Topic: [ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes - page 284. (Read 810083 times)

You understand the graph wrong. This is a all-time graph, not current miners!

The top miner (SNYqc..) mined they blocks in the past. And this 21% is from the displayed miners. If we compare him to all miners, they mined only the 1.7% of all blocks. (3789/218427*100). The tenth miner (SaK77W2..., ) own only 0.2% of all blocks. And others mined the other 91.7% of all blocks. If i display this, the graph will be malformed and ugly.

(miners = addresses is coinbase tx!)

Copying and pasting is the problem. As I stated above.

But the free market taught me that that's exactly how you don't get shit done.

If people already know from the beginning that they are going to get payed no matter what, they always tend to get very lazy and abuse the system.
There is a reason why all the tax funded professions like teachers, politicians, police etc offer the WORST SERVICE among all professions.

It's because they don't have to satisfy customer needs to earn a living, instead they just have to lobby the government.

I see a similiar case with any forced / imposed "taxation" that you would implement into the protocol.

So not only does it go against decentralization, it is also immoral and will not work.


Let the developer satisfy customer needs and give us what we want, and the price of the coin (he himself is invested in) will go up.
With this positive feedback loop in place, who needs anything else?

I agree, sod all of this 5% to the dev fund! If you want to help the Dev, donate directly to his wallet.
Nothing should be coded to accommodate this! No matter how much i want to see SPR succeed!

I hope MrSpread has a reasonable stash of SPR that will increase in value over time, then he can personally keep himself going.

It has nothing to do with centralisation or decentralisarion. At some point you simply have to get shit done and sometimes that costs money.

Bitcoin IMO has been a resounding failure in terms of adoption. A 5 billion marketcap is pitiful after 6 years.

Good point. Case closed.

How about 0%, because everything else goes against decentralization?

Is it just that you guys don't understand decentralization, or that you don't particularly like it? Or don't see any value in it?

Listen, it's not negotiable!  

Throwing our principles out of the window at the first opportunity or what?

Has bitcoin ever seriously considered such "foundation block rewards" ?

No. Do a hell of a lot of "shitcoins" discuss and embed them?

Yes.

Case closed.

I think giving up more then 5% of the block reward to the "foundation" is way too much. I would definately support 1%

No, no, no!

Transparency and Accountabilty are NOT equivalent with decentralization. In fact they are just camouflage to distract from their true centralized nature.


That I can agree with.

But since decentralized masternodes will have to play the exact same competitive game like miners, nobody is going to complain anymore anyway.
Wasn't this the main reason so many DRK miners complained about DRK Masternodes? The reason why they compared it to "forced taxation" etc?
Because they felt that masternodes have it too easy while they do all the work and have all the risk?

I like MyFarm's idea of a % of the block reward going to a transparent and accountable Spread Foundation, but I've proposed the same thing for Darkcoin several times and know how unpopular an idea it is.

People talk about principles but for most what it boils down to is that they can't bring themselves to give up a little now for a greater return down the line.* If your principles are so steadfast, how about supporting the adoption of Spread by contributing a little to its development, marketing, promotion? Relying on volunteer contributions isn't going to work.

Half the Spread Foundation's income from any block reward split could go to some worthy cause and Spread would still be better funded than just about anything but Ripple and the mindboggling nonsense that is Ethereum.

Nearly everyone on this forum seems to think that anyone or anything in the crypto scene matters at all to the rest of the world - it doesn't, at all, because the rest of the world doesn't even know we exist.

Getting the message out to the masses is going to take more that technical merit and wishful thinking.

When you have shitty phone apps that are valued in billions but something like Spread is valued three orders of magnitude less, you're doing something wrong. Maybe we need a crowdfunding campaign...



*edit: not once though in this thread have I heard any SPR miner complain, at all, that the block reward is going to get split between them and MN operators. This has been an absolutely fantastic and refreshing change from the Darkcoin thread, where miners have generally done nothing but bitch and moan about Masternode payments... so thank you fellow Spread miners for understanding that MNs will increase the value of SPR and are in your financial interest.

I also think that with their investors and resources Ripple has the potential to be successful but by 'success' I mean they might become a preferred tool for some banks or businesses to transfer value. BUT If you are an investor and hoping to get large amount of profit from rising ripple price then I am afraid you might have to wait for the USD to collapse. If a person invested in ripple now and hoping to receive 10 times profit, ripple market cap will have to reach to $ 6 billion. Even then we have no guarantee that ripple will not flood the market with freshly 'printed' coins. For ripple as a company it does not matter what the price of each coin is. They will do what they do (transfer value) regardless.

As a Spreadcoin investor, I am strongly against having mandatory dev team contribution in protocol level. But we can provide an option to the users if they choose to contribute voluntarily. Even in that case, there should be a clear and transparent reporting mechanism about how every coin has been spent.  

Very good points Jesse, and I agree with all of them.
Those are the general concerns that can be applied to any coin, any time. (even if a coin seems "established")

But that's exactly the reason why we have github, and why we insist on being open source, etc...
Decentralization itself will help mitigate most of the points you mentioned.
For example: Point 4) you make. If I look at the source code and find it brilliant, how can it be fraud? At this point, EVEN IF Mr.Spread was a fraudster I wouldn't care, because code doesn't lie.

Point 5) We have seen failed forks etc with pretty much every coin. That's the nature of the game, and the cool thing is that errors can be fixed, because we are talking about software and a network, not a house that is gonna crush on your head when built wrong.

The political points you make do not have any importance whatsoever to me. I do not care if "the self declared ruling class" is giving us permission to go forward or not. That's the first reason why satoshi created the blockchain in the first place, so we DON'T need to ask for permission. They can't crush us without showing their tyrannical face even more than they already have! Then they will lose their "supposed legitimacy" even more".

If we continue building up Spreadcoin, we will see more exchanges adding it by themselves.

It is always wrong to have too many expectations, but I always love endeavours which have CLEAR GOALS, and which follow CLEAR PRINCIPLES. That's why I am invested in Spreadcoin.

Just making money is NOT a principle to me, it's just a side effect of investing your time and efforts.

Plus: nobody owes you anything, if a person desires to become rich, they should work their ass off, not speculate.  

I agree, lets focus on true decentralisation. Community involvement is very important now, but I don't see a problem with that with Spread.

A list of risks to Darkcoin I came up with back in May: https://darkcointalk.org/goto/post?id=4815#post-4815
A LOT of them ended up coming to fruition (like the exchange risk with MintPal going down). Anyhow I think a lot of them are pertainable to Spreadcoin.

1)Key Man Risk: Something could happen to Mr. Spread, the developer. Imagine if Bitcoin had emerged in this kind of environment where most government(s) now know what a Bitcoin is, and where there is a growing public knowledge of Bitcoin’s huge rise to wealth. It is essentially the Oklahoma land rush or the California gold rush all over again but at lightning speed, complete with an unregulated Wild West-type feel to it . Mr. Spread has successfully remained anonymous but imagine if he'goes public' with his real ID which marks him as a target for anyone (government, organized criminals, large angry Bitcoin/Darkcoin holders, who knows). Additionally, since the coin is tied to Mr. Spread's mind and his personal well-being it is also tied to the well-being of Mr. Spread's support network.

2)Key Man Risk Continued: And somewhat along the same lines, since it is just Mr. Spread something could happen to the network whilst he is unable to attend to a computer. This isn’t a global team of developers who have constant watching vigil over the Spreadcoin network.

3)Security risk: Hackers might (?) be able to compromise the Spreadcoin masternode or mining network (or who knows what else). Since Mr. Spread's no-pool network is such a new and relatively untested concept in the crypto-currency world, and since it is essentially Mr. Spread versus the entire hacking ‘community’ in China, Russia, NSA, etc, there is a chance that those out there could exploit and bring down one of these networks which would also bring down the coin. We have seen cryptocoins get attacked by double-spends, 51% attacks, as well as DDOS attacks galore.

4)Fraud Risk: Spreadcoin’s entire existence could be a huge elaborate scam made up Mr. Spread.

5)Technology Risk: Somehow the system just does not work right. So either the masternodes don’t talk to each other or there are many bugs that pop up that somehow hold back mass adoption by causing worry, or users’ SPR in MN's disappear or some other overall cataclysmic event(s) happens to the Darksend/masternode system.

6)Political Risk: The government might eventually realize that Spreadcoin is Bitcoin, minus the ability to see transaction histories like the Bitcoin blockchain allows, and they focus on potential illegal activities that could develop and they force Mr. Spread to shut down using whatever bogus legal means they can (money laundering laws, terrorist funding, etc).

7)Education/PR Risk: It could take awhile for mass-adoption by the Bitcoin community, who have seen firsthand the largest crypto-currency scams (Mt. Gox) unfold and destroy lives and well-being. And any negative PR caused by hacker attacks or internal bugs or even overall FUD could possibly pause mass-adoption. Furthermore, the general public, who right now have no clue what SpreadCoin is and barely know what a Bitcoin is, could take a longer time to convince if there are any ‘PR nightmares’.

8)Business Risk: A worthy competitor(s) could pop up and contest Spreadcoin’s head-start on no-pool, MN, anonymous transactions using an even better technology or concept or use a team of developers with a better reputation or team of global developers with serious money to back it up.

9)Exchange Rate Risk: Until SPR/USD legit exchanges come to fruition, the vast majority of Spreadcoin’s price discovery happens using Bitcoin conversion. This means that most of the time what happens to the BTC/USD price is happening to SPR/BTC as well, unless a strong negative correlation between SPR/BTC and BTC/USD develops.

10)Exchange Risk: Spreadcoin is tied to the well-being of Bittrex exchanges for now. Any kind of attacks, fraud or bugs on those exchanges that affect Spreadcoin holders will also affect the SPR/BTC price.

11)Expectations Risk: After an overall rally this past month without a working product for the Average Joe to use, nor any masternodes yet, there is definitely a hype factor here that could turn on the coin if the product (dynamic masternodes) or the payments to masternodes don’t meet expectations.

12)Mass-Adoption Risk: Bitcoin is facing an uphill battle in getting retailers/consumers to use Bitcoin. Spreadcoin faces a much steeper climb due to being more unknown.

Overall when I wrote these for Darkcoin, it was suddenly a multimillion dollar coin, however Spreadcoin is not even $200k, so many of these are years and years ahead possibly. And I think Spreadcoin will succeed but with these risk factors in the way I wouldn't go all-in like some.

And NEVER invest funds that you can't afford to completely lose!

Quick about me: I perform due diligence, similar to pointing out these kinds of risks, for a major hedge fund. Spotting excellent risk-rewards is my job.


JL

Exactly - example - Paycoin

Yes, but not by breaking your principles, right?

I don't even count ripple as a cryptocurrency, they just make up the value of their coin, and the amount of coinsupply can change from day to day. This is wallstreet/FED all over again.
Do they make money like hell? Sure... but who pays the bill?

Also, additional developers for spreadcoin will be found for sure, and Mr.Spread is already well invested in his own coin and will enjoy financial freedom should the value rise.
So no need for ridiculously centralized maneuvers like implementing a developer fund in the protocol.

I think that this was well stated...and agree wholeheartedly. 

Maybe.

I personally like creating my own luck, but that's just me.

Exactly...
This coin is young, even younger than darkcoin.
Mr.Spread has already proven that he knows what he does. Why rush things? But I am guilty of that too, I have so many ideas about "decentralization" that I am maybe overwhelming the thread here a little bit.
But it is so much fun, that I am not gonna stop, lol, because I feel like I am taking part in some important part of history regarding cryptocurrencies.
Suddenly a coin emerges where principles are more important than the usual greed for money.

@MrFarm: If we can make spreadcoin the most principled coin ever, where decentralization (and nothing else) is the main driver for development and community, then everything else you talk about will come naturally.

I like the excitement and enthusiasm of people in this thread.

On the other hand I have been in a few coins where the community got too involved and things turned south.

I say let Mr. Spread continue as is. If people really have some good ideas you should be pm'ing Mr. Spread and if at that point it is a joint agreement then let it be posted in the thread.

Only saying this because we have no idea what all the future plans to this coin is or what or who Mr. Spread might be working on/with in the background. I just don't want to see a community becoming devided because someone might have an idea that others might like or not and then it just two different sides on the coin.

Again just my opinion but this rise has been slow and steady. We only have a few more weeks until the MN implementation if all is still on course. Let's wait and see how that goes a s planned.