Topic: [ANN] [BARR] The Only Cryptocurrency Where No One's Ever Lost Money - page 11. (Read 39325 times)

March burn has ended for Chaincoin and BARR/OFFS.

We burned 2,029,696 CHC and 25,000 BARR.

Voting for April ends in 3 days.

1.75 million burned, 15% of the supply, 3 days left

We've burned 1.5 million Chaincoins.  Hopefully we can make it to 2 million by the 28th.

We have now burned 1.1 million out of 11 million total coins

Our burn address is now #1 on the rich list for Chaincoin addresses

https://www.blockexperts.com/chc

Day 1 is off to a good start.  We've burned 104,318.31081817 CHC and redeemed it with 2,086.3663 BARR.

Swap for ChainCoin CHC has begun, and will end on March 28.

The burn address for ChainCoin is CGTta3M4t3yXu8uRgkKvaWd2d8DQvDPnpL

https://www.blockexperts.com/chc/address/CGTta3M4t3yXu8uRgkKvaWd2d8DQvDPnpL

To swap your CHC for BARR, send us a message here to this account with your NXT address and the amount of CHC you will burn.
Send your CHC to the burn address and then message us again with the transaction ID.

The swap rate for March will be .02 BARR per Chaincoin (50 Chaincoins per BARR)

I agree.   I see no problems caused by BARR.

Some people take it personally, as if burning their coin means we're insulting them.  But I don't see how it hurts them or their own coins in any way.

i don't understand those who criticize BARR as idea
for example, if you are the dev of active coin and your coin does not meet the conditions of burning you do not have to worry
if you are the dev of half-dead coin - whats the problem ? do all or do nothing
if you are only holder of "half-dead" coin - you must be happy
am i wrong ?

The voting has ended, and we will burn Chaincoin from March 14 to March 28.

Yes, that rationale is bogus because it's not our rationale. 

We don't burn "dead coins", as it has always said in Page 1 of this topic.

So yes, our motivation is different from your vague insinuations.

Apparently you can't find anything wrong with what we're doing, and it's driving you crazy.






As predicted.

Your posts here have been nothing more than pointless trolling.

I indicated that was my biggest objection in principle (and which I'll now refine further to “its relationship with NXT”).

My biggest objection in practice is the arbitrary targeting ...



It's difficult to see how anyone can be oblivious to this contradiction.

Thank you for confirming my perception that the “deadbeat dev” and “dead coin” rationale is bogus and that there's a different motivation at play.

As difficult as it is to resist your persuasively-worded challenge to solve your problem for you, pressing matters elsewhere dictate that I regretfully must decline.

Cheers

Graham

The February burn period has ended.

We burned over 2 million BowsCoins, 37.5% of the total BSC coin supply.
Less than 5% of all BowsCoins remain in circulation outside the top 10 addresses.

We also re-burned 50,000 BARR and redeemed them with OFFS,
bringing the total amount of BARR burned to over 22% of all the BARR that's been issued.

No, that's not what you meant.
You said your biggest objection to BARR was its dependency on NXT.
I explained why your point was a non-starter,
and now you're saying that your own arguments about dependency are
"impoverished, unidimensional, idiosyncratic, simplistic" and other big words that don't apply.

Does it offend you that I coined the term "deadbeat devs" to refer to people who launch a coin and then abandon it after a few weeks?
Would you like to offer some defense on their behalf?
Do you honestly fail to see the comparison to "deadbeat dads"?







Now?  Chaincoin has been on our list since October, in Page 1 of this topic.
We had 50 votes for Chaincoin in December.

Why are you now questioning it?  (That's rhetorical;  obviously you're questioning it out of ignorance and pointless spite)

The fact is that we will burn any altcoin if it meets the requirements, up to and including Dogecoin and Litecoin.

So the answer to why we're burning Chaincoin is that it meets the requirements which hundreds of other coins do not.






I could amuse everyone by asking you to suggest 10 better coins that aren't on our list,
and then I could explain to you why 8 or 9 of your choices wouldn't work.

But instead of proving how little you know about what is involved in a project like this,
I'll help you out and list some of our basic requirements for a coin:

#1, Its marketcap must be lower than the allocated amount of BARR, so that we can afford to swap the entire supply of the coin
#2, It must be listed on an exchange or otherwise available to be traded
#3, It must be functioning and have a working block explorer
#4, It must be at least 6 months old
#5, It cannot be able to regain the coin supply easily after we burn it, such as through high block rewards, high PoS, centralized issuance or checkpointing
#6, It cannot have a significant percentage of supply in premine held by devs, or otherwise likely benefit scammers through our swap
#7, There must be a reasonable likelihood that our efforts can result in a significant percentage of the coin supply being burned
#8, It must have a publicly verifiable method of burning coins
#9, Someone must spend BARR to vote for it, which means BARR's burns are determined by BARR users and no one else.

Now, even with the rules spelled out clearly to help you avoid the embarrassing suggestions you would have made,
you still can't come up with a better list of 100 coins than the list we made.

So no matter how many clever ways you come up with to call us stupid, we must be just a little smarter than yourself.
Unless you can suggest some better coins to burn?

That's the impoverished, unidimensional perspective I meant. Idiosyncratic and simplistic definitions such as “deadbeat devs” and “dead coins” means that your targeting process is weak and that undermines both your principles and the effectiveness of your solution.

Why, for instance are you now targeting Chaincoin, there are 40 extant nodes - is that not enough for your demanding standards or is it that your selection process is so ill-conceived that it is basically random?

Cheers

Graham

No. You misinterpreted. Its irrelevant what jl777 wants to do. I was using his intentions as an example of whats possible regarding dependency. But as BARR_Official has posted, dependency has been accounted for.

Er, negative much. I agree with some of it, but cant for the life of me see where BARR fits into the above narrative. Kinda wrong thread.

If jl777 launches a way to move assets between blockchains,
how is anyone dependent on him once it's been launched?

We swap coins that were dependent on deadbeat devs, dependent on Cryptsy or other exchanges.
Right now we're only dependent on the decentralized consensus of every NXT node.
We're no more dependent than any other cryptocurrency.






I noted that there's nothing to stop us from continuing BARR no matter how many devs change their plans.
It's a shame that you're trying to twist that into a negative.







Our view is that the money and work people have put into altcoins doesn't have to die when those altcoins die.

We have proven our view with real results, so where is your disagreement?






Let's go over a list of what we do, and you tell me in what way we're exploiting anyone:

By filling their sell orders with Bitcoin, at higher prices than anyone else would pay?

By running the only working Keycoin node that can make more than 2 connections, 24 hours a day for over a year?

By using thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment to solo-mine coins with stuck blockchains?

By hosting Keycoin.us, Fractalcoin.us, Unitus.ninja, and Lyrabar.us?

By paying for block explorers for coins that don't have one?

By running community takeovers for coins with no devs, swapping coins for everyone who wants while allowing others to keep their coins if they want?

By launching the only cryptocurrency that doesn't create money from nothing where no money existed before?

By pouring our own money into BARR as fast as we can get it, for the past 5 months, without ever yet profiting 1 satoshi?

Which of those involves "exploiting" people?




 


You're the one applying that label to them






But when we take responsibility and put a lot of work into a new project to make something of those investments,
you don't like that either. 

Is there any option in which you will label us neither bagholders nor exploiters?





So you're agreeing with BARR's long-term plans to make a positive influence, or not?





Yes, some altcoin users are condemned to lose -
condemned by Cryptsy, condemned by devs, condemned by jaded bitcointalk users who say they'll never succeed.

You say they have no options, but BARR gives them an option.
Is that your complaint?  That we're proving you wrong?





What coin supply?  The supply of altcoins? 

Are you saying there aren't enough altcoins anymore, because of BARR?





All the altcoins we've burned remained plentifully available after we were done.
To say that there was still more supply than demand is a vast understatement.





Actually the price of Bitcoin has gone up. 

Do you have some data showing that we have deepened stagnation, or are you just making it up?






In what world do different interests have no divisions between them?

The common interest of many altcoin holders is "not to lose all of our money", and BARR is bringing people together in that common interest.

I haven't noticed any arguments between the people running the 4 active Fractalcoin nodes and the people running the 4 active Keycoin nodes,
but perhaps you can lend your diplomatic skills to their "communities" and heal the dispute among these 8 people which was caused by BARR's exploitation.

Then maybe you can fix Cryptsy so they can have somewhere to trade their coins,
which IMHO might be a larger concern in their minds than your imaginary division between them.

Of course, BARR has already solved the problem for anyone who wanted it.
You can still fix Cryptsy if you want to provide a way to trade for users of Keycoin and Fractalcoin,
but remember that BARR has already done it better.











Referring to your own post, then?

Er, how can dependency not be an issue when it's all dependent on what jl777 wants to do? As BARR notes, there's nothing to stop it happening all over again. It's a shame that realisation came so late.


I don't agree with BARR's impoverished and unidimensional view of altcoins. BARR is exploiting disgruntled people who consider themselves to be “bagholders”, a sadly self-serving label that absolves them of all the responsibility that accrues to an investor in an endeavour. All they can see is short-term petty gain, not long-term deep influence and are condemned to be ever on the short end of the deal. I would think “good riddance” except for the deleterious effects on the coin supply wrought by artificially restricting availability, thus deepening the stagnation that the approach is supposed to relieve and deepening the divisions between the different interests that comprise an altcoin “community”.

The altcoin scene is corrosive and poisonous enough without further divisiveness being introduced and given a fake moralistic spin.


Cheers

Graham

Before BARR launched, we already created backup currencies for BARR and OFFS on the NXT Monetary System.
The NXT MS was supposed to eventually allow stand-alone wallets for currencies, and even independent PoW or PoS mining.

So we launched on the Asset Exchange, but ready to switch to another system if it ever proved beneficial.

If we need to switch to another platform, for any reason, we can easily do that.
The standard process would be even easier than the way we already burn altcoins and redeem them for BARR.

But jl777 has announced a new way to move assets between multiple blockchains,
meaning that we won't even necessarily need to rely on a single platform or blockchain.
Even if we launch our own blockchain and our own QT wallet,
people could be able to transfer BARR to a number of other blockchains.