[ANN][RPCD] Rand Paul Coin (Deflationary)

[randpaulcoin]

RPC snapshot block will be 198132.  I hope everyone who wanted to partake got their wallet straight.

I will announce other block #s shortly.

Wallet currently shows we're on block 198162. So the RPC snapshot happened already?

Yes.  Snapshot is done by block.  Those numbers are set in stone now.  We may change allocations with DOGE and BTC to keep blockchain size and redeeming amounts reasonable, but top level ratios and blocks of snapshots are set in stone.  

This means RonPaulCoin has no more value directly for snapshots. Your RonPaulCoin wallet does have value regardless of the balance.  It is those private keys that will be the keys to your RPCD. Please backup your wallet.dat at this point if you are seriously interested in RPCD.  Copy it to a USB stick. This will unlock your sharedrop when the final chain goes live.

The testnet will likely use this snapshot but it is possible we'll have modified versions as I roll it out.

I'm not sure about dates. I have other pressing things in my life. I would rather work on RPCD but the holiday seasons will be very busy.

There are 2 ways of doing snapshots. Either code compiled to use the C++ code of the coin or through a RPC interface. There are problems with the RPC wallet not returning results on certain blocks and existing code is failing. I'm going to try the C++ code. If the C++ code works we should be golden. I would like to thank the Protoshares community for helping with some of my questions.

[1715358622]

1715358622

[1715358622]

1715358622

[1715358622]

1715358622

[tonyk]

- You need the price feeds because otherwise it doesn't work. (There will be a lot of RandPaulCoin Bulls, willing to short but lower demand for the assets. This results in a peg that doesn't work. BitShares' first crash after they got to a $100 million made them learn this lesson the hard way. Even now BitAssets are able to offer interest, why? Because there is so much competition to short. Without the feeds this would instead translate to your assets being too far below the peg.)

And you know they does not work, how exactly? Somebody told you so?

The price of Bitshares crashed because the original 'market pegged assets' were abandoned and instead BTS now has 'feed priced assets'.

I am not suggesting Rand Paul Coin implementing the real market pegged assets, but those have not been tested in practice by nobody and I am betting that somebody someday will. As early as 2015.

There was a thread on that forum - 'Why Vitalik got the award and BM did not'. Well it is simple in my mind - BM made the biggest discovery and let others (including Vitalik btw)  persuade him that his idea does not work.....

[Kwipto]

Interesting sale of 13,000+ RPC on Cryptsy there at 7:30pm, fifteen minutes before the snapshot, even though it was announced to take place tomorrow.

[randpaulcoin]

The idea of a pure "game-theory" market might be something RPCD will be interested in resuming. The arguments are not clear to me. Are there threads discussing the problem that the feeds corrected?

[randpaulcoin]

Interesting sale of 13,000+ RPC on Cryptsy there at 7:30pm, fifteen minutes before the snapshot, even though it was announced to take place tomorrow.

Someone pushed me on a time and they were given a time of early hours UTC or some time on the 27th in this thread. The snapshot was done in the early minutes of the 27th UTC. This is completely within any information that was given. It has been announced and is behind us. There was no trickery.

[btstv]

Interesting sale of 13,000+ RPC on Cryptsy there at 7:30pm, fifteen minutes before the snapshot, even though it was announced to take place tomorrow.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sVw7g0srOHI/TkxSx2faFbI/AAAAAAAAIqI/nagCYeJ7Qgk/s400/tinfoil2.jpg

[tonyk]

The idea of a pure "game-theory" market might be something RPCD will be interested in resuming. The arguments are not clear to me. Are there threads discussing the problem that the feeds corrected?

As far as I am concerned no such  discussion took place publicly (for the opposite view ask FandangledGizmo, he seem very convinced in his opinion, he might have read something I have missed).
For me the story goes like this - The mastermind of 'feed priced assets' came and said "'market pegged assets' do not work. I will tell you how to fix the system." Overnight a ridiculous form of the 'feed priced assets' was borne... it was abandoned  in very short order. An element of it was kept - namely the feeds.

The argument that Vitalik has against pure "game-theory market pegged assets" can be found in his Ethereum blog, btw. (October or November, post, I believe)


I repeat what I said - I do encourage or discourage rand paul coin using  pure market pegged assets. It is a hard choice between unproven groundbreaking innovation and a more secure route. This choice is not for me to make or even suggest on Rand Paul Coin's behalf. All  I wanted was, to  make perfectly clear that pure 'market pegged assets'  have never been tested and proven  to not work, as FandangledGizmo  stated.

 

[FandangledGizmo]

- You need the price feeds because otherwise it doesn't work. (There will be a lot of RandPaulCoin Bulls, willing to short but lower demand for the assets. This results in a peg that doesn't work. BitShares' first crash after they got to a $100 million made them learn this lesson the hard way. Even now BitAssets are able to offer interest, why? Because there is so much competition to short. Without the feeds this would instead translate to your assets being too far below the peg.)

And you know they does not work, how exactly? Somebody told you so?

The price of Bitshares crashed because the original 'market pegged assets' were abandoned and instead BTS now has 'feed priced assets'.

I am not suggesting Rand Paul Coin implementing the real market pegged assets, but those have not been tested in practice by nobody and I am betting that somebody someday will. As early as 2015.

There was a thread on that forum - 'Why Vitalik got the award and BM did not'. Well it is simple in my mind - BM made the biggest discovery and let others (including Vitalik btw)  persuade him that his idea does not work.....

All the information you need to understand why I think they don't work is contained within that succinct paragraph you just quoted. (I believe you'll find there is a greater number of people looking to take a leveraged position on BitShares vs. a long position on any specific asset atm over an extended period. Therefore if shorts are not forced to compete above a price feed, they will compete on how far below the peg they're willing to short which logically and imo has already been shown in practice to create assets that peg far too low. (Where it actually pegs will be a reflection/expression of the average interest rate shorts are willing to pay, but because shorts outnumber longs in the system over an extended period it actually settles/pegs around that point, rather than the actual 1-1 peg.) If you believe otherwise, there's no reason you can't campaign for BitShares to try listing one asset on BitShares without the price feed to prove/test your point.

[tonyk]

- You need the price feeds because otherwise it doesn't work. (There will be a lot of RandPaulCoin Bulls, willing to short but lower demand for the assets. This results in a peg that doesn't work. BitShares' first crash after they got to a $100 million made them learn this lesson the hard way. Even now BitAssets are able to offer interest, why? Because there is so much competition to short. Without the feeds this would instead translate to your assets being too far below the peg.)

And you know they does not work, how exactly? Somebody told you so?

The price of Bitshares crashed because the original 'market pegged assets' were abandoned and instead BTS now has 'feed priced assets'.

I am not suggesting Rand Paul Coin implementing the real market pegged assets, but those have not been tested in practice by nobody and I am betting that somebody someday will. As early as 2015.

There was a thread on that forum - 'Why Vitalik got the award and BM did not'. Well it is simple in my mind - BM made the biggest discovery and let others (including Vitalik btw)  persuade him that his idea does not work.....

All the information you need to understand why I think they don't work is contained within that succinct paragraph you just quoted. (I believe you'll find there is a greater number of people looking to take a leveraged position on BitShares vs. a long position on any specific asset atm over an extended period. Therefore if shorts are not forced to compete above a price feed, they will compete on how far below the peg they're willing to short which logically and imo has already been shown in practice to create assets that peg far too low. (Where it actually pegs will be a reflection/expression of the average interest rate shorts are willing to pay, but because shorts outnumber longs in the system over an extended period it actually settles/pegs around that point, rather than the actual 1-1 peg.) If you believe otherwise, there's no reason you can't campaign for BitShares to try listing one asset on BitShares without the price feed to prove/test your point.

It's ludicrous idea...short are crazy...they do not know what they are doing so they just short short short below the peg...

Several counter arguments:
-These shorts will be wrong; if the peg does not hold their (aka BTS) value will not go up...the stupid are punished by the market by taking their money...next time around they will be wiser... and in smaller number of crazie shorts btw.

-What is wrong with offering those bitUSD at a discount months and months before there is any real use for them? Nothing imho. All parties would have been made whole by now.

-Why do you think the useless tokens in the play game BTSX at the time should follow the rules for the real money of the future? Do you really think that playing poker with toothpicks teach you anything about how people behave when they play for real money?


Circular stupid argument- they will short lower and lower....BS... they will not. They expect the system to grow, this does not grow it....but if you insist they will both trust it and try to destroy it and themselves at the same time.... and act irrational go and defend it. Total BS.

[FandangledGizmo]

- You need the price feeds because otherwise it doesn't work. (There will be a lot of RandPaulCoin Bulls, willing to short but lower demand for the assets. This results in a peg that doesn't work. BitShares' first crash after they got to a $100 million made them learn this lesson the hard way. Even now BitAssets are able to offer interest, why? Because there is so much competition to short. Without the feeds this would instead translate to your assets being too far below the peg.)

And you know they does not work, how exactly? Somebody told you so?

The price of Bitshares crashed because the original 'market pegged assets' were abandoned and instead BTS now has 'feed priced assets'.

I am not suggesting Rand Paul Coin implementing the real market pegged assets, but those have not been tested in practice by nobody and I am betting that somebody someday will. As early as 2015.

There was a thread on that forum - 'Why Vitalik got the award and BM did not'. Well it is simple in my mind - BM made the biggest discovery and let others (including Vitalik btw)  persuade him that his idea does not work.....

All the information you need to understand why I think they don't work is contained within that succinct paragraph you just quoted. (I believe you'll find there is a greater number of people looking to take a leveraged position on BitShares vs. a long position on any specific asset atm over an extended period. Therefore if shorts are not forced to compete above a price feed, they will compete on how far below the peg they're willing to short which logically and imo has already been shown in practice to create assets that peg far too low. (Where it actually pegs will be a reflection/expression of the average interest rate shorts are willing to pay, but because shorts outnumber longs in the system over an extended period it actually settles/pegs around that point, rather than the actual 1-1 peg.) If you believe otherwise, there's no reason you can't campaign for BitShares to try listing one asset on BitShares without the price feed to prove/test your point.

It's ludicrous idea...short are crazy...they do not know what they are doing so they just short short short below the peg...

Several counter arguments:
-These shorts will be wrong; if the peg does not hold their (aka BTS) value will not go up...the stupid are punished by the market by taking their money...next time around they will be wiser... and in smaller number of crazie shorts btw.

-What is wrong with offering those bitUSD at a discount months and months before there is any real use for them? Nothing imho. All parties would have been made whole by now.

-Why do you think the useless tokens in the play game BTSX at the time should follow the rules for the real money of the future? Do you really think that playing poker with toothpicks teach you anything about how people behave when they play for real money?


Circular stupid argument- they will short lower and lower....BS... they will not. They expect the system to grow, this does not grow it....but if you insist they will both trust it and try to destroy it and themselves at the same time.... and act irrational go and defend it. Total BS.

I guess we have different POV. These things seem very obvious to me. I predicted the peg problems before the trading started in fact, same with the short term results of dilution. But as I said you should campaign to try an asset without a price feed in BitShares. I know your ideas & opinions command a lot of respect there and there was also a lot of interest in you being a delegate. This is something you can add to the list of ways & ideas with which you can add great value to BitShares. It might tip the scale for you.

RPC doesn't have any inflation at all, so I know it's probably not your thing anyway.

[tonyk]

I guess we have different POV. These things seem very obvious to me. I predicted the peg problems before the trading started in fact, same with the short term results of dilution. But as I said you should campaign to try an asset without a price feed in BitShares. I know your ideas & opinions command a lot of respect there and there was also a lot of interest in you being a delegate. This is something you can add to the list of ways & ideas with which you can add great value to BitShares. It might tip the scale for you.

RPC doesn't have any inflation at all, so I know it's probably not your thing anyway.

1. You do not get the main point with this suggesting for me to run just 'one asset to try it'. It does not work like it. You have to have the price of BTS dependent on the model implemented...if I have my single play bit asset it might (and I am pretty sure it will) behave the way described in the 'fail system' described by you.

2. 'I know your ideas & opinions command a lot of respect there and there was also a lot of interest in you being a delegate.'
 I do not think so...on all points in the above statement.

3.RPC doesn't have any inflation at all, so I know it's probably not your thing anyway.

That's funny. I do not like inflation, actually I dislike it far more than you...but you do like it if it is pre-determined even if it is 260% ...example - Sparkle  



btw ,We took this thread well off topic, so if you want to continue arguing we can take it to whatever other venue you like, but not in this thread anymore.

[FandangledGizmo]

- You need the price feeds because otherwise it doesn't work. (There will be a lot of RandPaulCoin Bulls, willing to short but lower demand for the assets. This results in a peg that doesn't work. BitShares' first crash after they got to a $100 million made them learn this lesson the hard way. Even now BitAssets are able to offer interest, why? Because there is so much competition to short. Without the feeds this would instead translate to your assets being too far below the peg.)

And you know they does not work, how exactly? Somebody told you so?

The price of Bitshares crashed because the original 'market pegged assets' were abandoned and instead BTS now has 'feed priced assets'.

I am not suggesting Rand Paul Coin implementing the real market pegged assets, but those have not been tested in practice by nobody and I am betting that somebody someday will. As early as 2015.

There was a thread on that forum - 'Why Vitalik got the award and BM did not'. Well it is simple in my mind - BM made the biggest discovery and let others (including Vitalik btw)  persuade him that his idea does not work.....

All the information you need to understand why I think they don't work is contained within that succinct paragraph you just quoted. (I believe you'll find there is a greater number of people looking to take a leveraged position on BitShares vs. a long position on any specific asset atm over an extended period. Therefore if shorts are not forced to compete above a price feed, they will compete on how far below the peg they're willing to short which logically and imo has already been shown in practice to create assets that peg far too low. (Where it actually pegs will be a reflection/expression of the average interest rate shorts are willing to pay, but because shorts outnumber longs in the system over an extended period it actually settles/pegs around that point, rather than the actual 1-1 peg.) If you believe otherwise, there's no reason you can't campaign for BitShares to try listing one asset on BitShares without the price feed to prove/test your point.

It's ludicrous idea...short are crazy...they do not know what they are doing so they just short short short below the peg...

Several counter arguments:
-These shorts will be wrong; if the peg does not hold their (aka BTS) value will not go up...the stupid are punished by the market by taking their money...next time around they will be wiser... and in smaller number of crazie shorts btw.

-What is wrong with offering those bitUSD at a discount months and months before there is any real use for them? Nothing imho. All parties would have been made whole by now.

-Why do you think the useless tokens in the play game BTSX at the time should follow the rules for the real money of the future? Do you really think that playing poker with toothpicks teach you anything about how people behave when they play for real money?


Circular stupid argument- they will short lower and lower....BS... they will not. They expect the system to grow, this does not grow it....but if you insist they will both trust it and try to destroy it and themselves at the same time.... and act irrational go and defend it. Total BS.

I guess we have different POV. These things seem very obvious to me. I predicted the peg problems before the trading started in fact, same with the short term results of dilution. But as I said you should campaign to try an asset without a price feed in BitShares. I know your ideas & opinions command a lot of respect there and there was also a lot of interest in you being a delegate. This is something you can add to the list of ways & ideas with which you can add great value to BitShares. It might tip the scale for you.

RPC doesn't have any inflation at all, so I know it's probably not your thing anyway.

1. You do not get the main point with this suggesting for me to run just 'one asset to try it'. It does not work like it. You have to have the price of BTS dependent on the model implemented...if I have my single play bit asset it might (and I am pretty sure it will) behave the way described in the 'fail system' described by you.

2. 'I know your ideas & opinions command a lot of respect there and there was also a lot of interest in you being a delegate.'
 I do not think so...on all points in the above statement.

3.RPC doesn't have any inflation at all, so I know it's probably not your thing anyway.


That's funny. I do not like inflation, actually I dislike far more than you...but you do like it if it is pre-determined even if it is 260% ...example - Sparkle  


btw ,We took this thread well off topic, so if you want to continue arguing we can take it to whatever other venue you like, but not in this thread anymore.

Well you campaigned very strongly for adding dilution to BTSX was my point.
No I don't like the inflation model of Sparkle at all, but yes I prefer it to undefined dilution.

I agree about the arguing in this thread

[tonyk]

Well you campaigned very strongly for adding dilution to BTSX was my point.
No I don't like the inflation model of Sparkle at all, but yes I prefer it to undefined dilution.

OK, so asking the question - "Should I consider, running a delegate" is a strong campaign?
Sure it was  , counting the people that promised to vote for me just for shutting up.  




Who's got undefined dilution, by your criteria?
 BTS?

 BTC dilution can change also, you know... but generally 'undefined' is a very personal definition of yours, I hope you realize it.


Back to to Rand Paul Coin:

I should have invested more, far more in it. But I do not touch Crypti anymore.
Hope ( for selfish reasons) RPCD does not start way too high,  so I can take the position I like.

[randpaulcoin]

Arguing in this thread is fine.

I see RPCD having a few routes to take as far as innovation. Implementing an improved bitassets would be an interesting experiment. I am also interested in keeping assets stable.

What about having to cover your positions every 30 days?  Is this useful with game-theory approach?

Gold and Silver assets should be in grams. This means 1 RandPaulGold would be 1 gram. People like their ounces but an ounce of gold is prohibitively expensive. With grams we readily have the metric system and can rain 50mg nuggets of gold for example.

Tell me if my thoughts seem mistaken.

It seems assets could be named paulGold and paulSilver. Maybe PaulGold an PaulSilver.

A gram of Gold is approximately $50
An oz of Silver is approximately $18 with a like a gram of silver being equivalent to a 50 cent piece.

Going with grams as the amount seems prudent although a Silver oz would be nice.

[FandangledGizmo]

Well you campaigned very strongly for adding dilution to BTSX was my point.
No I don't like the inflation model of Sparkle at all, but yes I prefer it to undefined dilution.

OK, so asking the question - "Should I consider, running a delegate" is a strong campaign?
Sure it was  , counting the people that promised to vote for me just for shutting up.  




Who's got undefined dilution, by your criteria?
 BTS?

 BTC dilution can change also, you know... but generally 'undefined' is a very personal definition of yours, I hope you realize it.


Back to to Rand Paul Coin:

I should have invested more, far more in it. But I do not touch Crypti anymore.
Hope ( for selfish reasons) RPCD does not start way too high,  so I can take the position I like.

Yes BTS is undefined. If there is a merger opportunity or a great sharedrop programme it can change.
As BTS is marketed as a crypto-equity, it uses shares and is a competitive DAC, it's a question of how much value the move has.

Bitcoin is a crypto-currency that follows a clearly defined supply curve and is marketed as a crypto-currency.
RonPaulMoney would be a 1 million unit, no inflation ever, crypto-money or crypto-currency so they really are locked in.

So I would say Bitcoin <1% of changing dilution. RPM <0.01% once it starts. BitShares >20%.

Glad you are looking at RPCD. I find you can be quite rude but I like debates, so I don't mind arguing the points. The dev seems ok with it too.

Regards your psychology of thinking the peg will hold because the majority know that if too many of them constantly went to far below the peg it would damage the value as a whole, is not how it works in practice.
Animals wouldn't be extinct, rainforests wiped out, if humans acted for the collective good of the system. They all act in their individual short term interest. That's why we have limits on the damage individuals can do because we don't collectively act in the best interest of a system. The same is true of Bitcoin. If there's slightly more individual gain to be made joining a big pool, many will do it, even if it over-centralises Bitcoin and effects it's value. Individuals do it as they know if they don't take advantage of the edge someone else will anyway.  
So shorts need to be limited somewhere around a price feed as if it's in their individual interest to get that short position, they're not going to avoid it for the collective good of the system. Otherwise you have a wide peg that repeatedly damages the entire value of the system when it stays too far from 1-1 for too long. Consumers want a very tight peg as well.

As I predicted before trading started, which caused BitShare initial fall.

I think lots of people will be willing to short BitUSD, not a lot willing to go long at the start.

Might make BitUSD price trade too far below peg. But this will hurt BTSX price causing the situation to correct itself...

Seems like it may need interest rates if you really want to keep it at 1-1. Because a short may be willing to short BitUSD and pay X% interest to entice a long to trade.

You lost me here...why this will hurt BTSX price? If a lot of people go short bitusd, wouldn't bitusd fall relatively to BTSX price. Therefore BTSX will rise and will be worth more bitsud..

I think a lot of people are hoping BitUSD may track USD fairly close to 1-1 most of the time.

However because people are so bullish on BTSX and shorting BTSX lets you take a leveraged position on BTSX. BTSX bulls may be willing to short still at $0.70, this trading range will be so far from the peg that it could damage the credibility of the peg. This could make people sell BTSX. This will mean less BTSX bulls willing to short below the peg and the situation will correct itself.

I don't mind a BitUSD like that but it might not appeal as much to retailers and savers.

It seems to make it stable you should introduce free market interest rates.
Then you still short 1-1 but when most people are bulls like now you will pay a higher interest rate to short BitUSD as opposed to shorting very far below the peg.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7416.msg99541#msg99541

Arguing in this thread is fine.

I see RPCD having a few routes to take as far as innovation. Implementing an improved bitassets would be an interesting experiment. I am also interested in keeping assets stable.

What about having to cover your positions every 30 days?  Is this useful with game-theory approach?

Gold and Silver assets should be in grams. This means 1 RandPaulGold would be 1 gram. People like their ounces but an ounce of gold is prohibitively expensive. With grams we readily have the metric system and can rain 50mg nuggets of gold for example.

Tell me if my thoughts seem mistaken.

It seems assets could be named paulGold and paulSilver. Maybe PaulGold an PaulSilver.

A gram of Gold is approximately $50
An oz of Silver is approximately $18 with a like a gram of silver being equivalent to a 50 cent piece.

Going with grams as the amount seems prudent although a Silver oz would be nice.

Tough one on the units. The world still uses Oz mostly for both imo but a lot of places work more in grams, e.g India. Places like GoldMoney too. Grams for gold and Oz for silver could work though. I think we'll move more to grams as they increase in value imo. Not Sure.

Also imo the brand power if you went for 'RonPaulMoney' is contained in the words 'RonPaul' vs. just Paul or Ron. So I would call them RonPaulGold and RonPaulSilver myself. If you went just RonGold or PaulGold, I would make the logo clearly show/represent Ron Paul. (Same holds true with a Rand Paul Brand, try keep the full name for advertising purposes even if exchanges need to shorten it.)

This is just an idea, not sure about it.  I was thinking crypto-currencies use 'coins' eg. LiteCoins
Crypto-equities use 'shares' eg. BitShares.
What if it a crypto-money uses 'ounces'

So there would be 1 million Oz of Ron Paul Money. It sounds substantial to own an Oz of RonPaulMoney, especially as there will only ever be a million. (If that's the starting amount you decide on.)

When you think of the demographic of Ron Paul supporters BitShares is specifically looking to target. Will they prefer BitGold backed by shares of BitShares or will they prefer RonPaulGold backed by no inflation ever, ounces of RonPaulMoney. Meh, coins might be better. Was just an idea.

[randpaulcoin]

Tough one on the units. The world still uses Oz mostly for both imo but a lot of places work more in grams, e.g India. Places like GoldMoney too. Grams for gold and Oz for silver could work though. I think we'll move more to grams as they increase in value imo. Not Sure.

Also imo the brand power if you went for 'RonPaulMoney' is contained in the words 'RonPaul' vs. just Paul or Ron. So I would call them RonPaulGold and RonPaulSilver myself. If you went just RonGold or PaulGold, I would make the logo clearly show/represent Ron Paul. (Same holds true with a Rand Paul Brand, try keep the full name for advertising purposes even if exchanges need to shorten it.)

This is just an idea, not sure about it.  I was thinking crypto-currencies use 'coins' eg. LiteCoins
Crypto-equities use 'shares' eg. BitShares.
What if it a crypto-money uses 'ounces'

So there would be 1 million Oz of Ron Paul Money. It sounds substantial to own an Oz of RonPaulMoney, especially as there will only ever be a million. (If that's the starting amount you decide on.)

When you think of the demographic of Ron Paul supporters BitShares is specifically looking to target. Will they prefer BitGold backed by shares of BitShares or will they prefer RonPaulGold backed by no inflation ever, ounces of RonPaulMoney. Meh, coins might be better. Was just an idea.

Although people are used to ounces, the ounces are denominated in a currency the person is familiar with.  So anyone who knows a little about precious metals would know what gold costs per ounce in their currency. That home currency pricing is thrown out of the window and everyone uses RPCD. So perhaps an ounce is just too much and the value of familiarity is gone.

I'd like to have these ironed out before further launching. Branding has an obvious value and changing it later in the game is never a good thing. It appears Bitshares is still hurting over their late changes.

[FandangledGizmo]

Tough one on the units. The world still uses Oz mostly for both imo but a lot of places work more in grams, e.g India. Places like GoldMoney too. Grams for gold and Oz for silver could work though. I think we'll move more to grams as they increase in value imo. Not Sure.

Also imo the brand power if you went for 'RonPaulMoney' is contained in the words 'RonPaul' vs. just Paul or Ron. So I would call them RonPaulGold and RonPaulSilver myself. If you went just RonGold or PaulGold, I would make the logo clearly show/represent Ron Paul. (Same holds true with a Rand Paul Brand, try keep the full name for advertising purposes even if exchanges need to shorten it.)

This is just an idea, not sure about it.  I was thinking crypto-currencies use 'coins' eg. LiteCoins
Crypto-equities use 'shares' eg. BitShares.
What if it a crypto-money uses 'ounces'

So there would be 1 million Oz of Ron Paul Money. It sounds substantial to own an Oz of RonPaulMoney, especially as there will only ever be a million. (If that's the starting amount you decide on.)

When you think of the demographic of Ron Paul supporters BitShares is specifically looking to target. Will they prefer BitGold backed by shares of BitShares or will they prefer RonPaulGold backed by no inflation ever, ounces of RonPaulMoney. Meh, coins might be better. Was just an idea.

Although people are used to ounces, the ounces are denominated in a currency the person is familiar with.  So anyone who knows a little about precious metals would know what gold costs per ounce in their currency. That home currency pricing is thrown out of the window and everyone uses RPCD. So perhaps an ounce is just too much and the value of familiarity is gone.

I'd like to have these ironed out before further launching. Branding has an obvious value and changing it later in the game is never a good thing. It appears Bitshares is still hurting over their late changes.

I agree. The one thing I'm personally fairly convinced about is RonPaul is an infinitely stronger brand for a no inflation money than Rand Paul. I'm also sure either is better than something that tries to do both, like a 'Rond' or a 'Paul' as it won't strongly appeal to either.

Ron Paul has an entire life of standing behind his principles, integrity and his messages about sound money, end the Fed etc. It's just unbeatable imo. The videos you could make at a later stage, about the value of unchangeable money just using clips from his interviews as a way to sell your no inflation brand is priceless.

So for me 'RonPaulSomething' with an unchangeable amount of initial coins/units is the key branding criteria.

For the rest, I prefer RonPaulAssets over anything else I've heard so far. If someone says we've got 'PaulSilver' it doesn't have value without additional marketing, but RonPaulSilver' have immediate recognition. Not very catchy though.

Somewhere between 23-51 delegates is fine, would be nice if there was a reasoning behind the number like you had for the 13 originally. Pity that I guess it needs to be an odd number as 42 is probably the perfect number. (It's the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life.2C_the_Universe.2C_and_Everything_.2842.29)

[btstv]

I agree, RonPaulSilver is more confidence inspiring than simply PaulSilver.

So Ron Paul Money with Rand Paul Coin as a Ron Paul Asset is a bit of a mouthful but extremely effective in demonstrating the hierarchy or organizational structure of the Ron Paul Money complete crypto ecosystem.

Since we are very early in the adoption stage of this concept, I think we need "encompassing" and "powerful" and "ground-breaking" and "timeless" over "simple" or "elegant"  or "enigmatic" or "ethereal"

[teksensei]

So, I can sell my RPC off before they become worthless now?   Oh, and how does one get these "Rand Paul coins".

[btstv]

how does one get these "Rand Paul coins".

When the Rand (or Ron) Paul Money wallet comes out:

1. download and execute (install) the file
2. enter the private key of your Ron Paul wallet to obtain your Rand/Ron Paul Money
3. choose what Ron/Rand Paul Asset you want to buy with your Ron/Rand Paul Money, and trade for it within the wallet (you don't ever need to send your coins to an exchange to trade them for assets)

You can practice with BitShares currently:

http://bitshares.org/downloads/

So, I can sell my RPC off before they become worthless now?

RPC snapshot block will be 198132.  I hope everyone who wanted to partake got their wallet straight.

Wallet currently shows we're on block 198162. So the RPC snapshot happened already?

Yes.  

Those numbers are set in stone now.

This means RonPaulCoin has no more value directly for snapshots. Your RonPaulCoin wallet does have value regardless of the balance.  It is those private keys that will be the keys to your RPCD. Please backup your wallet.dat at this point if you are seriously interested in RPCD.  Copy it to a USB stick. This will unlock your sharedrop when the final chain goes live.