Topic: [ANN] RealCoin - Targeted to the IM world! - page 3. (Read 10969 times)

The exchange will be run by the developers but it is owned by the incorporated company.

It was incorporated in Anguilla. But because there is the need for low cost bank transactions (ACH, SEPA, etc.) Singapore will follow together with Switzerland/Lichtenstein as well as the US.

The exchange is run by an incorporated company?  Where is this company incorporated?

Not if the coins are basically an I.O.U. from the issuer, a token representing the value you paid to them in return for the coin.

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case here, since they apparently plan to give away for miners and subscribers/members coins that they do not actually have "reserves" to "back".

You are basically spoiled by the get rich quick pyramid-coin world, used to getting money free just by jumping on each new alt-coin while its difficulty is ridiculously low. (It continues to amaze me that Groupcoin has managed to avoid that fate for so very long.) These people are catering to that mentality, plus apparently hoping to reach a wider audience of suckers who are not familiar with cryptocurrencies yet. (Since they evidently deem it impossible to bring bitcoin itself to such people it does not seem all that likely they will be able to actually do so with a stepchild of bitcoin either...)

That mentality is why most of the people who had been having me research and test the blockchain based structure for them decided to go with Open Transactions first: miners are a pointless/needless expense, a huge leech that probably cannot be afforded until transaction volumes, and thus transaction fees, are large enough to satisfy their demands.

-MarkM-

Thank you very much for you input and honest opinion.

It has to be different out the gate or it's just development time wasted that could've been applied to Bitcoin to make it more user friendly/widely adopted.  This is my fundamental problem with RLC.  Not a single one of the claims required wasting time and creating a brand new coin.  Pair that with a premine and it is a scam.  After months of this garbage, I'm no longer content to just let these scamcoins come and go without calling them out immediately.

If you want to create a new coin, have a huge premine, and see if enough stupid people buy into it, be my guest.  Just don't mask your intentions as something else.

I stopped caring right after reading that initial coins must be bought LMAO this is more wacked than any other concept.

Would you be happy if it started in a similar manner to BTC and evolved into something different? Would that make a different coin? Or does it have to be completely different from the get go?

Then why not help RLC with your ideas since you find similarities.

I have read a lot of your posts and you seem to have a good grasp of economics.

The economic side of things within the RLC is still liquid in terms of a set of rules (which still doesnt not exist) so why not get involved and have your say in what you believe would be best model to follow.

I was trying to come out as friendly (and i really am) but most of the posts are negative. You seem to be calm and logical in your replies so please feel free to post more of the ideas you have and get more involved to help RLC take a rigid shape.

As i have explained, you might not see plenty of differences between the two clients (although there will be a lot in the near future) but still a coin is different from another coin in terms of the economy as well. Doesnt have to be just the tech side of the things to be different..

Anyway thanks for your reply.

The thing we asked can only be achieved by a different project.  Time has nothing to do with it.  It's quite obvious at this point what RLC really is.  Unless of course you use the days before release to actually make this project significantly more than the rebranding of Bitcoin that it currently is.

The thing you all ask can only be achieved with time. Please be patient.

can you guys limit your quotes to "only" the prior wall of text not the prior 3 or 4?  I think I just used up my smartphone's entire data plan getting the last 3 posts.

This!  The only real innovation I saw here was that coins purchased on the exchange would be backed by reserves to buy them back, but that can't be guaranteed if there aren't enough reserves to cover the coins in circulation.

MarkM, I am very curious about the project you are working on for whoever it is you are working on.  The only place I can see for a legitimate alt-coin is one that is backed by other real-world currencies, like the USD, to ensure stability of value.

What I'd like to see in an alt-coin is:
- All coins premined.
- The coins are held by a legitimately incorporated business, with plenty of public information about it so people can be sure it isn't a scam or fly-by-night deal.
- The coins can initially only be bought from said business, but could be traded with others after that point.
- The business guarantees to buy back coins at the same rate it sells them (less a small percentage fee for exchange).
- The coins are insured against fiduciary irresponsibility, so that anyone holding the coins would be refunded the face value in the event of the coin maker leaving town with the reserves.
- A somewhat low limit on the total number of coins relative to the cost, so that there is the potential for scarcity and value increase down the road if the coin got REALLY popular (thus encouraging initial purchases from speculative people).

This would make it essentially like a Paypal using Bitcoin technology.  Yes, it would be centralized, but trading outside of the MSB wouldn't be out of the question, so coins could be made anonymous if wanted.  The MSB could invest the fiat currency received in trade for the coins in order to grow the reserves and pay for its own existence.

The biggest problem would be paying people to mine.  Until the business had enough reserves to gain enough interest to pay a good $200/day to miners, I don't think the network could be considered safe from 51% attacks.

I would LOVE to create this myself if I had the resources to register a MSB.  But, I don't have $10k to do that.  I could try to get investors, but having never run a MSB before, who would trust me?  So, I just accept the fact that I won't be able to start something like this, even though I think it would make for an excellent alt-coin.

So I am somewhat sad, but somewhat glad, to hear that someone is working on putting the same idea into existence.

+2.

Also, you should appreciate the fact that anyone is replying to your utter nonsense of a "launch announcement" with the legitimate issues pointed out instead of just laughing. If you weren't running a scam you could recover from your initial faceplant with specific answers and information. But since you haven't....

+1

User friendly client - Use Bitcoin network and build a user friendly client.
Integrated exchange - Use Bitcoin network and integrate exchange into client.
Closed Source for security (lolz) - Use Bitcoin network and don't release source code for your client (MIT license allows this for derivitive works).
Market to casual users "IM crowd" - Use Bitcoin network and market to casual users.

None of the "features" require a new coin.  The fact that you "NEED" to release an exact copy of Bitcoin makes it a pump and dump get rich scam.  There is no other "NEED" for starting from scratch.

The only thing that using existing Bitcoin network prohibits you from doing is premining 8 million coins. PERIOD.

I did read the OP.  And your replies.  And absolutely nothing about that indicates this is going to be anything more than a new coat of paint on top of Bitcoin.

I would retract every statement I made if you could just identify one feature that makes this a legitimately superior platform that could not exist as PART of Bitcoin.

First of all, you dont have the right to insult me as i dont insult you.

Secondly, if you actually took the time to read what the OP says or my replies to questions you would have understood that the target group for this altcoin is not YOU but the avg. internet user, regular merchant, typical consumer etc. etc. Cannot make it more clear for you.

So no one is trying to scam anyone. Its probably not for you. Thats all. Get over it and move on.

Thanks!

No, it is competing.  If you think otherwise you're even dumber than the premise of your altcoin.  If you seriously think trying to convince businesses into accepting your rebranded bitcoins doesn't hurt Bitcoin you must have taken some blows to the head as a child.

You're here to try to scam a bunch of money.  Plain and simple.  If you truly believed your claims, you wouldn't have needed such a large premine.

Im not here to argue or fight.

Im here to announce a launch.

Please respect that at least. I answered everyone's questions (at least to the point that i could) and will just update as we get closer to the launch as well as after the launch.

Then its just a matter of time to see if RLC really provides (or will soon provide) something different than Bitcoin.

Once more, RLC is not competing against BTC. They can co-exist in the same environment.

After all, its not like you have to choose one of them. You can use none, one of them, both of them or literally every different coin that exists at this point. Why does it have to be so hard?