[ANN] RealPay [A new e-commerce business platform][Release Date: TBA]

[bitlane]

The plan is to be fair to all miners. If you are a good helping miner then you dont have to worry about anything. This is just an extra layer of protection for the business nothing more than that and as said in the future it could be removed allowing for a completely decentralized service.

Please explain mining further. What incentive to miners have to give this 'coin' a second thought ?
COMPENSATION ......................?

[SgtSpike]

The plan is to be fair to all miners. If you are a good helping miner then you dont have to worry about anything. This is just an extra layer of protection for the business nothing more than that and as said in the future it could be removed allowing for a completely decentralized service.

Please explain mining further. What incentive to miners have to give this 'coin' a second thought ?
COMPENSATION ......................?

Transaction fees are the compensation.  It won't bring in a huge number of miners (especially at first), but as the number of RLC transactions build, the number of RLC fees will build as well, slowly bringing in more miners.  If 100 1 RLC transactions are made in a block, then that's $100 of fees that goes to miners.  That's the same as a block reward from Bitcoin when Bitcoin was worth $2.00/BTC, and there was around 8 TH/s of miners at that point.

[jwzguy]

The plan is to be fair to all miners. If you are a good helping miner then you dont have to worry about anything. This is just an extra layer of protection for the business nothing more than that and as said in the future it could be removed allowing for a completely decentralized service.

Please explain mining further. What incentive to miners have to give this 'coin' a second thought ?
COMPENSATION ......................?

Transaction fees are the compensation.  It won't bring in a huge number of miners (especially at first), but as the number of RLC transactions build, the number of RLC fees will build as well, slowly bringing in more miners.  If 100 1 RLC transactions are made in a block, then that's $100 of fees that goes to miners.  That's the same as a block reward from Bitcoin when Bitcoin was worth $2.00/BTC, and there was around 8 TH/s of miners at that point.

In that case, why would anyone mine when there are no transactions?

[DeathAndTaxes]

The plan is to be fair to all miners. If you are a good helping miner then you dont have to worry about anything. This is just an extra layer of protection for the business nothing more than that and as said in the future it could be removed allowing for a completely decentralized service.

Please explain mining further. What incentive to miners have to give this 'coin' a second thought ?
COMPENSATION ......................?

Transaction fees are the compensation.  It won't bring in a huge number of miners (especially at first), but as the number of RLC transactions build, the number of RLC fees will build as well, slowly bringing in more miners.  If 100 1 RLC transactions are made in a block, then that's $100 of fees that goes to miners.

100 RLC = $10,000 every 10 minutes.
That's $1.4 million daily or ~ half a billion annually.

Yeah sure when (more like IF) transaction volume is ever that high fees are fine.  This is my Satoshi came up w/ the block subsidy and have it decline over time because a larger network can be self supporting.

So the question isn't when RLC gets to the billion dollar range but more when RLC is in the $500 per block range = $5 in fees.

[DeathAndTaxes]

In that case, why would anyone mine when there are no transactions?

Not many will, and having that level of computational power at that point would not be needed when that young.  As RLC grows in adoption with goods/services sold/bought/traded the network will need greater mining based protection and processing... it's actually not that bad of a model, and there is no worries like in BTC when generate rates halve, this is 100% tx fee at the front so all you should see is slow growth as tx quantities increase assisting in paying for more mining in the network.

"that level of computational power" will never be needed.  It is a centralized system just like ScamCoin.  Mining is just window dressing to obfuscate the fact that the coin only exists because of the central authority.  There is no reason all transaction processing can't be done by a single server.

[SgtSpike]

The plan is to be fair to all miners. If you are a good helping miner then you dont have to worry about anything. This is just an extra layer of protection for the business nothing more than that and as said in the future it could be removed allowing for a completely decentralized service.

Please explain mining further. What incentive to miners have to give this 'coin' a second thought ?
COMPENSATION ......................?

Transaction fees are the compensation.  It won't bring in a huge number of miners (especially at first), but as the number of RLC transactions build, the number of RLC fees will build as well, slowly bringing in more miners.  If 100 1 RLC transactions are made in a block, then that's $100 of fees that goes to miners.

100 RLC = $10,000 every 10 minutes.
That's $1.4 million daily or ~ half a billion annually.

Yeah sure when (more like IF) transaction volume is ever that high fees are fine.  This is my Satoshi came up w/ the block subsidy and have it decline over time because a larger network can be self supporting.

So the question isn't when RLC gets to the billion dollar range but more when RLC is in the $500 per block range = $5 in fees.

How much $$$ worth of transactions does Paypal do daily?

I do agree with you that unless RLC becomes BIG, miners will be a very small part of it.  But, there is always that possibility.  And if/when it did become big, it would be nice to know that there is built-in protection against DOS attacks (or accidental downtime, maintenance downtime, etc).  The advantage of being able to transact without connecting to a central server could prove to be very important in some cases.

Transaction signing with a central server is going to have some disadvantages, and I think mining could alleviate those disadvantages if it is ever used enough.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I do agree with you that unless RLC becomes BIG, miners will be a very small part of it.  But, there is always that possibility.  And if/when it did become big, it would be nice to know that there is built-in protection against DOS attacks (or accidental downtime, maintenance downtime, etc).  The advantage of being able to transact without connecting to a central server could prove to be very important in some cases.

What built in protection?  The mining doesn't replace the confirmation by central authority.  It is simply supplemental.  So if tomorrow RLC has 9TH of hashing power the central server could be DDOS and the mining would serve no purpose.

Transaction signing with a central server is going to have some disadvantages, and I think mining could alleviate those disadvantages if it is ever used enough.

How?  The amount of mining is completely immaterial.  1 million miners, 1 miner, 0 miners.  The whole point of mining is to create a distributed consensus.  If one authority has an override then there is no purpose except to waste a lot of resources pretending the network is distributed.

[SgtSpike]

I do agree with you that unless RLC becomes BIG, miners will be a very small part of it.  But, there is always that possibility.  And if/when it did become big, it would be nice to know that there is built-in protection against DOS attacks (or accidental downtime, maintenance downtime, etc).  The advantage of being able to transact without connecting to a central server could prove to be very important in some cases.

What built in protection?  The mining doesn't replace the confirmation by central authority.  It is simply supplemental.  So if tomorrow RLC has 9TH of hashing power the central server could be DDOS and the mining would serve no purpose.

Transaction signing with a central server is going to have some disadvantages, and I think mining could alleviate those disadvantages if it is ever used enough.

How?  The amount of mining is completely immaterial.  1 million miners, 1 miner, 0 miners.  The whole point of mining is to create a distributed consensus.  If one authority has an override then there is no purpose except to waste a lot of resources pretending the network is distributed.

Did you miss the part where he said the central signing would be removed when there were enough miners to take over?

[coblee]

What are you going to do with the up to 1 trillion $ that you get from selling your RLCs? Will you always keep all that money in reserves or are you going to do fractional banking just like traditional banks? If you will keep that money in reserves, you risk having it stolen, embezzled, or just having need to use it because your company is running out of money. If you don't plan to keep all of it in reserves, then you are no better than the current banking system + paypal.

In a sense, you are just printing your own currency backed by USD. Just like the US printed dollar backed by gold. And maybe one day, you will remove that backing. I hope you are prepared for the legal mess you are getting into.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Did you miss the part where he said the central signing would be removed when there were enough miners to take over?

No but that isn't a guarantee of anything.  Merely a vague promise with no specific conditions or enforcement if they decide not to.

[wigglyuk]

Realcoin is ready for the USD collapse... Hyperinflation is coming....

[SgtSpike]

What are you going to do with the up to 1 trillion $ that you get from selling your RLCs? Will you always keep all that money in reserves or are you going to do fractional banking just like traditional banks? If you will keep that money in reserves, you risk having it stolen, embezzled, or just having need to use it because your company is running out of money. If you don't plan to keep all of it in reserves, then you are no better than the current banking system + paypal.

In a sense, you are just printing your own currency backed by USD. Just like the US printed dollar backed by gold. And maybe one day, you will remove that backing. I hope you are prepared for the legal mess you are getting into.

I believe he said he will use smart investments to slowly grow any monies invested, which would be returned both into the company itself, and to miners.  I would hope that this means that all funds are available within X number of days, if necessary.  IMO, the funds should be invested in very safe, but very liquid investments.  I think he said the minimum balance needed was $200k for the particular investment he was looking at starting with.

Did you miss the part where he said the central signing would be removed when there were enough miners to take over?

No but that isn't a guarantee of anything.  Merely a vague promise with no specific conditions or enforcement if they decide not to.

No, it is not a guarantee.  I guess I don't understand your point?  Why does it matter to you whether miners play a role in it or not?  This is meant to be a Bitcoin-like Paypal alternative.  Something where people can buy and sell in USD-equivalents, without paying Paypal-level fees (advantage vs Paypal), and without worrying about their money losing value while they hold it (advantage vs BTC).  Ideally, miners would be able to eliminate the need for a central authority signing transactions, but the system still works even if that never happens.

Realcoin is ready for the USD collapse... Hyperinflation is coming....

If it's tied to USD, it'll inflate just as much as the USD will.

[drakahn]

so no physical security then?

i would hope someone that breaks in couldn't do too much, banks at least have insurance so there is some guarantee of ze monies safety.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I really don't get it, it seems as if all the negative comments are basically "Why is this NOT Bitcoin?"... This aspires to be a business providing a financial service ... think "paypal savings accounts" except implemented that instead of centralized gateway processing servers electronically transferring USD, it is decentralized gateway processing divisible $100 USD "vouchers"... really not sure why everyone keeps just wanting Bitcoin jr.s all over the place.... this is something entirely different with all the risk/reward potential that comes with the territory.  It's not a cryptocurrency, it's a business, a business that could privatize all of the processing but instead chose the option which would allow them to do this cheaper and in return "miners" have the opportunity to run their own "processing" nodes and get a piece of the transaction fee pie.

It is impossible for distributed transaction processing to be cheaper.  There is massive overhead in using a blockchain and proof of work.  It can never be cheaper (under any circumstances) than a simply ledger system.  A server w/ a single core celeron and couple gigs of RAM could handle all the transaction processing for Bitcoin much less RealCoin. 

Mining isn't just something which is bolted on top, it is the "cost" of acheiving consensus without a trusted third party.  So if it is not a distributed crypto-currency then be honest about it.  Drop the miner charade and call it a centralized digital currency.  Done. 

[SgtSpike]

I really don't get it, it seems as if all the negative comments are basically "Why is this NOT Bitcoin?"... This aspires to be a business providing a financial service ... think "paypal savings accounts" except implemented that instead of centralized gateway processing servers electronically transferring USD, it is decentralized gateway processing divisible $100 USD "vouchers"... really not sure why everyone keeps just wanting Bitcoin jr.s all over the place.... this is something entirely different with all the risk/reward potential that comes with the territory.  It's not a cryptocurrency, it's a business, a business that could privatize all of the processing but instead chose the option which would allow them to do this cheaper and in return "miners" have the opportunity to run their own "processing" nodes and get a piece of the transaction fee pie.

It is impossible for distributed transaction processing to be cheaper.  There is massive overhead in using a blockchain and proof of work.  It can never be cheaper (under any circumstances) than a simply ledger system.  A server w/ a single core celeron and couple gigs of RAM could handle all the transaction processing for Bitcoin much less RealCoin. 

Mining isn't just something which is bolted on top, it is the "cost" of acheiving consensus without a trusted third party.  So if it is not a distributed crypto-currency then be honest about it.  Drop the miner charade and call it a centralized digital currency.  Done. 

How about, call it a centralized digital USD equivalent (I wouldn't call it a currency of its own) that strives to eventually have decentralized transaction processing?  What's wrong with that?

[DeathAndTaxes]

How about, call it a centralized digital USD equivalent (I wouldn't call it a currency of its own) that strives to eventually have decentralized transaction processing?  What's wrong with that?

Nothing.  Although in a perfect world some transparency on metrics for the conversion to decentralize processing would be nice.  A vaguely worded statement of "someday" doesn't inspire much confidence.    I mean if it works centralized then why decentralize it?  

Because the company would like to share the transaction fees which are generating revenue?  
So it can add the risk of 51% to its business plan?

My totally self admitted unsupported belief is no company which is profitable using a centrally processed system will decentralize it to share those profits with the masses.  If they aren't profitable then the network likely never got to the point where decentralization was possible making the whole debate academic.

[SgtSpike]

How about, call it a centralized digital USD equivalent (I wouldn't call it a currency of its own) that strives to eventually have decentralized transaction processing?  What's wrong with that?

Nothing.  Although in a perfect world some transparency on metrics for the conversion to decentralize processing would be nice.  A vaguely worded statement of "someday" doesn't inspire much confidence.    I mean if it works centralized then why decentralize it?  

Because the company would like to share the transaction fees which are generating revenue?  
So it can add the risk of 51% to its business plan?

My totally self admitted unsupported belief is no company which is profitable using a centrally processed system will decentralize it to share those profits with the masses.  If they aren't profitable then the network likely never got to the point where decentralization was possible making the whole debate academic.

I agree, metrics would be good.

I suppose we should list the potential advantages/disadvantages of decentralizing the transactions.

Advantages:
- No downtime if central node goes down - can still perform transactions.
- Government can't easily stop the transactions (though they could surely freeze funds in RLC's reserve).
- Anti-DDOS.
- Public ledger (if it was completely centralized, the company could potentially alter the ledger and no one could prove that they did so).
- Government couldn't force RLC to de-anonymize the blockchain (via IP address that transactions originated from, or other means), if it transactions were processed in a decentralized manner.

Disadvantages:
- Users could potentially double-spend via a 51% hashing attack.
- Requires paying fees to miners.

I think some very careful analysis would be needed to calculate the feasibility of a 51% attack when the company considers switching over to decentralized transacting.  A switchover cannot happen until a 51% attack is completely unfeasible, from the perspective of profitability of the attacker.

I do see what you are saying though - why pay miner's fees?  If they are successful as a centralized entity to the point where decentralization would be feasible, why decentralize?  Maybe the disadvantages aren't worth the advantages?  Given that they are targeting the Bitcoin crowd though, I think that people here feel better with public, transparent projects.  Having the blockchain public, and constantly having other miners verify it as legitimate, would help maintain credibility.  Also, the anti-government aspect is an advantage that likely would see particular favor among this crowd.

I'm speculating as much as you are though.  Just pointing things out.  I do understand your point of view, and you could be right.  But right now, I'll give the project the benefit of the doubt that they will do what they say they will do.

[SgtSpike]

How about, call it a centralized digital USD equivalent (I wouldn't call it a currency of its own) that strives to eventually have decentralized transaction processing?  What's wrong with that?

The easiest way I have tried to explain it to someone who asked is like chips in a casino ... chips have a face value but they are not currency, you pay fiat for chips and later if you're not too unlucky you take them back and trade them in for fiat at the same rate.

Only real difference is these "chips" are designed to be traded like you would if you used paypal.

That's a good explanation.

[1QaZxSw2]

Basically, RLC is not a cryptocurrency, but a corporate scrip tied to USD. In this respect, its exactly like disney dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_dollar

Also issuing your own currency is not illegal

http://www.treehugger.com/culture/how-to-print-your-own-money-build-community-not-get-arrested-by-the-feds.html


Now the question about its usefulness is an entirely different issue.

I could basically replace this with an automated calculator and BTC liquidator.

i.e. I buy 2 coffees from starbucks. Price is $6.6. I ask to pay in BTC. They calculate it to BTC 1.02. I pay, they exchange it for dollars right away. The risk of slippage is small and they can mitigate it by simply charging slightly more for BTC.

And oh, a 1 trillion $ play may piss off some governments a lot more than you expect.

[Syke]

I'm sure the plan will be to remove the central node "in 4 - 6 weeks".