to raise the next milestone of coins.

Wet Wipe,

Kevondo and Eugen are two different individuals.

Reavon is Eugen's handle on the forums and IRC. I might have confused you with the bit about my middle name being Eugene. Also Reavon spells Eugen without an "e" on the end as I do. 

The Reavon interview is and has been available "On Demand" if you scroll down on The VRCRadio Homepage. The Daily show also is now avaiable if you are unable to listen live.

VRCRadio has been and will remain in a state of flux until we get the design the way we think will be most effective. So search around it and let us know what you think. We welcome any constructive critisim and  suggestions.

The backend has incredible power/functionality through the CSS program Joomla. Coupled with MixLR they make for  a potent Broadcasting solution.

Thanks for Listening

[Autodidact]

I can imagine a situation where people donating about 100 VRC are holding as strong of a vote as someone who donated 100,000.  You could get trolls coming out of no-where, getting together, and throwing 100 VRC each to swing votes in a direction that may not represent the community properly.  I think weighted votes are the only way to do it.

Something like:
100VRC-1000VRC donated = 1 vote
1001VRC-10,000VRC = 2 votes
10,001VRC-30,000VRC = 2.5 votes
30,001VRC-50,000VRC = 3 votes

Just an example.. I'm sure it could be structured fairly, albeit I'm not the best to go for advice on this but it seems like a fair method to me...

[tom14cat14]

I can imagine a situation where people donating about 100 VRC are holding as strong of a vote as someone who donated 100,000.  You could get trolls coming out of no-where, getting together, and throwing 100 VRC each to swing votes in a direction that may not represent the community properly.  I think weighted votes are the only way to do it.

Something like:
100VRC-1000VRC donated = 1 vote
1001VRC-10,000VRC = 2 votes
10,001VRC-30,000VRC = 2.5 votes
30,001VRC-50,000VRC = 3 votes

Just an example.. I'm sure it could be structured fairly, albeit I'm not the best to go for advice on this but it seems like a fair method to me...

I have to agree. No matter what we think things are not equal. If someone has a lot more money invested then be they should have more say because they have much more than me to loose. Same with people with less then me. If I am top dog I sure as hell do not want someone that has .0001% of what I have invested running how my money is handled.

[jl777]

I can imagine a situation where people donating about 100 VRC are holding as strong of a vote as someone who donated 100,000.  You could get trolls coming out of no-where, getting together, and throwing 100 VRC each to swing votes in a direction that may not represent the community properly.  I think weighted votes are the only way to do it.

Something like:
100VRC-1000VRC donated = 1 vote
1001VRC-10,000VRC = 2 votes
10,001VRC-30,000VRC = 2.5 votes
30,001VRC-50,000VRC = 3 votes

Just an example.. I'm sure it could be structured fairly, albeit I'm not the best to go for advice on this but it seems like a fair method to me...

I have to agree. No matter what we think things are not equal. If someone has a lot more money invested then be they should have more say because they have much more than me to loose. Same with people with less then me. If I am top dog I sure as hell do not want someone that has .0001% of what I have invested running how my money is handled.

Obviously, the vote of how to spend the donations should be by those who go now and donate with each coin being 1 vote.  Anything else is wholly unfair.

100 VRC donated = 100 votes
50,000 VRC donated = 50,000 votes.

That is what weighted means and that is why I believe James choose the word "weighted" when he first donated the coins back to the community.  Very simple and fair.

correct
golden rule applies to these things

[Afridon]

I have heard that VRC have joined the supernet work!Good for all of us!

[effectsToCause]

Hey guys,

Just wanted to give an update.  New wallet is in final stages.  Sneak peek at it is coming tomorrow.  There is a few finishing touches, a little more testing, compilation for the three OSes, then we will release it.  So we are at like 99% on that.

[ereborltc]

Hey guys,

Just wanted to give an update.  New wallet is in final stages.  Sneak peek at it is coming tomorrow.  There is a few finishing touches, a little more testing, compilation for the three OSes, then we will release it.  So we are at like 99% on that.

Yessir!! thats what i like to see! lets keep this momentum!

thanks!