New Thread on MemoryCoin 2.0 -
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3961388
Topic: [ANN] MemoryCoin (Read 100335 times)
I hope the release is not rushed. Some people want Memorycoin 2.0 today. I think it's better to wait an extra week to check out in a testnet that the algo has no problems. MC 1.0 was an experiment, but 2.0 can really hit off. Just look what happened to Protoshares and Quarkcoin. With the right marketing a huge market cap is possible.
What will be the ISO 4217 shortener for MemoryCoin 2.0? Is MMC taken?
edit:
FreeTrade, I've answered your PM.
What will be the ISO 4217 shortener for MemoryCoin 2.0? Is MMC taken?
edit:
FreeTrade, I've answered your PM.
Restarts?
Meaning ZERO coin after mining? Then this is a BETA test coin.
Maybe this should be called "Amnesia coin"
Meaning ZERO coin after mining? Then this is a BETA test coin.Maybe this should be called "Amnesia coin"
OH MY GOD! AMNESIA COIN! PRICELESS!
Well I guess this is just a question of user interface.
But for the sake of it I have thought of other mechanism that could prevent to have the user to monitor what is happening in the community.
Here it is :
There should be a board of administrator which would be elected by requiring at least 70% vote.
Those administrator will be there to handle the task of managing candidate and money unlocking, but won't have any other power (ie: they can't create money or chose the winner).
It will go like this :
- Shareholder vote to elect the board of administrators, each admin need to be approved by at least 70% (number to be discussed) of voter to be elected.
- The board of admin check the candidate for the election, the candidate must be real people with real proposition, as opposed to fat wallet voting for themselves .
- For a candidate to be valid he would need 50% of the admin vote. The admin vote only for validity, they don't have a say in if they like the project or not.
- Shareholder vote for the different candidates, the best one win, the money is created, but unspendable.
- The candidate complete the task and ask for the money.
- Admin vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Admin vote to delete the money.
This will remove from the user the burden of checking the community, they just have to elect admin once, and vote for the project they like.
But for the sake of it I have thought of other mechanism that could prevent to have the user to monitor what is happening in the community.
Here it is :
There should be a board of administrator which would be elected by requiring at least 70% vote.
Those administrator will be there to handle the task of managing candidate and money unlocking, but won't have any other power (ie: they can't create money or chose the winner).
It will go like this :
- Shareholder vote to elect the board of administrators, each admin need to be approved by at least 70% (number to be discussed) of voter to be elected.
- The board of admin check the candidate for the election, the candidate must be real people with real proposition, as opposed to fat wallet voting for themselves .
- For a candidate to be valid he would need 50% of the admin vote. The admin vote only for validity, they don't have a say in if they like the project or not.
- Shareholder vote for the different candidates, the best one win, the money is created, but unspendable.
- The candidate complete the task and ask for the money.
- Admin vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Admin vote to delete the money.
This will remove from the user the burden of checking the community, they just have to elect admin once, and vote for the project they like.
That's a pretty good system - bit more complex than I'm prepared to put the time in for development at the moment though. Sorry.
Here's the details on elected positions -
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-memorycoin-blockchain-is-hiring-369487
Regarding the future voting system :
Once an address has won a grant, the money should be blocked in the account until another vote unlock it or delete it.
This will be a far more incentive than giving away the funds before anything is done.
How it would work :
- Someone offer to do a task (programming, marketing, design etc... )
- Stakeholder vote for his address to get a grant.
- His address is elected for the grant, and money is created on it, but unspendable.
- The person complete the task and ask for the money.
- Stakeholder vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Stakeholder vote to delete the money.
Once an address has won a grant, the money should be blocked in the account until another vote unlock it or delete it.
This will be a far more incentive than giving away the funds before anything is done.
How it would work :
- Someone offer to do a task (programming, marketing, design etc... )
- Stakeholder vote for his address to get a grant.
- His address is elected for the grant, and money is created on it, but unspendable.
- The person complete the task and ask for the money.
- Stakeholder vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Stakeholder vote to delete the money.
I like this idea, but think it would require too much input and engagement from owners to make it work. Some users barely understand the voting at all, so I think asking them to do complex oversight like this would blow their minds.
Well I guess this is just a question of user interface.
But for the sake of it I have thought of other mechanism that could prevent to have the user to monitor what is happening in the community.
Here it is :
There should be a board of administrator which would be elected by requiring at least 70% vote.
Those administrator will be there to handle the task of managing candidate and money unlocking, but won't have any other power (ie: they can't create money or chose the winner).
It will go like this :
- Shareholder vote to elect the board of administrators, each admin need to be approved by at least 70% (number to be discussed) of voter to be elected.
- The board of admin check the candidate for the election, the candidate must be real people with real proposition, as opposed to fat wallet voting for themselves .
- For a candidate to be valid he would need 50% of the admin vote. The admin vote only for validity, they don't have a say in if they like the project or not.
- Shareholder vote for the different candidates, the best one win, the money is created, but unspendable.
- The candidate complete the task and ask for the money.
- Admin vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Admin vote to delete the money.
This will remove from the user the burden of checking the community, they just have to elect admin once, and vote for the project they like.
@ FreeTrade: Whats the status on your development? Can we take the silence far a sign that you are hard at coding? 
Yes, been a bit setback by difficulties with the PoW - but should be good to go soon - there's also this announcement -
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1310.0
That is a great Idea! That should attract quite a bit of interest and that is exactly what this coin needs
Really looking foreword to this
Good job FreeTrade
@ FreeTrade: Whats the status on your development? Can we take the silence far a sign that you are hard at coding?
Yes, been a bit setback by difficulties with the PoW - but should be good to go soon - there's also this announcement -
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1310.0
Regarding the future voting system :
Once an address has won a grant, the money should be blocked in the account until another vote unlock it or delete it.
This will be a far more incentive than giving away the funds before anything is done.
How it would work :
- Someone offer to do a task (programming, marketing, design etc... )
- Stakeholder vote for his address to get a grant.
- His address is elected for the grant, and money is created on it, but unspendable.
- The person complete the task and ask for the money.
- Stakeholder vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Stakeholder vote to delete the money.
Once an address has won a grant, the money should be blocked in the account until another vote unlock it or delete it.
This will be a far more incentive than giving away the funds before anything is done.
How it would work :
- Someone offer to do a task (programming, marketing, design etc... )
- Stakeholder vote for his address to get a grant.
- His address is elected for the grant, and money is created on it, but unspendable.
- The person complete the task and ask for the money.
- Stakeholder vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Stakeholder vote to delete the money.
I like this idea, but think it would require too much input and engagement from owners to make it work. Some users barely understand the voting at all, so I think asking them to do complex oversight like this would blow their minds.
Regarding the future voting system :
Once an address has won a grant, the money should be blocked in the account until another vote unlock it or delete it.
This will be a far more incentive than giving away the funds before anything is done.
How it would work :
- Someone offer to do a task (programming, marketing, design etc... )
- Stakeholder vote for his address to get a grant.
- His address is elected for the grant, and money is created on it, but unspendable.
- The person complete the task and ask for the money.
- Stakeholder vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Stakeholder vote to delete the money.
Once an address has won a grant, the money should be blocked in the account until another vote unlock it or delete it.
This will be a far more incentive than giving away the funds before anything is done.
How it would work :
- Someone offer to do a task (programming, marketing, design etc... )
- Stakeholder vote for his address to get a grant.
- His address is elected for the grant, and money is created on it, but unspendable.
- The person complete the task and ask for the money.
- Stakeholder vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Stakeholder vote to delete the money.
Like your idea
@ FreeTrade: Whats the status on your development? Can we take the silence far a sign that you are hard at coding?
I think it is important for the coin to have a pool and a website available directly after the premine , maybe something to think about for
some handy people here.
what i can do is translate all the info and put it on the dutch forum to make it easier for a lot of dutch people to understand how the
votingsystem will work and why , and if there is a site , i can translate it to , i think that is all i can do , i am not very handy with
coincreation and miningsoftware , memorycoin was my first mined coin
PS : like the idea of Slywax
some handy people here.
what i can do is translate all the info and put it on the dutch forum to make it easier for a lot of dutch people to understand how the
votingsystem will work and why , and if there is a site , i can translate it to , i think that is all i can do , i am not very handy with
coincreation and miningsoftware , memorycoin was my first mined coin
PS : like the idea of Slywax
Regarding the future voting system :
Once an address has won a grant, the money should be blocked in the account until another vote unlock it or delete it.
This will be a far more incentive than giving away the funds before anything is done.
How it would work :
- Someone offer to do a task (programming, marketing, design etc... )
- Stakeholder vote for his address to get a grant.
- His address is elected for the grant, and money is created on it, but unspendable.
- The person complete the task and ask for the money.
- Stakeholder vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Stakeholder vote to delete the money.
Once an address has won a grant, the money should be blocked in the account until another vote unlock it or delete it.
This will be a far more incentive than giving away the funds before anything is done.
How it would work :
- Someone offer to do a task (programming, marketing, design etc... )
- Stakeholder vote for his address to get a grant.
- His address is elected for the grant, and money is created on it, but unspendable.
- The person complete the task and ask for the money.
- Stakeholder vote to make the money spendable.
- Or if the person don't do the task or resign, Stakeholder vote to delete the money.
Can we still mine memory coins 1.0 ?
How can we take part in the beta?
How can we take part in the beta?
You can mine memorycoin 1.0 but there is no exchange for it.
Wait for the release of memorycoin 2.0, freetrade is working on it.
Can we still mine memory coins 1.0 ?
How can we take part in the beta?
How can we take part in the beta?
Sorry it won't work. I just added a comment there. And remember I was the person who warned you on the first release (see my posts in first pages of this thread) that yours wasn't gone to work.
Sorry I don't like to rain on any altcoin parade, because I want altcoins to succeed. But I am worried that people will become skeptical at the failure of every attempt to create a CPU-only coin. There is a way to do it, but the above linked PoW isn't it.
Please feel free to try. You will learn from the experience. Learning is good.
My question is will you just ditch this coin again, when you dont feel like your making enough money. THis is the type of coin that is dangerous. There are many new people finally getting into crypto's, and coins with bad developers will leave a bad taste in there mouth and make them reject crypto's, nobody wants that. I hope everyone thinks before they mine this coin,( i hope they dont) but everyone should choose on there own after careful analysis.
J
J
What I'm leaning towards is having 5 positions -
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Technology Officer
Chief Network Officer
Chief Marketing Officer
Chief Support Officer
Coin owners will be able to vote for who wins these positions, and an allowance will be made in the blockchain for the elected officers. I'll be asking coin owners for positions of CEO and CTO initially. Coin owners can vote to replace me or any of the other positions at any time with a vote.
Marketing is 90% of the success. Just look at Megacoin and Quarkcoin.
is this your coin or some other groups ? 
It'll be open source - I assume it'll be dependent on me early on to get it bootstrapped, but hope that it becomes decentralized to the degree that it can flourish without me.
My question is will you just ditch this coin again, when you dont feel like your making enough money. THis is the type of coin that is dangerous. There are many new people finally getting into crypto's, and coins with bad developers will leave a bad taste in there mouth and make them reject crypto's, nobody wants that. I hope everyone thinks before they mine this coin,( i hope they dont) but everyone should choose on there own after careful analysis.
J
J
What I'm leaning towards is having 5 positions -
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Technology Officer
Chief Network Officer
Chief Marketing Officer
Chief Support Officer
Coin owners will be able to vote for who wins these positions, and an allowance will be made in the blockchain for the elected officers. I'll be asking coin owners for positions of CEO and CTO initially. Coin owners can vote to replace me or any of the other positions at any time with a vote.
download link not working
About a loosing all the old coins, I understand that it will meant a big "premine" but, what about starting with 1/10 or 1/100 of your previous balance?
Yes, this is definitely a possibility - as at block 8820, there were 236,031 coins issued - so 23.6% of coins. If we were dilute that by 1/10, that would require a 2.36% premine. I also want to maintain the coins of those voting for MCF, that's another 3.79%, so a total premine for beta users of 6.15%
Hi,
I kind of like the idea of one vote per address for the "MMC" voting system.
I know that it could be open to abuse, a possible solution, could be that your vote is deducted from your balance (your are "donating" it to the grand winner). This way if you are creating a big number of wallets you know your have to pay something from any to them, if you want to vote.
Another idea for be a bit more "democratic" (one vote each person) could be put some kind of reduction on the weight of each vote based on the balance of the voting address (the weight of the vote of a guy with 2 MMC in his wallet is a bit less than 2 guys with 1 MMC in their wallets each).
About a loosing all the old coins, I understand that it will meant a big "premine" but, what about starting with 1/10 or 1/100 of your previous balance?
Cheers
MC
I kind of like the idea of one vote per address for the "MMC" voting system.
I know that it could be open to abuse, a possible solution, could be that your vote is deducted from your balance (your are "donating" it to the grand winner). This way if you are creating a big number of wallets you know your have to pay something from any to them, if you want to vote.
Another idea for be a bit more "democratic" (one vote each person) could be put some kind of reduction on the weight of each vote based on the balance of the voting address (the weight of the vote of a guy with 2 MMC in his wallet is a bit less than 2 guys with 1 MMC in their wallets each).
About a loosing all the old coins, I understand that it will meant a big "premine" but, what about starting with 1/10 or 1/100 of your previous balance?
Cheers
MC
Jump to: