[ANN] NeuCoin - Easy to use, free to try, focused on micropayments - Official

[darteous]

As far as what we've been told, the foundation coins will not initially sell coins upon launch. I see no reason to waste their time to reconfirm it for you.

You'd have to ask the peercoiner that said that Sunny was looking into making the change. I'm not a techni.

The coin will start off at 100% and decrease the entire year down to 80% by the end of year one.Month 2's interest will be 98% and month 3's will be about 96.

The returns and lock up period have not been announced, I imagine it would depend on the systems holdings and how often it mines, such information isn't yet available.


Mining will start when the coin launches. Sometime before September 30 this year

[rizzlarolla]

As far as what we've been told, the foundation coins will not initially sell coins upon launch. I see no reason to waste their time to reconfirm it for you.

You'd have to ask the peercoiner that said that Sunny was looking into making the change. I'm not a techni.

where have we been told foundation koin will not initially sell koin upon launch? (and for the first month)

ok I guess it was the innovation, Dart and LOrrav just can't remember.

Its update day!

edit- to save you time Dart,
http://forum.neucoin.org/t/currency-exchange-rate/72/5
post 5 Sandrine says
"Thus at launch, the only coins that will be available to trade on exchanges (the ”available supply”) are the 100M coins that will have been sold in the presale. At a price of $0.01 per coin, Coinmarketcap.com will list NeuCoin's market cap at $1M ($.01 * 100M "available" supply), not $30M."

It does not say foundation koin will not be sold 5 min after launch,
It simply explains the launch mcap
Also sale restricted koin. start, middle, end of month? Nothing specific.
Typical nokoin vagueness.

[scam confirmed]

First, lets be clear. Only the first year will users be making 100% interest. After that, it linearly reduces down to 6% after 10 years.

And I can tell you why: Because of the rich founders, the rich angel investors and the rich foundations.

Second, simple algebra shows that regardless of the reward percentage, as long as users are mining, the Rich maintain the same, "purchasing power" as you called it, vs the poor. Let A be user A, B be user B, and p equal to the percentage earned. Then  A*(1+p)/ (B*(1+p)) = A/B.

Wrong! This formula ignores compounded interest! As shown in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg11775144#msg11775144 and as described in the whitepaper: Larger shareholders ""receive payments more frequently".

Let m be the number of Blocks solved by rich user A within a certain time frame and n the number of blocks solved by poor user B within the same timeftame. Then

A*(1+((p/m)/100%)^m)            the rich user’s share increases
while                                                                                                                       The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
B*(1+((p/n)/100%)^n)             the poor user’s share decreases

The only way a poor user (or even a rich user who doesn't mint 24/7) can counteract this inequality is to send his coins to a pool. This will make him dependent on a third party which is the direct opposite of „decentralized“.

It looks like this is the case (you need to DEPOSIT nokoins to use the pool),
but isn't that dumb?  What other coin requires you to
put your funds into a pool to use that pool?

Yes that's dumb.

[jonald_fyookball]

As far as what we've been told, the foundation coins will not initially sell coins upon launch. I see no reason to waste their time to reconfirm it for you.

You'd have to ask the peercoiner that said that Sunny was looking into making the change. I'm not a techni.

where have we been told foundation koin will not initially sell koin upon launch? (and for the first month)

ok I guess it was the innovation, Dart and LOrrav just can't remember.

I'm sorry, but this is just pathetic.

It's like saying: "We believe Dan and the neucoin team when they say there's innovations.  
What those innovations are, we can't say and don't remember.  Maybe you can ask
on the peercoin forum."

WTF?

[LOrrav]

First, lets be clear. Only the first year will users be making 100% interest. After that, it linearly reduces down to 6% after 10 years.

And I can tell you why: Because of the rich founders, the rich angel investors and the rich foundations.

Here is the real reason:

From page 20 of the Neucoin whitepaper:

One severe weakness of Peercoin is that it suffers from extremely low mining participation,
with typically less than 10% of the currency supply staked at any one time. This means that
an attack requiring control of 51% of the staked coins only requires control of 5.1% of the
total currency supply. There are several factors that contribute to the low mining rates in
Peercoin, but the principal one is miniscule rewards for mining: just a 1% annual return. The
small amount of mining that does take place in Peercoin is most likely driven more by selfless
efforts to support the currency than by the financial rewards of mining.
In contrast, NeuCoin provides very high compensation to miners, especially during the
early years following its launch. Specifically, NeuCoin’s coinstake rewards begin at a 100%
annual rate and decline in a linear fashion over ten years after which they reach a 6% annual
rate, where they remain indefinitely. These high reward rates will incentivize a large number of
miners to stake a large number of coins. In addition, these high reward rates create incentives
for cloud mining operators to provide services to NeuCoin holders not interested in mining
themselves, where both the mining operator and the NeuCoin holder can receive substantial
rewards.

Oh I forgot, everything that the Neucoin says is all lies, right? So you might as well just say "Neucoin is the devil incarnate" and leave it at that.

Second, simple algebra shows that regardless of the reward percentage, as long as users are mining, the Rich maintain the same, "purchasing power" as you called it, vs the poor. Let A be user A, B be user B, and p equal to the percentage earned. Then  A*(1+p)/ (B*(1+p)) = A/B.

Wrong! This formula ignores compounded interest! As shown in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg11775144#msg11775144 and as described in the whitepaper: Larger shareholders ""receive payments more frequently".

Let m be the number of Blocks solved by rich user A within a certain time frame and n the number of blocks solved by poor user B within the same timeftame. Then

A*(1+((p/m)/100%)^m)            the rich user’s share increases
while                                                                                                                       The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
B*(1+((p/n)/100%)^n)             the poor user’s share decreases

The only way a poor user (or even a rich user who doesn't mint 24/7) can counteract this inequality is to send his coins to a pool. This will make him dependent on a third party which is the direct opposite of „decentralized“.

Did I ever say a "poor user" shouldn't use a pool? This is how the conversation started! I told you that decentralization comes in when users have around $1000 or so, and at that point the security risk of having someone else hold your coins outweighs the benefits of the additional compound interest. So, the decentralization works when users that have around $1K or so weigh the risks and make the decision to solo-mine.

So, if a "poor user" uses a pool then m=n, and therefore it *still* reduces to A/B.

It looks like this is the case (you need to DEPOSIT nokoins to use the pool),
but isn't that dumb?  What other coin requires you to
put your funds into a pool to use that pool?

Yes that's dumb.

As I said above, this is what keeps Neucoin decentralized. Replying with "it's dumb" is not a counterargument.

[LiQio]

[...]

As I said above, this is what keeps Neucoin decentralized.

[...]

Never ever use the word decentralized and Neucoin in the same sentence. They are direct opposites.

[LOrrav]

[...]

As I said above, this is what keeps Neucoin decentralized.

[...]

Never ever use the word decentralized and Neucoin in the same sentence. They are direct opposites.

Excuse me? Care to refute any of my points?

[LiQio]

[...]

As I said above, this is what keeps Neucoin decentralized.

[...]

Never ever use the word decentralized and Neucoin in the same sentence. They are direct opposites.

Excuse me? Care to refute any of my points?

Excuse me as well? Care to share your definition of decentralized?

[scam confirmed]

First, lets be clear. Only the first year will users be making 100% interest. After that, it linearly reduces down to 6% after 10 years.

And I can tell you why: Because of the rich founders, the rich angel investors and the rich foundations.

Here is the real reason:
[....]

Wrong! Here ist the real alleged reason:

Some observers might consider NeuCoin's high reward rates to cause unacceptably high
inflation. In fact, NeuCoin utilizes high inflation deliberately in its early years to compensate
users for holding and staking the currency while its value, utility and security are lowest and
its risk is highest.

Security? ROFL: https://i.imgur.com/jvo1jBw.jpg

Here is the real reason:

Rewards early NeuCoin investors

BTW: Presale buyers aren‘t early investors. Early investors paid much less than $0.01 per coin...

[jonald_fyookball]

[...]

As I said above, this is what keeps Neucoin decentralized.

[...]

Never ever use the word decentralized and Neucoin in the same sentence. They are direct opposites.

Excuse me? Care to refute any of my points?

well it's centrally planned, centrally premined, centrally issued and distributed, centrally pooled, centrally developed and advertised, centrally secured, etc.... but maybe that suits some people just fine.

[LOrrav]

[...]

As I said above, this is what keeps Neucoin decentralized.

[...]

Never ever use the word decentralized and Neucoin in the same sentence. They are direct opposites.

Excuse me? Care to refute any of my points?

well it's centrally planned, centrally premined, centrally issued and distributed, centrally pooled, centrally developed and advertised, centrally secured, etc.... but maybe that suits some people just fine.

Neucoin is nurturing the coin to maturity, rather than just releasing it and hoping it will survive on its own. This is necessary because of the current crowded environment of alt-coins.

The alt-coin ecosystem right now is like the old saying about a bunch of crabs in a bucket. As soon as one on top tries to escape, the crabs at the bottom pull it back down again.

If Neucoin was just released with no initial services (such as an online wallet and pool), no games fully integrated with it, no exchanges on board to trade it, it would be just like all the others and suffer the same fate.

So, initially centralized, yes, but as the Neucoin economy grows, less and less so.

[LiQio]

[...]

As I said above, this is what keeps Neucoin decentralized.

[...]

Never ever use the word decentralized and Neucoin in the same sentence. They are direct opposites.

Excuse me? Care to refute any of my points?

well it's centrally planned, centrally premined, centrally issued and distributed, centrally pooled, centrally developed and advertised, centrally secured, etc.... but maybe that suits some people just fine.

Neucoin is nurturing the coin to maturity, rather than just releasing it and hoping it will survive on its own. This is necessary because of the current crowded environment of alt-coins.

The alt-coin ecosystem right now is like the old saying about a bunch of crabs in a bucket. As soon as one on top tries to escape, the crabs at the bottom pull it back down again.

If Neucoin was just released with no initial services (such as an online wallet and pool), no games fully integrated with it, no exchanges on board to trade it, it would be just like all the others and suffer the same fate.

So, initially centralized, yes, but as the Neucoin economy grows, less and less so.

Glad that we finally established Neucoin equals centralization.
Whether this will change after years is unknown yet and atm only wishful thinking.

[darteous]

The innovation I care about is the distribution and usage planned from the beginning that no other coin has had. I don't care of the coin itself is not better than the other good coins out there. The image and growth the coin has from the start is what is going to make this coin. Most coins don't get things going in the beginning anywhere near fast enough and get weighed down with tons of bag holders by the time the coin has anyone looking at it.

[LiQio]

Now that's what I call progress, we are getting in touch with reality, LOrrav above and now you darteous.

The innovation I care about is the distribution and usage planned from the beginning that no other coin has had. 

I wouldn't call this innovation, but yes that's the only novelty, a centrally planned distribution that will take years and avoid normal market forces.
That's what most of said since the beginning btw.

I don't care of the coin itself is not better than the other good coins out there.

For all we know there are no killer properties and it comes pretty late to the party.
So, yes it's most likely not better at all, rather mediocre.

The image and growth the coin has from the start is what is going to make this coin.

The image is certainly an epic failure until now at least.
As for growth, we don't know yet, lets see what the central foundations holding "all" the funds will make of it.

Most coins don't get things going in the beginning anywhere near fast enough and get weighed down with tons of bag holders by the time the coin has anyone looking at it.

Hmm, not sure, Neucoin seems to be sluggish at the moment. Since there is no technical innovation as you said yourself and plenty of funds have been raised a long time ago... If I were you, I would drop this argument (just IMO)
As for the weighing down, typically centralized economies and the intrinsic political processes weigh themselves down single-handedly.

Again, glad that we finally came back down to earth.

[jonald_fyookball]

As for the weighing down, typically centralized economies and the intrinsic political processes weigh themselves down single-handedly.
 

Bitcoin has hundreds (thousands?) of companies driving innovation and adoption. 
How is one company (especially a non Fortune 500 company) going to do it better?
I'm a little puzzled by that.

[LiQio]

As for the weighing down, typically centralized economies and the intrinsic political processes weigh themselves down single-handedly.
 

Bitcoin has hundreds (thousands?) of companies driving innovation and adoption. 
How is one company (especially a non Fortune 500 company) going to do it better?
I'm a little puzzled by that.

jonald_fyookball I'm not sure if you're asking me here 

I'm a hundred percent sure that the path they chose is a dead-end. There is no way on earth that one company (especially Neucoin where gibberish and marketing comes before everything else) will be doing it better than the free market (hundreds of independent companies as you call it).

[LOrrav]

As for the weighing down, typically centralized economies and the intrinsic political processes weigh themselves down single-handedly.
 

Bitcoin has hundreds (thousands?) of companies driving innovation and adoption. 
How is one company (especially a non Fortune 500 company) going to do it better?
I'm a little puzzled by that.

jonald_fyookball I'm not sure if you're asking me here 

I'm a hundred percent sure that the path they chose is a dead-end. There is no way on earth that one company (especially Neucoin where gibberish and marketing comes before everything else) will be doing it better than the free market (hundreds of independent companies as you call it).

Bitcoin has a huge flaw that not too many people talk about, which is the centralization of mining due to economies of scale.

How long before the biggest 3 mining pools decide just to stop accepting blocks outside of their pools? After all, they're leaving 40% of the revenue they could be making if they just did 100% of the mining and force everyone else to go along with it, and this must irk them to no end.

My guess is next year, when the subsidy drops in half, they might decide to do just that and take control of the network. Heck, the people mining in their pool would probably support the idea. More revenue for them.

Even if they don't decide to grab hold of the network, the top miners must be kowtowed to get anything done in Bitcoin. For example, want to increase the blocksize? Make sure to confer with the biggest miners, or they might decide to just ignore you.  Doesn't sound too decentralized, does it?

Not only that, but the miners don't share the best interest with the users. Miners want more fees, more subsidy, more stability (ie control). They don't care to make a system that is nearly free to transmit value between others. They'd be happier with something like Visa or Mastercard where they could gouge 3% of every transaction.

Neucoin doesn't have this problem. The miners and the owners of the coin are the same people, anyone with a substantial mining operation would also require a comparably substantial stake. Therefore, attempting to push it towards higher fees or more centralization would destroy their own profit by reducing the value of the coin in general.

LiQio, if you think planned economies never work, explain how Ripple, probably the most planned, centralized coin in existence, has the #2 spot in the market cap right now?

[LiQio]

As for the weighing down, typically centralized economies and the intrinsic political processes weigh themselves down single-handedly.
 

Bitcoin has hundreds (thousands?) of companies driving innovation and adoption.  
How is one company (especially a non Fortune 500 company) going to do it better?
I'm a little puzzled by that.

jonald_fyookball I'm not sure if you're asking me here  

I'm a hundred percent sure that the path they chose is a dead-end. There is no way on earth that one company (especially Neucoin where gibberish and marketing comes before everything else) will be doing it better than the free market (hundreds of independent companies as you call it).

Bitcoin has a huge flaw that not too many people talk about, which is the centralization of mining due to economies of scale.

How long before the biggest 3 mining pools decide just to stop accepting blocks outside of their pools? After all, they're leaving 40% of the revenue they could be making if they just did 100% of the mining and force everyone else to go along with it, and this must irk them to no end.

My guess is next year, when the subsidy drops in half, they might decide to do just that and take control of the network. Heck, the people mining in their pool would probably support the idea. More revenue for them.

Even if they don't decide to grab hold of the network, the top miners must be kowtowed to get anything done in Bitcoin. For example, want to increase the blocksize? Make sure to confer with the biggest miners, or they might decide to just ignore you.  Doesn't sound too decentralized, does it?

Not only that, but the miners don't share the best interest with the users. Miners want more fees, more subsidy, more stability (ie control). They don't care to make a system that is nearly free to transmit value between others. They'd be happier with something like Visa or Mastercard where they could gouge 3% of every transaction.

Neucoin doesn't have this problem. The miners and the owners of the coin are the same people, anyone with a substantial mining operation would also require a comparably substantial stake. Therefore, attempting to push it towards higher fees or more centralization would destroy their own profit by reducing the value of the coin in general.

LiQio, if you think planned economies never work, explain how Ripple, probably the most planned, centralized coin in existence, has the #2 spot in the market cap right now?

That's the problem. One can safely assume that the market cap of said type of coins is incorrect.
The same holds true for Neucoin - the foundations will be able to dictate the coin price (and thereby the calculated market cap) for years.
The foundations will be able to dominate the supply side, simply because their holdings are huge - and I'm convinced that they will even influence the demand side (using raised BTC and Fiat).
I don't know if that kind of intervention support is mentioned in their strategic papers, but given their overall strategy I would eat my hat if they don't.

That way price is fake, volume is fake and as a result market cap.

[jonald_fyookball]

I somehwat agree with you liqio, about the 'fake' market cap from ripple.  market cap is a function of the liquid assets being traded.  all instruments will have some portion which is illiquid, such as founders holding them.  this is true for stocks and Bitcoin too.  arguably for ripple there would be a much greater percentage that's illiquid and so the numbers would inflated by multiples.  also, a secondary result is that with such a small actual trading volume, it is much cheaper to prop up the price and maintain a larger cap. not sure if all that's what you meant.

consider what would happen if everyone who's bought into the neucoin prelaunch dumped the coins back at break even and neucoin foundation bought them.  then there's no real volume, but they could fake it and set any price they want.  obviously this is an extreme example, but the point is the smaller the actual market, the more room they have to play games with the price and market cap. 

[styn234]

I somehwat agree with you liqio, about the 'fake' market cap from ripple.  market cap is a function of the liquid assets being traded.  all instruments will have some portion which is illiquid, such as founders holding them.  this is true for stocks and Bitcoin too.  arguably for ripple there would be a much greater percentage that's illiquid and so the numbers would inflated by multiples.  also, a secondary result is that with such a small actual trading volume, it is much cheaper to prop up the price and maintain a larger cap. not sure if all that's what you meant.

consider what would happen if everyone who's bought into the neucoin prelaunch dumped the coins back at break even and neucoin foundation bought them.  then there's no real volume, but they could fake it and set any price they want.  obviously this is an extreme example, but the point is the smaller the actual market, the more room they have to play games with the price and market cap. 

I agree, it won't catch on the way bitcoin has. It's not really innovative, although the devs claim it is.
Woow free coins, like we haven't seen that already. But don't get me wrong i like the concept of getting free money and being able to buy amazon gift card, but if you really want to have engough to buy one you'll probably have to mine. A lot of people who aren't familiar with cryptocurrencies won't realise that, and excpect more than they should. Also als someone metioned here before, the rich get richer and the poor get even more poor. That's why i don't think NeuCoin is gonna catch on. Also because free money kiiinda looks like a scam if you aren't familiar with cryptocoins.