[ANN] The Epic 420 Alliance Joint Force - United we stand!

[altcoin.center]

Hi everyone!

Sorry for the late reply - been even busier than usual... =D

Great to see DeltaNine pop in here. Always been a big fan of CANN ( got me some CANN ) . I believe the goal of 420 Alliance Joint Force ( to be named something else I bet ) would be to bring awareness to Cannabis Industry  to crypto currency as a whole. As a dev. of a Cannabis coin I think it would be great to have a few rep's from each coin to sit on a board to help improve this message.

I'm very happy to see DeltaNine here as well! Things are progressing. =)

As for the name, I think 420 Alliance would be good, and this thread and the related preliminary meta-organization (including the board of representatives) could be called the 420 Alliance Initiative. The initiative part can be dropped off when the alliance has been officially formed.

I think a website would be great to be put up  ( if anyone wants to help I can supply a domain name ) and start the process of establishing "real world" connections w/ people in this industry.  The site would be neutral ( no logos of coins etc,etc ) just names of reps of each coin. We can offer membership levels for each coin userbase to help support the cause. An agenda would be established to figure out who to reach out to in the industry / Promotions etc,etc and set a budget accordingly. I think if this is established ( 1,000 members ) would only help raise the Cannabis coins legitimacy overall.  Thoughts ?

Sounds very good! I'd like to manage the domain part myself though, mostly simply because I've got the super secure environment with DDoS protected servers available anyways.

I did in fact check a number of domains when I opened this thread, but could not find one that would have been "perfect enough".

edit: think of some names for this org. and we can vote.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not a big fan of voting or democracy. =D There are situations when they are the best or even only options, but this is not one of those. We don't yet have a clearly defined "us" who could or should make collective decisions.

I used my self-proclaimed temporary dictatorial rights and reserver 420alliance.info for the project. The "classic three" of .com, .net and .org were already taken, and I would have preferred the .info version anyways due to many factors - one of them being that .info is operated by Afilias instead of the Public Interest Registry that holds .org.

edi 2: Jyri - you might already have someone interested in helping let me know!

Yes, fortunately a bunch of people have turned themselves in! =D

I'll be setting up teamwork tools ASAP so we get this show under control.

Until then, please keep the discussion going over here! =)

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

[dynamite]

The price of many of these coins could be manipulated so easily. Especially the newer ones like STV. Someone could raise the marketcap of STV higher than DOPE for < 1 BTC. DOPE also could be worth 1000 sat next week.

I don't think price can be used while working together. It has to be a totally different way of working together.

[altcoin.center]

Also, would this venture attempt to peg these currencies to each other?  If anything like that, why would any copypasta pump and dump coins be lumped in?

The idea of having the participating coins connected with each other using the side chain method has been one of the options on the table, although this is the kind of stuff that definitely has to be discussed when the initial board of representatives exists and is functional.

There should be clear standards regarding the issue of accepting new participants - for many reasons, one of them being that we do in fact have an idea about how the participating coins could have their value bound to a very concrete natural resource with stable value.

The plan is to create a whole new level of stability for the participating coins, and that implies it's not possible to take new coins aboard just like that. Too low standards would also destroy the whole point of the alliance, which is to increase and enhance not just financial stability but also credibility of the participants.

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

[Hollowman338]

The price of many of these coins could be manipulated so easily. Especially the newer ones like STV. Someone could raise the marketcap of STV higher than DOPE for < 1 BTC. DOPE also could be worth 1000 sat next week.

I don't think price can be used while working together. It has to be a totally different way of working together.

I lean in this direction as well.  Can you imagine the protest (and rightfully so) of a much weaker coin leeching value away from one of the more established currencies?  That alone would hurt everyone involved.

[Hollowman338]

Also, would this venture attempt to peg these currencies to each other?  If anything like that, why would any copypasta pump and dump coins be lumped in?

The idea of having the participating coins connected with each other using the side chain method has been one of the options on the table, although this is the kind of stuff that definitely has to be discussed when the initial board of representatives exists and is functional.

There should be clear standards regarding the issue of accepting new participants - for many reasons, one of them being that we do in fact have an idea about how the participating coins could have their value bound to a very concrete natural resource with stable value.

The plan is to create a whole new level of stability for the participating coins, and that implies it's not possible to take new coins aboard just like that. Too low standards would also destroy the whole point of the alliance, which is to increase and enhance not just financial stability but also credibility of the participants.

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

So let us see where this goes then. 

[dynamite]

420coin coming out next week

[altcoin.center]

The price of many of these coins could be manipulated so easily. Especially the newer ones like STV. Someone could raise the marketcap of STV higher than DOPE for < 1 BTC. DOPE also could be worth 1000 sat next week.

That is the case - unless there is something concrete the prices are bound to. Which is precisely what is in the plans.

I don't think price can be used while working together. It has to be a totally different way of working together.

There might be a way to do this, though.

The price could be defined through an intermediary coin that would only exist for the sole purpose of providing a stable value towards which each participating coin's value would be calculated based on factors such as maximum amount of coins available, etc.

The intermediary coin would be bound to a natural resource with stable value, in a way that would actually make that resource available to anyone who would want to buy it using any of the participating coins.

We've been going through the idea with Dopecoindude and I've also discussed it with one of the most resourceful people in the Bitcoin scene. I can assure you the plan is most certainly doable, and it would be a big game changer indeed. Can't go further into the details yet though; things need to be prepared well this time.

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

[altcoin.center]

So let us see where this goes then. 

Indeed! =)

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

[altcoin.center]

420coin coming out next week

Perhaps, perhaps...

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

[deemington]

I don't really understand what this alliance hopes to achieve. For example if a person from one coin talks to a headshop owner who wants to accept crypto then there is no incentive to get other coins involved. What would be the purpose of 420alliance.info? Rather than splitting effort across multiple coins would it not benefit everyone involved to focus on one? If you are bagholding an ICO coin where the developer left it would make more sense IMO to cut the losses and focus effort on something that everyone can truly work together on. This isn't criticism of the idea, it's just that I don't understand it.

Edit: You posted the answer while I was typing

[altcoin.center]

I don't really understand what this alliance hopes to achieve. For example if a person from one coin talks to a headshop owner who wants to accept crypto then there is no incentive to get other coins involved. What would be the purpose of 420alliance.info? Rather than splitting effort across multiple coins would it not benefit everyone involved to focus on one? If you are bagholding an ICO coin where the developer left it would make more sense IMO to cut the losses and focus effort on something that everyone can truly work together on. This isn't criticism of the idea, it's just that I don't understand it.

Very good points indeed.

Edit: You posted the answer while I was typing

Perfect. =D

To re-iterate, the mission of the alliance would be the stabilization of the price and overall enhancement of credibility of all of the participating coins. The coins would still exist as separate projects with their own niches, tactics, developers and fans.

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

[dopecoindude]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not a big fan of voting or democracy. =D There are situations when they are the best or even only options, but this is not one of those. We don't yet have a clearly defined "us" who could or should make collective decisions.

I used my self-proclaimed temporary dictatorial rights and reserver 420alliance.info for the project. The "classic three" of .com, .net and .org were already taken, and I would have preferred the .info version anyways due to many factors - one of them being that .info is operated by Afilias instead of the Public Interest Registry that holds .org.

No, worries! Didn't know how far down the rabbit hole we were

I don't really understand what this alliance hopes to achieve. For example if a person from one coin talks to a headshop owner who wants to accept crypto then there is no incentive to get other coins involved. What would be the purpose of 420alliance.info? Rather than splitting effort across multiple coins would it not benefit everyone involved to focus on one? If you are bagholding an ICO coin where the developer left it would make more sense IMO to cut the losses and focus effort on something that everyone can truly work together on. This isn't criticism of the idea, it's just that I don't understand it.

Your voice is what is most important.  As stated we'll come up with some basic initiatives , so there is a clear path of understanding as the goal to this group. Think of it as a "mission statement" .

[fartbags]

There's lots of activity today with this issue.

After talking to a few business owners who are seriously interested in marijuana coins, I have found that a unified solution is what they want. The multitude of marijuana coins turns them off. They want 1 tool and they don't want to support a coin and have a different coin do well instead.

[Sumo]

Bit4Buds.net

[altcoin.center]

No, worries! Didn't know how far down the rabbit hole we were

No worries neither, whatsoever! =D

I don't really understand what this alliance hopes to achieve. For example if a person from one coin talks to a headshop owner who wants to accept crypto then there is no incentive to get other coins involved. What would be the purpose of 420alliance.info? Rather than splitting effort across multiple coins would it not benefit everyone involved to focus on one? If you are bagholding an ICO coin where the developer left it would make more sense IMO to cut the losses and focus effort on something that everyone can truly work together on. This isn't criticism of the idea, it's just that I don't understand it.

Your voice is what is most important.  As stated we'll come up with some basic initiatives , so there is a clear path of understanding as the goal to this group. Think of it as a "mission statement" .
[/quote]

Exactly. =)

Back to seed node installations.

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

[deemington]

How about starting by burning all the coins with no developers into one new coin.

[altcoin.center]

There's lots of activity today with this issue.

After talking to a few business owners who are seriously interested in marijuana coins, I have found that a unified solution is what they want. The multitude of marijuana coins turns them off. They want 1 tool and they don't want to support a coin and have a different coin do well instead.

Very interesting - thanks for sharing this important insight, fartbags!

There are several payment gateways specializing in the cannabis scene coins, but then again that doesn't mean the scene itself would be unified in any way. Each coin is basically completely disconnected from the others, at least when it comes to their value.

I'm all the more confident that the key issue the alliance must handle is providing a stable and reliable source of value to the participating coins, making it possible for them to move away from the current solely speculation based approach.

What the alliance should not do is compete with the already existing (and upcoming) payment gateway providers; that would just create conflicts of interest and turn the alliance into a business, which it can not be if the idea is (as it is) to remain a truly neutral mediator.

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

[altcoin.center]

How about starting by burning all the coins with no developers into one new coin.

That is an option I've also been pondering upon.

As you may have noticed, Altcoin.Center has taken over the development of three cannabis related coins dumped by their original developers:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=874053.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=874071.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=874058.0

All these coins have an existing user base and people have invested heavily into them. Whatever the solution is going to be it must be such that the investors do not loose their funds.

I also want to make sure not to annihilate any such coins that have a strong community that wants that coin to survive. For example, the Sativa community has clearly expressed that it's Sativa they love, and I do not want to be forcing them to give up on it.

Personally, I do not consider the amount of different coins being a problem in itself, as long as all the coins have someone to maintain them. Altcoin.Center has taken the responsibility to making sure that the coins we've taken over will be maintained, and developers with the will and the capability to manage the necessary updates will be assigned to each coin.

The burning could still become useful if there are coins that do not have a strong user base / community.

This is all very interesting. I must hurry to get the teamwork system set up so we can start inviting everyone from developers to users to merchants there to discuss the plans.

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

[dynamite]

I posted this on PotCoins reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/potcoin/comments/2nzj8h/420_joint_alliance_any_initial_thoughts/

If anyone wants to go upvote it then we can see if a PotCoin devs message on this thread. It would be nice to know they know about this idea.

[dopecoindude]

I posted this on PotCoins reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/potcoin/comments/2nzj8h/420_joint_alliance_any_initial_thoughts/

If anyone wants to go upvote it then we can see if a PotCoin devs message on this thread. It would be nice to know they know about this idea.

Good idea. Upvoted on this end. Lets see what they have to say !