Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] (XWC) | WhiteCoin | NEWS: Foundation, investors, WhiteOS ☯ whitecoin.info - page 79. (Read 251228 times)

newbie
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
yes it is online now and i miss more then 200k Whitecoins!

Please let them know and keep us updated,  haven't heard of any other WC issues yet

I opened a ticked asap yesterday after i saw it. The only thing that happend is that a customer service agent send this problem to the migration team, but it looks like they are on holliday or something like this. I do not get any respons from there. In my eyes Mintpal is now a scam site.
hero member
Activity: 672
Merit: 500
yes it is online now and i miss more then 200k Whitecoins!

Please let them know and keep us updated,  haven't heard of any other WC issues yet
newbie
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
yes it is online now and i miss more then 200k Whitecoins!
hero member
Activity: 672
Merit: 500
From moolah
We know we're late, but we're finally here. We'll be launching in 10 minutes.
member
Activity: 109
Merit: 10
"If you are going through hell, keep going"-Sir WC
who knows mintpal will work?

To keep updated on the Mintpal v2 news please see: https://twitter.com/moolah_io/
To check whitecoin running on the exchange (mintpal v2) they have made a summary page with the daemon statistics: http://130.211.52.253/

here's some aditional info:
http://blog.moolah.io/2014/10/05/mintpal-v2-current-state/

cheers
B.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
who knows mintpal will work?

To keep updated on the Mintpal v2 news please see: https://twitter.com/moolah_io/
To check whitecoin running on the exchange (mintpal v2) they have made a summary page with the daemon statistics: http://130.211.52.253/
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
who knows mintpal will work?
hero member
Activity: 672
Merit: 500
yeah definately do it in one move, with one fork

It would be done all together for sure
sr. member
Activity: 483
Merit: 250
yeah definately do it in one move, with one fork
full member
Activity: 237
Merit: 100
On another note, I think we need to re-address the coins cap.

When the coin was released there was to be a 330 Million coin cap, 300M to be distributed by mining and 30M to be distributed through staking.

I have currently sent a few feelers out to confirm that the coin still has there parameters.

The issue as far as I see it is that 30M coins distributed through staking only gives the coin a 5 year growth period (slightly less if all coins were staked and the interest was compounded)

I think we need to look at the coin having more like a 20 year growth period, keep the staking at 2% per annum but raise the ceiling to something closer to 420M



If we are going to fork for an upgrade like Reducing the confirmation times, this might be a good time to address this issue as well...
sr. member
Activity: 483
Merit: 250
On another note, I think we need to re-address the coins cap.

When the coin was released there was to be a 330 Million coin cap, 300M to be distributed by mining and 30M to be distributed through staking.

I have currently sent a few feelers out to confirm that the coin still has there parameters.

The issue as far as I see it is that 30M coins distributed through staking only gives the coin a 5 year growth period (slightly less if all coins were staked and the interest was compounded)

I think we need to look at the coin having more like a 20 year growth period, keep the staking at 2% per annum but raise the ceiling to something closer to 420M

sr. member
Activity: 483
Merit: 250

3. Reduce Confirmation Times

WCF Technical team has reviewed how best to implement the proposed reduced confirmation times for staking, currently confirmation times for staking coins is at approx. 340 confirmations.  As many of the community has already voiced its opinion on reducing these times, the WCF will utilize the bounty collected at WUET4WgYwz4HLx54faKYyRWMNbfa6K5gjj with a balance of 367,196 WC, to modify the code so that staking coins will only require 30 confirmations.  What this will accomplish is speeding up our staking times making it over 10X faster than it is today!  The only “downfall” which doesn’t present much risk is that Whitecoin will require a fork which means that all exchanges, block explorers, partners and wallets will have a mandatory update.  Prior to any release, we would ensure that our partners (exchanges, Shair etc.) have all been coordinated for this fork, to minimize any down time for services that are dependent upon Whitecoin.
 
As we have a standing bounty value of 367,196 WC, therefore we are prepared to begin development (with payment to WC Development Team upon successful deployment of code into production), next week where we will be providing updates to the community as the development progresses through its various development stages.


Just wanting to raise this and make some clarifications.

My understanding of Reduced confirmations times was that we speed up the blockchain, increasing the number of blocks per minute the effect of doing this would decrease staking times but also have the added effect of decreasing all transaction confirmation times.

For example currently theres a block every 90 seconds, if this went down to 30 or 15 seconds we would make staking times 1/3 - 1/6 respectively and would also mean that any standard transaction would be confirmed in 2 - 1 minutes instead of the current 6 minute confirmation.

Is that what others expect from the Reduced confirmations project?
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
We are currently selecting people to join the private beta of WhiteOS if you are willing to participate please join IRC.
http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wc-dev
full member
Activity: 237
Merit: 100
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Quote
WhiteOS Release Schedule:

Internal Testing:In Progress
Private Testing:3 October 2014
Public Beta Release:10 October 2014
WhiteOS Official Release:      ~17 October 2014 (depends on bugs)

Don't forget guys, tonight @ 21:00 UTC+1 (Amsterdam) on IRC #whitecoinfoundation (6,5 hours from now)
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
i like the idea with a cap and only a few votes more. You are right that this is better then 1 vote = 1 WC. So far i do not agree with the numbers. In my opinion it does not realy matter in the future. When the coins will be more distributed. So what do you think to use the richlist for this.
For example:
Top Ten 5 Votes
Top 100 3 Votes
Top 1000 2 Votes
Less then 1000 1 Vote


you have to remember 1 address doesnt mean 1 user
you could have top ten addresses owned by a single person, or top 100 owned by a small group of people.
you cannot just assume people will play nice, distribute evenly, hold hands and sing, there are always some greedy douchers ready to exploit and abuse any and every flaw in the system.

it is not advisable to give a select small groups of people power over the rest of community.
we have enough of that abuse in real world in form of banking cartels, multinational corporations, etc all exploiting the general population


Yes you are right, it does not matter witch system we will use in the end, there are always someone who wants to exploid it. That is the reason why we discuss it and think about it.
please look above for the edit

Perhaps "Known User" function should be incorporated into voting as a requirement to avoid the multiple address issue.
newbie
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
i like the idea with a cap and only a few votes more. You are right that this is better then 1 vote = 1 WC. So far i do not agree with the numbers. In my opinion it does not realy matter in the future. When the coins will be more distributed. So what do you think to use the richlist for this.
For example:
Top Ten 5 Votes
Top 100 3 Votes
Top 1000 2 Votes
Less then 1000 1 Vote


you have to remember 1 address doesnt mean 1 user
you could have top ten addresses owned by a single person, or top 100 owned by a small group of people.
you cannot just assume people will play nice, distribute evenly, hold hands and sing, there are always some greedy douchers ready to exploit and abuse any and every flaw in the system.

it is not advisable to give a select small groups of people power over the rest of community.
we have enough of that abuse in real world in form of banking cartels, multinational corporations, etc all exploiting the general population


Yes you are right, it does not matter witch system we will use in the end, there are always someone who wants to exploid it. That is the reason why we discuss it and think about it.
please look above for the edit
newbie
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
i like the idea with a cap and only a few votes more. You are right that this is better then 1 vote = 1 WC. So far i do not agree with the numbers. In my opinion it does not realy matter in the future. When the coins will be more distributed. So what do you think to use the richlist for this.
For example:
Top Ten 5 Votes
Top 100 3 Votes
Top 1000 2 Votes
Less then 1000 1 Vote


edit:
@grv you are right that decentralisation is the Key, so it is necessary to let it decentralised. On the other side, people with a larger amount of whitecoins are normaly more interessted in the coin then others. So i think they have to be a little bit more voteing power. In the example above it looks more fair for erveryone. Yes the top ten can vote 5th times but there are also a lot of more people who hold less then they. So if the others want something that the top ten not will it also will happend because they are a lot of more people.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
I still believe that it should be one member one vote, having more coins should not give you more power.

This would make WC a better coin for investors, not worrying someone can buy his way in.

I don't really agree. I feel that the weight of your vote should directly correlate to the power your vote holds.

People with more WC will have a far larger vested interest for voting for things that benefit WC.

If someone is willing to buy his way in, he will be pushing the price of WC up and will buy expensive coins. He is unlikely to vote for anything that can destroy his investment.

On paper, yes it does make sense, but in reality, this practice can be use to control and destroy it. it's impossible to have a perfect solution.

But I have an idea to build on the previous mention by Malbee, not just implement a scaled structure but also a cap.

1 - 500K = 1 vote
500k - 5M = 2 votes
5M + = 3 votes

These numbers are just an example, but capping the maximum amount of vote would help the richer have more power without crippling and voiding the vote of lower holders.

This would be a better compromise over the possibility of unlimited voting power of richer people.

legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
I still believe that it should be one member one vote, having more coins should not give you more power.

This would make WC a better coin for investors, not worrying someone can buy his way in.

I don't really agree. I feel that the weight of your vote should directly correlate to the power your vote holds.

People with more WC will have a far larger vested interest for voting for things that benefit WC.

If someone is willing to buy his way in, he will be pushing the price of WC up and will buy expensive coins. He is unlikely to vote for anything that can destroy his investment.
Pages:
Jump to: